Navigation – Plan du site
Expropriations et confiscations en Italie et dans les provinces : la colonisation sous la République et l’Empire

Italian allies and access to ager Romanus in the Roman Republic

Saskia T. Roselaar

Résumé

This paper argues that Italians could gain access to ager publicus in various ways, for example by working land which was not used by the Roman state. Italians are widely attested as being active in the commercial exploitation of land, including possible ager publicus. Therefore, events during the Gracchan period damaged their interests, which, together with other sources of resentment occurring in the late 2nd century BC, contributed to the outbreak of the Social War in 91-88 BC. Settlement patterns in Republican Italy were more complex than is often assumed. Many Latin and Roman colonies, founded on former ager publicus, show evidence for the presence of Italians, although I argue that these were not official colonists, but had moved in after the foundation of the colony. Thus colonies served as an important point of contact between Romans and Italians, and played a crucial role in the integration of Republican Italy.

Haut de page

Notes de l’auteur

I would like to thank Audrey Bertrand and Yann Rivière for their kind invitation to the round table held at Rome, and their invitation to participate in the publication of the proceedings. I would also like to thank Ed Bispham and Paul Erdkamp for sharing forthcoming work with me, and the participants of the OIKOS work-in-progress meeting in November 2011 for their comments, especially Olivier Hekster, Wim Jongman, and Onno van Nijf.

Texte intégral

Introduction

1The role of Italians – by which I mean people from Italy who did not possess Roman citizenship, but were allies of Rome – in the local economy of Italy has been viewed in two mutually exclusive ways. Firstly, it has been assumed that much land owned by Italians was confiscated by the Romans after the conquest of the respective Italian peoples and turned into ager publicus, land owned by the Roman state. This would have deprived the Italians of a valuable economic asset and thus marginalized their role in the economy of Italy.

2The analysis of Appian is often taken as a starting point for the situation of Italian agriculture in the middle and late Republic, and it is therefore worth quoting it in full :

  • 1 App. BC 1.7-8. See also Plu. TG 8.1-4.

As they subdued successive parts of Italy by war, the Romans confiscated a portion of the land and founded towns, or chose settlers from their own people to go to existing towns – this being the alternative they devised to garrisons. In the case of captured land which became theirs on each occasion, they distributed the cultivated area at once to settlers, or sold or leased it ; but since they did not have time to allocate the very large quantity that was then lying uncultivated as a result of hostilities, they announced that this could for the moment be worked by anyone who wished at a rent of one tenth of the produce for arable land and one fifth for orchards. Rents were also set for those who pastured larger and smaller beasts. (...) The rich gained possession of most of the undistributed land and after a while were confident that no one would take it back from them. They used persuasion or force to buy or seize property which adjoined their own, or any smallholdings belonging to poor men, and came to operate great ranches instead of single farms. They employed slave hands and shepherds on these estates to avoid having free men dragged off the land to serve in the army, and they derived great profit from this form of ownership too, as the slaves had many children and no liability to military service and their number increased freely. For these reasons the powerful were becoming extremely rich, and the number of slaves in the country was reaching large proportions, while the Italian people were suffering from depopulation and a shortage of men, worn down as they were by poverty and taxes and military service. And if they had any respite from these tribulations, they had no employment, because the land was owned by the rich who used slave farm workers instead of free men1.

  • 2 See for example Toynbee 1965, II, 160-8 ; Hopkins 1978, ch. 1.
  • 3 Di Giuseppe 2011, p. 57-62.
  • 4 Patterson – Di Giuseppe – Witcher 2004, p. 7-13.

3Many scholars have asserted that these developments took place on public land, as Appian indeed seems to suggest : the rich, especially Roman elites, established large farms on ager publicus, and used these for agriculture and animal husbandry2. However, it is now clear that the picture of economic decline in Italy in the late Republic is not valid ; in many regions of Italy there is little trace of depopulation and impoverishment, although some areas show a change in settlement patterns from isolated farms to larger nucleated villages and towns, and some areas do seem to have declined in population, especially Lucania and Southern Etruria3. However, it is more likely that this occurred because Italy became part of a more unified economic network, in which some regions became production rather than settlement areas4. Most regions saw unprecedented economic prosperity in agricultural production, as evidenced by the monumentalization of many towns and rural sanctuaries, especially in the 2nd and early 1st centuries BC. However, the exact role of Italians in all these developments is unclear.

4In this paper I intend to investigate the connection between Italians and ager Romanus. I will investigate whether Italians were able to access the land which had been taken from them and had now been turned into ager Romanus, which consisted of ager publicus which had not yet been distributed by the Roman state, as well as land that had been distributed to settlers in colonies or individual distributions, and thereby became private property. Italians might have had access to such land either officially, by being granted a right to use it, or informally by simply exploiting land that was not used by the Roman state. I will then investigate whether Italians were in any way involved in commercial production for the growing market in Rome and the Italian towns, and whether this can be shown to have taken place on ager publicus. In this way we can test the analysis of Italian agriculture given by Appian, and point to new insights into the relationship between Romans and Italians in the Middle and Late Republic.

Italian access to Roman ager romanus5

  • 5 For a more detailed analysis of Italian rights to ager publicus see Roselaar 2010, p. 69-83.
  • 6 See Roselaar 2011 ; see also Erdkamp 2011.
  • 7 See in detail Bispham 2012.

5I will first discuss Italian access to ager Romanus which had become private by distribution to settlers in colonies. An important part of the land of defeated Italians was confiscated by the Roman state, and a large part of this land was used for the settlement of colonies and individual settlers. This would mean that it was no longer accessible for Italians, since it is often assumed that Italians were not admitted into these settlements. I have discussed elsewhere the position of Italians in colonies founded by the Romans6, but I will briefly survey my conclusions here. For colonies founded before the Latin War of 341-338 it is often stated that local inhabitants were admitted as official colonists into a new colony settled by the Romans. This happened for example at Antium, where some of the local Volsci were admitted7.

6However, for post-338 colonies we must distinguish between colonies of Latin and of Roman status. The fact that moving to a Latin colony would not mean a change in status for people who were Latins, and that the number of colonists in the 4th and 3rd centuries was too large to be provided by Romans alone, makes it likely that Latins were included in Latin colonies. It is likely that the settlers in colonies with Latin rights were veterans, since these colonies were often located in areas close to enemy territory, and had the express aim of securing recent Roman conquests. The veterans were thus rewarded with part of the booty, namely the confiscated land.

  • 8 Liv. 33.24.8-9.
  • 9 Roselaar 2010, p. 149-153.

7However, this only goes for Latins ; the only literary evidence for the official inclusion of Italian allies of non-Latin status in Latin colonies dates from the period shortly after the Second Punic War. In 197 Cosa was permitted by the Roman state to recruit new colonists, and Livy states that « the enrolment of a thousand was authorized, with the condition that none be included who had been an enemy of Rome in the period following the consulship of P. Cornelius and Tiberius Sempronius [218 BC] »8. It follows that not only Romans, but Latins and even allies were now acceptable as colonists. This was a period in which Roman population was low, while the amount of available ager publicus was very large. Various colonies reported a decline in inhabitants and received new colonists at this time, so that not enough Romans and Latins could be found. Therefore, the Roman state might have been more relaxed in its attitude towards recruiting new colonists in this period9. In the case of Roman citizen colonies, the settlers remained Roman citizens. This makes it unlikely that Latins or allies were included in such colonies, because this would mean that they would receive Roman citizenship, and in general the Roman state was very reluctant to grant this right to its allies.

