Navigation – Plan du site
Mélanges

Colonies and processes of integration in the Roman Republic

Colonies et processus d’intégration dans la République romaine
Saskia Roselaar
p. 527-555

Résumés

L’auteur examine les multiples aspects que revêtirent les colonies latines et romaines dans le processus d’intégration des alliés italiens dans l’État romain. Il étudie ainsi les caractéristiques du statut légal des immigrants, en remarquant qu’ils n’appartenaient habituellement pas au groupe des colons « officiels »; ils s’installaient dans le voisinage d’une colonie ou éventuellement dedans mais après sa fondation. C’est particulièrement vrai pour celles qui devinrent des centres importants de commerce. Les opérations commerciales, les mariages, les fêtes religieuses ou des événements politiques constituaient alors autant d’occasions de rencontres, aspect non négligeable pour notre compréhension du processus de romanisation de l’Italie. Le modèle traditionnel de séparation physique entre colons et Italiens n’explique manifestement pas le changement culturel et linguistique de l’Italie sous la République. Concevoir un environnement où Romains et Italiens sont plus étroitement en contact nous permettrait assurément mieux d’expliquer les relations entre ces deux groupes.

Haut de page

Texte intégral

Introduction1

  • 1 I would like to thank Tim Cornell (Manchester), Tesse Stek (Leiden), the audience at the OIKOS ‘wor (...)
  • 2 Especially Salmon 1969, p. 54; Torelli 1995, p. 9-12; 1999, p. 3, 127
  • 3 Torelli 1999, p. 122; see p. 173-5; 186-7

1It has long been recognized that colonies founded by the Romans, especially those with Latin status, played an essential role in the Romanization of Italy under the Republic. Such colonies are envisaged as outposts located in enemy territory, surrounded by a mostly hostile local population. The presence of a large group of settlers representing ‘Roman culture’ is often assumed to have had profound influences on the area surrounding their settlement. The argument often presented is that the colonies showed the local inhabitants a more ‘civilized’ way of life, and that this would have caused the locals to ‘selfRomanize’.2Torelli, for example, states that «Latin colonies very soon became a vehicle of strong Romanization, establishing in these zones [...] a socio-economic model. [...] The superiority of the model [...] rendered easy and consequential the exportation of cultural forms».3

  • 4 E.g. Salmon 1969, p. 18-25; Brown 1980; Gargola 1995, p. 71-101.

2On the other hand, many scholars assume that local inhabitants were usually expelled from their territory, which was then assigned to the colonists.4 This is often presented as standard practice for all colonies. However, if this had been the case, it seems unlikely that they would have had much reason for frequent contacts with the Roman settlers in the colony. This obviously raises the question as to how the colonies fulfilled their Romanizing role. If there was not much contact between Romans and local inhabitants, then Romanization would have been slow, both because of the limited contact between these two groups, and because expulsion would cause resentment among the local population, limiting the possibilities for self-Romanization. However, for many colonies there is archaeological evidence that non-Romans were living in the colonial city or the surrounding territory. If local inhabitants of the colonized area were not expelled, but were allowed to remain on the land, this would have presented a clearer explanation for the influence that was exerted by colonies. If non-Romans maintained daily contact with the Roman settlers in the colony, this would obviously mean that they experienced stronger influences than if they were expelled to marginal territory. Furthermore, if relations between Romans and local inhabitants were friendly, there would have been more reasons to take over elements of «Roman» culture, leading to self-Romanization.

3In this article I aim to examine the evidence for the various roles that colonies could play in the integration of Italian allies into the Roman state, focusing on the presence of Italian allies in Latin and Roman colonies. Many scholars have argued that Italians were often present in colonies, but they usually maintain this position exclusively on the basis of literary evidence (see below, sec. 2). I aim to integrate archaeological, epigraphic, and onomastic evidence into this debate, in order to see whether this can be used to strengthen the argument. I will also discuss evidence for the nature of contact between colonists and Italians, for example trade, marriage, political participation, etc., that occurred in a colonial setting. This will show more clearly than previous scholarship what role the colonies could have played in the integration between Romans and their Italian allies.

The legal status of non-roman inhabitants in colonies

4Before investigating the Romanizing effect of colonies settled by the Romans, we must consider the legal status of the settlers in such towns. If Italian allies could become official colonists at the time of the colony’s foundation, then their legal position would have been very different from a situation in which they were only inhabitants of the colonies without official political rights.

  • 5 Although having commercium may not have been as important in dealing with Romans as it is usually a (...)
  • 6 Sherwin-White 1973, p. 27; Bandelli 2005, p. 19.
  • 7 Cornell 1995, p. 367-8; Bradley 2000, p. 135.

5In Latin colonies the settlers received Latin rights. This would mean that they were not officially Roman citizens, but they are assumed to have profited from certain privileges in their dealings with Roman citizens, such as commerciu5, conubium, and (very limited) voting rights. Roman citizens moving to such colonies as official colonists would lose their Roman citizenship and instead receive Latin rights. People who already had Latin right, for example because they were from communities in Latium which possessed this right before 338, or had earlier become settlers in a Latin colony, would not lose their Latin status if moving to a(nother) Latin colony. Therefore it is usually assumed that settlers in Latin colonies were both Romans and Latins.6 It is argued that the sheer number of settlers in Latin colonies – 70,000 male settlers between 338 and 263 – would have been too much for the Roman state to supply; if so many people emigrated from Rome, the population would have had to be replenished from elsewhere or have declined. Since there is no evidence for such a decline or a sufficient level of immigration, non-Romans must have constituted a considerable percentage of settlers.7

  • 8 DH 6.95.2, 8.69.2; Liv. 2.22.5-7. See Cornell 1995, p. 367.

6It is likely that the settlers in Latin colonies 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 therefore rewarded with a part of the booty, namely the land conquered during wars. It has been argued that the admittance of Latins into colonies resulted from the Foedus Cassianum of 493, which granted the Latins equal parts of any booty that was taken in wars fought together with the Romans; if booty consisted of land, then the foundation of colonies would be a sensible way of giving both Romans and Latins a share in this.8 Furthermore, the fact that moving to a Latin colony would not mean a change in status, and that the number of colonists was too large to be provided by Romans alone, makes it likely – although this idea is not supported by any definitive evidence – that Latins were included in Latin colonies.

  • 9 Liv. 3.1.5-8. See DH 7.14.4, 9.59.1-2. See Salmon 1969, p. 44-5; Humbert 1978, p. 157; Bradley 2006 (...)
  • 10 Liv. 4.11.3-4.
  • 11 Crawford 1981, p. 157; Cornell 1995, p. 367-8; Torelli 1999, p. 3-4; see p. 32 and 1988, p. 70 for (...)

7Just as in the case of Latins, for Italian allies there is no conclusive evidence that they were included in colonies before the Second Punic War. In colonies founded before 338 non-Romans were often included, for example at Antium in 467, where some of the local Volsci were admitted: «Volscian colonists were added to fill out the requisite number.»9 In the colony of Ardea in 442 «none [of the land] would be assigned to any Roman until all the Rutulian (Ardeatine) applicants had been given their plots».10 Some scholars assume that Italians, like Latins, could become official colonists in Latin colonies throughout the Republican period, as a result of treaties which were concluded with them and allowed them a share in collective booty.11 However, we do not know the contents of such treaties; only for the Hernici the fact they were included in the Foedus Cassianum in 486 may support the idea that they were granted a share in collective booty.

  • 12 I believe that the nature of the so-called priscae Latinae coloniae was fundamentally different fro (...)
  • 13 Coşkun 2008.
  • 14 Erdkamp forthcoming. Brunt 1971, p. 29 assumes that of the 4,000 colonists that on average were set (...)

8However, the nature of the early colonies was fundamentally different from that of the post-338 colonies, so they cannot be used to explain the later situation.12 If an Italian settled in a Latin colony, he would receive Latin rights, but at this time the Romans were reluctant to share such privileges with others.13 Furthermore, Erdkamp shows that only from the late 3rd century, not earlier, the obligations of the allies laid down in the formula togatorum, and that only this gave them some right to a share of the spoils, including participation in colonies. He assumes that some allies were included in the colonies of Placentia and Cremona in 218, since these towns had a very large number of settlers, 12,000 in total. If allies had not been included, Romans and Latins alone would not have been able to furnish so many people.14 I think that it is therefore more likely that allies were included only the late 3rd century onwards, although, again, there is no explicit evidence.

  • 15 Liv. 33.24.8-9.
  • 16 Coarelli 1989, p. 36; Celuzza 2002a, p. 112.

9The only literary evidence we have for the official inclusion of allies in colonies dates from the period shortly after the Second Punic War. Some evidence suggests that the Roman state was more relaxed in its attitude towards recruiting new colonists in this period. In 197 Cosa was permitted by the Roman state to recruit new colonists, and «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]».15 It follows that not only Romans, but Latins and even allies were now acceptable as colonists.16

10In the case of colonia civium Romanorum, 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 a grant of Roman citizenship, and in general the Roman state was very reluctant to grant this right to its allies. In 197 an incident occurred with some colonists for the new Roman colonies:

  • 17 Liv. 34.42.5-6: Novum ius eo anno a Ferentinatibus temptatum, ut Latini qui in coloniam Romanam nom (...)

The people of Ferentinum attempted to secure a new legal prerogative: the awarding of Roman citizenship to Latins who had merely submitted their names for membership in a Roman colony. Those who had submitted their names for Puteoli, Salernum, and Buxentum were enrolled as colonists, and because of this they comported themselves as Roman citizens. The Senate adjudged that they were not Roman citizens.17

  • 18 Salmon 1969, p. 24; Piper 1987.
  • 19 Smith 1954; Erdkamp forthcoming.
  • 20 Roselaar 2010, p. 150-2.

11Some scholars use this passage as proof that Latins and allies did not receive citizenship in Roman colonies at all,18 while think that the Ferentinates (who were allies) would have been admitted to citizenship once they had been counted in the next census.19 However, the situation in 197 was not normal; we have seen that in the same year Italian allies were also admitted into the colony at Cosa. It may be that in this period, shortly after the Second Punic War, and with a large number of colonies to be settled or reinforced, the Roman state was unable to supply sufficient Roman citizens to settle in Roman and Latin colonies, and that therefore people who were not normally eligible were now admitted.20 As a rule, however, settlers in Roman colonies were only Roman citizens.

  • 21 D.50.16.239.2 (Pomponius) states «nor are those who stay in a town the only people who are incolae, (...)
  • 22 ILS 6753.

12From this it is clear that there is not much evidence, literary or otherwise, for the admission of Latins and allies in colonies as official settlers. However, 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. A very likely scenario would have been to allow former inhabitants to remain in the town which had been turned into a colony, without granting them the same rights that the Roman colonists received. These people were then known as incolae. This term was also used for people who simply moved to a colony and took up residence there, which seems to have been a common occurrence (see below).21 Under the Empire local inhabitants often formed a separate community next to a colony that possessed Latin or Roman citizenship. In this case the colonists and the original inhabitants lived alongside each other, in separate communities in the same territory or even in the same towns, each with their own rights. For example, in Augusta Praetoria (Aosta), founded in 25 BC, an inscription records the Salassi incol(ae) qui initio se in colon(ia) con[t](ulerunt), the «Salassan incolae who had moved into the colony at the beginning»22

  • 23 Liv. 32.2.6-7: Et Narniensium legatis querentibus ad numerum sibi colonos non esse et immixtos quos (...)
  • 24 Liv. 41.8.8.
  • 25 Cos¸kun 2009, p. 186-93.
  • 26 Erdkamp forthcoming. See Broadhead 2008, p. 459-62 for a different view.

13Furthermore, there is evidence that Italians migrated into Latin colonies and that there were no restrictions on such migrations: In 199 «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».23 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; 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».24 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.25 This would mean that allies were free to take up residence anywhere in Italy, including in colonies.26

14The scholarly discussion, however, has until now only taken into account literary evidence, combined with hypotheses based on our knowledge about the military role of the allies in the Roman Republican army, to reconstruct the likelihood of the admission of allies into colonies. Other evidence, such as archaeological and linguistic materials, is well known, mainly from publications on the history of specific towns, but has not been brought into the general debate about the presence of non-Romans in colonies. I will therefore review the archaeological, epigraphic, and onomastic evidence for the presence of allies in the colonies, to see if they can give the assumptions based on the literary sources more substance.

Methodological problems

15It is clear that it is very difficult to even establish whether Latins and allies were present in colonies, and even harder to identify their legal position. There are several types of evidence, but each presents us with its own problems.

Literary sources

16Unfortunately literary sources rarely refer to the inclusion of non-Romans in colonies, apart from the case of Cosa cited above. Sometimes written sources refer to the presence of Italians in a colony, as in the case of Narnia and Fregellae; in these two cases it seems that these people had moved in after the foundation of the colony and not been present since its foundation. The literary sources thus give us a glimpse of migration patterns in Republican Italy, but are usually not very helpful in establishing whether non-Romans were admitted as official settlers into colonies.

17Some Imperial technical and legal sources, such as the Agrimensores and the Digest, refer to various legal possibilities of including non-Romans in colonies, either as official settlers or as incolae or accolae. It is clear that in the imperial period the role of non-citizens in colonial settlements was more strictly regulated by law than in the Republic, a development that seems to have set in already with 1st-century BC colonial charters like the Lex Coloniae Genetivae Iuliae Ursonensis (see below, section 7). However, we cannot use these later sources directly for the situation in the Republic, since there is no evidence that the position of incolae was strictly regulated in this period.

Epigraphic evidence

  • 27 The most recent collection of inscriptions in Sabellian languages is Rix 2002.

18There are only a few inscriptions that directly mention the presence of people who were not colonists in colonial towns; the most famous is an inscription mentioning Samnites inquolae in Aesernia. However, this dates from the 2nd century BC, so that we cannot be sure that these people had lived here since the foundation of the colony in 263; in any case, they were not official settlers. Further valuable information can be gathered from the names of the people living in the colonies that are recorded on inscriptions. Many apparently non-Roman names appear, which may be traced back to the non-Latin languages of Italy, such as Oscan, Umbrian, and Etruscan. However, this evidence presents many problems: firstly, it is often not clear whether these people had been allowed to remain at the moment of the colony’s foundation, or had moved in at a later date. In Fabrateria Nova, which included many people from the colony Fregellae, the presence of the gens Helvia, which is also attested in Oscan inscriptions, is well attested in the late Republic and Imperial era (see below, section 4). It may be that these people were among those who had migrated from the Samnite area before 177, as reported by Livy, and had remained in the colony. However, some non-Romans may have been present in the colony from its foundation. Furthermore, it is often difficult to establish the exact origins of many names. Some are directly attested in inscriptions in non-Latin languages, or are mentioned in literary sources as names used by non-Roman peoples. Others can be pinpointed to an approximate region of origin. In this article I use only those names that are directly attested as present in non-Latin areas by inscriptions in Italic languages recording them,27 or by literary sources. Others, however, occur in a much wider region, and cannot be assigned to a specific area of origin.

  • 28 See e.g. Franchi De Bellis 1995, p. 371; Adams 2007, p. 39-113.
  • 29 See Roselaar 2010, p. 33-6.

