ProQuest Dissertations - Historia Antigua

NOT EFFIGIES PAR VAE POPULI ROMAN!:GODS, AGENCY, AND LANDSCAPE IN MID-REPUBLICAN COLONIZATIONAmanda Jo ColesA DISSERTATIONinAncient HistoryPresented to the Faculties of the University of Pennsylvaniain Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of Doctor of Philosophy2009Dr. Campbell Grey'~^LSupervisor of Dissertation

UMI Number: 3381512Copyright 2009 byColes, Amanda JoINFORMATION TO USERSThe quality of this reproduction is dependent upon the quality of the copysubmitted. Broken or indistinct print, colored or poor quality illustrationsand photographs, print bleed-through, substandard margins, and improperalignment can adversely affect reproduction.In the unlikely event that the author did not send a complete manuscriptand there are missing pages, these will be noted. Also, if unauthorizedcopyright material had to be removed, a note will indicate the deletion.UMI®UMI Microform 3381512Copyright 2009 by ProQuest LLCAll rights reserved. This microform edition is protected againstunauthorized copying under Title 17, United States Code.ProQuest LLC789 East Eisenhower ParkwayP.O. Box 1346Ann Arbor, Ml 48106-1346

COPYRIGHTAmanda Jo Coles2009

For my parents, Gary and Barbara Coles, who made this possible.iii

AcknowledgementsI give heartfelt thanks to my dissertation committee: Dr. Campbell Grey for his patiencewhile I developed my ideas into something worth reading; Dr. James Ker for hisinsightful and impossibly swift comments; Dr. Jeremy Mclnerney for seeing me throughmy coursework; and Dr. Brian Rose, for giving me time despite his hectic schedule. Mygratitude also goes to Dr. Susan Alcock and Dr. Edward Bispham for their earlycomments. I would like to thank the American Academy in Rome, the American Schoolof Classical Studies at Athens, and the Luther I. Replogle Foundation, which granted methe Oscar Broneer Traveling Fellowship for study at the AAR in 2008-2009. Throughthese institutions I was able to see most of the colonies about which I write.During my travels in Italy, Dr. Alessandra Tanzilli of the Museo delle MediaValle del Liri in Sora and Dr. Francesca Minak of the Museo della Citta di Rimini wereespecially generous with their time and knowledge of the archaeological discoveries intheir cities. Thanks also to the staff at these two institutions, as well as at the MuseoCivico Archeologico e Etnologico in Modena, the Museo Archeologico Oliveriano inPesaro, the Museo Provinciale Sannitico in Campobasso, and the Museo Archeologico diFregellae in Ceprano. They were all helpful beyond the call of duty.For their camaraderie and helpful advice, I thank Roshan Abraham, KathrynMilne, Lisa Mallen, Patricia Larash, Fabio Guidetti, Sarah Wahlberg, Erin Moodie,Anastasia Poulos, Chris Baron, Susan Curry, and Sarah Cornell. Last but in no way least,I thank my parents, Barb and Gary Coles, and my sister, Caryn Hall, for supporting me asI worked toward becoming the first person in our family to earn a Ph.D.iv

ABSTRACTNOT EFFIGIES PAR VAE POPULIROMANI:GODS, AGENCY, AND LANDSCAPE IN MID-REPUBLICAN COLONIZATIONAmanda Jo ColesSupervisor: Dr. Campbell GreyThe diversity of the religious systems in Roman and Latin colonies of the MiddleRepublic indicates that Roman expansion into Italy was not a unilateral, purelyhegemonic phenomenon, but a complex interchange of cultural ideas between Romans,colonists, and locals. My dissertation examines the development of the cults in coloniesfounded in Samnium, Campania, and Northern Italy between 338 and 177 BCE. Throughanalysis of the composition and duties of the three-man colonial commission, thereligious landscape of the colonies, and the broad cultic trends in these regions, I establishthat religion in the colonies reflected the experience of the individuals who founded themand the needs of the individuals who inhabited them.The three-man colonial commissioners, the tresviri coloniae deducendae, usedtheir experience as generals, magistrates, and priests to lead the colonists to their newhome, organize the space, and define the institutions. The factional divisions andpersonal ambitions of the commissioners drove the composition of the commissions and,thus, the form and institutions of the colonies founded. Through the differences ofv

intention and colonial strategy held by the commissioners, the colonies did not espouse acodified Roman settlement pattern, but instead the political and cultural principles of theirfounders.The religious life of each settlement developed beyond its initial foundation bymeans of the interactions of the colonists and local populations. Through a new model ofcolonial foundation which combines the human factors of Roman colonization:commissioners, colonists, and locals, with their impact on, and interaction with, thecolonial landscape, I demonstrate that the religious landscape of the colonies of Fregellae,Paestum, and Sora did not mirror that of Rome, but reflected the religious and spatialneeds of the colonists. Finally, the evidence for the cults of Juno, Diana, Minerva,Hercules, Mars, and Jupiter in Central and Northern Italy shows that the colonistsparticipated in many religious systems: some cults honored Roman versions of the gods,but more honored local, Latin, or even Mediterranean conceptions of a deity. Thus, thesecults drew the colonists together with the locals in a shared religious tradition familiar toboth groups.VI

Table of Contents:AcknowledgementsivAbstractvList of Tables and IllustrationsviiiChapter 1: Introduction 1Chapter 2: Colonies and the Senatorial Impetus to Colonize 53Chapter 3: Commissioners and Founding the Colony 96Chapter 4: Religious Landscape and Community Building 145Chapter 5: Religious Trends in the Mid-Republican Colonies 193Chapter 6: Conclusions 241Appendix 1: Primary Sources for the Colonial Commissioners 249Appendix 2: Magistracies Held by Commissioners 269Appendix 3: Colonial Commissioner Chart 278Bibliography 302vn

List of TablesFigure 5.1: Influences on Colonial Cults 230Appendix 3: Colonial Commissioner Chart 278List of IllustrationsFigure 1.1: The Statist Model of Roman Colonization 12Figure 1.2: Triadic Model of Colonization 23Figure 1.3: Colonial Agency Chart 26Figure 2.1: Salmon's History of Colonization 55Figure 2.2: A Commissioner's Impetus to Colonize 76Figure 3.1: Founding the Colony 97Figure 4.1: Abstract Model of the Colonial Landscape 154Figure 4.2: Religious Landscape Model of the Colonial Triangle 155

Chapter 1: IntroductionE.T. Salmon, one of the influential historians of Roman colonization, accepted AulusGellius' second-century CE characterization of Roman colonies as small copies andimages of the Roman people as a valid observation for Roman colonies of all periods. 1Recent analysis, however, has begun to find ways in which a model that assumesdeliberate likeness between Rome and the mid-Republican colonies fails to account forthe archaeological discoveries, especially in terms of the religious topography of thecolony. 2My dissertation extends the scope of scholarship begun by Bispham, Gargola,and Torelli on colonization and religion in the middle Republic by examining the literaryand archaeological evidence pertaining to four key issues: the colonies founded and thesenatorial impetus to colonize, the colonial commissioners and their role in founding acolony, the placement of colonial temples in relation to civic space, and the religious andcultic trends throughout the colonies, i.e. establishing which colonial cults arose throughRoman influence and which were adopted from local tradition. 3By focusing on the commissioners, on the one hand, and the development of thecults and temples in the colonies, on the other, I demonstrate that Roman expansion intoItaly was not a unilateral, purely hegemonic phenomenon, but a complex interchange ofcultural ideas between individual Roman magistrates, colonists, and locals. I argueagainst the assumption that colonies were founded by a Roman statist agenda, whichinvolved imposing the Roman state cult on the religious structure of the colonies.1 Gell. NA XVI.13.9. Salmon (1970), p. 18. Cf. Gargola (1995), Chapter 4 "As if Small Images of theRoman People" pp. 71-101.2 Especially Bispham (2000), (2006); Bradley (2006); and Patterson (2006) passim. Cf. de Cazanove(2000) and Zanker (2000) for a Romano-centric viewpoint.3 Bispham (2000) and (2006); Gargola (1995); and Torelli (1999).1

Instead, through examination of the incentives, composition, and duties of the three-mancolonial commission, the religious landscape of the colonies, and the broad cultic trendsacross Samnium, Campania, and Northern Italy, I establish that religion in the coloniesreflected the experience of the individuals who founded them and the needs of theindividuals who inhabited them.The present chapter addresses issues in Roman colonial studies, landscapemodeling, and religious studies that pertain to my analysis of the mid-Republicancolonies. First, I introduce problems with the terminology and historiography ofcolonization, including baggage left by European empire-building in the last fewcenturies, studies of early Roman colonies, and the language used to describe coloniesand colonization. Second, this chapter turns to a discussion of agency, e.g. whoperformed the actions of colonization at the state or magistrate level, who the colonistswere, and how the locals reacted. Third, I discuss the models used for comparativestudies and introduce a new model that combines the human agents of colonization withthe active role of the landscape. The various relationship branches of this model serve asfocuses for chapters 2 through 4. The fourth section of this chapter gives background onthe pertinent issues in comparing colonial religion with its Roman counterpart; thisconsists in determining if there was a Roman state cult, who founded temples in Rome,and how much Roman religion could have impacted the colony. Finally, I addresschallenges posed by the literary and archaeological evidence for cults in the colonies.2

I. Colonization: Terminology and HistoriographyPreconceptions and Definitions of ColonizationIn order to engage with the idea of Roman colonization in the middle Republic, it isnecessary first to acknowledge what intellectual baggage the development of our ownculture has left us, in terms of a prior understanding of what colonization and coloniesmean. Many scholars have identified traces of nineteenth and twentieth century colonialdiscourse throughout modern scholarship on ancient Greek and Roman colonization. 4Ideologies of ancient colonization, especially Roman colonization under the Principate,informed the ideologies of modern colonization, which continue to shape the internaldefinitions of anyone affected by British colonialism in particular. 5Therefore, it is ofcritical importance to conscientiously define one's vocabulary while engaged in colonialstudies. 6 Dietler's article 'The Archaeology of Colonization and the Colonization ofArchaeology: Theoretical Challenges from an Ancient Mediterranean ColonialEncounter,' provides the most introspective and useful definitions of the vocabularyrelated to colonial studies; for the most part, I adopt his usage throughout my dissertation.Dietler uses the term 'colony' to encompass both the Greek apoikia and the Latincolonia. Founding a colony, then, merely indicates the "act of establishing new4 Especially Van Dommelen (1997), pp. 305-306 and Dietler (2005), pp. 35-47.5 This is particularly true for Americans. It is common for any American to identify not only with their cityand state of birth or residence, but also with their ancestral heritage. I do not think that many Americansrealize nor are prepared to admit how much the identity-by-descent feature of our self-image is related tolatent colonial influence.6 Cf. Osborne (1998), p. 252; Rogers (2005), pp. 336-338; and Stein (2005), pp. 3-5 and 9-13 amongothers.7 Dietler (2005), p. 54. Both of these terms "originally implied the founding of a settlement in foreignterritory, but with quite different relations of dependency within different structurations of the politicaleconomy..."3

settlements in alien lands," and colonization is the "act of imposing political dominationover foreign territory and people." 8Note that colonization is a political phenomenon anddoes not imply any imposed cultural or religious structure. I use 'colonial,' henceforth,as an adjectival form of'colony' meaning 'belonging to the colony,' not as related to'colonialism,' which refers to the "projects and practices of control marshaled ininteractions between societies linked in asymmetrical relations of power, and theprocesses of social and cultural transformation resulting from those practices." 9Turning to specifically Roman vocabulary concerns, the term 'Romanization,'signifies the deliberate imposition of a Roman political, cultural, or religious system on aforeign group of people in order to remake them in a Roman image. 10Throughout thisdissertation, I use this term only to discuss previous theories about cultural interchangebetween people; it is not compatible with the conclusions about religious exchangebetween Rome and the colonies presented in this work. I also attempt to distinguishbetween 'Rome' or 'the senate' and the individual citizens and members thereof so thatthe agency of individuals or committees in founding Roman colonies becomes clear.Bispham defines the alternative as a statist foundation, wherein there is comprehensiveplanning of colonies and complete management at the highest level of Romangovernment in order for the state to duplicate itself. 11Finally, I adopt van Dommelen'suse of 'local' to describe the populations already living in the regions where Romansfound their colonies. 12Italy was subject to waves of colonization by Etruscans, Greeks,8 Ibid. Dietler uses these terms interchangeably, as do I, with the inclusion of 'colonization effort.'9 Dietler (2005), p. 54. The adjective for 'colonialism' is 'colonialist.'10 For other cautions about this term, see Lomas (2004), pp. 199-201 and Williams (2001), pp. 93-95.11 Bispham (2006), p. 74.12 Van Dommelen (1997), pp. 305-306.4

and Gauls, at the very least, so the populations that Roman colonies later occupied werenot necessarily 'indigenous' or 'aboriginal,' and clearly 'Italian' does not suffice due toits lack of accuracy or specificity.Historiography of Roman ColonizationThe lenses through which modern historians view Roman colonies of the early andmiddle Republic need to be just as carefully examined as those for colonization andcolonialism in general. It is easy to ask which ancient authors provided informationabout Roman colonization. Perhaps it is more important to also question the biases ofthese authors and seek other source material to verify the nature of colonization in theearly and middle Republic. Thus, this section addresses recent scholarship on two topics:first, whether the rigid colonial categories fit the mid-Republican colonies andsettlements, and second, the emerging reevaluation of early and mid-Republicancolonization.Recently, scholars have begun to tease out observations on the archaic and mid-Republican colonies based on historiographical analysis of the literary evidence, as wellas reflection on patterns in the archaeological record. G. Bradley's article, 'Colonizationand Identity in Republican Italy,' illuminates Roman colonization particularly in thearchaic period: the sixth through fourth centuries BCE. During this time, colonizationwas not controlled as strictly by the state as later sources made it out to seem. 13Theassumption that the senate dominated any colonization efforts in the early Republic isanachronistic since the senate did not become powerful until the passage of the lex Ovinia13 Bradley (2006), p. 162.5

in the late fourth century BCE; thus, colonization before this was likely similar to that inthe regal period, where men who conquered a land gained the right to redistribute andsettle it. 14Nor were all movements of population even 'colonization' in the strictestsense: alternatives included private military operations, movement of family groups,secession of part of a city's population, or even the ver sacrum.While Salmon emphasizes the military nature of Roman colonization, Bradleyasserts instead that fifth and fourth century colonization was linked to the Struggle of theOrders, and as such colonization meant very different things to different sectors of theRoman population. 16J.R. Patterson cites a developing set of reasons for colonization,from their military function through poverty relief through a redistribution of territory, inaddition to more political pressures from the Struggle of the Orders and the spread ofRoman citizenship. 17The local or non-Roman elements among the colonists probablyadded an additional set of meanings to their particular foundations: some colonies such asBrundisium or Puteoli counted time from the foundation of the colony whereas atInteramna Nahars, the foundation of the colony was just one event in the long life of thecity. 18In any case, colonization in the early Republic seems to have had an integrative14 Ibid. pp. 168-169.13 Ibid. p. 169. Bradley observes that "ideas of such practices may stem from the regular fission of pre-statesocial groups." Cf. Patterson (2006), p. 195, who also notes that fifth century colonization probablyinvolved "small-scale occupations of territory by individual families and their supporters rather than coordinatedand centralized operations undertaken by the Roman state."16 Bradley (2006), pp. 169-171. Bradley concludes (p. 179): "I would suggest that demographic pressureon land, and social conflicts within Rome meant that colonization had a combination of motives from thestart of the Republic." Cf. Curti (2000), pp. 78-79. In Curti's view, the city/countryside dialectic was lostas Rome became more urbanized in the early Republic. The colonies recreated this relationship with thecolonists as the new land owners.17 Patterson (2006), pp. 194-198. Patterson argues that, even though Livy and Cicero use first centurypolitical discourse in describing colonization, land and debt were also strong issues in the early Republic.18 Bradley (2006), pp. 177-178.6

function in practice, although nothing that could be considered an ideology ofcolonization arose before the middle Republic, and then it only grew gradually.Finally,it seems that from the middle Republic, at the very least, Latin colonies had as much of acomplex cultural exchange among themselves as they did with Rome.Thus, thecolonization efforts of the early and middle Republic were not the state-controlled,Romano-centric endeavors that late Republican and imperial authors portray them to be.They were much more complex both in the variety of their forms and in the nature oftheir cultural exchange than previously acknowledged.Latin and Roman Colonies: Is the categorization sufficient?Historians of Roman mid-Republican colonization discuss priscae coloniae Latinae,coloniae Latinae, coloniae maritimiae, and coloniae civium Romanorum. These, too, arethe chapter subjects in Salmon's seminal work Roman Colonization under the Republic(1970). Some of these categories overlap with one another, e.g. some priscae coloniaeLatinae became coloniae Latinae in 338 BCE at the end of the Latin Wars, and thecoloniae maritimiae are all coloniae civium Romanorum, although the citizen colonies ofthe early second century came to resemble the Latin colonies in size and autonomy.Salmon's categories come from the ancient authors, but these sources are late Republicanor later. As Bispham notes, the first contemporary reference to a 'colonia' is found on astatue base for L. Manlius Acidinus, one of the tresviri for leading out the colony of19 Ibid. Bradley notes this attitude in Strabo, Velleius Paterculus, Appian, and Pliny, at the least.20 Ibid. p. 178.21 Mouritsen (2004), p. 64. Mouritsen's findings are based on analysis of pits in the fora of Fregellae, AlbaFucens, Cosa, and Paestum. He concludes: "The contacts between members of the Roman colonial'diaspora' in Italy may in the longer term have been as influential in shaping these communities as anydirect influence still exercised by the mother-city."7

Aquileia in 181 BCE.Bispham also illustrates the variety in the way ancient authorssuch as Asconius, Livy, and Velleius Paterculus referred to colonies; he concludes thatsince ancient writers disputed what the term colonia meant and to what it referred fromthe second century onwards, Salmon's categories of colonies may be a late Republicaninvention brought about by an imperialistic dialogue. 23Bispham is absolutely correct in urging caution when dividing colonies into neatlittle groups for comparison's sake. Unfortunately, he does not offer an alternativecategorization of colonies for the early and middle Republic. Elsewhere, he criticizesD.J. Gargola for not distinguishing between types of colonies sufficiently in hisdescription of the foundation process for colonies in the Republic. 24Since the coloniaeLatinae were self-governing communities of more than 2,000 families and the coloniaemaritimiae were small garrisons of 300 families with only minimal administrativepersonnel, such a procedural distinction would be helpful. For more general discussionsof the purposes of colonies, however, the later Republican divisions can often lead togross generalizations. K. Lomas, in her chapter on 'Italy during the Roman Republic,'accepts that the colonial charters written in the late Republic show that all Republicancolonies mirror Rome, and moreover asserts that citizen colonies had an overtly strategicpurpose, whereas Latin colonies were founded in areas of high depopulation. 25She goes22 CIL I 2 621 = ILLRP 324. The base is dated not much after the foundation of the colony in 181 BCE. Cf.Bispham (2006), p. 81 and p. 131 n. 45.23 Bispham (2006), pp. 78-85.24 Bispham (2000), pp. 157-158.25 Lomas (2004), pp. 207-210.8

on to note that the purpose of Latin colonies was, for example, to urbanize Samnium andOftnorthern Italy along Roman lines.While Lomas' observation is an overly simplified statement of Roman colonialaims throughout the Republic, it does suggest a new way of dividing Roman Republicancolonies for comparative purposes. As Patterson notes, Romans placed colonies aroundthe territories of their enemies, especially around the Samnites in the south and theLigurians and Gauls in the north. 27Thus, the colonists dispatched to these areas wouldhave dealt with the same local populations and with similar geographic and topologicalcharacteristics. For the most part, the colonies were also sent out in the same phase ofRoman expansion: in the late fourth to early third centuries for the southern colonies andin the late third to early second centuries for the northern colonies. Analyzing andcomparing these two groups of mixed Latin and citizen colonies allows for a morenuanced discussion of Roman Republican colonization than available through rigidapplication of late Republican categories. Through widening the scope of settlementsanalyzed, the new grouping answers D.J. Rogers' observation that the archaeological andliterary analysis of the interactions between Romans and locals in the military, economic,and cultural spheres are just as applicable to informal population movements and tradeinteractions. 28This, in turn, mitigates J.H.C. Williams' concern that the study of Romancolonization has until now used literary evidence to the exclusion of any materialevidence outside of the colonies.26 Ibid. p. 209.27 Patterson (2006), pp. 192-193.28 Rogers (2005), p. 332.29 Williams (2001), p. 91. Williams particularly meant that histories of the Roman conquest and settlementignored material evidence from local populations living north of the Po River.9

II.Agency in Roman ColonizationFinding the colonization process opens the question of who dictated the form of thecolonies' topography and religious life. In general, current colonial studies are in theprocess of adopting a new paradigm for interregional interactions which focuses on theactions of individuals or small groups as opposed to the outcomes affected by the state;the goal is to identify agency, practice, and social identity.It is not sufficient, however,to switch focus completely from the large outcomes to the individual actions, because thismerely reinforces the 'dualist conception' of colonization. 31Instead, the most accurate picture of agency in cultural and religious developmentin the colonies can be reached through analyzing not only the interactions between Romeand the colonists, but also between the colonists and the locals, and between the localsand Rome.As Rogers expresses it, it is necessary to define "multiple levels of analysisthat link collective agency... with the individual's participation in broader socialformations in the colonial or culture contact frame of reference." 33While the mostpertinent conclusions about local agency will be presented as part of the analysis of thecolonies in Samnium and in northern Italy in later chapters, the following survey brieflyaddresses the issues of whether Roman colonies in general were statist foundations ordeveloped through the agency of colonists, what role the commissioners had in founding30 Stein (2005), pp. 7-9.31 Van Dommelen (1997), pp. 307-308. Van Dommelen defines the 'dualist conception' of colonization asthe meeting of two distinct entities, internally homogenous and externally bounded.32 Stein (2005), pp. 13-17. The relationships and interactions between colonies may also be an importantfactor, but such a study is beyond the scope of this dissertation.33 Rogers (2005), pp. 339.10

colonies, the ethnic origins of Roman' colonists, and the reaction of local populations tocolonization.Statist Foundation v. Colonial ActionAn essential treatment of the motivations for colonization, although on the Greek side,can be found in R. Osborne's article entitled "Early Greek Colonization? The Nature ofGreek Settlement in the West," which challenges conventional theories of colonization,especially overpopulation, land hunger, and commercial motives. 34In this article,Osborne notes that colonization as a concept has strong statist overtones, wherein thefounding of a colony is not the goal, but a means to further political or cultural controlover the territory around the colony.Osborne concludes that it is necessary to focus onthe character of the settlements themselves, rather than rely on literary tradition alone todefine the colonies. While explaining this new attitude towards Greek colonialfoundations in Italy, Osborne generalizes all Roman colonization as undertaken formilitary reasons and notes that "settlers may be specifically chosen because they willbenefit from grants of land, and careful provision may be made for equal shares of landfor all."His cautions about statist overtones and the need to focus on the character ofthe settlements and the role of the individual are not reflected in his use of a timelessRoman colonization as a comparandum for its Greek counterpart.Osborne (1998), pp. 251-269.Ibid. pp. 251-252.Ibid. p. 252.11

Figure 1.1:The Statist Model ofRoman ColonizationAssumed Benefits to Rome:• More Peaceful Locals• Control of Trade/Travel Routes• Access to New Resources• Eases Restless Masses in Rome• Satisfies Land HungerProblems with Model:• How does colony pacify locals?• Does the colony also benefit fromcontrol of trade/resources?• Who exactly is sent to colonies?• How does the landscape affectthe colonists?ColonialLandscapeWhen E.T. Salmon wrote his book on Roman colonization in the Republic, thegeneral point of view was that Rome founded colonies to mitigate unrest both within thecity and among enemies throughout Italy. The variations in the foundation process andthe role of both the commissioners and the colonists were of less importance thandetermining the political and military agenda of Rome. Bispham has recently noted thatthis model of statist colonial activity, wherein the colony had strong ties to its mothercity,does not work for the early and middle Republic. 37Figure 1.1 represents theassumptions behind a statist colonial foundation in a Roman setting. Glinister, also,denies a Roman statist colonial policy, especially in terms of spreading religion:"Personally, I doubt that the Roman state had any coherent policy for extending37 Bispham (2006), p. 74. This is not to say that Bispham denies the Roman state an important role incolonization (p. 76).12

'Romanization' across the peninsula, if only because this entity comprised very manyelite persons and groupings with various, often conflicting, motives and interests."Most scholars seem to agree that, while the colonies may have had some sort of Romanpolitical framework by which they set up their community, there was no blanketimposition of Roman culture on the non-Roman or local populations, uniform to allcolonies. 39If the Roman state did not impose its culture on the colonies, how can we accountfor the cultural similarities and variations between various colonies and Rome? It isnecessary to differentiate between the deliberately prescriptive processes, which thecommissioners may have imposed as part of the founding framework of the colony, andembedded cultural processes, which the colonists may have adopted as unspoken needsfor human life. 40Similarly but in terms of monumental structures, Zanker cautions thatone must distinguish between official building activity, e.g. decisions by communities toconstruct particular buildings, and privately funded initiatives. 41These categorizationsare necessary, even if difficult to determine for the middle Republic, because theintercultural adoption of practices is "an active process of creative appropriation,manipulation, and transformation," whether it is accomplished by an individual or socialgroup and for whatever political, cultural, or religious interests or strategies. 42To addressthe complexities of this process, given the limited evidence available, I propose to draw38 Glinister (2006), p. 24.39 Lomas (2004), pp. 199-201.40 Bispham (2000), pp. 157-158.41 Zanker (2000), p. 25. Zanker assumes that official building activity in the colonies was sponsored by theRoman state, although this is not clear for all colonies. In addition to differentiating official from privateinitiatives, Zanker also urges that there be a distinction between deliberate planning and anonymousalterations.42 Dietler (2005), pp. 62-63.13

comparisons between religion in the colonies and similar practices either in the localpopulation and/or in Rome, where evidence is available (see chapter 5). In many cases,such a comparison will support a tentative conclusion of the primary religious influenceon a piece of the religious picture in the given colony. 43In this way, I hope to mitigatethe tendency to privilege the dualist conception of colonization.Role of the Tresviri Coloniae Deducendae in Colony FoundationSince colonization in the middle Republic was not yet an ideologically defined,governmentally regulated process, what role can be assigned to the individual magistratesthat were acting as organizers of the new colonists in the role of foundation? Asmentioned above, early colonization was performed according to the model seen underthe monarchy, wherein it was the right of the successful general to redistribute and settlethe land he conquered. 44Accordingly, it was common that colonies were placed aroundthe territories of Rome's enemies, especially the Samnites to the south and the Liguriansand Gauls to the north. 45A comprehensive list of the tresviri coloniae deducendae from 219 through 177BCE can be extracted from Livy's various notices on colonization. 46It has often beennoted that at least one of these men was usually a consul or ex-praetor with militaryThis sort of limited comparison has already been performed by various scholars of Roman colonization:Bispham analyses the toponyms in various colonies (2006, pp. 88-92) and concludes that, while in somecolonies (e.g. Ariminum) Roman toponyms were deliberately used to convey kinship with Rome, thetoponyms were a form of self-identification adopted by the colonists, not imposed by Rome. Similarly,Glinister analyses the anatomical terracottas throughout Italy (2006, pp. 25-26) and concludes that thecolonists and locals imported and used these religious items; the assertion that they were a part of adeliberate 'Romanization' does not fit their purpose or context.44 Bradley (2006), pp. 168-169.45 Patterson (2006), p. 192-193.46 Henceforth in this document, the terms 'commissioner' or 'colonial commissioner' shall refer to thetresviri coloniae deducendae.14

experience, especially for colonization in dangerous locations familiar to thecommissioners. 47Although there is not very much information about the colonialcommissioners before the late third century, a similar coincidence between generals andcommissioners can be postulated for the end of the fourth century, especially given clearfactions in the senate advocating northern (Q. Fabius Maximus) or southern (AppiusClaudius Caecus) expansion. 48Thus, at least some of the commissioners wereexperienced generals or magistrates. More study needs to be made, however, on justwhat implications this experience had on the foundation of colonies, other than dictatingwhere the colony would be placed. Chapters 2 and 3 of this dissertation explore thesenatorial impetus to colonize as well as the logistical and religious roles of thecommissioners in founding a colony in general.Origin of the Colonists: Roman, Latin, or Local?Part of the legend that the Romans told themselves about their own origins involved theincorporation into Roman citizenship of Sabines, Etruscans, and whatever other peopleswere attracted by the asylum Romulus offered immigrants into his new city. 49In fact,Rome remained an 'open city' through the archaic period, with significant movement ofindividuals between especially Etruria and Rome without loss of social status. 50 Nor didcitizenship seem particularly important in these transmigrations until the second century' Especially Patterson (2006), p. 194 and Gargola (1995), p. 63.48 See Muccigrosso (2006), pp. 194-206 for the opposing views of Fabius' and Claudius' factions.49 Livy 1.3-13 etc.50 Bradley (2006), p. 161 and 164-167. Bradley's article examines the effect of this open policy on Rome'streatment of conquered ethnic groups involved in colonization schemes of the early and middle Republicanperiods especially. Cf. Cornell (1995), pp. 157-9 and 169.15