  • 10 Liv. 32.2.6-7.
  • 11 Liv. 41.8.8.
  • 12 Coşkun 2009; Erdkamp 2011. See Broadhead 2008, p. 459-462 for a different view.

8There is some evidence that suggests that Italians migrated into Latin colonies and that there were no restrictions on such migrations. In 199, as Livy states, « delegates also came from Narnia who stated that their colony was short of its proper number and that some of inferior status had found their way amongst them, and were giving themselves out to be colonists »10. These people were clearly not original settlers, but had moved into the town after its foundation. The protests of the official colonists seem to have been aimed especially at those who pretended to be colonists, thus blurring the difference between Latin and non-Latin inhabitants of the city, and detracting from the privileges accorded to real colonists; the fact that people had moved in was not a problem per se. In 177 « the Samnites and Paeligni stated that 4,000 families had gone from them to Fregellae »11. There is no reference to any action from the Roman state to limit this type of migration ; Rome could only take formal action against its own citizens. This would mean that allies were free to take up residence anywhere in Italy, including in colonies12.

  • 13 See Roselaar 2011 for a more detailed analysis of the evidence regarding the Latin colonies discus (...)

9Archaeological, epigraphic, and onomastic evidence for the presence of allies in the colonies might give the assumptions based on the literary sources more substance ; here I will review only a few colonies to indicate what evidence is available and how it might be used13.

  • 14 Helvius : CIL 10.5585 = ILS 6288. Helvii are attested in Oscan in Capua (Ve 4, 82-3, 88B, Rix Cp 2 (...)

10Fregellae was founded in 328. The survival of non-Roman families is attested by the fact that after the destruction of the city in 125 a number of Sabellian gentilicia, such as Helvius, Paccius, and Trebius are recorded in Fabrateria Nova14. Of course it is difficult to pinpoint the origins of a specific gentilicium, but it is striking that these names are also attested in Oscan inscriptions. We may therefore tentatively suggest that they were of Italian descent. However, it is by no means clear that all these people had been present in the colony since its foundation. We have already seen that many Samnites and Paeligni migrated to Fregellae. It may be that many of the Oscan inhabitants attested in Fregellae had migrated into the colony at a later date, and had not lived there since the foundation. Nevertheless, the evidence shows that Samnite presence in the colony was significant, at least in the 2nd century.

  • 15 Herennius: ILLRP 88 = CIL 12.1814 = 9.3906 = ILS 4022. Herennius appears in Oscan in Pietrabbondan (...)
  • 16 Van Wonterghem 1992.
  • 17 Torelli 1999, p. 38-39 ; Bispham 2006, p. 106-108. See also Stek 2009, p. 55-58.

11For Alba Fucens, founded in 303, it has been argued that Italians played an important role in the town. Some non-Roman names are known from the Republican period, for example Atiedius, Herennius, Ovius, Papius, and Tettienus15, but again these people may have been later immigrants instead of original colonists. Furthermore, the temple of Hercules, who was popular throughout Italy16, is thought to have fulfilled a role in the integration between colonists and allies : Alba was an important centre for transhumant sheep rearing, with a tratturo passing through the town and a cattle market in the centre. This type of animal husbandry was important for the people in the Apennines surrounding the colony, and Hercules was a god closely connected to transhumance. Thus the presence of his temple in Alba may have favoured the economic integration of the Latin colonists and the surrounding peoples17. However, not all people who used the Hercules temple necessarily lived in the colony. Alba was certainly an important market town and attracted many people for economic reasons, which in turn contributed to the process of integration between colonists and the surrounding population, but this does not mean that they all lived in the town, let alone that they were official colonists.

  • 18 CIL 9.3813 = CIL 12.391 = Ve 228 ; CIL 9.3849 = 12.388 = ILLRP 286 ; CIL 9.3856 ; ILLRP 303 = AE 1 (...)
  • 19 Letta – D’Amato 1975, p. 195-196.
  • 20 Stek 2009, p. 167, 169 n. 311. However, many of the magistrates’ names are non-Roman, which makes (...)

12Several inscriptions from the late 3rd and early 2nd centuries BC from the territory of Alba record the existence of vici on the southern shore of the Lacus Fucinus, in the area of the Marsi. Some inscriptions record magistrates, namely duumviri and queistores18. Some scholars argue that these vici were settlements of local inhabitants, and that the quaestors were local magistrates, who had taken Roman titles because of the influence of the Roman colony nearby19. Others have suggested that the vici were new settlements, intended to accommodate Roman colonists, but that they also contained local inhabitants. It may have been the case that the quaestors were magistrates of the colony Alba, and therefore that the vici were located inside the colony’s territory20. If this was the case, then colonists may have lived in these villages as well, and integration must therefore not only have taken place in the colonial town itself, but also in the territory.

  • 21 DH 17/18.5.1-2.
  • 22 Marchi – Sabbatini 1996, p. 111-115 ; Torelli 1999, p. 94-96.
  • 23 Liv. 31.49.6.
  • 24 Grelle – Giardina 1993, p. 59-63.
  • 25 Crepereius : Cic. Verr. 1.30. Herennius : Eutr. 5.3. Ovius : ILLRP 690 = CIL 12.1700 = 9.438. Stat (...)

13The role of non-Roman inhabitants in Venusia, founded in 291, has been the subject of discussion for a long time. Problems are created by the statement in Dionysius of Halikarnassus : « 20,000 colonists were sent out to one of the cities captured, the one called Venusia »21. Since this number is too large to have been furnished by Roman settlers alone, it is often thought that local inhabitants also were admitted in the colony as official colonists. This would furthermore be supported by the fact that many sites in the territory disappeared after the foundation, which may point to a change of settlement from the countryside to the city itself, even if not all colonists lived inside the city22. Venusia was also the only Latin colony to defect from the Romans in the Social War. This has been seen as evidence for the fact that either many non-Romans had been living in the colony from its foundation, or were included in the second settlement of the colony in 20023 ; alternatively, it may be the case that many Oscans had migrated into the colony over time.24 However, there is not much actual evidence for the presence of non-Roman inhabitants. After the Social War some inscriptions show old Sabellian or Messapian names in the local elite, such as Crepereius, Herennius, Ovius, and Statius Raius25, but in the period before 91 BC there is hardly any evidence for their presence.

  • 26 Fentress 2000, p. 12-13.

14Cosa was founded in 273. Archaeological evidence suggests that some radical changes took place immediately after the conquest and the foundation of the colony. Most of these point at an active attempt by the Romans to exclude local inhabitants from the colony, making it likely that in this case the traditional image of a Latin colony – with expulsion of local population to marginal areas – is accurate to some degree. The local inhabitants seem to have moved, on their own accord or by the order of the Romans, to marginal areas. This is attested by the fact that some settlements located mainly to the north and east of the centuriated territory, e.g. Telamon, Ghiaccioforte, and Poggio Semproniano, remained in use and even became larger, while new settlements emerged in these areas as well26.

  • 27 Celuzza 2002, p. 112-113.
  • 28 Fentress – Jacques 2002, p. 124.
  • 29 Celuzza 2002, p. 109. In other areas of Italy votive deposits continued into the 1st century BC, a (...)

15The Etruscan site of Doganella was destroyed in the early 3rd century, probably during the conquest by Rome ; however, a new village appeared on the site of the future colony Heba further north, and this may have been founded by people driven out of Doganella and the colonial territory of Cosa27. It seems therefore as if these areas on the margins of the colony’s territory were settled by local people driven out of the territory that was to be used for the colony. In the 2nd century the Etruscan presence was still strong in the areas mentioned above, at the margins of the colony’s territory : in Telamon the only language used in inscriptions until the 1st century BC was Etruscan, and some temple decorations remained Etruscan in style28. On the other hand, the sanctuary shows a significant decline of rich deposits after the early 3rd century, which would indicate that the local elite had suffered from the conquest29.