19A further problem with using names as evidence for the composition of the colonist body is that many inscriptions recording non-Latin names can be dated only to the very late Republic or Imperial period. By this time the presence of a certain name can hardly be considered evidence for the period of the foundation of the colony: due to migration, names with a non-Latin origin had spread throughout Italy, and they are often attested outside their area of origin. I have therefore tried to focus on inscriptions dated before the mid-1st century BC. However, the date of many inscriptions is not clear; sometimes they can only be dated approximately by the shape of the letters or specific aspects of the grammar or spelling, but this does not allow precise dating.28 Furthermore, when inscriptions are ascribed to a colonial territory, the exact find spots are not always known. Even if we know where they were found and when they were set up, it is not always clear where the colony’s boundaries were located at the moment that the inscription was set up; it was only in the Augustan period that all communities in Italy received fixed boundaries.29 So even if we know, for example, that a specific find spot belonged to the territory of Ariminum in the imperial era, this does not mean that it had been part of its territory in 268 BC, and therefore we cannot conclude that non-Romans had been living in the territory at the moment of the foundation. Due to all these problems, the number of useful inscriptions, which would allow us to say anything about the inclusion of non-Roman inhabitants at the moment of the foundation of various colonies is very small.

20A fundamental problem with using names is connected to the status of the settlers, discussed above. If Italian allies were admitted as settlers in Latin colonies throughout the Republic, then the presence of non-Latin names does not necessarily indicate the survival of the local population, but may also indicate the immigration of Italians from other areas of Italy; this may have been the case, for example, with Ovius Fregellanus, who is attested at Ariminum (see below, section 4). In some cases, as we have seen, it is possible to pinpoint the origins of a particular name to a specific area. If so, then the presence of such a name in a colony in this area would indicate the presence of actual local people.

21In brief, there are five possibilities to explain the presence of non-Roman names in a colony’s territory: 1) non-Roman allies from other areas were officially included in the original colonist body; 2) non-Roman allies migrated to the colony after its foundation; 3) non-Roman indigenous inhabitants were allowed to remain in the territory, either as official colonists or as noncitizen incolae; 4) the colonists who were assigned to the colony came themselves from non-Latin speaking areas, such as Campania, Etruria, and Sabinum, and had received Roman citizenship at an earlier date, thus allowing them to join colonies; 5) the inscriptions in question date from the late Republican or Imperial era, when many names that originally had a non-Latin origin came to be adopted all over Italy, and can no longer be associated with a specific area of origin. Even if, as I have argued, Italian allies were not usually admitted into colonies, the presence of non-Roman names in the Republic can be used to reconstruct the ethnic composition of the inhabitants of a colony, as long as we are careful to use only such names as evidence that can actually be ascribed to non-Roman peoples and the Republican period.

Toponymic evidence

22Some names of towns or geographical features are non-Roman in origin or are named after individuals with non-Roman names, as in the case of Ariminum and Luca (see below). The problems discussed for epigraphic evidence are also valid for toponyms: even if a specific location has a non-Roman name, we do not know whether this is due to the continued presence of local inhabitants in the colony. If they are named after an individual with a non-Roman name, we do not know whether this person had lived in the colony since its foundation or moved in later. Moreover, the origin of modern place or field names is not always known, nor whether they have been handed down continually from antiquity. The name may have changed in the intervening period and its current name may not be directly related to the pre-Roman era.

Linguistic evidence

23Often the presence of non-Roman inhabitants is assumed from the presence of inscriptions in a non-Roman language. This kind of evidence seems relatively clear: if there were still speakers of such languages, then it may reasonably be assumed that non-Roman inhabitants lived here, whether as colonists or incolae. Again, we are faced with the problem of dating inscriptions; it is not always clear that whether an inscription should be dated before or after the foundation of a colony. Unfortunately, there are only a few inscriptions in languages other than Latin that have been found in colonies, so this body of evidence is limited.

‘Religious’ evidence

  • 30 Van Wonterghem 1992.

24The presence of non-Roman inhabitants may be deduced from the continued use of temples dedicated to local gods after the foundation of a colony. For example, the religious landscape in Paestum did not change very much after the colonial foundation in 273, and many pre-existing temples remained in use. In many cases, however, the gods venerated by the indigenous inhabitants were not much different from Roman gods. There was no strict difference in the gods venerated by the Romans and those worshipped by the Italian population; the cultures of the Italian peoples and of Rome itself were influenced by Greek religion, and many Greek gods were popular throughout Italy, for example Hercules. This god enjoyed particular popularity among the non-Roman peoples of Italy,30but this does not mean that his presence is automatically evidence of non-Roman presence. Romans venerated him as well, and therefore Roman colonists may have taken over pre-existing temples dedicated to Hercules or other gods. Of course, each people also had local gods who did not enjoy popularity in a wider area, for example Mefitis in Lucania, and continuity in their cult may indicate the continued presence of local inhabitants or the migration to colonies of non-Roman people. When such gods appear outside of their normal area of popularity, as in the case of a dedication to Mefitis in Cremona (see below), this constitutes important evidence for migration.

Cultural evidence

  • 31 Renda 2004, p. 405-6.
  • 32 Crawford 1985, p. 26-8.

25Archaeological artefacts may show continuity of non-Roman cultural preferences, which may indicate the presence of non-Roman inhabitants. What I have said above for religious evidence may also apply to cultural manifestations; it is difficult to draw a strict line between ‘Roman’ and ‘Italian’ culture. ‘Roman’ and Italian culture alike were strongly influenced by Greek elements, so that changes in cultural manifestations occurring in the period of increased Roman dominance may not always be due to Roman influence, but may be due to contacts with Greeks in southern Italy (see below for the case of votive statuettes). The appearance of coined money in Samnium, for example, occurred in the 3rd century, and is sometimes ascribed to the influence of the colonies settled in the area.31 However, already in the 4th century money from Magna Graecia and Campania circulated in Samnium. The first Samnite coins show various designs, influenced not only by Rome, but also by Campanian and southern Italian coinage.32 Therefore it would be unwise to ascribe the first Samnite coinage to direct influence from Latin colonies.

  • 33 Bradley 2007, p. 298-9.

26However, Rome did spread through Italy a kind of Hellenistic cultural koine, which was closely related to cultural preferences already present throughout Italy. With the growing influence of Rome throughout Italy, locally specific cultural manifestation became less marked, and the cultures of regions in the whole of Italy became more uniform. Thus changes in cultural manifestations, such as pottery and jewellery, but also burial practices and the use and design of money, may show the growing influence of Rome, transmitted through the colonies.33 However, the cultural koine that resulted from the growing influence of Rome appeared in many areas of Italy only in the 2nd century BC. In many colonies buildings in typical Hellenistic-Roman style do not appear immediately after the foundation, but only in the 2nd or early 1st century. This is also the case with buildings outside of colonize areas, e.g. the monumental rural sanctuary at Pietrabbondante. Since there does not seem to be much difference between developments inside and out of colonies, the role of the colonies, therefore, seems to have been marginal in causing such cultural changes, at least immediately after their foundation.

Archaeological and geographical evidence

27The function of colonies as locations for integration is closely connected to the reconstruction of the colonial landscape. The traditional picture assumes that colonists and indigenous inhabitants were separated from each other, and therefore could not have interacted on a daily basis. In some, such as Cosa (see below, section 4), there indeed seems to have been a spatial separation between colonists and local inhabitants, but this was not the same in all cases. However, we do not know much about the settlement pattern in most colonies. It has long been recognized that most colonies were too small to contain the thousands of colonists sent there according to the literary sources. It has therefore usually been assumed that the colonists lived in isolated farms throughout the colonial territory, each tending their own plot of land.

  • 34 Pelgrom 2008.

28However, recent archaeological research has shown that the settlement pattern in many colonies seems to have been in villages, rather than in isolated farms.34 Pre-existing villages of local inhabitants that were now located in the colony’s territory may have continued after the foundation and may have contained both colonists and local inhabitants (see below on Alba Fucens and Luca). Because not many colonial territories have been surveyed thoroughly, it is hard to find sufficient evidence for the settlement patterns in colonies. Ancient centuriation grids may be of use in this case: if we can reconstruct the extent of the colony’s territory, we may get a clearer view of which areas were included and which excluded. In some cases, such as Cosa and Ariminum (see below), there is material evidence, such as grave goods, that suggests that local inhabitants remained at the edge of the colony’s territory, whereas the colonists took over the land closest to the town. The few cases where we have evidence suggest that the settlement pattern was much more complex than is often thought, and that it offered possibilities for colonists and local inhabitants to live in close proximity.

29All in all, the evidences of a varying quality and quantity, but a combination of evidence of various types may offer a reliable indication for the presence of Italians in the territory of Latin and Roman colonies. Most reliable are literary, epigraphic, and linguistic evidence, but such direct attestations of non-Roman presence are rare. Onomastic evidence is useful but should be treated with much care; other types of evidence should also be carefully analyzed to ascertain its value in each case. It is therefore necessary to assemble as many different types of evidence as possible, so that they can reinforce each other.

Latin colonies

30I will now discuss evidence for the presence of Italians in a number of Latin colonies founded between 338 and 91 BC. Since the quantity and nature of the evidence varies widely across different colonies, I will discuss only those that have a relatively large body of material available.

  • 35 Morel 1991, p. 128-31.
  • 36 Compatangelo-Soussignan 1999, p. 30-2; Bispham 2006, p. 87-8.
  • 37 Morel 1991, p. 132; Vine 1993, p. 138.
  • 38 Morel 1991, p. 136-9.

31The first Latin colony founded after 338 was Cales in 334. The impact of Cales on the surrounding allied towns seems to have been small; for example, there is only limited evidence for exchange between Cales and the nearby allied town of Teanum Sidicinum. The largest cultural influence in Teanum came not from Cales, but from Greek and Samnite areas.35 The nature of the so-called calenus-pottery produced from the 4th to 2nd century is debated. It cannot be ascertained that all items of pottery in the calenus-style were actually produced in Cales, although this is usually assumed. Most scholars argue that the calenus was Roman in style,36 although it also shows Etruscan elements, which may indicate that the town contained Etruscans who had already been living in Campania; it also shows parallels with Black Gloss pottery from Teanum.37 Although trade between Cales and Teanum occurred in many items, Teanum continued to use the Oscan language until the Social War, and pottery from Cales was in the minority here compared to items from Magna Graecia and Greece. The influence of Cales on the surrounding areas was therefore rather small.38

  • 39 ILLRP 1207 = CIL 12.405 = 10.8054.1; ILLRP 1217 = CIL 12.416.
  • 40 Numerius: ILLRP 1208 = CIL 12.404h. Numerius is attested in many non-Latin inscriptions, e.g. Rix U (...)
  • 41 Aufellius: CIL 10.4641. The A(u)fellii are known from Oscan inscriptions from Pompeii (Ve 30b, Rix (...)

32Some of the praenomina appearing as makers’ marks on calenus-pottery are Roman, such as Kaeso,39 while others are non-Roman, e.g. Numerius. Some of the letter forms and punctuation marks used on the inscriptions are similar to those used in Oscan.40 Several gentilicia appearing in the colony may also have been of non-Roman origin, such as Aufellius, Trebellius, and Paconius, the latter appearing on calenus pottery.41 Thus, there seem to have been some people of Oscan descent in the colony shortly after its foundation; however, we have no way of knowing whether they were included as official colonists.

  • 42 Helvius: CIL 10.5585 = ILS 6288. Helvii are attested in Oscan in Capua (Ve 4, 82-3, 88B, Rix Cp 27- (...)
  • 43 Aufidius Fregellanus: CIL 10.6.12818. Gavius: CIL 10.5611. Gavius is attested in Oscan in Aesernia (...)

33Fregellae was founded in 328. As already mentioned, 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 and Paccius, are recorded in Fabrateria Nova. This has sometimes been presented as evidence for the degree of ‘Oscanization’ of Fregellae, and considered an explanation for the rebellion of 12542 1st-century BC inscriptions still show more Oscan than Latin names, such as Aufidius, Ovius, Paccius, Salvius, and Vibius.43

  • 44 Coarelli 1998, p. 110.

34It 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, as recorded by Livy. 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. Coarelli assumes that the centuriation of the colony was 2nd.extended early in the century BC to accommodate these immigrants.44 Nevertheless, the evidence shows that Samnite presence in the colony was significant, at least in the 2nd century.

  • 45 Torelli 1988, p. 71; 1999, p. 92, 96, 121-2; Grelle and Giardina 1993, p. 24.
  • 46 Antonacci Sanpaolo 1999.

35In Luceria, founded in 314, the temple of Athena Ilias plays an important role in the argument for non-Roman presence. It was assumed usually that most inhabitants of the colony were Latins, because the votive deposit of Belvedere found in this temple was typical of Etrusco-Latin and Campanian culture. It is composed of veiled heads and anatomical parts, and it is often maintained that such finds do not occur elsewhere in southern Daunia and Samnium. This would show that this style of votive was spread through Italy mostly through the medium of colonies, which influenced the surrounding areas.45 It is also argued that the votive deposit at Belvedere shows important common characteristics with that found at the indigenous town of Teanum Apulum, and this would indicate considerable influence from the colony on its surroundings.46

  • 47 De Cazanove 2000b, p. 75-6; Glinister 2009; Stek 2009, p. 27; Sofroniew forthcoming.
  • 48 Sofroniew forthcoming.

36However, recent scholarship has shown that the supposedly ‘Latin’ style of votive, though it may have originated in southern Etruria and spread from there to Rome and Latium, was not spread further through Italy by colonies only. Such votives already appear in many parts of Italy in the 4th century BC, before much Roman influence could have occurred. The presence of such votives at Teanum, therefore, does not have to be attributed to the influence of Luceria, but may have been independently transmitted.47 Furthermore, the Belvedere deposit shows Greek elements, such as statuettes of draped females, which are not commonly found in Roman contexts. It also contains many statuettes of horses, which were important in the economy and the foundation legends of the Apulian region; in Roman contexts horses are rare. Some votives have Greek letters on them, showing they were made by Greek-speaking artisans.48 Thus, the temple of Athena, which had already been important before 314, may have remained in use by local inhabitants even after the foundation of the colony.

  • 49 Magius: a 3rd-century inscription reads Gentiles / Magiei / Sancto. Deiveti / fecere, see Suolahti (...)
  • 50 ILLRP 502 = CIL 12.791 = 3.6541. Another Numerius is attested on ILLRP 623 = CIL 12.1710 = 9.800.

37The onomastic evidence is scarce; the Oscan names Magius and Minatius are attested.49 N(umerius) Granonius N(umerii) f(ilius) [...] domo Luceria IIIIvir is mentioned at Athens. Apparently this man, with an Oscan praenomen, was magistrate at Luceria.50 Therefore, some non-Roman people were clearly present in Luceria, although their number cannot be determined.

  • 51 Celuzza 2002a, p. 105.
  • 52 Van Wonterghem 1992.

38For Alba Fucens, founded in 303, it has been suggested that the size of the town was quite large for a colony, since the area within the walls measured 34 hectares. This might have allowed some room for others than colonists.51 On the other hand, we have already seen that not all colonists need to have lived in the town itself, but could have settled on the territory. The temple of Hercules, who was popular throughout Italy,52 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.