BCE, when Roman power expanded and gave cultural value to Roman citizenship.While it was easy for the elite to relocate between the main cities in central Italy withoutloss of status, it probably was more difficult for those without extensive monetaryresources or personal contacts. Joining a colonial expedition allowed a change oflocation without loss of status within the new community for lower class citizens ofRome and Latium, or even an opportunity of social advancement, which was minimizedin the early Republic lest it disrupt the political order.The attractiveness of social mobility and land acquisition in the colonies wasoffset by the dangers of living in an isolated outpost of Roman power in Italy, however. 53Rome often had recruitment difficulties because of this, even with the common inclusionof Latin colonists. 54Whether Latins were allowed to enroll in colonies, especiallyRoman citizen colonies, is hotly debated. The most pertinent evidence is from thecolonization notice for Puteoli, Salernum, and Buxentum (197 BCE). 55Thecommissioners for these colonies allowed non-Romans into the colonies, as evidenced bythe scandal when some enrolled colonists, men originally from Ferentinum, claimedRoman citizenship before the first census of the colony. Smith argues that this passagedoes not indicate that the Ferentinates had committed fraud by enrolling in the colony,but that the citizenship of the colony (Latin or Roman) was only conferred on the51 Bradley (2006), p. 166.52 Patterson (2006), pp. 209-210.53 Ibid. p. 200. See especially the difficulty in recruiting colonists for Minturnae and Sinuessa: Livy10.21.7-10.34 Patterson (2006), pp. 199-202. See, however, Salmon (1970), n. 65 p. 174, where he cites Livy 9.24.15,9.26.4, 10.1.2, and 27.9.11 as evidence that the majority of settlers for Latin colonies were Roman citizensbefore 200. This does not preclude them being only first-generation Romans, ac sim.55 Livy 34.42.5. Salmon (1970), pp. 98-99. Salmon posits that these colonies would have been Latin, ifonly sufficient colonists could have been found.16

colonists after the first census. 56Thus the Ferentinates' misstep was in claiming Romancitizenship before they had acquired it, not in claiming it at all. 57Further proof thatLatins and allies could enroll as colonists comes in the form of the poet Ennius, aCOMessapian from Rudiae, who became a colonist and a Roman citizen in 184.Thus, theaverage colonist population was probably a mix of Roman citizens by birth, immigrantsto Rome, and Roman allies from Latium.Another answer to the problem of too few colonists was to include also the localpopulation into the colony, either de iure as colonists with parcels of land or de facto asincolae. This was the practice in the archaic period, but also throughout latercolonization to foster a stronger community and mitigate the hostility of the localpopulation. 59Patterson observes as matter for further inquiry that "epigraphic andprosopographical data suggests that local populations could play a significant role in theaffairs of Latin colonies." 6Modern historians have taken up this line of inquiry on apiecemeal basis. Bispham briefly discusses the mixed populations of Cales andAriminum. 61Bradley notes that the commissioners of Antium did not make a policy ofexcluding local Volscians from the colony. 62Crawford cautiously comments that the56 Smith (1954), pp. 18-20. Cf. Salmon (1970), n. 165 pp. 184-185 contra Sherwin-White (1939), p. 92,where S.W. claims this as proof only Romans enrolled to become colonists.57 1 follow Smith (1954) in the observation that this passage does not imply that non-Romans were notallowed to enroll for citizen colonies, but that the Ferentinates erred in claiming their Roman citizenshiptoo soon, before they had moved to the colony. Cf. Laffi (2007), p. 23, Feig Vishnia (1996), p. 143.Salmon (1970), p. 99 asserts that this episode indicates that the non-Romans were more interested inacquiring Roman citizenship than living in the colony. He cites the rapid depopulation of Sipontum andBuxentum by 186 BCE as further evidence of this reluctance. Cf. Laffi (2007), pp. 23-24.58 Cic. Brut. 79; Cf. Arch. 22, De or. 3.168. Salmon (1970), p. 105. Ennius' citizenship may have come asa gift by one of the founding commissioners, according to Cicero {Brut. 79).59 Bradley (2006), pp. 178-179. See, for example, the inscription at Isernia of a dedication to Venus fromthe Samnite incolae (CIL I 2 3201).50 Patterson (2006), p. 199.61 Bispham (2006), p. 91.52 Bradley (2006), p. 167 f.17

nomenclature of Paestum shows a mix of Latin, Oscan, and Etruscan names, althoughthese may not have all been part of the colony of 273 BCE. 63The prosopography of thecippi at Pisaurum, according to Harvey, shows no narrower a focus of origin than westcentralItaly, which is consistent with a convergence of Latin and Roman colonists.Finally, Livi could not find evidence of surviving Auruncan culture at Minturnae,although she acknowledges that it is unclear whether the old population was wiped out orintegrated into the colony. 65The preceding survey offers just a handful of examples of the mixed populationsof colonies, but as Patterson observed, local populations did seem to be a significantpresence in the cultural life of especially the Latin colonies, with only one or twoexceptions. Therefore, any analysis of religious life in the colonies must account for notonly Roman and Latin influences, but also local contributions.Reaction of Local Populations to ColonizationAs part of the Romano-centric focus in colonization studies in Italy, not much has beensaid about the reaction of the local populations to colonization. Bradley notes that therewas a strong resistance to colonization in Alba Fucens, Carseoli, and Luceria. 66This isnot surprising considering that in some cases, such as that of Cosa, colonization led to thedisplacement of most of the local population in the territory around the city. 67In othercolonies, the local population was incorporated into the colony, such as happened with63 Crawford (2006), pp. 64-65.64 Harvey, Jr. (2006), pp. 119-126. Ennius is an example of anecdotal evidence of non-Roman enrolmentin the colonization of Pisaurum (Cic. Brut. 79)65 Livi (2006), pp. 91 and 113.66 Bradley (2006), p. 171 f.67 Ibid. p. 172. This, of course, was to allow an easier centuriation of the land for the current or futurecolonists.18

the Lucanian and Greek populations of Paestum or the Etruscan and Umbrian populationsat Ariminum. 68Part of the lack of focus on the locals' reaction to colonization is due totheir lack of voice in extant sources for the early and middle Republic.We are left tospeculate how and to what extent the pre-existing populations reacted to the newlyplanted colonies. With caution, as always, it is possible to tease out a rough estimate ofthe level of decimation or incorporation from epigraphic evidence. It is also necessary toconsider the different levels of resistance between a colonial foundation that occupied asection or the whole of an existing town as compared to one founded ex novo.III.LandscapeLandscape and PopulationRecent trends in landscape studies and landscape archaeology call for a moresophisticated analysis of the socio-symbolic dimensions of landscape, including how thelandscape's inhabitants perceive, experience, and contextualize their surroundings. 70Such scenarios of how the population or subdivisions of the population viewed theirlandscape and how those views changed can enhance analyses that privilege macro-levelpolitical and economic processes such as treatments of urbanization or colonization. 71People's perceptions and shaping of their landscape, however, are not the only68 Ibid. p. 173.69 Patterson (2006), pp. 202-208 offers a lengthy discussion of resistance and opposition to colonization,but mostly in the Gracchan and later periods. He asserts a lack of evidence for the early and middleRepublic (p. 207).70 Knapp and Ashmore (1999), p. 1. Knapp and Ashmore conclude that "taking a holistic landscapeperspective compels us to stress the interrelationships among people and such traces, places and features,in space and through time." (p. 2). They also define and describe landscape as memory, identity, socialorder, and transformation (pp. 13-19). The colonial landscapes in Italy have elements that resonate witheach of these categories.71 Attema (2002), p. 21119

determinant factors in the relationship between a population and the landscape in which itlives. Landscape also influences people, for example through changes in their selfdefinitions,livelihoods, and aesthetic tastes.In a speech in 1966, Sir Winston Churchill commented that "we shape ourbuildings and they shape us." 72Crumley, too, comments that "monuments lead andsociety follows: while they may be differently interpreted, the elements of previous•7-3^ ^landscapes always modify current thinking."This may be one of the reasons why someRoman colonists named areas of their new home after notable regions in Rome: 74 thecolonists were used to living in a place with certain regions, and thus, they sometimescarried the regional names to the colony so that they felt more comfortable in their newhome. In short, the city landscape of Rome imprinted itself on its citizens, who thenimprinted their interpretation of it on the colony where possible. Alternately, if thecolonists went to an existing city, it would be imprinted on them both physically andconceptually. A good example of this phenomenon is the Latin colony of Paestum,founded on Greek Poseidonia in 273 BCE. Not only did the colonists not remake the cityinto a clone of Rome, but major Roman temples did not join the Greek religious elementsof the city until the late Republic. 75Thus, while colonists did import a conceptuallandscape of their ideal city, which they imprinted on the colony where possible, the locallandscape also influenced the colonists so that the colony became a hybrid of theKnapp and Ashmore (1999), p. 8. Basso (1996), p. 55 calls this phenomenon 'interanimation.'73 Crumley (1999), p. 272.74 Bispham (2006), p. 87. For example, an early third century BCE relief-patera fromCales bears theinscription: K. Serponio Caleb, fece. Veqo Esqelino c.s. This suggests that Cales had a vicus also called theEsquiline. (ILS 8567, Cf. Coarelli (1998), p. 58, with a longer list of Roman place names in the colonies).75 See Crawford (2006) for a discussion of the preservation and continued use of Greek temples in thecolony.20

idealized conception of a new Latin city and the physical reality that incorporated severalpopulations.Moreover, landscape continued to influence its inhabitants over time, even asthey continued to change the landscape to suit their needs. Within the city of Rome, thisis illustrated by the proliferation of manubial temples vowed in battle and builtthroughout the city's busiest sectors. 76The manubial temples were monuments to themilitary success, social influence, and self-aggrandizement of the general who vowedtheir construction, but they also served as inspiration to the general's peers and77successors to vow their own temples.Thus, as Van Dommelen concludes, "landscapecannot easily be separated from society because it often plays an integral part in the78reproduction of the existing social order."The landscape, however, was not merely a playing field for elite social agendas; italso shaped a city's economic and political systems. 79A city's or territory's physicallandscape could dictate the sorts of trade-goods required depending on the available orunavailable resources. Waterways or lack thereof could shape the way in whichcommodities reach the city, as well as the occupations of a portion of the population. Thetopographical features of the landscape could determine the relative military focus of asociety: throughout the ancient world, there was a persistent stereotype that peoples inmountainous areas were belligerent and barbaric, whereas the people in fertile plainsSee Orlin (1997), pp. 114-139 for detailed discussions of this phenomenon.77 See Curti (2000), pp. 83 ff. for a treatment of the religious competition on the Quirinal hill between theMarcii, Decii, Ogulnii, and Fabii in the fourth and third centuries.78 Van Dommelen (1999), p. 278.79 Ibid. p. 284.21

were soft and wealthy.In part, the physical environment and available resourcespredetermined how a population survived and prospered; a challenging territory such asthe Apennine highlands predisposed the Samnites to pastoralism, for example. Similarly,the intellectual actions applied to city's land and territory, i.e. the conceptual landscape,also influenced its population. 81Among these intellectual actions were the redefinition ofthe territory as a Latin colony, which led to physical changes in the terrain to conformwith the new political definition. The colonists' self-definition as citizens of the newcolony was one of the primary conceptual processes that dictated their response tothreats, such as the violent Samnite response to the colonization of Fregellae in 328BCE. 82Models of Colonial Interactions and LandscapeScholarly models of ancient colonization have tended to neglect the influence of thelandscape in favor of an analysis of the human elements.In the last decade,colonization studies have rejected a dualist approach, which only examines political,cultural, and economic exchanges between the metropolis and the colony. 84Stein callsfor consideration of colonies within their regional and interregional contexts, so thatanalysis accounts for not only the relationship between colony and homeland, but also theSee Dench (1995), pp. 16-21 for a discussion of the ancient view of Samnites as barbaric people.81 Sluyter (2002), p. 32 n. 3 chooses "conceptual landscape transformations" as the best complement to"material landscape transformations" because the former "clearly identifies transformations that relate towhat exists in the mind."82 Livy 8.23.6; Dion. Hal. 15.8.5. Cf. Salmon (1970), p. 57; Coarelli (1998), pp. 30-31.83 See especially Salmon (1970) and MacKendrick (1954).84 Van Dommelen (1997), p. 308. Van Dommelen (p. 309) favors instead a blurring of the colonialcategory by recognizing that class, gender, or ethnicity might divide the colonists, as well as the localpopulation. The ways in which the colonists and locals interact along such divisions lead to hybridizationor creolization of the colonial culture. Cf. Webster (2001), Woolf (1998), Alcock (1997 and 2005), Bradley(2006), and Herring (2007).22

elationship between the colony and the local population. 85Stein discusses theramifications of the cultural exchange between the colony and the locals and between thecolony and the metropolis, but not between the metropolis and the locals. J.Z. Smithfavors a triadic comparison which encompasses all three sets of comparanda, but with theadded dimension of a basis of comparison. 86For example, in earlier studies, colonialreligion was assumed to resemble Roman religion more than it resembled local religionin respect to the nature of the gods worshipped and temples built.In place of Smith's and Stein's formulae, which do not fully capture the complexdynamic that can arise from a colonial situation in which all three human elementsinfluence cultural change in the others, I posit the relationships represented by Figure 1.2.Metropolis [Rome]LocalPopulation •

contact with Magna Graecia or increased use of Luna marble after M. Aemilius Lepidusconquered the Ligurians and founded the colony at the port of Luna.While this new model of cultural interaction attempts to acknowledge the impactof local culture not only on the colonists, but also on Rome, it still neglects landscape asone of the factors in the development of colonial and local culture. Sluyter insertslandscape into the equation in his analysis of the colonial situation on the Gulf Coast nearnoVeracruz. 89In his categorization of landscape, Sluyter includes not only materialresources such as soil, plants, animals, minerals, and water, but also the control overspace and territory, ranging from control over material resources to control overcommercial nodes, transport corridors, and labor resources. Thus, the landscape is boththe object of control and the medium through which the struggle for control plays out.As such, landscape affected both the native and European elements in the colonization ofthe Americas. 91Sluyter nuances the model further through refinement of the relationships betweenthe elements of the triangle: native, European, and landscape. He recognizes that theprocesses relating the three elements are "both material and conceptual because peopletransform landscape through processes of labor and categorization, and the resultinglandscape patterns influence the habits of practice awe? thought that structure suchFor the influence of cultural contact with the Greeks in Southern Italy on the Roman cult of Concordia,see Curti (2000). For Luna see Rossignani (1995).89 Sluyter (2002) adapts Hulme's (1992) colonial triangle of European, native, and land in order toencompass not only the physical but also the conceptual aspects of the landscape.90 Sluyter (2002), p. 10.91 See Sluyter (2002), p. 10, fig. 1.2, based on Hulme (1992) and reproduced from Sluyter (1999). Sluyterpresents a modified colonial triangle depicting the elements and relationships involved in coloniallandscape transformation in the Americas. The nodes Sluyter uses in the triangle are European, Native, andLandscape.24

processes as well as the conflicts of practice and thought that change structures." 92Potentially, the material and conceptual processes are equal and reciprocal between thenodes, 93 although the specific relationships require testing at the micro-level (site specificstudies). Furthermore, it is important to realize that the model distinguishes between thematerial and conceptual realms, when in reality they may overlap in complex ways. Theaforementioned models, from the triadic comparison among Rome, the colonies, and thelocal population to the processes that link natives, non-natives, and the landscape incolonial landscape transformation, suggest that the analysis of Roman colonialinteractions might benefit from a new model which incorporates the human elements ofcolonization with the material and conceptual landscape which they colonize. Thisincludes privileging the role of the commissioners in the initial planning and shaping ofthe colonial landscape. These interactions are illustrated by Figure 1.3, the colonialagency chart, which depicts the (interrelationships between the people involved inRoman colonization and the landscape. It inserts 'landscape' into the human colonialtriangle (metropolis, colonists, locals), while at the same time expanding the humanelements in Sluyter's depiction of the material and conceptual processes of transformingthe colonial landscape, with specific reference to the middle Republic.92 Sluyter (2002), p. 23.93 See Sluyter (2002), p. 23 fig. 1.7, which depicts a generalized colonial triangle representing the materialand conceptual processes relating the human elements of colonization with the landscape.25

Reports to senate,founds templesGeneral(cos. or pr.)f SPQR )Appointsgenerals,assignsprovinciaSometimes thesame men, ormen of thesame classElectstriumviriColonialCommissionersConquersenemies/depopulateslocalsDepopulatesland (battle orrelocation),appropriateslocal land forager RomanusOrganize civicspace of colony,measure anddivide landamong colonistsEnroll andleadcolonists tonew homeBecomeclientes oftriumviriI Locals I "*"Createcommunity?Historicaladaptation oflandscapeHistoricallydefined identityof locals, nowredefines theirrole in new.communityDefines colonistsas citizens ofnew communityAdapt land toown needsover timeColonial LandscapeFigure 1.3: Colonial Agency Chart - A new macro-model of the interactionsbetween the human elements of colonization and the landscape which theycolonize.26

As the colonial agency chart illustrates, the colonists adapted the landscape to fittheir needs over time, and in turn they came to be identified as citizens of their newcommunity. This process is much more complicated than can be summarized in a singlesentence, however. Every Roman colony founded in the middle Republic was placednear or within an extant network of locals. Before the foundation of the colony, the localpopulation controlled the natural resources of the landscape (the travel routes, waterways,agricultural produce, and other material goods). The locals built structures anddemarcated the landscape according to their own conceptions. They placed temples inlocations they felt to be sacred and claimed the land through burial of their parents.Through living in the landscape, thus constructed, the successive generations of the localpopulation came to be defined by the landscape in which they lived.Into this local landscape, the senate and people of Rome sent generals, who, as aconsequence of their campaigns, conquered the population and legally redefined a portionof the land as ager Romanus.The legal redefinition of territory was, at first, aconceptual process because it began with an intellectual re-perception of the land asbelonging to a different set of people. Only later did the new status of the land bringabout physical changes in the territory itself. Colonial commissioners led colonists to theland, where the commissioners carved out a new civic space, with political structures,temples, and cemeteries, and also measured farm plots out of the landscape and doledthem out to the colonists. 95The colonists themselves were left to inhabit the landscape sodefined for their benefit and to construct the buildings indicated for each segment of94 See Gabba (1989), pp. 197-207. For Capua, see Livy 26.14-16, 33-34.95 Gargola (1995), p. 120. Roman censors, consuls, and praetors also had the ius publicorum privatorumlocorum or the power to define the limits of public land (Livy 4.8.2). In 173 BCE, a consul was set toCampania to create boundaries there. (Livy 42.1.6)27

defined landscape. The landscape was neither empty nor pristine, however. The localpopulation remained, no longer in control of the travel routes and waterways, no longersole beneficiaries of the agricultural and material produce of the land, but stillworshipping at their temples and making offerings to their ancestors, still defined by thelandscape in which they lived. 96Note that the colonial agency chart does not depict the relationship between Romeand the locals or Rome and the landscape. This is a deliberate omission. On the onehand, Rome as an entity did interact with local populations in two ways. The first waywas through the generals as agents of Rome, as depicted in the agency chart. The secondway was through embassies from the locals to the senate of Rome. A comprehensivestudy of this phenomenon, however, is beyond the scope of this dissertation and does notusually affect religion in the colonies, so this interaction is excluded in the diagram. Onthe other hand, Rome as an entity had little direct interaction with the colonial landscape.The only impact the senate had on the landscape was through the decisions to make waror the laws passed to found colonies. Both of these phenomena were manifested throughthe agency of magistrates and generals, thus the senate had no direct connection to thelandscape. Moreover, the colonial landscape benefited or had impact on the generals,commissioners, and colonists rather than the senate or people of Rome as a whole. Thus,this arrow, too, has been omitted from the diagram.The relationships depicted by the colonial agency chart will be explained morethoroughly throughout this dissertation. Chapter 2 offers a history of the interactions96 This is assuming that the temples were not destroyed during the course of military operations in theregion, as many of them were not. Laurence (1996), p. 119 notes that destroying temples and tombs wasseen to be unnatural, which might be why temples, as at Paestum (Pedley 1990), continued to be used. Fora similar Greek view, see Polyb. 5.11.1-9 on Philip's treatment of religious space.28

etween the generals, locals, and the landscape made ready for Roman colonization(Figure 2.1). Following this is a discussion of the motivations for the commissioners inrelation to their position in Rome and the benefits they accrued from the colonies (Figure2.2). Chapter 3 concerns the relationships between Rome and the commissioners, on theone hand, and the commissioners, colonists, and colonial landscape, on the other (Figure3.1). Finally, Chapter 4 explores the relationships between colonists, locals, and thelandscape as seen through the lens of religious practice (Figure 4.2).IV.Roman ReligionIn order to determine whether the Romans imposed their religion on the colonists and thelocal populations around the colonies, it is necessary to examine religion in Rome itself.Thus, this section will address whether there was an obvious and distinct state cult inRome as well as who was responsible for introducing new cults into the religious systemthere. Through addressing these queries, it becomes clearer that Rome could not havestamped each colony with a pre-formed set of religious ideals because, in the middleRepublic, such a thing did not exist.Was there a Roman state cult?One very important, often unspoken assumption in the discourse on deliberate'Romanization' of the colonies through religion is that the Romans had some sort ofdefinable state cult. It was part or the whole of this official religious structure, then,which Rome is imagined to have imposed on colonies planted throughout the Republicanperiod. De Cazanove supports the notion of a Roman state cult, distinct from that of its29

neighbors: "[d]espite its undeniable cultural affinities with Italic peoples, Rome had itsown religion, a public cult that had meaning and validity only within Rome's frontiers." 9He does admit the Latin community cults such as Jupiter Latiarius as exceptions to thisisolated Roman religion, and he acknowledges that the public cult of Rome was open todivine additions. Nonetheless, de Cazanove asserts that the Romans "made use of thegods of others only and exactly to the extent that it made them its own."This viewbegs for further explanation. How are we to define Rome's frontiers; is it thepomerium,the ager Romanus, or perhaps the land held by the farthest Latin colony? For whatperiod does this picture of Roman religion apply? Does it imply a static state cult, evenas it admits foreign gods? Unfortunately, de Cazanove's article is a very brief thoughtpiecewhich merely begins this dialogue; consultation with other studies of Romanreligion in the Republic shows a very different picture.It is first important to note that Rome and the Romans led a polytheistic and verycomplex ritual life, as seen in the writings of Varro, Plutarch, and Augustine. Woolfremarks that these authors wrote about religion in order to define identity, imposediscipline on Roman citizens, and to justify traditional religion in terms of philosophicdiscourse." In respect to the imperial period, Woolf describes what he calls polisreligionas the elite way of categorizing Roman religion. 100Two main features assumedabout/»o//5-religion are that the religion is homologous with social and political aspects97 de Cazanove (2000), p. 71.98 Ibid, de Cazanove further nuances his bold assertion about a Roman state cult by contrasting it with theproselytism and 'missionary spirit' (implying, of course, Christianity). He over simplifies the nature ofRoman religion by saying it was a civic religion that concerned only Roman citizens, so that Romanizationthrough control of cults can only be discussed of any area after it had received citizenship, i.e. in themunicipia or colonies.99 Woolf(1997),pp.39-40.100 Ibid. pp. 43-44.

of the polis and the spread of the state included the spread of the religion.The polisreligionmodel falls short of accurately describing a Roman state religion in that it cannotaccount for the complexity of ancient religion in areas of myth and personal cult; it alsodoes not display change in ancient religion nor the causes for change. 102Although Woolfdiscusses Roman religion under the Empire in relation to the religious complexity foundin provincial Gaul, his cautions about assuming the presence of a static Roman statereligion that spread with Roman political and military dominance apply equally well todiscussions of Rome's expansion into Italy in the middle Republic.J. Riipke admirably problematizes the simplicity of the/ra/w-religion model bydemonstrating an internal religious pluralism and lack of a clear external demarcation for1 (WRoman religious practices in the middle Republic.He notes that, as with the imperialexample above, the notion of a coherent and exclusive state cult was an elite constructbeginning in the early second century BCE. 104Otherwise, the Romans in the middleRepublic celebrated not an organized pantheon, but consistently imported new deitiesthrough evocatio deorum or through consultation of the Sibylline Books until the latesecond century BCE. ° 5 Rtipke concludes that religion was a medium of communicationin the middle Republic; indigenous and imported cults alike brought together smallsections of the population of Rome in public celebration. While there was no unified101 Ibid. pp. 40-41.102 Ibid. pp. 45-46.103 Riipke (2004), p. 179.104 Ibid. Riipke offers the evidence of the senatorial opposition to the growing power of the Bacchantes in186 BCE; only the senators defined the Bacchic cult as a private cult. Otherwise it was just anotherreligious choice available to the citizens of Rome and Italy.105 Riipke (2004), p. 188.31

Roman religion, there was also no religion completely independent of this need for publiccelebration. 106Although Roman religion in the early and middle Republic was open to theimportation of new gods, the correct ritual practices needed to be maintained in order topreserve the pax deorum. Ando describes this aspect of Roman religion as an 'empiricistepistemology:' "cult addressed problems in the real world, and the effectiveness ofrituals... determined whether they were repeated, modified, or abandoned." 107Due to theencompassing nature of Roman religion, there were significant ritual and divine elementsthat the Romans shared with the Etruscans, Latins, and Greeks. This began even in thelate monarchy and early Republic, when individuals were able to move between Etruscanand Latin communities while preserving their social status; it is only a small step fromhuman mobility to the importation of gods, which became a distinctively Romanpractice. 108Ando agrees that one essential aspect of Roman religion was that it was "ofand for a political community or body of citizens, one that included both humans andgods." 109Despite the diverse origins of Roman gods and rituals, all worship requiredstrict orthopraxy to maintain the good will between man and god. Considering that theRoman and Latin colonists in Italy gradually occupied the territory of the Latins,Etruscans, and Greeks in Magna Graecia, at any time the colonists may well have foundsome familiar aspect of religion among the local populations. Thus, it is overlyrestrictive to posit a distinct Roman state cult which the Romans imposed on theircolonies.106 Ibid., p. 194.107 Ando (2003), p. 11.108 Bradley (2006), pp. 164-167.109 Ando (2003), p. 3. Ci.Cic.Nat. D. 1.115-16 and North (1976).32

Temple Vowing and Dedicating in RomeThe early city of Rome had two main centers: the Capitoline hill and the forum, eachwith its associated temples and shrines. This is not to say that these were the onlyreligious locales in Rome, however; Rome's number of shrines and temples wereaugmented regularly through, among other things, the dedication of manubial templesarising out of a general's vow on the battle field and funded by war booty. The politicaland social character of the Roman state specifically fostered such unique features of thecity, according to Zanker. 110Unfortunately for the generals, the ultimate authority tobuild a temple did not rest on the fact of their vows but on the permission of the senate asgranted by the Roman people. 111The people of Rome held this right and responsibilitythrough the lex Papiria, a late fourth century law that forbade any temple to beconsecrated without an order of the plebs.The existence of governmental regulation arising from such a critical time in thedevelopment of the Republican senate suggests that temple building was a powerfulpolitical and social tool for the Roman elite. This is confirmed by literary and epigraphicevidence. In 205, Marcellus was not allowed to dedicate a single-cella temple to Honosand Virtus for the stated reason that it would be impossible to achieve a correctinterpretation and mitigate a prodigy if there was uncertainty about which deity to110 Zanker (2000), p. 26.111 Livy 9.46.6-7, Cic. Dom. 136, Leg. 2.19 Cf. Ando (2003), p. 8 notes that the Roman people also grantedthe senate the authority to decide claims of divinity as in the case of Amphiarios at Oropos.112 Cic. Dom. 127-128. Cf. Muccigrosso (2006), p. 186 and n. 27.33

propitiate. 113Yet, C. Marius was allowed to dedicate just such a temple not a centurylater. 114Clearly, there was more going on in Marcellus' case than just a concern with theinterpretation of prodigies. Furthermore, in his epitaph, L. Scipio mentioned the templeof Tempestates, which he dedicated in 259; this indicates it was as important to theepitaph audience, i.e. the people of Rome, that the deceased had dedicated temples as thathe had held high offices. 115The best way to advertise the dedication of a temple was through prominentplacement; according to Muccigrosso, temple locations in the forum and circus areas oralong major roads targeted the greatest potential voting base for the vowing general. 116In Rome, there was such freedom of location because no apparent master plan of sacraltopography existed, according to Rupke, except for specific border or crossroads ritualssuch as the Terminalia or Compitalia. 117Moreover, the choice of deity was also left to11 St •the whim of the vowing general or aedile.Perhaps this freedom of choice arose fromthe spontaneous nature of vows made in battle: it is nearly impossible to determine ifthese vows were premeditated as a rule. It seems that the recipient deity of the vows wasnot dictated by a predefined set of senate-approved or even traditional gods, so the temple113 Val. Max. 1.1.8. Cf. Ando (2003), p. 12 who notes that "the need to respond precisely drove pontiffs torequire, and architects and urban planners alike to produce, cities in which divine messages in the terrestriallandscape would be as clear as possible." I think this comment does not imply that a team of architectscreated an initial, coherent, and unified city plan for Rome or for colonies, but that there was a case-by-caseevaluation of the suitability of each proposed temple's dedication and location.,14 Orlin(1997),p. 131.115 CIL I 2 .8-9. Cf. Muccigrosso (2006), p. 186.116 Muccigrosso (2006), p. 187. Muccigrosso urges those who study temple placement in Rome to set asidethe temples of Jupiter Optimus Maximus and Aventine Diana as comparanda for later Roman Republicantemple locations. These temples are clearly archaic and may have had no bearing on temple placementpatterns in later periods.117 Rupke (2004), p. 191. There also seemed to be no designated locations for gods of different origins, e.g.the temple to Aesculapius was outside the pomerium while the temple of Magna Mater was located on thePalatine.118 Muccigrosso (2006), p.191.34

uilders could in theory accommodate their own beliefs or family traditions.In somecases, the identity of the god did carry specific messages about the intentions andpolitical allegiances of the dedicator, however, as in the aedicula of Concordia dedicatedby Flavius. 1In short, Roman religion was far too flexible and open to create an obvious anddistinct state cult. The cults that defined Rome as being Roman were often linked veryclosely to their places of origin; these were augmented by steady importation of newcults. Nor was Roman religion, as a phenomenon, static once it was established: therewere different fashions in religious practice and location throughout the middle Republic.These fashions were often driven by the needs of the men who vowed and dedicatedtemples - the generals and aediles. Ultimately, there was a great deal of religiousfreedom and change in mid-Republican Rome, as long as the pax deorum was maintainedand the custom of observing religious practice in public was respected.V. Roman Religion in the ColoniesModern scholarship thus demonstrates that there is no concrete and distinct Roman statecult, rather religious fashion in the middle Republic is changing and the generals areamong the ones who are changing it. These same generals, as we have seen, are often themen who lead out colonies into the places they have conquered, often the same placeswhere they made their original temple vow while in battle. Therefore, it will beinformative to examine religion in the colonies to see if it corresponds to religion inRome, to the vows of the generals, to the local religion, or some combination thereof.119 Ibid. p. 192.120 Ibid.35

This section addresses continuity at local shrines as well as Roman religion imported intothe colonies, including capitolia, as a study of a particular phenomenon. Ultimately, thegoal is to determine if Roman religion was imposed onto the colonies from the viewpointof colonial religion.Local Shrines: Continuity or Change?One of the first considerations in the analysis of religion in and around the colonies iswhether there were any temples or shrines before the colonists arrived, and if there were,whether they show evidence of continuity of cult or not. In the first case, some colonieswere founded ex novo, which means that there was no local town on the site of the futurecolony. This does not preclude, however, the presence of local rural shrines, such asexisted in the countryside around Minturnae. If the colony was not founded anew, thenthere were certainly some temples, shrines, or altars to which the colonists needed toreact in some way. It is important to determine whether the shrines were destroyed, fellinto disuse, showed signs of continued local worship, or displayed a change in cultresulting from the influence of the colonists. Since the Roman army was by and large themeans by which colonial territory was taken throughout the Republic, it is appropriate tolook for a Roman attitude toward captured temples to begin discussing local shrines asaffected by colonization efforts.According to Roman law, a shrine or temple, if it has been captured, is no longersacred, and its status must be restored by postliminium and other purification rituals. 121121 Dig. 11.7.36. Cf. Glinister (2000), pp. 61-62, who notes that the survival of a shrine depends on severalfactors, including the type of conflict, the enemy's relationship to Rome, whether the city was stormed orsurrendered, the general's decisions, or, of course, whether there was accidental damage.36

As discussed above, Roman religion was open to new deities, so the enemy's gods couldbe adopted as Roman through evocatio and taken to Rome; in other cases, the god mightstay in his or her original sanctuary out of respect for the strong sense of place inherent inItalian ritual, e.g. the cult of Juno Sospita at Lanuvium.The role of the general indisturbing the gods of his conquered enemies was also acknowledged, as seen when thedefeated cult was incorporated into the sacra publico of Rome and given into the keepingof the family of the conqueror.In the colonies, the new settlers had the option ofhelping to restore damaged sanctuaries. An exauguratio was necessary in this processonly if the settlers decided to remove the shrine formally or change recipients of thetemple. 124The preceding are just general observations on what could have happened if ashrine was destroyed while the Roman army conquered the territory of the future colony.Bispham notes that there is a significant level of survival of local cults in the colonies,although many of these underwent some change as a result of the conquest andcolonization.The survival of local sanctuaries is only part of the diversity of religioustopography, practice, and ideology found across the colonies, however. 126Thus, it isnecessary to evaluate the colonies and sanctuaries on an individual basis to determine therelative level of religious continuity. Some of this analysis has been completed forvarious colonies. Crawford reiterates the continuity of the cult of Athena/Minerva atPaestum, as well as the continuing votive deposits made at the rural sanctuary of122 Glinister (2000), p. 62. Cf. Livy 8.14.2, Cic. Mur. 90.123 Arn. Adv. not. 3.38. Glinister (2000), p. 63.124 Glinister (2000), p. 66.125 Bispham (2006), p. 94 following Torelli.126 Ibid.37

Capodifiume for at least the first generation after the colony was founded.Livi alsoelucidates the continuity in the use of the rural sanctuaries around the colony ofMinturnae, although no longer using recognizably local forms of worship.Heretofore,such analysis of local shrines in the colonies has either focused on a single colony, withperhaps scattered comparanda mustered to support an observation about that colony, oron a geographically and temporally broad selection of colonies that bear a few similartraits. In Chapters 4 and 5,1 propose to narrow the observations on local shrines to thecolonies planted in Samnium, Campania, and Northern Italy. This may offer a morestatistically significant analysis that will illustrate a religious pattern for the middleRepublic.Roman Temples, Cults, and Rites in the ColoniesThe specifically 'Roman' temples, cults, and rites that the colonists deliberately importedto their new home have been the object of much more scrutiny, but also of impreciseassumptions. The first assumption is, as mentioned above, that the colonists were allRoman and thus the religious influence will be entirely Roman, including the impositionof some form of the Roman state cult. We have already seen that there was no formalRoman pantheon or rigid topographical plan with which the colonists could stamp theirnew home. Furthermore, studies of individual colonies suggest that the main gods of thecolony, even if also worshipped at Rome, are not the deities through which Rome defined127 Crawford (2006), pp. 64-65.128 Livi (2006), pp. 90 ff. Livi includes the Temple of Marica, the sanctuary at Pentelle, Ponte Ronaco, andMonte d'Argento in her study. These rural sanctuaries served as community centers for the local ruralpopulation in the archaic period, but no longer after the Roman colony was founded.38

itself, e.g. Mars, Quirinus, Vesta, the Capitoline triad, or Aventine Diana.Moreover,the colonists were not solely Roman, but a mix of Romans and Latins, with some of thelocal population often included. Thus, it is a presumption to assume that the colonistswould create only a purely Roman type of religion to fulfill their religious needs. Studiesat Pisaurum especially have shown that the colonists there honored not a pantheon ofRoman gods, but one from throughout western central Italy.The second major assumption about religion in the colonies is that it is sufficientto discuss cults and sanctuaries as though they sprung up, fully formed, from the momentthat the colonists set foot in their new home. This, also, is too much of a generalization.In some cases, the beginning of a certain rite does coincide with the foundation of thecolony, e.g. the votive deposits from the bridge over the Garigliano River atMinturnae. 131Nonetheless, building temples and major sanctuaries took time andresources that may not have been available to the colonists for some time afterfoundation. Crawford shows that the impact of institutional changes in the physicallandscape of Paestum was slow and indirect, not a spontaneous phenomenon concurrentwith the founding of the Roman colony.We should expect a similar slow growth inother colonial situations, even those colonies founded ex novo.Bispham (2000), pp. 174-175 illustrates this principle with Ostia, where the primary deities were Vulcanand the Dioscuri. Ostia was bound to Rome through the worship of these deities, but was certainly not adeliberate copy of Rome in terms of religion.130 Harvey, Jr. (2006), pp. 119-126. Cf. Bispham (2006), p. 94.131 Livi (2006), p. 102.132 Crawford (2006), p. 59. Crawford does admit that some parts of the archaeological record showedinstant change, such as the immediate and complete switch to Latin inscriptions, especially to Minerva,Jove, and Hercules (pp. 64-65).39