  • 30 Torelli 1999, p. 41. On the other hand, there is not always a clear relation between the use of a (...)
  • 31 Bispham 2006, p. 97-102. On Cosa’s urban development see now Sewell 2010.
  • 32 Celuzza 2002, p. 109 and p. 120-122 ; Erdkamp 2011.

16The evidence for non-Romans in the town of Cosa itself is slim. The colony’s name was derived from the Etruscan settlement Cusa, which may point at some local influence.30 Bispham argues that the town’s temple decorations from the 3rd century are similar to those found at nearby Etruscan sanctuaries. The gods venerated were Minerva and Hercules, who were popular throughout Italy, while the Capitoline Triad appeared only later in Cosa31. Most of the evidence points at a spatial separation between local inhabitants and colonists in Cosa. Whether any contacts between them occurred is unclear; some scholars suggest that the colonists, especially those of the higher classes, used locals as labourers on their estates32.

  • 33 Gabba 1958, p. 100-101.
  • 34 Liv. 21.48.8-9 ; see also Pol. 3.69.1. Some assume he was a citizen, e.g. Lamboley 1996, p. 488. H (...)

17The colony Brundisium was founded in 246 or 244-3. The first regular magistrates of the colony were not elected until 230, another fourteen or so years after its foundation. It has been suggested that the magistrates who were in power for the first fourteen years of the colony’s existence were nominated by the pre-Roman senate, consisting of the same elite which had already been in power before the foundation of the colony. It may be therefore that the indigenous elite were accepted into the colony, and that the new senate consisted of a mix of Romans and locals33. Certainly the local elite continued to play an important role in the colony. For example, in the Second Punic War a Roman garrison was commanded by a man named Dasius from Brundisium34.

  • 35 Accaeus : CIL 9.63. In Oscan, see Sulmo (Rix Pg 36), Corfinium (Rix Pg 50). Arruntius : CIL 9.77-9 (...)

18Many non-Roman names appear in Brundisium : Accaeus, Arruntius, Audius, Caesellius, Crepereius, Gavius, Novius, Numisius, Plaetorius, Pomponius, Rammius, Sillius, Statius, Tutorius, and Vettius35. Many of these names are not actually Messapian, but can be traced to Oscan-speaking areas. This may indicate that these people were not originally from the area, but had migrated to Brundisium, either before or after the foundation of the colony. Especially considering Brundisium’s role as a major trade port – especially after the foundation of the colony – immigration must have been considerable.

  • 36 Lamboley 1996, p. 486 ; Yntema 2009.

19Furthermore, there was apparently not much Roman influence in culture. There was no immediate change in burial practices ; a tomb containing Messapian-style pottery was found in Mesagne, in the territory of Brundisium, and dated to more than a generation after the foundation of the colony. It is very similar to tombs found in the region, but outside of Brundisium’s territory36. Coins minted by the colony show a Tarentine heros, indicating influences from Magna Graecia rather than from Rome. In general we may conclude that a large number of non-Roman inhabitants was present in Brundisium ; in contrast to most other colonies, furthermore, the evidence suggests that local elites remained important. This may suggest that they were officially included as colonists at the foundation.

20From these examples we may conclude that there was much variation within the category of Latin colonies. For many other Latin colonies there are some attestations of Italians, but there is no indication that they were admitted as official settlers, i.e. colonists. The same goes for colonies with Roman citizen status ; in some of these towns, e.g. Minturnae and Puteoli, we find evidence for the presence of locals from the colonial foundation onwards, but this evidence dates mostly from the 2nd and 1st centuries BC. It is striking that the presence of non-Romans is most strongly attested in those colonies – whether Roman or Latin – that developed into prospering trade communities, as we have seen for Brundisium ; the same applies to Aquileia, Puteoli, and Minturnae. This strengthens the idea that these people moved here only after these towns started to flourish, and had not been living here from the foundation. This suggests that allies were not included in colonies as official colonists. If they had been, we would expect there to be more evidence from the moment of the foundation, instead of only later. The total amount of evidence for the 4th and 3rd centuries is limited, but at present there is, in my view, not sufficient material to support the idea that Italian allies were admitted into colonies as official settlers. Furthermore, the difference in treatment of local inhabitants from colony to colony is too large to assume that they were normally accepted as official colonists : in some cases there is evidence for actual expulsion, for example in Cosa, whereas in other places there is evidence for their continued presence. Therefore, it would be unlikely that in general Italians were admitted as official colonists.

  • 37 Gagliardi 2006.

21However, even if non-Latin allies were not usually admitted as official colonists, either in Latin or Roman colonies, this does not mean that they could not have lived in colonial cities or the territory under their control. It seems that Italians were often present in colonies, at least in the 2nd century BC. If they had not been present here since the foundation, they could simply have migrated into the town later ; these people were then known as incolae37. This seems to have been a common occurrence.Native inhabitants could then have lived inside a colony, next to the settlers who possessed Latin or Roman citizenship. 

22In some cases local inhabitants were indeed expelled, as we have seen for example in Cosa. However, the traditional model, with its emphasis on spatial separation between colonists and Romans, is inadequate to explain the spread of Roman culture and Latin language throughout Italy. Even if the original inhabitants no longer lived in the colony, they would still be able to come into the town for trade, marriage, religious festivals, and other purposes. This would have important consequences for our image of the process of the « Romanization » of Italy. A model which supposes more widespread contacts between Romans and Italians would be better suitable to explain in which contexts these two groups interacted with each other. Furthermore, the fact that for many colonies there is indeed evidence that Italians were living there indicates that a spatial separation between Romans and Italians was hardly ever achieved (nor was this, in most cases, the aim of the Romans).

Italians and commercial activity on ager publicus

  • 38 Roselaar 2010, p. 121-133.
  • 39 Roselaar 2010, p. 90-95.
  • 40 Roselaar 2010, p. 80-83.

23So far we have looked at Italian access to land which was taken away and distributed to Roman citizens. However, there was also land which remained unused by the Roman state, even if it had been officially confiscated and was therefore ager publicus. Some of this land could be sold or leased out by the Roman state, but I have argued that this involved only a small part of the ager publicus38 ; the rest remained free for use by Roman citizens, and, as I believe, Italians as well. It is likely that much of this land remained in the hands of its original owners, who possessed it without any legal title. If this was the case, then much of it might have remained in use by Italians until the Gracchan period, when the allies launched protests against the confiscation of ager publicus they had been working. I have argued elsewhere that it is unlikely that the allies had to pay a rent for the use of this land39, and that it is unlikely that Italians could in any way gain a formal right to use ager publicus – even for Roman citizens it was impossible to acquire security of tenure on ager publicus, and therefore this possibility would not have existed for Latins and allies. However, it may be possible that the continued use of land that became ager publicus was acknowledged in treaties concluded with the allies, on the condition that this was only allowed for as long as the Roman state did not need it40.

24If we assume that Italians could gain access to ager publicus, we must investigate whether they used this land to establish commercial agricultural estates, and whether these can be shown to have been located on ager publicus. The traditional image of economic decline in Italy during the Republic has long since been discarded ; in fact many regions of Italy show an increase in settlement density in the 3rd and/or 2nd centuries BC, which may indicate population growth. They also show unprecedented wealth, which was expressed through the development of towns and the erection of public buildings, such as the rural sanctuaries at e.g. Pietrabbondante, Civita di Tricarico, Schiavi d’Abruzzo, Rossano di Vaglio, Campochiaro, and many others. At the same time some important developments are visible in the organization and scale of agricultural production, such as an increase in the number of larger estates producing for the market, and an increase in size of the individual estates.

