Flavian Urbanisation of Africa
Prof. Leszek Mrozewicz2013
visibility
…
description
32 pages
link
1 file
Sign up for access to the world's latest research
checkGet notified about relevant papers
checkSave papers to use in your research
checkJoin the discussion with peers
checkTrack your impact
Abstract
The article is concerned with urbanisation processes in roman africa, initiated by the Flavian dynasty (69-96). emperor vespasian and his successors focused their attention primarily on africa proconsularis. The new cities they created -colonies and municipia -were to perform an important strategic role, i.e. protect the territories of africa proconsularis against the southern tribes. with the great private latifundia and imperial domains, the province played a significant role in supplying the city of rome with grain. also, from the point of view of the state, the undertakings meant internal consolidation of the province.
Related papers
Mrozewicz 2013, Flavian Urbanisation of Africa
Studia Europaea Gnesnensia 7, 2013
The article is concerned with urbanisation processes in Roman Africa, initiated by the Flavian dynasty (69–96). Emperor Vespasian and his successors focused their attention primarily on Africa Proconsularis. The new cities they created — colonies and municipia — were to perform an important strategic role, i.e. protect the territories of Africa Proconsularis against the southern tribes. With the great private latifundia and imperial domains, the province played a significant role in supplying the city of Rome with grain. Also, from the point of view of the state, the undertakings meant internal consolidation of the province.
Urbanization in Africa Proconsularis in the time of the emperor Claudius
BAR series
This case study is part of my PhD project which involves a reflection on planning issues and on the strategies adopted by Claudius in the Iberian provinces, in Galliae and Africa comparing the results with the policy and approaches assumed in new acquired territories of Britannia, Noricum and Maureataniae. The study aims to find some constant trends of Claudius' work in the urban field notwithstanding the different cultural, geographical and historical situations. Research encompasses various stages. First, we must understand the situation before the coming of the Romans. Second, we must study the role played by governors. Third the research on Claudius' work comprehends his engagement and the urban activities in order to sum up the trends. Differences in the setting of buildings or complexes in the cities, as well as in the planning, the decoration and patterns of the buildings highlight the peculiarity of Claudius' works, when compared to the reorganization implemented by previous emperors and to what happens in the other provinces; I shall attempt to explain the reasons for these singularities in Africa and find the tendencies of this activities.
Urban Communities and the “Weak” Empire in Roman North Africa (1<sup>st</sup> to 6<sup>th</sup> Century CE)
De Gruyter eBooks, 2022
Due to its comparatively remote geographical location beyond the densely urbanized areas of Roman North Africa, the province of Mauretania Caesariensis provides an interesting example to study the impact of Roman imperial rule in the provinces of the empire. Literary sources, especially the epigraphic material from provincial cities, which can be evaluated using qualitative and quantitative approaches, offers insights into the structures of the local self-government. Firstly, a spectrum of different forms of organization of local communities can be observed, ranging from cities in which specific institutions, presumably going back to pre-Roman traditions, were maintained to others that more or less completely adopted Roman patterns as well as various hybrid forms in between. Secondly, remarkable differences between the cities in the Western and Eastern parts of the province can be observed. While some of the cities in the East were integrated into the Roman legal system at an early stage, most of the cities in the West only received a corresponding legal status very late, at the earliest in the 3 rd century CE. Furthermore, the emperor and the provincial governors are hardly visible in the epigraphic record from the cities in the Western part of the province. Particularly noteworthy is the almost complete absence of civic patrons in the cities of western Mauretania Caesariensis. All in all, the cities in western Mauretania seem to have been much less integrated into provincial and empire-wide networks than those in the east. Zusammenfassung: Ihre vergleichsweise abseitige Lage, jenseits der dicht urbanisierten Räume des römischen Nordafrikas, macht die Provinz Mauretania Caesariensis zu einem aufschlussreichen Fallbeispiel für die Frage nach den Auswirkungen der imperialen Herrschaft Roms in den Provinzen des Reiches. Neben vereinzelten literarischen Quellen bieten vor allem Inschriften, die sich mit qualitativen und quantitativen Ansätzen auswerten lassen, Einblicke in Strukturen lokaler Selbstverwaltung. Dabei lässt sich zum einen ein Spektrum unterschiedlicher Formen der Organisation lokaler Gemeinwesen beobachten, von Städten mit spezifischen, mutmaßlich auf vor-römische Traditionen zurückgehenden Ordnungen zu solchen, die römische Muster übernahmen und verschiedenen hybriden Formen dazwischen. Zum anderen lassen sich zudem
Urban production in the Roman world: the view from North Africa
Wilson, A. I. “Urban production in the Roman world: the view from North Africa.” Papers of the British School at Rome 70 (2002): 231-73., 2002
This article examines the evidence for production activities in the cities of Roman North Africa and shows how the importance of urban craft production has been largely overlooked in many discussions of the ancient economy. It is usually difficult to determine the true scale of urban production activities without extensive excavation, since workshops were often quite small; they may, however, have been numerous and scattered throughout a city. Excavations of the scale required are rarely achievable with today's techniques; two sites excavated in the first half of the twentieth century, however, reveal a situation characterized by a number of workshops: 22 fulleries at Timgad and 18 establishments for salting fish in Sabratha. Urban surface survey is suggested here as the best method to investigate sites where it is feasible, in order to identify the extent of the deposits of waste production, with the help of geophysical surveys to locate ovens and furnaces, and excavation to investigage specific areas. This combination of techniques has been successfully tested at Leptiminus, Meninx and Thamusida, and has allowed us to identify the presence of production activities for ceramics, metal working, and the extraction of purple dye. The evidence emerging from recent archaeological investigations suggests that the contribution of craft manufacture to the economy of Roman cities was potentially significant, while the aggregate scale of production in the sites discussed indicates a much larger role for craft activities than has usually been considered. The model of the 'consumer city' does not seem suitable for many Roman cities, and attempts to describe the economy of Roman urbanism should pay more attention to the role of cities in networks of local, regional, and long-distance trade. Questo articolo esamina l'evidenza per le attività industriali nelle città del nord Africa romano e dimostra come l'importanza della produzione artigianale urbana sia stata largamente sottovalutata in molte discussioni di economia antica. Di solito è difficile stabilire la giusta scala delle attività produttive urbane senza effettuare degli scavi estensivi, visto che i laboratori erano molto spesso piuttosto piccoli; ciò non toglie che essi potrebbero essere stati comunque numerosi e distribuiti all'interno della città. Scavi della estensione necessaria non sono irrealizzabili con le tecniche odierne; due siti scavati nella prima metà del ventesimo secolo hanno infatti portato alla luce un quadro caratterizzato da numerosi laboratori: 22 fulloniche a Timgad e 18 stabilimenti per la salatura del pesce a Sabratha. La ricognizione di superficie viene qui indicata come il metodo migliore per effettuare ricerche nei siti che lo consentono, al fine di identificare l'ampiezza dei depositi di rifiuti di fabbricazione, con l'aiuto di indagini geofisiche per trovare forni e fornaci, e scavi di alcune aree specifiche. Questo tipo di tecniche è stato sperimentato con successo a Leptiminus, Meninx e Thamusida, e ha permesso di identificare la presenza di attività di produzione ceramica, lavoro dei metalli e dell'industria per l'estrazione della porpora per la tintura. L'evidenza che emerge dalle recenti indagini archeologiche suggerisce che il contributo dell'industria cittadina all'economia delle città antiche fosse potenzialmente significativo, mentre la scala di produzione nei siti discussi indica un carattere artigianale della vita di queste città molto più consistente di quanto non sia stato di solito ritenuto. Il modello della 'città di consumo' non sembra adattarsi completamente a molte delle città romane, e i tentativi di descrizione dell'economia dell'urbanismo romano dovrebbero prestare più attenzione al ruolo delle città nelle reti di commercio locale, regionale e su lunga distanza.
Coercive Urbanism : the Roman impact on North African towns
Imperium Romanum. Romanization between Colonization and Globalization. Oscar Belvedere and Johannes Bergemann eds. , 2021
The paper examines the effects of Roman urbanism on four North African towns: Utica, Thugga, Simitthus and Mactar. In the first three we can see radical transformations of existing monuments, which were eliminated or repurposed. The relationships between the Roman colonists and the pre-existing communities are then examined, throwing doubt on the current tendency to see Roman imperialism in terms of productive dialogue and negotiation. A significant analogy comes, once again, with the history of French colonization in Algeria.
Africa and the West: An Economic History of Roman Republican Imperialism in Africa, London, United Kingdom: Alpha Crownes Publishers. 2014, xiii+213 pages (ISBN 978-0-9566837-6-2). (United Kingdom)
Apart from the unparalleled achievements of the Greeks which culminated in the utopian idea of universal domination of Alexander the Great, the most epochal phenomenon in the West was the gradual metamorphosis of Rome from a mere rural settlement on the Palatine Hill of Italy to become the capital of the ancient world. Before the twilight of the first century, Rome, motivated at different times by varied ambitions and interests, had used various means to conquer virtually all known territories -including the civilized Middle East. Rome, therefore, became the most powerful and enduring empire in antiquity and this was, perhaps, the first time that the West would plant its feet deeply into the Mediterranean soil. Regardless of how Roman imperialism had been understood and interpreted in recent scholarship, there is no doubt that the Romans were western imperialists with conscious will for expansion- irrespective of its consequences. What motivated the planting of the Romans’ feet in the North African Mediterranean basin is the main thrust of this book which argues that Roman imperialism, rather than being defensive as may be considered elsewhere, was premeditated, deliberate and offensive and was evolved by a senate which desired and methodically schemed territorial expansion. The reason, as in the contemporary period, was obvious. Africa, apart from being strategically located on trade routes between great continents of Europe and Asia, boasted of enormous resources which largely contributed to the daily needs of the ancient world. And so even before the famous 19th century Scramble began, Africa had been a veritable economic mine in the world of the West. It is therefore, not an anomaly to defer to the claim of many Africans that the continent is a major conflict with the West. This book provides a survey of the economic history of Roman Republic and North Africa, beginning in particular from Rome’s overseas launch in 264B.C and ending with the conquest of Julius Caesar at the battle of Thapus on the Tunisian coast, when Numidia was annexed Africa as New Africa (Africa Nova).
Explaining the Urban Boom. A comparison of the Regional Development of Cities in the Roman Provinces of Africa and Hispania. International Workshop (24.01.– 27.01.2018) at the German Archaeological Institute Madrid
Spanish: La ciudad y las varias formas de vida urbana connguran el elemento clave en la organización y adminis-tración del Imperio Romano. Sin embargo, se advierten divergencias en el proceso de urbanización de las diferentes regiones que componen el Imperio. Un ejemplo signiicativo al respecto lo ofrecen las provincias de Africa e Hispania. Aunque sean vecinas y compartan una condición estratégica para la economía de la ciudad de Roma al abastecer la de recursos indispensables, ambas maniiestan diferen-cias claras en el desarrollo del urbanismo romano. El inicio de una nueva actividad urbana en Hispania bajo la autoridad romana se puede apreciar ya en época republicana. No obstante, el orecimiento de la construcción de ediicios monumentales en las ciudades se produce más tarde, durante las dinastías julio-claudia y avia. Por su parte, en las densa-mente pobladas provincias de Numidia y Africa Proconsularis se aprecia un importante progreso de la arquitectura monumental en la transición del siglo II al III d.C., momento en el que la vida urbana en Hispania entra en declive. En este taller se analizarán las causas de las diferencias cronológicas entre los varios procesos de urbanización, así como se cuestionarán las bases y los desencadenantes del esplendor urbanístico. El propósito de este taller es el de examinar las características urbanas en los diversos contextos regio-nales con la nalidad entender la ciudad, su hinterland y sus habitantes dentro de un sistema dinámico e interconectado. English: The city and its various forms of associated urban living are seen as key elements in the general organization and administration of the Roman Empire. The processes of urbanization, however, diiered from one province to another. Africa and Hispania, geographically very close to one another and both economically signiicant for the supply of various kinds of products and resources to Rome, provide a very striking example of how regional diierences in urbanism could develop. After an initial urbanization process in Hispania during the Late Republic, a high level of building activity can be observed in Julio-Claudian and Flavian times. In the densely populated African provinces of Numidia and Africa Proconsularis, massive monumentalization can be observed during the the 2nd–3rd centuries AD. By this time, urban life on the Iberian Peninsula, however, had diminished signiicantly. This workshop aims to analyze the reasons for chronological diierences between various processes of urbanization and to explore the general prerequisites of an " urban boom ". The approach of this workshop is to examine urban characteristics in a regional context and to understand the city, their hinterlands, and the people living within them as a dynamic and connected system. German: Die Stadt und ihre kulturellen Ausprägungen gelten als Schlüsselelemente zur Organisation des Römi-schen Reiches. Der Prozess der Urbanisierung konnte in den einzelnen Regionen jedoch ganz unterschied-lich vonstatten gehen. Dies zeigt deutlich eine Gegenüberstellung der Provinzen Africa und Hispanien. Obgleich sie geograasch eng verbunden und beide durch die Exporte ihrer Produkte und Ressourcen von großer wirtschaftlicher Bedeutung für Rom waren, diieriert der Ausbau ihrer Stadtanlagen entscheidend voneinander. Nach einer einsetzenden baulichen Aktivität in Hispanien noch während der späten Republik kam es dort zwischen julischer und avischer Zeit zu einem enormen Bauboom. In den dicht besiedelten Provinzen Nord-afrikas fand die massive Monumentalisierung der Städte hingegen erst Ende des 2. und frühen 3. Jh. n. Chr. statt. Zu dieser Zeit ist in den Siedlungen der Iberischen Halbinsel bereits ein Rückgang des städtischen Lebens zu bemerken. Im Rahmen des Kolloquiums werden die vielfältigen urbanen Prozesse und deren Gründe individuell beleuchtet. Stadtbilder, städtische Kultur und urbane Ökonomie sind jedoch immer auch Teil ihrer regionalen und mikroregionalen Kontexte. Die Gegenüberstellung von Africa und Hispanien bietet daher die Möglich-keit, die Stadt, ihr Hinterland und ihre Bewohner als dynamisches und gleichsam vernetztes System zu verstehen und somit nach den generellen Voraussetzungen für einen " Urban Boom " zu fragen.
"Africa, quasi Roma" JOURNAL OF ROMAN ARCHAEOLOGY VOLUME 30 2017 * * REVIEW ARTICLES AND LONG REVIEWS, OBITUARY, AND BOOKS RECEIVED AN INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL
Journal of Roman Archaeology, 2017
The Internal Frontier: An African Model for Culture Change in South Central Italy (Fourth-Third Centuries B.C.)
Theoretical Roman Archaeology Journal, 2013
Europe in Africa: Some Systems of Roman Economic Colonisation in North Africa
Ibadan Journal of European Studies, 2007
Most postcolonial studies on European colonization have placed the invasion of Africa in the contemporary times and have generally agreed that the most obvious systems of colonization include the use of subtle diplomacy, creation of western puppet regimes, signing of treaties, forming military alliances, engaging in international trades and commerce, encouraging intertribal and inter-state hostilities and outright military conquests. This gives the view that the Europeans never had any serious interest in colonizing Africa before the 'scramble' that began in 1884/5. This paper therefore goes back into the remote classical antiquity to examine the theme of European colonization in North Africa during the Roman Republic. It considers the place of Rome in Western Europe and, from an economic perspective, identifies the reason for the Romans' interest in Carthaginian Africa. The paper concludes that Africa was a highly profitable field for investment and natural resources, hence, Rome's use of both violent and non-violent methods of penetrating the African continent. Her systems of colonization set the tone and standard for subsequent post-Roman eras of Islam, middle Ages and modern European Capitalist Empires.