Was Roman Religion Imposed on the Colonies? The State of the QuestionAs Woolf observes in his discussion ofpofe-religion in the early Empire, general studiesof religion have moved from an assumption that religion is an embedded quality of thecity-state to the acknowledgement that religion is formed by the choices of various1 "^ • •groups offering a variety of religious options.Since religion is shaped by the choicesof its practitioners, a homology of religion does not a priori indicate indistinguishableidentity between two groups. 134Although Woolf s subject matter is outside of theRepublic, his cautions about identity are still very much applicable to mid-Republicancolonial religion. The notion that constituents in some way choose their own religion,especially in a polytheistic society, has only begun to enter dialogues on religion in thecolonies, but needs much more attention. So, too, does the ancillary observation that theadoption of religion can signal a shaping of identity, but not necessarily resulting in oneidentical to the identity associated with the source of the cults.These questions of religious choice and identity are not adequately addressed byolder arguments that assume Rome deliberately imposed its religion on the colonies orused them to spread religious domination throughout Italy. In the last decade, there arefewer and fewer scholars that still support the notion of deliberate religious'Romanization,' e.g. de Cazanove's assertion that "Latin colonies... can be seen as thestaging posts of the Roman expansion in Italy, politically and militarily, of course, butalso from an ideological and religious point of view." 135This view contrasts sharply withGlinister's observation that sometimes Rome showed a lack of interest in the religion ofWoolf (1997), pp. 41-42 following North (1992).Woolf(1997),p.42.de Cazanove (2000), p. 74.

its own colonies, especially in terms of when or if money for temple building came out ofRome. 136By looking more deeply at the evidence for Roman involvement in templebuilding, modern scholars are seeing that there is little evidence that the Roman state hada consistent policy regarding the religious 'Romanization' of the colonies. This is wherethe questions of religious choice and identity come in.Instead of assuming direct Roman control over religion, scholars have beenfocusing on the specific deities involved across many colonies in order to nuance therelationship between colonization and religion in the colonies. For example, Bisphamexplores the idea that there were a specific set of gods involved in Roman colonization,although not necessarily the patron gods of Rome. He cautions that the phrase 'gods ofcolonization' does not imply that some deities were "used to mediate and propagate newideologies of power, and make clear Roman conquest and local subjugation." 137Rather,certain gods, such as Hercules, Apollo, and Diana, were prominent in many colonies notbecause they were Romano-centric deities but because they represent a concurrence ofLatin, local, and Mediterranean religious elements.This new focus accounts forchoice of deities in polytheistic religion, and opens the question of what the colonists aresaying about their own identity by choosing to worship multi-cultural gods.136 Glinister (2006), n. 62. In particular, Pisaurum did not get a contract let for the temple of Jupiter for tenyears after its foundation. Harvey, Jr. (2006, pp. 129-132) also comments on the fact that Q. FulviusFlaccus (cos. 179) did not authorize building contracts for construction projects, such as temples andhighways, in Roman (not Latin) colonies until 174 BCE.'"Bispham(2006), p. 113.138 Ibid. pp. 113-117.41

The Capitolium IssueEven as the general assumption that the Romans imposed their religion on the colonieshas been abandoned in favor of a nuanced view of religious choice, the belief in theubiquitous colonial capitolium stemming from that assumption has remained hard toshake. In general studies on the spread of Roman power through Italy, the presence of acapitolium is cited as the ultimate evidence that Republican colonies were ideologicallylinked to Rome. 139When attempting to identify the key elements of the ideal Romancity, Zanker, too, imagines that the principle sanctuary of most colonies is the capitolium,placed prominently in the forum or gathering place of the colony. 140Furthermore, heasserts that: "I take it as self-evident that the new Roman colonies in the provinces weredramatically different in appearance from the venerable cities of the native inhabitants,and that this difference conferred on the new foundations a special status." 141WhileZanker is distilling an idealized Roman environment from a broad spectrum of colonialsituations, he does not adequately account for the timing of the construction of thecapitolia, nor the fact that many mid-Republican colonies did not have one. Again, thisis an issue of imposing late Republican and imperial phenomena on early Romancolonization efforts.Lomas (2004), p. 211. Lomas acknowledges that urban sanctuaries had symbolic connections with theidentity of the community, but she then implies that a capitolium was built contemporaneously with everycolony, either on acropolis or in forum. This argument is circular and based on the assumption thatcolonies identified themselves as Roman in every way.140 Zanker (2000), pp. 33-35. Zanker does admit that it is difficult to say if Rome dictated the mimicking ofthe Capitoline Hill through a colonial capitolium on an arx or on a podium overlooking the forum. He stillimplies that the capitolium was a very early feature of the colonies, however.141 Ibid. p. 35.42

A more accurate picture arises from analysis of individual colonies: Cosa,Minturnae, and Ostia only received their capitolia in the late Republic.Even so, it isunclear if the temples identified as capitolia were actually temples to Jupiter, Juno, andMinerva in all cases. At Minturnae, there is no evidence that the Etrusco-Italian templebuilt in the second century BCE to replace the temple of Jupiter was a capitolium}* Asat Cosa, there is only the circular assumption that Roman colonies had capitolia,therefore, if there was a prominent temple, especially one with three cellae, it must be acapitolium. Bispham urges scholars to leave any discussion of capitolia out of mid-Republican colonial studies, especially of Latin colonies. 144Furthermore, he notes thatthe cult of Jupiter Optimus Maximus, as opposed to local cults of various other Jupiters,came late, if at all, to Republican colonies. 145Bispham explains that three processes ledto the gradual adoption of the Capitoline Triad as an expression of Roman identity in thecolonies: Rome's increasing military dominance in Italy from the third century BCE on,the new wealth brought by successful conquest in the second and first centuries, and theneed the elites of older colonies felt to emulate the urban framework in the newercolonies in the north. Thus, it is anachronistic to assume that every Roman colony, andespecially the Latin colonies, founded in the early or middle Republic had a capitolium.142 Bispham (2000), p. 174-175.143 Livi (2006), p. 97.144 Bispham (2006), p. 93. Bispham shortly thereafter comments that there was a temple to the CapitolineTriad in Luna from 177 BCE, the foundation of the colony. Clearly this subject requires much caution, anda careful respect of temporal boundaries.145 Bispham (2006), pp. 117-122.43

VI.Evidentiary CautionsLiteratureUntil recently, modern historians accepted uncritically the colonization accounts not onlyof Livy and Velleius Paterculus, but also of Aulus Gellius and later authors in order tocreate a more or less unchanging blueprint of a Roman colony. These authors and manyothers who discuss colonization in passing had a very firm idea of what the colonizationefforts of their own late Republican or imperial period were, and retrojected this ideaonto narratives of early Roman colonization. Livy, Festus, and Velleius Paterculuspreserve information about Republican colonization more directly than Aulus Gellius,and they are acknowledged to be generally factual because they were derived from anofficial Roman record of the colonies sent out under various commissioners in specificyears. 146These authors, however, couch the details of colonization in terms of their ownunderstanding of the late Republican ideology of colonization offered also by Cicero andDionysius of Halicarnassus, "in which colonization was seen as an ordered, statecontrolledprocess which played a vital part in the success of the Roman empire." 147J.R. Patterson's article, 'Colonization and Historiography: the Roman Republic,'attempts to compensate for the later Republican colonial ideology by carefully analyzingthe Romans' changing attitudes to colonies and the contexts of the ancient authors. 148Heconcludes that ancient historians and politicians portrayed the colonial processambiguously and as a complex phenomenon; it was an agrarian initiative if the authorwanted to emphasize a helpful attitude toward the Roman plebs, but on the whole146 Bradley (2006), p. 163.147 Ibid.148 Patterson (2006), pp. 189-191.44

colonization was represented as military in nature.Even with this analysis of late-Republican literary accounts, it is difficult to discern what, if anything, was the mid-Republican ideology of colonization.A narrative of colonization is also difficult to discern from the literary sources.Livy is the most instructive source, but most of his entries list little more than the name ofthe colonies and sometimes legal details or the names of the commissioners. Also,because of the gaps in his Ab Urbe Condita, our information for the tresviri coloniaededucendae before the second Punic War is scarce at best. Livy's account, especially,did not survive for the years 292 BCE (after the end of book 10) through 219 BCE (thebeginning of book 21) except in summary form. 150There are a few colonization effortsfor which the commissioners are listed before 219, including Saticula (313), Cales (334),and, from the priscae latinae coloniae, Antium (467) and Ardea (442). 151Thesecommissions seem to follow the principles for the commissions of the late third and earlysecond centuries, as discussed throughout this chapter, but such a small representationonly allows for speculation about the nature of the commissions in the first century ofRoman colonization.Even within Livy's accounts, commissioners are only related by name for twentyIbid. pp. 209-210. See below for new interpretations of what early Roman colonization was more likelyto have been.150 Cf. Orlin (1997), p. 6 for the problems this gap causes for the list of temples in Rome.151 Antium: (Livy 3.1.6, Dion. Hal. 9.59.2) T. Quinctius L.f L.n Capitolinus Barbatus, Aulus VerginiusCaeliomontanus, Publius Furius Medullinus Fusus. Ardea: (Livy 4.11.5, Diod. Sic. 12.34.5) MeneniusAgrippa Lanatus T.f Agrippa.n., T. Cloelius Siculus, M. Aebutius Helva. Cales: (Livy 8.16.14, Veil. Pat.1.14.3) Caeso Duillius, T. Quinctius Poenus Capitolinus Crispinus, M. Fabius. Saticula: (Festus Gloss. Lat.p458 L, Veil. Pat. 1.14.4) M. Valerius Maximus Corvus M.f M.n, D. Iunius Brutus Scaeva, P. FulviusLongus.152 Gargola (1995), p. 63 also notes a similarity, if marked by a greater number of high ranking magistrates.45

two commissions, four of which merely supplemented already founded colonies.Eachcommission founded from one to five colonies, so of approximately sixty four coloniesfounded between 338 and 169, only twenty five colonies are represented: of the coloniesbetween 219 and 169, however, all twenty three known colonies have namedcommissions. 154Therefore, observations about the colonial commissions mentioned byLivy for the half-century period 219 to 169 can be considered complete. Furthermore,the few examples of commissions from the first one hundred years of Romancolonization suggest that the principles were the same as those known for 219-169 BCE;this is indeed conjecture, but reasonable conjecture based on a few solid examples.Another caution pertains to the reliability of the information given by Livy.While many of Livy's documents are probably fictional reconstructions, especially forthe monarchy and early Republic, brief records given at the beginning or end of a year'saccount are probably based on records Livy consulted. 155The lists of colonialcommissioners fall into the latter category, as can be seen by Livy's discussion of thefoundation of Placentia and Cremona, where he mentions two competing sources for thelist of commissioners. 15While Livy books 21-45 give a full list of colonialcommissioners for 219-169 BCE, not all other office lists are full for this period, either inFor a comprehensive list of known commissioners with references see Appendix 1, which was compiledfrom Gargola (1995), pp. 60-63 and nn. 42,45, and 46 pp. 209-210 and Broughton MRR Vol. I and II (1968reprint). The chart also lists references for Broughton's catalog of magistracies held by these men.154 The only exception is the third commissioner for the founding of Tempsa (194). Livy 34.45.3-5 has acorruption in the manuscripts right at the cognomen of one of the commissioners, thus all we know is thename Quintus, which is hardly enough for identification. Cf. Gargola (1995), p 60.155 Beard, North, and Price (1998), p. 9. For example, the formula of the fetial priests in Livy 1.32.6-14was very likely an antiquarian reconstruction (cf. Ogilvie (1965), pp. 127-134), whereas the notice of asupplement of colonists for Venusia (200, Livy 31.49.6) appears after the announcement of a triumph,games, and a land allotment, all of which are the sorts of things recorded in the annates. Cf. Briscoe(1973), p. 11.156 Livy 21.25.1-7, Cf. Polyb. 3.40.3-10, Asc. Pis. P3 C. Gargola (1990) offers a convincing interpretationof the varying names in these commissions.46

Livy or in olherfasti. 157The consul and praetor lists are reasonably complete, but thelists of quaestors, aediles, and priesthoods are less complete. Nonetheless, significantenough numbers of tresviri are known to have held magistracies prior to their duty ascommissioners to draw conclusions about the pertinence of an office-related skill-set tothe choice of commissioners.ArchaeologyIn addition to an imperial bias, the ancient authors also provide a distinctly Romanocentricaccounting of the process of colonization. Unfortunately, there is no ancientItalian narrative to counterbalance the Roman view, just modern interpretations ofcolonial archaeology, epigraphy, and coinage.evidence is not without its problems, however. 160The interpretation of archaeologicalThe most significant of these is theassumption that the colonies did follow Roman religious patterns; Torelli follows thispattern and labels many of the temples in Paestum based on tentative similarities to thelandscape of Rome. 161Some authors avoid the complex issue of Roman influence on thecolonial landscape by avoiding discussing monumental structures in favor of smallervotive objects such as anatomical terracottas.Others undertake a case-by-case study of157 Gargola (1995), p. 60. Since the lists are incomplete, Gargola declines to perform analysis for howmany of the commissioners held each post. His primary motivation for enumerating the magistracies is todemonstrate that "colonial triumvirates formed a regular part of the mid-republican political order." (p. 60)Thus, the observation that most commissioners had held either the praetorship or the consulship prior tobecoming triumvir was sufficient.158 See Appendix 2 for a discussion of the offices and Chapter 3 for the skill-set.159 Lomas(2004),p.201.160 Alcock (2005), pp. 324-326; Rogers (2005), pp. 349-352; Stein (2005), pp. 7-9; and Dietler (2005), p.66.161 Torelli (1999b), pp. 43-88. Crawford (2006), p. 71 n. 58 also denounces Torelli's methodology.162 de Cazanove (2000), p. 75 "It is superfluous to dwell - as has been done repeatedly - on the imitation ofRome at work in the monumental and religious centers of the Latin colonies: the forum and the arx." Forother studies of terracottas, see Glinister (2000) and (2006) (in response to de Cazanove 2000).47

certain far-flung mid-Republican colonies, and conclude that the political structureswhich Zanker assumed defined a Roman colony, the arx and its capitolium, the forumwith a comitium/curia structure, were not ubiquitous in mid-Republican colonies.While this type of study is helpful in terms of dispelling the imperial image cast uponRoman Republican colonies as a whole, it is still Romano-centric in that it glosses overwhether each colonization effort was affected by various events and people within themiddle-Republic, or what contribution the local population made toward shaping thestructure of the colony.Another problem with interpreting archaeological evidence, especially in terms ofthe nature of religion in the colonies, again returns to the applicability of imperialinscriptions to mid-Republican habits. Bispham quite rightly urges caution whenanalyzing the inscriptions on first and second century CE altars found in variouscolonies. 164While it is tempting to connect the prescription that the rites at these altarsshould mirror those of Diana on the Aventine with the importance of Diana in thefledgling Roman Republic, all that can really be said about the use of Diana in thiscontext is that her cult was an acceptable model in imperial colonies. As with thequotation of Aulus Gellius, it is all too easy to conflate the many stages of Romancolonization from the archaic through imperial periods into one, concrete, and definableprocess. Moreover, the tendency of Roman historians to create a fused picture of Romancolonization allows other scholars wishing for a foil to their own colonization studies to163 Bispham (2006), p. 74. See also Mouritsen (2004), p. 42, who notes that there was "no urban parallel tothe political use of the forum envisaged in the Latin colonies," not even in the colonial model developedfrom comparison to military camps since the soldiers would have been ritually restricted from entering theforum space as in Rome.164 Bispham (2006), pp. 73-74.

assert that colonization in their region sprung from diverse motivations and resulted in avariety of settlement types, unlike typical Roman colonization. 1 5It is time toacknowledge that Roman colonies of the middle Republic were just as diverse and just asfar removed from 'typical Roman colonization.'Some caution is also necessary in interpreting the process of common worship atcolonial sanctuaries. Webster, in her work on creolization in the religious systems of theRoman provinces, offers two caveats that are equally applicable to Republican religion inItaly: 1) the ancient evidence available in the form of inscriptions, votives, andiconography is sparse and often poorly contextualized, 166 and 2) we cannot assume thatchoices made by the dedicants were always dictated by economic necessity nor thatRoman models were considered the default choice.Webster offers the example thatthe rarity of inscriptions for the Celtic goddess Epona was not indeed caused by therelative poverty of the Celtic dedicants, but rather represented the unwillingness of thededicants to take syncretism beyond a certain point.In a Republican setting, not onlydoes this type of concern apply, but we must also be cautious about assigning ethnicity tothe dedicants of various items without specific evidence of their origin. For example, aLatin inscription on a second century BCE votive statue base in Aesernia specifies thatSamnite incolae made a dedication to Venus; this is clear evidence of use of RomanEven Osborne (1998), p. 252 goes so far as to assert that Greek colonies in fifth and fourth centuriesBCE can look like Roman colonies, in that some were founded for military reasons with settlers chosen tobenefit from equal plots of land. This oversimplifies the very complex development that Romancolonization also underwent.166 Webster (2001), p. 220.167 Ibid. p. 222.168 Ibid. She cites the quality of the workmanship as evidence that some reliefs without inscriptions werenonetheless offered by wealthy individuals.

language and epigraphic tradition by the local population. 169The ethnicity and socialstatus of the dedicants of the numerous small bronze figurines and terracotta votives isless clear (as will be discussed in chapter 5), and so caution is required in asserting thatthey were the exclusive dedications of a certain subset of the population.This ispertinent because, without secure identification of ritual practice by colonists or locals,analysis of the impact of the ritual landscape on both populations rests on clearchronological distinctions in practice and on evidence of the processes of creolization andsyncretism.VII. Prospectus for Chapters 2-5As background for my study of religion in the colonies, Chapter 2 provides ahistory of colonial foundations and their commissioners between 338 and 169 inSamnium and Northern Italy, based on Livy's Ab Urbe Condita and other literarysources. This chapter also examines what reasons and interests individual commissionershad in founding colonies when and where they did. The overall pattern is that theindividual commissioners often had their own reasons for wanting to establish colonies;these reasons were often complementary to the senate's need for the colonies as militaryoutposts, but not exclusively based on that need. Moreover, the factional divisions andpersonal ambitions of the magistrates drove the composition of the commissions and,thus, the form and institutions of the colonies founded.In Chapter 3,1 introduce the method of choosing commissioners and discussmechanics of founding a colony from the viewpoint of the experience of the tresviri as169 C/iI 2 3201170 Glinister (2006), pp. 27-28 with specific reference to anatomical terracotta votives.50

military men and magistrates. Analysis of the literary evidence and of the commissionersthemselves demonstrates that there was no single, regulated method for founding Romanand Latin colonies in this period. The Roman senate delegated the task of electingcommissioners to a magistrate, who held elections for the sometimes pre-formed boardsof three men; it was these men who used their experience as generals, magistrates, andpriests to lead the colonists to their new home, organize the space, and define theinstitutions with the assistance of the newly-appointed colonial magistrates and priests.Through the differences of intention and colonial strategy held by the commissioners, thecolonies did not espouse a unified Roman settlement pattern, but instead the political andcultural principles of their founders and early settlers.Literary accounts of colonial foundation present an exclusively elite depiction ofthe colonies. Archaeological evidence, however, illustrates how the religious life of eachsettlement developed beyond its initial foundation by means of the interactions of thecolonists and local populations. Thus, in Chapter 4,1 demonstrate that the religiouslandscape of the colonies does not mirror that of Rome, but reflects the religious andspatial needs of the colonists. For example, the Fregellan religious spaces acted to defineFregellan control over the Via Latina and the Liris River and, ultimately, to integrate theSamnite and Latin populations within the city. In Paestum, the focus of the religiouslandscape was likewise to integrate with the Greek and Lucanian locals, but also defineda distinctly Latin space within the colony.Finally, in Chapter 5,1 compile the evidence for various cults throughoutSamnium, Campania, and Northern Italy to illustrate the way in which colonists adopt oradapt deities to build communal coherence. The overall colonial religious pattern is one51

of participation in many systems: some cults honor Roman gods, but more honor local,Latin, or even Mediterranean conceptions of a deity. On the whole, this study challengesstandard models of analysis that presuppose Roman imposition of cult on the colonies ora dyadic cultural exchange, and focuses instead on providing insight into the complexreligious interactions between Rome, colonists, and locals in the middle Republic.52

Chapter 2: Colonies and the Senatorial Impetus to ColonizeI. IntroductionMuch of the modern scholarship views Roman colonization in the middle Republic as amilitary or defensive phenomenon, and looks no further into the motivations of thecommissioners. 1The colonies certainly served the Roman state in a military capacity inSouth-Central Italy, where they encircled and divided the Samnite tribes from one anotheras well as protecting coastal communications, and in Northern Italy, where they guardedthe northern border and monitored the Ligurians and Gauls. The act of foundingcolonies, however, could and did have many personal and political attractions for theRoman magistrates. They were military outposts for the safety of the growing empire, butat the same time, they provided the individual commissioners with one or a combinationof benefits, including a closer tie to regions of personal concern, clientele, politicaladvancement, economic advantages, and a stage on which to pursue personal andprocedural differences with other magistrates. It was these benefits that created animpetus to colonize among the magistrates.The following chapter provides a history of the colonization efforts in South-Central and Northern Italy, along with notice of viritane distributions and other colonialcommissions for which the commissioners are known. This account provides anhistorical foundation for the rest of the chapters that follow. The second half of thechapter explains the diverse reasons why serving as a colonial commissioner wasattractive to the individual magistrates. The varying motivations and impetuses that1 See especially Salmon (1970).~ See Appendix 1 for the primary textual accounts for this history.53

impelled each triumvir to seek or accept the responsibility of founding a colony alsoshaped the many choices among colonial type, size, and location, with the result that therewas not a single, unified Roman colonial policy in the middle Republic. Rather, thecolonial commissioners pursued their own agendas while operating within the interest ofthe state.II.Colonization in the Middle RepublicE.T. Salmon's entire work develops the conclusion that Rome founded colonies asmilitary outposts 3 in an imperialistic effort to dominate the Italian peninsula and beyond. 4I do not argue with Salmon's basic conclusions about the military usefulness of thecolonies founded in Italy in the fourth through second centuries. 5Indeed, the eventsleading up to colonization are very militaristic in nature. They can be depicted as inFigure 2.1, a subset of the relationships introduced by the Colonial Agency Chart, Figure1.3. The relationships represented here are those between the senate and people of Rome,the generals of the Roman army, the local populations that fight with the Roman army,and the territory in and over which they fight.3 Cf. Cic. Leg. agr. 2.73 for colonies as bastions. Salmon (1970, p. 174 n. 68) cites Placentia as a primeexample of a Roman bastion against the Ligures (Livy 39.2.10).4 See especially Salmon (1970), p. 56. "[Rome] was going to found new colonies wherever necessary, evenif it meant challenging the strongest power in contemporary Italy," and these colonies establishedspringboards for further leaps forward. Scullard (1951), p. 167-8 follows Salmon's 1936 article inbelieving colonies were military and defensive, against Reid (economic and for veteran settlement), orKarlowa and F.F. Abbott (Romanizing agents), or Mommsen (Punitive against rebellious tribes).5 For a refiguring of Salmon's presentation of early Latin and Roman colonization see Bispham (2000);Bradley (2006), pp. 167-171; Williams (2001); See also MacKendrick (1952), p. 146 wherein the temporalgaps between phases of colonization are disputed.54

This figure illustrates the basic outlines of Salmon's narrative of Roman colonization,which accounts for the military actions through which the territory becomes depopulatedand therefore ready for colonization.Conquersenemies/depopulateslocalsDepopulatesland (battle orrelocation),appropriateslocal land forager RomanusReports to senateAppoints generals,Zassigns provincia(SPQR)Pass lex to appointcommissioners to foundcolony with strategicimportance to RomeDefendTerritoryColonial LandscapeFigure 2.1: Salmon's History of ColonizationThe account of colonization given hereafter acknowledges these importantrelationships, while emphasizing the colonies founded in Samnium, Campania, andNorthern Italy and giving the names of the commissioners where known. This simplehistory of the colonies founded in the middle Republic acts as background for thediscussion of the commissioners and colonial religion which follows in the rest of thechapters. Where known, the economic relationships between a colony and other colonies,55

locals, or Rome are given. 6Moreover, the analysis of the colonial commissioners (andtheir motivations and strategies) that follows this colonization history is not intended toreplace the military significance these colonies held for the Roman senate and people as awhole. Rather, I add the individual and factional intentions which help explain whycolonization in the middle Republic does not follow a single, unified policy nor producedozens of indistinguishable colonies, identical in composition, placement, and size.The following history of colonization is divided into two sections: South-CentralItaly, including the territory south of Latium, and Northern Italy, including thenorthernmost parts of Etruria. I have broken the colonization efforts from 334 to 177 intothese two halves not because they are temporally distinct, but because of their respectivelocal populations. Later chapters will deal with the religious influences of the Samnites,Etruscans, and Greeks on the colonies in South-Central Italy and of the Etruscans, Gauls,and Ligurians on the colonies in Northern Italy. For the purpose of continuity, thedivision between these regions begins with this history.More importantly, these regional distinctions are critical for analyzing thecommissioners' possible motives and the factional divisions among them. I have leftaside the colonies founded in Latium and most of those established in Southern Etruriafor the simple reason that we have no record of the colonial commissioners. By the samelogic, I have included the colonies established in Calabria, Saturnia, Graviscae, andcertain colonial supplements in this chapter because we do know the names of their6 In general, see Frayn (1993), which covers the importance of markets and fairs from the second centuryBCE through the third century CE.56

commissioners, even though the following chapters on colonial landscape and religioustrends will not cover these sites.South-Central ItalyThe colonies founded in South-Central Italy were strategically peppered across theregions now known as Campania, Molise, Northern Puglia, and Northern Basilicata. Thesix colonial commissions for which Livy tells us the commissioners' names are: Cales(334); Saticula (313); the supplement to Venusia in 200; Volturnum, Liternum, Puteoli,Salernum and Buxentum (194); Sipontum (194); and the supplement to Sipontum andBuxentum in 185. 7 Through epigraphic evidence, we also know that P. Claudius Pulcherwas one of the commissioners to supplement Cales in 185. Finally, we know almost allof the commissioners' names for the four colonies founded in modern Calabria: Croton(194), Tempsa (194), Copia/Thurii (193), and Vibo Valentia (192). 9 The eleven South-Central Italian colonies for which there is no record of the commissioners include:Fregellae (328 and 316), Luceria (315), Suessa and Pontia (313), Interamna Lirinas (312),Sora (303), Minturnae and Sinuessa (296/5), Paestum (273), Beneventum (268), and7 The modern names for, or nearest to, these colonies are as follows (Cf. RE under each colony's name):Cales (Calvi Risorta), Saticula (S. Agati dei Goti), Venusia (Venosa), Volturnum (Castel Volturno),Liternum (Lago Patria/Literno), Puteoli (Pozzuoli), Salernum (Salerno), Buxentum (Policastro Bussentino),and Sipontum (Siponto/ Manfredonia).8 C/i6.1283orI 2 .I.32p. 200.9 The modern names for or near these colonies are: Croton (Crotone), Tempsa (near Nocera by mouth ofSavuto River), Copia/Thurii (Thurio), and Vibo Valentia (Vibo Valentia). These commissions will figurein the analysis of the composition and motivations of the colonial commissioners in this chapter, but they donot appear in the other chapters of this work because of their distance from the Samnite and Campaniancultures under study there.57

Aesernia (263). 10 These colonies are incorporated in the following account of the historyof colonization in this region, but they cannot, for obvious reasons, be included in theanalysis of the commissioners which follows this narrative.The first colony the Romans founded in south-central Italy was Cales, establishedin 334 BCE by Caeso Duillius, T. Quinctius Poenus Capitolinus Crispinus, and M.Fabius. 11The commissioners founded the Latin colony in the Ausonian city of the samename after they captured the place in retaliation for its inhabitants attacking their fellowAurunci with the Samnite Sidicini. 12Cales was perfectly situated along the Liris River tomonitor both Samnite Teanum and Capua as well as provide an excellent market site forthe surrounding communities. 13It was also the first Latin colony founded by Rome afterthe Latin War ended in 338 BCE, thus beginning the juristic concept of the ius Latii. 14Six years later in 328, the unknown commissioners founded another Latin colony,Fregellae, on the Liris at the crossing near the junction with the Melfa River along theroute to the Tyrrhenian Sea. 15In the fullness of time, this river crossing made Fregellaeinto an important market community. 1Since the commissioners established the colonyon the eastern side of the River, however, this foundation most likely broke the treaties ofThe modern names for or near these colonies are: Fregellae (Ceprano), Luceria (Luceria), SuessaAurunca (Sessa), Pontiae (Ponza), Interamna Lirinas (Termini near Pignataro Interamna), Sora (Sora),Minturnae (Minturno), Sinuessa (Cellole/Mandragone), Beneventum (Benevento), Paestum (Paestum), andAesernia (Isernia).11 Livy 8.16.14, Veil. Pat. 1.14.3. For the text of this and other colonial foundations with knowncommissioners, see Appendix 1.12 Salmon (1970), p. 55.13 Frayn (1993), pp. 40, 5314 Ibid. p. 56.15 Livy 8.19.1, 22.2. For a more detailed discussion of the foundation of this colony and subsequenttroubles, see Chapter 4.16 Frayn (1993), p. 49. Fregellae continued to be the site of a rural fair during religious festivals after itsdestruction in 125 BCE (Strabo 5.3.10 and Frayn pp. 139-140).58

354 and 341, and thus constituted a casus belli for the second Samnite War. 17 After theRoman disaster at the Caudine Forks in 321, the colonists were made to evacuate Calesand Fregellae.Toward the end of the second Samnite War, when the Romans had recoveredfrom their defeat, they re-colonized Fregellae as well as encircling the Samnite territorywith a series of other Latin colonies. 18The first was Luceria, probably elected in 315 andestablished at a Samnite bastion near the plains of Apulia. 19Although Luceria was somedistance from other towns, it became a notable market for wool, sheepskins, andlivestock. 20The colonization of Suessa Aurunca and Saticula followed in 313. Theformer occupied an Auruncan town, which controlled one of the roads to Capua and thuswas ideally located for a market town.The latter was founded by M. Valerius MaximusCorvus, D. Iunius Brutus Scaeva, and P. Fulvius Longus in a border fortress overlookingthe paths used by the Caudini Samnites.This year, too, the island of Pontiae wascolonized in order to control the sea route and defend the coast off the modern Bay ofNaples. 23Later that year, the consuls of 312, M. Valerius and P. Decius, were ordered bythe senate to elect three commissioners to found another Latin colony on the Liris,17 Salmon (1970), p.57.18 We have no record that Cales was also reinforced at this time. A supplement was sent out to the colonyin 185 under the auspices of P. Claudius Pulcher, which we only know through an inscription found at thecolony. (Inscr. Ital. 13.3, 70a (=CIL 6.1283 or I 2 .1.32 p. 200). Cf. Salmon (1970), pp. 90 and 102.19 Livy 9.26.1; Diod. Sic. 19.72.8, Cic. Att. 7.20, 8.1. Cf. Salmon (1970), p. 58. Salmon (n. 72 p. 175)notes that Velleius Paterculus (1.14.4) is wrong that Luceria dated to 323. Roman colonies were dated fromtheir foundation, in Luceria's case in 314, according to Livy.20 Frayn (1993), pp. 40-41,21 Livy 9.28, Salmon (1970), pp. 58-9. Frayn (1993), p. 40.22 Festus, Gloss. Lat. p458 L; Veil. Pat. 1.14.4.23 Salmon (1970), p. 59. Diod. Sic. 19.101.3, Livy 9.28.7.59

Interamna Lirinas, but who those commissioners were is unknown.Thus, by the end ofthe second Samnite War, Latin colonies controlled critical transportation routes betweenLatium and Samnium, along the Liris River valley, as well as into Campania and Apulia.After the end of the second Samnite War, the Romans continued to establish Latincolonies around Samnite territories and strongholds, but they also began to plant smallercolonies of Roman citizens as well. The Latin colony of Sora, planted on the Liris in 303,strengthened the frontier and hindered cooperation among the Samnites, Hernici, Marsi,and Aequi. 25During the third Samnite War, the tribunes of the plebs obtained aplebiscite to order the praetor P. Sempronius to create three commissioners to foundsmall colonies of Roman citizens at Sinuessa and Minturnae (296/5), although Livy doesnot name the commissioners.Both towns became market centers, but Minturnaeespecially drew the market for the agricultural produce of the plain. 27These colonies ofthree hundred families also protected the coastal route between Campania and Rome, asdid the citizen colony of Terracina founded on the Bay of Naples in 329 BCE. 28 In 291,the Latin colony of Venusia was founded on a ridge dominating the upper Aufidus valley,which effectively split the Hirpini from the Lucani.24 Livy 9.28.7-8. Cf. Salmon (1970), p. 59. Dittenberger, SIG 2 4 .543, 26 indicates that some of thecolonists may have been freedmen.25 Livy 10.1.1; 3.2; 9.8; Veil. Pat. 1.14.5. Cf. Salmon (1970), p. 59. Sora had been garrisoned in 315 aswell: Livy 9.24.5, Diod. Sic. 19.72.3.26 Livy 10.21.7-1027 Frayn (1993), pp. 39-40, 46-47.28 Salmon (1970), p.76.29 Veil. Pat. 1.14.6; Dion. Hal. 17.18.5. Dionysius asserts that 20,000 colonists were sent to Venusia, butthe customary number for Latin colonies of this type was must lower. Salmon (1970, n. 80 p. 175) suggests6,000 colonists as at Alba Fucens. It is important to note that the foundation of this colony falls into the gapin Livy's narrative, as do those of Paestum, Beneventum, and Aesernia.60