  • 53 Torelli 1999, p. 38-9; Bispham 2006, p. 106-8. See also Stek 2009, p. 55-8.
  • 54 Herennius: ILLRP 88 = CIL 12.1814 = 9.3906 = ILS 4022. Herennius appears in Oscan in Pietrabbondant (...)

39Thus the presence of his temple in Alba may have favoured the economic integration of the Latin colonists and the surrounding peoples.53 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, but this does not mean that they all lived in the town, let alone that they were official colonists. Some non-Roman names are known from the Republican period, namely Atiedius, Herennius, Ovius, Papius, Tettienus, and Vibius,54but these people may have been later immigrants instead of original colonists.

  • 55 CIL 9.3813 = CIL 12.391 = Ve 228; CIL 9.3849 = 12.388 = ILLRP 286; CIL 9.3856; ILLRP 303 = AE 1953, (...)
  • 56 Letta and D’Amato 1975, p. 195-6.
  • 57 Stek 2009, p. 167, 169 n. 311. However, many of the magistrates’ names are non-Roman, which makes t (...)

40Some interesting evidence exists for the layout of the colonial landscape of Alba. Several inscriptions from the late 3rd and early 2nd centuries BC record the existence of vici on the southern shore of the Lacus Fucinus, in the area of the Marsi.55 These inscriptions record magistrates, namely duumviri and queistores. 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 nearby.56 Others have suggested that the vici were new settlements, intended to accommodate Roman settlers, 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 territory.57 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. Although the vici are located outside of the centuriated area, this would suggest that the colony’s territory extended beyond the centuriation.

  • 58 Letta and D’Amato 1975, no. 129bis. However, they assume (p. 208-14) that his veneration was not sp (...)
  • 59 CIL 9.3813 = CIL 12.391 = Ve 228; CIL 9.3849 = 12.388 = ILLRP 286; ILLRP 285 = CIL 12.387 = CIL 9.3 (...)
  • 60 Stek 2009, p. 162.
  • 61 See notes 55 and 59; also CIL 9.3847 = ILLRP 115. See Letta and D’Amato 1975, p. 200, although Stek (...)
  • 62 Letta and D’Amato 1975, p. 200.
  • 63 Stek 2009, p. 161.

41The late-3rd century dedication to Apollo, a god who also had a temple in Alba, is the first that we have for the Marsic area,58 and there also appear dedications to Valetudo and Victoria, gods which are assumed to have been spread from Rome.59 Some of the names on the inscriptions are similar to those that appear in the town of Alba itself.60 Some names on these inscriptions are considered to have been Marsic, or at least not Latin, especially the praenomina Paccius, Petro, Salvius, Statius, and Vibius, and the gentilicia Anaiedios, Magius, Staiedius, and Vettius.61 The name Magius is especially interesting, since this is thought to have a Campanian origin.62 Was this Magius a man from Campania who had received Roman citizenship and had afterwards become an official colonist in Alba?63 There is no evidence to support this idea, but it shows that the onomastic evidence is more complicated than is sometimes assumed. It also shows that the colony did have some influence over the surrounding area, whether this was part of the colony’s territory or not; either the non-Roman inhabitants actually lived in the colony’s territory, or the local magistrates adopted Latin titles for their own magistrates. Further research into the colonial territory may clarify this problem. In any case, Alba seems to have attracted many people because of its important economic functions, including non-Roman citizens.

  • 64 DH 17/18.5.1-2.
  • 65 Marchi and Sabbatini 1996, p. 111-15; Torelli 1999, p. 94-6; Sabbatini 2001, p. 69-71. Compatangelo (...)

42The 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».64 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 city.65

  • 66 Liv. 31.49.6.
  • 67 Grelle and Giardina 1993, p. 59-63.
  • 68 Crepereius: Cic. Verr. 1.30. See Suolahti 1955, p. 357. Wiseman 1971, p. 227 argues that the name w (...)

43Venusia was also, notoriously, 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 200;66 alternatively, it may be the case that many Italians had migrated into the colony over time.67 However, there is not a great deal of actual evidence for the presence of non-Roman inhabitants. After the Social War some inscriptions show Sabellian or Messapian names in the local elite, such as Crepereius, Herennius, Ovius, and Statius Raius,68 but in the period before 91 BC there is hardly any evidence for their presence.

  • 69 Fentress 2000, p. 12-13.

44A relatively well researched colony is Cosa, founded in 273. Archaeological evidence suggests that a number of 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 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 well (fig. 1).69

  • 70 Celuzza 2002a, p. 112; Celuzza 2002b, p. 121-3; Attolini 2002, p. 128; Cambi 2002, p. 139; Bradley (...)
  • 71 Attolini 2002, p. 128; Celuzza, 2002a, p. 112-13; Cambi, 2002, p, 141.

45The centuriation around Cosa stops on the left bank of the Albegna, suggesting that colonists were not settled on the other side of the river.70 The 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 Cosa.71 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.

Fig. 1 – The territory of Cosa. Areas to the north and west of the centuriated area show ‘continuità insediativa’ of local inhabitants (from A. Carandini and F. Cambi (eds.), Paesaggi d’Etruria. Valle dell’Albegna, Valle d’Oro, Valle del Chiarone, Valle del Tafone, Rome, 2002).

  • 72 Fentress and Jacques 2002, p. 124.
  • 73 Celuzza 2002a, p. 109-12; Bispham 2006, p. 102-3.
  • 74 Celuzza 2002a, p. 109. In other areas of Italy votive deposits continued into the 1st century BC, a (...)
  • 75 Celuzza 2002a, p. 105.

46In the 2nd century the Etruscan presence was still strong in the areas mentioned above: in Telamon the only language used in inscriptions until the 1st century BC was Etruscan, and some temple decorations remained Etruscan in style.72 Other decorations are more Roman in style, but their subject matter, namely the gods Hercules and Minerva, were popular in the pre-Roman period as well, so they could have appealed to both old inhabitants and colonists.73 On the other hand, the sanctuary in Telamon shows a significant decline of rich deposits after the early 3rd century, which would indicate that the local elite had suffered from the conquest.74 In the sanctuary at Ghiaccioforte Etruscan-style votive gifts, often consisting of bronze figurines, do not appear after c. 280, even though this area was apparently still settled by locals. This may show, again, that the local population had suffered economic setbacks as a result of their conquest by the Romans.75

  • 76 Torelli 1988, p. 72; 1999, p. 41. On the other hand, there is not always a clear relation between t (...)
  • 77 Bispham 2006, p. 97-102. Celuzza 2002a, p. 111 argues that votive statuettes in the ‘Latin’ style a (...)

47The 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.76 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 Cosa.77

  • 78 Celuzza 2002a, p. 109, 120-2; Erdkamp forthcoming.
  • 79 In the colonies of Thurii Copia (194), Vibo Valentia (192), Bononia (189), and Aquileia (181) equit (...)

48All this 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 estates, and that locals therefore must have lived close to the colonists’ estates, or that local labourers were used in building the colony’s city walls.78 However, there is no clear evidence that the colonists of Cosa consisted of more than one class – this practice has been attested only for the period after the Second Punic War,79 although it is likely that it occurred also in earlier periods. If there was an upper class in the colonist population, their number would have been limited and they cannot have provided work for a large number of labourers.

  • 80 Herring 2007, p. 12.
  • 81 Pedley 1990, p. 97-108, 125-6, 138-40; Cipriani et al. 1996, p. 67-76; Herring 2007, p. 11-12.

49Paestum was founded in the same year as Cosa, but developments here were very different. Contrary to the situation in Cosa, the presence of non-Roman inhabitants in Paestum seems to have been great. The city had been founded as a Greek colony in the 7th century, and had over time attracted many Italian immigrants. It is sometimes argued that the city was conquered by the Lucanians around 400 BC, but this ‘conquest’ seems to have been more like a gradual process: Greek continued to be spoken, the bouleuterion and temples were still in use, and art in Greek style was still produced.80 The Oscan immigrants quickly adapted to Greek culture: their tombs were decorated with Greek-style paintings, although showing also Oscan subjects; inscriptions in the Oscan language, but using Greek letters were produced, and Greek cults remained in use by both Greeks and Oscan immigrants.81 This, unfortunately, makes it hard to identify Oscan presence, but the fact that many Oscans remained in the territory becomes clear after the foundation of the Latin colony in 273.

  • 82 Isayev 2007, p. 115-17, 122.
  • 83 Torelli 1999, p. 17; Crawford 2006, p. 65.
  • 84 Torelli 1987, p. 52-9.
  • 85 Torelli 1987, p. 47, 62-3, 71-2; 1988, p. 71; 1999, p. 52, 61; Crawford 2006, p. 65-6.
  • 86 Torelli 1987, p. 40-1; 93-7; 1999, p. 4, 76; Crawford 2006, p. 64-5.

50In the 3rd century some things changed: the number of sites in countryside declined, pointing perhaps at new settlement patterns for the indigenous population.82 The bouleuterion was destroyed, maybe around c. 200 BC.83 The town assumed a layout more like Rome, with a saepta and diribitorium.84 However, the foundation of the colony did not mark a total break with the past. In general the colonists seem to have respected existing cults. The sanctuary of Aphrodite at Sancta Venera was redecorated in the late 3rd or early 2nd century. Other sanctuaries also remained in use, such as the temple of Athena on the forum, the temples of Apollo, Asclepius, Hercules, and the Dioscuri, that of Venus Marina, the Heraion at the mouth of the Sele River, and the rural sanctuary at Capodifiume.85 Thus, although the Greeks as an ethnic group disappeared relatively quickly, Greek culture seems to have been respected by both Oscan and Roman immigrants.86

  • 87 Rix nLu 2. See Sartori 1953, p. 102-4; Crawford 2006, p. 64. However, Cipriani et al. 1996, p. 61-2 (...)
  • 88 Many of these names are attested on coins, see Mello 1974, p. 110-25. For inscriptions, see Ceppius (...)
  • 89 Rix Lu 14, Pocc. 152. See Cipriani et al. 1996, p. 60.
  • 90 Sartori 1953, p. 102-4; Torelli 1999, p. 8.

51The colony’s coins were still Greek in design, even though they now bore the Latin legend paistano.87 Names attested in the colony are a mixture of Latin, Oscan, and Etruscan: Oscan names such as Aufidius, Ceppius, Digitius, Gavius, Granius, Helvius, Mineius, Plaetorius, Saius, Statius, Suitius, Trebius, and Vibius are mixed with Latin ones, and Etruscan ones such as Numonius, Galonius, and Lautinius.88 These Etruscans may have been people whose ancestors had moved to Campania from the 7th century onwards. Oscan was still spoken after 273: an Oscan inscription in Greek script records [S]tat[i]s [–– (–)?]es ioufei [– ––]a narei anafed brateis datas («Statis...es to Jupiter...anar erected [in return] for a favour»).89 This makes it likely that Lucanian inhabitants of Paestum continued to live in the city; some scholars even assume they were official settlers,90 although there is no evidence for this.

  • 91 Liv. Per. 12.1; Polyb. 2.19.9-12, 2.21.7-9; DH 19.13.1; Strab. 5.1.10; Oros. 3.22.13; Ap. Gall. 11, (...)
  • 92 Galsterer 1976, p. 53; Campagnoli 1999, p. 30.
  • 93 Galsterer 2006, p. 14. The actual number of settlers is not attested, but 6,000 is also attested fo (...)

52In 268 Ariminum was founded. The position of the local inhabitants, the Gallic Senones, has been the subject of much debate; according to the sources, they were all executed or expelled, and this is believed by some scholars.91 However, some archaeological evidence points to the continued presence of Senones; the necropoleis of Montefeltro, Montefortino, Cagli, Serra San Quirico, and S. Paolina di Filottrano show Gallic remains.92 The earliest centuriation, located between the Marecchia and Savio Rivers, allows room for 6,000 colonists’ plots, which would not leave space for original inhabitants to remain in the centuriated area.93

  • 94 CIL 12.2885-99. See Franchi De Bellis 1995, p. 369-71; Ortalli, 2006, p. 288-9, 297; Stek 2009, p. (...)
  • 95 Franchi De Bellis 1995, p. 387: many bronze statuettes of Hercules have been found in the area.

53The famous pocola deorum from the early period are Latial in style, both in the shape of the vases and in their decoration, which shows similarities to the atelier des petites estampilles in Rome.94 It would seem therefore that non-Roman inhabitants were not important in the town itself. On the other hand, the cult of Hercules, worshipped before the foundation of the colony,95 remained important after 268, as attested by the pocola; however, this could simply have been taken over by the colonists (see above, section 3).

  • 96 Oebel 1993, p. 55-9.
  • 97 Giorgetti 1982, p. 132.
  • 98 A 1st-century inscription records an Ovius Fregellanus; ILLRP 947 = CIL 12.2132. See Franchi De Bel (...)
  • 99 Chevallier 1983, p. 188.

54Others argue, on the contrary, that Ariminum was a multi-ethnic community, with Romans and Latins, but also Senones, Etruscans, and Umbrians living together.96 One indication of this may be the fact that in the earliest centuriation of the colony, located between the Marecchia and Savio Rivers, local toponyms are still attested, showing some continuity of the local population.97 The name Ovius, on one of the pocola, is not Roman. However, he or his ancestors may have been colonists in an earlier Latin colony, instead of local inhabitants of the area around Ariminum. One of the Ovii, for example, came from Fregellae, and may have moved from there to Ariminum.98 However, this happened not necessarily in 268, but may also have occurred after the destruction of Fregellae in 125,99 or at any other time. The evidence for the presence of non-Roman inhabitants is therefore rare, at least for the colony’s early period.

  • 100 As attested on coins, e.g. Rix nSa 5. See Buonocore 2007, p. 84. However, Cosa was also derived fro (...)
  • 101 Rix Sa 22, Ve 140.
  • 102 Diebner 1979, Is 70.
  • 103 CIL I2.3201; see La Regina 1970-1. Percennius is related to the Oscan praenomen Perkens, attested a (...)
  • 104 Humbert 1978, p. 346.
  • 105 Galsterer 1976, p. 54.
  • 106 Herius: Buonocore 2007, p. 94. In Oscan, see Rix Ap 6 (Belmonte), Cm 14 (Cumae). The Samnite Herius (...)
  • 107 Diebner 1979, p. 23, 46.

55For Aesernia, founded in 263, there is a variety of evidence showing the importance of non-Roman inhabitants. The name of the colony is derived from the Oscan name, Aisernio.100 Some non-Romans were clearly present in the colony: an Oscan inscription reads Stenis Kalaviis G(avieis) / anagtiai diíviiai / dunum deded (Stenius Calavius, son of Gavius, gave this gift to the goddess Angitia).101 Another 3rd-century inscription mentions a Decitia, a Samnite name.102 The inscription cited above, recording Samnites inquolae, dates to the 2nd century BC. The names of the magistrates in the inscription, Pomponius, Percennius, Satrius, and Marius, are non-Roman.103 It is unclear whether they were old local inhabitants,104 or that these people had moved into Aesernia only in the 2nd century.105 Inscriptions from the 1st century BC and imperial era also mention many non-Roman names, e.g. Herius, Maius, Munatius, Numerius, Paccius, Rahius, Staius, and Vibius.106 On the one hand, most of the architectural features from the 3rd century temples show similarities to Latin styles, and there is not much evidence for the production of art in local styles.107 Therefore we cannot conclude that people of Samnite descent had been living in the colony in the 3rd century.