  • 41 Moltone : Small – Buck 1994. Giardino Vecchio : Attolini 1982, p. 383 ; Celuzza – Regoli 1985, p.  (...)
  • 42 Guidobaldi 1995, p. 207.

25Many farms and villas dating to the 2nd century had wine and olive presses to process the crops, and they are often on a scale which shows an interest in commercial production. These farms were not very large, as can be seen from the farms at Giardino Vecchio and Moltone di Tolve, whose 1st phase should be dated to the 3rd century41, but they were larger than would be needed for the subsistence of a single family, so we can assume they were used for commercial production. The products were transported mainly in so-called Greco-Italian and Dressel 1 amphorae, and several factories for their production have been found throughout Italy, including areas where many non-Roman inhabitants were still present, such as Giancola and Apani near Brundisium. On the East coast of Italy Lamboglia 2 amphorae appeared in the late 2nd and 1st half of the 1st century BC ; they were used to export oil from Eastern Italy42.

26I will focus here on areas which can be shown to have been ager publicus during the second century BC. Especially in southern Italy there are large remains of centuriation patterns and finds of boundary stones created during the Gracchan land reform, which indicate that the land in question had been ager publicus up until the reform. Especially in Apulia there were many such distributions, namely in the southern tip of the Salento peninsula and large areas around Canusium and near Luceria ; in Lucania the Val di Diano was involved. Furthermore, some of the mountainous areas of Italy had been confiscated as public pasture (ager scripturarius), although it is not possible to pinpoint its location in any way. If we can establish that Italians were active in commercial production in these areas, then this would indicate that they had access to ager publicus.

  • 43 San Vito : Grelle – Giardina 1993, p. 70-72, 74. Botromagno : Grelle – Giardina 1993, p. 65-67 and (...)
  • 44 Lamboley 1996, p. 490 ; Compatangelo-Soussignan 1999, p. 99-100 and p. 105.
  • 45 Guzzo 1984, p. 233 ; he argues, however, that locals took over Roman and/or Greek culture, and the (...)

27For the location of some Italian commercial farms we may argue that they were located on ager publicus. Some farms were located in areas that did not have Roman citizenship, some of which may have been ager publicus. San Vito in Salapia (late 3rd-mid-2nd century), Botromagno in Apulia (mid-2nd century), and Vittimose in Lucania (2nd century) were all located in areas which were later implicated in the Gracchan land distributions, which suggests that they were located on public land43. Of course Romans could in theory have owned these villas, but there is no reason why they would not have been in the hands of local Italians. In other areas known to have been ager publicus commercial activity has been identified for the 2nd century. For example, near Lecce at Masseria Ramanno and near Ugentum at San Giovanni several production sites for amphorae have been found44. In Lucania, however, the Val di Diano shows no locals as owners of villae ; only Roman names appear in the second half of second century45.

  • 46 Ros Mateos 2007, p. 1248.
  • 47 ID 1408 II A 38 ; 1417 A II 150 ; 1427; 1429 ; ILLRP 1177 ; CIL 12 425 = 10.8051.21 ; CIL 8.22637. (...)
  • 48 CIL 12 2506.
  • 49 Cibecchini – Principal 2002, p. 654-662 ; Morel 2007, p. 507-508.
  • 50 Morel 1988, p. 56-57. Both these names were derived from the Oscan Pakis (see above).
  • 51 Liv. 26.34.6.

28Unfortunately, it is usually impossible to determine whether known individuals active in commercial production were Italian allies rather than citizens, nor to decide whether their establishments were located on ager publicus. In some cases it is possible to argue that the producers of wine or olive oil were Italians ; for example, a stamp on an amphora from Spain reads C HE, which may be interpreted as Gaius Helvius, a genticilium also attested in Oscan inscriptions and mostly found in Campania46. An Italian from the late 3rd and 2nd century is Trebius Loisius, whose amphora stamps have been found in Alexandria, Rhodes, Sicily, and Carthage. He is also mentioned on an inscription from 162/1 on Delos47. It is debated whether Trebius Loisius came from Italy or from Sicily, but the name Trebis is a typical Oscan praenomen, and can be found in many Oscan-speaking areas, as we have seen. Lusius is attested at the end of the 2nd century BC in Capua48. Other Italians may have made money through shipping and other typed of transportation, or through manufacture, such as the production of pottery. Pottery was exported in large quantities, especially Black Gloss ware. Much was produced in Naples and Campania from the 3rd century ; its production grew in the 2nd, and it is found all through Gaul, Spain, and Africa49. Stamps on some types of Black Gloss show non-Latin names, such as Paconius and Pactumeius.50 However, we cannot match the locations of their activities to any known ager publicus ; the Ager Campanus was of course confiscated by the Romans after the Second Punic War, but as Livy states51, many of its inhabitants were allowed to remain. It would therefore make sense if they were involved in commercial production on ager publicus.

  • 52 Barker et al. 1978, p. 43-48 ; Lloyd 1991, p. 180-185 ; Tagliamonte 1996, p. 122-125 and p. 243-25 (...)
  • 53 CIL 10.5074, 5850 ; see Coarelli 1998, p. 62.
  • 54 Lloyd 1991, p. 180-185.

29Trade and the production of wine and olive oil were not the only economic activities that Italians engaged in, and which may have gained them large incomes. It is likely, for example, that transhumant pasturing and the processing of wool may have been a very important source of income. This took place especially in the more mountainous regions of Italy, which mostly did not have Roman citizenship in the 2nd century BC, and which may very well have been Roman ager scripturarius. For example, evidence of textile production, such as fullers’ workshops, have been found in the Apennines, e.g. at Saepinum and Larinum52. Various places, such as Alba, Atina, and Ferentinum, have yielded inscriptions referring to fora pecuaria (cattle markets)53.Many of the rural sanctuaries I mentioned earlier are located in such regions, and these were mostly built by local elites. It may be argued that the funds to build them were accumulated mainly by animal breeding, although it is difficult to identify individuals active in such business. Some farms located in allied areas, which may have been ager publicus, show evidence of animal husbandry : the farm at Moltone di Tolve has large stables and shows evidence of wool working, such as loom weights. It controls transhumance route and has architectural terracottas with decorations of sheep. This farm was already used in the 3rd century BC, which suggests it may have been owned by a local ; Roman involvement in this area would be unlikely in this early period. A villa at Matrice also shows evidence for animal breeding and processing wool54. It is clear from these few examples that Italians indeed played a role in commercial activities throughout Italy, thus contributing to the economic growth that is visible in many parts of Italy in the 2nd century BC. However, it is extremely hard to match these activities to ager publicus.

  • 55 Scipio Africanus in Liternum : Liv. 38.52.1 ; Sen. Ep. 86.1 ; Val. Max. 2.10.2b ; Fabius Maximus : (...)
  • 56 Roselaar 2010, p. 200-203.