After the short but violent Pyrrhic War (280-275), Rome established the Latincolonies of Cosa and Paestum (273) along the Tyrrhenian Sea coast: Cosa in Etruria andPaestum on the erstwhile Greek colony of Poseidonia, which, at the time, was controlledby the Lucani, who had supported Pyrrhus in the war. 30Finally, the Romans founded twosets of Latin colonies split between an effort to control the upper Adriatic coast and thecontinued struggle to separate and subdue the Samnite tribes. In 268 BCE, unknowncommissioners founded Ariminum in the north (see below, p. 65) and Beneventum on theadministrative center of the Hirpini Samnites.Each of these locations proved to be alucrative economic center.Five years later (263), the Romans established Firmum onthe Adriatic and Aesernia in Samnium in order to further isolate the Pentri from theHirpini and Caraceni.After thus surrounding and separating the Samnite tribes fromone another, the Roman colonization of south-central Italy was suspended until thesecond century BCE, as far as we know. 34After Livy's narrative begins again, we have full knowledge of the commissionerswho founded colonies in south-central Italy. The first complement of colonists duringthis period went to supplement the Latin colony of Venusia in 200 BCE. 35Immediately30 Livy Per. 14; Veil. Pat. 1.14.5. Cf. Salmon (1970), pp. 62-3.31 Livy Per. 15; Livy 9.27.14; Veil. Pat. 1.14.7; Eutr. 2.16. Cf. Salmon (1970), p. 63.32 Frayn (1993), pp. 40, 44 (Ariminum) and 40-41,49-52, 91 (Beneventum). Beneventum became thecenter for east-west trade in the southern Italian peninsula because of the number of roads that passedthrough the city, especially after the veteran settlements of 41 BCE (pp. 49-52).33 Livy Per. 16; Veil. Pat. 1.14.8. Cf. Salmon (1970), p. 6334 Salmon (1970, p. 65) finds it surprising that there is a gap in Roman colonization between 237 and 218BCE, since he sees 237 as the beginning of systematic Roman conquest. The underlying assumption is thatthe colonies were a means of imperial expansion, instead of, for example, a defensive maneuver. While Iadmit that colonies have strategic importance, I am not convinced that the Roman senate had embarked onan imperial agenda during the middle Republic. Furthermore, the so-called gap in colonization may merelybe a gap in our knowledge of colonization due to the break in Livy's narrative.35 Livy 31.49.6, Plut. Flam. 1.4.61

after a mention of Scipio Africanus' triumph and the land distribution in Apulia to hisveterans, Livy lists C. Terentius Varro, T. Quinctius Flamininus, and P. Cornelius ScipioNasica as the triumviral board to lead supplemental colonists to the struggling colony.Venusia (291) was one of the more isolated of the colonies in Samnium, especially sinceits Oscan-speaking neighbors had all assisted Hannibal even as Venusia remained loyal toRome. 36In the next three years, the Romans sent out ten colonies along the southern coastof the Italian peninsula. In 197, the tribune of the plebs C. Atinius initiated thecolonization of four citizen colonies: Volturnum, Liternum, and Puteoli along the Bay ofNaples, and Salernum along the Tyrrhenian coast north of Paestum. Buxentum, furthersouth along the coast on Lucanian soil, was added to the project before the commissionersM. Servilius Pulex Geminus, Q. Minucius Thermus, and T. Sempronius Longus led thecolonists out from Rome in 194.Of these five colonies, Puteoli was the best port andtherefore supported the largest market center.In 194, Sipontum was also founded as acitizen colony in Apulia on coastal territory taken from the Arpi; the commissioners wereM. Helvius, D. Iunius Brutus, and M. Baebius Tamphilus. 39 Also in that year, on Bruttianterritory on the southern tip of the peninsula, Cn. Octavius, C. Laetorius, and L. AemiliusPaulus led Roman citizens to Croton, and L. Cornelius Merula, C. Salonius, and an36 Salmon (1970), p. 96.37 Livy 32.29.3-4, 34.45.1-2; Veil. Pat. 1.15.2, Jer. Chron. 191 pl36 Helm, C1L I 2 .2.698 (Puteoli). Cf.Salmon (1970), p. 97 and n. 161 p. 184. The Castrum Livy mentions at 32.7.3 is Salernum, according toSalmon, but other authors think it was the Castra Hannibalis founded in Bruttium.38 Frayn (1993), pp. 40, 42, 44, 55, 74, 80, 89, 152. Frayn classifies Puteoli as a 'center place' in the centerplace theory (p. 80). Liternum and Volturnum could not challenge Puteoli's dominance as the regions mostimportant port market because both were too marshy (Sil. Pun. 8.530-1, Livy 22.16.4, Val. Max. 5.3.2,Frayn p. 81)39 Livy 34.45.3-5.62

unknown Quintus led out a citizen colony to Tempsa. 40It has been plausibly suggestedthat all of these colonies were founded along the coast in order to protect the Italianmainland against Antiochus the Great's fleet or at least warn Rome should Italy beinvaded. 41Perhaps because of the great number of colonies founded in this year, orperhaps because some of the sites were less than desirable, 4colonists were difficult tofind for these colonies. 43In 186, after traveling Italy in his inquiries into the Bacchanalia,the consul Sp. Postumius observed to the senate that the colonies of Sipontum andBuxentum were empty. 44The praetor T. Manlius was tasked with appointingcommissioners to enroll supplementary colonists: namely, L. Scribonius Libo, M.Tuccius, and Cn. Baebius Tamphilus. 45In the year when the eight citizen colonies were led out of Rome, the legescoloniae for two Latin colonies were instituted: Vibo Valentia and Copia in Bruttium andThurii, respectively. The tribune of the plebs Q. Aelius Tubero, following a directivefrom the senate, ordered Cn. Domitius, urban praetor, to preside over the election ofcommissioners for these two colonies. 46In 193, L. Apustius Fullo, Aulus Manlius Vulso,and the same Q. Aelius Tubero established Copia. 47 The following year (192), M.Minucius Rufus, Q. Naevius Matho, and M. Furius Crassipes founded near-by Vibo40 Ibid.; Strabo 5.4.13 p. 251 and 6.1.5 p. 256. There is a corruption in the text ofLivy which renders thefinal name illegible. It is also unclear why one commission was sufficient to settle colonists in five coloniesalong the eastern coast, but two commissions were necessary to found relatively neighboring colonies in thesouth.41 Salmon (1970), p. 98. See also below in the discussion of the commissioners' motivations.42 Liternum, for example, was a marsh (Val. Max. 5.3.2). Cf. Salmon (1970), p. 99 and n. 166 p. 185.43 Salmon (1970), pp. 98-99.44 Livy 39.23.3f., and Cic. Leg. agr. 2.71. Cf. Salmon (1970), p. 99.45 Livy 39.23.3-4.46 Livy 34.53.1-2.47 Livy 35.9.7-8.63

Valentia.The colonies of 194-192 were the last new colonies founded in south-centralItaly until the late second century BCE. The colonies founded in South-Central Italygenerally served two strategic purposes: they isolated and controlled various Samnitesand their allies, as in the case of the Latin colonies placed throughout the Apennines,and/or they protected the coastline and communications along it, as with the maritimecolonies. In the 180s and 170s, the focus on colonial foundations shifted almostcompletely to Northern Italy, with the exception of the large Roman colonies founded inEtruria at Saturnia and Graviscae.Northern ItalyThe eleven Roman and Latin colonies founded in Northern Italy between 289 and 177BCE were located in the modern regions of Liguria, Southern Lombardy, Emilia-Romagna, Friuli Venezia Giulia, and Northern Tuscany. The colonies are Sena Gallica(289-283), Ariminum (268), Placentia and Cremona (219-218, 190), Bononia (189),Pisaurum and Potentia (184), Parma and Mutina (183), Aquileia (183), Luca (180), andLuna(177). 49Sena Gallica was a small, citizen colony of approximately 300 settlers.Ariminum, Placentia, Cremona, Bononia, and Luca were Latin colonies with settlersnumbering 2,000 or more. The remaining colonies, Parma, Mutina, Luna, and perhapsPotentia and Pisaurum, combined characteristics of both categories to form citizencolonies with 2,000 colonists. In Southern Etruria, Saturnia and Graviscae were citizen48 Livy 35.40.5-6.49 The modern names for these locations are, respectively, Senigallia, Rimini, Piacenza, Cremona, Bologna,Pesaro, Potenza, Parma, Modena, Aquileia, Lucca, and Luna. Cf. RE s.v. the colonial name.64

colonies of a similar large nature. Other than for Sena Gallica and Ariminum, Livyprovides the names of all of the commissioners involved in the foundation of thesecolonies.The first colony the Romans founded in Northern Italy was the small, citizencolony of Sena Gallica (c. 289-283 BCE) on the Adriatic coast on territory taken from theSenonese Gauls. 50Within twenty years, the Latin colony of Ariminum (268 BCE) wasfounded to the north of Sena Gallica in order to establish control over the narrow passageto Cisalpine Gaul between the sea and the eastern Apennines. 51These two colonizationefforts fall into a gap in Livy's main narrative, so we lack the names of the foundingcommissioners and details concerning the foundations themselves.Livy's narrative picks up again with the beginning of the Second Punic War, sowe have notice of the difficult foundation of the Latin colonies of Placentia and Cremona(219-218 BCE) on the banks of the Po as further bastions against Gallic incursion. 52 Thefoundations of Placentia and Cremona were rushed by the imminent arrival of Hannibal.Even though existing towns were chosen for the colonies in order to make themdefensible quickly, the Boii attacked and captured the first commissioners, C. LutatiusCatulus, M. Acilius, and C. Herrenius, and the colonists took shelter in Mutina. 53Further50 Livy Per. 11, Polyb. 2.19.12, Strabo 5.2.10. Salmon (1970), p. 62 suggests that Sena Gallica may havebeen founded as a mixed pair (citizen/Latin) with Hadria, if the dates align correctly.5, Vell. Pat. 1.14.6; Eutr. 2.16; U\y Per. 15; Polyb. 3.61.11; Strabo 5.2.9. Salmon (170), p. 63. Salmonnotes that this colony was founded as a pair with Beneventum. Ariminum's second military function was topolice the Senonese Gauls to the south, which is an indication that Sena Gallica was not sufficient for thetask, if it was ever intended to be. Finally, as mentioned above (p. 61) Ariminum became a major markettown.52 Livy 21.25.1-7, 32.26.1-3, 37.46.9-47.2, 37.57.7-8, Polyb. 3.40.3-10; Asc. Pis. P3 C; Veil. Pat. 1.14.7.Salmon (1970), p. 66. Cf. Gargola (1990).53 Salmon (1970), p. 66, Gargola(1990). Livy 21.52.2 and Per. 20; Veil. Pat. 1.14.8. It is important tonote that although Polybius (3.40) calls Mutina a colony, it was a Roman garrison at the time.65

commissioners, P. Cornelius Scipio Asina, C. Papirius Maso, and Cn. Cornelius Scipio,were sent later that year to finish the foundation.Not only were Placentia and Cremona difficult to establish, they were alsoravaged by the depredations of the Hannibalic War, so that they required supplementationin 190 BCE. 54 At that time, the senate discussed founding two additional colonies. 5Unfortunately, there were only enough colonists after the supplementation of Placentiaand Cremona to found one additional colony, Bononia (189 BCE), which was added tothe site of the Etruscan regional capital, Felsina. 56The commissioners for this expeditionwere L. Valerius Flaccus, L. Valerius Tappo, and M. Atilius Serranus. Shortly thereafter,the citizen colonies of Pisaurum and Potentia (184 BCE) were founded by thecommissioners Q. Fabius Labeo, M. Fulvius Flaccus, and Q. Fulvius Nobilior on theAdriatic shore south of Ariminum and Sena Gallica, respectively.The colonies at Pisaurum and Potentia may have been the first of the large citizencolonies. Livy does not specify a definite number of colonists for either settlement, butthe plots of land were substantially larger, at six iugera, than the customary two iugeragiven to citizen colonists in the small maritime colonies. 58The magnitude of thesecolonies is important, because the initiation of the larger citizen colonies was theAlthough early evidence is lacking for the early period, Cremona held a significant weekly market duringthe Principate (Tac. Hist. 3.30-34). Frayn (1993, pp. 141-143) posits such weekly fairs were establishedbefore the classical period of Roman Italy and continued throughout Roman dominance of the area.55 Livy 37.47.2, 57.7.56 Livy 37.46.9-47.2, 37.57.7-8; Veil. Pat. 1.15.2; on Felsina: Plin. HN3.115; Salmon (1970), p. 101.57 Livy 39.44.10; Veil. Pat. 1.15.2.58 Livy 39.44.10 specifies six iugera for the colonists at Potentia and Pisaurum. Two iugera is thetraditional heredium of a Roman citizen: Varro Rust. 1.10; Plin. HN 18.7; Juv. 14.163; Sic. Flaccus decond. agr. p. 153, 26; Cf. Cic. Rep. 2.26; Dion. Hal. 2.74; Plut. Num. 16. Cf. Salmon (1970), n. 21 p. 168.For two iugera in the citizen colonies see Tibiletti (1950), p. 223 and Salmon (1970), p. 71-72 and n. 110on p. 178. Tarracina in one example of this allotment: Livy 8.21.11.66

ainchild either of Q. Fabius Labeo and members of the Fulvian family, founders ofPotentia and Pisaurum, or of M. Aemilius Lepidus, the founder of Mutina and Parma andpersonal enemy of the Fulvii until 179 BCE. 59If the size of the allotment is indicative ofthe type of colony, then Potentia and Pisaurum should be grouped with the large citizencolonies of Mutina (five iugera), Parma (eight iugerd), Saturnia (ten iugera), andGraviscae (five iugera). 60colonies often boasted. 61These plots are sizeable, but nowhere near as large as LatinPatterson argues that the triple-sized plots of land given tocitizen colonists at Potentia and Pisaurum merely reflect the difficulty in finding citizencolonists; extra land served as an incentive to move so far from Rome.Without furtherevidence regarding the number of enlarged plots at these two colonies, it is difficult to saywhether Potentia and Pisaurum housed 2,000 colonists or 300. For now it will have to be59 See below, pp. 91-94, for further discussion on this rivalry and the implications for colonization schemesin Northern Italy.60 Laffi (2007), pp. 25-26 and 41-42. Cf. Salmon (1970), p. 104. Salmon also cites the objections of thecensor of 174, Postumius, to his colleague's building projects in Pisaurum and other colonies and Italiancommunities (Livy 41.27). Salmon sees this as evidence that the colonies were large enough to havemagistrates of their own to lease contracts for the projects. When one examines the issue from theviewpoint of the colonial commissioners and their connections, however, it makes more sense thatPostumius objected not to improvements in a large community, but rather to Q. Fulvius Flaccus usingRoman public funds to increase the client-bonds his family gained through M. Fulvius Flaccus' foundationof Pisaurum. For M. and Q. Fulvius Flaccus' relationship: Livy 40.30. For the argument between thecensors: Bispham (2006), p. 120 and Guidobaldi and Pesando (1989), p. 43.61 For example, the colonists of Thurii (193) received 20 iugera forpedites and for equites 40 iugera (Livy35.9.7-8). At Vibo Valentia (192), Has pedites received 15 iugera, and the equites 30 (Livy 35.40.5-6).The colonists of Bononia (189) received 70 iugera for equites, and 50 iugera for pedites (Livy 37.57.7-8).In Aquileia (IS3), pedites received 50 iugera, centurions 100 iugera, and equites 140 iugera each (Livy40.34.2-3). The pattern for the Latin colonies seems to be that more land was offered as the hostility of theneighbors and the distance from Rome increased. Laffi (2007), pp. 26 and 42-43 sees this as both anincentive for Roman citizens to give up their citizenship as well as a natural outcome of the politicoeconomicstatus of the Latin colonies: they were autonomous communities of allied people, and as such theamount of land the colonists received had no impact on the stability of the Roman socio-economic system.52 Patterson (2006), pp. 199-202. The quality of the land may have also affected the plot size, but the landaround Pisaurum and Potentia was fertile farmland so the quality does not seem to have been an issue there.67

enough to note that the benefits to the colonists were increased, which would perhapsincrease their loyalty to the commissioners, their patrons.Whether or not Pisaurum and Potentia were large citizen colonies, thecolonization efforts of the following year certainly were. Mutina and Parma (183 BCE)were founded by M. Aemilius Lepidus, L. Quinctius Crispinus, and T. Aebutius Parruswith the large number of colonists usually assigned to the Latin colonies, but thedesignation of a Roman citizen colony.These two colonies were placed so that theycould control the northern exits for the passes over the Apennines. 64Mutina also boasteda significant market at its border with Regium Lepidum, at Campi Macri on the riverSecchia. 65In 183, the Roman people elected to send a large Latin colony to Aquileia, mostlyin response to a Gallic settlement attempt on the territory in 186 BCE. The senatedebated whether to give the colony Latin or citizen status, but ultimately a Latin colonywas chosen due to the distance of Aquileia from Rome. 66The particularly high-poweredboard of commissioners included P. Cornelius Scipio Nasica, G. Flaminius, and L.Manlius Acidinus, the last of whom was commemorated with a statue to honor hispatronage of the colony. 67Due to the precariousness of the colony's position, theAquileians survived several Gallic attacks and finally sent to Rome to request additional53 Livy 39.55.6-8.64 Salmon (1970), p. 105-6. These are the Abetone, Cisa, and Futa passes respectively.65 Livy 41.18.5 and 45.12.11 for armies camping in this area in 176 and 168 BCE. Frayn (1993, pp. 140-141) suggests that the market arose from a supply depot.66 Livy 39.55.5-6 and 40.34.2-3. Salmon (1970), p. 106.67 CIL I 2 621. The remaining base dates to a period shortly after the foundation of the colony. Cf. Bispham(2006), p. 81. The other commissioners may have also been honored, but we have not yet found evidenceof this.68

settlers, which they were granted in 169 BCE.Despite its distance from other colonies,Aquileia became an important marketplace for the trade of sheep, wool, and sheepskin, aswell as goods from local populations such as the Illyrian tribes. 69There is some debate over the last two colonies founded in Northern Italy, mostlybased on emendations in the text of Livy. 70Livy 40.43.1 indicates that in 180 BCE, theEtruscan town of Pisa offered land to Rome in order to found a Latin colony; Q. FabiusButeo and the two Popillii Laenates, Marcus and Publius were made commissioners tofound this unnamed colony. Livy 41.13.4-5 notes the colonization of the large, citizencolony of Luna in 177 BCE, to which P. Aelius, M. Aemilius Lepidus and Cn. Siciniusled 2,000 colonists. Finally, for the year 168 BCE, Livy 45.13.10 records that an embassyfrom Pisa came to Rome to complain that the colonists of Luna had expelled them fromtheir land. The confusion lies in Livy's lack of a name for the Latin colony and the factthat the Pisans complain about citizens of Luna stealing their territory. VelleiusPaterculus 1.15.2 and Pliny NH3.50 offer the name Luca as a possibility for the unnamedLatin colony of 180, but Velleius dates Luca to four years after Graviscae, i.e. 177 BCE,and Pliny's list of colonies and towns in the area is somewhat muddled, thus furtherconfusing the issue.Livy 43.17.1, The commissioners for the supplement were T. Annius Luscus, P. Decius Subulo, and M.Cornelius Cethegus, none of whom were high ranking magistrates. The lack of interest in this supplement ismost likely because the patronage of the colony still lay with the original founders.69 Frayn(1993),p. 151.70 The pertinent passages are Livy 40.43.1, 41.13.4-5,45.13.10, Veil. Pat. 1.15.2, and Plin. HN 3.50. Forthe text and emendation possibilities of these passages see Appendix 1 and RE s.v. 'Luca,' which outlinesthe original 19 th and early 20 th century emendations by Mommsen, Pais et al. Modern scholars tend to glossthis issue: Laffi (2007), pp. 24-5 notes the confusion of the sources, and pp. 42-43 says that the Luca wasprobably established in 180 BCE.69

The questions arising from this confusing knot of sources are: was one colonyestablished or two? If two, then which one was founded on the land Pisa gave Rome andwhen? If Luca was founded on Pisa's land, why would the Pisans complain about Luna?Finally, why is it important? These five passages and their complications have ledSalmon to assert that Luna was founded in 177 on the land which Pisa gave to Rome. 71This conclusion assumes that Livy 40.43.1 is mistaken about the separate commission for180 BCE. I think it is a mistake to dismiss something as specific as a commission ofthree men to found a Latin colony. Since there are two commissions, there must havebeen two colonies founded in 180 and 177 BCE.Berve, I think rightly, dismisses thediscrepancies in Velleius and Pliny as authorial errors, and accepts that Livy's unnamedLatin colony was Luca, dated to 180 BCE. 73Thus, it is just left to explain why Pisa would give land to Rome to found Luca,but twelve years later complain about the citizens of Luna occupying their territory. Thisis explained in Livy 41.12, where the propraetor Tiberius Claudius, who was in commandof Pisa, informed the senate that the Ligurians were causing trouble again. The senatesent the consul C. Claudius went to his aid and slaughtered the Ligurians. There is noindication that the recovered land, which the Ligurians had overrun, was returned to Pisa;rather Livy shortly thereafter announces that a citizen colony was founded: de Liguribus71 Salmon (1970), p. 109. Salmon does not mention Luca. He concludes that the Pisans were angered notbecause the Romans did not return Luna to them, but because a colony of Roman citizens was foundedthere, instead of the Latin colony the Pisans requested.72 Harris (1989), p. 116 accepts these two colonies as separate without questioning the sources. He notes(n. 40) that the territory of Luca went far beyond what could have been Pisa's land to give at the time.7j Cf. RE s.v 'Luca.' Velleius' discrepancy in placing 'Luca' four years after Graviscae (177 BCE) can beexplained as a simple chronological error, and Pliny's problem is that he just neglected to list Luna underthe citizen colonies. Thus, these two texts should be taken out of the question.70

captus ager erat; Etruscorum ante quam Ligurumfuerat. (Livy 41.13.5) The EtruscanPisans would have had motivation to complain to Rome about the valuable port territorybeing assigned to the Roman colonists instead of returned to the Pisans, as the pre-Ligurian owners of the port town. It is not necessary for the Pisans to quibble over theland that they donated to the settlers at Luca; this gift was most likely well-defined.Finally, why is the distinction between the foundations of Luna and Lucaimportant? As discussed later in this chapter, there seems to have been a split in thecolonial strategy during the second century, especially over whether to found Latincolonies or large citizen colonies. Thus it is critical to distinguish the Latin colony ofLuca (180) from the large Roman colony of Luna (177) in order to determine if thesefoundations were part of opposing colonization plans. (For further discussion, see belowpp. 91-94)After the foundation of Luna in 177 BCE, there is no record of another colonyfounded in Northern Italy until the Gracchan colonizations at the end of the secondcentury. Salmon posits that there was no significant militaristic need for further coloniesat this time. 74Due to gaps in the primary source for this period, Livy, it is difficult toascertain the true nature of colonization efforts in the middle of the second centuryBCE. 75Thus, this study of colonies founded in Northern Italy more or less arbitrarily74 Salmon (1970), p. 109.75 The citizen colony of Auximum, on the Adriatic coast, may have been founded in 174 or in 157 or later,but its uncertain date and unknown commissioners make it unsuitable for this study. Livy 41.27.10mentions the name in the context of the censor's contracts of 174, but with Calatia, which was not a colony;Velleius Paterculus (1.15.3) dates the colony to 157 BCE.71

ends with the colony of Luna (177 BCE).Although the present study focuses primarily on the colonies in south-central andnorthern Italy, we must note three colonization efforts in Etruria for the purpose ofdiscussing the colonial commissioners in full. In 199, the Latin colony of Narnia sent arepresentative to Rome to request supplementary colonists; the consul L. Cornelius wasordered to establish a board of commissioners, who were Cn. Cornelius Lentulus, P.77Aelius Paetus, and his brother, S. Aelius Paetus.In 183, Q. Fabius Labeo, C. AfraniusStellio, and T. Sempronius Gracchus led colonists to the large citizen colony of Saturnia,• • 7klocated on an important convergence of roads m Etruria. Two years later (181), P.Claudius Pulcher, C. Calpurnius Piso, and C. Terentius Histra led colonists to anotherlarge citizen colony at Graviscae, the port for Tarquinii. 79The land for these colonies hadbeen captured long before their foundation, and the military need for colonies in Etruria atthis period is not clear.Viritane Land Distributions and Movement of Hostile PopulationsThe efforts to establish or supplement discrete colonies, Roman or Latin, were not theonly movements of population in peninsular Italy during the middle Republic. VariousWilliams (2001) raises a valid complaint that scholars of Northern Italian history focus on thehistoriography of the colonies south of the Po or on the archaeological traces of the local populations northof the Po, so that there is an unsatisfactory picture of the entire region in the middle Republic. For thepurposes of the study of Roman intervention in the religious sphere, however, it is necessary to evaluatereligion in communities whose relationship with Rome has been securely documented. Thus, this study willfocus on the known colonies. Religion in the Fora and other small communities in Northern Italy awaitslater study and perhaps future archaeological discoveries.77 Livy 32.2.6-7.78 Livy 39.55.9. Cf. Salmon (1970), p. 105 and n. 184 p. 187.79 Livy 40.29.1-2. This is modern Porto Clementino. Cf. Salmon (1970), n. 184 p. 187.80 Salmon (1970), n. 181 p. 186.72

Roman generals and magistrates also achieved the settlement of large numbers ofRomans and Latins in three major viritane land distributions. The first of these wasenacted by a law pushed through by the tribune Flaminius in 232 BCE. 81After a fiercedebate in the senate, 82 the law to divide conquered land in the ager Gallicus Picenus onthe Adriatic coast of Northern Italy was ratified by the plebs without senatorial consent. 83A second, and less controversial, viritane distribution of Gallic and Ligurian lands wasapproved by the senate in 173 BCE; the board often commissioners to divide the landamong the Roman and Latin settlers consisted of M. Aemilius Lepidus, C. Cassius, T.Aebutus Carus, C. Tremellius, P. Cornelius Cethegus, Quintus and Lucius Apuleius, M.Caecilius, C. Salonius, and C. Menatius.In Samnium and Apulia, the senate orderedthe urban praetor, M. Iunius Pennus, to appoint a commission often men to settleScipio's African veterans similarly in 201-200; this board consisted of Q. CaeciliusMetellus, C. and M. Servilius Geminus, P. Servilius, P. Aelius Paetus, P. VilliusTappulus, M. Fulvius Flaccus, L. and A. Hostilius Cato, and T Quinctius Flamininus. 85In addition to viritane settlements of Romans and Latins, Roman generals alsomoved large portions of the enemy population; for example, in 180, the proconsuls P.Cornelius Cethegus and M. Baebius Tamphilus conquered the Apuani Ligures and81 Polyb. 2.21.7-8; Livy 21.63.2. For more sources on this settlement see Broughton MRR 1.225.82 Val. Max 5.4.5; Cic. Inv. rhet. 2.5.2.83 Feig Vishnia (1996), pp. 20 and 25-34. Cf. Mommsen (1953), 2.635-7.84 Livy 42.4.3-4. Broughton MRR 1.409-410.85 Livy 31.4.1-3, 31.49.4-6. Broughton MRR 1.322. Cf. Feig Vishnia (1996), p. 143. Feig Vishnia assertsthat the benefits of viritane land distribution are spread evenly among the dominant senators in Rome topreserve the balance (p. 146). One of those benefits was to appropriate choice plots for themselves andtheir friends, and perhaps thereby create new clients among their peers. (See Shatzman (1975), p. 69 onSiculus Flaccus (157.7-8L): lnscribuntur quaedam excepta, quae out sibi reservabit auctor divisionis etadsignationis aut alls concessit. Cf. Nicolet (1980), p. 890.) Scullard (1951), p. 83. Scullard's view on73

deported them to Samnium.Around 40,000 free Ligurian men with their wives andchildren were moved to Samnite territory formerly belonging to the Taurasini, where theconsuls requested a board of five men to assist with the distribution of land and money.There were also spontaneous movements of individuals or segments of the Latin,Samnite, and Gallic populations. In 186, the Gallic Carni ignored a Roman warning todesist from trying to settle in Italy between the tribes of the Veneti and the Istri. WhenClaudius Marcellus disarmed them in 183, they complained to the senate, who sent aboard of three men to investigate: Furius Purpureo, Q. Minucius, and L ManliusAcidinus. 88These men arranged that Marcellus would return the arms to the Carni, ifthey would vacate the area. Shortly thereafter, P. Cornelius Scipio Nasica, G. Flaminius,and L. Manlius Acidinus led a colony to Aquileia, on the land coveted by the Gauls.There is also evidence of spontaneous population movements within peninsularItaly: in 187, an embassy from the Latin allies complained to the Roman senate that theircitizens were moving to Rome. 89Again in 177, Latins and Samnites brought a grievancebefore the Roman senate that the levies were not fair since many Latins had moved toRome and 4,000 Samnite and Paeligni families had moved to Fregellae without a changethis commission in particular is that the non-Scipionic elements of the Xviri are attempting to steal some ofthe support of Scipio's veterans for themselves.86 Livy 40.37.8-38.9. MRR 1.388. These Ligurians are called Ligures Baebiani et Corneliani by Pliny (HN3.105). An inscription dating to Nerva's reign still calls them Ligures Baebiani (CILIX 1455). Cf.Scullard (1951), p. 178 and n. 5 for a discussion of the confusion in Livy over who ultimately conquered theApuani.87 The Capuans, too, were removed from their city their surrender in 211 BCE. Based on their role in therebellion, they were assigned land beyond the Tiber in the territories of Veii, Sutrium, and Nepet, orsomewhere on the Roman side of the Liris or Volturnus rivers, but not within 15 km of the sea. Livy 26.12-16, 26.33-34, and App. Harm. 43.88 Livy 39.54.13-55.4. MRR 1.378-9. Cf. Scullard (1951), pp. 167-168.89 Livy 39.3.4-6. MRR 1.368 s.v. praetor peregrinus Q. Terentius Culleo.74

in military expectations for the communities involved.Where known, the citizens,commissioners, and generals involved in these large population movements will bediscussed below, but only when they coincide with the colonial commissioners. 91III.The Impetus to Colonize: from the Commissioner's PerspectiveColonization efforts during the middle Republic did not follow a unified public policy:there were too many diverse types of colony founded in different places by uniquelycomposed commissions. As demonstrated by the history of colonization above, theirunifying factor was that they all had a military function and strategic benefit for theRoman state. Arising from his study of Northern Italy, Williams notes two trends relatingto Roman imperial intentions:1) Romans could and did sometimes have concertednotions about how to manage their freshly conquered territory, about how to put thoseplans into effect, and thus alter the local population; and 2) acknowledging theimportance of Roman intentions does not mean those intentions were uniform orunchanging over time. Thus, the colonies could have a military importance, whichcompelled the senate to mandate their formation. The colonies could also havesignificance for the commissioners themselves, creating an individual impetus to colonizeduring the middle Republic.9U Livy 41.8.6-12; Strabo 5.233, 237. MRR 1.397-8 s.v. Ti. Sempronius Gracchus.91 A full study of the phenomenon of large population movements during the middle Republic is beyond thescope of this project. My focus on the designated colonies and their commissioners arises from the need fora strictly-defined community in which to analyze religious landscapes and trends. It is methodologically toodifficult to accomplish this over wide swaths of territory where the mix of populations is poorly defined.92 Williams (2001), pp. 95-7.75

In the following section I will set aside the assumption of broad factional politicsunderlying colonization efforts in favor of individual commissioners' reasons for settlingcolonists abroad. These reasons are depicted in Figure 2.2, which is a subset of therelationships illustrated in the Colonial Agency Chart (Figure 1.3).Figure 2.2:A Commissioner'sImpetus to ColonizeFirst, I will suggest that there is sometimes a regional focus, wherein certaincommissioners seem drawn to a particular area because of prior experience there or extantfamilial ties to the territory. Then, I will discuss the benefits provided by founding acolony to the commissioners, including an increased clientele, political favor, assistanceup the cursus honorum, and economic advantages taken by commissioners. Finally, I willsuggest that the colonial commissions functioned as a stage for personal rivalries anddifferences in opinion as to the appropriate disposition of conquered people andformation of colonies among them. Ultimately, the diversity of the colonies founded,76

especially in Northern Italy at the end of the third century and beginning of the second,suggests that there was not a unified, Roman public policy on colonization, much less onthe use of religion as a method of imperialistic control.Factionalism and ColonizationAttempts to find a single factional alliance for each colonial commission or to makebroad generalizations about the factions interested in colonizing often fail to make aconvincing argument or simply fail. For the early second century, Scullard observes that:It is ... almost impossible to attempt to assign a definite colonial policy to anygroup at this time, since they were so evenly balanced: the Claudian-Fulvianshad been successful recently at the polls, the Scipionic group... made anunexpected recovery in 183, while in the background was Cato whose moralauthority must have been great in the year in which he vacated the censorship. 93Part of Scullard's frustration arose from the fact that very few of the colonialcommissions contained three men who had demonstrated consistent alliance with thesame party. For example, he could not pinpoint which group favored establishing Latinversus Roman colonies because the commissions were too mixed, e.g. for both the Latincolony of Aquileia and the Roman colony of Mutina, Scullard identified the mostprominent commissioner as a Scipionic supporter, while the other commissionersbelonged to Scullard's middle group. 94Other generalizations as to factional policy oftenleave something lacking, as well. For example, MacKendrick notes that for the periodfrom 218-177, the liberal or Scipionic faction established colonies in the south, whereasyj Scullard (1951), p. 169.94 Ibid. Scullard defines this middle group as the alliance of the Claudians,, Fulvians, and old supporters ofthe Fabii (1973 (2 nd ed.) p. 165).77

the conservative faction sponsored colonies in the north.Scullard's note on theScipionic leaders of the commissions for Aquileia and Mutina, both founded in NorthernItaly, immediately calls MacKendrick's generalization into question.As Feig Vishnia observed in regards to such prosopographical analysis of rivalfactions and their motivations, they remain purely conjectural. 96It is dangerous to positthe existence of factional colonization policies, and then seek to find them in the colonialcommissions. Feig Vishnia correctly notes, however, that: "[p]ersonal rivalries andcompetition were always intrinsic characteristics of Roman politics." 97Thus, whereScullard's broad factional analysis of the commissions fails, a closer examination of theindividual commissioners might yield fruit.Indeed, even using Scullard's sometimes forced account of personal and familyalliances within various factions, a pattern of regional concern emerges among theindividual triumviri. For example, while the commissions that founded colonies insouthern Etruria and Campania cannot be said to be 'Claudian,' there is at least onetriumvir that has ties to the Claudian gens on each and every colonial commission in thisarea 98Likewise, the Fulvii and their supporters only appear on commissions along theMacKendrick (1952), p. 141. MacKendrick also sees this span of time as the "period of the apogee of thesenate," which implies that individual magistrates have little power of their own.96 Feig Vishnia (1996), p. 24.97 Ibid.98 For primary references for these commissions, see Appendix 3. The supplement to Narnia (199):Scullard sees this entire commission as vacillating between the Scipionic and the Claudian-Servilian groups:Cn. Cornelius Lentulus, because he is a Cornelius but then attempted to wrest control of the Africacampaign from Scipio in 201 (Scullard (1951), pp. 75, 8Iff, 95, and 107f.) and P. Aelius Paetus because hisfamily was friendly with the Scipiones, but then he allied with C. Servilius to gain his consulship in 201 butby 199 was able to have an amicable censorship with Africanus (Scullard (1951), pp. 77, 80f, 96. Cf.Cassola (1962), pp. 410 and 413 for the suggestion that this does not show Aelius' Claudian-Servilianallegiance so much as an alliance between the Scipiones and the Servilii at this time.) S. Aelius Paetusseems to have followed his brother's alliances (Scullard (1951), p. 104) Volturnum. Liternum, Puteoli,Salernum. and Buxentum (194): M. Servilius Pulex Geminus became firmly allied with the Claudii,78