Leszek Mrozewicz, Flavian Urbanisation of Africa
Studia Europaea Gnesnensia 7/2013
ISSN 2082–5951
Leszek Mrozewicz
(Gniezno)
Flavian Urbanisation of Africa
Abstract
The article is concerned with urbanisation processes in Roman Africa, initiated by
the Flavian dynasty (69–96). Emperor Vespasian and his successors focused their attention primarily on Africa Proconsularis. The new cities they created — colonies and
municipia — were to perform an important strategic role, i.e. protect the territories of
Africa Proconsularis against the southern tribes. With the great private latifundia and
imperial domains, the province played a significant role in supplying the city of Rome
with grain. Also, from the point of view of the state, the undertakings meant internal
consolidation of the province.
Key words
Imperium Romanum, Africa, Flavians, urbanisation, Romanization, colonies, municipia
201
Studia Europaea Gnesnensia 7/2013 · people and places
Throughout the last half-century of studies of the Roman North Africa1,
it has become an established notion in science that the reign of the Flavian
dynasty was a decisive turning point in its history2, and rightly so. This breakthrough embraced all areas of life, while the nature of the transformation is
best reflected by the view that it was only thanks to the Flavians that Africa
became fully Roman3. What is more, this is accompanied by the well-founded
thesis that without the achievements of the Flavians, the great prosperity of the
Flavian provinces in the 2nd–3rd centuries would not have been possible: their
successors reaped what the Flavians had sowed4. Without going into too much
detail, one should also recognise the rationality of the postulate to set apart the
Flavian period in the history of Roman Africa as an era in its own right5.
The above remarks apply to the urbanisation activities as well, i.e. to founding new towns and stimulating development of the existing ones. As we know,
Northern Africa became an object of Roman colonisation, both initiated by the
authority as well as spontaneous ones, as early as 2nd cent. BC, but Julius Cesar and
Provinces Africa Proconsularis, Mauretania Caesariensis, Mauretania Tingitana; Numidia
was established only by Septimius Severus, by separating the western part of Proconsularis, i.e.
the former (dating back to Caesar) Africa Nova.
2
T. Kotula, A propos d’une inscription reconstituée de Bulla Regia (Hammam-Darradji).
Quelques municipes « mysterieux » de l’Afrique Proconsulaire, MEFRA LXXIX 1967, p. 207–
–220, esp. p. 218–219; idem, Afryka Północna w starożytności, Wrocław 1972, p. 149–154;
M. Leglay, Les Flaviens et l’Afrique, MEFRA LXXX 1968, p. 201–246.
3
M. Leglay, Les Flaviens, p. 246: “sur tous les plans de la vie de l’Afrique et des Africains, au
point de vue de la administration, comme au point de vue de la défense et de la colonisation
du pays, comme aussi pour la romanisation de ses habitants, la dynastie fondée par Vespasien
a joué un rôle primordial et décisif. Punico-romaine jusqu’à César, romano-punique ensuite,
l’Afrique du Nord ne devint vraiment romaine que sous les Flaviens… ”; cf. H. Bengtson, Die
Flavier, München 1979, p. 129 (taking into account the review by W. Eck, Gnomon 53, 1981,
p. 343–347).
4
See ibidem, p. 234: “Les Antonins on récolté en Afrique ce que les Flaviens avaient semé”;
the phrase has become a classic, see T. Kotula, Afryka Północna, p. 154: “we shall have to repeat
the words of a French historian: « In Africa, the Antonies were to reap the crop of the grain
sowed by the Flavians »”; H. Bengtson, Die Flavier, p. 128: “Die Flavier sind es gewesen, die
die Grundlagen für den Wohlstand der nordafrikanischen Provinzen geschaffen haben, wenn
auch erst die Kaiser des 2. Jahrhunderts n. Chr., die Antonine, hier geerntet haben, was die
Flavier gesät hatten”; Y. Le Bohec, Histoire de l’Afrique romaine 146 avant J.-C. — 439 après
J.-C., Paris 2005, p. 65: “C’est au siècle suivant qu’ils en tirèrent les bénéfices « Les Antonins,
a écrit M. Le Glay, on récolté en Afrique ce que les Flaviens avaient semé »”; cf. paraphrase on
p. 73 “Les Africains […] ont récolté sous les Antonins ce qu’ils avaient semé sous les Flaviens”.
5
T. Kotula, Inscription de Bulla Regia, p. 218; M. Leglay, Les Flaviens, p. 234.
1
202
Leszek Mrozewicz, Flavian Urbanisation of Africa
Octavian Augustus were particularly active in that field, founding and establishing several dozen colonies and municipia6. They found Africa indispensable in
order to satisfy the needs of the soldiers and offset the tensions among the Roman
plebs. Later however, from Augustus to Vespasian, no new municipium or colony
appeared in Africa Proconsularis. Noteworthy developments took place only in
the west, in the newly established (42 AD) provinces of Mauretania Caesariensis
and Tingitana, where Claudius should be credited with several colonies and municipia, with optimo iure municipal rights granted to Volubilis7.
The crisis of the your of four emperors did not spare Africa either8. In the
middle of 68, Clodius Macer, the legate of the Legio III Augusta (stationed at
the time in Ammaedara), renounced his allegiance to Nero on receiving the
6
W. Barthel, Zur Geschichte der römischen Städte in Africa, diss. Greifswald 1904, p. 8–49;
S. Gsell, Histoire ancienne de l’Afrique du Nord VIII, Paris 1928, p. 170–182; T.R.S. Broughton,
The Romanization of Africa Proconsularis, Baltimore–London 1929, p. 49–68; F. Vittinghoff,
Römische Kolonisation und Bürgerrechtspolitik unter Caesar und Augustus, Wiesbaden 1952,
p. 81–85, 110–118 (with Mauretania), see the map at the end of the work showing the deductio
of Caesar and Augustus; L. Teutsch, Das Städtewesen in Nordafrika, Berlin 1962, esp. p. 120–126
(Caesar), 229–233 (Augustus); J. Gascou, La politique municipale de l’Empire romain en Afrique
proconsulaire de Trajan à Septime-Sévère, Rome 1972, p. 21–27 (quoted henceforth as Gascou
I); a very good, concise outline of the state of urbanisation in the pre-Flavian times: C.R. Whittaker, Roman Africa: Augustus to Vespasian, CAH2 XI, 1996, p. 603–610.
7
Cf. L. Chatelain, Inscriptions Latines du Maroc, Paris 1942 (= ILM), 56: Ti. Claud(io)
Caes(ari) Aug(usto) / divi fil(io) Ger(manico) p(ontifici) m(aximo) trib(unicia) pot(estate)
/ (quarta) co(n)s(uli tertium), (consuli) desig(nato quartum) imp(eratori octavum) / p(atri)
p(atriae) Munic(ipium) Volub(itanorum) im/petrata c(ivitate) R(omana) et conubio / et
oneribus remissis / d(ecreto) d(ecurionum) d(edit) / M. Fadius Celer Flavianus / Maximus
proc(urator) Aug(usti) proleg(ato) / dedicavit; 116: M. Val(erio) Bostaris / f(ilio) Gal(eria tribu)
Severo / aed(ili) sufeti IIvir(o) / flamini primo/5 in municipio suo / praef(ecto) auxilior(um)
adversus Aedemo/nem oppressum bello / huic ordo municipii Volub(itanorum) ob me/rita erga
rem pub(licam) et legatio/10nem bene gestam qua ab divo / Claudio civitatem Ro/manam et
conubium cum pere/grinis mulieribus immunitatem / annor(um decem), incolas, bona civium
bel/15lo interfectorum quorum here/des non extabant, suis impetra/vit / Fabia Bira Izelatae f(ilia)
uxor indulge/ntissimo viro honore usa impensam / remisit / et d(e) s(ua) p(ecunia) d(edit)
d(e)dic(avit); 57: Divo Claudio / Volubitani civitate / Romana ab eo donati; o Volubilis (Ksar
Pharaoun, Maroko): RE IX A1 (1961), p. 864–873 (M. Euzennat); PECS, p. 988–989; ASM,
p. 860–863; DNP 12/2 (2002), p. 318–319; R. Thouvenot, Volubilis, Paris 1949; Ch. Saumagne,
Volubilis, municipe latin, Revue historique de droit français et étranger 30, 1952, p. 388–401;
J. Gascou, Municipia civium Romanorum, Latomus 30, 1971, p. 133–141 esp. 136–141; M. Risse
(ed.), Volubilis. Eine römische Stadt in Marokko von der Frühzeit bis in die islamische Periode,
Mainz 2001.
8
Y. Le Bohec, Histoire de l’Afrique romaine, p. 62–63.
203
Studia Europaea Gnesnensia 7/2013 · people and places
news about the events in Gaul and Spain9. In order to strengthen his forces, he
created another legion — Legio I Macriana liberatrix10. Although the move was
local in nature, Macer found supporters in Sicily11; he also blocked the supply of
grain from Proconsularis12, which led to famine in Rome during the last weeks of
Nero’s reign and perhaps contributed to his eventual downfall13. When Clodius
Macer took identical action when Galba, of whom he disapproved, ascended to
power, it caused the emperor to lose popularity among the people of Rome14. In
early spring 68, Clodius Macer was killed on Galba’s orders15. However, this was
no the end of the ‘African’ turmoil: Galba appointed one procurator, Lucceius
Albinus, to oversee both Mauritanian provinces, Tingitana and Caesariensis16,
thanks to which the latter gained command of a small army, comprising 19 cohorts and 5 alae17. After Galba’s downfall, Lucceius Albinus recognised the authority of Oton who, following ius Latii, executed administrative incorporation
of the Maurorum civitates, i.e. the municipalities of Mauretania to Bettica18.
9
P. Romanelli, Storia delle province romane dell’Africa, Roma 1959, p. 279–282 (on
p. 279 note 1: listing of sources); M. Leglay, Les Flaviens, p. 206–207; Y. Le Bohec, La Troisième
Légion d’Auguste, Paris 1989, p. 349–352; A. Kunisz, L’insurrection de Clodius Macer en Afrique
du Nord en 68 de notre ère, Wrocław 1994, on dating see p. 37–48, esp. 43, 45–46; complete
listing and appraisal of sources (Tacitus, Plutarch, Suetonius): p. 9–15; course of the rebellion:
p. 143–161; T.E.J. Wiedemann, From Nero to Vespasian, CAH2 X, 1996, p. 259; C.R. Whittaker,
Roman Africa, p. 599.
10
RE XII 2 (1925), p. 1417–1418 (E. Ritterrling); cf. R. Cagnat, L’armée romaine d’Afrique et
occupation militaire de l’Afrique sous les empereurs, Paris 1913, p. 141–146.
11
Y. Le Bohec, La Troisième Légion, p. 350; A. Kunisz, L’insurrection, p. 104–106, 147; cf.
P. Romanelli, Storia, p. 281.
12
Tac. Hist. I 2; 73,2; Plut. Galba 6;13; Suet., Galba 2; 2/3 of Rome’s demand for grain was
satisfied by Africa, while Egypt supplied a quarter, see M. Leglay, Les Flaviens, p. 230; G.Ch.
Picard, Néron et le blé d’Afrique, Cahiers de Tunisie, 4,14, 1956, p. 163–173; C.R. Whittaker,
Roman Africa, p. 599.
13
A. Kunisz, L’insurrection, p. 43–44, 145–146; the author follows the thesis of K. Bradley,
A “publica fames” in A.D. 68, AJPh 93, 1972, p. 451–458.
14
T.E.J. Wiedemann, From Nero, p. 263, cf. 599.
15
Tac. Hist. I 7,1; 37,1; IV 49,7; Suet. Galba 11; Plut. Galba 15; P. Romanelli, Storia, p. 282;
M. Leglay, Les Flaviens, p. 206; Y. Le Bohec, La Troisième Légion, p. 350; A. Kunisz, L’insurrection,
p. 149.
16
B.E. Thomasson, Fasti Africani. Senatorische und ritterliche Amtsträger in den römischen
Provinzen Nordafrikas von Augustus bis Diokletian, Stockholm 1996, p. 198.
17
RE XIV 2 (1930), p. 2374.
18
Tac. Hist. 78; RE XIV 2 (1930), p. 2374 (St. Weinstock).
204
Leszek Mrozewicz, Flavian Urbanisation of Africa
After yet another change on the throne, Albinus did not recognise Vitellius and
started preparing for the invasion of Spain. In response, his opponents began to
spread the information19 that Albinus intends to establish a separate state, that
he wishes to proclaim himself king and adopt the name of Juba. Apart from the
Mauritanian provinces, the state was allegedly to include Spain as well, or least
its part20. Upon instigation of the governor of Hispania Tarraconensis, Cluvius
Rufus, Albinus was eventually murdered21. Another personage to cause trouble
was L. Calpurnius Piso22, proconsul of Africa, who had been appointed to the
post by Vitellius. There was a rumour that he had been suggested proclaiming
himself emperor, that he was making his way to Germania to lead the rebelling
troops of Vitellius23. Energetic action undertaken by a legion legate, Valerius
Festus24, led to the death of the proconsul25. On top of that, there was the unrest
caused by the nomadic tribes, especially the Garamants26 and the Nasamons27.
Vespasian was not alien to African realities: he had been proconsul there in
Realia 63–6428. However, he was not all too well remembered29 which, taking
As above.
P. Romanelli, Storia, p. 283–284; C.R. Whittaker, Roman Africa, p. 600.
21
Tac. Hist. II 58; 59; P. Romanelli, Storia, p. 284; Y. Le Bohec, Histoire de l’Afrique romaine,
p. 63.
22
B.E. Thomasson, Fasti Africani, p. 42.
23
Tac. Hist. IV 38; M. Leglay, Les Flaviens, p. 207–208; P. Romanelli, Storia, p. 286–288.
24
C. Calpetanus Rantius Quirinalis Valerius Festus, leg(atus) pro praet(ore) ex[ercit(us) Afri]cae:
CIL V 531 = ILS 989 (Tergeste); Tac. Hist. II 98,1; IV 49–50; Pln. epist. III 7, 12; see RE III 1 (1897),
p. 1363–1364 (Groag); M. Leglay, Les Flaviens, p. 213; B.E. Thomasson, Fasti Africani, p. 134.
25
Tac. Hist. IV 38; 48–50, 1–2; C.R. Whittaker, Roman Africa, p. 599.