  • 108 Laudizi 1998, p. 34.
  • 109 Gabba 1958, p. 100-1; Aprosio 2008, p. 91.
  • 110 Liv. 21.48.8-9; see also Pol. 3.69.1. Some assume he was a citizen, e.g. Guzzo 1991, 82; Lamboley 1 (...)

56The colony Brundisium was founded in 246 or 244-3. Some scholars argue that the delay in founding the colony, which occurred twenty years after the confiscation of the land, was due to resistance from the local Messapian population, who was still living here.108 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 locals.109 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 Brundisium.110

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

57Of the non-Roman names found in Republican inscriptions, many appear in Brundisium: Accaeus, Arruntius, Audius, Caesellius, Crepereius, Gavius, Gerillanus, Granius, Munatius, Novius, Numisius, Pacilius, Plaetorius, Pomponius, Rammius, Sillius, Statius, Tutorius, Vettius, and Vibius.111Many of these names are not actually Messapian, but can be traced to Oscanspeaking 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.

  • 112 Lamboley 1996, p. 486; Compatangelo 1989, p. 49; Crawford 2006, p. 65; Yntema 2009.
  • 113 Marangio 1998, p. 129-31.

58Furthermore, 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 territory.112 Coins minted by the colony show a Tarentine heros, indicating influences from Magna Graecia rather than from Rome. However, Rome did have some influence over the surrounding area: an inscription, dating from the 2nd century, reading Diovei Mourc[o] sacr[um] was found in the Messapian town of Muro Maurizio, which shows that Latin was now adopted by the local population.113 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.

  • 114 Liv. 28.11.10-11. See Gualazzini 1985, p. 17, 38, 41.
  • 115 Marini Calvani 1985, p. 268.

59Placentia and Cremona were founded in 218 and resettled in 190. In the first years of the colony there seem to have been problems with locals still remaining in the area nearby: «Deputations from Placentia and Cremona...came to complain of the invasion and destroying of their country by their neighbours, the Gauls (ab accolis Gallis).»114 These accolae Galli were clearly not living in the territories of the colonies, but in the areas surrounding them. Certainly after the refoundation of these colonies in 190, it seems as if local inhabitants only remained in the marginal areas of the territory. The Celtic Insubres disappear from the archaeological record after the 3rd century; local manufacture, which flourished in 2nd century, shows elements characteristic of Etruscan, Latin, and Campanian art of the 3rd-1st centuries.115

  • 116 Plut. Pomp. 6.3.2; Cic. Att. 9.7; Caes. BC 1.24.4, 1.26.2. See Suolahti 1955, p. 370.
  • 117 CIL 11.341, 6709.13. See Chevallier 1983, p. 183.
  • 118 Tac. Hist. 3.33.
  • 119 Ardovino 2003, p. 94-5.

60However, some evidence shows that non-Roman inhabitants may have played a role in these two colonies, although they were not necessarily locals. A man with an Oscan praenomen and gentilicium was N. Magius, a praefectus fabrum in 49 BC.116 Another non-Roman name is Arruntius, of Etruscan origins rather than Celtic.117 This may indicate that Italian allies were admitted into Latin colonies, at least after the Second Punic War. An important indication for this is that in Cremona a sanctuary of Mefitis is attested,118 a goddess mostly venerated in southern Italy, e.g. in the sanctuary at Rossano di Vaglio. Her presence in Cremona may show that the colonists here came from southern Italy; these people may have been included in the second foundation in 190 BC, at a time when more Latin colonies became open to Italians.119

  • 120 Chevallier 1983, p. 184-6, 295.
  • 121 Mutto: CIL 5.1412, 8473; ILLRP 572 = CIL 12.2191 = 5.1890. See Wiseman 1971, no. 437; Bandelli 1983 (...)
  • 122 Panciera 1981, p. 120-1.
  • 123 Aufidius: Bandelli 1983, no. 21. Raius: CIL 5.973. Statius: Bandelli 1983, p. 23. Vettius: Bandelli (...)
  • 124 Maselli Scotti, Giovannini and Ventura 2003, p. 655-7. However, they argue on p. 661-5 that Gallic (...)

61Aquileia, a Latin colony founded in 181, seems to have been a multi-ethnic community before and after its colonization. It was an important trade port in the pre-Roman period, as reflected in many inscriptions by people with Greek or eastern names.120 The local elite included people with Venetic and Celtic names, such as Mutto and Tappo, as well as Daza, who may have been Illyrian or from southern Italy.121 An inscription from Teate Marrucinorum records a Muttilius who says he goes ad avos (‘to his ancestors’) in Aquileia.122 This may mean that his ancestors had moved from Aquileia to Teate, and he now returned to his ancestral region. Other non-Roman names are Aufidius, Raius, Statius, Vettius, and Vibius.123 Non-Roman gods were also still venerated after 181; Etruscan-style votives have been found dating from the 3rd and 2nd centuries.124 Again, the evidence suggests that some non-Roman people, either of local descent or from other areas of Italy, were present in Aquileia; whether they were drafted as official colonists, however, cannot be determined.

  • 125 There is some confusion about the status of Luna and Luca. The most likely solution is that Luca wa (...)
  • 126 Ciampoltrini 2005, p. 48-9, 54-9.
  • 127 Gambaro 1999, p. 118-20.
  • 128 Gambaro 1999, p. 115-16.
  • 129 Ciampoltrini 2005, p. 48-9, 54-9, 64.

62Luca was founded in 180.125 It may be that the colony was open to allies as well, especially from Pisae, who had invited the Romans to settle the colony. Some local inhabitants are attested in the epigraphic record: C. Enastellius in 176 AD may have been related to the Ligurian Enistale who is attested on a cup from the 3rd century BC. Although the imperial inscription is very much later than the Republican era, the coincidence is interesting.126 Many Ligurian settlements show continuity after the foundation of the colony: Marlia was located in the centuriated territory of Luca, and in the mid-2nd century the population still used Ligurian burial customs, ceramic traditions, and clothing habits.127 Several necropoleis in the marginal area around the colony’s territory, for example those north of the Magra River, also show continuation of indigenous burial customs. In the more mountainous areas of the Valdinievole and around Pistoia many settlements continued into the 2nd and 1st centuries BC.128 Several toponyms show Ligurian influence as well: names ending in –elio, –eglio, or –iglio are most likely Ligurian in origin.129 Some local inhabitants therefore seem to have remained, but again we know nothing of their legal status.

  • 130 Liv. 39.2, 40.16-17, 41.12, 14, 18-19; 42.8.22, 28.
  • 131 Marcucetti 1995, p. 204-7; Gambaro 1998, p. 239-41.
  • 132 Marcucetti 1995, p. 21.

63In the case of Luna, founded in 177, the literary sources record the deportation of the local inhabitants, the Ligures Apuani, to other areas of Italy.130 However, not all locals seem to have been expelled. There are many toponyms showing Ligurian influence, especially in the marginal mountainous territory; in the plains Roman names are more widespread.131 The territory of the Apuani who were expelled, and which was not distributed to the colonists in Luna, was divided between Luna and Pisae; Pisae was a settlement of Etruscanized Ligurians, who thus lived close to the Roman settlers in Luna.132 As in the case of Cosa and Ariminum, therefore, the local inhabitants seem to have been largely marginalized, and there is no evidence for their presence in the colony itself.

64In conclusion, we can see that there is quite a lot of variation within the category of Latin colonies. Some show much evidence for the presence of non-Romans, others hardly any, while some even reveal evidence for the expulsion of local people at the moment of the colony’s foundation. This may suggest that non-Romans were not as a rule included in the official settler body: for the majority of colonies the evidence is rather scarce, and if it was a general policy of the Roman state to include them we might expect a bit more evidence of their presence. Furthermore, if they were included as a rule, it is unlikely that there would not have been so much variation from place to place; in that case, we would expect a more evenly spread distribution of the amount and the type of evidence available, rather than the great variation occurring now.

Roman colonies

65From the survey above, it appears that in many Latin colonies non-Roman inhabitants were in close contact with the settlers, either as official colonists or incolae living in the colonial territory. In some Roman citizen colonies similar patterns of contact between Romans and non-Romans seem to have taken place.

  • 133 See for all these names CIL 12.2678-706 = ILLRP 728-42. For Arruntius see also CIL 6.12447, 10.6023 (...)
  • 134 Cato fr. 83; Gell. NA 3.7; Front. Strat. 1.5.15, 4.5.10.

66Minturnae was one of the first Roman colonies, founded in 296. The only evidence for the presence of non-Romans comes from names with a non-Roman in origin. Local families with non-Roman names were Arruntius, Ateidius, Caedicius, Corellius, Epidius, Helvi(di)us, Hirrius, Lusius, Maius, Minius, Naevius, Numerius, Numisius, Oppius, Paccius, Pacuvius, Pomponius, Pontius, Rahius, Rammius, Rufrius, Salvius, Silius, Stahius, Stenius, Trebius, and Vibius.133 Caedicius is attested in various other towns in the surrounding area, for example Suessa, itself a colony since 314 BC.134

  • 135 Livi 2006, p. 105-13; on p. 112-13 she argues that the heads found in the votive deposit are both v (...)

67The extra-urban sanctuary of Marica, a goddess of the local Aurunci, remained in use; exvotos and architectural terracottas dating from the 7th century BC to the Augustan period have been found. The temple was rebuilt or redecorated in the second century BC, but the palmettes used in this decoration were similar to those of the archaic temple, attesting to continuity in its use.135 A large number of non-Roman citizens therefore seems to have lived in Minturnae, although again their legal status is unknown.

  • 136 Caes. BAfr. 71; Cic. Verr. 2.5.154; Plu. Sull. 37.3, Mar. 35.8, 37.2, 40.1; Ap. BC 1.60-2; VM 9.3.8 (...)
  • 137 ILLRP 518 = CIL 12.698 = 10.1781. Numerius is also attested in ILLRP 231 = CIL 12.1618 = 10.1589 an (...)
  • 138 Numerius: ILLRP 111 (Panciera 1992) = ILLRP 561 = CIL 12.1619-20, 10.1573; AE 1988, 294. Vibius Ovi (...)

68In Puteoli, founded in 194, many non-Roman names are attested. The most important family were the Granii of Oscan descent, who are attested as members of the town elite and wealthy traders in various sources from the 1st century BC.136 The Lex de pariete faciundis, dated «90 years after the foundation of the colony» (i.e. 105 BC) gives as one of the duumviri Numerius Fufidius, son of Numerius; both praenomen and gentilicium are of Oscan origin. As praedes (guarantors) for the work are mentioned, among others, Blossius, Tetteius, and Granius.137 Other non-Roman names are Numerius, Ovius, Pontius, Suettius, and Vibius.138 These are all Oscan names, and again this may show that non-Romans were still important in the colony. The continued importance of some local elites suggests that they may have been included in the colony as official settlers; this was common in other colonies founded after the Second Punic War.

  • 139 This is argued especially by Coarelli 2000, p. 196-204, who argues that many of the gods venerated (...)
  • 140 Campagnoli 1999, p. 32. Contra: Harvey 2006, p. 128.
  • 141 As attested in the Tabulae Iguvinae, where ukriper Fisiu is mentioned several times, a.o. Ia, 11-12 (...)
  • 142 Ariminum: CIL 6.133.
  • 143 Cresci Marrone and Mennella 1984, p. 48, 53, 95-6, 108, 123, 149-50.

69At Pisaurum, founded in 184, an important body of evidence is formed by the dedications to various gods from the so-called lucus Pisaurensis. It is likely that before 184 some Roman settlement had already taken place, probably as a result of the viritane distributions which took place in Picenum in 232,139 or as a result of settlements carried out by the conqueror of the area, M’. Curius Dentatus, after 268. One of the dedicators in the lucus, Mania Curia, was a member of the gens of Dentatus, which may show that settlement occurred shortly after the conquest.140It has been argued that some of the gods venerated in the lucus were specifically associated with integration, such as Fides (who was also venerated in Ariminum). Fisiu-Sacio was an important god in Umbria as well,141 and this may show a connection with the indigenous inhabitants. Diana, whose cult is attested both in the lucus Pisaurense and at Ariminum,142 was an important ‘common’ cult of various peoples in Nemi as well. There may have been a number of different ethnic groups in the colony (colonists as well as locals, and/or colonists from different backgrounds), and conciliatory deities are therefore argued to have played an important role. The cult of Liber was especially widespread in eastern Cisalpina; this may show the persistence of a local preference for this cult, and thus the continued presence of local inhabitants.143 Thus the predominance of gods connected to ‘integration’ may show the continued presence of local inhabitants in Pisaurum.

  • 144 Harvey 2006, p. 126. Some, e.g. Cresci Marrone and Mennella 1984, p. 119, Bandelli 2005, p. 25, and (...)
  • 145 ILLRP 791 = CIL 12.2127 = 11.6363. See Cresci Marrone and Mennella 1984, p. 280-4.

70Some non-Roman names are present from an early period: Sta(tios) Tetio(s), mentioned in one of the inscriptions from the lucus, has an Oscan praenomen and gentilicium.144 Another important indication for the presence of non-Romans in Pisaurum is an inscription from the 2nd half of the 1st century BC, in Etruscan and Latin: [L(ucius) Caf]atius L(uci) f(ilius) Ste(llatina) haruspe[x] fulguriator. [C]afates L(a)r(u) L(a)r(ual) nets´vis trutnvt frontac.145 One of the colonists in Pisaurum may have been the poet Ennius from southern Italy, who received citizenship though inclusion in a colony. This may show again the inclusion of Italian allies as official settlers in colonies in the period shortly after the Second Punic War.146

71We may conclude that some of the Roman colonies included people of non-Roman origins. However, in most cases it is not certain that these people had been living here since the foundation, similar to what we have seen for the Latin colonies. In colonies founded after the second Punic War they may have been included from the foundation, but in other cases their presence may be due to immigration.

Table: Overview of different types of evidence and their appearance in the colonies

Table: Overview of different types of evidence and their appearance in the colonies

– – = strong evidence for expulsion of non-Roman inhabitants
– = some evidence for expulsion of non-Roman inhabitants blank: no evidence
+ = some evidence for the presence of non-Roman inhabitants
++ = strong evidence for the presence of non-Roman inhabitants

Motivations for the presence of non-romans

72From this overview we can see that there were remarkable variations in the treatment of the local population when a colony was founded. In some cases, such as Cosa, Ariminum, and Luna, the Roman state seems to have actively sought to separate colonists and locals, either by deporting the locals altogether, or by having them move to the margins of the colonial territory. In other cases, such as Paestum, Brundisium, Aquileia, Minturnae, and Puteoli, the colony seems to have served as a meeting point for non-Romans and colonists. This of course raises the question of why such variations occurred. At first sight there does not seem to be a marked development through time or according to region. Cosa and Paestum were founded in the same year, but underwent widely different developments, as did Luna and Aquileia.

  • 146 See Roselaar 2010, p. 53-4 on the treatment of the Cisalpine Gauls.