30However, it is similarly difficult to connect the commercial activities of Romans to ager publicus. It is likely that ager publicus played only a limited role in the creation of large estates in central Italy. This may be inferred from Cato’s De agri cultura, which never mentions ager publicus, but speaks only about buying private land. Even pastures were apparently private, since Cato discusses the leasing out of pasture rights. Furthermore, there are hardly any examples of senators or other members of the upper class making use of ager publicus. We know of several senators who already owned large estates in the early 2nd century, such as the estate of Scipio Africanus in Liternum,55 but none of them is described as holding public land. In the 2nd century the market grew considerably, but large-scale commercial production still occurred mainly in central Italy, where the market in Rome outstripped all other towns in size. In fact, when we look at the location of cash crop estates in Italy an important observation can be made : the number and size of such estates was largest in the areas near Rome, which were exactly those where there was the least ager publicus56. Most of the land in Latium, Campania, Southern Etruria, and Sabinum had been privatized through colonial foundations or individual distributions, and there was not much state-owned land left over in these regions. Therefore, we cannot expect it to have been ager publicus, which means that Appian’s description is incorrect.

  • 57 Manacorda – Cambi 1994, p. 286.
  • 58 Palazzo 1994, p. 56.

31Some Roman involvement has been suggested for the production of amphorae in the Brundisian territory. Names attested on amphorae from Giancola are Iulius, Tuccius, Visellius, Claudius, Marcius, Octavius, and Petronius, many of whom also appear in Rome. In Apani other names may also point to the involvement of Romans, e.g. Albinius, Appuleius, Betilienus, Claudius, Cornelius, Fabius, Fannius, Gerellanus, Laenius, Negilius, Obultronius, and Publilius.57 However, other producers have been described as local elites, e.g. Aninius, Caesellius, Maccius, and Vehilius58. Unfortunately, even the assumed « local » people have names that also appear in central Italy and Rome, so that it is difficult to conclude that they were locals. However, if they were of Roman descent, they may have been settlers in the colony of Brundisium, or have moved in later to profit from the growing prosperity of the town. In any case, the land in question would have become private property by the distribution, so that this production did not take place on ager publicus.

  • 59 Santangelo 2007, p. 73-75.
  • 60 E.g. the involvement of various Senatorial families in the amphora production in the Salento, see (...)

32In other areas of Italy the situation was different ; especially in southern Italy there was still a large amount of ager publicus. There were some areas, for example in Lucania, where hundreds of square kilometres had been turned into Roman public land, and no other land was available for the people living there. Ager publicus, then, was mainly located outside central Italy, in areas where most people were not Roman citizens. In areas where large tracts of land had been confiscated by Rome, not only small farmers, but also many rich Italians had no access to land other than ager publicus. These farmers therefore held a larger proportion of their total holdings as ager publicus than Roman citizens did, and could therefore only work public land. In the 2nd century many towns in Italy grew in size, and Italian landowners were eager to provide them with crops. However, this was done by Italians, not by Roman citizens ; the presence of people from central Italy in the rest of Italy is mostly visible from the 1st century BC onwards ; in Brundisium, for example, we can identify a slave of Sulla, named Tarula, who was active in amphora production59. By this time of course the Italians themselves possessed Roman citizenship ; their land, therefore, would no longer have been ager publicus60.

  • 61 For my views on the rights the Italians received from the Gracchan land commission, see Roselaar 2 (...)

33We must therefore conclude that much of the economic activities of Italians were undertaken on land belonging to the Roman state. If this were the case, it is clear that events during the Gracchan period damaged Italian interests – they would have had to return to the Roman state the land they held over the limit of 500 iugera61. Those who held more were greatly still disadvantaged, because they had to give up the surplus. The Italian dissatisfaction with the loss of their land, even though it technically belonged to the Roman state, would have been an important cause of resentment against Rome. This, together with other factors which we cannot explore here, was one of the main reasons for the outbreak of the Social War. Thus, although Appian’s description fails to correctly analyze the causes of Italian resentment, he is right that ager publicus played an important role in the developments of the later 2nd century BC.

Conclusion

34From all this we can draw some, preliminary conclusions. Firstly, it is likely that many Italians could gain access to ager publicus in various ways, and exploited this land commercially. Their loss of at least some of this land during the Gracchan land reforms, together with other sources of resentment occurring in the late 2nd century BC, contributed to the outbreak of the Social War in 91-88 BC.

35We can also conclude that settlement patterns, and the various types of access to colonies and ager publicus that were available to Italians, must have played an important role in the integration between Romans and Italians : if they engaged in day-to-day contacts, then this would have led to social relations between Romans and Italians, as well as mutual cultural and linguistic influence.

36Further research is necessary on the exact nature and extent of Italian involvement in commercial production and the exact circumstances of contact between Romans and Italians – trade, marriage, social networks, patronage, administration, the army et cetera. The settlement patterns of Romans and Italians and the opportunities for daily contacts need further investigation, but it is clear that Latin and Roman colonies, as well as settlement on Roman ager publicus, played an important role in this respect. The involvement of Italians in production on ager publicus is difficult to establish, although it is possible that they played an important role. In any case, it is clear that ager publicus cannot be blamed for all ills that befell the Republic in the last centuries BC, and that its role was different than previously thought.

Haut de page

Bibliographie

Attolini 1982 = I. Attolini, Ricognizione archeologica nell’ager Cosanus e nella valle dell’Albegna. Rapporto preliminare 1981, in ArchMed, 9, 1982, p. 365-386.

Barker et al. 1978 = G. Barker, J. A. Lloyd and D. Webley, A classical landscape in Molise, in PBSR, 46, 1978, p. 35-51.

Bispham 2006 = E. Bispham, Coloniam deducere : how Roman was Roman colonization during the Middle Republic ?, in J.-P. Wilson and G. Bradley (eds.), Greek and Roman colonization : origins, ideologies and interactions, Swansea, 2006, p. 73-160.

Bispham 2012 = E. Bispham, Rome and Antium : pirates, polities and identity in the Middle Republic, in S. T. Roselaar (ed.), Processes of integration and identity formation in the Roman Republic, Leiden-Boston, 2012, p. 226-245.

Broadhead 2008 = W. Broadhead, Migration and hegemony : fixity and mobility in second-century Italy, in L. De Ligt and S. J. Northwood (eds.), People, land, and politics. Demographic developments and the transformation of Italy, 300 BC-AD 14, Leiden, 2008, p. 451-470.

Cazanove 2000 = O. de Cazanove, I destinatari dell’iscrizione di Tiriolo e la questione del campo d’applicazione del senatoconsulto de Bacchanalibus, dans Athenaeum, 88, 2000, p. 59-69.

Celuzza 2002 = M. Celuzza, La romanizzazione : Etruschi e Romani fra 311 e 123 a.C., in A. Carandini and F. Cambi (eds.), Paesaggi d’Etruria. Valle dell’Albegna, Valle d’Oro, Valle del Chiarone, Valle del Tafone, Rome, 2002, p. 103-113.

Celuzza – Regoli 1985 = M. Celuzza and E. Regoli, Gli insediamenti nella Valle d’Oro e il fondo di Settefinestre, in A. Carandini (ed.), Settefinestre : una villa schiavistica nell’Etruria romana, I, Modena, 1985, p. 48-59.

Cibecchini – Principal 2002 = F. Cibecchini and J. Principal, Alcune considerazioni sulla presenza commerciale romano-italica nella penisola iberica prima della seconda guerra punica, in M. Khanoussi, P. Ruggeri and C. Vismara (eds.), L’Africa romana. Lo spazio marittimo del Mediterraneo occidentale I, Rome, 2002, p. 653-663.

Coarelli 1998 = F. Coarelli, La storia e lo scavo, in F. Coarelli and P. G. Monti (eds.), Fregellae I : Le fonti, la storia, il territorio, Rome, 1998, p. 29-69.