26
Tac. Hist II 98,1; IV 49, 1–2; Pln. Epist. III 7,12; P. Romanelli, Storia, p. 288–292; M. Leglay,
Les Flaviens, p. 215–216; Y. Le Bohec, Histoire de l’Afrique romaine, p. 763–64; A. Gutsfeld,
Römische Herrschaft und einheimischer Widerstand in Nordafrika. Militärische Auseinandersetzungen Roms mit den Nomaden, Stuttgart 1989, p. 82; see also J. Desanges, Catalogue des
tribus africaines de l’Antiquité classique à l’ouest du Nil, Dakar 1962, p. 93–94; Ch. Daniels, The
Garamantes of southern Libya, Sussex 1970, esp. p. 21–24; M. Bénabou, La résistance africaine à la romanisation, Paris 1976, p. 101–103.
27
Cass. Dio LXVII 4,6; Ios. BJ II 381; J. Desanges, Catalogue, p. 152–154; M. Bénabou, La
résistance, p. 104–106; A. Gutsfeld, Römische Herrschaft, p. 83–86.
28
U. Vogel-Weidemann, Die Statthalter von Africa und Asia in den Jahren 14–68 n. Chr.,
Bonn 1982, p. 205–214 esp. 212; B.E. Thomasson, Fasti Africani, p. 40.
29
Tac. Hist. II 97,2: Quippe integerum illic ac fvorabilem proconsulatum Vitellius famosum
invidiosumque Vespasianus egerat; Suet. Vesp.4,3; cf. Suet. Nero 4: Africam integerrime nec
sine magna dignatione administravit.
19
20
205
Studia Europaea Gnesnensia 7/2013 · people and places
into account the anti-Flavian mood in Africa when Vespasian was proclaimed
emperor certainly did not make his task any easier30.
One of Vespasian first decisions was to transfer, in 74–75, the seat of the
Legio III Augusta from Ammaedara (Haïdra) to Theveste (Tébessa)31. Still,
Lambaesis (Tazzoult) in Numidia became their permanent base: an element of
the legion arrived there already in 8132, while the entire unit was transferred in
the second decade of the 2nd century, at the latest33. Meanwhile, in place of the
former camp in Ammaedara, Vespasian established a veteran colony: Colonia
Flavia Augusta Emerita Ammaedara34.
M. Leglay, Les Flaviens, p. 207–209.
F. de Pachtère, Les camps de la Troisième légion en Afrique au premier siècle de l’empire,
CRAJ 1916, p. 273–284 esp. 282; P. Romanelli, Storia, p. 293; M. Leglay, Les Flaviens, p. 216–217;
PECS, p. 913–914 (Thevestis); Y. Le Bohec, La Troisième Légion, p. 353.
32
The erection of a military camp in Lambaesis is confirmed in a builiding inscription from
81 (July–September) — L. Leschi, Inscriptions latines de Lambèse et de Zana (Diana Veteranorum), I. Un nouveau camp de Titus à Lambèse, Libyca I 1953, p. 189–197 = AE 1914, 137:
Imp(eratore) T(ito) Caesare divi Ves/pasiani f(ilio) Aug(usto) pon(tifice) max(imo) / trib(unicia)
pot(estate) [[XI]] co(n)s(ule) VIII / [[Imp(eratore) XV cens(ore) p(atri) p(atre) et Caes(are) di/
vi f(ilio) Domitiano co(n)s(ule) VII ]] / L.Tettio Iuliano leg. Aug. pr.pr. / leg(io) III Aug(usta) /
muros et castra a solo /fecit; M. Leglay, Les Flaviens, p. 218; Y. Le Bohec, La Troisième Légion,
p. 354 note230, 369; idem, Histoire de l’Afrique romaine, p. 64; B.E. Thomasson, Fasti Africani,
p. 137.
33
Construction of the so-called large camp was completed no later than 129, see M. Janon,
Recherches à Lambèse, Antiquités Africaines 7, 1973, p. 200–215, esp. 211–215; idem, Lambèse
et l’occupation militaire de la Numidie meridionale, [in:] Studien zu den Militärgrenzen Roms
II, Köln–Bonn 1977, p. 473–485 esp. 479–485; idem, Lambaesis, Antike Welt 8,2, 1977, p. 3–20;
DNP 6 (1999), p. 1076–1078; Y. Le Bohec, Histoire de l’Afrique romaine, p. 66.
34
CIL VIII 308: Imp(eratori) Caes(ari) / M. Aurelio / Valerio / [Maximi]ano /5pio felici /
invicto / Aug(usto) / Col(onia) Fl(avia) Aug(usta) / Aemerita (sic!) / Ammaed(ara) / d(ono)
d(ato) p(ecunia) p(ublica); 309 = 11532: DDNN [Val(erio) Diocletiano Aug(usto) VII et
[Maximiano] Aug(usto) VI co(n)s(uli) / Kal(endis) Aprilib(us) porticus theatri sumptu publico / coloniae Ammaedarensium restitutae; cf. CIL VIII 302; RE IV 1 (1900), p. 554 (E. Kornemann); RE VI 2 (1909), p. 2684 (R. Weynand); PECS, p. 50; ASM, p. 819–820; J. Assmann,
De coloniis oppidisque Romanis, quibus imperatroria nomina vel cognomina imposita sunt,
diss. Langensalzae 1905, p. 109 (ascribes foundation of the colony to Domitian); M. Leglay,
Les Flaviens, p. 217–219; B. Galsterer-Kröll, Untersuchungen zu den Beinamen der Städte des
Imperium Romanum, Epigraphische Studien 9, 1972, p. 73, 75, 98 no. 5; M.S. Bassignano, Il
flaminato nelle province romane dell’Africa, Roma 1974, p. 61–67; Gascou I, p. 29–30; idem,
La politique municipale de Rome en Afrique du Nord I. De la mort d’Auguste au début du
III siècle, ANRW II 10.2 ( 1982), p. 161–162 (quoted later: Gascou II); C. Lepelley, Les cités
de l’Afrique romaine au Bas-Empire, Paris 1981, II, p. 64–65; N. Duval, Topographie et ur30
31
206
Leszek Mrozewicz, Flavian Urbanisation of Africa
The honourable appellation “Flavia” and assigning Ammaedara to tribus
Quirina35 betoken the Flavian initiative, while “Emerita” clearly indicates
that we are dealing with a deductio veteranorum36. This is validated by the
traces of veteran settlement in Ammaedara and in the immediate vicinity37.
Nevertheless, establishing a colony, irrespective of satisfying the needs of
the veterans, had a hidden, thoroughly strategic aim. The void left by Legio
III Augusta had to be filled, thus ensuring protection from the threat of the
Musulamii, a tribe whose lands adjoined to Roman territories, including Ammaedara38, and bordered on the imperial domains39. At the beginning of the
banisme d’Ammaedara (actuellement Haïdra, Tunisie), ANRW II 10.2 (1982), p. 633–671,
esp. p. 637–639.
35
W. Kubitschek, Imperium Romanum tributim discriptum, Wien 1889, p. 136, 138–139;
cf. CIL VIII 5351 (Calama): T. Flavio T.f. Quir(ina tribu) Macro II vir(o) flamini perpetuo Ammaedarensium…
36
B. Galsterer-Kröll, Untersuchungen, p. 75; A. Berthier, La Numidie. Rome et le Maghreb,
Paris 1981, p. 131; contra J. Lassère, Ubique populus. Peuplement et mouvements de population dans l’Afrique romaine de la chute de Carthage à la fin de la dynastie des Sévères (146 av.
C. — 235 p. C.), Paris 1977, p. 250: “Ammaedara était une colonie honoraire, sans déduction
effective de colons…”.
37
ILT 463 (Haïdra): Q. Fabius Vic/tor vetera/nus leg III Aug(ustae) / vixit annis LXXI /
h(ic) s(itus) e(est); ILT 465 (Haïdra) Gallico / militi leg(ionis) III Aug(ustae) / (centuria) Volusi
militavit ann(is) / XXVIIII /5 h(ic) s(itus) e(st) / M. Cornelius Martialis com/milit(i)o et amicus
(centuria) Cluenti d(e) s(ua) [p(osuit)] ? /5 fecit pro meritis Gallici amici; both texts originate
from the 1st century, which is chiefly evinced by the format of the notation (hic situs est, no
dis manibus); as regards the second tombstone, it belonged most probably to a veteran; as for
colonia veteranorum see reservations of Lassère’s, as above.
38
ILAlg 2939bis (Khabguet Nasser): [Ex autoritate / im(peratoris) Ne]rvae Trai/[a]ni
Caes(aris) Aug((usti) Ger(manici) / [Da]cici co(n)s(ulis) VI / imp(eratoris) XIIII /5 L. Acilius Strabo / Clodius Nummus / l[e]g(atus) Aug(usti) pr(o) p(raetore) inter / Aug(ustum) et
Amedere(nses — sic!) et Musul(amios); J. Desanges, Catalogue, p. 117–121; M. Leglay, Les
Flaviens, p. 216–217; Gascou I, p. 33; M. Bénabou, La résistance, p. 558; still valid: J. Toutain, Le
territoire des Musulami, Mémoirs de la Société des Antiquiares de France 57, 1896, p. 271–294,
esp. p. 293: “Mais des colonies romaines, Ammaedara, Thelepte, Madaura, ont été fondées tout
autour, sinon même à l’intérieure de leur territoire de parcours; les postes militaires, comme
Thala et Sufes, crées pour les surveiller et les contenir, ont vu naitre sous leurs remparts des cités
prospères; les terres laissèes aux Musulamii ont ètè délimitées”.
39
E.g. ILAlg 2988 (Ain Kamellel): [E]x auc[t]ori[tate] / Imp(eratoris) Nerva(e) Traiani
/ Caes(aris) Aug(usti) Ger(manici) Dacici / L. Minucius Natalis /5 leg(atus) Aug(usti) pro
pr(aetore) / inter Aug(ustum) et / Musul(amios) XXXI / PMP .. VI DCCC; ILAlg 2989: Ex
auc[t]o[ritate] / Imp(eratoris Ne<ne>rv[ae Traiani] / Caes(aris) Aug(usti) Ger(manici) D[acici]
/ co(n)s(ulis) VI im[p(eratoris)] XIII /5 L. Acilius Strabo Clod/ius Nummus leg(atus) Aug(usti) /
207
Studia Europaea Gnesnensia 7/2013 · people and places
new era Legio III Augusta was deployed precisely in view of the necessity to
keep the Musulamii in check40.
The second Flavian veteran colony was Madaura (Madauros; Mdaourouch)41,
located some 25 km south of Tagasta, and around 80 km north-west of Ammaedara. The fact that it was a deductio veteranorum is confirmed in two
sources: information from Apuleius from Madaura about the city having been
established by veterans42 and an inscription found in the forum with the name
Colonia Flavia Augusta Veteranorum Madaurensium43. The inscription confirms at the same time that Flavians were the founders of the colony44. This is
additionally corroborated by the fact that Madauros belonged to the tribus
Quirina45. Unfortunately, only a few tombstones of the former soldiers attest
to the veteran settlement. Naturally, there is no certainty that their settling to
live in Madauros is directly linked to the establishment of the colony46. An
echo of the actions of Vespasian and his sons may be sought in the relatively
substantial group of Flavii in the onomastic material from Madauros47, yet
it should be remembered that there are equally numerous instances of Iulii,
pr(o) pr(aetore) inter / Aug(ustum) et Musul(amios); M. Leglay, Les Flaviens, p. 204, 209 (about
emperor’s saltus); M. Bénabou, La résistance, p. 437.
40
P. Romanelli, Storia, p. 186; M. Leglay, Les Flaviens, p. 204.
41
RE XIV 1 (1928), p. 201–202 s.v. Madauros (H. Dessau); DNP 7(1999), p. 631 s.v. Madauros; PECS, p. 541–542; M.S. Bassignano, Il flaminato, p. 273–284.
42
Apul. Apol. XXIV 8: Ac deinceps veteranorum militum novo condita splendidissima colonia.
43
ILAlg 2152: spl[endidus ordo co]l(oniae) Fl(aviae) Aug(ustae) vete[rano(rum)
Madauren]sium…
44
P. Romanelli, Storia, p. 294; Gascou I, p. 32–33; C. Lepelley, Les cités, p. 127–128; J. Lassère,
Ubique populus, p. 252–254; Gascou II, p. 163; B. Galsterer-Kröll, Untersuchungen, p. 75; Y. Le
Bohec, Histoire de l’Afrique romaine, p. 64 erroneously ascribes Madaura the status of munici
pium; the reconstruction of the inscription suggested by S. Gsell is beyond any doubt (J. Lassère,
Ubique populus, p. 252: “la restitution très certaine par Gsell”).
45
W. Kubitschek, Imperium Romanum, p. 136, 151–152.
46
It concerns among others ILAlg 2197: Ti. Clau[]/i(us) Cresce(n)[s eq(ues)] / ala Gal[lo]
ru(m) m(ilitavit) an[n(nis)] /5 XXXVI v[ix(it)] / ann(is) LXX[X] ? /XV h(ic) s(itus) e(st) / p(ius)
in(n)oce(n)s); ILAlg 2201: Dis / Manibus / sacr(um) / L. Fotidius L(ucii) f(ilius) / Pol(ia teribu)
Absens /5 veter(anus) flam(en) Aug(usti) / per(petuus) mil(itavit) an(nis) XXVI / vix(it) an(nis)
LXXXX / h(ic) s(itus) e(st); both inscriptions originate from the early period, i.e. from the turn
of the 1st and the 2nd century (as the formula suggests), hence veterans may, but only may, have
been associated with deductio coloniae, see J. Lassère, Ubique populus, p. 252–254.
47
See ILAlg 2235, 2294, 2296, 2352, 2443–2446, 2448–2452, 2454–2476.
208
Leszek Mrozewicz, Flavian Urbanisation of Africa
Claudii, Marcii, Cornelii, Sempronii, etc. In this respect, one should concur
with the view expressed in the literature of the subject that the appearance of
Flavii in Madauros marked an end to a stage of Romanisation which started
with Marius, in the 2nd century BC48.
Colonia Flavia Augusta Veteranorum Madaurensium did not appear from
a scratch. The history of Madauros dates back at least to the late 3rd century BC.
At the time, the town belonged to Syphax, and after the Second Punic War to
Masinissa49. In establishing the colony (?), Vespasian anticipated the strategic
significance of Madauros, which was situated, to quote Apuleius, on the borderlands of Numidia and Gaetulia50. Immediately to the south, there lay the
frontier with the Musulamii51, so it was undoubtedly the task of the colonists
to secure the Roman possessions, including imperial domains52, from potential
pressures exerted by the tribe53.
Both Ammaedara and Madauros were colonies based on deductio, i.e. associated with the settlement of specially chosen settlers. A different arrangement applies in the case of Hippo Regius54, the third “African” colony of the
Flavians. Already in 78, Hippo Regius, a town of Phoenician tradition55, had
J. Lassère, Ubique populus, p. 254: “L’installation des vétérans flaviens à Madaure a donc
complété un début de romanisation”; see also the authors deliberations on p. 254–257.
49
According the the account of Apuleius, Apol. XXIV 7–8; see Gsell, ILAlg, p. 181; RE XIV
1 (1928), p. 201; Gascou I, p. 33; Gascou II, p. 163; J. Lassère, Ubique populus, p. 254.
50
Apul. Apol. XXIV 7–8: sitam Numidiae et Getuliae in ipso confinio; see Gascou I, p. 33.