73These differences may be explained partially by the Romans’ view of the defeated population. Some opponents, who the Romans apparently considered more dangerous than others, were deported from their original place of residence. The best documented case is Liguria, from where in 187 a large number of people were deported to southern Italy. Other enemies were, according to the sources, simply slaughtered, like the Senones and the Gallic tribes in Cisalpina. However, even in such cases some locals still remained; we have seen that archaeological evidence of Senonic culture was still visible in the marginal areas around Ariminum, that Boii still lived around Cremona, and that Ligurians were still present around Luna. However, when the defeated enemy was considered particularly dangerous, the separation between the colony’s territory and that of the remaining local population seems to have been more strictly defined: the local inhabitants were only allowed to stay in marginal areas outside of the land assigned to the colony. Gauls, Senones, and Ligurians were all enemies who had offered considerable resistance against Roman occupation, and it may have been felt that it would have been unsafe if they remained in close contact with the Roman settlers.146

  • 147 Zon. 8.7.
  • 148 Pol. 10.1.9. See Aprosio 2008, p. 89-90.

74In cases where non-Roman presence is attested, this seems to have been mostly stimulated by economic considerations. Aquileia, for example, was a flourishing trade community before it was settled as a colony, and already had a mixed population of Gauls, Veneti, and Etruscans. If all these people had been expelled to marginal areas, the Romans would have lost valuable trade opportunities, and they preferred to let the new settlers profit from the trade networks already established by the locals. In the case of Brundisium, Zonaras states: «Next [the Romans] made an expedition into the district now called Calabria.... They wished to get possession of Brundisium; for the place had a fine harbour, and for the traffic with Illyricum and Greece there was an approach and landing-place of such a character that vessels would sometimes come to land and put out to sea wafted by the same wind. They captured it, and sent colonists both to this point and to others as well».147Indeed, Brundisium remained a very important commercial centre with a mixed population; it would have been unwise to forego the benefits of trade just to punish the local population.148Economic considerations therefore seem to have played an important role in the decision by the Romans as to the fate of the local population; if the economic welfare of the Roman state was served better by leaving the locals in place, this was usually considered the better course of action. Furthermore, those colonies that developed into important trade centres, such as Brundisium, were attractive for immigration, thus leading to a large presence of non-Roman people in these towns.

75There does not seem to be much difference between Latin and Roman colonies in this respect. As I have argued above, Roman colonies are unlikely to have contained non-Romans as official settlers, but the development of some of these colonies suggests that they were allowed to remain in the territory or to move into these colonies. In Roman colonies, as well as in Latin, the evidence for the presence of non-Romans is strongest in the colonies that developed into important trade centres, especially Brundisium, Aquileia, Puteoli, and Minturnae. It would make sense that the Romans would not object to the presence of allies if these people contributed to the economic welfare of the colonies. Those colonies which did not become flourishing commercial centres did not attract as many people, and therefore did not develop into the multi-ethnic communities that some colonies became.

76This suggests, however, that the non-Roman inhabitants attested in colonies that were economically important, whether Latin or Roman, only moved in after they had developed into prosperous centres, because they had been attracted by the commercial opportunities these towns had to offer. In some cases, such as Brundisium, the town was already important before its foundation as a colony, and so the local population may simply have remained when the colony was created. Other colonies, like Puteoli and Minturnae, only developed into prospering centres later on, and would therefore not have been attractive from the beginning.

77Only for a few colonies do we have a reasonable amount of evidence for the presence of non-Romans. For others there is hardly any evidence, and for others it is likely that locals were expelled from the colonies’ territories. This variety between colonies in the treatment of non-Romans makes it unlikely that there was an official, set policy of the Roman state with regard to these people. The state is more likely to have decided on its policy as each case demanded. Therefore, most non-Romans that are attested in colonies were not official settlers in these towns, at least not before the 3rd century BC.

Contacts between colonists and non-romans

  • 149 See e.g. Keay and Terrenato (eds.), 2001; Jehne and Pfeilschifter (eds.), 2006; Roselaar (ed.), for (...)

78If we can accept that in some cases non-Romans lived in close proximity to Roman settlers, then the question remains how these people met each other in their daily lives, and thus how mutual influence could have occurred. In this section I will make some suggestions as to how such contacts could have occurred and have influenced cultural change in Italy. This will show how colonies could have fulfilled their ‘Romanizing’ role. Some recent work has been done on this issue,149but further research is necessary.

  • 150 Roselaar forthcoming a; see Cos¸kun 2009, p. 39-46.
  • 151 Cic. Verr. 2.4.93.
  • 152 Ortalli 2006, p. 287.

79A first obvious point of contact between Romans and non-Romans was trade. If people lived close to each other, it would make sense that they would trade their surplus products with each other. It is often thought that the fact that allies did not possess the ius commercii would have formed an obstacle for them to trade with Romans. However, I have argued elsewhere that this right was far less important in trade between Romans and non-Romans than is usually assumed.150Therefore it may be assumed that if Romans lived together with non-citizens, trade occurred on a daily basis. Cicero, for example, claims that at Agrigentum «great numbers of Roman citizens [...] live and trade in that town among the Agrigentes in the greatest harmony».151Clearly Romans had moved to Agrigentum for purposes of trade, and it seems as if some had settled there permanently. We may assume that this happened more often; in the case of Ariminum, for example, it may be that some unofficial migration to the area had already occurred before any official settlement had taken place.152However, integration through unofficial migration (i.e. not organized by the state, as in the case of colonization and viritane distribution) likely took place through different mechanisms than occurred in state-led migration, and therefore deserves separate treatment.

  • 153 Regoli 2002, p. 148.

80The involvement of Italian elites in the economy of Italy and the Mediterranean is well established. It is now recognized that many large estates producing for the market were owned by Italian elites. In Cosa, for example, the presence of people of non-Roman descent, who formed part of the local elite, is attested by names such as the Titii, Gavii, and Pacuvii, who owned figlinae (brick factories) and produced wine in the territory.153It is clear that Italian elites played a very important role in trade outside Italy, especially in the East, but it is not fully understood how the wealth they acquired here was used within Italy; further research may shed light on their position in Mediterranean trade and how this was conducive to their integration in the Roman state. For example, trade between Roman and Italian elites may have been conducive to further integration, and, for instance, have led to intermarriage.

  • 154 Arslan 1991, p. 461 for Ariminum; in general Patterson 2006.

81Marriage between Roman settlers and non-Romans may have taken place in colonies on a regular basis.154 Marriage between Romans and non-citizens was in principle limited by the absence of conubium between the two parties; children from such marriages would not be acknowledged as legitimate heirs of citizens, and therefore could not inherit. Whereas in the case of trade, the absence of commercium may not have played a large role in daily business, the absence of conubium seems to have had more serious consequences. Nevertheless, it may be that some colonists were not concerned about such limitations, and formed relationships with noncitizens living nearby. Further study of marriage patterns between non-Romans and colonists may clarify this problem.

  • 155 Cic. Off. 1.34.125.
  • 156 Lex Col. Gen. ch. 95: allowed to serve as witnesses in lawsuits; 103: liable for military service; (...)

82For involvement of non-colonist inhabitants in the daily politics of colonies we have no Republican evidence. Cicero suggests that incolae did not have much to do with local politics: «As for the foreigner or the resident alien, it is his duty to attend strictly to his own concerns, not to pry into other people’s business, and under no condition to meddle in the politics of a country not his own.»155However, in the colonial laws of the 1st century BC, such as the Lex Coloniae Genetivae Iuliae Ursonensis, incolae had some rights and duties towards the colony they lived in: they were liable for the same local munera as official colonists, such as taxes, military service, and labour, but also had many of the same rights as the colonists.156

  • 157 Rix Po 39-40 (Ve 29-30); CIL 4.48. See Cooley 2002, p. 82.

83However, they were not always allowed to vote, which would have limited their participation in local politics. On the other hand, if non-Romans had lived together with official colonists for a long time, we may assume that various ties of friendship and family relations had been formed, and this may have given them informal ways of influencing the political decisions of the local magistrates and senate. In either case contacts between them and the official colonists would be conducive to integration between Romans and Italians. Unfortunately, there is no decisive evidence for the involvement of non-colonists in 1st colonial politics before the century BC. In Pompeii, a colony of the Sullan era, such involvement is securely attested. There are several inscriptions in Oscan referring to the elections for the office of IIIIner (= IIIIvir). This shows that the Oscan inhabitants of Pompeii participated in local politics and were called upon to vote in the local elections. A man named Herennius, apparently of Oscan descent, ran for this office, and was promoted by inscriptions in Oscan and Latin.157

  • 158 Torelli 1999, p. 145.

84As for religious contacts, we have already pointed out that in various cases local temples remained in use after a colony had been founded. We have seen that the temple at Telamon near Cosa seems to have been occupied by local inhabitants even after the colony was founded in 273, and the temple here remained Etruscan in style, even when it was redecorated after 273. It is not clear who commissioned the decorative reliefs – Etruscans or Romans – but in any case the temple would have been on the border between territory used by Romans and that used by Etruscans, allowing both groups access to it.158 Continuity of pre-Roman temples is attested in Luceria and Paestum as well. These places of worship may have formed another point of contact where colonists and non-Romans could meet each other. If, for example, the priests of the temple were part of the colonist body, then all inhabitants would have had to contact them in order to sacrifice; conversely, non-Romans may have remained on duty as priests, and the Roman colonists would then have to deal with them.

  • 159 Cic. Clu. 14.40.
  • 160 See Bonomi Ponzi 2006, p. 115-28 on the production of exvotos and terracottas in the sanctuary of M (...)

85Religious activities also carried with them a large economic circuit of trade in votive objects, design and building of temples etc., of which we unfortunately have only a very limited view. It may be that non-Romans played an important role in, for example, extracting local stone for temple building, producing and trading in votive statuettes, providing religious services such as divination, et cetera. For example, Cicero mentions «a man of Ancona, Lucius Clodius, a travelling quack (pharmacopolam circum-foraneum), who had come by accident at that time to Larinum», who could only stay there for a short time, «because he had many more market towns (fora) to visit».159This remark only gives us a small glimpse into what must have been a fairly complex ‘religious economy’; such informal contacts between various towns must have been quite common, and had some effects on the integration of Italy.160

Conclusion

86From the above it is clear that the presence of non-Roman citizens varied widely from colony to colony. Evidence for their presence occurs in many colonies, even if its interpretation is often problematic. We have seen that for many colonies there is in fact not a great deal of evidence for the presence of non-Romans – in some cases, such as Cosa and Ariminum, the evidence even points at a spatial separation between Romans and non-Romans, at least at the foundation stages.

87For others there are some attestations of Italians, but there is no indication that they were admitted as official settlers, i.e. colonists. Only in a few colonies, such as Brundisium, Paestum, Aquileia, Puteoli, and Minturnae we find early evidence for the presence of locals from the colonial foundation onwards; however, in the 2nd century BC the Romans were more wiling to admit non-Romans as official colonists, so for colonies founded in this period, their inclusion was most likely common. It is striking that the presence of non-Romans is most strongly attested in those colonies that developed into prospering trade communities, mostly in the 2nd century, which strengthens the idea that these people moved here only after these towns started to flourish, rather than had been living here from their foundation.

88This suggests that allies were not included in colonies as official colonists. If they had been, we would expect their influence to be much more visible 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: if in some cases there is evidence for actual expulsion, it would be unlikely that in general they were admitted as official colonists.

89However, even if Italians were not official colonists, they could have lived in close proximity to the colonists in the colonial landscape, and contacts between them must have occurred on a much larger scale than the traditional image of expulsion would allow, for purposes such as trade, marriage, and religious festivals. This would have important consequences for our image of the process of the ‘Romanization’ of Italy. Whereas 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, a model which supposes more widespread contacts between Romans and Italians would be better suitable to explain in which contexts these two groups came into contact with each other.

  • 161 Bispham 2006.

90In the case of trade it is readily explicable how contacts for this purpose would have contributed to the spread of Latin as a common language, and, for example, Roman coinage, weights, and measurement systems. The adoption of other cultural elements, such as ‘Roman’-style architecture and artwork, is more difficult to reconstruct. Latin colonies do seem to have been some kind of Roman cultural model, even if it goes too far to assume that they were all ‘little copies of Rome’.161However, in many colonies public buildings modelled on those of Rome only appear in the 2nd century BC; in the same period the imitation of such ‘Latin’ models starts to occur also outside the colonial territory mostly occurred; for example, monumental temples were built in many Italian sanctuaries. Many Latin colonies do not seem to have been ‘vehicle[s] of strong Romanization’ shortly after their foundation.

91In this article I hope to have shown how various types of evidence can be combined to shed light onto the role of colonies in the Romanization of Italy. I argue that future research should focus on the exact ‘contact points’ between Romans and Italians. By investigating in which contexts Romans and Italians met each other in their daily lives, we may be able to explain how such contacts may have encouraged Romanization. Another issue that needs clarification is the role of viritane distributions of land and unofficial migration in the Romanization of Italy. Traditional scholarship presents colonization as a state-regulated process, in which movements of Roman and Latin settlers were determined by the state. However, we get glimpses of unofficial migration, as in the example of Agrigentum cited above. A related issue is the settlement pattern that appeared in colonies, viritane land distributions, and other areas where Romans and indigenous inhabitants may have lived in close proximity. People are likely to interact mostly with their close neighbours, so if various groups lived close together, this would have stimulated integration. We have seen that in the case of Alba, recent archaeological research shows some fascinating possibilities for interaction, but research on settlement patterns shortly after the Roman conquest has only just begun.

92In short, this article has only been able to identify some crucial issues that we must address if we are to fully understand the processes of integration between Romans and Italians and the process of the Romanization of Italy in the Republican era. I have indicated ways in which we may attempt to solve these issues, but it is clear that a great amount of work still needs to be undertaken.

Haut de page

Bibliographie

Adams, J. N., The regional diversification of Latin, 200 BCAD 600, Cambridge, 2007.

Antonacci Sanpaolo, E., L’archeologia del culto tra Luceria e Tiati: le forme del simbolismo nella stipe di Belvedere, in E. Antonacci Sanpaolo (ed.), Lucera. Topografia storica, archeologia, arte, Bari, 1999, p. 29-54.

Aprosio, M., Archeologia dei paesaggi a Brindisi dalla romanizzazione al Medioevo, Bari, 2008.

Ardovino, A. M., L’umiliazione di Flaminio e la fondazione di Cremona, in P. Tozzi (ed.), Storia di Cremona, Cremona, 2003, p. 84-95.

Arslan, E., I Transpadani, in S. Moscati (ed.), I Celti, Milan, 1991, p. 461-470.

Attolini, I., Heba/La centuriazione di Heba, 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. 126-131.

Bandelli, G., 1983. Per una storia delle classe dirigente di Aquileia repubblicana, in Les «bourgeoisies» municipales italiennes aux iie et ier siècle av. J.-C., Naples, 1983, p. 175-203.

Bandelli, G., 1988. Ricerche sulla colonizzazione romana della Gallia Cisalpina. Le fase iniziali e il caso aquileiese, Roma-Trieste.

Bandelli, G., La conquista dell’ager Gallicus e il problema della colonia Aesis, in Aquileia nostra, 76, 2005, p. 13-54.

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

Bispham, E., From Asculum to Actium. The municipalization of Italy from the Social War to Augustus, Oxford, 2007. Bonomi Ponzi, L., Il santuario di Monte Torre Maggiore, in C. Angelelli and L. Bonomi Ponzi (eds.), Terni-Interamna Nahars. Nascita e sviluppo di una città alla luce delle più recenti ricerche archeologiche, Rome, 2006, p. 109-128.