Compatangelo-Soussignan 1999 = R. Compatangelo-Soussignan, Sur les routes d’Hannibal. Paysages de Campanie et d’Apulie, Paris, 1999.

Coşkun 2009 = A. Coşkun, Bürgerrechtsentzug oder Fremdenausweisung ? Studien zu den Rechten von Latinern und weiteren Fremden sowie zum Bürgerrechtswechsel in der Römischen Republik (5. bis frühes 1. Jh. v.Chr.), Stuttgart, 2009.

Di Giuseppe 2011 = H. Di Giuseppe, Hannibal’s legacy and black glaze ware in Lucania, in F. Colivicchi (ed.), Local cultures of south Italy and Sicily in the late republican period : between Hellenism and Rome, Portsmouth (RI), 2011, p. 57-76.

Dyson 1985 = S. L. Dyson, The villas of Buccino and the consumer model of Roman rural development, in C. Malone and S. Stoddart (eds.), Papers in Italian archaeology, IV : Classical and medieval archaeology, Oxford, 1985, p. 67-84.

Erdkamp 2011 = P. P. M. Erdkamp, Soldiers, Roman citizens, and Latin colonists in mid-republican Italy, in Ancient Society, 41, 2011, p. 109-146.

Fentress 2000 = E. Fentress, Introduction : Cosa and the idea of the city, in E. Fentress (ed.), Romanization and the city. Creation, transformations and failures, Portsmouth (RI), 2000, p. 9-24.

Fentress – Jacques 2002 = E. Fentress and F. Jacques, Saturnia, la centuriazione, in A. Carandini and F. Cambi (eds.), Paesaggi d’Etruria. Valle dell’Albegna, Valle d’Oro, Valle del Chiarone, Valle del Tafone, Rome, 2002, p. 124-126.

Gabba 1958 = E. Gabba, L’elogio di Brindisi, dans Athenaeum, 36, 1958, p. 90-105.

Gagliardi 2006 = L. Gagliardi, Mobilità e integrazione delle persone nei centri cittadini romani. Aspetti giuridichi, I : la classificazione degli incolae, Milan, 2006.

Grelle – Giardina 1993 = F. Grelle and A. Giardina, Canosa romana, Rome, 1993.

Guidobaldi 1995 = M.P. Guidobaldi, La romanizzazione dell’Ager Praetutianus (secoli III-I a. C.), Naples, 1995.

Guzzo 1984 = P. G. Guzzo, Lucanians, Brettians and Italiote Greeks in the fourth and third centuries B.C., in T. Hackens, N. D. Holloway and R. R. Holloway (eds.), Crossroads of the Mediterranean, Providence-Leuven, 1984, p. 191-246.

Hopkins 1978 = K. Hopkins, Conquerors and slaves, Cambridge, 1978.

Lamboley 1996 = J.-L. Lamboley, Recherches sur les Messapiens, IVe-IIe siècle avant J.-C., Rome, 1996.

Letta – D’Amato 1975 = C. Letta and S. D’Amato, Epigrafia della regione dei Marsi, Milan, 1975.

Lloyd 1991 = J. Lloyd, Farming the highlands : Samnium and Arcadia in the Hellenistic and early Roman periods, in G. Barker and J. Lloyd, Roman landscapes. Archaeological survey in the Mediterranean region, London, 1991, p. 180-193.

Manacorda 1994 = D. Manacorda, Produzione agricola, produzione ceramica e proprietà della terra nelle Calabria romana tra repubblica e impero, in C. Nicolet (ed.), Epigrafia della produzione e della distribuzione, Rome, 1994, p. 3-59.

Manacorda – Cambi 1994 = D. Manacorda and F. Cambi. Recherches sur l’ager Brundisinus à l’époque romaine, in P. N. Doukellis and L. G. Mendoni (eds.), Structures rurales et sociétés antiques, Paris, 1994, p. 283-292.

Marchi – Sabbatini 1996 = M. L. Marchi and G. Sabbatini, Venusia, Florence 1996.

Morel 1988 = J.-P. Morel, Artisanat et colonisation dans l’Italie romaine aux IVe et IIIe siècles av. J.-C., in DdA, 6.3, 1988, p. 49-63.

Morel 2007 = J.-P. Morel, Early Rome and Italy, in W. Scheidel, I. Morris and R. Saller (eds.), The Cambridge economic history of the Greco-Roman world, Cambridge, 2007, p. 487-510.

Nagle 1973 = D. B. Nagle, An allied view of the Social War, in AJAH, 77, 1973, p. 367-378.

Palazzo 1994 = P. Palazzo, Insediamenti artigianali e produzione agricola, in C. Marangio and A. Nitti (eds.), Scritti di antichità in memoria di Benita Sciarra Bardaro, Fasano, 1994, p. 53-60.

Parlangeli 1960 = O. Parlangeli, Studi messapici : iscrizioni, lessico, glosse e indici, Milan, 1960.

Patterson – Di Giuseppe – Witcher 2004 = H. Patterson, H. Di Giuseppe and R. Witcher, Three south Etrurian « crises »: first results of the Tiber Valley Project, in PBSR, 72, 2004, p. 1-36.

Rawson 1998 = E. Rawson, Fregellae : fall and survival, in F. Coarelli and P. G. Monti (eds.), Fregella, I : Le fonti, la storia, il territorio, Rome, 1998, p. 71-76.

Rix 2002 = Rix, H., Sabellische Texte, Heidelberg, 2002.

Roselaar 2010 = S. T. Roselaar, Public land in the Roman Republic : a social and economic history of ager publicus in Italy, 396-89 BC, Oxford, 2010.

Roselaar 2011 = S. T. Roselaar, Colonies and processes of integration in the Roman Republic, in MEFRA, 123-2, 2011, p. 527-555.

Ros Mateos 2007 = A. Ros Mateos, Los Helvii. Comerciantes en Occidente y Oriente durante época bajorepubblicana, in M. Mayer et al. (eds.), Acta XII Congressus internationalis epigraphiae graecae et latinae, II, Barcelona, 2007, p. 1247-1254.

Santangelo 2007 = F. Santangelo, Sulla, the elites and the Empire. A study of Roman politics in Italy and the Greek East, Leiden, 2007.

Sewell 2010 = J. Sewell, The formation of Roman urbanism, 338-200 B.C. : between contemporary foreign influence and Roman tradition, Portsmouth (RI), 2010.

Shatzman 1975 = I. Shatzman, Senatorial wealth and Roman politics, Brussels, 1975.

Silvestrini 1998 = M. Silvestrini, Le « gentes » di Brindisi romana, in M. Lombardo and C. Marangio (eds.), Il territorio Brundisino dall’età Messapica all’età romana, Galatina, 1998, p. 81-103.

Small – Buck 1994 = A. M. Small and R. J. Buck, The excavations of San Giovanni di Ruoti, I : the villas and their environment, Toronto, 1994.

Stek 2009 = T. D. Stek, Cult places and cultural change in Republican Italy. A contextual approach to religious aspects of rural society after the Roman conquest, Amsterdam, 2009.

Tagliamonte 1996 = G. Tagliamonte, I Sanniti. Caudini, Irpini, Pentri, Carricini, Frentani, Milan, 1996.

Torelli 1999 = M. Torelli, Tota Italia : essays in the cultural formation of Roman Italy, Oxford, 1999.

Toynbee 1965 = A. J. Toynbee, Hannibal’s legacy : the Hannibalic War’s effects on Roman life, II, London, 1965.