51
ILAlg 2828: Ex auctorita[te] / Imp(eratoris) Nervae Traiani / Caes(aris) Aug(usti) Germani/ci Dacici /5 L. Minicius Natalis / leg(atus) Aug(usti) pro pr(aetore) inter / Madaurenses et
Musulamios (fines posuit); cf. 2829: [Ex auc]tori[tate] / Imp(eratoris) Nervae Traiani / Caes(aris)
Aug(usti) Ger(manici) Daci(ci) / co(n)s(ulis) VI [im]p(eratoris) XIII /5 L. Acilius Strabo Cl[od]/
ius Nummus leg(atus) Aug(usti) / pr(o) pr(aetore) inter Musul(amios) / et Madaurenses; RE
XIV 1 (1928), p. 202; Cillium, p. 284–286, 293; Gascou I, p. 33; Gascou II, p. 163.
52
See above, note 39; cf. inscription of T. Flavius Macro (CIL VIII 5351) who was proc(urator)
Aug(usti) praediorum saltum [Hip]oniensis et Thevestini (see above, note 35).
53
Gascou I, p. 33: “La déduction d’une colonie à Madauros parait donc entrer dans le cadre
d’une avance de la colonisatioin ver l’Ouest et d’une contrôle plus étroit des Musulames”; Gascou
II, p. 163.
54
RE VIII 2 (1913), p. 2627–2628 (H. Dessau); E. De Ruggiero, Hippo Regius, DE III (1922),
p. 744; PECS, p. 394–396; ASM, p. 846; C. Lepelley, Les cités, p. 113; DNP 5 (1998), p. 579; see
E. Marec, Hippone la Royale. Antique Hippo Regius, Alger 1954; H.V.M. Dennis, Hippo Regius.
From the earliest times to the Arab conquest, Amsterdam 1970 (reprinted Princeton 1924); M.S.
Bassignano, Il flaminato, p. 268–272; L. Teutsch, Das Städtewesen, p. 163–164.
55
As above.
48
209
Studia Europaea Gnesnensia 7/2013 · people and places
the status of municipium56 awarded by Augustus57. Also it does not feature
on Pliny’s list of African colonies58. Ptolemy was the first to mention Hippona
as a colony59. Apart from that, colonia Hippona appears only twice in nonepigraphical sources: in Itinerarium Antonini60 and in De Civitate Dei by St.
Augustine61. In inscriptions, Colonia Hippo Regius is first recorded only under
Severans62. Since Claudius Ptolemy did not use sources dated later than Trajan,
Hippona must have obtained the status of a colony between 78 and the reign
of that emperor (97–117)63.
AE 1949, 76 (Hippo Regius, on the paving stones of the forum, excellent photographs:
Marec, Hippone la Royale, p. 75; L. Leschi, Algérie antique, Paris 1952, p. 13): C. Paccius Africanus pont(ifex) co(n)s(ul) proco(n)s(ul) patronus municipii dedic(avit)…; see also E. Marec,
Les fouilles d’Hippone, CRAI 1948, p. 558–559; idem, Le forum d’Hippone, Libyca II 1954,
p. 383–385; date: 78 at the latest, i.e. year of proconsulate (77/78) of Paccius Africanus, see
B.E. Thomasson, Fasti Africani, p. 44.
57
ILAlg 109: Munic(ipium) Aug(ustum) Hipp(oniensium) Reg(iorum); in this matter see
F. Vittinghoff, Römische Kolonisation, p. 115; L. Teutsch, Das Städtewesen (as note 6), p. 163–
–164 (municipium ex iure Latini).
58
Pln. NH V 29: Ad hunc finem [with Cyrenaica] Africa a fluvio Ampsaga [on the border with Mauretania] populos DXVI habet, qui Romano pareant imperio; in his colonias
sex, praeter iam dictas Uthinam, Thuburbi; the remaining colonies are listed by Pliny in
paragraphs 22 and 24; all in all, the list is as follows: Cirta, Sicca (§22), Carthago, Maxula
(§24), Uthina i Thuburbi (§29); see comment p. 141–142; see H.V.M. Dennis, Hippo Regius,
p. 29.
59
Ptol. Geogr. IV 3.5 ed. Müller p. 615–616; on the reading see Gascou I, p. 34; H.V.M. Dennis, Hippo Regius, p. 29.
60
Itinerarium Antonini (provinciarum) p. 3: 20,3 Hippone Regio colonia [O. Cuntz (ed.),
Itineraria Romana. Vol I. Itineraria Antonini Augusti et Burdigalense, Lipsiae MCMXXIX]; see
H.V.M. Dennis, Hippo Regius, p. 29.
61
XXII 8,11: quod Hipponensi coloniae vicinum est.
62
AE 1958, 141: Coloni[a] / Augusta / Hippo / Regius /5 restituit / felic(iter); cf. no. 142, where
‘colonia’ was completely reconstructed, see E. Marec, Inscriptions recueilles à Hippone dans
les Thermes du Nord et du Sud, Libyca IV 1956, p. 291–317 esp. p. 306–309 no. 1–2; AE 1960,
104: Resp(ublica) col[oniae Hipp]o(nis) Reg(ii) — from 276; E. Marec, Le forum d’Hippone,
p. 382: Terra mar[i]/que victor[i] / ac publica[e] / libertati[ps] restituto[ri] / d(omino) n(ostro)
Fl(avio) Val[en]/ti victori / ac triumfa/tori sempe[r] / augusto / Respulica (sic!) / Col(oniae)
Hipp[(onensium) Reg(iorum)] / d(ecreto) d(ecurionum) p(ecunia) p(ublica), see AE 1955,
p. 48 —from the year of 364 A.D.
63
Gascou I, p. 34; Gascou II, p. 164; M. Bénabou, La résistance, p. 418; C. Lepelley, Les cités,
p. 113; Y. Le Bohec, Histoire de l’Afrique romaine, p. 64.
56
210
Leszek Mrozewicz, Flavian Urbanisation of Africa
There is a general consensus of scientific opinion, especially since the publication of the article by Tadeusz Kotula64, that Hippo Regius was created by the
Flavians65; possibly it was Vespasian himself, in the last months of his reign.
The Flavian option is supported by the tribus Quirina, where Hippo Regius was
enrolled66, the tombstones of the Flavii in Hippona67 and in the area as well as
increased activity in road construction68, e.g. repairs were made to the road
from Carthage to Theveste and new routes were traced, connecting Theveste
— Hippo Regius and Theveste — Thelepte69; the important road leading from
Hippo Regius to Cirta was renovated as well70. The presence of the Flavian
imperial inscription in Hippona71, as well as discovery of remnants of a monumental statue of Vespasian at the forum, with a perfectly preserved head, are
facts that cannot be easily discounted72.
The colony of Hippo Regius was established as a consequence of change
in the legal status of the town: it was elevated from municipium to the rank
of titular colony, the first such colony in Africa73. This means that no uniform
group of colonists was brought to Hippo Regius74. The change concerned the
T. Kotula, Inscription de Bulla Regia, p. 217–218; see Gascou I, p. 34–35; Gascou II, p. 164.
A completely different view was expressed by J. Lassère, Ubique populus, p. 248: in his
opinion Hippo Regius obtained the rights of a colony only in 198 from Septimius Severus, which
is attested to in the inscription AE 1958, 141 (above, note 62).
66
W. Kubitschek, Imperium Romanum, p. 146.
67
T. Kotula, Inscription de Bulla Regia, p. 217 note 4, and Gascou I, p. 34 note 8.
68
P. Romanelli, Storia, p. 299; T. Kotula. L’inscription de Bulla Regia, p. 217.
69
P. Salama, Les voies romaines de l’Afrique du Nord, Alger 1951, p. 25–26, 34; see map:
A. Berthier, La Numidie, p. 186.
70
E. Marec, Le forum d’Hippone, p. 376 nr 2 = AE 1955, 145: [Caes]ar Vespasia[nus] … mandavit anno … [vi]am ab Alpibus us[que ad … s]inum …; P. Romanelli, Storia, p. 299; T. Kotula,
Inscription de Bulla Regia, p. 217.
71
E. Marec, Le forum d’Hippone, p. 377 = AE 1955, 146: [Imp. T. Vespasiano Caep. Aug.
D]ivi Vespasiani [Caes. Aug. Filio po]ntifici max(imo) trib(uniciae) [pot(estatis) IX Imp(eratori)
X]V p(atri) p(atriae) co(n)s(uli) VIII desig(nato) IX cens(ori); E. Marec, ibidem, no. 5: one
fragment of a marble slab with the name of Vespasian (VESP).
72
T. Kotula, L’inscription de Bulla Regia, p. 217; see E. Marec, Le forum d ’Hippone, p. 404 no.
3 (description of the head of Vespasian’s statue); idem, Hippone la Royale, p. 35 (photograph);
L. Leschi, Algérie antique, Paris 1952, p. 15 (photograph).
73
Y. Le Bohec, Histoire de l’Afrique romaine, p. 64; G. Di Vita-Evrard, “Municipium Flavium
Lepcis Magna”, BAC n.s. 17, 1981 (1984), fsc. B, p. 208.
74
See Gascou II, p. 164, quoting J. Desanges, RHD 51, 1973, p. 429 (?); also idem (ed.), Pline
l’Ancien, Histoire Naturelle, Livre V, 1–46 (L’Afrique du Nord), Paris 1980, p. 201–203.
64
65
211
Studia Europaea Gnesnensia 7/2013 · people and places
former inhabitants of the Municipium Augustum Hipponensium Regiorum.
Naturally, this does not preclude the possibility of veterans settling there, but
this would have been individual enterprise. Nevertheless, it should be noted
that data on veterans in the epigraphic material from Hippo Regius and the
area are more than modest75.
Colonia Hippo Regius is an example of urban development policy of a different kind, consisting in upgrading the existing communities — either peregrine or communities of Roman citizens (conventus civium Romanorum)
— to the rank of a city. Those were municipia which as a rule received ius Latinum76. In Africa Proconsularis, three to five such municipia were created in the
Flavian times. Working from the south upwards, the first is Lepcis Magna77,
a town of long Phoenician-Punic traditions, the peregrine civitas Lepcitana78
(libera79), until the moment it received Roman rights. The municipal status
of Lepcis is confirmed in the first place by a monumental inscription from an
honorific arch of Vespasian and Titus80, dated to 77-78. It mentions the patron of the municipium81 — the proconsul C. Paccius Africanus known from
ILAlg 31 (Hippo Regius): D(is) M(anibus) / Cl(audius) Sverus ve[t(eranus) / vix(it) an(nis)
LXI d(iebus) / XII m[i]l(itavit) an(nis) /5 XXV Cl(audius) Rest(utus-, itutus ?) / p(atri) piiss[i]/
mo; 32 (Hippo Regius): Severus vete[ra]/nus cohor(tis) III / praetoriae vix(it) / annis LVIIII
/5 pius suis h(ic) s(itus) [e(st)].
76
G. Alföldy, Notes sur la relation entre le droit de cité et la nomenclature dans l’Empire romain, Latomus 25, 1966, p. 37–57; P. Le Roux, “Municipium Latinum” et “municipium Italiae”:
à propos de la “lex Irnitana”, [in:] Epigrafia, Rome 1991, p. 565–582; A. Beschaouch, Aspects
du droit latin en Afrique romaine, Bulletin de la Société nationale des antiquaires de France
1996, p. 252–262.
77
KlPauly 3 (1969), p. 581–582; PECS, p. 499–500; DNP 7 (1999), p. 75–78; P. Romanelli, Leptis Magna, Roma 1925 (p. 1–36: Storia della città); idem, Leptis Magna, Enciclopedia
dell’Arte Antica Classica e Orientale IV 1961, p. 572–594; L. Teutsch, Das Städtewesen (as
note 6), p. 130–134; M. Floriani Squarciapino, Leptis Magna, Basel 1966 (p. 4–30: Geschichte
der Stadt); M.S. Bassignano, Il flaminato, p. 23–45; C. Lepelley, Les cités, p. 335–368 (Lepcis
Magna); Gascou I, p. 75–83; I.M. Barton, Africa in the Roman Empire, Accra 1972, p. 51–54;
D.J. Mattingly, Lepcis Magna (Lebda), [in:] idem, Tripolitania, London 1995, p. 116–122; A. Di
Vita, Leptis Magna. Die Heimatstadt des Septimius Severus in Nordafrika, Antike Welt 27, 2,
1996, p. 173–190; G. Di Vita-Evrard, Lepcis Magna, [in:] La Libye antique. Cités perdues de
l’Empire romain, Paris 1998, p. 44–145.
78
IRT 301, 330, 331.
79
See G. Di Vita-Evrard, “Municipium Flavium Lepcis Magna”, p. 197–198.
80
Ibidem, p. 200; see R.G. Goodchild, Two Monumental Inscriptions of Lepcis Magna, PBSR
XVII 1950, p. 77–82 (The Dedication of Flavian Arch).
81
IRT 342 = AE 1949, 84 inscription on both sides of a limestone block, dated 77–78): A. —
75
212
Leszek Mrozewicz, Flavian Urbanisation of Africa
Hippo Regius82. This is “accompanied” by w whole range of official Flavian
inscriptions. 83 is the assumed dating of the titulus83 of L. Nonius Asprenas,
also a proconsul of Africa84 and patron of the Lepcis Magna municipium85. In
one of the texts, unfortunately surviving only in fragments, one may surmise
the title of [prin]ceps mun[icipii]86. It is a dedication from some monumental
edifice, most likely from the times of Diocletian: in the first line of the text
there are visible marks of martellation, which may be associated, given the
archaeological context, only with that particular emperor87.
Another interesting item88 is the inscription from the theatre, dated to 92,
whose protagonist, Ti. Claudius Sestius89, besides numerous honourable titles,
Imp(eratori) Caesa[r]i Vespasian[o Aug(usto) p]ont(ifici) max(imo) / [trib(unicia)] pot(estate)
[VIIII imp(eratori) XVIIII p(atri) p(atriae)] co(n)s(uli) V[III] / [T(ito) Imp(eratori)] Caes[ari
Vespasi]ano Aug(usti) f(ilio) / pont(ifici) [imp(eratori)?] co(n)s(uli) VI /5 [C(aius) Pa]ccius Africanus pon[tif(ex) co(n)s(ul) / [pr]oco(n)s(ul) Africae patronu[s] per / Cn(aeum) Dom[itium]
Ponti[c]um pr(aetorem) leg(atum / pro [pr(aetore) pat]ronum municipii dedic(avit) / B. —
[Imp(eratori)] Caesari V[espasia]no Aug(usto) po[nt(ifici) max(imo)] / [tr]ib(unicia) po(testate)
VI[III imp(eratori X]VIII p(atri) p(atriae) c[o(n)]s(uli) VIII / T(ito) Imp(eratori) Caes(ari)
[Vespasian]o Aug(usti) [f(ilio)] pont(ifici) i[mp(eratori)?] co(n)s(uli) [VI?] /5 C(aius) Pac[ci]us
Africanus pontif(ex) [co(n)s(ul) / pr[oc]o(n)s(ul) Africae patronu[s per] / Cn(aeum) Domitium
Pont[ticum] pr(aetorem) leg(atum) / p(ro) p(raetore) patronum [muni]cipi.