Bradley, G. J., Ancient Umbria: state, culture, and identity in central Italy from the Iron Age to the Augustan era, Oxford, 2000.

Bradley, G. J., Colonization and identity in republican Italy, in J.-P. Wilson and G. J. Bradley (eds.), Greek and Roman colonization: origins, ideologies and interactions, Swansea, 2006, p. 161-187.

Bradley, G. J., Romanization. The end of the peoples of Italy?, in G. J. Bradley, E Isayev and C. Riva (eds.), Ancient Italy. Regions without boundaries, Exeter, 2007, p. 295-322.

Broadhead, W., 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.

Brown, F. E., Cosa. The making of a Roman town, Ann Arbor, 1980.

Brunt, P. A., Italian manpower, 225 B. C.-A. D. 14, Oxford, 1971.

Buonocore, M., Theodor Mommsen e l’epigrafia latina di Aesernia, in H. Solin and F. Di Donato (eds.), Identità e cultura del Sannio. Storia, epigrafia e archeologia a Venafro a nell’alta Valle del Volturno, Benevento, 2007, p. 79-120.

Cambi, F., La casa del colono e il paesaggio (III-II secolo 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. 137-145.

Campagnoli, P., La bassa valla del Foglia e il territorio di Pisaurum in età romana, Bologna, 1999.

Celuzza, M., 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 2002a, p. 103-113.

Celuzza, M., Le prefetture e le colonie. Territori e centuriazioni, in A. Carandini and F. Cambi (eds.), Paesaggi d’Etruria. Valle dell’Albegna, Valle d’Oro, Valle del Chiarone, Valle del Tafone, Rome, 2002b, p. 113-123.

Chevallier, R., La romanisation de la Celtique du Pô, Rome, 1983.

Ciampoltrini, G., Culture in contatto. Etruschi, Liguri, Romani nella Valle del Serchio fra iv e ii secolo a.C., in G. Ciampoltrini (ed.), I Liguri della Valle del Serchio tra Etruschi e Romani. Nuovi prospettive di valorizzazione, Lucca, 2005, p. 15-66.

Cipriani, M., E. Greco, F. Longo and A. Pontrandolfo, The Lucanians in Paestum, Paestum, 1996.

Coarelli, F., La fondazione di Luni. Problemi storici ed archeologici, in Atti del Convegno : studi Lunensi e prospettive sull’occidente romano, 1985-7, p. 17-36.

Coarelli, F., Minturnae, Rome, 1989.

Coarelli, F., 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.

Coarelli, F., Il lucus Pisaurensis e la romanizzazione dell’Ager Gallicus, in C. Bruun (ed.), The Roman Middle Republic : Politics, religion and historiography c. 400-133 B. C. Rome, 2000, p. 195-205.

Compatangelo, R., Un cadastre de pierre. Le Salento romain. Paysage et structures agraires, Paris, 1989.

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

Cooley, A. E., The survival of Oscan in Roman Pompeii, in A. E. Cooley (ed.), Becoming Roman, writing Latin? Literacy and epigraphy in the Roman West, Portsmouth RI, 2002, p. 77-86.

Cornell, T. J., The beginnings of Rome. Italy and Rome from the Bronze Age to the Punic Wars (c. 1000-264 BC), London-New York, 1995.

Coşkun, A., Großzügige Praxis der Bürgerrechtsvergabe in Rome? Zwischen Mythos und Wirklichkeit, Mainz-Stuttgart, 2008.

Coşkun, A., 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.

Crawford, M. H., Italy and Rome, in JRS, 71, 1981, p. 153-160.

Crawford, M. H., Coinage and money under the Roman Republic. Italy and the Mediterranean economy, London, 1985.

Crawford, M. H., From Poseidonia to Paestum via the Lucanians, in J.-P. Wilson and G. J. Bradley (eds.), Greek and Roman colonization : origins, ideologies and interactions, Swansea, 2006, p. 59-72.

Crawford, M. H., The Mamertini, Alfius and Festus, in J. Dubouloz and S. Pittia (eds.), La Sicile de Cicéron, Lectures des Verrines, Franche-Comté, 2007, p. 273-279.

Cresci Marrone, G. and G. Mennella, Pisaurum I : le iscrizioni della colonia, Pisa, 1984.

Dall’Aglio, P. L. and I. Di Cocco, Pesaro romana : archeologia e urbanistica, Bologna, 2004.

Dally, O., Canosa, località San Leucio. Untersuchungen zu Akkulturationsprozessen vom 6. bis zum 2. Jh. v. Chr. Am Beispiel eines daunischen Heiligtums, Heidelberg, 2002.

De Benedittis, G., M. Matteini Chiari and C. Terzani, Molise : repertorio delle iscrizioni Latini : Aesernia, s.l., 1999.

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

De Cazanove, O., Some thoughts on the ‘religious romanisation’ of Italy before the Social War, in E. Bispham and C. Smith (eds.), Religion in archaic and republican Rome and Italy. Evidence and experience, Edinburgh, 2000b, p. 71-76.

Diebner, S., Aesernia-Venafrum. Untersuchungen zu den römischen Steindenkmälern zweier Landstädte Mittelitaliens, Rome, 1979.

Erdkamp, P. P. M., Soldiers, Roman citizens, and Latin colonists in mid-republican Italy, in BICS, forthcoming.

Fentress, E, 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, E. 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.

Franchi de Bellis, A., I pocola riminesi, in A. Calbi and G. Susini (eds.), Pro poplo arimenese, Faenza, 1995, p. 367-391.

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

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

Galsterer, H., Herrschaft und Verwaltung im republikanischen Italien. Die Beziehungen Roms zu den italischen Gemeinden vom Latinerfreuden 338 v. Chr. bis zum Bundesgenossenkrieg 91 v. Chr., Munich, 1976.

Galsterer, H., Coloni, Galli ed autoctoni. Le vicende della colonia di Rimini ai suoi albori, in F. Lenzi (ed.), Rimini e l’Adriatico nell’età delle guerre puniche, Bologna, 2006, p. 11-17.

Gambaro, L., L’insediamento di Filattiera-Sorano nel quadro delle conoscenze topografiche sulla Lunigiana romana, in E. Giannichedda (ed.), Filattiera-Sorano: l’insediamento di età romana e tardoantica. Scavi 1986-1995, Florence, 1998, p. 238-242.

Gambaro, L., La Liguria costiera tra III e I secolo a.C. Una lettura archeologica della romanizzazione, Mantova, 1999.

Gargola, D. J., Lands, laws, and gods. Magistrates and ceremony in the regulation of public lands in Republican Rome, Chapel Hill, 1995.

Giorgetti, D., Elementi per una geografia storica del Cesenate in epoca romana, in G. Susini (ed.), Storia di Cesena I: l’evo antico, Rimini, 1982, p. 129-148.

Glinister, F., Sacred rubbish, in E. Bispham and C. Smith (eds.), Religion in archaic and Republican Rome and Italy. Evidence and experience, Edinburgh. 2000, p. 54-70.

Glinister, F., Veiled and unveiled: uncovering Roman influence in Hellenistic Italy, in M. Gleba and H. Becker (eds.), Votives, places and rituals in Etruscan religion. Studies in honor of Jean MacIntosh Turfa, Leiden-Boston, 2009, p. 193-215.

Grassi, M. T., I Celti in Italia, Milan, 1991.

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

Guazzalini, U., Aspetti meno noti della fondazione di Cremona, in: G. Pontiroli (ed.), Cremona romana, Cremona, 1985, p. 3-48.

Guzzo, P. G., Documentazioni ed ipotesi archeologiche per la più antica romanizzazione di Bari, Brindisi, Taranto, in J. Mertens and R. Lambrechts (eds.), Comunità indigene e problemi della romanizzazione nell’Italia centro-meridionale (ive-iiie sec. av. C.), 1991, Brussels-Rome, p. 77-88.

Haas, O., Messapische Studien: Inschriften mit Kommentar, Skizze einer Laut- und Formenlehre, Heidelberg, 1962.

Harvey, P. B., Religion and memory at Pisaurum, in C. E. Schultz and P. B. Harvey (eds.), Religion in republican Italy, Cambridge, 2006, p. 117-136.

Herring, E., Identity crises in SE Italy in the 4th c. B. C.: Greek and native perceptions of the threat to their cultural identities, in R. Roth and J. Keller (eds.), Roman by integration: dimensions of group identity in material culture and text, Portsmouth (RI), 2007, p. 11-25.

Humbert, M., Municipium et civitas sine suffragio. L’organisation de la conquête jusqu’à la guerre sociale, Rome, 1978.

Isayev, E., Inside ancient Lucania: dialogues in history and archaeology, London, 2007.

Jehne, M. and R. Pfeilschrifter (eds.), Herrschaft ohne Integration? Rom und Italien in republikanischer Zeit, Frankfurt am Main, 2006.

Keay, S. and N. Terrenato (eds.), Italy and the West. Comparative issues in romanization, Oxford, 2001.

Kremer, D., Ius Latinum: le concept de droit latin sous la République et l’Empire, Paris, 2006.

Kruta, V., Les Sénons de l’Adriatique au iiie siècle avant J. C. État de la question, in F. Lenzi (ed.), Rimini e l’Adriatico nell’età delle guerre puniche, Bologna, 2006, p. 275-281.

Laffi, U., Adtributio e contributio. Problemi del sistema politico-amministrativa dello stato romano, Pisa, 1966.

Lamboley, J.-L., Recherches sur les Messapiens ive-iie siècle avant J.-C., Rome, 1996.

La Regina, A., Contributo dell’archeologia alla storia sociale, territori sabellici e sannitici, in DArch 4-5, 1970-1971, p. 441-549.

Laudizi, G., Osservazioni sulla tradizione letteraria, in M. Lombardo and C. Marangio (eds.), Il territorio Brundisino dall’età Messapica all’età romana, Galatina, 1998, p. 27-40.

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

Livi, V., Religious locales in the territory of Minturnae: aspects of Romanization, in C. E. Schultz and P. B. Harvey (eds.), Religion in republican Italy, Cambridge, 2006, p. 90-116.

Marangio, C., Osservazione sul processo di romanizzazione del centro Messapico di Muro Maurizio, in M. Lombardo and C. Marangio (eds.), Il territorio Brundisino dall’età Messapica all’età romana, Galatina, 1998, p. 119-136.

Marchi, M. L. and G. Sabbatini, Venusia (Forma Italiae), Florence 1996.

Marcucetti, L., La terra delle strade antiche. La centuriazione romana nella piana Apuo-Versiliese, Viareggio, 1995.

Marini Calvani, M., Piacenza in età romana, in F. Càssola and C. Pietri (eds.), La città nell’Italia settentrionale in età romana. Morfologie, strutture e funzionamento dei centri urbani delle Regiones X e XI, Trieste-Rome, 1985, p. 261-294.

Maselli Scotti, F., A. Giovannini and P. Ventura, Aquileia. A crossroads of men and ideas, in : P. Noelke (ed.), Romanisation und Resistenz in Plastik, Architektur und Inschriften der Provinzen des Imperium Romanum. Neue Funde und Forschungen, Mainz am Rhein, 2003, p. 651-667.

Mello, M., Paestum romana. Ricerche storiche, Rome, 1974.

Mello, M. and G. Voza, Le iscrizioni latine di Paestum, Naples, 1968.

Morel, J.-P., La romanisation du Samnium et de la Lucanie aux ive et iiie siècles av. J.-C. d’après l’artisanat et le commerce, in J. Mertens and R. Lambrechts (eds.), Comunità indigene e problemi della romanizzazione nell’Italia centro-meridionale (ive-iiie sec. av. C.), Brussels-Rome, 1991, p. 125-144.

Oebel, L., C. Flaminius und die Anfänge der römischen Kolonisation im Ager Gallicus, Frankfurt am Main, 1993.

Ortalli, J., Ur-Ariminum, in F. Lenzi (ed.), Rimini e l’Adriatico nell’età delle guerre puniche, Bologna, 2006, p. 285-309.

Paci, G., Il Piceno tra III e II sec. a. C., in E. Percossi Serenelli (ed.), Potentia. Quando poi scese il silenzio... Rito e società in una colonia romana del Piceno fra repubblica e tardo Impero, Milan, 2001, p. 20-23.

Panciera, S., Inscriptiones Latinae liberae rei publicae, in S. Panciera (ed.), Epigrafia. Actes du colloque international d’épigraphie latine en mémoire de Attilio Degrassi, Rome, 1992, p. 241-491.

Parlangeli, O., Studi messapici, Milan, 1960.

Patterson, J., The relationship of the Italian ruling classes with Rome: friendship, family relations and their consequences, in M. Jehne and R. Pfeilschifter (eds.), Herrschaft ohne Integration? Rom und Italien in republikanischer Zeit, Frankfurt am Main, 2006, p. 139-153.

Pedley, J. G., Paestum. Greeks and Romans in southern Italy, London, 1990.

Pelgrom, J., Settlement organization and land distribution in Latin colonies before the Second Punic War, 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. 333-372.

Piper, D., Latins and the Roman citizenship in Roman colonies : Livy 34,42,5-6; revisited, in Historia, 36, 1987, p. 38-50.

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

Regoli, E., Il paesaggio delle ville (II secolo a.C. – metà I 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. 145-154.

Renda, G., Il territorio di Caiatia, in G. Cera, S. Quilici Gigli and G. Renda (eds.), Carta archeologica e ricerche in Campania, I, Rome, 2004, p. 237-423.

Rich, J., Treaties, allies and the Roman conquest of Italy, in P. De Souza and J. France (eds.), War and peace in ancient and medieval history, Cambridge, 2008, p. 51-75.

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

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

Roselaar, S. T., The concept of commercium in the Roman Republic, forthcoming a.

Roselaar, S. T. (ed.), Integration and identity in the Roman Republic : proceedings of a conference held at Manchester, 1-3 July 2010, forthcoming b.

Sabbatini, G., Ager Venusinus I : Mezzana del Cantore (Forma Italiae), Florence, 2001.

Salmon, E. T., Roman colonization under the Republic, London, 1969.

Sartori, F., Problemi di storia costituzionale italiota, Rome, 1953.

Sherwin-White, A. N., The Roman citizenship, Oxford, 1973.

Silvestrini, M., 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.

Sisani, S., Fenomenologia della conquista. La romanizzazione dell’Umbria tra il iv sec. a.C. e la guerra sociale, Rome, 2007.

Smith, R. E., Latins and the Roman citizenship in Roman colonies : Livy 34,42,5-6, in Journal of Roman Studies, 44, 1954, p. 18-20.

Sofroniew, A., Considering cultural exchange : A social history of votives from Central Italy from the 4th to the 1st centuries BC, Oxford D.Phil. thesis, forthcoming.

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

Suolahti, J., The junior officers of the Roman army in the Republican period: a study on social structure, Helsinki, 1955.

Tarpin, M., Vici et pagi dans l’occident Romain, Rome, 2002.

Termeer, M. K., Early colonies in Latium (c. 534-338 BC). A reconsideration of current images and the archaeological evidence, I n BABesch, 85, 2010, p. 43-58.

Torelli, M., Paestum romana, in Poseidonia-Paestum, Taranto, 1987, p. 33-115.