Adriatic Seaboard.The Fabii seem to have had wider interests, but still were only oncommissions sent to Apulia, Northern Etruria, and Cisalpine Gaul. 100Finally, theScipiones and their allies had the widest interests of all, but seemed to have focused onthe commissions for colonies on the coastlines or on active military frontiers, and, ofcourse, the colonies that may have housed Scipio's African and Spanish veterans. 101according to Scullard, from his role as Master of the Horse to Galba in 203 and his consulship with T.Claudius Nero in 202 (1951, pp. 78ff.) The supplement to Cales (185): C. Claudius Pulcher (Scullard(1951), pp. 138, 148f, 178f.) Saturnia(183): T. Sempronius Gracchus was a Claudian supporter and hisdaughters married the grandsons of Gracchus' colleague in the consulship of 177, C. Claudius Pulcher, butGracchus was a rather independent supporter, according to Scullard (1951, pp. 37, 187, 295ff.) Graviscae(181): P. Claudius Pulcher, who was also on the commission to supplement Cales (see above).99 Copia/Thurii (193): Aulus Manlius Vulso, based on a familial connection between the Manlii and Fulviias well as Fulvian help getting into office (Scullard (1951), pp. 158, 184) Potenia and Pisaurum (184): M.Fulvius Flaccus and Q. Fulvius Nobilior (Scullard (1951), pp. 166 and n. 2 et al.) Aquileia(183): C.Flaminius, whom Scullard notes shows Fulvian allegiance after his tour in Spain in 193 with FulviusNobilior, especially in his defense against his fellow consul's (Lepidus in 187) attack over Fulvius' conductof the Ambracians (Livy 38.44.1-6, 39.4.11-13) (Scullard (1951), pp. 140f, 144, 167) and L. ManliusAcidinus Fulvianus, who was the brother of Q. Fulvius Flaccus (Scullard (1951), pp. 167, 179)100 In Apulia: Venusia (200): T. Quinctius Flamininus is a difficult example, since he has been argued to beboth Scipionic and Fabian (Scullard (1951), p. 5 and 97 ff. summarizes these arguments and urges a lessstaticposition. For the Fabian connections see ad loc. pp. 83 n. 2, 104, 117 f.) Sipontum(194): M. Helviusmight have gained his praetorship (197) through Fabian help (Scullard (1951), p. 104f.) In the North: thesupplement to Placentia and Cremona and the foundation of Bononia (190. 189): L. Valerius Flaccus wasFabian, unlike many other Valerii (Scullard (1951), pp. 105 n. 4 (beginning on the previous page), 106,110) and M. Atilius Serranus, based on family connections (Scullard (1951), p. 136 n. 1) Parma and Mutina(183): L. Quinctius Crispinus based on family connections between the Fabii and Quinctii and Marcellus(Scullard (1951), pp. 98, 167) Saturnia(183): Q. Fabius Labeo (Scullard (1951), pp. 136 et al.) Luca(180): Q. Fabius Buteo (Scullard (1951), pp. 171, 179, 283)101 The second foundation of Placentia and Cremona (218): P. Cornelius Scipio Asina (Scullard (1951), pp.39 nl, 49ff. Scullard does not think that Asina was on the first commission, but see Gargola (1990) for theargument for two commissions) and Cn. Cornelius Scipio (not in Scullard). The supplement of Venusia(200): C. Terentius Varro, based on the commission to Africa with Scipionic supporters (Scullard (1951),pp. 82 n. 2, 95 n. 4), P Cornelius Scipio Nasica (Scullard (1951), p. 95 n. 4 connects the continuedsettlement of Scipio's veterans with the supplement to Venusia. Based on the dates, I think it is probablethat the veterans were also accommodated in the supplement to Narnia. Cf. Cassola (1962), p. 20, where henotes that other Cornelii may not be Scipionic, but Nasica was Africanus' first cousin and so certainly was.)The supplement of Narnia (199): M. and S. Aelius Paetus, see note number 98, on Claudii, above. The fivemaritime colonies (194): M. Servilius Pulex Geminus' family was friendly with the Scipiones, even thoughhe switched alliances to the Claudii mid-career (Scullard (1951), p. 77), Q. Minucius Thermus supportedAfricanus against Lentulus in 201 (Scullard (1951), pp. 46, 81f, 106, 133f, 137, 258,261), and T.Sempronius Longus, opposed a triumph for Lentulus in 200 and was cos. with Scipio in 194 (Scullard(1951), pp. 95, 106, 115f.) The supplement to Sipontum: M Baebius Tamphilus, through familyconnections to the Aemilii and Cornelii (Scullard (1951), p. 171) Croton (194): L. Aemilius Paulus, whosefamily was friendly to the Scipiones (Scullard (1951), pp. 120, 21 Iff.) Tempsa(194): L. Cornelius Merula(Scullard (1951), pp. 46, 120, 122) Vibo Valentia (192): M. Minucius Rufus, who supported Scipio and79

What this geographical distribution of commissioners suggests is that, whereas Scullard'spolitical factions might not have evinced colonial policies, his family groupings oralliances had definite regional interests that they pursued even when it meant cooperatingwith opposing factions on the colonial commissions for those regions. Used with caution,these observations open up the question of whether the personal or familial interests ofindividual triumviri might have had a regional focus, based not on political alliance buton their own actions and well-attested connections.Regional Concerns among the Colonial CommissionersTwo principal factors dictated the regional focus of certain colonial commissioners: 1)military experience in the area, and 2) family connections to the region. The first of thesefactors is illustrated perhaps most vividly by M. Aemilius Lepidus, who possessed theconsular province of Liguria in 187 and built a highway from Placentia to Ariminumwhile on campaign.Lepidus was subsequently on the board to establish Mutina andParma (183) and Luna (177), and he led a commission often men for the viritanedistribution of the ager of the Statielli and Boii (173), and founding Regum Lepidumwent to Africa with him in 193 (Scullard (1951), pp. 104, 121) and M. Furius Crassipes; according toScullard, he was possibly Scipionic because Furius Purpureo was (Scullard (1951), p. 141) Mutina andParma (183): M. Aemilius Lepidus was Scipionic until his reconciliation with Fulvius Nobilior in 179(Scullard (1951), pp. 94, 120, 124, 143 et al.) Aquileia(183): P. Cornelius Scipio Nasica, also oncommission for Venusia in 200 (see above) and C. Flaminius, who was quaestor to Africanus in Spain andhis father was Scipionic. The son also perhaps Fulvian (see above note 99) (Scullard (1951), pp. 54, 120,140f. Cf. Cassola (1962), p. 378 who criticizes Scullard's conclusion of alliance between Flaminius, theAemilii, and the Scipiones based on a coincidence of offices.) Luna (177): P. Aelius Tubero was perhapsone of the members of the Scipionic group among the commission to Asia in 189 (Scullard (1951), p. 137nl.) According to Scullard, L. Aemilius Lepidus was by this time allied with the Fulvii and so should notcount here (p. 180 ff.)102 Livy 39.2.80

along the Via Aemilia between Parma and Mutina. 103The client-patron relationships heestablished in the second century benefited his descendent, Aemilius Lepidus (cos. 78BC). 104The region is still known as Emilia-Romagna.M. Baebius Tamphilus was another active colonizer, but he developed hisrelationship with Apulia in a different order than Lepidus or perhaps had priorconnections in the area on which the primary sources are silent. Baebius, a possibletribune of the plebs around 194, might have been the author of a lex Baebia to found thecitizen colonies established that year. 105He was certainly elected to the commission ofone of the colonies founded: Sipontum (194). 1Then, as praetor of 192, Baebius wasalotted Hither Spain as his province, but a popular vote transferred him to Bruttium withthe result that he found himself again in Southern Italy.In 186, when the consulinvestigating the Bacchanalian affair noticed that the colonies of Sipontum and Buxentumwere empty, Cn. Baebius Tamphilus, Marcus' brother, was one of the commissioners tosettle the supplemental colonists. 108 Four years later, Cn. Baebius Tamphilus (cos. 182)canvassed for his brother, Marcus, to win the consulship of 181. 109While M. Baebius'103Livy, 39.55.7-8 (Mutina and Parma), 41.13.4-5 (Luna), and 42.4 (viritane settlement).104Rossignani (1995), p. 61. Cf. Badian (1958), pp. 162-3,275-6; Salmon (1970), p. 186 n. 171; Weigel(1992), p. 9.105 Feig Vishnia (1996), p. 50 and Lintott (1992), p. 34-53. Baebius might have formed the law to found thecitizen colonies founded in 194 (perhaps Sipontum, Tempsa, and Croton), and was then elected to thecommission for Croton. This is in analogy with the law that Q. Aelius Tubero, also tribune of the plebs in194, passed to establish the Latin colonies of Copia/Thurii and Vibo Valentia. Q. Aelius Tubero waselected to the commission for Copia, covered under his law.106 Livy 34.45.3-5.107 Livy 35.20. MRR 1.350.108 Livy 39.23.3-4.109 Livy 40.17.6-8, 18.2. MRR 1.383-4. Unlike Appius Claudius Pulcher's campaigning for his brother,Publius, in 185 (Livy 39.32.5, 6, 13), there was no senatorial objection to Baebius' assistance for hisbrother. Cf. Feig Vishnia (1996), p. 184. Since Cn. Baebius' fellow consul, L. Aemilius Paulus, allowedhim to return to Rome to assist his brother, this has been seen as an alliance between the two families. Cf.81

consulship was uneventful, as a proconsul in Liguria in 180 with Cornelius Cethegus, heconquered the Apuani and deported them to the ager Taurasinus, just west of Apulia,where they formed two communities: the Ligures Baebiani and the Ligures Corneliani. 11Thus, it is clear that the Baebii formed a connection with the region of Apulia in the 190sand 180s, if one did not exist before.Other examples of magistrates colonizing in the area where they had beenstationed include C. Terentius Varro, who had escaped with his troops to Venusia afterthe battle of Cannae (216), 1H and who later led a supplement of colonists to that town in200. M. Tuccius held the province of Apulia and Bruttium as praetor in 190; he wenton to settle the supplement of Sipontum and Buxentum in 186. L. Valerius Flaccus (cos.195) served in Cisalpine Gaul, where Livy reports he was successful against the Boii andspent the rest of the summer rebuilding sections of Placentia and Cremona destroyed in110the war. 113Then, from 190 to 189, the patrician L. Valerius Flaccus led a supplementarycontingent of colonists to the two old colonies and established Bononia with the help of aplebeian, L. Valerius Tappo. 114Finally, T. Quinctius Flamininus provides an example ofrepetitive colonization of Samnium and Apulia. He was on the board of decemviri toCassola (1962), pp. 18 and 397, although Cassola reminds us that the alliance between these two men doesnot indicate anything about the alignment of Q. Baebius (tr. pi. 200).110 Livy 40.37.8-38.9 and Plin. HN3A05. Salmon (1967), p. 311 and n. 1 (the remains of the urban centerof the Ligures Baebiani can be seen in the woods c. 2 miles from the modern town of Circello) and Map 4on p. 342.111 Livy 22.49, 22.54, 23.5, and 25.6. MRR 1.247.112 Livy 37.2.6; MRR 1.356.113 Livy 34.22.1-3. Cf. Scullard (1951), p. 115 n. 5 with reservations about Valerius Flaccus' successes.114 Livy 37.46.9-47.2, 57.7-8.82

settle Scipio's veterans in Samnium and Apulia in 201-200, as well as the commission toestablish Venusia (200). 115Scipio Africanus has often been discussed as an example where a general drovethe foundation of colonies to further his military agenda. From 194 to 192, the southerncoast of peninsular Italy was peppered with citizen and Latin colonies. 1 ' While Scipioserved on none of the commissions to establish these colonies, he was consul the yearthey were elected and so he is often cited as their instigator. 117Scipio also retired to one1 |Qof the colonies, Liternum, after he fell out of favor in Rome in the 180s.This is thesort of example that tempts modern scholars to posit a theory of factional politics in theforming of colonies. Without further evidence it is not possible to say for certain ifScipio did push the senatus consultum that ordered the tribunes C. Atinius, Q. AeliusTubero, and perhaps M. Baebius Tamphilus to obtain a plebiscite to found these colonies.We also do not have enough evidence to say if some or even all of the colonizingplebiscites originated with a particular faction or magistrate; assertions to this effect, aswith the Scipionic example, are conjectural. 119115 Livy 31.4.1-2, 31.49.5. Cf. Feig Vishnia (1996), pp.116-117. Scullard (1951), p. 95 n. 4, and p. 83 n. 2,where he argues that the Xviri were chosen by the urban praetor M. Iunius Pennus expressly to slight Scipioand to acquire some of the allegiance of Scipio's soldiers for other factions. Not all of the commissionersare as unambiguously anti-Scipionic as Scullard asserts, however.116 These are Volturnum, Liternum, Puteoli, Salernum, Buxentum (Livy 32.29.3-4, 34.45.1-2), ViboValentia, Copia (Livy 34.53.1-2, 35.9.7-8, 35.40.5-6), Sipontum, Tempsa, and Croton (Livy 34.45.3-5).117 MRR 1.342-3. Scullard (1951), pp. 117-118 suggests that Scipio initiated the foundation of thesecolonies in response to a genuine fear of Antiochus' navy. He also links the foundation of Copia and ViboValentia to Scipionic policy (p. 123.) Briscoe (1973), p. 225 disagrees, noting that the threat of Antiochuswas not realized until late in the year, and so either plebiscite was passed at the end of 197 or fear ofAntiochus was not the primary motivation for the foundation of colonies along the coast.118 Livy 38.50-56. Cf. Salmon (1970), p. 97.119 Although occasionally the conjecture may be fruitful: see below for suggestions on how the commissionswere formed.83

Besides a prior military connection to the colonized territory, certain colonialcommissioners also had family ties to a specific region. For example, Cn. BaebiusTamphilus led the supplement for Sipontum in order to strengthen the ties that his brotherM. Baebius Tamphilus forged there eight years before. 120 C. Flaminius conceivablyassisted in continuing the Via Flaminia from Bononia to Arretium during his consulshipwith M. Aemilius Lepidus in 187 and was on the commission to found Aquileia (183).It is plausible that Flaminius was continuing the work of his father, C. Flaminius, who asa tribune pushed through a controversial agrarian law to divide the ager Gallicus Picinusamong Roman citizens in 232. 122The father also built the original Via Flaminia in 220 or219 BCE. 123 All of Flaminius' projects on the ager Gallicus were potential bids for anincreased clientele of Roman citizens and the settlement of veterans. 124Throughcontinuing the improvement of the region, C. Flaminius the younger would maintain andeven strengthen the client-bonds already formed. 125P. Claudius Pulcher might also have strengthened the client base which his gensmaintained in Campania through his participation in supplementing the colony of Cales in185. The Claudii established an interest in the area beginning in the fourth century with120 See above.121 Livy 39.2 (road) and 39.55.5-6 and 40.34.2-3 (Aquileia). MRR 1.367-8. Cf. Cassola (1962), p. 278 and427 n. 41. Cassola warns that we cannot be sure if the initiative to colonize Aquileia was Flaminius', butsee below for a discussion of how the commissioners might have influenced their election.122 For the suggestion that Flaminius is continuing the work of his father, see Broughton MRR pp. 368, 370n. 1; Cassola (1962), pp. 278 and 427 n. 41. Cf. Feig Vishnia (1996), p. 20 and 25-34, Mommsen (1953)2.635-7. For the relevant sources see Broughton MRR 1.229.123 Livy Per. 20. MRR 1.235-6. Feig Vishnia (1996), p. 24; Toynbee (1965), 2.276, 664.124 Feig Vishnia (1996), p. 32 and Toynbee (1965), 2.311-313.125 Maintaining clientele of his father had already proven beneficial: Cassola (1962), p. 389 notes thatbecause C. Flaminius (pr. Sicily 227) left a good impression on the Sicels, his son C. Flaminius (cur. aed.196) was able to bring a load of grain to sell cheaply in Rome (Livy 33.42.8).84

censorship of Appius Claudius Caecus (312), who constructed the Aqua Appia and theVia Appia, between Rome and Capua with its associated Forum Appi. 1The censor of312 completed these projects amid senatorial complaints, 127 and they became a symbol of1OHRoman control over Campania and the Tyrrhenian Coast. Our only evidence of P.Claudius Pulcher's role in the supplementation of Cales is an inscription found in thecolony. 129This suggests that there could have been other colonization efforts notrecorded by Livy. Moreover, there is no way to know whether this supplementation wasstate-sanctioned or derived completely from the founder's initiative.In 184, M. Fulvius Flaccus and Q. Fulvius Nobilior established the colonies ofPotentia and Pisaurum on the Adriatic coastline. Ten years later, his brother Q. FulviusFlaccus (cens. 174) arranged contracts for projects in Potentia and Pisaurum, Fundi, andSinuessa with the communities' own funds; this was a significant innovation in the scopeof the censors' operational milieu.Q. Fulvius Flaccus' colleague, A. Postumius,balked at the extension of contracting activities and demanded an order from the senateand people, although probably not because the innovation was unconstitutional butbecause of personal rivalry between the censors and because the contracts would gain theFulvii additional support in Potentia and Pisaurum.126 Livy 9.29.6. MRR 1.160.127 Diod. Sic. 20.36.1.128 Cornell (1989), p. 372.129 CIL 6.1283 or I 2 .1.32 p. 200. Cf. Salmon (1970), pp. 90 and 102.130 For primary references see MRR 1.404. Scullard (1951), p. 192.131 Livy 41.27.11. The exact identification of M. Fulvius Flaccus and his relationship with Q. FulviusFlaccus is difficult, but Scullard's assertion that they are brothers is attractive. Scullard (1951), pp. 166 n.2, 178 n. 3, 190, 192, and 286. For the assertion that Postumius objected to the clients Q. Fulvius Flaccusmight have gained: Salmon (1970), p. 186 n. 181 and Scullard (1951), p. 192.85

Thus, there is a pattern of magistrates and their families cultivating regionalconcerns created or strengthened by colonization. Some generals later led colonies totheirprovinciae: M. Aemilius Lepidus, M. Tuccius, and L. Valerius Flaccus. Otherscolonized the same area in different ways and at different times: M. Baebius Tamphilusand T. Quinctius Flamininus. Yet another group colonized or showed favor to placeswhere their family had prior connections or had colonized: Cn. Baebius Tamphilus, C.Flaminius, P. Claudius Pulcher, and Q. Fulvius Flaccus. This trend probably does notmean that every commissioner had some prior attachment to the region in which hecolonized. It does indicate, however, that regional concerns were one of the motivationsfor triumviri to serve on a commission to found a colony.Perquisites of Founding a ColonyThe foundation of a colony was neither a completely altruistic act nor merely theperformance of one's duty to the state. Aside from possible connections to the regioncolonized, as outlined in the last section, there were distinct benefits that accrued to thecommissioners, including an increased clientele, political favor, assistance up the cursushonorum, and economic advantages. Unlike the regional concerns, we can assume thatthese benefits applied to all of the commissioners who chose to utilize them. They musthave had various levels of attraction for the individual commissioners, however.The most widely advantageous benefit to the commissioners was theaccumulation of 300 to 6,000 new clients, just for the time and trouble of establishing a86

colony. 132The honor included tangible rewards, such as L. Manlius Acidinus' statue inAquileia, the colony he helped found in 181 BCE, 133 or P. Claudius Pulcher's inscriptionin Cales, which he supplemented in 185. 134Part of the gratitude felt by the colonists for achance at a new home could arise from their circumstances in Rome: scholars postulatethat many of these men were the urban poor who lacked land of their own or veteransIOCwhose family farm had fallen into disrepair from their long absence on campaign.Moreover, the vast migrations of dispossessed farmers, veteran settlements, andcolonization itself probably disrupted the client-patron status quo in Rome, which wouldgenerate interest among the elite to create new clients where they could.By the earlysecond century, the impetus among magistrates to colonize was stronger than the popularsupport in Rome. Especially in the foundations of the maritime colonies in 194, it wasdifficult to find enough settlers to enroll; the commissioners allowed non-Romans tosubmit their names in order to fill the ranks of these citizen colonies. 137 Nonetheless, thecolonists who did emigrate to their new home became the clients of the commissionerswho led them.132 Salmon (1970), p. 104 cites this phenomenon with particular reference to the settlement of the new, largecitizen colonies in the north.133 The base has been found: CIL I 2 621. See also Bispham (2006), p. 81.134 CIL 6.1283 or I 2 .1.32 p. 200.135 Salmon (1970), p. 95. Such currying of popular favor through colonization schemes was the norm infifth and early fourth century foundations, e.g. Antium (467), where the colony was proposed as anappeasement to the people, but they were reluctant to enroll since they preferred land in Rome (Livy 3.1.6,Dion. Hal. 9.59.1-3). With the settlement of Ardea (442), the Roman people were upset that the first choiceof land went to the original inhabitants of the place (Livy 4.11.5). For Cales (334), the notice of thefoundation was shorter, but indicates that the colony was meant as a popular measure (Livy 8.16.14). SeeAppendix 1 for texts of these passages.136 Feig Vishnia (1996), p. 159.137 Livy 34.42.506. Cf. Laffi (2007), p. 23, Feig Vishnia (1996), p. 143, Salmon (1970), p. 99.87

Sometimes, the colonists might have been able to offer political support as in thecase of T. Quinctius Flamininus' bid for consulship:816 KCCI TTEuiToiiEvcov ccTroiKoov els 8uo TTOAEIS, Ndpvsidv TE Kcti Kcovoav,apxcov rjpEBr) Kai oiKicnris. TOUTO 8' OUTOV ETrfjpE udAiora xds Sid UEOOUKai auvrjSEts TOIS VEOIS dpx&S irrrEpfJdvTa, 8nuapxiav Kai crrpaTriyiav Kaidyopavouiav, EU9US aurov inraTEias crrpaTnyiav Kai dyopavouiav, EU0USairrov inraTEias d^ioOv, Kai Ka-rrjEi, TOUJ diro TGOV KAnpouxicov E'XCOVTrpo8viuous. Plut. Flam. 1.4[Administration of justice and military skill] obtained him the office of leaderand founder of two colonies which were sent into the cities of Narnia and Consa;which filled him with loftier hopes, and made him aspire to step over thoseprevious honors which it was usual first to pass through, the offices of tribune ofthe people, praetor and aedile, and to level his aim immediately at theconsulship. Having these colonies, and all their interest ready at his service, heoffered himself as candidate... (Dryden, trans.)There is some corruption of the text here, because Flamininus was on the board oftenmen to divide land in Samnite and Apulian territory among Scipio's veterans in 201-200and on the commission to supplement Venusia in 200, not on a board to found the colony1 TOof Narnia (299, supplemented in 199) and Consa (unknown).His bid for consulshipwas for the year 198 BCE.Although the tribunes of the plebs opposed Flamininus' bidfor consulship at this time, it is interesting to note that Flamininus rightly calculated thatthe support of his colonial and veteran clients would win the election for him. Thissentiment is recorded by Plutarch, a late source for Republican history, so there is somequestion over the authenticity of the idea that mid-Republican colonists could exert anysort of political influence for their patron. Feig Vishnia observes that the voting power ofthe Latin colonists was insignificant because all the Latins who attempted to vote inLivy 31.4 f. for the xviri and 31.49.6 for the commission to found Venusia. See also Briscoe (1973), p.162 and Salmon (1970), n. 180 p. 186 for a discussion of the error in Plutarch and further references onforeign clients.139 Livy 32.7 f. for Flamininus as consul.88

Rome were assigned to one allotted tribe. 140Some commissioners may have chosen to found colonies based on a different sortof political favor than one they expected from their clientele. 141 21 tresviri between 200and 169 had not yet held the praetorship before they embarked on their colonizationproject. 142 Of these, 10 became consul later in their careers. 143 Another four rose to therank of praetor. 144Only seven did not reach high office, although we may just lackevidence of their later careers. 145As with a priesthood, it seems that sometimes aposition on a board of tresviri was not a reward for political merit, which commissionerswithout magisterial experience had not earned, but rather was assistance for political140 Feig Vishnia (1996), p. 117. The veterans, too, were only in one or two tribes at the most.141 Kondratieff(2003), pp. 106-111 suggests that some of the commissioners who were tribunes at the timeof the founding (e.g. Q. Aelius Tubero, C. Afranius Stellio, L. Valerius Tappo, and M. Atilius Serranusalthough for a short period) might have elected to stay in the Latin colonies they founded to pursue a morelucrative career as a magistrate in a smaller community. This supposition rests only on the lack of evidencefor their careers in Rome and the assertion that it would have been more attractive to have a career in asmall town than remain quiescent in Rome (p. 109). While this idea is attractive, it is not convincingwithout evidence that these particular men did indeed hold magistracy in the colony.142 For a different count of these men see MacKendrick (1952), p. 141. Of the young men just starting thencareer,MacKendrick notes that eight later became consul and six praetor. He might not be counting thecommission for Luca. MacKendrick also comments that twenty nine of these men were patrician.143 P. Cornelius Scipio Nasica on board for Venusia (200) had only been quaestor, but went on to be consul(191) and to help found Aquileia (183). S. Aelius Paetus was on the board for the supplement of Narnia(199) with his more experienced brother; he had only been curule aedile (200) but went on to become aconsul (198) and censor (194). Q. Minucius Thermus and T Sempronius Longus were on the board for themaritime colonies of 194; both were only tribunes of plebs and curule aediles but went on to be consuls(193 and 194, respectively). Aulus Manlius Vulso, on board for Copia (194-193), had held no office beforeits foundation, but became consul (178). M. Baebius Tamphilus, on board for Sipontum (194), was perhapstribune of plebs but went on to become consul (181). Q. Fulvius Nobilior, son of the prominent M. FulviusNobilior, was on the commission for Potentia and Pisaurum (184) with no prior offices, and became consul(153). T. Sempronius Gracchus, on board for Saturnia (183), was only a tribune of the plebs in 187 or 184,then went on to be consul twice (177 and 163) and censor (169). M Popillius Laenas, on board for Luca(180), went from no offices before the colonization to consul (173) and censor (159). His brother Publiusdid not advance any further than triumvir. M. Cornelius Cethegus, on the supplement to Aquileia (169),became consul (160).144 Q. Naevius Matho and M. Furius Crassipes (Vibo Valentia, 194-192), M. Atilius Serranus (Placentia,Cremona, Bononia (190-189), T. Aebutius Parrus (Parma and Mutina, 183).145 Q. Aelius Tubero (Copia, 194-193) although we may just not know anything else of his career. He is notlisted in MRR. D. Iunius Brutus (Sipontum, 194). C. Salonius (Tempsa, 194) went on to be aXvir in 173.M. Fulvius Flaccus (Potentia and Pisaurum, 184), although his is a difficult example (see above). P.Popillius Laenas (Luca, 180). T. Annius Luscus and P. Decius Subulo (supplement to Aquileia, 169).89

advancement.The exposure of such a post could garner public favor or, at the veryleast, bring the recipient before the public eye and make him important contacts to uselater in his career. It is probable that these young men were placed on the commissions asa favor to their prominent fathers, relatives, or patrons, e.g. Q. Fulvius Nobilior whosefather, Marcus, had just given games in 186, two years before Potentia and Pisaurumwere founded and perhaps just as the commissioners were elected. 147Finally, being a commissioner to establish a colony sometimes yieldedcommercial or economic benefits. For the state, of course, these benefits includedreopening confiscated land to new farms and grateful farmers through both colonizationand viritane distributions; especially in North Italy, the fertile plains may have been seenas an alternate grain source, the exploiting of which might have been one of the elder1451Flaminus' goals in pushing through his agrarian law in 232.For the commissioners,there was also the possibility of economic recompense for their time. When FuriusPurpureo (cos 196), Q. Minucius (probably cos 197), and L. Manlius Acidinus (pr 188)were sent to check on the migration of Gauls (183) into the area where Aquileia would befounded, they came back cum donis, which indicates the mission was both a success andlucrative. 1T. Sempronius Gracchus, who had served on the commission to foundSaturnia (183), threw games so lavish when he was curule aedile (182) that the senatepassed a senatus consultum that year and again in 178 to restrict spending on games so146 On the priesthoods as a tool for political advancement see Hahm (1963), p. 82.147 Livy 39.22.1-5. They were particularly spectacular games, as well, with the first Greek actors, athleticcontests, and lion and panther hunt. Cf. Feig Vishnia (1996), p. 171.148 On the fertility of the Po Valley, see Feig Vishnia (1996), p. 14. On the economic purposes of settlingnew farmers, see Salmon (1970), p. 96 and Feig Vishnia (1996), p. 143.149 Livy 39.54.13-55.4. Scullard(1951),p. 167.90

that they were not a burden on the allies and provinces. 150In 182, the only alliesGracchus could call on were either from his time with Philip under the Scipiones (190) orfrom the colonists of Saturnia. 151Since the games were so lavish and the senate sohorrified, it is likely that Gracchus tapped both of these sources so heavily that theremight have been a complaint sent to Rome. Nonetheless, this example suggests thepossibility that there was an acceptable amount of economic support that a magistratecould expect from his clients in the colonies.Colonial Commissions as a Stage for Rivalries and Ideological DifferencesDuring the first decades of the second century, subduing and rebuilding Northern Italybecame a focal point for ambitious senators, perhaps because the new, large citizencolonies provided greater support for the commissioners who became their patrons. 152 M.Aemilius Lepidus was on the commissions for all three of the known large citizencolonies in the north (183 and 177), as well as building a highway from Placentia toAriminum while on campaign in Liguria (187), leading a commission often men for theviritane distribution of the ager of the Statielli and Boii (173), and founding RegumLepidum along the Via Aemilia between Parma and Mutina. 153On a smaller scale, theValerii dominated the commission to supplement Placentia and Cremona and found150 Livy 40.44.12.151 Scullard (1951), pp. 25 and 172.152 Salmon (1970), p. 106. Rossignani (1995), p. 63.153 Livy 39.55.7-8,41.13.4-5, 39.2.10, and 42.4, respectively.91