82
B.E. Thomasson, Fasti Africani, p. 44 no. 49a.
83
G. Di Vita-Evrard, “Municipium Flavium Lepcis Magna”, p. 200: “IRT 346, dédicace monumentale, provenant d’un édifice non déterminé et gravée d’après un tesxt émanant de la chancellerie du proconsul…”
84
As above, p. 45 no. 51.
85
IRT 346 (enormous inscription on seventeen blocks; I quote only a fragment): Imp(eratore)
Caesare divi Vespasiani [[f(ilio) Domitiano Aug(usto) pontif(ice) max(imo) trib(unicia)
pot(estate) II imp(eratore) [III] p(atre) p(atriae) co(n)s(le) VIIII ]] L. Nonius L. f. Pom(ptina
tribu) Asprenas … proco(n)s(ul) provinciae Africae patronus municipii dedicavit legato pro
pr(aetore) M(arco) Cornelio Firmo; see B.E. Thomasson, Fasti Africani, p. 35.
86
IRT 350; G. Di Vita-Evrard, “Municipium Flavium Lepcis Magna”, p. 200.
87
G. Di Vita-Evrard, “Municipium Flavium Lepcis Magna”, p. 200: “très fragmentaire, est
égalment une dédicace de monument où se lisait, sous la titulature érasé de Domitien, le nom
de l’évergète, notable et partant magistrat, responsable de la construction”.
88
Other inscriptions from the Flavian era: IRT 343 (with Vespasian’s titulature), 344 (propably part of the previous inscription), 345 (“probably Vespasian and Titus”), 348 (Domitian,
year 93–94), 349 (Domitian), 349 a (Domitian).
89
IRT 347: Imp(eratore) Caesare divi Vespasiani [[f(ilio) Domitiano Augusto Germanico
pontif(ice) max(imo) trib(ubnicia) potest(ate) XI imp(eratore) XXI co(n)s(ule) XVI censore
pe[rpetu]o patre patriae]] / Ti(berius) Claudius Quir(ina tribu) Sestius Ti(berii) Claudi(i) Sesti
f(ilius) praefectus sacrorum flamen divi Vespasiani sufes flamen perpetuus amator patriae ama-
213
Studia Europaea Gnesnensia 7/2013 · people and places
mentions the dignity of the sufes, a vestige of the Punic times90. In the epigraphic material dated to the period before Trajan or to the beginning of his reign,
there appears the office of quatuovir91. At the latest, Lepcis Magna received
the title “colonia” from Trajan in 109/110, which is when it appeared for the
first time in inscriptions92. Meanwhile, the most immediate preceding mention
of Lepcis Magna as municipium features in a text dated to 100–102. This is
a fragmentarily preserved inscription which the editor princeps linked to Commodus93. In a slightly modified form, it also appeared as titulus Commodianus
in a corpus of inscriptions from Tripolitania94. Both readings were categorically
objected to by Ginette Di Vita-Evrard, who seems to be wholly justified to have
done so95. In her opinion, the first line does not read DIVI M AURE but DIVI
NERVAE, therefore the personage in question is Trajan, not Commodus. The
second line96, providing the numerical value of tribunicia potestas, allows the
tor civium ornator patriae amator concordiae cui primo ordo et populus ob merita maiorum
eius et ipsius lato clavo semper uti conce[ssit] / podi(um) et aram d(e) s(ua) p(ecunia) f(acienda)
c(uravit).
90
See A.N. Sherwin-White, The Roman Citizenship, Oxford2 1973, p. 363,
91
IRT 305: Neptun[o] / Aug(usto) s[ac(rum)] / C(aius) Sossius [..c. 5 ..] / nus IIIIv[ir
aed(ilicia)?] /5 pot(estate) de sua [pecunia fecit]; cf. Di Vita-Evrard, “Municipium Flavium Lepcis Magna”, p. 203: “appartenant […] selon toute vraisemblance à la fin di Ier s. ou à la décennie
du IIe s. qui précède l’accession au statut colonial…”
92
IRT 353 (Arch of Trajan): [Imp(eratori) Cae]sari divi Nerv[ae f(ilio) Nervae T]raiano Au[gusto Germ(anico)] / [Dacico pont(ifici)] max(imo) trib(unicia) pot(estate) XIIII
imp(eratori) VI co(n)s(uli) V] p(atri) p(atriae) con[sensu omnium] / [ordo et populus] coloniae Ulpiae Tr[aianae fid]elis Lepcis [Magnae arcum] / cum ornamen[tis pecunia pub]lica
feceru[nt].
93
R. Bartoccini, Le Terme di Lepcis (Leptis Magna), Bergamo 1929, p. 92–93: Imperatore
Cae]sare divi M. Aure[li filio / [Ger. Sar]m. pont. max. trib pot. V… / [Deo Herc]uli Genio
municipi / quib ma / municipi mi fc.
94
IRT 286: [Imp(eratore) Caesa]re divi M[arci f(ilio) M(arco) Aurelio Commodo Aug(usto)
/ [.. c.8 ..] pon[t(ifice) max(imo) trib(unicia) pot(estate) V… / [Deo Herc]uli genio municipii
[.. / …]qu[… / .. c. 8 ..] minicipii [..3–4 …]mi[…]; remark on line 1.: “The letters which follow
the M are no longer legible”.
95
G. Di Vita-Evrard, “Municipium Flavium Lepcis Magna”, p. 201; she mentioned the concept earlier in the article entitled: Quatre inscriptions du Djebel Tarhuna: le territoire de Lepcis
Magna, Quaderni di Archeologia della Libia (QAL) 10, 1979, p. 96 note 134.
96
[Ger]m(anico) pon[t(ifice) max(imo) trib(unicia) pot(estate) V …
214
Leszek Mrozewicz, Flavian Urbanisation of Africa
inscription to be dated to the period from December 10th, 100 to the end of 102
(Trajan adopts the cognomen devictae gentis — Dacicus)97.
Thus we arrive at a certainty that Lepcis Magna was a municipium in the
Flavian period, from the beginning of Trajan’s reign until 109 at the outside. There is also every indication that it was Vespasian who elevated Lepcis
Magna to the rank of municipium, as at that very time (in 77/78) the term
appears in the source material98. The potential consideration of the persons
of Claudius or Nero99, in view of the tribus Quirina found in Lepcis100, is utterly unwarranted, outweighed by the evidence of exceptional activity of the
Flavians101. It also seems that the attempts to interpret the title of the sufes
featured in the inscriptions from Magna102 as a proof of the survival of their
“own” law103 — i.e. from before the establishment of the municipium — or
G. Di Vita-Evrard, “Municipium Flawium Lepcis Magna”, p. 201; D. Kienast, Die römischen Kaisertabelle. Grundzüge einer römischen Kaiserchronologie, Darmstadt 1990,
p. 123.
98
See above, note 81; Gascou I, p. 35–36; the use of the term “municipium” in the inscription
IRT 544, dated to the late 3rd cent. or beginning of the 4th cent. is difficult to explain: L. Volusio
Basso Cereali / c(larissimo) v(iro) legato gotius / innocentiae et / aequitatis et consi/5milis moderatio/nis viro / Lepcimagnenses ex de/creto ordinis mu/nicipi patrono perpetuo; on Bassus
Cerealis see B.E. Thomasson, Fasti Africani, p. 124.
99
P. Romanelli, Leptis Magna, DE IV 1953, p. 660: “forse sotto Nerone”; p. 662: “Leptis fu
elevata sotto Nerone”, evidence: ITR 431 (under Nero) mentions a sufes, while IRT 432 (Vespasian) and IRT 346 (Domitian) features “municpium”.
100
W. Kubitschek, Imperium Romanum, p. 150; Gascou I, p. 75, 78; Claudius and Nero were
also associated with that tribus; the tribus Papiria found in Lepcis Magna is obviously unequivocally linked to Trajan and his establishing of the colony.
101
See the accurate formulations by Gascou I, p. 78–79; Ginette Di Vita-Evrard takes an
unequivocal stand here, the title of her article — “Municipium Flavium Lepcis Magna” — is
akin to a manifesto; as regards contruction undertakings of the Flavii, p. 204; see also idem, La
dédicace du temple d’Isis à Sabratha: une nouvelle inscription africaine à l’actif de C. Paccius
Africanus, Libya Antiqua III–IV 1966–1967, p. 13–20.
102
IRT 347, see above, note 88; also the famous inscription in honour of the grandfather of
Septimius Severus: IRT 412; see Gascou I, p. 76.
103
H. Herzig, Die Laufbahn des Lucius Septimius Severus, Sufes, und das Stadtrecht von
Lepcis Magna, Chiron 2, 1972, p. 395–404, cf. p. 404: “Die vormalige, noch 35–36 nachweisbare
civitas (libera?) organisierte und bezeichnete sich in flavischer Zeit als Municipium, wobei sie offenbar ihr eigenes Recht beibehielt und nur der Administration municipalem Vorbild anpasste”;
M.S. Bassignano, Il flaminato, p. 23–45, esp. p. 23–25; see G. Di Vita-Evrard, “Municipium
Flavium Lepcis Magna”, p. 208–209.
97
215
Studia Europaea Gnesnensia 7/2013 · people and places
existence of a “double community”104, meaning a municipium and a peregrine
civitas are pointless and have been rightly questioned by science105. The view
that “by virtue of imperial decision Lepcis was officially transformed into
a municipium, and was effectively governed by the sufes”106 should be recognized as correct.
When looking for the reason why civitas Lepcitana was promoted to the
rank of municipium, one should draw attention to its frontier dispute with the
town of Oea. In 69, it eventuated in an armed clash, with the participation of
the Garamants whom the inhabitants of Oea called in to help. The whole story
ended in a military intervention led by Valerius Festus, the legate of the Legio
III Augusta, who resolved the affair in favour of Lepcis Magna107. Most likely,
the situation drew the attention of Vespasian to the problems in southern Africa
Proconsularis and made him aware of the necessity of definitive solutions. This
explains ius Latinum for Lepcis Magna, in itself an important economic centre108, a fact which undoubtedly played a significant role in Vespasian’s calculations, combined with the delimitation of the frontiers of the new municipium
in 74109. This would mean that Lepcis Magna was granted municipal rights
between 74 and 77110. The operation of delimiting the frontiers was executed,
ex auctoritae Imperatoris Vespasiani, by C. Rutilius Gallicus111, in the rank of
a legatus Augusti pro praetore. He may also been seen as the direct conditor
104
P. Romanelli, Leptis Magna, DE IV 1953, p. 662: “l’ordinamento punico […] come
organo communale per gli di indigeni accanto al comune romano, cioè al municipio e alla
colonia”.
105
Gascou I, p. 76–77; L. Teutsch, Gab es “Doppelgemeinden” im römischen Afrika?, RIDA,
ser. 3, 8, 1961, p. 281–356 (non vidi, quoted after Gascou).
106
G. Di Vita-Evrard, “Municipium Flavium Lepcis Magna”, p. 199: “Lepcis a été officiellement
transformé en municipe en vertu d’une decision impériale et ce municipe est effectivement régi
par des suffètes”; cf. p. 206–209.
107
Pln. NH V 5. 38; Tac. Hist. IV 50; see G. Di Vita-Evrard, Quatre inscriptions, p. 92.
108
Gascou I, p. 79.
109
G. Di Vita-Evrard, “Municipium Flavium Lepcis Magna”, p. 205; cf. eadem, Quatre inscriptions, p. 77–83: two boundary stones with the formula “limitem inter Lepcitanos et Oeenses
derexit”.
110
G. Di Vita-Evrard, Quatre inscriptions, p. 97; see Gascou II, p. 165 note 149.
111
G. DiVita-Evrard, as above, p. 83–87: Q. Iulius Cordinus C. Rutilius Gallicus, for more
on that personage see B.E. Thomasson, Fasti Africani, p. 43 no. 48 (“Kaiserlicher Sonderlegat”).
216
Leszek Mrozewicz, Flavian Urbanisation of Africa
municipii Lepcis Magnae112. For Lepcis Magna, this represented a kind of compensation for the events of 69/70113.
However, Lepcis Magna was relatively remote from the areas of chief urbanisation undertakings of the Flavians, i.e. the northern regions of Africa
Proconsularis, where the establishment of municipia was accompanied by the
creation of three colonies. Of the various proposed lists of Flavian municipia114,
only Sufetula and Bulla Regia give rise to no objection.
Sufetula (Sbeitla)115 was situated 72 km south-east of Ammaedara and
around 40 km north-east of Cillium. The distance to Carthage was 212 km.
The municipal status of Sufetula is confirmed in inscriptions116; the only problematic issue is the date of the grant, as the relevant fragments of texts are
not dated. However, it has been highlighted that both occurrences of tribus
Quirina as well as a fair number of those who bore gentilicium Flavius may be
found in Sufetula117. A fragment of monumental inscription to the honour of
Vespasian and Titus was discovered at the forum in Sufetula118 which, considering the lack of imperial inscriptions from the pre-Flavian period — renders
probability to the role of the Flavians as conditores municipii119. The Flavian
municipium was most likely based on a castellum which the Romans installed
there relatively early, roughly at the same time as the legionary garrison in
G. Di Vita-Evrard, Quatre inscriptions, p. 98.
Gascou I, p. 36.
114
For example: T. Kotula, Inscription de Bulla Regia, passim: Bulla Regia, Sufetula, Cillium;
M. Leglay, Les Flaviens, p. 221–222: Sufetula, Cillium, Thelepte (“bénéficia peut-être aussi grâce
à Vespasien du statut de municipe”); Gascou I, p. 29–35; Gascou II, p. 161–166: Sufetula, Bulla
Regia; Y. Le Bohec, Histoire de l’Afrique romaine, p. 64: Madauros, Sufetula, Bulla Regia.
115
Gascou I, p. 30–31; Gascou II, p. 162; PECS, p. 865–866; DNP 11 (2001), p. 1089; N. Duval, Sufetula, EAA VII (1966), p. 549–551; idem, L’urbanisme de Sufetula = Sbeitla en Tunisie,
ANRW X 2 (1982), p. 596–630; C. Lepelley, Les cités, p. 308–309; M.S. Bassignano, Il flaminato,
p. 64–67.
116
ILAfr 136 (Sbeitla): Iulia[e filiae] / Lucina[e coniugi] / L. Turan[i]/ni Felic[iani?] / ord[o]
/5 splend[idissimus] / Mu[nicipii] / [p(ecunia) p(ublica)]; see also CIL VIII 23222–23225:
p(ublicum) M(unicipii) S(ufetulensium).
117
T. Kotula, Inscription de Bulla Regia, p. 215–216; M. Leglay, Les Flaviens, p. 221; see T.R.S.
Broughton, The Romanization of Africa Proconsularis, Baltimore 1929, p. 102.
118
CIL VIII 23216: [Imp(erator) Ca]es(ar) Ves[pasianus] / [Imp(erator) T(itus) Ca]es(ar)
Ves[pasianus].
119
T. Kotula, Inscription de Bulla Regia, p. 216; Gascou II, p. 162.
112
113
217
Studia Europaea Gnesnensia 7/2013 · people and places
Ammaedara120, and at the latest during the Musulami revolt led by Takfarinas
(117–124)121.