Torelli, M., Aspetti della colonizzazione romana più antica, DdA, 6, 3, 1988, p. 65-72.

Torelli, M., Studies in the Romanization of Italy, Edmonton, 1995.

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

Van Wonterghem, F., Il culto di Ercole fra i popoli oscosabellici, 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.

Vine, B., Studies in archaic Latin inscriptions, Innsbruck, 1993.

Wightman, E. M. and J. W. Hayes, Settlement patterns and society, in J. W. Hayes and I. P. Martini (eds.), Archaeological survey in the Lower Liri Valley, central Italy, Oxford, 1995, p. 34-40.

Wiseman, T. P., New men in the Roman senate, 139 B.C.A.D. 14, Oxford, 1971.

Yntema, D., 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 I would like to thank Tim Cornell (Manchester), Tesse Stek (Leiden), the audience at the OIKOS ‘work in progress’ session in Leiden, December 2009, and the anonymous . reviewer for MEFRA for their advice on earlier drafts of this paper.

2 Especially Salmon 1969, p. 54; Torelli 1995, p. 9-12; 1999, p. 3, 127

3 Torelli 1999, p. 122; see p. 173-5; 186-7

4 E.g. Salmon 1969, p. 18-25; Brown 1980; Gargola 1995, p. 71-101.

5 Although having commercium may not have been as important in dealing with Romans as it is usually assumed to have been, see Roselaar forthcoming a.

6 Sherwin-White 1973, p. 27; Bandelli 2005, p. 19.

7 Cornell 1995, p. 367-8; Bradley 2000, p. 135.

8 DH 6.95.2, 8.69.2; Liv. 2.22.5-7. See Cornell 1995, p. 367.

9 Liv. 3.1.5-8. See DH 7.14.4, 9.59.1-2. See Salmon 1969, p. 44-5; Humbert 1978, p. 157; Bradley 2006, p. 167.

10 Liv. 4.11.3-4.

11 Crawford 1981, p. 157; Cornell 1995, p. 367-8; Torelli 1999, p. 3-4; see p. 32 and 1988, p. 70 for the view that at least the elites of the allied communities were taken up in Latin colonies; cf. Bradley 2006, p. 172-6. Many scholars assume the presence of local inhabitants of colonies, but they unfortunately do not discuss the legal position of these people: Galsterer 1976, p. 49-53; Humbert 1978, p. 77-8; Bispham 2006, p. 91-2, 103. However, Rich 2008 has recently suggested that not all towns in Italy had treaties with Rome, and that our evidence for their existence is actually very limited.

12 I believe that the nature of the so-called priscae Latinae coloniae was fundamentally different from that of later colonies, in that they were founded by the Latin League and Rome together, even if Rome was dominant. Furthermore, I will discuss colonies founded before the Sullan era only, since again, the nature of 1st-century veteran settlements was very different from that of the colonies in the previous period. See for pre-338 colonies Torelli 1988, p. 67-9; 1999, p. 15-31; Termeer 2010.

13 Coşkun 2008.

14 Erdkamp forthcoming. Brunt 1971, p. 29 assumes that of the 4,000 colonists that on average were settled in Latin colonies, 3,000 were Roman citizens.

15 Liv. 33.24.8-9.

16 Coarelli 1989, p. 36; Celuzza 2002a, p. 112.

17 Liv. 34.42.5-6: Novum ius eo anno a Ferentinatibus temptatum, ut Latini qui in coloniam Romanam nomina dedissent cives Romani essent: Puteolos Salernumque et Buxentum adscripti coloni qui nomina dederant, et, cum ob id se pro civibus Romanis ferrent, senatus iudicavit non esse eos cives Romanos.

18 Salmon 1969, p. 24; Piper 1987.

19 Smith 1954; Erdkamp forthcoming.

20 Roselaar 2010, p. 150-2.

21 D.50.16.239.2 (Pomponius) states «nor are those who stay in a town the only people who are incolae, but also those who hold land within the territory of any town in such a way that they establish themselves there as if in a fixed abode». See Comm. Bern. in Lucan. 4.397: «Incolae are those who came to a colony which had already been settled» (Incolae qui ad coloniam paratam veniunt). For a comprehensive discussion of the definition and rights of incolae and accolae see Laffi 1966; Gagliardi 2006.

22 ILS 6753.

23 Liv. 32.2.6-7: Et Narniensium legatis querentibus ad numerum sibi colonos non esse et immixtos quosdam non sui generis pro colonis se gerere.

24 Liv. 41.8.8.

25 Cos¸kun 2009, p. 186-93.

26 Erdkamp forthcoming. See Broadhead 2008, p. 459-62 for a different view.

27 The most recent collection of inscriptions in Sabellian languages is Rix 2002.

28 See e.g. Franchi De Bellis 1995, p. 371; Adams 2007, p. 39-113.

29 See Roselaar 2010, p. 33-6.

30 Van Wonterghem 1992.

31 Renda 2004, p. 405-6.

32 Crawford 1985, p. 26-8.

33 Bradley 2007, p. 298-9.

34 Pelgrom 2008.

35 Morel 1991, p. 128-31.

36 Compatangelo-Soussignan 1999, p. 30-2; Bispham 2006, p. 87-8.

37 Morel 1991, p. 132; Vine 1993, p. 138.

38 Morel 1991, p. 136-9.

39 ILLRP 1207 = CIL 12.405 = 10.8054.1; ILLRP 1217 = CIL 12.416.

40 Numerius: ILLRP 1208 = CIL 12.404h. Numerius is attested in many non-Latin inscriptions, e.g. Rix Um 38, tCm5 (Abella). See Vine 1993, 137, 143-6.

41 Aufellius: CIL 10.4641. The A(u)fellii are known from Oscan inscriptions from Pompeii (Ve 30b, Rix Po 43). Paconius: CIL 10.4654 = ILS 5779. See Suolahti 1955, p. 378; Wiseman 1971, nos. 185, 494; Compatangelo-Soussignan 1999, p. 11, 52. Paccius, Paconius, and Pacuvius, 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. See Morel 1991, p. 132; Crawford 2007, p. 274.

42 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. 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 2000a, p. 63. Liv. 23.1.1-3 mentions Statius Trebius, a noble of Compsa; cf. Trebatius, an allied leader in the Social War, Ap. BC 1.52. See Coarelli 1998, p. 39-40; Rawson 1998, p. 73-8.

43 Aufidius Fregellanus: CIL 10.6.12818. Gavius: CIL 10.5611. Gavius is attested in Oscan in 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). Ovius: ILLRP 947 = CIL 12.2131-2; 10.5621. Salvius: CIL 10.5614. In Oscan: Capua (Rix Cp 3), Cumae (Rix Cm 18), Herculaneum (Rix Cm 39). Vibius: CIL 10.5629-30. Aufidius is also attested in Corfinium (Rix Pg 44), Rossano di Vaglio (Lu 8). Ovii are attested in Oscan in Pompeii (Ve 18, 26, 53, Rix Po 14, 37, tPo 3), and Samnium (Ve 178, Rix ZO 2), Cm 35 (Nuceria), Cm 38-9 (Herculaneum), Cm 47 (Vesuvius). Vibii are known from Oscan inscriptions from Pompeii (Ve 11, 20, 71, Rix Po 3, 11, 91), Capua (Ve 86-7, Rix Cp 31-2), Corfinium (Ve 211-12, 215p-q, Rix Pg 1, 14, 51-2), Vasto (Histonium) (Ve 168, Rix Fr 1), Messana (Ve 197c-d, in Greek), Tuder? (Rix Um 35-7), the Vestini area (Rix MV 12), Mevania (Rix Um26), Tuder (Rix Um 35-7), Cumae (Rix Cm 32), and Larinum (Cic. Clu. 8.25). See Wightman and Hayes p. 41-2.

44 Coarelli 1998, p. 110.

45 Torelli 1988, p. 71; 1999, p. 92, 96, 121-2; Grelle and Giardina 1993, p. 24.

46 Antonacci Sanpaolo 1999.

47 De Cazanove 2000b, p. 75-6; Glinister 2009; Stek 2009, p. 27; Sofroniew forthcoming.

48 Sofroniew forthcoming.

49 Magius: a 3rd-century inscription reads Gentiles / Magiei / Sancto. Deiveti / fecere, see Suolahti 1955, p. 377, 395; Dally 2000, p. 238-40. Trebius: CIL 9.936 (70s BC). In Oscan inscriptions Magius is attested in Aeclanum (Rix Hi 1, Hi 4). Minatius: Dally 2000, 238. It was used in Oscan mostly as a praenomen; e.g. in Teanum Apulum (Rix Fr 11) and on the Vesuvius (Rix Cm 47). As a gentilicium, see Casinum? (Rix Ps 9), Venafrum (Rix Si 2), Capua (Rix Cp 19, 25). Minatius Magius from Aeclanum was a leader of his town during the Social War, Vell. 2.16.

50 ILLRP 502 = CIL 12.791 = 3.6541. Another Numerius is attested on ILLRP 623 = CIL 12.1710 = 9.800.

51 Celuzza 2002a, p. 105.

52 Van Wonterghem 1992.

53 Torelli 1999, p. 38-9; Bispham 2006, p. 106-8. See also Stek 2009, p. 55-8.

54 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 Ap. 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). Vibius (as a praenomen): ILLRP 190 = CIL 12.386.

55 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.

56 Letta and D’Amato 1975, p. 195-6.

57 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.

58 Letta and D’Amato 1975, no. 129bis. However, they assume (p. 208-14) that his veneration was not spread by Rome, but pre-dated the Roman conquest of the Marsic area.

59 CIL 9.3813 = CIL 12.391 = Ve 228; CIL 9.3849 = 12.388 = ILLRP 286; ILLRP 285 = CIL 12.387 = CIL 9.3848; ILLRP 266 = CIL 12.390 = 9.3812. See Letta and D’Amato 1975, 204; Stek 2009, 163-5. Petro is attested on Ve 224a-b (Supinum). Statius is attested in Pietrabbondante (Rix Sa 13), Abella (Rix Cm 3), Cum AE (Rix Cm 14), Nola (Rix Cm 48, and Lucania (Rix Lu 55). Anaiedius and Staiedius are not directly attested in Oscan inscriptions, but are probably not Latin in origin.

60 Stek 2009, p. 162.

61 See notes 55 and 59; also CIL 9.3847 = ILLRP 115. See Letta and D’Amato 1975, p. 200, although Stek 2009, p. 162 points out that the ‘non-Latin’ nature is not certain for all these names.

62 Letta and D’Amato 1975, p. 200.

63 Stek 2009, p. 161.

64 DH 17/18.5.1-2.

65 Marchi and Sabbatini 1996, p. 111-15; Torelli 1999, p. 94-6; Sabbatini 2001, p. 69-71. Compatangelo 1989, p. 49 thinks that only the local nobility was incorporated and that the ‘Samnitized’ local poor were excluded; however, it is unlikely that the local nobility consisted of so many people.

66 Liv. 31.49.6.

67 Grelle and Giardina 1993, p. 59-63.

68 Crepereius: Cic. Verr. 1.30. See Suolahti 1955, p. 357. Wiseman 1971, p. 227 argues that the name was originally Sabine. Herennius: Eutr. 5.3. Ovius: ILLRP 690 = CIL 12.1700 = 9.438. Statius Raius: ILLRP 692 = CIL 12.1701 = 9.448. Raius is also attested in Oscan inscriptions, e.g. in Cumae (Rix Cm 14). See Grelle and Giardina 1993, p. 55.

69 Fentress 2000, p. 12-13.

70 Celuzza 2002a, p. 112; Celuzza 2002b, p. 121-3; Attolini 2002, p. 128; Cambi 2002, p. 139; Bradley 2006, p. 172.

71 Attolini 2002, p. 128; Celuzza, 2002a, p. 112-13; Cambi, 2002, p, 141.

72 Fentress and Jacques 2002, p. 124.

73 Celuzza 2002a, p. 109-12; Bispham 2006, p. 102-3.

74 Celuzza 2002a, 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. See Glinister 2000.

75 Celuzza 2002a, p. 105.

76 Torelli 1988, p. 72; 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.

77 Bispham 2006, p. 97-102. Celuzza 2002a, p. 111 argues that votive statuettes in the ‘Latin’ style appear in the sanctuary at San Sisto. However, we have seen above that the ‘Latin’ style was not in fact spread by Rome; moreover, the origin of this type of votive seems to have been in southern Etruria, so that its presence in Cosa may have nothing to do with Rome.

78 Celuzza 2002a, p. 109, 120-2; Erdkamp forthcoming.

79 In the colonies of Thurii Copia (194), Vibo Valentia (192), Bononia (189), and Aquileia (181) equites received larger allotments than pedites, see Liv. 34.53.1-2, 35.40.5-6, 37.57.7-8, 40.34.2.

80 Herring 2007, p. 12.

81 Pedley 1990, p. 97-108, 125-6, 138-40; Cipriani et al. 1996, p. 67-76; Herring 2007, p. 11-12.

82 Isayev 2007, p. 115-17, 122.

83 Torelli 1999, p. 17; Crawford 2006, p. 65.

84 Torelli 1987, p. 52-9.

85 Torelli 1987, p. 47, 62-3, 71-2; 1988, p. 71; 1999, p. 52, 61; Crawford 2006, p. 65-6.

86 Torelli 1987, p. 40-1; 93-7; 1999, p. 4, 76; Crawford 2006, p. 64-5.

87 Rix nLu 2. See Sartori 1953, p. 102-4; Crawford 2006, p. 64. However, Cipriani et al. 1996, p. 61-2 argue that these coins should be dated to the late fourth and early third centuries, before the foundation of the colony.

88 Many of these names are attested on coins, see Mello 1974, p. 110-25. For inscriptions, see Ceppius: Mello and Voza 1968, nos. 196, 202; CIL 10.479, 491. In Oscan, from Melito (Rix tHi 1). Digitius was tribunus militum in 170 BC, Liv. 43.11.1; see also CIL 10.483; Suolahti 1955, p. 359; Mello and Voza 1968, nos. 97, 99, 114. It is probably related to the Oscan name Dekius, e.g. from Aufidena (Rix Sa 18), Saepinum (Rix Sa 59). Galonius: Mello and Voza 1968, no. 154. Granius: Mello and Voza 1968, no. 121. Numerius: Mello and Voza 1968, nos. 80 and 119. Numonius: Mello and Voza 1968, nos. 71, 180. The Numonii are also attested on 3rd-century graffiti on pottery from Paestum, see Torelli 1999, p. 17. Mineius: Mello and Voza 1968, nos. 81-5. It may be related to Oscan Minis, from Teanum Sidicinum (Rix Si 4, 9, 12), Capua (Rix Cp 25, 28), Pompeii (Rix Po 8). Statius: Mello and Voza 1968, no.139; Cippus Abellanus l.1; Rix Lu 14, Pocc. 152. Suitius: Mello and Voza 1968, no. 80. It is most likely related to Suettius, attested in Corfinium (Rix Pg 56). Trebius: Compatangelo-Soussignan 1999, 9. Vibius: Mello and Voza 1968, nos. 140, 142.