Bononia, 154 as did the Fulvii in the foundation and monumentalization of Potentia andPisaurum. 155There was a known feud between M. Aemilius Lepidus and one of the Fulvii, M.Fulvius Nobilior, inimicitiae inter M. Fulvium et M. Aemilium consulem erant (Livy38.43.1), which they only resolved in 179, when the jointly held censorship forced anaccord. 156M. Aemilius Lepidus, during his consulship of 187, charged M. FulviusNobilior with improper assault on Ambracia. Among the other charges, theAmbracians complained that:et, quod se ante omnia moueat, templa tota urbe spoliata ornamentis;simulacra deum, deos immo ipsos, conuolsos ex sedibus suis ablatos esse;parietes postesque nudatos, quos adorent, ad quos precentur et supplicent,Ambraciensibus superesse. Livy 38.43.6.And, what distressed them more than anything else, their temples had,throughout the entire city, been stripped of their ornaments. The statues ofthe gods - no, the gods themselves - had been torn from their dwellings andcarried off, and all that the Ambracians had been left for their worship, andfor their offerings of prayers and supplications, were bare walls and doorposts. [Yardley, trans.]In opposition to Lepidus and these charges, the other consul, G. Flaminius, defendedNobilior through the assertion that Nobilior's actions against Ambracia were commonduring a state of war. Gaius Flaminius also happened to be one of the commissioners tofound Aquileia (183-1). This disagreement over the way in which a conquered people154 Livy 37.46.9-47.2, 57.7-8. Salmon (1970), p. 186 n. 171 Salmon notes that the advocates of the Latincolonization in Cisalpine Gaul were more likely the Valerii than Cato the Censor because of theirprominence on this board.155 Livy 39.44.10 and 41.27.156 Livy 40.45.6-46.16. Q. Caecilius Metellus, along with the leaders of the senate and a large body ofcitizens, implored the two to set aside their feud. Aemilius complained that Nobilior had twice rejected himas a candidate for consul when he had been sure to win, whereas Nobilior complained that Aemiliuswrongly attacked him regarding his treatment of the Ambracians (Cf. Livy 38.43.If.), but both agreed to setaside their differences.157 See previous footnote.92

could, or should, be treated demonstrates a split in what could be termed internationalpolicy between Lepidus, on the one hand, and Fulvius Nobilior and Flaminius, on theother.Thus, five of the last six colonies founded in Northern Italy had individualcommissioners that took either side of this debate: Fulvius and Flaminius against M.Aemilius Lepidus. Luca's is the only commission where no one was involved in thisconfrontation. There is, however, a different polarization between two of the members ofthese boards. In 173 BCE, M. Popilius Laenas accepted the surrender of 10,000I SRLigurians and sold them into slavery.There was an outcry among the senators for thisaction; ultimately Gn. Sicinius, one of the praetors of 172 BCE, was given the task oftrying Popilius and freeing the Ligurians. 159These events were some years after both ofthese men founded colonies: Popilius helped establish Luca (180), whereas Sicinius wason the board to found Luna (177) with Lepidus.What the conflict over the disposition of the Ligurians suggests is that there wasnot a single, unified foreign policy for the peoples of Northern Italy, which all senatorsheld in common. Rather, there were at least two ideologies held by members of thecolonial commissions involved in founding colonies in Northern Italy: on one side,Fulvius, Flaminius, and Popilius (Pisaurum, Aquileia, and Luca) ran roughshod over theirenemies while in a state of war; on the other, Lepidus and Sicinius (Parma, Mutina, andLuna) favored a less abusive approach. Furthermore, while it cannot be shown that allmembers of a commission were strictly aligned with either ideology on the treatment of158 Livy 42.8-9.159 Livy 42.22.93

their enemies, it certainly seems that no commission held members who were sympatheticto both views.These two groups of magistrates differed primarily on such basic matters as howto treat a conquered enemy; recall that the two trials involved in the wrangling betweenthe groups were over how much plunder (especially of temples) is acceptable and how totreat a surrendered enemy. The sort of colonies founded by men in these groups alsodiffers: Pisaurum, Aquileia, and Luca were founded along the lines of previous coloniesplanted throughout the Italian peninsula. Parma, Mutina, and Luna, on the other hand,were colonies of the newer large citizen sort, surely through the influence of Lepidus,who was on the commission for all three of these colonies. 160Thus, there were differentopinions among the senators about not only how to treat fallen enemies, but also whatsort of colonies to establish among those conquered people. Not only was there nounified policy regarding colonization in Northern Italy, but it seems that somecommissioners used the colonies as an arena in which to dispute personal rivalries anddifferences in opinion on the proper disposition of conquered people.160 Salmon (1970), p. 104 makes similar comments about the colonization efforts at this time: "Notsurprisingly, therefore, aspiring statesmen were soon no longer content to let the senate monopolize colonialpolicy. Individuals began to pursue vigorous and independent colonizing programs of their own and thiswas bound to affect the purpose, the siting and the composition of colonies. For the moment, it is true, theCitizen colony continued to be in the main a strategic instrument, but it is significant that rivalry for the roleof founding commissioner had already become very keen." Although he does not specify the high numberof magisterial posts held by the later commissioners, Salmon's observations about the increasingcompetition for colonial triumvirate positions bears out the trend that men of a higher profile politically andsocially were chosen for the task. The comment about the senatorial monopoly in the early phases ofcolonization, however, is overstated. Cf. Torelli (1999), pp. 16-19.94

IV.Conclusion: The Impulse to ColonizeThe colonial commissioners had their own motivations for serving on the boards to foundcolonies. They had their own agendas to pursue, whether they were geographic, political,economic, or personal. As a group, then, these motivations combined with the state'sdefensive need to control certain areas in the Italian peninsula to produce an impulsewithin the Roman senate to found colonies. The impulse sometimes exceeded the abilityor willingness of the populace to occupy the colonies proposed, as seen by the addition ofthe Ferentinates to the Roman citizen colonies of 194 or the proposal of two new Latincolonies in Cisalpine Gaul in 190, but the ultimate foundation of only Bononia in 189.This inability or reluctance of the Roman plebs to participate in colonization reaffirmsthat in the middle Republic, at least, colonization was undertaken principally on theinitiative of magistrates.The multiplicity of motivations held by the commissioners affected the shape,nature, and location of the colonies themselves, as suggested by the shift to large citizencolonies in Northern Italy in the 180s. Indeed, the commissioners differed on thetreatment of their enemies as well as on the type of colonies to found, i.e. there was not aunified conception of what modern politicians would term 'foreign policy'. Thus, thesenatorial impetus to colonize did not produce a single, unified, and concerted policy offounding colonies. Instead, a selection of colonial types was established by a board ofthree commissioners, who may have been in accord within the commission, but werecertainly not so as a class of magistrates.95

Chapter 3: Commissioners and Founding the ColonyI. IntroductionChapter 2 explored the reasons why the commissioners might want to found colonies incertain places. The next question is how the commissioners were able to realize theirpersonal ambitions through the medium of colonization. Prior studies have asserted thatthe senate appointed the tresviri, who had no influence over the process of initiating acolonial foundation or forming their three-man board. 1In this chapter, I address themechanics of selecting the tresviri in terms of the juridical processes, which assignedcommissions to colonies, as well as in terms of the magistrates' relative competence forthe task of founding a colony. I suggest that the commissioners sometimes formed theirown three-man board and campaigned for the electoral votes to be officially appointed tofound a colony. It is also probable that one or more of the commissioners could influencethe senate's decision on where and what sort of colony to establish, so that themagistrates' impulse to colonize became the de facto (although it is not recorded as the deiure) author of a colonization effort. As with the colonial foundations in general, ofcourse, there was no standardized legal procedure for forming the commission.In the second half of the chapter, I will discuss the skills required to establish acolony of Latin or Roman citizens. This includes enrolling the colonists, arrangingsupplies while on the road to the colony, and arranging the plan of the colony based onthe model for a military camp. Finally, I will explore whether the commissioners werecompetent to establish the sacral landscape of the colony, including the demarcations of1 For example, Cassola (1962), p. 371 n. 20. Gargola (1995), p. 60 suggests that the electioneering for thiscommission was not as strongly contested as that for the annual offices.96

sacred land and the institution of cults. Ultimately, the experience of the commissionersas magistrates only pertained to composing the physical space of the colony and perhapsinfluencing the adoption of certain cults and initiating certain temples. After thecommissioners departed, the rest of the activities of determining the calendar anddeveloping the full colonial religious structure remained the task of the coloniststhemselves.Suggest the .composition s^of a board / ^ICoiColonialnmission ers\ ~Organize civic spaceof colony, measureand divide landamong colonistsEnroll colonistsArrange suppliesEstablish charter/priests (?)Become clientes oftriumviriDefines colonists ascitizens of newcommunityAdapt land toown needsover timeColonial LandscapeFigure 3.1: Founding the ColonyThese actions are represented by Figure 3.1, which indicates relationships between theRoman senate and people, the commissioners, the colonists, and the colonial landscape.97

This chart completes the human half of the Colonial Agency Chart introduced in Figure1.3. The other half of the colonial agency chart, regarding the military events prior tocolonization was outlined in Figure 2.1.The relationships in Figure 3.1 reflect the fact that the senate as a body wasresponsible for matters of general administration; thus, it was necessary for it to delegatesmaller managerial tasks to sub-committees, such as the tresviri coloniae deducendae.The senate's role extended only as far as advising the tribunes to have the conciliumplebis ratify a lex colonia to found a colony in a particular location at a particular timeand to have a praetor or consul hold elections for a board of three men who were bothexperienced and available for the duty. 3Analysis of the commissions shows that theyprivileged men with significant military experience, men who had run supply functionswith the city of Rome, and men who had experience with dividing land and vowingtemples.Throughout this chapter, I argue that the colonial commissioners were chosen forthe experience they gained through using the skills related to their previous magistraciesand religious positions. These are common terms which require specific explanation oftheir application to Roman Republican military, civic, and religious posts. On the whole,in the early and middle Republic, magistracies and priesthoods were gained through acombination of family influence, popular support, and previous achievement. 4Thus, aman did not win a magistracy because he had worked his way through a prescribed set of2 The landscape as an active agent in forming colonial culture will be discussed in Chapter 4.3 Salmon (1970), p. 19.4 Astin (1989), pp. 167-174.98

offices (until after 180), but based either on his position in the Roman oligarchy or onprevious general success as measured by his popularity with the elite and masses.Nonetheless, each office had a specific set of duties which the newly electedmagistrate was expected to perform, whether or not he had previously come into contactwith that sort of military, political, or religious responsibility. The magistrate could relyupon advice from former office-holders, but mostly he was expected to learn as heperformed his duties with the assistance of his subordinates. 5Thus, I use the term 'skill'or 'skill-set' to denote those specific duties that a magistrate or priest has performedwhile in office, and 'experience' to designate the knowledge gained through being aparticular sort of magistrate or religious official. The men who utilized their new-foundskills most successfully were elected to further offices because of their experience eitherin that office or their success in other positions. In forming a colonial commission,priority seems to have been given to men who had military experience because it wasparallel to the skill-set needed to found a colony.II.The Basis for the Selection of TresviriThe tresviri coloniae deducendae organized all aspects of colonial foundation accordingto the lex coloniae, or colonial law, instituted by the council of the people often at thedirection of the senate by means of a senatus consultum. In general, the commissionersthemselves were elected by the tribal assembly out of a nominated group of men until the5 These may have included his familia or servi publici. See below, p. 111 n. 42, for further discussion.6 See Gargola (1995), pp. 52-58 for a detailed discussion of how me senatus consultum recommending acolonial law led to a plebiscite, which in turn mandated the foundation of the colony.99

first century BCE. The lex coloniae granted the commission for a period of three years,although the foundation of the colony took anywhere from less than one year to over twoyears. 8 Beyond these generalities, it is difficult to specify the legal formula for all parts ofthe initiation and foundation of a colony because Livy's mentions of this procedure areinconsistent. 9For each notice that a colony was established, he mentions the election ofthe commissioners, or the foundation of the colony, or both. 1The legal procedures tofound colonies, as recounted by Livy, are a combination of senatorial decree, authorizingplebiscite obtained by a tribune of the plebs from the concilium plebis, the election ofmagistrates by the comitia tribute presided over by a consul or praetor, the enrollment ofcolonists, the leading out of the colonists by the commissioners, and the foundation itself.Livy does not even consistently mention the names of the commissioners among hisreferences to colonization. 11According to Velleius Paterculus, the senate ordered the foundation of all coloniesbefore the Gracchi, and for the middle Republic there are no known colonies founded7 Salmon (1970), p. 19.8 Gargola (1995), p. 61.9 Feig Vishnia (1996), p. 145 suggests that Livy was uninterested in the legal procedure, so only listed thefull process for the colonies Minturnae and Sinuessa (Livy 10.21.7-9) and Copia and Vibo Valentia (Livy34.53.1-2). Gargola (1995), p. 207 n. 4 thinks that "[t]he variation in Livy's notices is best ascribed tostylistic considerations."10 Cf. Gargola (1995), pp. 52 and 206 n. 2: Election of colonies: Luca (Livy 40.43.1); Foundation ofcolonies: Sipontum, Tempsa, Croton (Livy 34.45.3-5), Potentia and Pisaurum (Livy 39.44.10), Parma andMutina (Livy 39.55.6-8), Saturnia (Livy 39.55.9), Graviscae (Livy 40.29.1-2), Luna (Livy 41.13.4-5); Bothelection and foundation: Volturnum, Liternum, Puteoli, Salernum, Buxentum (Livy 32.29.3-4, 34.45.1-2),Vibo Valentia and Copia (Livy 34.53.1-2, 35.9.7-8, 35.40.5-6), Bononia (Livy 37.46.9-47.2, 37.57.7-8),Aquileia (Livy 39.55.5-6,40.34.2-3). See also Feig Vishnia (1996), p. 144 for a list of these sources.11 Feig Vishnia (1996), p. 144 says otherwise, but Livy mentions the legal procedure but no commissioners'names for the foundations of Minturnae and Sinuessa (Livy 10.21.7-9) and for the foundation of Castra(198), (Livy 32.7.1L), where the censors enrolled the colonists.100

without its approval.Livy explicitly mentions a senatus consultum or at least asenatorial discussion for twelve commissions between 338 and 169.Based on theconjunction of a senatus consultum with a plebiscite in some of these passages, Gargolaconcludes that this combination of legal procedures was probably standard practice forinitiating and passing a colonial law. 14The issuance of a senatus consultum implies thata discussion (formal or informal) on whether to establish or supplement a colony occurredin the senate; this discussion must have been introduced by at least one senator, but weonly have rare mentions of who these men were in the middle Republic. 15Introducing asuccessful proposal for a colonial law onto the senate floor could serve many of the12 Veil. Pat. 1.14.1. Cf. Gargola (1995), p. 53. Salmon (1970), p. 103 cites the plebeian assembly as deiure source of colonial law, but the senate as the de facto decision maker as to when and where a colonywould be established. Feig Vishnia (1996), p. 145 suggests that the participation of the tribune of the plebsin passing a colonial law was probably a relic of the past when a double sanction by the senate and Romanpeople (SPQR) was required for colonial foundation.13 Cales (Livy 8.16.14), Luceria (Livy 9.26.3), Interamna (Livy 9.28.7-8), the supplement of Narnia (Livy32.2.6-7), Castra (Livy 32.7.1f.), the supplement of Cosa (Livy 33.24.8), Vibo Valentia and Copia (Livy34.53.1-2, 35.40.5-6), the supplement of Placentia, Cremona, and foundation of Bononia (Livy 37.46.9-47.2, 57.7-8), the supplement of Sipontum and Buxentum (Livy 39.23.3-4), the supplement of Aquileia(Livy 43.17.1), and possibly the foundations of Minturnae and Sinuessa (Livy 10.21.7-10), where tribunisplebis negotium datum est, presumably by the senate, and Aquileia (Livy 39.55.5-6) where the passagebegins with the senate debating whether to make the colony a Latin or citizen one.14 Gargola (1995), p. 53. Gargola confines this necessary sequence of events to the period from 200 to 167BCE. e.g. Volturnum, Liternum, Puteoli, Salernum, Buxentum (Livy 32.29.3-4, plebiscite only), ViboValentia and Copia (Livy 34.53.1-2, both), Placentia and Cremona (suppl), Bononia (Livy 37.46.9-47.2,both), Sipontum and Buxentum (suppl) (Livy 39.23.3-4, senatus consultum only), Aquileia (Livy 39.55.5-6,senatus consultum only), and Minturnae and Sinuessa (Livy 10.21.7-10, both implied).15 Gargola (1995), p. 52 notes that the people who initiated and secured the necessary authority for acolonial foundation must have been among the elite, but the names of these men are rarely known. Indeed,Livy only mentions the following initiators of colonization between 338 and 169: for Cales, the consuls, T.Veturius and Spurius Postumius, suggested founding a colony to anticipate the wishes of the people (Livy8.16.14). For Placentia and Cremona (suppl), and Bononia, L. Aurunculeius introduced a deputation (torequest a supplementation) from Placentia and Cremona into the senate, and later the consul C. Laeliusbrought forth a proposal that two new colonies be added, although ultimately only Bononia was (Livy37.46.9-47.2). For Sipontum and Buxentum (suppl), S. Postumius reported to the senate that he found thecolonies empty while investigating the so-called Bacchanalian conspiracy (Livy 39.23.3-4). The tribunes,whom the senatus consultum ordered to obtain a plebiscite, or the magistrates, whom the plebiscite orderedto elect the commissioners, should not be counted among the colonial initiators because there is no way totell if they were chosen to participate in the legal procedure because of their office or because of theirsupport for the colonization effort. Contra Salmon (1970), p. 19, who asserts that the tribunes initiated101

political and personal motivations which a magistrate might have for founding a colony.It is entirely possible that one or more of the magistrates chosen as colonialcommissioners introduced the proposal to establish or supplement the colony for which1 nthey were elected.Even though we can posit a basic procedure for passing the leges coloniae, theprovisions of these laws were not consistent over time, even within as short a period as338 to 169. For example, in the early third century, the task of creating commissionersfor Minturnae and Sinuessa (295) was given to the praetor, P. Sempronius, 18 as was thecase also for the supplements of Placentia and Cremona, when L. Aurunculeius (urbanpraetor 190) brought in the delegation from colonies and created the commissioners, 19and for Sipontum and Buxentum (supplemented in 186), for which the urban praetor wasalso assigned this task. 20Livy's account of the creation of the commissioners for ViboValentia and Copia (194-192) specifies that ea bina comitia Cn. Domitius praetorurbanus in Capitolio habuit, whereas the other passages merely suggest that an electionof the commissioners occurred (based on Livy's use of the verb creare). 22Sometimescolonization in general in the second century BCE. Perhaps this is true for the later second century, but it isan overstatement for the early part of the century.16 Gargola (1995), p. 52. See Chapter 2 (above, pp. 75 ff.) for a discussion of what sorts of personal andpolitical motivations Roman magistrates might have had for founding a colony.17 Cassola (1962), p. 427 n. 41 is cautious in the case of C. Flaminius, triumvir to found Aquileia, who mayhave been following his father's agrarian agenda in the region. Cassola asserts that there is no way to knowif the initiative to found the colony was his, but I think that it is possible and even likely.18 Livy 10.21.7-10.19 Livy 37.46.9-47.2.20 Livy 39.23.3-4.21 Livy 34.53.1-2.22 Livy also uses creare to describe the election of consuls and praetors at the beginning of each year, e.g.Livy 10.47.5, 34.42.3. According to the OLD (Glare ed., 2004 reprint) s.v. creo definition 5, the wordmeans either a) to appoint a magistrate (with a predicate accusative) or b) the verb applied to the magistrateholding the elections. With the exception of the commission for Cales, where tres uiros coloniaededucendae agroque diuidundo creauerunt K. Duillium T. Quinctium M. Fabium (Livy 8.16.14), wherever102

consuls, not praetors, were the officials who presided over the elections: for thefoundation of Interamna (313-312) the consuls of 312, M. Valerius and P. Decius, wereordered to create commissioners; 23 and for the supplement of Narnia (199), the consul, L.Cornelius, was charged with this task. 24Since there is no consistency in the magistratechosen to preside over the elections, whether among Latin or citizen colonies orsupplements or even over time, there must not have been a single, prescribed model onwhich to base the provisions of the leges coloniae. Rather, they seem to have been adhoc measures; this suggests that the magistrate who proposed the colonial foundationmight have had a great deal of influence over its stipulations of the colony's legal status,region, and size. 25As for the election of the commissioners, Gargola postulates that the membershipof the commission may have been largely determined by the presiding magistratesLivy uses creare, the commissioners' names are always in the nominative with a passive participle or verb(Livy 32.2.6-7, 32.29.3-4, 34.53.1-2, 37.46.9-47.2, 39.23.3-4 (with presiding magistrate designated by ab +ablative), 39.55.5-6,40.43.1) and/or Livy names the official who held the elections, with the official's namein nominative, an active form of creare, and triumviros, acsim., in accusative (Livy 9.28.7-8, 10.21.7-10,32.2.6-7, 37.46.9-47.2). Otherwise, the commissioners are listed as the men who deduxerunt the colonistsac sim. Based on Livy's use of creare with presiding magistrates in a way that indicates that thesemagistrates conducted elections for some of the colonies, I think the use of creare in the passive as appliedto the commissioners where the presiding magistrate is not specified should also indicate that electionsoccurred. Cf. Gargola (1995), p. 58 for these magistrates overseeing elections by the comitia tributa. Seealso Feig Vishnia (1996), p. 145 and her discussion of Willems 2.675-683 and his assertion that, while thecommissioners must have been elected for citizen colonies, the senate could appoint the commissioners forLatin colonies. There is insufficient differentiation between the uses of creare in the context of Latin versuscitizen colonies to support this assertion. There is also insufficient evidence that the decision to send asupplement to a colony rested with the senate alone (see Feig Vishnia p. 145 with references).23 Livy 9.28.7-8.24 Livy 32.2.6-7.25 Cf. Gargola (1995), p. 56: "Thus, the official who proposed a colony chose its size, and thus its legalstatus, from a restricted range of options, probably depending on the purpose of the new community, itslocation, and the mood of the surrounding population."103

through the authority of the senate.For the regular, annual magistracies, candidatespresented their names to the officer presiding over the election, and that officerdetermined if the candidate was acceptable with the tribunes of the plebs bearing the rightto challenge his ruling. 27Gargola suggests that the magistrate presiding over elections ofspecial commissions, such as those to found colonies, may have presented only enoughnames to fill the positions available or to allow a certain level of competition for some ofthe places on the commission.While Gargola's hypothesis seems to fit the election process for the colonialcommissions as a whole, I would suggest that sometimes the would-be commissionerscooperated among themselves to determine the composition of the boards of triumviri.Then, they presented their names as a group to the presiding magistrate, who offered thecomitia tributa the choice among one or more pre-formed commissions to perform thefoundation. This is only a hypothesis, but it seems a reasonable one based on themembership of the boards for the supplements of Narnia (199), the five maritime coloniesof 194, Potentia and Pisaurum (184), Parma and Mutina (183), Aquileia (183-181), andLuca (180). For these foundations, the composition of the commission was not alwaysdependent on the magistrate presiding over the election, but could have rested oncollaboration among the individual commissioners.Gargola (1995), p. 59, where he offers Livy 24.7.12-9.1 as an example of the power a magistrate couldhave over the election: Q. Fabius Maximus (cos. 215) ordered the centuries to vote again when he was notelected duovir to dedicate a temple he vowed.27 Gargola (1995), pp. 59-60.28 Ibid.104

The board for the supplement of Narnia (199) presents one of the strongest piecesof evidence that the would-be commissioners sometimes formed their own alliances andpresented their names together for the election of the colonial commission. Two of thecommissioners were P. Aelius Paetus and Cn. Cornelius Lentulus, who were consulstogether in 201, when Lentulus made a bid to wrest the African command from ScipioAfricanus. 29 These men were also fellow augurs. The third member of the commissionwas S. Aelius Paetus, Publius' brother, who had served on the board of decemviri to settleScipio Africanus' veterans (201-200) with T. Quinctius Flamininus (also triumvir forVenusia, 200), but who had held no office higher than curule aedile at the time thecolonial election. 31As a group, these men presented a commission with high-ranking andcooperative members, one of whom had prior experience dividing land in Apulia andSamnium among Scipio's veterans, who might have made up a significant part of thecolonists for Narnia as well. It is implausible that these three men would have beenrandomly elected by the comitia tribute out of a pool of applicants, especially on the partof S. Aelius Paetus, who was a junior magistrate at the time, without any cooperationand/or joint-campaigning on their part. Since the presiding magistrate, in this case, wasLivy 30.40. P. Aelius Paetus did not block Lentulus' move, which suggests that they were on good termsas colleagues. Cf. Feig Vishnia (1996), p. 71 and Scullard (1951), p. 83, although Scullard's assertion thathis silence made Paetus anti-Scipionic is not compelling, on which see Cassola (1962), p. 410.j0 Scullard (1951), p. 79 n. 5 notes that M. Servilius Geminus may have conspired with the augurs to delaythe elections for 201 and keep his brother C. Servilius Geminus as dictator until April 19. The augurs at thetime were M. Servilius Geminus and T. Sempronius Longus (tresviri for the maritime colonies, 197-194),Cn. Cornelius Lentulus and P. Aelius Paetus (tresviri for Narnia, 199), T. Sempronius Gracchus (triumvirfor Saturnia, 183), L. Quinctius Flamininus (brother of the triumvir for Venusia, 200), and Q. FabiusMaximus. Cicero (Fam. 3.10.9) indicates that the men co-opted into the augural college could not beenemies of any current members, which does not necessarily mean that the augurs acted as a unit at alltimes. Cf. Hahm (1963), p. 80.31 Livy 31.4.1-3 and 31.49.4-6.105

L. Cornelius Lentulus, the brother of one of the commissioners, he may have assisted thepre-formulated board in the elections, but probably did not form the board on his own,since the commissioners had stronger connections to each other than to him.Another commission that provides strong evidence of cooperation among thewould-be tresviri is the board to establish the maritime colonies of Volturnum, Liternum,Puteoli, Salernum, and Buxentum (197-194). The commissions included M. ServiliusGeminus, who was another one of the decemviri to settle Scipio's veterans in 201-200with Flamininus and Paetus, as well as an augur. The other two commissioners were T.Sempronius Longus, also an augur, and Q. Minucius Thermus, both of whom had beencurule aediles in 198 and praetors in 196. As with the board for Narnia in 199, these menpresented a neat package of experience settling veterans and a concurrence of amenablepriesthoods and magistracies. Moreover, as commissioners, they shared the obligationsof founding the colony around their other magistracies: M. Servilius Geminus must haveenrolled the colonists on his own while T. Sempronius Longus and Q. Minucius Thermusperformed their duties as praetors in 196 and pro-magistrates in 195, and Geminus andThermus must have lead the colonists to their new home without Longus, who was consulin 194.Their previous co-magistracies and priesthoods and sharing of foundationduties suggest that these men had a closely cooperative relationship, which probablyprompted them to submit their names for the commission in the first place.The composition of the commission to found Potentia and Pisaurum in 184 also3 l Livy 32.2.6-7.3j Brennan (1997), p. 144. Brennan notes that the tresviri cannot have functioned as a unit because ofexamples like this one (contra Gargola (1995), pp. 67-8, 245 n. 90). The time commitment of one to threeyears was one of the main drawbacks to being a colonial commissioner.106

suggests an informal collaboration between the commissioners before the election. Thecommissioners were Q. Fabius Labeo, who had been praetor over the fleet in 189, andtwo young Fulvii: M. Fulvius Flaccus and Q. Fulvius Nobilior. The Fulvii were membersof families well favored politically and popularly at that time; in particular, M. FulviusNobilior, father of Quintus, had just given lavish games in 186, perhaps right around thetime when the commission was elected. 34It seems unlikely that these two young Fulvii,neither of whom had held an office yet, could have been nominated, let alone elected, asstand-alone candidates for the colonial commission without their family's assistance.Moreover, the coincidence of having two Fulvii on the commission suggests that therewas cooperation in forming the board, which then campaigned as a unit in the election. Asimilar agreement between an experienced magistrate and two relatively unknown youngmen seems to have occurred for the commission to found Luca: Q. Fabius Buteo, M.Popilius Laenas, and P. Popilius Laenas. Again, it is unlikely that Publius, who had heldno magistracy before the commission and also none after, would have been elected ascommissioner on his own. Rather, the board seems to have been prearranged. 35Finally, the composition of some of the boards to establish colonies in NorthernItaly in the 180s seems to indicate that there was a stiff electoral competition betweenprearranged and cooperative commissions. M. Aemilius Lepidus was pursuing a policyLivy 39.5 (on vowing the games to Jupiter Optimus Maximus), 39.22 (on celebrating the games for tendays), and 40.44 (for Fulvius' budget for the games set as the upper limit on game expenditure.)35 Gargola (1995), p. 63 and n. 63 notes that the relative inexperience of this commission does not fit withthe notion that its composition followed a senatorial policy to send only experienced military men todangerous areas, such as Liguria.107

of settlement in Gaul and Liguria during the early second century.His first colonialfoundation was Parma and Mutina (183), for which his fellow commissioners were L.Quinctius Crispinus, who had celebrated a triumph just the year before (184), and T.Aebutius Parrus, whose gens may have gained fame through exposing the so-calledBacchanalian Conspiracy of 186. Livy reports that P. Aebutius, who informed against theBacchanalian worshippers was rewarded with 100,000 asses and exemption from militaryservice unless he desired otherwise. 37The name of Aebutius would have been fresh inthe minds of the Roman people.If Lepidus did compile his own commission, it would have been a wise choice tosupplement his own well-known experience in Northern Italy with the popularity of thesetwo young men. Furthermore, it seems that the composition of the commission to foundAquileia (183) responds to Lepidus' ideological claim on Northern Italy. Thecommission as a whole was composed of the highest ranking magistrates of all thecommissions in Northern Italy, followed by that of Luna, Lepidus' second colonialcommission. The board to found Aquileia was comprised of P. Cornelius Scipio Nasica,who was the consul of 191, G. Flaminius, the consul of 187, and L. Manlius Acidinus,who was a praetor in 188 and held the proconsulship from 187-5. Perhaps it took thisweight of experience and popularity to displace M. Aemilius Lepidus, whose popularityand benefactions to Northern Italy were already well-known.Although the composition of the commissions for these six colonization efforts36 Rossignani (1995), p. 61. His platform of Northern settlement led him to a place on the commission ofthree colonies as well as a viritane settlement in 173, by far the most settlement actions of anycommissioner.37 Livy 39.8-19.108

indicates that it was possible for commissions to form independently, this was not theonly model for forming board. Some commissioners had no known affiliations with oneanother; such boards are more likely to have been formed by direct election orappointment by the presiding magistrate. For example, the board to supplement Venusiain 200 comprised C. Terentius Varro, who had sought refuge in Venusia after Cannae, T.Quinctius Flamininus, who was one of the decemviri to settle Scipio's veterans in 201-200, and P. Cornelius Scipio Nasica, an upstanding young man and cousin to ScipioAfricanus. 38There is no evidence that these men had links to one another outside of thiscommission. Each one did have a unique qualification for this assignment: Varro'sknowledge of Venusia and experience as a magistrate, Flamininus' familiarity withveteran settlement, and Nasica's popularity, which may have been further enhanced by hiscousin's recent triumph. 39In 200, Scipio Nasica, a quaestor, was at the beginning of hiscareer, so probably would not have been elected on his own without the popular favor ofthe family in that year. 40Thus, these men probably did not align themselves before theelection, but were chosen based on their individual qualities or popularity.Thus, due to the ad hoc nature of the leges coloniae and the lack of a concretemodel there were several possible ways to form a commission. One method was for thecolonial commissioners to create informal alliances among themselves and then submitCassola (1962), p. 371 n20 asserts that the senate designated all founding boards, including this one.Cassola is arguing against Miinzer (1920), pp. 125-6, who cites this commission as the evidence that thecommissioners cooperated amongst themselves.39 Livy31.49.6.40 See Broughton MRR 1.324 for the magistracy, which is somewhat uncertain. If Nasica was not quaestorin 200, his participation as triumvir is all the more striking. He was in the public eye also for his role inaccepting the stone of Magna Mater in 204, however.109

their names to the presiding magistrate and campaign for the foundation as a unit.Another method involved the presiding magistrate's choice or even a more democraticelection. No matter how the composition of the boards arose, there is a more universallycommon factor for all of the commissions: they contained at least one experiencedmagistrate. The following section discusses the skills that the colonial commissionersderived from such military experience.III.Preparing to ColonizeAll of the colleges oftresviri coloniae deducendae between 219 and 169 BCE containeda very high number of military leaders, whether consuls, praetors, pro-magistrates, orlegates (see Appendix 2 for a breakdown of these magistracies). Gargola suggests thatexperience in battle was a factor in the choice of commissioners, especially if the area tobe colonized was particularly dangerous. ' More than that, these men knew how to movetroops, provide for them, and house them. The colonial commissioners also defined theterritorial boundaries of the colony, assigned lots to settlers, adjudicated disputes, laiddown the constitution, and appointed the first magistrates and priests. To do all of this,Gargola (1995), p. 62. Gargola offers as example the colony of Aquileia (183-181), which had the mostsenior commission at this time. The colony was located over 150 km from Mutina and Parma (183), thenearest Roman settlements, and moreover was in a dangerous area where the consul had just defeated Gaulsand wished to restrict further immigration. Gargola goes on to posit the opposite conclusion as well: "Atendency to include more experienced men on commissions intended to found settlements in unusuallydangerous areas may have been mirrored by a similar inclination to construct less prominent colleges whenthose boards were to found settlements in stable, long-pacified regions." (p. 63) He notes that of the sevencolleges with only one senior member, almost all were established in peaceful areas: Venusia (200), themaritime colonies (194), Sipontum (194), Vibo Valentia (192), Copia (193), and Potentia and Pisaurum(184); Luca (180) may possibly be added to this list.110

the commissioners were invested with imperium and provided with a supporting staff,supplies, and money with which to procure anything else they needed. 43In order to findmen who could accomplish all of these tasks, the commissions were filled with formermagistrates, especially consuls and praetors. The most obvious reason for this choice, butone that is rarely if ever explored, is that the commissioners as a group needed thenecessary experience to plan and establish a functioning colony. This experience derivedfrom the commissioners' previous military duties and magistracies.The following sections explore the specific duties required to found a colony witha view to the skills deriving from the magistracies held by the commissioners, namelyconsulships and praetorships, pro-magistracies, legateships, tribunates of the plebs, andaedileships. The chapter then turns to a discussion of the foundation of the colony itself,the organization of the space and creation of new religious institutions accomplished bythe tresviri as priests and religious men.Enrollment of soldiersThe dilectus was the official enrollment of soldiers into the Roman army; our main sourcefor this process is Polybius 6.19-21. In this passage, Polybius relates the significant roleof the military tribune in the enrolment process and neglects to mention the consul or42 There were servipublici at least by the Second Punic War. When Scipio conquered New Carthage inSpain, he enslaved the men and made them servipublici for the duration of the war with Carthage,depending on their good behavior as such. (Polyb. 10.17.9)4jSalmon (1970), p. 19. Salmon lists the assets given to the commissioners as supporting staffs, equipment,transportation, clothing, and money. However, the senate oversaw the public purse, so it is much morelikely that the commission was given the right to petition a quaestor for a draw on the public funds withwhich to procure their own supplies, or perhaps to petition an aedile to release a portion of the city's grain.Otherwise, we would have to imagine the senate as owning a warehouse full of clothing and supplies that111