In a 3rd century inscription, most probably dating from the reign of Severus
Alexander122, Sufetula is mentioned as a colonia123. In all likelihood, the status
was granted in the 2nd century124.
From the strategic point of view, the location of Sufetula offered great advantage, securing the road from Ammaedara to Tacapae and the road running
along the coast to Gightis and the cities of Tripolitania (Sabratha, Oea, Lepcis
Magna). It was an important junction, where eight different communication
routes converged125.
Bulla Regia (Hamman Daradji)126, former residence of the Numidian
kings127, an oppidum liberum in Pliny128, owes its final “promotion” to the list
of Flavian municipia to an inscription found in two fragments in the Grand
Baths of the city, discovered forty years apart (1914–1956)129. C. Iulius Cerealis,
Gascou I, p. 31.
C. Lepelley, Les cités, p. 308; according to Gascou II, p. 162. One cannot rule out a different
scenario of the development of Sufetula: with the Legio III Augusta relocated to Theveste, Vespasian built a fortlet (castellum) of auxiliary forces to the south-east of Ammaedara, whose task
was to safeguard the fertile and densely populated areas in the north of the province. This would
explain the presence of gentilicium Flavius. If this is the case, the municipium would have to be
credited to Trajan, which in turn would be validated by the tribus Papira found in inscriptions.
122
H. Pflaum, Les carrières procuratoriennes équestres sous le Haut-Empire romain, Paris
1960, vol. I, p. 824–826.
123
CIL VIII 11340: splendidissimus ordo et universus popul(us) curiarum Col(oniae) Sufe
tulensis.
124
T. Kotula, Inscription de Bulla Regia, p. 215–216 suggest the close of the 2nd century; see
Gascou I, p. 30.
125
Gascou I, p. 31; N. Duval, L’urbanisme de Sufetula = Sbeitla en Tunisie, ANRW X 2 (1982),
p. 599 (map), 602.
126
PECS, p. 171–172; DNP 2 (1997), p. 841–842; Y. Thébert, La romanisation d’une cité indigène d ’Afrique: Bulla Regia, MEFRA LXXXV 1973, p. 247–310; M.S. Bassignano, Il flaminato,
p. 150–155; A. Beschaouch, R. Hannoune, Y. Thébert, Les ruines de Bulla Regia, Rome 1977.
127
See Orosius V 21, 14 (king Hiarbas).
128
Pln. NH V, 22.
129
AE 1916, 75 = ILAfr 458; AE 1964, 177 = P. Quoniam, Deux notables de Bulla Regia,
Karthago XI 1961/1962, p. 3–8: L(ucio) Iulio, L(ucii) f(ilio), Quir(ina tribu), Cereali, q(uaestori),
aed(ili), praef(ecto) i(ure) d(icundo), flam(ini) / [A]ug(usti) perp(etuo) municipi(i) su[i],
flam(ini) Aug(usti) provinciae / [A]fric(ae) anni XXXX, quem honorem ex municipio / [s]uo
Bullensi(um) Regior(um) prim[us gessi]t, huic, cum pr[ovinci]ae Afric(ae) leg[(atus?)…
120
121
218
Leszek Mrozewicz, Flavian Urbanisation of Africa
whom the text celebrates, in addition to a range of important functions held
in ‘his municipium’, including flaminate, was also honoured with the dignity
of flamen provinciae Africae, in the fortieth year from its establishment. This
provides a reference point for the dating of the inscription of Cerealis130. There
are two other similar cases of determining when the function of province priest
was held: C. Otidius Iovinus from Simitthu131 was a sacerdose Africae in XXXIX
(or year before the flaminate of Iulius Cerealis), while P. Mummius Saturninus
from Furnus Maior132 in the CXIII year of the provincial era. The person of
Saturninus represents a special case: honoured by the ordo of his city with the
office of priest of the imperial cult (flamen), he refused it, but by way of apology
funded the pronaos at the temple of Mercury, which is confirmed in further
four inscriptions133. All of those come from the times of Commodus, but only in
the last (CIL VIII 12030) is the information about his consulate preserved: cos.
IIII. Commodus held the fourth consulate in 183, and the subsequent (the fifth)
in 186134. This means that the inscription from Furnus Maior (CIL VIII 12039)
was made between 183 and 185. The CXIII year of imperial cult in Africa may
have been 183, 184 or 185. This would mean that it was introduced in 70-72,
and therefore at the beginning of the Flavian rule135.
Returning to the inscription from Bulla Regia and the person of L. Iulius Cerealis: in consequence, annus XXXX should be the year 110, 111 or 112136. We also
know that Bulla Regia was already a municipium at the time. This obviously begs
the question when it received the status. It is rather doubtful whether Trajan should
See D. Fishwick, The Foundation of the Provincial Cult of Africa Proconsularis, [in:] idem,
The Imperial Cult in the Latin West I 2, Leiden 1987, p. 257–268.
131
CIL VIII 14611 (Simitthu): C. Otidio P. f. Quir(ina tribu) Iovino / praefecto fabrum / sacer
doti provinc(iae) Afric(ae) anni XXXVIIII qui primus /5 ex colonia sua hunc honorem gessit
/ cui cum ordo pecunia publ(ica) / statuam decrevisset titulo / contentus pecunia sua posuit
/10 curatore Q. Otidio P. f. Quir(ina tribu) / Praenestino fratre praefecto / fabrum.
132
CIL VIII 12039 (Furnus Maius): P. Mummio L.f. / Saturnino sac. p(rovinciae) A(fricae)
a(nni) CXIII / dec. IIvi[rali)] municip(ii) / Furnitani cui cum or/do honorem fl. ob/tulisset
pron. cum or/nament(is) temp(li) Merc. / [ob] excusation(em) / honor(is) / [s(ua) p(ecunia)
feci]t ob cu[ius de/dicatio]nem…
133
CIL VIII 12027–12030.
134
A. Degrasssi, I fasti consolari del’Impero Romano, Roma 1952, p. 51–52; D. Fishwick,
The Foundation, p. 258.
135
For further detailed deliberations on that issue see D. Fishwick, The Foundation, p. 257–
–268.
136
T. Kotula, Inscription de Bulla Regia, p. 209.
130
219
Studia Europaea Gnesnensia 7/2013 · people and places
be credited here. During the times of Hadrian, Bulla Regia was already a colony137,
most likely from 128138 onwards: the interval between one and the other promotion was too short. Besides, in the epigraphic material from Bulla Regia there is
no trace of tribus Papiria, which is associated with Trajan139. Augustus is out of the
question, because Pliny (NH V 22) speaks of oppidum liberum. Claudius and Nero
did not display any kind of city-making initiative in Africa, so they cannot be taken
into account either. This leaves the Flavians, or more precisely, Vespasian140.
One of the most frequent tribus appearing in the inscriptions from Bulla
Regia is Quirina, characteristic of the Flavians141. C. Iulius Cerealis was also enrolled there. The most popular nomen gentile was Iulius, but there are instances,
though rare, of Flavius142. Finally, the finds from the forum are associated by the
researchers with the transformation of oppidum liberum into Municipium (Flavium) Bulla Regia: the artefact in question is the head of Vespasian, a remnant
of a colossal statue erected in honour of the emperor by the city’s inhabitants143;
the head may be compared with the one discovered in Hippo Regius. This is
also the time when the great thoroughfare connecting Carthage and Hippo
Regius, and running through Bulla Regia was being expanded or repaired144. It
had a major impact on the economic situation of the city145, bringing prosperity,
which in turn became a factor when the decision to establish a municipium was
to be taken146. All that, as well as the introduction of a provincial cult of the em-
137
CIL VIII 25522 … Colonia Ael(ia) Hadriana Augusta Bulla Reg(ia); M. Bénabou, La résistance, p. 132; Gascou II, p. 182–183.
138
Quoniam, Deux notables, p. 5; see idem, Fouilles récentes à Bulla Regia (Tunisie), CRAI
96, 1952, p. 467: “certainement lors du voyage de 128”; Gascou I, p. 118–119.
139
Gascou I, p. 116.
140
See outstanding argumentation of Gascou I, p. 116–117
141
See Quoniam, Deux notables, p. 4 note 7; T. Kotula, Inscription de Bulla Regia, p. 211 note 2;
Gascou I, p. 116.
142
CIL VIII 14498; see T. Kotula, as above; J. Lassère, Ubique populus, p. 249.
143
A. Merlin, Le temple d’Apollon à Bulla Regia, [in:] Notes et Documents I, Paris 1908,
p. 27; Quoniam, Deux notables, p. 5; T. Kotula, Inscription de Bulla Regia, p. 211; Gascou II,
p. 163–164,
144
CIL III 22190 (from 76), the works were carried out by the soldiers of the Legio III Augusta; T. Kotula, Inscription de Bulla Regia, p. 211; Gascou I, p. 117; Gascou II, p. 164; see also
P. Romanelli, Storia, p. 299.
145
A. Merlin, Le temple, p. 27; Gascou I, p. 117.
146
Gascou I, p. 117.
220
Leszek Mrozewicz, Flavian Urbanisation of Africa
peror in Africa, overlaps with the early period of Vespasian’s reign. This justifies
the thesis that Bulla Regia was granted municipal status at that very time.
In 1967, Tadeusz Kotula147 spoke unequivocally in favour of the previously
advanced view148 that in the Flavian era, under Vespasian to be more exact149,
the municipium status was also granted to Cillium (Kasserine)150, located some
40km south-west of Sufetula, by the route connecting Hadrumentum with Thelepte and continuing to Theveste and Lambaesis. He resorted to the following
arguments: there was no doubt that throughout its history Cillium achieved
the status of municipium and colonia. This is borne out by two inscriptions
which may be dated151 respectively to the latter half of the 2nd century152 and
to the times of Commodus153. The frequent occurrence of Flavii in Cillium,
also in the inscriptions at the Mausolaeum Flavioroum154, as well as the presence of origo of a soldier named Fla(vio) Cilio in the laterculus militum from
T. Kotula, Inscription de Bulla Regia, p. 212–215.
E. De Ruggiero, s.v. Cillium, DE II, Roma 1900, p. 236; L. Poinssot, [in:] BAC 1934, juin,
p. XIII and subseq. (non vidi, quoted after T. Kotula and P. Romanelli); L. Châtelain, Notes
sur des découvertes archéologiques au Maroc, BAC 1934–1935, p. 179: “N’est-il pas dès lors
tentant de supposer que Vespasien ou Titus pourrait bien être le fondateur du municipium Cillitanum dont le curiae universae ont […] dédié une base à Aelia Valeria Kapitolina Pompeiana”
[the inscription in question is CIL VIII 23207]; T.R.S. Broughton, The Romanization of Africa
proconsularis, Baltimore 1929, p. 101 and subseq.; P. Romanelli, Storia, p. 294: “Anche Cillium
nella Bizacena sembra abbia avuto l’epiteto di Flavia: comunque dalla frequenza dei Flavii nelle
sue epigrafi non paro dubbio che essa avesse avuto da Vespasiano, o da uno dei suoi figli, il
diritto di municipio Romano o latino”. EAA VI (1965), p. 585 (p.v. Qasrin; G. Picard): “Eretta
a municipio da Vespasiano o da Tito (municipium Flavium Cillium), la città divenne colonia
nel III secolo”; M. Leglay, Les Flaviens, p. 221: “La ville [Cillium] dut recevoir de Vespasian ou
d’un de ses fils le statu de municipe romain ou latin”.
149
Idem, p. 215: “Cillium, municipe de Vespasien à notre avis…”
150
On Cillium: PECS, p. 224; EAA VI (1965), p. 585 s.v. Qasrin (G. Picard); M.S. Bassignano, Il
flaminato, p. 73; Gascou I, p. 86–89; Gascou II, p. 172; Gascou III, p. 303–304; C. Lepelley, Les cités,
p. 287–288.
151
T. Kotula, Inscription de Bulla Regia, p. 213.
152
CIL VIII 23207: Aeliae Va/leriae Kapit/tolinae Pom/peian[ae] C(ai) Ofil/5ili(i) Bu[…c]on/
iugi c[uriae u]uni/versae m[uni]cip(ii) / Cillitani ob eximi/um in se mariti /10 eius amorem.
153
CIL VIII 210 = ILS 5570; ILT 330: [… / …] / coloniae Cillitanae / Q. Manlius Felix C. Filius
Papiria (tribu) Receptus, post alia arcum quoque cum insignibus colo[niae] / solita in patriam
liberalitate erexit, ob cuius dedicationem decurionibus sportulas, curiis epu[las ded(it)].
154
Les Flavii de Cillium. Étude architectural, épigraphique, historique et littéraire du mausolée de Kasserine (CIL VIII, 211–216), Rome 1993, esp. p. 61–63, 219–227 (J.-M. Lassère); see
also M.S. Bassignano, Il flaminato, p. 70–73.
147
148
221
Studia Europaea Gnesnensia 7/2013 · people and places
Lambaesis155 are, in Kotula’s opinion, strong indications supporting the thesis
that it was the Flavians, preferably Vespasian, who granted municipal rights to
Cillium156. This would appear to be very logical, especially considering the very
active endeavours of the Flavians in Africa.
The notion was very firmly opposed by Jacques Gascou157. He believed that
Cillium might have obtained municipium status no earlier than Trajan, as the
sole tribus to feature in the inscriptions is Papiria, associated with this emperor.
It is also believed that the text in the laterculus militum from Lambaesis does not
refer to a name of the city: Flav(io) Cilli(o) but to a pseudo-tribus: Fla(via tribu)
Cilio. “Cilium is a municipium of Trajan, not one of the Flavian emperors”, writes
Jacques Gascou158. As regards the colony status, the inscription of Q. Manlius
Receptus should not be dated to the times of Commodus, but to the late 2nd or
the 3rd century159. Thus the rough outline of the history of Cillium would be as
follows160: Flavian castellum — Trajan’s municipium — Severan colony.
The argumentation of Jacques Gascou, supported by the analysis of the occurrence of the nomen gentile Flavius in Cillium161 and the use of pseudo-tribus
CIL VIII 2568 = 18055 (line 46): C. Iulius Septiminus <F>LA CILIO; F written in the
shape of E.
156
See De Ruggiero, p. 236: “Fl(avium) Cillium in un […] laterculo militare di Lambaesis
(C. VIII 2568 lin. 2)… Dall’apellativo Flavium si vede chiaro che sotto Vespasiano e i suoi figli
divenne forse prima municipio e poscia colonia e fu inscritto nella tribù Papiria”.
157
Gascou I, p. 31–32; 86–89; Gascou II, p. 172; Gascou III, p. 303–304.
158
Gascou I, p. 87: “Cillium est un municipe de Trajan et non d’un empereur flavien”, cf.
p. 89; Gascou III, p. 303; accepted by: M.S. Bassignano, Il flaminato, p. 70; Les Flavii de Cillium,
p. 7–8; C. Lepelley, Les cités, p. 287.
159
Gascou II, p. 87; Gascou III, p. 304, quoting C. Lepelley, Les cités, p. 287–288, who dates
the inscription of Receptus to no later than the Severan times; therefore according to Gascou,
Cillium might have become a colony “avant ou après le mort de Septime-Sévère”.