89 Rix Lu 14, Pocc. 152. See Cipriani et al. 1996, p. 60.

90 Sartori 1953, p. 102-4; Torelli 1999, p. 8.

91 Liv. Per. 12.1; Polyb. 2.19.9-12, 2.21.7-9; DH 19.13.1; Strab. 5.1.10; Oros. 3.22.13; Ap. Gall. 11, Samn. 6.1. The expulsion of the Senones is accepted by many scholars: Grassi 1991, p. 27-8; Oebel 1993, p. 22-4; Kruta 2006, p. 278-81; Sisani 2007, p. 192-7.

92 Galsterer 1976, p. 53; Campagnoli 1999, p. 30.

93 Galsterer 2006, p. 14. The actual number of settlers is not attested, but 6,000 is also attested for Alba.

94 CIL 12.2885-99. See Franchi De Bellis 1995, p. 369-71; Ortalli, 2006, p. 288-9, 297; Stek 2009, p. 138.

95 Franchi De Bellis 1995, p. 387: many bronze statuettes of Hercules have been found in the area.

96 Oebel 1993, p. 55-9.

97 Giorgetti 1982, p. 132.

98 A 1st-century inscription records an Ovius Fregellanus; ILLRP 947 = CIL 12.2132. See Franchi De Bellis 1995, p. 377; Bispham 2006, p. 91, 135-6 n. 103.

99 Chevallier 1983, p. 188.

100 As attested on coins, e.g. Rix nSa 5. See Buonocore 2007, p. 84. However, Cosa was also derived from an Etruscan word, but did not have much continuity of previous settlement.

101 Rix Sa 22, Ve 140.

102 Diebner 1979, Is 70.

103 CIL I2.3201; see La Regina 1970-1. Percennius is related to the Oscan praenomen Perkens, attested at the Vesuvius, Rix Cm 47, and in the Ager Teuranus, see De Cazanove 2000a, 63. Pomponius is attested in Mogliano (Rix MC 2), Capestrano (Rix AQ 2), Cumae (Rix Cm 15), Rossano di Vaglio (Rix Lu 5), Velia (Rix tLu 15). Satrius is known from Bantia (CIL 12.1693).

104 Humbert 1978, p. 346.

105 Galsterer 1976, p. 54.

106 Herius: Buonocore 2007, p. 94. In Oscan, see Rix Ap 6 (Belmonte), Cm 14 (Cumae). The Samnite Herius in the Second Punic War: Zon. 8.11; Liv. 23.43.9. Herius Asinius, leader of the Marrucini in the Social war: Liv. Per. 73; Vell. 2.16; Ap. BC 1.40; Eutr. 5.3. Maius: Diebner 1979, no. 66. It is also attested in Barrea (Rix Sa 37), Abella (Rix Cm 1), Aquinum (Rix Sa 58), and Vibo Valentia (Rix tLu 8). Munatius: CIL 9.2603, 2663. Numerius: CIL 9.2744. Paccius: Diebner 1979, no. 57. Rahius: CIL 9.2667; AE 1999, 551. Staius: CIL 9.2669. In Oscan it is known from Pietrabbondante (Rix Sa 3, Sa 10-12, 21), Vastogirardi (Rix Sa 26), Santa Croce di Sannio (Rix Hi 7), and Nola (Rix Cm 48). Vibius: Buonocore 2007, 89; CIL 9.2672; AE 1993, 561. See De Benedittis, Matteini Chiari and Terzani 1999, nos. 1, 3, 4.

107 Diebner 1979, p. 23, 46.

108 Laudizi 1998, p. 34.

109 Gabba 1958, p. 100-1; Aprosio 2008, p. 91.

110 Liv. 21.48.8-9; see also Pol. 3.69.1. Some assume he was a citizen, e.g. Guzzo 1991, 82; Lamboley 1996, p. 488; Bradley 2006, p. 174. On the other hand, Suolahti 1955, 200, 321 assumes he was not a citizen, and indeed it was not necessary for him to be a citizen in order to command a garrison of allies; see Galsterer 1976, 58. 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; Ap. Hann. 31. Another Dasius was a leading noble in Salapia, Liv. 26.38.6-14. See Silvestrini 1998, p. 92-8; Aprosio 2008, p. 91-2.

111 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. Gerillanus: CIL 9.49-50, 122, 6123; AE 1964, 139; 1978, 178, 207, 250; 1980, 255, 301, 309. Granius: CIL 9.125. Munatius: CIL 9.6127; AE 1978, 159; 1980, 294. 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 1112), Capua (Rix Cp 26), Pompeii (Rix Po 2, tPo 7-11), Nola (Rix Cm 6), Cum AE (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. Rammius: Liv. 42.17.2-3: ‘Rammius was the chief person in Brundisium, and he used to entertain the Roman generals and distinguished ambassadors from foreign nations, especially those who represented monarchy.’ See Yntema 2009, p. 159 for a possible emendation to (H/E)Rennius. Sillius: CIL 9.189. In Oscan, see 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. Vibius: CIL 9.202-4. See Silvestrini 1998, p. 92-8.

112 Lamboley 1996, p. 486; Compatangelo 1989, p. 49; Crawford 2006, p. 65; Yntema 2009.

113 Marangio 1998, p. 129-31.

114 Liv. 28.11.10-11. See Gualazzini 1985, p. 17, 38, 41.

115 Marini Calvani 1985, p. 268.

116 Plut. Pomp. 6.3.2; Cic. Att. 9.7; Caes. BC 1.24.4, 1.26.2. See Suolahti 1955, p. 370.

117 CIL 11.341, 6709.13. See Chevallier 1983, p. 183.

118 Tac. Hist. 3.33.

119 Ardovino 2003, p. 94-5.

120 Chevallier 1983, p. 184-6, 295.

121 Mutto: CIL 5.1412, 8473; ILLRP 572 = CIL 12.2191 = 5.1890. See Wiseman 1971, no. 437; Bandelli 1983, p. 200. Other attested variants are Muttenus and Mutilius (Sup. It. 93). Tappo: ILLRP 436 = CIL 12.814 = 5.862 = ILS 906; ILLRP 540 = CIL 12.2199 = 5.861; CIL 12.2205; ILS 908. See Wiseman 1971, no. 34; Bandelli 1983, p. 183; Torelli 1999, p. 3; Maselli Scotti, Giovannini and Ventura 2003, p. 651. Daza: Chevallier 1983, p. 184.

122 Panciera 1981, p. 120-1.

123 Aufidius: Bandelli 1983, no. 21. Raius: CIL 5.973. Statius: Bandelli 1983, p. 23. Vettius: Bandelli 1988, p. 12-14. Vibius: ILLRP 306 = CIL 12.2822, ILLRP 199 = CIL 12.2193 = 5.792, CIL 5.1016, Bispham 2007, no. Q72, Bandelli 1983, no. 2. Bandelli 2005, p. 19 also mentions the names Liburnius and Obulcius, but the non-Latin nature of these names is not clear.

124 Maselli Scotti, Giovannini and Ventura 2003, p. 655-7. However, they argue on p. 661-5 that Gallic influence was not great, and that many ‘Celtic’ elements in the figurative arts should be ascribed to artistic preferences of the 1st century BC.

125 There is some confusion about the status of Luna and Luca. The most likely solution is that Luca was indeed a Latin colony; see Coarelli 1985-7, p. 27-8; Roselaar 2010, p. 325.

126 Ciampoltrini 2005, p. 48-9, 54-9.

127 Gambaro 1999, p. 118-20.

128 Gambaro 1999, p. 115-16.

129 Ciampoltrini 2005, p. 48-9, 54-9, 64.

130 Liv. 39.2, 40.16-17, 41.12, 14, 18-19; 42.8.22, 28.

131 Marcucetti 1995, p. 204-7; Gambaro 1998, p. 239-41.

132 Marcucetti 1995, p. 21.

133 See for all these names CIL 12.2678-706 = ILLRP 728-42. For Arruntius see also CIL 6.12447, 10.6023. Caedicius: CIL 10.6017, 6025a; Suolahti 1955, 349; Wiseman 1971, no. 76. For Oscan attestations: Cumae (Rix Cm 15), Lucania (Rix Lu 56). Corellius: ILS 6294 = CIL 10.6018. In Oscan: Aquilonia (Rix Sa 33). Epidius: AE 1904, 186. In Oscan: Teanum Sidicinum (Rix Si 18), Pompeii (Rix Po 15), Stabiae Rix tCm 3). Hirrius: CIL 10.6037-8. It is probably related to Herius. Lusius: CIL 12.2907. In Oscan: Serramonacesca (Rix MV 8-9). Maius: Cippus Abellanus l. 1, 3-4. Minius: 10.6045. Numerius: ILS 6294 = CIL 10.6018. Numisius: CIL 10.6014. Pacuvius: CIL 10.5378. Pontius: CIL 10.8252. In Oscan: Pompeii (Rix Po 1, 7), Saticula (Rix Cm 28), Sulmo (Rix Pg 5), Secinaro (Rix Pg 26); see Liv. 9.4.2; Vell. 2.27.1; Ap. BC 1.40. Rufrius: Cumae (Rix Cm 14). Sta(h)ius: CIL 10.5372, 6017. Stenius: CIL 10.6050. In Oscan: Campania (Ve 134, Rix Cm 34), Aesernia (Ve 140, Rix Sa 22); Messana (Ve 197a, Rix Me 5 (in Greek), Fagifulae (Rix Sa 44), Cumae (Ve 134, Rix Cm 34), Rossano di Vaglio (Pocc 164, Rix Lu 15); Festus 150 L. Trebius: 10.6051. See Coarelli 1989, 75-7; Guidobaldi and Pesando 1989, 68-73. See Crawford 2007, p. 273.

134 Cato fr. 83; Gell. NA 3.7; Front. Strat. 1.5.15, 4.5.10.

135 Livi 2006, p. 105-13; on p. 112-13 she argues that the heads found in the votive deposit are both veiled and unveiled, possibly reflecting the participation of different groups of worshippers in the cult; however, the distinction between veiled and unveiled heads does not seem to have been determined by the ethnicity of the worshipper; see Glinister 2009.

136 Caes. BAfr. 71; Cic. Verr. 2.5.154; Plu. Sull. 37.3, Mar. 35.8, 37.2, 40.1; Ap. BC 1.60-2; VM 9.3.8. For other Granii see CIL 10.1783, 2187, 2484-9, 2607, 2651. See Suolahti 1955, p. 363; Wiseman 1971, no. 197.

137 ILLRP 518 = CIL 12.698 = 10.1781. Numerius is also attested in ILLRP 231 = CIL 12.1618 = 10.1589 and ILLRP 561 = CIL 12.1620 = 10.1573. In Oscan Blossius is attested in Capua (Rix Cp 24).

138 Numerius: ILLRP 111 (Panciera 1992) = ILLRP 561 = CIL 12.1619-20, 10.1573; AE 1988, 294. Vibius Ovius: ILLRP 112 (Panciera addition) = CIL 10.1595. Pontius: ILLRP 231 = CIL 12.1618 = 10.1589. Suettius: AE 1974, 256.

139 This is argued especially by Coarelli 2000, p. 196-204, who argues that many of the gods venerated had strong associations with the plebeians, and would therefore have been popular with the settlers of 232, since this viritane distribution had been carried out against the wishes of the senate. In either case, a date for the settlement at the end of the 3rd century would fit the dedications, which are dated to the late 3rd and early 2nd century. See Dall’Aglio and Di Cocco 2004, p. 28.

140 Campagnoli 1999, p. 32. Contra: Harvey 2006, p. 128.

141 As attested in the Tabulae Iguvinae, where ukriper Fisiu is mentioned several times, a.o. Ia, 11-12. This most likely means something like ‘Fides of the state’.

142 Ariminum: CIL 6.133.

143 Cresci Marrone and Mennella 1984, p. 48, 53, 95-6, 108, 123, 149-50.

144 Harvey 2006, p. 126. Some, e.g. Cresci Marrone and Mennella 1984, p. 119, Bandelli 2005, p. 25, and Harvey 2006, p. 122 have argued that one of the dedications, by a man named Popaio, may indicate a person from an ethnic background other than Roman, because the final S is missing, which is thought to have been common in Etruria and other areas outside Rome. However, Adams 2007, p. 104 argues that this characteristic occurred in Rome already at an early age, and is not decisive; it is present, for example, in the Scipionic elogia (CIL 12.6, 8).

145 ILLRP 791 = CIL 12.2127 = 11.6363. See Cresci Marrone and Mennella 1984, p. 280-4.

146 See Roselaar 2010, p. 53-4 on the treatment of the Cisalpine Gauls.

147 Zon. 8.7.

148 Pol. 10.1.9. See Aprosio 2008, p. 89-90.

149 See e.g. Keay and Terrenato (eds.), 2001; Jehne and Pfeilschifter (eds.), 2006; Roselaar (ed.), forthcoming b.

150 Roselaar forthcoming a; see Cos¸kun 2009, p. 39-46.

151 Cic. Verr. 2.4.93.

152 Ortalli 2006, p. 287.

153 Regoli 2002, p. 148.

154 Arslan 1991, p. 461 for Ariminum; in general Patterson 2006.

155 Cic. Off. 1.34.125.

156 Lex Col. Gen. ch. 95: allowed to serve as witnesses in lawsuits; 103: liable for military service; 126: allowed to be present at public spectacles. Lex municipii Malacitani 53: Allowed to vote, if they were Latins. Regulations for munera became very strict under the Empire, see Dig. 50.1. Incolae were supposed to perform munera in their place of settlement, e.g. Dig. 50.1.29, 37; 50.4.6.5. See Kremer 2006 for political participation in the Imperial period.

157 Rix Po 39-40 (Ve 29-30); CIL 4.48. See Cooley 2002, p. 82.

158 Torelli 1999, p. 145.

159 Cic. Clu. 14.40.

160 See Bonomi Ponzi 2006, p. 115-28 on the production of exvotos and terracottas in the sanctuary of Monte Torre Maggiore (Umbria).

161 Bispham 2006.

Haut de page

Table des illustrations

Légende Fig. 1 – The territory of Cosa. Areas to the north and west of the centuriated area show ‘continuità insediativa’ of local inhabitants (from A. Carandini and F. Cambi (eds.), Paesaggi d’Etruria. Valle dell’Albegna, Valle d’Oro, Valle del Chiarone, Valle del Tafone, Rome, 2002).
Titre Table: Overview of different types of evidence and their appearance in the colonies
Légende – – = strong evidence for expulsion of non-Roman inhabitants– = some evidence for expulsion of non-Roman inhabitants blank: no evidence+ = some evidence for the presence of non-Roman inhabitants++ = strong evidence for the presence of non-Roman inhabitants
Haut de page

Pour citer cet article

Référence papier

Saskia Roselaar, « Colonies and processes of integration in the Roman Republic », Mélanges de l'École française de Rome - Antiquité, 123-2 | 2011, 527-555.

Référence électronique

Saskia Roselaar, « Colonies and processes of integration in the Roman Republic », Mélanges de l'École française de Rome - Antiquité [En ligne], 123-2 | 2011, mis en ligne le 19 février 2013, consulté le 16 août 2017. URL : http://mefra.revues.org/445 ; DOI : 10.4000/mefra.445

Haut de page

Auteur

Saskia Roselaar

University of Nottingham, Department of Classics, United Kingdom, saskiaroselaar@gmail.com.

Haut de page

Droits d’auteur

© École française de Rome

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