Van Wonterghem 1992 = F. Van Wonterghem, Il culto di Ercole fra i popoli osco-sabellici, in C. Bonnet and C. Jourdain-Annequin (eds.), Héraclès. D’une rive à l’autre de la Méditerranée. Bilan et perspectives, Brussels-Rome, 1992, p. 319-351.

Yntema 2009 = D. Yntema, Material culture and plural identity in early Roman Southern Italy, in T. Derks and N. Roymans (eds.), Ethnic constructs in Antiquity. The role of power and tradition, Amsterdam, 2009, p. 144-166.

Haut de page

Notes

1 App. BC 1.7-8. See also Plu. TG 8.1-4.

2 See for example Toynbee 1965, II, 160-8 ; Hopkins 1978, ch. 1.

3 Di Giuseppe 2011, p. 57-62.

4 Patterson – Di Giuseppe – Witcher 2004, p. 7-13.

5 For a more detailed analysis of Italian rights to ager publicus see Roselaar 2010, p. 69-83.

6 See Roselaar 2011 ; see also Erdkamp 2011.

7 See in detail Bispham 2012.

8 Liv. 33.24.8-9.

9 Roselaar 2010, p. 149-153.

10 Liv. 32.2.6-7.

11 Liv. 41.8.8.

12 Coşkun 2009; Erdkamp 2011. See Broadhead 2008, p. 459-462 for a different view.

13 See Roselaar 2011 for a more detailed analysis of the evidence regarding the Latin colonies discussed here, as well as Cales, Luceria, Paestum, Ariminum, Brundisium, Placentia, Cremona, Aquileia, Luca, and Luna, and the Roman colonies Minturnae, Puteoli, and Pisaurum.

14 Helvius : CIL 10.5585 = ILS 6288. Helvii are attested in Oscan in Capua (Ve 4, 82-3, 88B, Rix Cp 27-8, 34), Catanzaro (Pocc. 201), unknown Samnite area (Ve 178-9, Rix ZO 2-3), and Corfinium (Ve 215g, k ; Rix Pg 37, 41). Paccius : CIL 10.5622. Trebellius : M. Trebellius Fregellanus was commander of a contingent of soldiers from Fregellae in 169, see Liv. 43.21.2-3. See also CIL 10.5581, 5593, 5627. Helvii are attested in Oscan in Capua (Ve 4, 82-3, 88B, Rix Cp 27-8, 34), Catanzaro (Pocc. 201), unknown Samnite area (Ve 178-9, Rix ZO 2-3), and Corfinium (Ve 215g, k ; Rix Pg 37, 41). Paccius is derived from the Oscan praenomen Pakis, are widely distributed, e.g. in Castel di Sangro (Ve 142, Rix Sa 18), Aeclanum (Ve 163, Rix Hi 1), Antinum (Ve 223, Rix VM 3), Castellamare near Pescara (Ve 174, Rix Fr 7), Corfinium (Rix Pg 59), Sulmo (Ve 210a, Rix Pg 34), Tocca di Casauria (Rix MV 3), Pietrabbondante (Ve 153, Rix Sa 5), Capua (Rix Cp 1, 26, 31-2, 34), Pompeii (Ve 72e, Rix Po 87), Cumae (Rix Cm 4, Pocc. 133), Lucania (Rix Lu 55-6) ; as a general Samnite name in Liv. 10.38.6. The name Trebellius is not directly attested in Oscan inscriptions, but the name Trebius is very common, see Ve 15 (Rix Po 7) from Pompeii, where Trebiis is used as a family name derived from the praenomen Trebis. Other attestations of this name occur in Lucania (Ve 191, Rix Lu 19), Fratte di Salerno (Rix Ps 8), Pietrabbondante (Ve 150, Rix Sa 7), Fagifulae (Rix Sa 59), Aquilonia (Rix Sa 33-4, 36, 43, Pocc. 56), Capua (Rix Cp 24), Pompeii (Pocc. 108, Rix Po 15; Ve 26, Rix Po 37), Tricarico (Pocc 146, Rix tLu 1), and the Ager Teuranus, see de Cazanove 2000, p. 63. Liv. 23.1.1-3 mentions Statius Trebius, a noble of Compsa ; cf. Trebatius, an allied leader in the Social War, App. BC 1.52. See Coarelli 1998, p. 39-40 ; Rawson 1998, p. 73-78. An interactive map of Italian gentilicia is available on www.saskiaroselaar.com.

15 Herennius: ILLRP 88 = CIL 12.1814 = 9.3906 = ILS 4022. Herennius appears in Oscan in Pietrabbondante (Rix Sa 9, Sa 35) and Nola (Rix Cm 6). The Herennii were also the patrons of Marius, see Plu. Mar. 5.4-5. Atiedius, Papius, and Tettienus : ILLRP 227 = CIL 12.1817 = 9.3910 ; Tettienus also in ILLRP 228 = CIL 12.1818 = 9.3911. Atiedius also on CIL 12.389 = 9.3847 = ILLRP 283. Atiedius is best known from the Tabulae Iguvinae. G. Papius Mutilus was one of the allied leaders in the Social War, see App. BC 1.40-2, and Rix nPg 2-6b (coins dating to the Social War, minted in the Paelignian area). It is also attested in Schiavi d’Abruzzo (Rix Sa 2), Campochiaro (Rix tSa24-5), and Cumae (Rix Cm 14). Tettienus may be related to the Oscan Titius, known from Pratola Peligna (Ve 215v, Rix Pg 45), Badia Morronese (Rix Pg 16), and Anagnia (Rix He 3). Ovius : Supinum (Ve 224a-b, Rix VM 4).

16 Van Wonterghem 1992.

17 Torelli 1999, p. 38-39 ; Bispham 2006, p. 106-108. See also Stek 2009, p. 55-58.

18 CIL 9.3813 = CIL 12.391 = Ve 228 ; CIL 9.3849 = 12.388 = ILLRP 286 ; CIL 9.3856 ; ILLRP 303 = AE 1953, 218 ; See Letta and D’Amato 1975, nos. 91ter, 111, 128, 129, 131.

19 Letta – D’Amato 1975, p. 195-196.

20 Stek 2009, p. 167, 169 n. 311. However, many of the magistrates’ names are non-Roman, which makes this thesis only possible if many non-Romans had been included in the colony as official settlers.

21 DH 17/18.5.1-2.

22 Marchi – Sabbatini 1996, p. 111-115 ; Torelli 1999, p. 94-96.

23 Liv. 31.49.6.

24 Grelle – Giardina 1993, p. 59-63.

25 Crepereius : Cic. Verr. 1.30. Herennius : Eutr. 5.3. Ovius : ILLRP 690 = CIL 12.1700 = 9.438. Statius Raius : ILLRP 692 = CIL 12.1701 = 9.448. Herennius appears in Oscan in Pietrabbondante (Rix Sa 9, Sa 35) and Nola (Rix Cm 6). Ovius is attested in Oscan in Supinum (Ve 224a-b, Rix VM 4). Statius is attested in Pietrabbondante (Rix Sa 13), Abella (Rix Cm 3), Cumae (Rix Cm 14), Nola (Rix Cm 48, and Lucania (Rix Lu 55). Raius is attested in Oscan in Cumae (Rix Cm 14). See Grelle – Giardina 1993, p. 55.

26 Fentress 2000, p. 12-13.

27 Celuzza 2002, p. 112-113.

28 Fentress – Jacques 2002, p. 124.

29 Celuzza 2002, p. 109. In other areas of Italy votive deposits continued into the 1st century BC, and the connection between the timing of the decline in Telamon and the Roman conquest is close enough to assume that the Roman intervention influenced the economy of the temple.