160
J. Toutain, Les progrès de la vie urbaine dans l’Afrique du Nord, [in:] Mélanges Cagnat.
Recueil de mémoires concernant l’épigraphie et les antiquités romaines, Paris 1912, p. 338 (“Cillium, avant de devenir une cité, avait été certainement un pagus ou castellum de la colonie de
Thelepte, fondée par Trajan”).
161
Gascou I, p. 87 assumes that all Flavii mentioned in the inscriptions on the Monumentum
Flaviorum were from Thelepte; however, M.S. Bassignano rightly observes (p. 72, see above, note
103) that not all names are accompanied by the information on priestly offices held in Thelepte;
by default, it should be assumed that those who have no such information attached, but who
held functions as well, must have come from Cillium, the place where Monumentum Flaviorum
was erected, see Les Flavii de Cillium, p. 225; this means that Cillium may be ascribed much
larger number of Flavii than presumed by J. Gascou.
155
222
Leszek Mrozewicz, Flavian Urbanisation of Africa
does have its weak points. One has the impression that the French scholar was
too hasty in interpreting Fla. Cilo from the Lambaesian laterculus as pseudo tribus. The analysis of the laterculus, dated to the close of Hadrian’s and beginning
of Antoninus Pius’ reign162 demonstrates that none of the soldiers (names of
85 persons are preserved in their entirety or in fragments), provides a tribus163.
Obviously, this poses a question why Septimus should have done any different. I believe that one should concur with the view expressed in the literature,
namely, that it is not information concerning the tribus but an honorary ap-
Gascou I, p. 86; in featuring in the list of Aelia (lines 9, 36, 66 and 69) they prove that the
soldiers were enlisted in 117 at the earliest, i.e. after Hadrian assumed the rule, because that was
when they received Roman citizenship.
163
Some doubt arises in the 36th line of the laterculus: TIB CLAVDIVS LUCIVS AEL
PILADEL EMESE; one could presume pseudo-tribus Aelia to be referred to in the notations
(so CIL VIII, Index, p. 243), and origo in Emesus (as in CIL VIII, Index, p. 256), which would
be in favour of Gascou’s thesis; if so, the names of the legionary should be read as follows:
Tib. Claudius Lucius Ael(ia tribu) PILADEL Emese, whereby the publishers of CIL failed to
address (Index, p. 19) the word PILADEL, although it was placed among the cognomina in
the index of cognomina; also, in the commentary ad n. 2568 they are certain that it is a cognomen: Piladel(phus) Emese; the fact that PILADEL betokens cognomen P(h)iladelp(h)us
of Greek provenance (Thieling, p. 87, 111) is doubtless, as it is confirmed in the sources (in
Africa: CIL VIII 18392 — Philadelphus; 20713: M.V[an]tidius M. f. Quir[ina] Philad[elphus]
); Y. Le Bohec, La Troisième Légion, p. 317, aptly drew attention to the onomastic problems
that such interpretation of the 30th line would entail: the information about the tribus would
thus be placed between two cognomina — a completely untypical procedure. This is probably why W. Thieling, Der Hellenismus in Kleinafrika. Der griechische Kultureinfluss in den
römischen Provinzen Nordafrikas, Leipzig––Berlin 1911, p. 111, interpreted line 36 in the
following fashion: “Tib. Claudius Lucius Aelius Philadelp(us) aus Emesa in Syrien”, so he excluded pseudo-tribus, acknowledging the highly elaborate anthroponymy of Claudius Lucius,
which is not the most fortunate solution either; it seems that the most correct interpretation
was suggested by Y. Le Bohec, La Troisième Légion, p. 314: there are two persons recorded,
i.e. Tib. Claudius Lucius and Ael(ius) Piladel(pus). If so, it would be the only case in the
Lambaesian laterculus where two persons appear in one line, as well as the only instance of
omitted prenomen, and as regards Tib. Claudius Lucius — one of the few cases (9, 64, 65) of
missing origo. In the context of the entire laterculus, such notation would be very unorthodox and incomprehensible. It appears that the problem might be relatively easily explained,
once we assume that line 36 mentions two soldiers from the same city, namely Emesus in
Syria, which was their shared origo. The cognomen of Claudius and the prenomen of Aelius
were the same — ‘Lucius’. For this reason, perhaps to save space, the name of ‘Lucius’ was
inscribed just once; on the praenomen ‘Lucius’ in the function of cognomen see I. Kajanto,
The Latin cognomina, Helsinki 1965, p. 40, 172 (“Cognomina obtained from praenomina”);
consequently, line 36 should be read as follows: Tib(erius) Claudius Lucius (and) Lucius
Ael(ius) Piladel(pus), (both) from Emesa.
162
223
Studia Europaea Gnesnensia 7/2013 · people and places
pellation in the name of the city164. We should also remember that the tribus
stated by the citizens was not always the tribus to which a given community
actually belonged.
Having adopted “Flavium” as a legal indication of the city165, it may be assumed that Cillium obtained municipal rank from the Flavians; quite conceivably from Vespasian166. This is confirmed by the laterculus from Lambaesis, which may be dated to more or less mid-2nd century167. The evidence for
the existence of Municipium Cillitanum in the 2nd century is provided by the
inscription of Aelia Valeria Kapitolina Pompeiana, honoured by the c[uriae
u]niversae M[uni]cip(ii) Cillitani168, undoubtedly from the latter half of the
century169, by the inscription commemorating the erection of a monument in
honour of Antoninus Pius and Lucius Verus, and the silver imago of Faustina
the Younger, wife of Marc Aurelius, therefore after 145170. The founder was
an aedilis et augur (municipii)171. In the 3rd century, most probably under the
Severans, Cillium rose to the rank of colony172.
The creation of the Municipium Cillitanum was a part of the strategic plan
of the Flavians, associated with the expansion towards the south-west, along the
main communication route Carthage — Ammaedara — Theveste — Lambae-
Y. Le Bohec, La Troisième Légion, p. 321: “Septiminus mentionne sans doute un surnom
tiré de Flauius et attribué à Cillium”; T. Kotula, Inscription de Bulla Regia, p. 213.
165
B. Galsterer-Kröll, Untersuchungen (as note 34), p. 73–76, 100 no. 15.
166
As above, note 49.
167
See B. Galsterer-Kröll, Untersuchungen, p. 100, note 15: “Flavia Cillium: VIII 2568,46 =
18055 (domus) … Ob sich die domus-Angabe auf das Municipium oder die Kolonie bezieht,
ist nicht zu entscheiden”.
168
CIL VIII 23207; see above, note 154.
169
R. Cagnat, Notes sur des découvertes épigraphiquesz, BAC 1901, p. 117–118 no. 12.
170
Marc Aurelius married Faustina the Younger (Annia Galeria Faustina, daughter of Antoninus Pius), see D. Kienast, Die römischen Kaisertabelle (as note 97), p. 136.
171
AE 1957, 77 = G. Picard, Rapport sur l’activité du Service des Antiquités et de la Mission
archéologique française en Tunisie pendant l’année 1953, BAC 1954, p. 122–123: [Imp. Caep. T. Aelio
Hadriano / Antonino Aug. Pio et] / L. Aelio Imp. Caep. Aug. Pii /5 fil(io) C. Ant[…]us aedi/lis et
aug(ur) s[tat]uas […] duas ob ho/norem aedilitatis ex HS XII mil. / Aug. liberique eius promisit /
ex HS X mil. CCCCVII n. posuit et /10 ad supplendam pollicitatio/nis suae summam imaginem /
argenteam Faustinae Aurelii / Veri Caes. Imp. Antonini Aug. /14 Pii fil(ii) (uxoris) secund[um…
172
CIL III 210; Gascou I, p. 86.
164
224
Leszek Mrozewicz, Flavian Urbanisation of Africa
sis173. Cillium, situated south of the artery, was to provide additional security174.
Therefore, in the Flavian times, one observes an intensified settlement in the
area, i.e. between Hadrumentum and Thelepte. The appearance of large number
of Flavii in Cillium and in Thelepte to the west (Medinet-el-Kedima, ca 30 km),
engendered the thesis that the latter, certainly a colony in the 2nd century175, was
elevated by the Flavians to the rank of municipium176. However, apart from the
imperial nomen gentile Flavius, and the simultaneous lack of mention of the
tribus Quirina and no traces of municipium’s existence, the thesis is no more
than pure speculation. On the other hand, there is much legitimacy in the claim
that Flavians made great efforts to create military strongpoints (castella) which
were to secure the south flank of the fertile and well developed areas of Africa
Proconsularis, and simultaneously ensure communication with the south. One
of such strongpoints (castellum) was Thelepte177. One should draw attention
to the fact that when moving north-west, towards Theveste and Lambaesis, we
encounter relatively numerous traces of similar Flavian activity. Flavian settlement, undoubtedly military in nature, appears in Mascula, Aquae Flaviane,
Vaizavi (Zoul) or Lambafundi (Hr. Touchine) between Timgad and Lambaesis178. Lambaesis itself, where at first, though already under Flavians, there appeared a “small camp” for a detachment of the Legio III Augusta, is the best
example. In later times some of those military settlements179, reinforced with
See very apt recapitulation of the problem T. Kotula, Afryka Północna, p. 150.
See M. Bénabou, La résistance, p. 419: “Thelepte […] est transformée en colonie de
vétérans: dans ce sectuer des Hautes Steppes, où des tribus les Musulames et les Musunii Regiani
ont leurs terres de parcours, Thelepte est probablement chargée d’une besogne de contrôle […].
Non loin de Thelepte, Cillium (si ce n’est pas un municipe flavien comme le croit généralement,
mais un municipe trajanien comme le croit J. Gascou) aurait été transfomé en municipe latin
pour des raisons analogue”.
175
See CIL VIII 211; 214–216 = Les Flavii de Cillium (above, note 154), p. 61–64.
176
G.-Ch. Picard, La civilisation de l’Afrique romaine, Paris 1959, p. 185; PECS, p. 906; M. Leglay, Les Flaviens, p. 222.
177
Gascou I, p. 83–86; see P. Romanelli, Storia, p. 316; M. Bénabou, La résistance, p. 419
(above, note 26).
178
M. Leglay, Les Flaviens, p. 222.
179
See also C.R. Whittaker, Roman Africa, p. 541.
173
174
225
Studia Europaea Gnesnensia 7/2013 · people and places
settlers — veterans, obtained the status of a colony: this applies to Thelepte180,
but also to Theveste181 and Thamugadi182.
The urbanisation activities of the Flavians were focused primarily on Africa
Proconsularis. Mauretania, so intensively colonised by Augustus183, and then
Claudius184, remained usually outside the scope of their interest. There was one
exception though — Icosium (Algiers)185, a city of Punic origin186, located on the
coast, 80 km east of Caesarea and ca 25 km west of the Augustan colony of Rusuguniae187. Vespasian founded, or more precisely granted Icosium the status of
titular colony, as reported by Pliny the Elder188. His account is confirmed by an
inscription from 74–76, where the denomination colonia appears189. A Flavius
[---]ninus whom it mentions was one of the first officials of the newly established colony (aedile, duovir quinquennal), and with all certainty Icosium’s first
As in note 174.
PECS, p. 913; Gascou II, p. 173–174.
182
P. Romanelli, Storia, p. 314–315; PECS, p. 899; Gascou II, p. 174.
183
Founded 12 colonies: 7 on the coast and 5 across the country, see F. Vittinghoff, Römische
Kolonisation, p. 116–118; DNP 7 (1999), p. 1050; J. Gascou, Sur le statut de quelques villes de
Numidie et de Maurétanie Césarienne, Antiquités Africaines 40–41, 2004–2005, p. 262; cf.
L. Teutsch, Das Städtewesen, p. 229–233.
184
Founded 4 colonies and 4 municipia; RE III 2 (1899), p. 2825 (E. Groag); Gascou II,
p. 145–159 (map after p. 150).
185
RE IX 1 (1914), p. 856 (H. Dessau); S. Gsell, Histoire ancienne d’Afrique du Nord, tome
VIII: Jules César et l’Afrique. Fin des royaumes indigènes, Paris 1928, p. 204; idem, Atlas
archéologique de l’Algerie, Alger2 1997, Feuille No 5, p. 2–5 nr 11; P. Romanelli, Storia, p. 168,
205, 294; L. Teutsch, Das Städtewesen, p. 200–201; M. Leglay, Les Flaviens, p. 224; idem, À la
recherche d’Icosium, Antiquités Africaines 2, 1968, p. 7–54; Gascou II, p. 159–161; M.S. Bassignano, Il flaminato, p. 354–355; J. Lassère, Ubique populus, p. 255–256; DNP 5 (1998), p. 886–
–887 p.v. Icosium; J. Gascou, Sur le statut, p. 261–264.
186
M. Le Glay, À la recherche d’Icosium, p. 10–16.
187
Gascou II, p. 159–160.
188
Pln. NH V 20: Latio dato Tipasa, itemque a Vespasiano Imperatore eodem munere donatum Icosium.
189
CIL VIII 20853 = M. Le Glay, À la recherche d’Icosium, p. 20: [I]mp(eratori Vespasiano
/ A[u]g(usto) / [p(ontifici)] m(aximo)] tr(ibuniciae) p(otestatis) [V]I im[p(eratori)…] / co(n)
s(uli) V p(atri) [p(atriae)] / Flaviu[s ….] ni/[n]us aed(ilis) IIvi[r qui]nq/[u]enna(lis) pontife[x
p]ri/mus in colonia ex / [d(ecreto)] d(ecurionum) / ob honorem ponti/ficatus e[pulo / dato
d(e)d(icavit); the numerical value of tribunicia potestas may also be reconstructed as [VI]I,
the consulate likewise: either V[I] or V[II]; see comment of CIL: “tribuniciae potestatis fuisse
videtur VI aut VII; ita ut titulus positus sit inter kal. Iulias a. 74 et 76”; cf. J. Gascou, Sur le statut,
p. 263 note 28.
180
181
226
Leszek Mrozewicz, Flavian Urbanisation of Africa
ever pontiff (pontifex primus in colonia). The legal status of Icosium is corroborated by two more inscriptions. One of those may be indirectly dated to the first
half of the 2nd century, because it only mentions ordo Icositanorum190, whereas
in the second, originating from 209–211, there is a patronus coloniae191. As
a colony, Icosium is also mentioned in the Itinerarium Antonini192.
The history of Icosium until the Flavian times, i.e. the establishment of colony by Vespasian, appears to have been quite interesting, especially in the light
of the new interpretation of Pliny the Elder (NH V 20)193. Until recently, there
had been no doubt in science that the relation concerned granting Icosium
the rights of Roman colony ex iure Latini194, because Pliny compares Icosium
with Tapsa: “Latio dato Tapsa, itemque a Vespasiano imperatore eodem munere [=Latio] donatum Icosium”. This would make Icosium the sole African
colony founded on ius Latii195, elevated to that rank from the status of conventus
civium Romanorum which had been created there much earlier.
In 33–25 BC, demobilised legionaries were settled there by Octavian Augustus, as part of colonisation undertaking, but the status of colony was withheld
at the time. The former soldiers organised themselves into a separate community, or conventus civium Romanorum196, next to or within the peregrine city.