praetor, except in a supervisory role. He states that "when the consuls are about to enrollthe army they give public notice of the day on which all Roman citizens of military agemust appear," and he subsequently describes only the role of the military tribunes. 44Gargola takes this to mean that Polybius' account comes from the commentarii from amilitary tribune with consular powers, written some time between 444 and 367 BCE,but it is more likely that the consul or praetor in charge oversaw the process of enrollingsoldiers, while delegating the brunt of the work to the military tribunes, who became subcommanderstied to a particular legion after 367 BCE. In the latter scenario, Polybiuswould have omitted the auspices and further action by the commander through lack ofinterest. 46It is more likely that the commander of an army oversaw the dilectus rather thanadministering the enrollment of troops himself because it was a process that must havetaken several days. Polybius stipulates 4,200 to 5,000 infantrymen per legion in additionto the 300 cavalrymen. 47In the early Republic, the consuls enrolled one legion each, butthere were as many as twelve to fourteen active legions in 215 BCE, eighteen in 214, andtwenty five in 212-211, which shows the extensive amount of time it must have taken toenroll all of the soldiers required.Thus, it is highly unlikely that the commander ofeven one or two of these legions would have enrolled each soldier himself since thethey, as a body, parceled out. It is important to remember that the individual magistrates of the RomanRepublic ran particular functions of the Roman state; the senate was merely an advising body.44 Polyb. 6.19 (Shuckburgh, trans.)45 Gargola (1995), p. 65.46 Rawson (1971), pp. 13-31. See also Gargola (1995), n. 80 p. 214.47 Polyb. 6.20. See also Keppie (1998), pp. 89-90 and Richardson (2004), pp. 14-15, who calculates thepre-Polybian army at 17,280 infantry and 2,160 cavalry, with allies and citizens. This means a legion of4,320. Richardson thus calculates the Polybian army at 16,800 infantry and 2,400 cavalry.48 Southern (2006), p. 131.112

process involved a careful sorting of all available soldiers.Nonetheless, the commander was familiar with the process either from priorexperience as a military tribune or from oversight of the process. 49It is just thisknowledge that made a military commander ideal to found a colony. The enrollment forearly citizen colonies was 300 families, but for Latin colonies and later citizen colonies, itwas 2,000 to 5,000 families, 50 which would be an equivalent number of settlers to thenumber of soldiers in one or two legions. Livy confirms that L. Scribonius Libo, M.Tuccius, and Cn. Baebius Tamphilus were chosen specifically to enroll colonists for thesupplement to Sipontum and Buxentum in 186 BCE. 51By 186 BCE, these three men hadall been praetors, and M. Tuccius had been praetor and propraetor in Apulia and Bruttiumfrom 190 to 188, the regions where the colonies had been founded. 52Sometimes,however, the enrolling of colonists fell to a different magistrate: for the supplement ofPlacentia and Cremona (190) the consul C. Laelius enrolled the colonists, but was not oneof the commissioners.This is the only example of one of the annual consuls enrollingthe colonists, but it confirms that the leges coloniae were ad hoc arrangements, and thuswere not based on a single, uniform model. Nonetheless, in general, the colonialcommissioners seem to have been chosen for their military experience, which includedThere were at least five commissioners who had been military tribune before their period in the colonialtriumvirate, although there may have been many more whose office was not recorded by Livy. These areM. Valerius Maximus Corvus (Saticula (313) Festus Gloss. Lat. p 458 L, Veil. Pat. 1.14.4), T. QuinctiusFlamininus (Venusia (200) Livy 31.49.6, Plut. Flam. 1.4), Cn. Cornelius Lentulus (Narnia suppl. (199) Livy32.2.6-7), Cn. Octavius (Croton (194) Livy 34.45.3-5), and L. Valerius Flaccus (Placentia and Cremonasuppl. (190) and Bononia (189) Livy 37.46.9-47.2, 57.7-8, Veil. Pat. 1.15).50 Lomas (2004), p. 209.51 Livy 39.23.452 For the observation that the men had been chosen specifically to enroll colonists, see Gargola (1995), p.64.53 Livy 37.46.9-47.2.113

familiarity with enrolling men, as well as previous knowledge of the area to which theyhad to lead the colonists.Supplies and Supply linesThe second significant skill acquired by generals in the field is control over supplies andsupply lines. While the directive to acquire supplies or move them might come from thesenate, the logistics of acquisition and transportation were the responsibility of the consulor praetor. The experience gained through military supplying translates directly to thenecessity to supply colonists while in the process of founding their new city; thus, theability to ensure enough supplies for the colonists must have been one of the skills forwhich the commissioners were elected.Appian and Livy offer several examples of the relationship between a general andhis supply lines: 54 during the Second Punic War, Scipio Africanus controlled his ownsupply lines, which the senate sent warships to help him protect. 55Another example is inthe consulship of 198, when T. Quinctius Flamininus ordered his brother L. QuinctiusFlamininus to lead the supply ships to rendezvous with the army. 56This occurred afterFlamininus founded Venusia (200), of course, but still offers a good illustration of acommander's control over supply lines and over the fleet officer in charge of them. Thereis another case wherein a magistrate assisted in securing or procuring supplies before hebecame triumvir: in 188 BCE Q. Fabius Labeo, the current prefect of the fleet and laterSee also Roth (1999), p. 253 for further references.App. Pun. 4.25Livy 32.16.2-5114

triumvir for founding Potentia and Pisaurum (184), assisted the proconsul Manlius Vulsoin supplying his troops.The preceding examples deal with the fleet, but the commanders also controlledCOover-land supply routes, especially between supply depots and the army's position.Livy 25.21-22 relates how the Roman consuls secured the supply lines in the siege ofCapua through drawing on the supply outpost in Casilinum in 212-211 BCE. Moreover,that same year, L. Marcius took over the legions in Spain after the death of the Scipiones;one of his first acts after he assumed control over the army was to consolidate supplies. 5The Roman senate, however, was not completely removed from the supply process: theScipiones had sent to the senate for additional supplies before their deaths. 60It is clearfrom Livy that money for the troops and supplies were separate matters. 61This is notconfirmation, however, that the senate controlled a vast storehouse of clothing, arms, andgrain, which they sent to the army as necessary.That the senate was only in charge of the public treasury is obvious from the wayin which Livy discussed the senate's determination that the costs of maintaining so manyarmies were too great for the State: it is a discussion of liquid assets, not of theavailability of material supplies. The following passage relates the senate's concernswhile Hannibal was ravaging the Italian countryside.57 Roth (1999), p. 253 in an interpretation of Polyb. 21.43.2-3.58 Southern (2006), p. 111 and Roth (1999), p. 257.59 Livy 25.37.7.60 Livy 23.48. Livy 26.2.4 similarly relates the senate's promise of food and supplies to be sent to L.Marcius in Spain after the Scipiones' death, although the senate was still debating approval of Marcius'imperium. See also Bishop and Coulston (2006), p. 233.61 Livy 23.48 'dispatches from P. and Cn. Scipio arrived, giving an account of the great successes they hadachieved, but also stating that money to pay the troops was needed, as also clothing and corn for thearmy...' (Roberts, trans.)115

sed occurrebat artimis quantos exercitus terrestres naualesque tuerenturquantaque noua classis moxparanda esset si bellum Macedonicum moueretur:Siciliam ac Sardiniam, quae ante bellum uectigales fuissent, uixpraesidesprouinciarum exercitus alere; tribute sumptus suppeditari... Livy 23.48.6-7.But other considerations were present to their minds - the enormous landand sea forces they had to keep up; the large fleet that would have to befitted out if the war with Macedon went forward; the condition of Sicilyand Sardinia, which before the war had helped to fill the treasury and werenow hardly able to support the armies which were protecting those islands;and, above all, the shrinkage in the revenue... (Trans. Roberts, my italics)Ultimately, in order to grant the Scipiones' request for aid, the senate was forced tosubcontract the procurement and shipment of material supplies for the army in Spain tobenefactors from among the citizens of Rome. Thus, while the senate customarily didsend physical supplies to the commanders in the field, those supplies were procuredthrough a decision to allocate money to their purchase in Rome rather than from somesort of senatorial store-house. The purchasing action implies the agency of an individualofficer or group of individual statesmen, who used the state's money and senatorialauthorization to procure and ship goods.On the general's side of the supply issue, there was also the duty to instruct hisofficers and their soldiers to gather supplies either from the foraging in the fields or fromenemy cities. While this is not the same as direct control over supply lines, it was often anecessary process while an army was in the field and shows a general's experienceutilizing the resources available to him. After the Punic Wars, Roman armies reliedheavily on conquered cities for their supply needs while in the field. 62For example, whenScipio conquered the Carthaginian arsenal at Carthago Nova in 210 BCE, he assigned theBishop and Coulston (2006), p. 231.116

two thousand artisans there the task of providing munitions for him.Supplies could also be gained from territories under Roman control, even if notwithin the current arena of battle: in 191 BCE, M. Aemilius Lepidus, who becametriumvir in charge of founding Parma and Mutina (183) and was the current praetor incharge of Sicily, was commissioned to requisition two-tenths of the grain on the island tosend to Greece. 64The senate also played a part of this transaction, but only to authorizethe transfer; the logistics were handled by the magistrates involved. This is similar to theauthorization which the senate extended to preparatory efforts while in the city of Rome,as well.During the Second Punic War, the consul arranged to enroll and supply his troopsin consultation with the senate, a duty transferred to the urban praetor when the consuldeparted. 65Within the purview of this duty, the urban praetor could appoint a legate tobuy grain, such as in 212 BCE when P. Cornelius Sulla sent C. Servilius to Etruria forthat purpose. 66Thus, the commissions for Copia and Tempsa did not cause theircolonists to suffer for not having a consul or military praetor as their highest magistrate.The urban praetors on the boards would also have had experience with supplying anarmy.All of these instances of the commanders in the army controlling their own supplylines and depots or acquiring supplies while in the field imply that supplying an army was63 Livy 26.47.64 Livy 36.2.12. See also Roth (1999), p. 247.65 Polyb. 3.106 for the consul consulting with the senate. See also Roth (1999), p. 249.66 Livy 25.15.5 and Roth (1999), p. 249. Roth also notes that the urban praetor might also aid in buildingthe navy: in 172, the senate ordered the urban praetor C. Licinius Crassus to repair 50 ships and raise crews(Livy 42.27.1).117

probably not a regulated endeavor, but more an accumulation of resources and theknowledge, transferred from one magistrate to another, of how to use them, how toprotect them, and how to move them when away from the city of Rome. In a militarysituation, the senate might issue a directive to acquire supplies or move them, but theconsul or praetor was responsible for the logistics of acquisition and transportation. Theexperience with military supply applies precisely to the task of supplying colonists fromthe march to their new home until their first crops came in. Thus, it is possible that theability to ensure enough supplies for the colonists was probably one of the selling pointsby which a commission was elected. Indeed, in the cases of Q. Fabius Labeo and M.Aemelius Lepidus, we have seen direct evidence that magistrates were intimately familiarwith supply techniques before becoming tresviri. Furthermore, when the army was inenRome, the plebeian aedile supplied the troops with provisions.This task indicates thatthe former aediles on the commissions were skilled in managing grain and publicstructures in an urban setting, something that does not necessarily fall within the duties ofan army commander.IV.Founding a ColonyThe act of enrolling colonists and guiding them to their new home is well within the skillsetof men familiar with commanding an army. The steps of founding the colony itself,however, only partially overlap with the duties of a general. In order to create a new civiccommunity, the founders need to define the colony's physical space, calendar, legal andLivy 26.10.1-2.118

eligious practices, and authority structure, i.e. appoint magistrates and priests. If we can,for the sake of argument, posit that the communal organization of Rome was used as amodel in mid-Republican colonies, then completing these tasks required closecooperation between the magistrates and priests present at the foundation. The followingsection explores this hypothetical foundation scenario before examining how many ofthese tasks the colonial commissioners themselves were actually qualified to perform byRoman custom.In general, a colonial foundation would begin with auspices taken at the colonialsite, then the ritual plowing of a furrow to define the pomerium, and finally dividing theland into sacred and secular space, with plots allotted to the colonists according to rank.In the Roman system, the duty and privilege of defining and dividing the landscape fell toseveral groups of magistrates and priests. The highest magistracies, i.e. the censorship,consulship, and praetorship, were accompanied by the ius publicorum privatorumlocorum, which was the power to define the limits of public and private land. 69Generalswere responsible for most of the vows to build temples in the middle Republic. 70Censorscontracted the building of temples and other civic structures. Priests, too, were involvedin the definition of religious space and the consecration of a temple. Augurs, throughdefining the templum, were concerned with the delineation of sacred space. 71Pontiffs68 MacKendrick (1952), p. 141; Salmon (1970), pp. 19-26; Laffi (2007), pp. 16-19. For a detaileddescription of the theoretical foundation of a colony, see especially Gargola (1995), pp. 72-75 {pomerium),75-80 {lustrum), 80-83 (colonial charter and magistrates appointed), 83-87 (marking boundaries anddefining the sacred areas), 87-95 (dividing territory), and 95-98 (allotting land to settlers).69 Livy 4.8.2 (on the duties of the censors) and 42.1.6 (where the consul was sent to Campania to markboundaries in 173 BCE). Cf. Gargola (1995), p. 120.70 Orlin (1997), pp. 18-19.71 Beard, North, and Price (1998), p. 22.119

usually attended the consecration of a temple, and the college as a whole had final say inwhether a temple could be established and what provisions might be necessary in doingso. 72Finally, the curule and plebeian aediles supervised the maintenance of certain publicbuildings, such as temples, and other places including markets and roads.Thus, if thecolony functioned according to the Roman model, the division of land, construction ofcivic structures, and their subsequent maintenance was a cooperative effort of themajority of the magistrates and priests.In Rome, the pontifical college was responsible for the calendar and for keepingan annual record of events. 74For the colony, the calendar began with the officialfoundation date, when the lex colonia was set up in the forum.We know these dates forthree of the colonies: Brundisium was founded on Aug. 5, 244; Placentia's birth date wasMay 31,218; and Bononia's was Dec 30, 189. 76 In the late Republic, it was not thepontiffs who determined the first calendar of the colony, but the colonial magistrates andtown council. This is specifically stipulated in the charter for the Caesarian colony ofUrso in Spain, founded in 44 BCE. 77Ilviri quicumque post solon. deductum erunt, ii in deibus Xproxumis, quibuseum mag. gerere coeperint, at decuriones referunto, cum non minus duae partesaderint, quos et quot diesfestos esse et quae sacra fieri publice placeat et quosea sacra facere placeat. Urso Charter 6472 E.g. the college of pontiffs was consulted when Marcellus had vowed a temple of Honos and Virtus (Livy27.25.7-10); they determined that a single cella could not hold two gods. Cf. Stambaugh (1978), p. 559.73 Roth (1999), p. 150. See also Livy 31.4.6, 50.1; 33.42.8.74 Beard, North, and Price (1998), p. 25.75 Salmon (1970), p. 26.76 Brundisium: Cic. Att. IV. 1.4; Placentia: Asc. Pis. P3 C; and Bononia: Livy 37.57.7.77 Constitution of Urso (44 BCE) ILS 6087 paragraph 64; CIL 11.5,439, Beard, North, and Price (1998),Vol. 2 10.2a, with discussion in Beard, North, and Price (1998), Vol. 1 p. 157; see also Wardman (1982),pp. 14-5.120

The duoviri who hold their office after the establishment of the colonia shall,within the first ten days of their office, bring for decision to the town councilors,in the presence of not fewer than two thirds of them, the question of which daysand how many days shall be festal, which sacrifices shall be publicly performed,and who shall perform them. [Trans. Beard, North, and Price]This source is from a period in which colonial foundation was conducted under differentcircumstances than that of the middle Republic, thus this charter does not prove that thesame situation occurred in earlier colonies. It is plausible, however, that even in earliercolonization the first colonial magistrates of Latin colonies might have had more controlover the calendar than either the colonial commissioners or the first priests.This wouldhave been the case for the Latin colonies and possibly the large citizen colonies, whichhad their own civic government. The smaller maritime colonies did not have as high alevel of administrative infrastructure, and so the commissioners may have had to arrangemore for the colony. These citizen colonies may also have functioned on the Romancalendar, since they were composed of Roman citizens.When the colony had been planned and settled, the commissioners gave thecolonists a lex data, a formal community charter. 79This applied to both citizen coloniesand Latin colonies, although the only evidence we have to suggest that this practice wasused as early as the third century is a passage in Livy wherein the maritime colonistscalled for military duty in 207 BCE produced documentation that they should have beenexempt.itaque colonos etiam maritimos, qui sacrosanctam uacationem dicebanturhabere, dare milites cogebant. quibus recusantibus edixere in diem certam utquo quisque iure uacationem haberet ad senatum deferret. ea die ad senatum hipopuli uenerunt, Ostiensis Alsiensis Antias Anxurnas Minturnensis Sinuessanus,78 It is also possible that the first priests of the colony served on the town council.79 Gargola(1995),p. 80.

et ab supero mari Senensis. cum uacationes suas quisque populus recitaret,nullius cum in Italia hostis esset praeter Antiatem Ostiensemque uacatioobseruata est. Livy 27.38.3-5Even the maritime colonies which were declared to have been solemnly andformally exempted from military service were called upon to furnish soldiers,and on their refusal a day was fixed on which they were to appear before thesenate and state, each for themselves, the grounds on which they claimedexemption. On the appointed day representatives attended from Ostia, Alsium,Antium, Anxur, Minturnae, Sinuessa, and from Sena on the upper sea. Eachcommunity produced its title to exemption, but as the enemy was in Italy, theclaim was disallowed in the case of all but two - Antium and Ostia. [Trans.Roberts]The wording of sacrosanctam uacationem dicebantur habere implies that there was a formalagreement of some sort, which could have been a treaty or colonial charter such as theone found in the Caesarian colony of Urso (44 BCE). The case cited by Livy wherein thecolonists were required to supply forces in a special circumstance is certainly an isolatedexample, but the colonies involved had been founded throughout the early and middleRepublic. For all of them to have complained in 207 BCE suggests that there was either asomewhat standard colonial charter for maritime colonies or a treaty agreement thatencompassed all of them dating to sometime after the foundation of Sena Gallica (283).If the maritime colonies did have a formal charter, this basic level of statute might havebeen all that was given to a citizen colony. Latin colonies, however, had a full set of theirown laws, although we do not know if these were given by the commissioners orcomposed by the colony's town council.If the religious laws of Rome were transferred to the colonies, then they shouldfollow the same epistemological basis, i.e. the search for knowledge of the gods' will thatLaffi (2007), p. 16. Laffi notes that the Latin colonies had their own citizenship, constitution, laws,magistrates, census, money, and army. It was only their foreign policy that was expected to align withRome's.122

informed ritual practice.Roman religion valued orthopraxy, or correct action, groundedin observation. 82A prominent feature of Roman orthopraxy was the precise andcontractual nature of the vow that accompanied an offering or sacrifice.In Rome, thesevows were recited to the presiding magistrate by a pontiff, who was an expert in sacredlaw and procedure, including for games, sacrifices, vows, tombs, and burial law.Thus,if the Roman religious system were bestowed upon the colonies, then there must havebeen some means of transferring also the pontiffs ritual laws and formulae.Finally, the commissioners would appoint the first magistrates and priests of thecolony, in order to provide an authority structure which could govern the colonyaccording to the laws and tenets the commissioners provided. The colonial magistratesorsometimes were cosoles or duoviri in Latin colonies.In citizen colonies, thecommissioners only instituted the minimum of magistracies necessary to addressimmediate crises for which there was no time to consult with Roman magistrates.Forthe priests, the commissioners would appoint pontifices and augures for the colonial81 Ando (2003), p. 2.82 Ibid. p. 11.83 Orlin (1997), p. 35. The vows for temples, especially, were conditional and almost contractual.84 Beard, North, and Price (1998), p. 24. Pontiffs also determined what was sacred and what was profane,as in the case of Capua's statues (Livy 26.34.12). Cf. de Cazanove (2000), p. 73.85 Bispham (2006), p. 88. For example, the magistrates at Ariminum {ILLRP 77) and Beneventum {ILLRP169) were called cosoles at least until the second century. After this Ariminum's magistrates were calledduoviri {ILLRP 545). It seems that Beneventum also hadpraetores. (ILLRP 545). Lomas (2004), p. 220also notes that the Charter of Tarentum (CIL I 2 .590) and the Lex Genetiva Mia from Urso in Spain (CIL I 2 .594) shows that the cities' administration was modeled on Rome, but these are both beyond the period andtype of colonization studied here and cannot be firm evidence that all colonies followed a Romanadministrative model.86 Salmon (1970), p. 17.123

colleges of these priests. In the case of the colony at Urso (44 BCE) Caesar or hisR7designated commissioner appointed these priests:Quos pontifices quosque augures C. Caesar, quive iussu eius colon, deduxerit,fecerit ex colon. Genet., eiponftji/ices eique augures c. G.I. sunto, eiq.pon[t]i[fi]ces auguresque inpontificum aurgurum conlegio in ea colon, sunto,ita uti qui optima lege optumo iure in quaque colon, pontif. augures sunt erunt.Usque pontificibus augurifb]'usque, qui in quoque eorum collegio erunt,liberisque eorum militiae munerisque publici vacatio sacro sanctius esto, utipontifici Romano est erit, eaque militaria ea omnia merita sunto. Urso Charter66Whosoever shall be appointed pontifices and augures from the colonia Genetivaby Caius Caesar (or by whoever establishes the colonia on Caesar's instruction)let them be pontifices and augures in the colleges of pontifices and augures forthe said colonia. Let those pontifices and augures, who shall be members ofeach college, and their children be sacredly guaranteed freedom from militaryservice and public obligations, in the same way as apontifex is and shall be inRome, and all their military service shall be deemed to have been completed.[Trans. Beard, North, and Price]Again, the foundation of Urso occurred under a different set of colonial conditions thanthose of the middle Republic; in particular, the pontifices and augures of the fourththrough second centuries did not exercise a right to abstain from military service, if sucha right existed at that time.If the colonial priests were brought into the Roman system,then they should have been co-opted by the priests already in the college. 89The charter ofUrso explicitly states that the priests joined colleges of the colony, however, not theirRoman counterparts. Perhaps thereafter, the priesthoods functioned like Roman87 Constitution of Urso (44 BCE) ILS 6087; CIL II.5, 439; Beard, North, and Price (1998), Vol.2 10.2a:paragraph 66.88 Among the commissioners alone, the pontifices were M. Valerius Maximus Corvus (Saticula, 313), L.Valerius Flaccus (Placentia, Cremona, and Bononia, 190-189), Q. Fabius Labeo (Potentia and Pisaurum,184, and Saturnia 183), M. Aemilius Lepidus (Parma and Mutina, 183 and Luna 177). The augures were P.Aelius Paetus and Cn. Cornelius Lentulus (Narnia, 199), M. Servilius Geminus and T. Sempronius Longus(Volturnum, Liternum, Puteoli, Salernum, Buxentum, 197-194), and L. Aemilius Paulus (Croton, 194). Allof these men had thriving military careers.89 Beard, North, and Price (1998), p. 104.124

priesthoods would, and smaller issues of drafting of vows, the procedure for consecratingbuildings, and control of the calendar, once instituted, fell to them. 90An inscription from Sora, dating just after the foundation of the colony of 44BCE, raises another possibility. 91The text of the inscription reads:L(ucio) Firmio L(uci) f(ilio) /prim(o) pil(o) tr(ibuno) mil(itum) /IHIvir(o)i(ure) d(icundo) / colonia deducta /prim(o) pontifici / legio IIII Sorana /honoris et virtutuis caus{s}a. (CIL X 5713 = ILLRP 498a)The fourth Soran legion [set up this monument ] to Lucius Firmius, son ofLucius, first file tribune of the soldiers, quattuorvir for giving laws in thecolony led out, first pontiff, for the sake of honor and virtue. (Trans.Coles)The prim(o) pontifici is significant because either Sora had no pontifices during its timeas Latin colony and municipium or the priests of the new colony supplanted those of theold town as though they never existed. The third option is that Lucius Firmius joined thepriests of the colony, in which case his honor would have been to be the first new priestof the new colony. I suspect that this inscription, when combined with the stipulations ofthe Urso Charter, indicates that Lucius Firmius joined the colleges of priests already inSora. Nonetheless, given the ad hoc nature of mid-Republican colonization efforts, wecannot dismiss the possibility that a colony may not have begun its civic existence withpriests in the Roman form, namely pontifices and augurs.The above hypothetical reconstruction of the tasks the commissioners might haveundertaken if they had complete control over the space, calendar, laws, and authority ofthe colony runs into a few problems. The spatial aspects are the least problematic, as theyrequire the commissioners to assume the duties of a number of magistracies, many of90 Beard, North, and Price (1998), p. 30.91 See Mezzazzappa (2003), p. 100 and n. 10 for discussion of the historical context of this inscription.125

which one or more men on each commission had held. Even though the Urso Charterapplied to a colony a century or more after those of the middle Republic, it is logical thatthe calendar for these earlier colonies, too, was under the purview of the magistrates ofthe colony, not the commissioners. The problem, then, lies with the commissioners'capabilities to appoint magistrates and priests and provide them with laws and religioustenets in the Roman model.Since each commission had at least one consul or praetor, there was at least onecommissioner who was familiar with the duties of possessing imperium. Consulspossessed imperium and maxima auspicia, presided over assemblies of the people, let outcontracts in the absence of a censor, and most importantly, raised and commanded thearmies. 92Praetors, similarly possessed maxima auspicia and imperium, although lesserthan that of the consuls, and could complete all of the functions of a consul other thanappointing a dictator, conducting elections for magistrates with imperium^ and presidingat the Latin Festival. 94By passing through the Roman electoral process, thecommissioners who were former consuls and praetors knew at least one method ofappointing or holding elections for the colonial magistrates. They knew how to call anassembly for a vote. 95While in Rome, the praetors also supervised the civil law courts,so the commissioners who had been praetors might also have been qualified to help thecolonial magistrates set up their court system. Since the commissioners with consular92 Brennan (2004), p. 63. See also Keppie (1998), p. 65.93 There seems to be an exception for the election of the tresviri: see Livy 10.21.7-10 on the plebiscite toorder the praetor P. Sempronius to nominate three commissioners to found Minturnae and Sinuessa (296).94 Brennan (2004), p. 63.95 For example, when the colonies of Copia and Vibo Valentia were approved, the praetor Cn. Domitius ranthe elections: Livy 34.53.2 ea bina comitia Cn. Domitius praetor urbanus in Capitolio habuit.126

and praetorian experience had been primarily generals, there is no guarantee that theywould have had direct experience with the courts, however, or indeed knowledge of thelaws beyond what they gleaned through participation in the Roman system.The Roman experts on matters of tradition, law, and especially religious practice,were the pontifwes and augurs. Many of the functions of founding a colony required apriest under the Roman system: co-opting new priests, determining of a ritual action wasperformed properly, and maintaining sacral laws. The priests and magistrates in Romewere often the same men, as noted by Cicero:Cum multa divinitus, pontifices, a maioribus nostris inventa atque instituta sunt,turn nihil praeclarius quam quod eosdent et religionibus deorum immortalium etsummae rei publicae praeesse voluerunt, ut amplissimi et clarissimi cives rempublicam bene gerendo religiones, religiones sapienter interpretando rempublicam conservarent. Cic.Dom. 1.1Among the many things, gentlemen of the pontifical college, that our ancestorscreated and established under divine inspiration, nothing is more renowned thantheir decision to entrust the worship of the gods and the highest interests of thestate to the same men - so that the most eminent and illustrious citizens mightensure the maintenance of religion by the proper administration of the state, andthe maintenance of the state by the prudent interpretation of religion. [Trans, asin Beard, North, and Price (1998) Vol. II, 8.2a]Although Cicero wrote this around 57 BCE for an audience of the priests themselves, itapplied throughout the Republic. Nonetheless, the coincidence of these two roles ingeneral does not indicate that every magistrate would possess the same knowledge as themagistrate who was also a pontiff or augur.It is true that magistrates took auspices before meetings and battles, dedicatedtemples, conducted the census and its ceremonies, performed public vows, and held

games and sacrifices.In keeping with the rigid need for orthopraxy in Roman religion,often a priest (or a different priest if the magistrate himself was one) would be present atthese events to dictate or prescribe the correct formulae for prayers or to offer advice onprocedure. 97For example, Livy recounts the devotio of Decius Mus with the assistanceof the pontiff M. Livius:haec locutus M. Liuium pontificem, quern descendens in aciem digredi uetueratab se, praeire iussit uerba quibus se legionesque hostiumpro exercitu populiRomani Quiritium deuoueret. Deuotus inde eadem precatione eodemque habituquo pater P. Decius ad Veserim bello Latino se iusserat deuoueri. Livy10.28.14-15.When he had uttered these words he ordered the pontiff, M. Livius, whom hehad kept by his side all through the battle, to recite the prescribed form in whichhe was to devote "himself and the legions of the enemy on behalf of the army ofthe Roman people, the Quirites." He was accordingly devoted in the same wordsand wearing the same garb as his father, P. Decius, at the battle of Veseris in theLatin war. [Trans. Roberts]In this passage, Decius Mus called upon a priest to dictate to him the correct form of aritual, of which he knew and was determined to uphold in the correct manner. DeciusMus, himself, relied on his own memory of a possible solution to his military problem;the priest, perhaps forewarned of the necessity, must have carried some sort of memoryaid from which to dictate the formula. This indicates that a colonial commissioner, whohad been a magistrate, would be qualified to outline ceremonies and rituals to thecolonists based on his performance and memory of the religious actions. By Romancustom, however, he required a priest to dictate the correct formula to him or access to aBeard, North, and Price (1998), Vol. 1 pp. 22 and 29. Moreover, if there was a break in the line ofsuccession of priests, the auspices returned to the patres until the proper succession was restored. Beard,North, and Price (1998), Vol. 1 p. 22 n. 57. Cf. Magdelain (1964).97 On the need to participate and the ideal of correct participation, see the introduction to Bispham (2006),p. 6 and Livy 22.9-10 and 34.44.1-5. For the presence of priests at ceremonies, cf. Beard, North, and Price(1998), Vol. 1 p. 29 and Livy 8.9.1-10.