30 Torelli 1999, p. 41. On the other hand, there is not always a clear relation between the use of a non-Latin name for a colony and the presence of local inhabitants in it. Other colonial towns also kept their earlier names, such as Aesernia.

31 Bispham 2006, p. 97-102. On Cosa’s urban development see now Sewell 2010.

32 Celuzza 2002, p. 109 and p. 120-122 ; Erdkamp 2011.

33 Gabba 1958, p. 100-101.

34 Liv. 21.48.8-9 ; see also Pol. 3.69.1. Some assume he was a citizen, e.g. Lamboley 1996, p. 488. However, it was not necessary for him to be a citizen in order to command a garrison of allies. Even if he was not a citizen, he must have been an important individual in Brundisium. The name (or title) Dasius and variants are widely attested in the Messapian area, e.g. on inscriptions in Messapian, see Haas 1962, B.1.19 from Uzentum ; B. 2.03 from Vaste ; B.2.04 from Carovigno ; B.4.35 from Gnathia ; B.4.95 from Ceglie Messapica ; B.4.101 from Lupiae. A Dasius is attested in the 2nd Punic War as a member of the local elite at Arpi, Liv. 24.45.1-9 ; App. Hann. 31. Another Dasius was a leading noble in Salapia, Liv. 26.38.6-14. See Silvestrini 1998, p. 92-98.

35 Accaeus : CIL 9.63. In Oscan, see Sulmo (Rix Pg 36), Corfinium (Rix Pg 50). Arruntius : CIL 9.77-9 ; AE 1978, 235. In Oscan : Pompeii (Rix Po 58), Tricarico (Rix tLu 1). Audius : AE 1968, 169. In Oscan : Pompeii (Rix Po 8). Caesellius : CIL 9.87, 6096-6103. In Oscan : Capua (Rix Cp 25). Gavius : AE 1983, 275. In Oscan : Aesernia (Rix Sa 22), Aquilonia (Rix Sa 33), Fagifulae (Rix Sa 44), Ampsanctus (Rix Hi 10), Melito (Rix tHi1), Capua (Rix Cp 36), Punta Campanella (Rix Cm 2), Histonium (Ve 168, Rix Fr 1), Schiavi d’Abruzzo (Rix Sa 2, Pocc. 34), Aeclanum (Ve 163, Rix Hi 1) ; and Cumae (Ve 111, Rix Cm 19). Novius : CIL 9.152. It may be related to the Oscan praenomen Novis, from e.g. Pietrabbondante (Rix Sa 7). Numisius : CIL 9.6129. It may be related to the Oscan praenomen Niumsis, attested in Teanum Sidicinum (Rix Si 11-12), Capua (Rix Cp 26), Pompeii (Rix Po 2, tPo 7-11), Nola (Rix Cm 6), Cumae (Rix Cm 9, 14). Pacilius : CIL 9.159-61, 6099, 6131 ; AE 1966, 87 ; 1982, 210. Plaetorius : CIL 9.165. It is derived from the Messapian name Plator, attested in e.g. Ceglie Messapico (Parlangeli 7.18, 7.22). Pomponius : CIL 9.56, 169-71 ; AE 1964, 132 ; 1965, 113 ; 1978, 154. In Oscan : Mogliano (Rix Sp MC 2), Capestrano (Rix Sp AQ 2), Cumae (Rix Cm 15), Rossano di Vaglio (Rix Lu 5), Velia (Rix tLu 15). Rammius : Liv. 42.17.2-3 ; see Yntema 2009, p. 159 for a possible emendation to (H/E)Rennius. Sillius : CIL 9.189. In Oscan : Pompeii (Rix tPo 4), Cumae (Rix Cm 18-19), Tegianum (Rix Lu 41). Statius: CIL 9.191. Tutorius: CIL 9.199-200. It is probably derived from the Messapian Totor or Teutor, as attested in e.g. Carovigno (Parlangeli 1960, nos. 5.25-26), Brundisium (6.21), and Ceglie Messapico (7.110, 7.216). Vettius : CIL 9.42, ILS 2826, AE 1980, 319. For Oscan attestations see : Navelli (Rix MV 5 = ILLRP 147 = CIL 12.394 = 9.3414). T. Vettius Scato was leader of the Paeligni in the Social War : Cic. Phil. 12.27 ; Lael. 7.24. See Silvestrini 1998, p. 92-98.

36 Lamboley 1996, p. 486 ; Yntema 2009.

37 Gagliardi 2006.

38 Roselaar 2010, p. 121-133.

39 Roselaar 2010, p. 90-95.

40 Roselaar 2010, p. 80-83.

41 Moltone : Small – Buck 1994. Giardino Vecchio : Attolini 1982, p. 383 ; Celuzza – Regoli 1985, p. 49-52.

42 Guidobaldi 1995, p. 207.

43 San Vito : Grelle – Giardina 1993, p. 70-72, 74. Botromagno : Grelle – Giardina 1993, p. 65-67 and p. 76-80 ; Vittimose : Dyson 1985, p. 69-77. See Small – Buck 1994, p. 39.

44 Lamboley 1996, p. 490 ; Compatangelo-Soussignan 1999, p. 99-100 and p. 105.

45 Guzzo 1984, p. 233 ; he argues, however, that locals took over Roman and/or Greek culture, and therefore their own names were no longer used. There is no reason why this would be the case, but it is difficult to be certain about the Italian or Roman background of someone with a specific name.

46 Ros Mateos 2007, p. 1248.

47 ID 1408 II A 38 ; 1417 A II 150 ; 1427; 1429 ; ILLRP 1177 ; CIL 12 425 = 10.8051.21 ; CIL 8.22637.32.

48 CIL 12 2506.

49 Cibecchini – Principal 2002, p. 654-662 ; Morel 2007, p. 507-508.

50 Morel 1988, p. 56-57. Both these names were derived from the Oscan Pakis (see above).

51 Liv. 26.34.6.

52 Barker et al. 1978, p. 43-48 ; Lloyd 1991, p. 180-185 ; Tagliamonte 1996, p. 122-125 and p. 243-254.

53 CIL 10.5074, 5850 ; see Coarelli 1998, p. 62.

54 Lloyd 1991, p. 180-185.

55 Scipio Africanus in Liternum : Liv. 38.52.1 ; Sen. Ep. 86.1 ; Val. Max. 2.10.2b ; Fabius Maximus : Liv. 22.23.4 ; Aemilius Paullus in Terracina : Liv. 40.51.2 ; Laelius in Puteoli : Suet. Vit. Ter. 3. See Shatzman 1975.

56 Roselaar 2010, p. 200-203.

57 Manacorda – Cambi 1994, p. 286.

58 Palazzo 1994, p. 56.

59 Santangelo 2007, p. 73-75.

60 E.g. the involvement of various Senatorial families in the amphora production in the Salento, see Palazzo 1994, p. 56.

61 For my views on the rights the Italians received from the Gracchan land commission, see Roselaar 2010, p. 243-251.

Haut de page

Pour citer cet article

Référence électronique

Saskia T. Roselaar, « Italian allies and access to ager Romanus in the Roman Republic », Mélanges de l'École française de Rome - Antiquité [En ligne], 127-2 | 2015, mis en ligne le 15 octobre 2015, consulté le 23 mars 2017. URL : http://mefra.revues.org/3055 ; DOI : 10.4000/mefra.3055

Haut de page

Auteur

Saskia T. Roselaar

saskiaroselaar@gmail.com

Haut de page

Droits d’auteur

© École française de Rome

Haut de page
  • Logo École française de Rome
  • Revues.org