At the time, Mauretania was under direct administration of Rome; in 25 BC
Augustus conferred Mauritanian throne to the son of Juba, king of Numidia
from the times of Caesar, who reigned as Juba II197. Then the conventus civium
Romanorum in Icosium was formally appended to the colony Ilici in Hispania
190
CIL VIII 9259 = M. Le Glay, À la recherche d’Icosium, p. 21: P(ublio) Sittio M(arci) f(ilio)
Quir(ina tribu) / Plocamian(o) / ordo / Icositanor(um) / M(arcus) Sittius P(ublii) f(ilius) Quir(ina
tribu) / Caecilianus / pro filio / pientissimo / h(onore) r(ecepto) i(mpensam) r(emisi).
191
M. Le Glay, À la recherche d’Icosium, p. 21 (found in Algiers): M(arco) Messio Mas/culo
/ ex testamento / eius P(uvlius) Corne/5lius Hono/ratus flamen / Auggg(ustorum trium)
per/petuus pa/tronus co/loniae nepos / et per success/sionem ex par/te heres.
192
Ed. O. Cuntz, p. 2.
193
J. Desanges (ed.), Pline l’Ancien, Histoire Naturelle, Livre V, 1–45, L’Afrique du Nord, Paris
1980, p. 166–169; M. Coltelloni-Trannoy, Royaume de Maurétanie, Paris 1997, p. 130–131 (non
vidi, quoted from Gascou); J. Gascou, Sur le statut, p. 261–264.
194
S. Gsell, Atlas, p. 2; P. Romanelli, Storia, p. 294; L. Teutsch, Das Städtewesen, p. 200–201;
M. Le Glay, À la recherche d’Icosium, p. 20; J. Lassère, Ubique populus, p. 255–256; Gascou II,
p. 159–160.
195
Gascou II, p. 160.
196
L. Teutsch, Das Städtewesen, p. 200–201; J. Gascou, Sur le statut, p. 262, 264.
197
RE XIV 2 (1930), p. 2371–2372; DNP 7 (1999), p. 1050.
227
Studia Europaea Gnesnensia 7/2013 · people and places
Bettica: thus the Roman citizens living in Icosium were excepted from the
authority of the king of Mauretania198. The information about the Spanish attribution is provided by Pliny the Elder in his description of Hispania199. Until
40 AD, the peregrine city of Icosium, subjected to the Mauritanian king and the
community of Roman citizens, organised into a conventus civium Romanorum
and excluded, by virtue of being appended to Ilici, from the rule of the king
developed next to one another200. Once the kingdom of Mauretania was liquidated and transformed into a Roman province, which took place after 40 AD,
the attribution of the conventus civium Romanorum to Ilici was nullified as
there was no further need for it. Both communities began to merge into one
entity. In consequence, Icosium was granted the rights of Roman colony in
titular mode201. And here lies the crux: Roman colony founded on ius Latii202,
as it has been assumed so far. In the commented edition203 of the fifth book
of Naturalis Historia, in the parts concerned with Africa (V 1–46), Jacques
Desanges suggested a completely different reading of the fragment relating to
Icosium. He set out from the premise that the information about Oppidum
Novum and Tipasa is an interjection and has nothing to do with Icosium. This
means that Pliny did not compare the legal status of the colony granted by Vespasian with Tipasa but with Caesarea which, as we know, was a ius Latii colony
and, importantly, a titular one, i.e. which developed without concentrated settlement (of the veterans)204. It would follow that what Icosium received from
Vespasian was not ius Latii but fully Roman entitlement205. Simultaneously, the
P. Romanelli, Storia, p. 205; M. Le Glay, À la recherche d’Icosium, p. 17; Gascou II, p. 160;
J. Gascou, Sur le statut, p. 262.
199
Pln. NH III 19: “colonia immunis Ilici, unde Ilicitanus sinus, in eam contribuuntur Icositani”.
200
J. Gascou, Sur le statut, p. 260.
201
J. Desanges admits the possibility that before becoming a colony, Icosium reached the
status of municipium, which would correspond to the ‘normal’ course of development; unfortunately there are no documents available that would enable positive verification of the theory;
see J. Gascou, Sur le statut, p. 263.
202
Enrolled in the tribus Quirina: W. Kubitschek, Imperium Romanum, p. 164.
203
Desanges, as above, note 193.
204
Gascou II, p. 152–154.
205
According to J. Desanges, the relevant fragment from Pliny (NH V 20) should be read as
follows: … oppidum… celeberrimum Caesarea, ante vocitatum Iol, Iubae regia a Divo Claudio coloniae iure donata — eiusdem iussu deductis veteranis Oppidum Novum et Latio dato
198
228
Leszek Mrozewicz, Flavian Urbanisation of Africa
emperor allowed a complete merger of the conventus civium Romanorum with
the peregrine community (city) of Icosium; in short, the privilege applied to
both communities, now treated as one enitity206. Besides, there is no doubt that
among the inhabitant of the peregrine Icosium there were Roman citizens who
attained their status individually207. Nevertheless, it is worth noting that one of
the first officials of the colony bears the nomen gentile Flavius, hence it may be
assumed that we are dealing with a peregrine who received Roman citizenship
when Icosium was elevated to the rank of colony208.
The new lectio of the NH V 19 fragment advanced209 by J. Desanges explains
very much. First of all, it demonstrates the continuity and consistency of the
Flavian urbanisation policy: each of the colonies established in Africa had full
Roman citizenship status210. Secondly, the last Latin colonies were created under Augustus, and thereafter only ex iure Quiritum. Thus Icosium would be an
exception211, only that this “uniqueness” has no particular justification.
The principal effort of Flavian urbanisation was concentrated in the northern part of Africa Proconsularis, on the territory of the former Africa Vetus.
Lepcis Magna in the south of Proconsularis (in Tripolitania) and Icosium in
Mauretania Caesariensis were exceptional cases. The newly created cities —
colonies and municipia — were to perform an important strategic role, i.e. to
protect the territories of Africa Proconsularis against the tribes from the south.
The area was urbanised, had considerable economic significance and yielded
Tipasa — itemque a Vespasiano Imperatore eodem munere donatum Icosium; see J. Gascou,
Sur le statut, p. 263.
206
J. Gascou, Sur le statut, p. 264.
207
This is attested to by the inscriptions from Icosium of the “royal” period — CIL VIII 9257 =
M. Le Glay, À la recherche d’Icosium, p. 18: [R]egi Ptolemae[o] / reg(is) Iubae f(ilio) / L(ucius) Caecilius Rufus / Agilis f(ilius) honoribus / omnibus patriae / suae consummatis / d(e) s(ua) p(ecunia)
f(aciendum) c(uravit) et consacravit; CIL VIII 9258 = ibidem: [L(ucius) Caecili]us Rufus Agilis
f(ilius) fl(amen?) / [ob honorem flamin?]atus de s(ua) p(ecunia) donum d[edit]; see J. Gascou, Sur
le statut, p. 262: “Caecilius Rufus peut très bien être un maurétanien, citoyen de la ville pérégrine
d’Icosium, qui aurait reçu ou dont le père aurait reçu à titre personnel la civitas Romana”.
208
CIL VIII 20853 (above, note 189); J. Gascou, Sur le statut, p. 263: “Il s’agit certainement
d’un peregrin qui a reçu la citoyonneté romaine au moment où Icosium a été dotée du statut de
colonie honoraire, et quoi a été pourvu du gentilice de l’empereur qui avait octroyé ce statut”.
209
Fully accepted by Gascou (Sur le statut) and M. Coltelloni-Trannoy, Royaume de Maurétanie, p. 130–133.
210
On ‘titular’ colonies see F. Vittinghoff, Römische Kolonisation, p. 27–33.
211
J. Gascou, Sur le statut, p. 263.
229
Studia Europaea Gnesnensia 7/2013 · people and places
high profit. Both extensive private latifundia and imperial domains which were
to be found there212, played an important role in supplying Rome with grain.
From the point of view of the state, the changes also contributed to the internal
consolidation of the province. Urbanisation of Africa, besides the introduction
of cadastre, institutional forms of imperial cult and forcing nomadic tribes to
settled life213 served that very end214. This involved strictly military reorganisation of the province215, which was best manifested in the relocation of the Legio
II Augusta to Theveste and then to Lambaesis. The Flavians also embarked
on expansion and repairs of the road network216. Apart from their important
economic and political functions, coloniae veteranorum — Ammaedara and
Madauros — as well as the municipia Sufetula and Cillium had the task of
guarding the access to the fertile lands of Africa Proconsularis. There is no
doubt that the policy of the Flavians was a long-term one, while the actions of
Trajan, Hadrian and the Severans represented its direct continuation217.
ABBREVIATIONS
AE — l’Année épigraphique
AJPh — American Journal of Philology
ANRW — Aufstieg und Niedergang der Römischen Welt, New York–Berlin
ASM — Antike Stätten am Mittelmeer, Stuttgart–Weimar 1999
BAC — Bulletin Archéologique du Comité des Travaux Historiques et ������
Scientifiques
212
R.M. Haywood, Roman Africa, [in:] T. Frank (ed.), An Economic Survey of Ancient
Rome IV, Baltimore 1938, p. 83–102; J. Kolendo, Kolonat w Afryce rzymskiej w I–II wieku i jego
geneza, Warszawa 1962, p. 13–41; idem, Le colonat en Afrique sous le Haut-Empire, Paris 1976,
p. 7–19; see also D.J. Mattingly, Africa: a Landscape of Opportunity?, [in:] D.J. Mattingly (ed.),
Dialogues in Roman Imperialism. Power, Discourse, and Discrepant Experience in the Roman
Empire, Portsmouth 1997 (JRA Suppl. Series No. 23), p. 117–139.
213
J. Kolendo, Kolonat, p. 57–58; idem, Le colonat, p. 30–32; M. Leglay, Les Flaviens, p. 227–
–230.
214
T. Kotula, Inscription de Bulla Regia, p. 218–219.
215
M. Leglay, Les Flaviens, p. 215–222.
216
Salama (as in note 69), p. 25–26: “Vespasien (69–79) et ses fils Titus (79–81) et Domitien
(81–96) furent […] les premiers grands fondateurs de réseau routier”.
217
T. Kotula, Inscription de Bulla Regia, p. 218–219; M. Leglay, Les Flaviens, p. 234; Gascou I,
p. 36; Gascou II, p. 165–166.
230
Leszek Mrozewicz, Flavian Urbanisation of Africa
CAH — The Cambridge Ancient History
CIL — Corpus Inscriptionum Latinarum
CRAI — Comptes rendus de l’Académie des Inscriptions et Belles-Lettres
DE — Dizionario Epigrafico di Antichità Romane
DNP — Der Neue Pauly. Enzyklopädie der Antike
EAA — Enciclopedia dell’Arte Antica
Gascou I — J. Gascou, La politique municipale de l’Empire romain en Afrique
proconsulaire de Trajan à S Septime-Sévère, Rome 1972
Gascou II — J. Gascou, La politique municipale de Rome en Afrique du Nord
I. De la mort d’Auguste au début du III siècle, ANRW II 10.2 (1982), p. 136–
–229
Gascou III — La politique municipale de Rome en Afrique du Nord II. Après
la mort de Septime Sévère, ANRW II 10.2 (1982), p. 230–320
ILAfr — R. Cagnat — A. Merlin — L. Chatelain, Inscriptions latines d’Afrique
(Tripolitaine, Tunisie et Maroc), Paris 1923
ILAlg — Inscriptions latines de l’Algérie, Paris 1922–
ILM — L. Chatelain, Inscriptions latines du Maroc, Paris 1942
ILS — H. Dessau, Inscriptiones Latinae selectae, Berlin 1892–1916
ILT — A. Merlin, Inscriptions latines de la Tunisie, Paris 1944
IRT — J.M. Reynolds, The inscriptions of Roman Tripolitania, Rome 1952
KlPauly — Der Kleine Pauly. Lexikon der Antike in fünf Bänden, Stuttgart
MEFRA — Mélanges d’Archéologie et d’Histoire de l’École Française de
Rome, Antiquité
PBSR — Papers of the British School at Rome
PECS — The Princeton Encyclopedia of Classical Sites
RE — Real-Encyclopädie der classischen Altertumswissenschaft
RHD — Revue d’histoire du droit (Tijdschrift voor Rechtsgeschiedenis)
RIDA — Revue internationale des droits de l’Antiquité
Leszek Mrozewicz
Flawijska urbanizacja Afryki
Streszczenie
Na przestrzeni ostatniego półwiecza badań nad rzymską Afryką Północną utrwaliło się w nauce słuszne przekonanie, że panowanie dynastii flawijskiej stanowiło w jej
dziejach zasadniczy przełom. Objął on wszystkie dziedziny życia, a istotę przemian
231
Studia Europaea Gnesnensia 7/2013 · people and places
najlepiej odzwierciedla pogląd, że to dopiero dzięki Flawiuszom Afryka nabrała charakteru w pełni rzymskiego. Co więcej, towarzyszy temu uzasadniona teza, że bez
osiągnięć Flawiuszów niemożliwa byłaby wielka prosperity afrykańskich prowincji
w II–III wieku: następcy zebrali plon z ich zasiewu. Niewątpliwie za racjonalny też
uznać wypadnie, nie wchodząc w szczegóły, postulat wyodrębniania w dziejach rzymskiej Afryki czasów flawijskich jako epoki à part.
Bezsprzeczną zasługą Flawiuszów było podjęcie w Afryce dzieła urbanizacji. Główny ich wysiłek skoncentrowany został na północnej części Africa Proconsularis, na
obszarze dawnej Africa Vetus. Lepcis Magna na południu Proconsularis (w Trypolitanii) oraz Icosium w Mauretania Caesariensis stanowią całkowity wyjątek. Nowo
utworzone miasta — kolonie i municypia — miały odgrywać ważną rolę strategiczną,
to jest zabezpieczać tereny Africa Proconsularis przed plemionami z południa. Był to
obszar zurbanizowany, o dużym znaczeniu gospodarczym, wysoce dochodowy. Tu
znajdowały się wielkie latyfundia prywatne i cesarskie domeny, które odgrywały istotną rolę w zaopatrywaniu miasta Rzymu w zboże. Chodziło także, z punktu widzenia
interesów państwa, o konsolidację wewnętrzną prowincji. Urbanizowanie Afryki, obok
wprowadzenia katastru, instytucjonalnych form kultu cesarskiego i zmuszania plemion
nomadycznych do osiadłego trybu życia, temu właśnie służyło. Wiązała się z tym ściś
le militarna reorganizacja prowincji, co najpełniejszy wyraz znalazło w translokacji
legionu III Augustowskiego do Theveste, a później do Lambaesis. Flawiusze podjęli
też dzieło rozbudowy i naprawy sieci dróg. Coloniae veteranorum — Ammaedara
i Madauros — oraz municipia Sufetula i Cillium miały za zadanie, obok ważnych
funkcji gospodarczych i politycznych, regulować dostęp do urodzajnych ziem Africa
Proconsularis. Nie ma wątpliwości, że polityka Flawiuszów miała charakter długofalowy, a działania Trajana, Hadriana i Sewerów stanowiły jej prostą kontynuację.
232