set of ritual formulas. In the case of sacrifices, there would also be an augur present togive advice and to witness that the action was performed correctly and legally.So whilethe magistrate might know how a ceremony should go, he would not be an authority oncorrect procedure unless he was a pontiff or augur.The Decius Mus passage also indicates that priests traveled with the army for thepurpose of reciting vows for the magistrates, although it is unclear whether M. Livius wason campaign as a priest or in some other capacity. This raises the possibility that priestsalso traveled with the commissioners to assist them in the same manner." A smallnumber of commissioners were themselves pontiffs or augurs (see above, n. 88 on p.124), but only on six out of the twenty-two colonial commissions (338-169) for which weknow the commissioners. For these commissions, the priest/commissioner might havebeen able to serve in an advisory capacity while another commissioner performed thenecessary foundation ceremonies. For the other sixteen commissions, if the foundationrituals took place in accordance with Roman custom, a priest must have traveled to thecolony with the commissioners. There is a further problem in that the number of pontiffsand augurs in Rome was limited: at any given time, there were only eighteen men in thepontifical and augural colleges combined. 100Given that many of these men also heldtheir own magistracies and thus traveled to their own provinciate, 101 there may have been98 Beard, North, and Price (1998), Vol. 1 p. 22.99 Wardman (1982), p. 13, especially for the foundation rituals.100 Riipke (2005), Vol. 1 pp. 19 and 21. There were nine men on each college between 300 (as provided bythe lex Ogulnia) and the first century BCE, when Sulla increased die number to 15.101 For example, M. Servilius Geminus was an augur, but was away from Rome as a consul with theprovince of Etruria in 202, where his command was prorogued for 201. He also served on the board oftento settle Scipio's veterans in 201, and was the primary founder for the five maritime colonies settled in 194.129

a limited number of the priests in Rome, let alone enough pontiffs or augurs or both totravel in an advisory capacity to the colonies.If the commissioners appointed the colonial priests after the enrolment of thecolonists but before the dilectus, then the difficulties arising from a shortage of Romanpriests on the colonial commissions are solved. This applies specifically to the priests forthe Latin and large citizen colonies, which had their own civic and religious institutions.The new, colonial pontifices and augures would have up to two years to study the lawsand formulae contained in the records kept by their Roman namesakes. They could directthe commissioners in the rituals required for the foundation of their colony; a Romanpriest would be unnecessary, especially for Latin colonies, since by definition the body ofcolonists would no longer be Roman. Nonetheless, the rituals would be completed inkeeping with the need for religious orthopraxy. This scenario, while conjectural, suggeststhat the religious institutions of a colony were not strictly controlled by the Roman state,but rather were the responsibility of the commissioners, but also more directly of thecolonists themselves.To summarize: positing the direct imposition of a Roman model for the calendar,legal and religious practices, and authority structure of the Latin and Roman coloniespresents some challenges. The points of contact between the Roman state and foundingthe colonies were the colonial commissioners, who were operating from an ad hoccolonial law and their own experience as magistrates and priests. These three men, alone,rarely had the direct political or religious experience to form every aspect of the temporal,legal, and religious institutions of a colony. It is more likely that they instituted the130

colonial charter and appointed the colonial magistrates and priests, perhaps as early asjust after enrolling the colonists, and these new authority figures for the colony createdtheir own calendar, laws, and religious tenets that may have been an interpretation ofRoman customs, but were nonetheless particular to the colonists themselves. Theexpertise of the commissioners as former magistrates applied more to the initial spatialarrangement of the colony, including the basic form of the town and influence over thevowing of new temples.Commissioners and the Spatial Organization of a ColonyIn terms of defining the colonial landscape, the commissioners were directly responsiblefor the division of the territory into sacred and secular areas and the distribution ofallotments to the colonists (see Figure 3.1). At least one of the commissioners on eachcolonial board had been a consul or praetor; those men had possessed the ius publicorumprivatorum locorum, a responsibility of the highest magistracies. 102Gargola and othershave also described in detail how the commissioners and their staffs demarcated andallotted the plots for the colonists.Thus, the section below explores instead thegeneral's experience with camp building and military religion, including the role ofgenerals in vowing temples in Rome and how this impacted colonial religion.Polybius 6.26-42 describes the grid structure for the camp of a two-legionconsular army dating to about the 160s BCE. 104The layout of the camp seems similar toGargola (1995), p. 120 and Livy 4.8.2.Gargola (1995), pp. 87-97; Laffi (2007), p. 19 (with bibliography); Salmon (1970), pp. 19-25.Richardson (2004), p. 3.131

the possible layout of early Roman colonies, especially in that the main roads meet at agathering area in the center of the camp or colony. 105This ideal of a grid of streetscreating a square town originated with Hippodamus of Miletus in the fifth centuryBCE. 106It is likely that military engineers modeled their camp layout on such townplanning principles, which might have been transmitted to the Romans through contactwith the Greek colonies in southern Italy and Sicily.Since the earliest plan of the Roman colonies is conjectural at best, the argumentthat colonies are made like camps has the danger of becoming circular. One point thathelps ground the conjecture is the observation that so many of the tresviri coloniaededucendae were first commanders in the army, not town planners in general. Thus, theywould apply to the colonial foundation the structure with which they were most familiar,the military camp.Moreover, the military camps were organized in the same wayevery time to facilitate a rapid construction and mustering time. Since the coloniststhemselves were often described in military terms, a good number of them were probablyonce soldiers, and as such the colonists would be familiar with this manner ofconstruction. 109Thus it is logical that the military camp was the basis of the first colonialplan based on its familiarity to the commissioners and their colonists. Zanker asserts thatthis plan must have been formed in Rome and approved by the senate, but it is more105 Zanker (2000), p. 26. Cf. von Hesberg (1985). Salmon (1970), pp. 26-27 also notes the similaritiesbetween military camps and early plans of Ostia, Minturnae, and Pyrgi uncovered during excavation.106 Richardson (2004), p. 5.107 Keppie (1998), p. 38.108 Richardson (2004), pp. 3-20 covers the size of the early Republican and Polybian camps, theirconstruction, and the manpower required.109 Salmon (1970), p. 166 n. 9. For colonists described as soldiers: Livy 35.9.7-8, 35.40.5-6, 37.57.7-8, and40.34.2-3. Compare to, e.g. Livy 26.36.12,27.50.6, 31.49.6, 34.56.8, 36.2.9.132

likely that the commissioners drew upon their experience on campaign and perhaps theadvice of their supporting staff of engineers to lay down a functional city plan based onthe terrain available, much as they did for marching camps. 110So, again, colonialfoundation is not a statist activity, but something shaped by the individual circumstancesand military experience of the commissioners and colonists.Along with experience with the marching camp layout, the generals would havebeen familiar with the religious rituals and spaces in an army encampment. Much of theevidence available for military ritual is imperial in date. 111There are a few passages inLivy and Polybius which suggest certain features of military ritual and religion, however.In particular, Livy records a number of sacrifices on a variety of altars or altar-likesurfaces. According to Livy, sacrifices certainly occurred within the camps:His decoratus insignibus bouem eximium Marti immolauit, centum bouesmilitibus dono dedit qui secum in expeditione fuerant. Iisdem militibus legioneslibras farris et sextarios uini contulerunt; omniaque ea ingenti alacritate perclamorem militarem, indicem omnium adsensus, gerebantur. Livy 7.37.3.With these decorations upon him [Decius] sacrificed the beautiful ox to Marsand presented the hundred oxen which had been given him to the men who hadaccompanied him on his expedition. The legionaries also contributed a pound ofmeal and a pint of wine for each of them. During all these proceedingsenthusiastic cheering went on through the whole camp. [Trans. Roberts]If these sacrifices were performed during the Republic as they were under the Empire,then the sacrifices would have taken place in the open area next to the praetorium, andnu Zanker(2000),p. 27.111 Especially Beard, North, and Price (1998), Vol. 1 pp. 324-328 - the authors follow this account ofmilitary religion immediately with an account of colonial religion after Caesar (pp. 328-334 with theconclusion that even under the Empire, the colonies could borrow fromRoman religion, but there was noblueprint of deliberate religious Romanization (p. 334)). See also Helgeland (1978) for a lengthier butequally imperial treatment of army religion, as with Watson (1969), pp. 127-131. Kemkes and Willburger(2004) present archaeological evidence for soldiers and religion at Nimes, again primarily imperial andbased off of the Dura inscription.

the cattle would have been kept in the spaces between the walls and the tents orbarracks. 112The clamorem militarem, here, indicates that the soldiers were aware andapproving of the sacrifice, so it must have been close to the camp, if not within it.Sometimes victimarii and haruspices were present in the camp to perform thesacrifices and interpret the will of the gods as transmitted through the entrails of thevictims. Such was the case when Decius Mus was about to go into the battle duringwhich he would ultimately sacrifice himself:Romani consules, priusquam educerent in aciem, immolauerunt. Decio caputiocineris a familiar i parte caesum haruspex dicitur ostendisse: alioqui acceptamdis hostiam esse; Manlium egregie litasse. 'atqui bene habet' inquit Decius, 'siab collega litatum est. 'Livy 8.9.1Before leading out their armies to battle the Roman consuls offered sacrifice.The haruspex, whose duty it was to inspect the different organs in the victims,pointed out to Decius a prophetic intimation of his death, in all other respects thesigns were favorable. Manlius' sacrifice was entirely satisfactory. "It is well,"said Decius, "if my colleague has obtained favourable signs." [Trans. Roberts]This passage confirms the presence of haruspices, who were brought along to fulfill areligious duty in camp sacrifices. The sacrifice in itself suggests some sort of consecratedaltar on which to perform the sacrifice, but this may have been a dirt altar. The use of adirt altar or bare earth is suggested also by Gracchus' sacrifice:Graccho, priusquam ex Lucanis moueret, sacrificanti triste prodigium factumest. ad exta sacrificio perpetrato angues duo ex occulto adlapsi adedere iocurconspectique repente ex oculis abierunt. et cum haruspicum monitu sacrificiuminstauraretur atque intentius exta seruarentur, iterum ac tertium traduntlibato[que] iocinere intactos angues abisse. cum haruspices ad imperatorem idpertinere prodigium praemonuissent et ab occultis cauendum hominibusconsultisque, nulla tamen prouidentia fatum imminens moueri potuit. Livy25.16.1-4.Before he left Lucania a most ill-omened portent happened to Gracchus whilst hewas offering sacrifice. The sacrifice itself was just finished when two snakesHelgeland (1978), pp. 1476-1477, 1479, 1491.

glided unobserved up to the reserved parts of the victim and devoured the liver;as soon as they were seen they suddenly disappeared. On the advice of theaugurs a fresh sacrifice was offered and the parts reserved with greater care, butaccording to the tradition the same thing happened a second and even a thirdtime; the snakes glided up and after tasting the liver slipped away untouched.The augurs warned the commander that the portent concerned him and they badehim be on his guard against secret foes and secret plots. But no foresight couldavert the impending doom. [Trans. Roberts]The fact that the snakes could glide up to the sacrificial victim and taste its liver suggeststhat the altar used for the sacrifice was a mound of dirt or merely a sanctified space on theground. 113Then again, this is perhaps an anecdotal passage, so the means by which thesnakes approached the altar might be immaterial. This example does, however,concretely demonstrate that augurs were present on campaign, in addition to victimariiand haruspices.Gargola accepts that there were portable altars in a Republican army's camp,based on Hyginus' de Munitionibus castrorum, an imperial source of uncertain date. 114Imperial armies certainly had small, portable altars: the so-called Altar of Angera showsthe libation before a sacrifice on just such a portable altar. 115For the middle Republic,however, we have no evidence of portable altars in use in military camps. Polybius, ourbest source for camps during this period, does not mention the religious spaces of thecamp he describes. 116Based on Livy's accounts of campaign sacrifices, it is likely thatsome sort of small portable altar or a dirt altar was used for the sacrifices. By extension,Livy 10.29.18-19 also recounts that Fabius burnt enemy spolia in a heap as a sacrifice to Jupiter Victor{Fabius ... spolia hostium coniecta in aceruum loui Victori cremauii) but this is a different sort of sacrificethan the slaughter of a victim, and so should not be taken as evidence that no altar was ever needed in amilitary setting.114 Gargola (1995), p. 28.115 See Scheid (2007), fig. 19.1 p. 265; Scott Ryberg no. 101; ThesCRA 1, pi. 48, no. 105.116 Polyb. 6.26-42.135

such a small or make-shift altar might have been used by the colonial commissioners toperform the rites necessary to establish the colony and by the colony's first magistratesuntil more formal altars could be consecrated. It is important to note that we have nomid-Republican evidence that colonial altars were consecrated on the Roman model, e.g.the imperial altars which stipulate rituals as on the altar of Aventine Diana. 117TemplesWhat the military camps also did not have was a permanent temple built into the regulargrid structure on which they were designed. If the mid-Republican camps operated liketheir imperial counterparts, there were areas for the religious life of the camp, amongthem a shrine in the center of the camp for the legionary standards and divine images andthe platform for the augur to read the bird signs, both situated around the headquarters ofthe camp. 118The generals', and hence the commissioners', experience with the vowingand dedication of temples did not stem from their familiarity with camp religion. Rather,the generals' experience with introducing new temples in Rome was related to theirmilitary experience. Such experience arose not through building temples while oncampaign, but through vows which were made in the field but which resulted in templesback in Rome. 119From the mid-third to mid-second centuries, many temples in the city117 E.g. at Ariminum: CIL XI361, Cf. Bispham (2006), p. 73 and Beard, North, and Price (1998), Vol. 1, p.329 f.118 Beard, North, and Price (1998), Vol 1, p. 326. This is a discussion especially on the imperial army. Oneinscription for the shrine calls it the capitolium in 208 CE. It is unclear what the religious situation was incomparison to Republican camps, since Polybius does not mention religious space in his camp description.119 In general, temples in Rome were built for various reasons, which "as a rule... reflected andcommemorated some historical event in the history of the City." Temples were built to restore harmonyafter civil strife, to expiate prodigies, to avert disaster, to celebrate the end of a plague, to house a sacred136

were begun out of battle vows. 120These temples were built mainly from the booty wonon campaign, i.e. ex manubiis, hence their modern name manubial temples. From vow todedication, the temple-building process involved the general, priests, the senate, and the• • 1 9 1censors, along with the vote of the people to authorize the act of dedication.Of the 80 or so temples built under the Republic, there are records of the situation199leading to the vow of the temple for 48 of them.Of these, 39 were vowed in a military19^situation involving an enemy, mostly by generals on campaign.Thus, over half of thetemples founded in this period overall were related to military campaigns, and it ispossible that a great number of the unknown vow situations were also military-based,given the ratio of the military scenarios in the known vows. Therefore, generals oncampaign are the primary source of the vow to build a new temple in Rome for the periodof the Republic.Once a general vowed a temple, provided that the god chosen responded favorablyto the vow, the general returned to Rome, and requested that the senate grant him land onwhich to build his temple. 12419Sa general neighborhood for his temple.The general could request a specific location or perhaps justCensors were responsible for letting contractsobject newly acquired, and to commemorate a historic event. The impetus came from the advice of theSibylline books or from a vow by an individual. Stambaugh (1978), p. 557.120 Beard, North, and Price (1998), Vol. 1, p. 88. The Sibylline Books were another major initiator oftemple building in this period.121 CicDom. 36. Cf. Stambaugh (1978), p. 558.122 Orlin (1997), p. 18.123 Ibid. p. 19. 26 temples were vowed by a general on campaign, 11 were vowed in a particular waralthough the vower is unattested, and 2 (the temples of Mens and Venus Erycina) were vowed on the adviceof the Sibylline Books after the defeats at Trebia and Trasimene.124 Rupke (2006), p. 217. Only public land could be made into divine property (sacer) by the rite ofconsecratio. The senate disposed of all public land, so the general needed to request a plot for his temple.125 See Curti (2000) for the importance of the temples placed on the Quirinal hill in expressing politicalrivalries. See also Rupke (2006), p. 217, who notes that the choice of temple placement was a humandecision, unless a lighting strike claimed the land for a god.137

and for taking over the duties associated with a manubial vow in the cases where thegeneral was no longer in office. 126The temple itself was built out of the campaign booty,the manubium, but the burden of the upkeep and ritual expenses of the cult rested on thepublic purse, a decision which required senatorial approval. The priests were alsoconsulted, so that the temple would not create a breach of the pea deorum. For example,when the senate forbade M. Claudius Marcellus to construct a one-cella temple to Honosand Virtus, the consulted pontiffs cited the reason that one cella did not allow fordifferentiation between the portents sent by the two deities. 1 7Finally, the approvedtemple was built and then dedicated. There was sometimes as much as a decade betweenthe vow and dedication of the temple because the approval and construction processeswere so lengthy.The gods to whom the generals vowed temples were diverse. A general couldchoose a Roman deity or deified concept 129 or another god of his choice: between 300 and290 BCE, temples were built to Vediovis, Faunus, Fortuna Primigenia, and Juno Sospita,all local, Latin deities.In general, commanders could choose the deity that suited themthe best, as long as there was no objection from the priests and senators. 131Since the126 Stambaugh (1978), p. 565.127Val. Max. 1.1.8. Cf. Ando (2003), p. 12.128Rilpke (2006), p. 220. Inscriptions with dedicator name: ILS 20 = ROL 4:84 #82, Pliny HN 33.19, Livy9.46.6-7.129 Orlin (1997), p. 29. Cf. Rupke (2006), p. 220, who notes that the list of 76 public temples founded inRome between 302 and 44 BCE refutes the idea that there was a thorough hellenization of Roman religionfrom the third century on.130 Beard, North, and Price (1998), Vol. 1, p. 98. Fortuna Primigenia is leading deity of Praeneste; JunoSospita is the goddess of Lanuvium, and Vediovis had two temples, vowed by Furius Pupurio while he wasfighting against the Gauls, so perhaps this importation of the Latin version of a Gallic god was similar to anevocatio in nature.131 Beard, North, and Price (1998), Vol. 1, p. 105. In 222 BCE, pontiffs prevented M. Claudius Marcellusfrom dedicating a temple to Honos and Virtus with only one cella. Livy 25.40.1-3; 27.25.7-9; Cic. Verr.II.4.120-23; Nat. D. 11.1; Rep. 1.21; Asc. Pis. 12C. Cf. Wardman (1982), pp. 12-13.138

temple vows were made in context of a battle, there was also no time for the general toconsult the senate or priestly colleges on his deity of choice.The senate allowed thisindividual initiative in the vowing of temples because the location, construction, anddedication of the temple were in the hands of the senate itself. 133For the general, thechoice of deity may have depended on a sense of religious obligation on the part of thegeneral or from a familial predilection for a particular deity. Stambaugh notes that "justas surely, [manubial temples] demonstrated the prestige of the builder, his ability tobenefit the city and his desire to beautify it, and they contributed effectively to the publicrelationscampaigns of these generals as they rose to political prominence." 1Theaudience for such public-relations campaigns was, of course, the Romans in Rome, butthe process of vowing a temple and negotiating the stipulations of its location gave thegenerals, and hence the colonial commissioners who had undertaken this process,experience which would help them shape the religious space of the colonies.There is a record of specific affiliations with particular gods for threecommissioners. The first example is M. Fulvius Flaccus, whose religious influence onPisaurum occurred through his brother's censorial grant of a temple of Jupiter in thecolony. Second, P. Cornelius Scipio Nasica (founder of Aquileia, 183-1) had ties to theIdean Mother (204) and vowed games to Jupiter while on campaign in Spain in 193There is no evidence that the general gained permission from the senate before leaving on campaign.There is evidence of a temple built without permission of the senate, however: Ziolkowski (1992), p. 235.Cf. Orlin (1997), p. 4.133 Orlin (1997), pp. 8-9. "The means by which the Romans erected new temples thus sheds important lighton the relationship between individual initiative and collective responsibility in republican Rome."134 Stambaugh (1978), p. 583. This is shown in particular by the habit of inscribing the dedicator's name onthe temples and embellishing them with spoils from significant campaigns.

BCE.Finally, M. Aemilius Lepidus vowed temples to Diana and Juno Regina duringhis campaigns against the Ligurians in (187) and dedicated them in the Circus Flaminiusduring his censorship (179). 136While the other commissioners may have favoredparticular deities as well, we have no record of such dedication. Of the threecommissioners with specific affiliations, of which we are aware, Lepidus and Flaccusintroduced or reinforced their favored cults in the colonies they founded. Scipio Nasica,however, did not. Since we cannot say for certain that Scipio Nasica did or did not fosterspecific cults in Aquileia based on the evidence currently available, we must allow theevidence of Lepidus' religious influence in Luna and the Fulvii in Pisaurum to suggestcautiously that commissioners, as patrons of the colony, had the option of introducing orfostering cults in their colonies.Moreover soldiers and generals were the main importers of new religion in theRoman Republic; the ritual of evocatio, manubial temples vowed in battle, and the importof the cult of Bacchus and other foreign cults into Rome all attest to the tendency ofRoman military men, particularly the generals, to influence the physical manifestation ofRoman religion. In the third century, however, new cults, temples, and festivalsintroduced elements influenced by the widened frontiers Rome had seized fromcontinuous conflict with the Etruscans and Samnites.These imported deities and ideas135 Idean Mother: Livy 29.14, 35.10, 36.36, 36.40. Games of Jupiter: Livy 35.1, 36.36. Scipio Nasicaattempted to depart from the customary way to put on the games, as well: (36.36.1-2) Alter consul P.Cornelius Scipio, Galliam prouinciam sortitus, priusquam ad bellum, quod cum Bois gerendum erat,proficisceretur, postulauit ab senatu, utpecunia sibi decerneretur adludos, quos praetor in Hispania interipsum discrimen pugnae uouisset. nouum atque iniquum postulare est uisus; censuerunt ergo, quos ludosinconsulto senatu ex sua unius sententia uouisset, eos uel de manubiis, si quam pecuniam ad idreseruasset, uel sua ipse impensa faceret.136 Livy 39.2 and 40.52. See discussion in the chapter 5 (pp. 197 ff.).137 Curti (2000), pp. 77-79.140

affected the city's configuration as well as the ritual calendar.Perhaps mostimportantly, the deities came to be introduced primarily through the generals who werefighting against their influential enemies or through statesmen with connections to thosegenerals. 139Several very important conclusions can be drawn from this trend. First, Romanmagistrates, and therefore the commissioners, were open to the influence of foreign cults;this is seen by the introduction of new deities like Victoria, to whom an aedilician templewas dedicated in 294 BCE. 140This goddess was derived from contact with the late fourthcentury Nike cults in Magna Graecia and awareness of Alexander's conquests. 141Furthermore, the commissioners as former military men were comfortable with the notionthat they could and should found temples to their own tutelary deities. 142This attitudemust have had an effect on their individual contributions to the choices for the first godsof colonies, especially those founded ex novo. Since the commissioners were bothmembers of the senate and often commanders of the army, they were well aware of theability to influence their enemies through religion: the ritual ofevocatio as well as directsenatorial mandate, e.g. the senatus consultum de Bacchanalibus of 186 BCE, attests to138 North (1989), p. 616.139 For example, new temples erected along the Vicus Longus/Alta Semita around the turn of the thirdcentury include, but are not limited to, temples of Salus, Jupiter Victor, Flora, Tres Fortunae, Hora Quirini,and Quirinus. All of these were erected using money from campaigns. Cf. Curti (2000), p. 83. This showsthat the influx of deities influenced by contact with Magna Graecia did not eliminate the construction oftemples to traditional Roman deities, like Quirinus.140 Orlin (1997), p. 127.141 Beard, North, and Price (1998), p. 69. Around this time, other gods also were given the title of Victor orInvictus.142 Muccigrosso (2006), p. 192.141

this. 143 Some of the reasons why the commissioners and other magistrates might exertreligious control over their enemies were that appropriating the sacred object of an enemyfor Rome defeated the enemy permanently and added the power of enemy gods to Romeas well as undermining local loyalties, shattering the established religion of the localpotentates, and weakening the pretence of independence. 144The situation in the colonieswas not quite as inimical as these reasons suggest, however, because the colonists, whowere left behind after the commissioners completed their duties, had to live with whatremained of the defeated local population. Thus, the commissioners probably saw thevalue of incorporating or retaining local cults into the religious space of the new colony inorder to facilitate the relations between the colonists and the original inhabitants of thearea, especially in colonies not founded ex novo.In theory, appropriating the cult for the colony would still have reinforced thedefeat of the locals, but ideally it also would have transferred local loyalties to the colony,established a new authoritative religion, and allowed the locals not their ownindependence, but a place within the new polity. For example, Bispham has identified thenative Italic deity, Hercules, as a common feature in the divine landscape of the coloniesin preference to the purely Roman Capitoline Triad. 1 sSuch a theoretical picture ofde Cazanove (2000), p. 74. Livy 39.14.7; 17.4; 18.7-8. De Cazanove sees this only as an apparentexception to Roman non-intervention in their allies' religious life before municipalisation: coloniessubsequently established in the territories effected by the SC included: Sipontum, Buxentum (194,abandoned by 186) and Vibo Valentia (192), on which the ager Teuranus probably depended.144 Alcock (1993), p. 179. Alcock also notes that appropriating monuments, like Aemilius Paullus and thepillar of Perseus at Delphi, was not an economizing move, but 'harnesses the power of the past to purposesof the present.' (pp. 196-198)145 Bispham (2006), p. 113-122.142

incorporation through cult works also to meld the Latin and the Roman colonists into amore coherent whole. Indeed there is much evidence for the worship of common Latindeities in the colonies. 14V. ConclusionsThe pervading assumption that Roman colonization was controlled by a nebulous 'Rome'or by 'the senate' does not hold up in the face of the evidence for the role of the colonialcommissioners in the foundation process. Osborne defines the statist overtones ofcolonization as the notion in modern scholarship that the foundation of a colony is not thegoal, but a means to political and cultural control. 147If the Roman state or the senate as abody did want to use colonies as a way to control Italy, there would be more concreteevidence that the senate as a body mandated the political and cultural structure of everycolony; in short, that the senate deliberately acted to 'civilize' the local Italian population.Instead, the evidence we have indicates that an individual magistrate introduced a motionto found a colony, and the senate as a body merely decided whether it would be expedientfor a certain number of colonists to be sent there to form a Latin or citizen colony. Thesenate issued a consultum to this effect, which appointed a magistrate to arrange for a lawand for a commission. These consulta and the leges which arose out of them were ad hocmeasures; they did not conform to a preset model of colonization. The commissionerssometimes cooperated amongst themselves to submit their names to the presidingSee the discussions of Diana, Hercules, and Minerva in Chapter 5.Osborne (1998), pp. 251-252.143

magistrate as a pre-formed committee, and the presiding magistrate presented the comitiatributa with one or more options of committees to elect to found the colonies.After that, it was the commissioners themselves who decided what colonists toenroll, how to get them to their new home, how that new home was best organized giventhe terrain and the number of people, and who the magistrates and priests were. Thecommissioners were most often experienced military men, and so their role in thecolonial foundation sprung from their experience from former magistrates. It isunderstandable that the colonies are similar to one another since they were created out ofsimilar military, organizational, and religious experience. 148Even so, the colonies areneither identical to one another nor indistinguishable from the model of Rome. This isbecause the only point of contact between the Roman senate and the foundation of thecolony was the three commissioners, who planned the dilectus, transmitted the colonialcharter, and organized the physical space of the colony, sometimes introducing cults ortemples. The colonists themselves organized the calendar, the laws, and the basicreligious structure of the colony. Thus, if one studies the character of the coloniesthemselves, as Osborne urges, it becomes obvious that they were not founded by a Romanstatist agenda, but that they reflect the experience of the individuals who founded themand the needs of the individuals who inhabited them.Bispham (2006), n. 31 p. 130. This is Bispham's 'colonial office of the mind.'144

Chapter 4: Religious Landscape and Community BuildingI. IntroductionColonization as a phenomenon involves not only the people occupied with creating a newcolony, but also the local population that is host or neighbor to the colony and, equally asimportant, the landscape in which the colony is founded. As seen in Sluyter's model (cf.chapter 1), the concept of 'landscape' encompasses the material and physical features ofthe land as well as the definitions imposed on the land by its human inhabitants. 1Such alandscape can be described at the macro level, through the use of generalizing models, orat the micro level, through examination of specific sites and contexts. Chapter 3introduced the commissioners' influence over the colonial landscape in general.Expanding on this discussion, the purposes of the first two sections of this chapter are toexplore the ancient Roman definition of what a city landscape contained and also wherein the landscape religious action occurred.After this treatment of the macro-level models of ancient religious landscapes, thechapter turns to examples of certain colonies in Southern Italy: Fregellae, Paestum, andSora. These three studies suggest that the religious landscape of each colony, althoughunique in every case, acted to define boundaries, demarcate colonial space, claimcommon identities, and integrate various inhabitants into one, unified group. Moreover,each colonial pantheon had a unique level of correlation (or lack thereof) with the'Sluyter(2002),p.23.2 Riva and Stoddard (1996), p. 93. I follow Riva and Stoddard in embracing discussion of both the macroand micro level of landscapes (contra Tilley 1994). While the specific context landscape analysis is usefulfor understanding a single site, the generalized models offered in this chapter assist in illuminating trends,insofar as they exist, in colonial religious practices.145

eligious system at Rome. This suggests that there was no set policy of imposing Romanreligion on the mid-Republican colonies.II.Romans and the Landscape: City, Citizens, and GodsAs seen in chapter 1, the study of landscape in terms of religion and colonization iscurrently a popular topic in modern scholarship. It remains to verify that the importanceof religious spaces in a landscape is not an anachronistic imposition on a study of thecolonies of the period in question. Thus, the following section analyzes how a city wasdefined in the middle Republic and its historiography.The answer to how the Roman elite defined a city and its landscape lies withintheir treatment of cities that surrendered to the people of Rome. Two passages in Livy, inparticular, suggest that the Romans 4 considered a city to include people and theirbelongings as well as the natural and built landscape. Livy 1.38 presents a formula ofsurrender which King Tarquin demanded of the people of Collatia."Deditisne vos populumque Collatinum, urbem, agros, aquam, terminos, delubra,utensilia, divina humanaque omnia, in meam populique Romani dicionem? " Livy1.38.2."Do you surrender into my power and that of the People of Rome yourselves, and thepeople of Collatia, your city, lands, water, boundaries, temples, sacred vessels, allthings divine and human?" [C. Roberts, trans.]3 Examples include Crumley in Ashmore and Knapp (1999), Gargola (1995), Laurence in Wilkins (1996),Sluyter (2002), and Zanker (2000).4 The use of the collective noun "Romans" in the first two sections of this chapter is not intended to indicatethat each person living in Rome can be assumed to have held the same definition of landscape during themiddle Republic. Rather it follows the convention of authors such as Livy or Appian, who sometimesdiscuss the Roman people as a collective. For ease of discussing a general model of what a city wasaccording to the evidence we have from some members of the Roman elite or the historiographers of theRepublican period, the generalization "Romans" will be allowed to stand.146

This passage pertains to a period of time for which Livy cannot have had an accuratesource for the exact wording of the surrender terms; thus, the concept of the city was mostlikely one that pertained to the middle or late Republican period. Note that the itemssurrendered were not only the magistrates and the population, but also the urbs andtermini (human-defined spaces which could be marked physically) and the agri, aqua,delubra, and utensilia (material, physical, and religious elements of the landscape.) Thus,the city consisted of the people, the ideas they marked onto the landscape, and the thingsthey used in the landscape.Furthermore, in the surrender terms, Tarquin specified divina humanaque omnia,which stands as clarification of the previous list as well as a general description of acommunity comprised of everything sacred and secular. Another passage in Livy on thesurrender of Capua in 211 BCE confirms this conception of a city and its landscape."quosque una secum dedidere quaeque una secum dedidere agrum urbemque diuinahumanaque utensiliaque siue quidaliuddediderunt. " Livy 26.33.13."They have surrendered diverse persons together with themselves, as also their landand city with all things therein, sacred and profane, together with their goods andchattels and whatsoever else they had in possession." [C. Roberts, trans.]Here again, Livy counts the city as the combination of the people, their possessions, andthe physical landscape, which includes temples and religiously defined space. Laurencederives from this passage a definition of a city as the alliance of people and gods at astated location. 3Based on these two passages, however, it seems that the gods are a partof the temples, and thus an element of the landscape rather than the community. Moreevidence is needed to clarify the relationship between divine and human in a city.5 Laurence (1996), p. 116.147

A later dialogue elucidates the divina humanaquein both of the aforementionedLivy passages. Appian's account of the Roman demand for the surrender of Carthage inthe Third Punic War seems to have been based on the similar surrender of Capua. 6Thefirst of the following two passages conveys a reply from the Carthaginian Banno Tigillasin response to the Roman demand that the Carthaginians leave Carthage.UTTEP TE yap TTOAECOS TrapaKocAoOuEV dpxaias, xpn°UoTs UETCC 0EGOV auvopKiauEvris,

Roman general, Censorinus, is attempting to deprive of its human population. The godsremain in the city with their temples, which is in keeping with the strong correlationsbetween a divinity and the location of his or her sanctuary as observed throughout theGreek and Roman world. 7The gods require human attention, which the populationprovides through iravnyupe^, irouTTdi, and eopTdi. The cemeteries, too, are part of thecity's landscape. 8While the tombs have a physical presence in the landscape, they arealso symbolic of the people buried there, the ancestors who legitimize the possession ofthe land for their posterity and who, in turn, require offerings from them. Finally, thepassage illustrates one of the ways in which the landscape shapes the population: they are6aAaooo(3icb-roi, and would lose their livelihood if moved into the fields. By extension,the Carthaginians derive their self-identity from the ritual upkeep of their gods andancestors as well as from their occupations as sea-men. All in all, Banno asserts that itwould be better for the population to die completely than to be moved from its city and itssense of self.In reply to Banno's heartfelt plea, Censorinus asserts his intention to follow theRoman standard of dementia and not to harm those parts of the landscape that aresacred. 9ian8' inroKpiveaOE EAEETV tEpa icai sarias KOCI ayop&s KCU Tacpous - cov Tdcpoi \xevEOTCOV otKivnToi, Kal Evayi^ETE av/ToTs ETTEPXOMEUOI KCU TOIS ispoTs, 0UEIV EI 8EXETE,7 See, for example, de Polignac (1995, the English translation and update from the 1984 original) and thecollection of responses in Alcock and Osbourne (1994).8 Laurence (1996), p. 117 explains that Roman law divided property into sacred and secular. The sacredproperty included: res sacrae (temples and altars), res religiosae (tombs of the dead), and res sanctae (e.g.the actual city walls) {Dig. 1.8; Gai. Inst. 2.11; Crook (1967), p. 140). Ideally, these three types of sacredproperty were not defiled in warfare, although the temples were burned when the Romans finally tookCarthage.9 Laurence (1996), p. 116.149

ETTIOVTES, Tct 5E XOITTCX KQSEXCOUEV. ou yap Kai vecopiois 8UETE OU8' ivayi^ETETEIXSOIV. Ecrriag 8i Kai lEpa aXAa Kai dyopds EVI KOI UETEXSOVTOS Epydoaa6ai, KaiTaxu KaKETva uuTv sarai TraTpia, c£> Xoyco Kai TOC ev Tupop KaxaXiTrovTESfiXXd^aa8E AifJuriv TO TE E-rriKTTyra uutv TOTE yEvouEva vuv TraTpia TI8EO9E. App.Pun. 89(418-419)"Do not pretend that you are grieved for your temples, your shrines, your forum, yourtombs. We shall not harm your tombs. You may come and make offerings there, andsacrifice in your temples, as often as you like. The rest, however, we shall destroy. Youdo not sacrifice to your shipyards nor do you make offerings to your walls. You canprovide yourselves with other shrines and temples and a forum in the place you moveto, and presently this will be your country; just as you left your old ones in Tyre whenyou migrated to Africa, and now consider the newly acquired land your country." [H.White, trans.]The Roman general makes the distinction between the religious landscape, which heintends to preserve provided that the Carthaginians surrender, and the secular landscape,which will be destroyed in order to break the naval power and defensive capabilities ofthe Carthaginians. Furthermore, Censorinus asserts that the Carthaginians will make theirnew territory their TraTpia through the construction of new Ecrriai, iepa aXXa, anddyopdi. While the Carthaginians might be allowed to maintain their rituals at their oldtombs and temples, they are encouraged to colonize a new landscape and transfer theirworship, livelihood, and, therefore, their self-identification to it. Just as they becameCarthaginians once they left Tyre and made temples, tombs, and a forum in Carthage, sotoo would they adapt their identity to their new location. To the Roman general, the mostimportant aspect was that the Carthaginians move into a new physical space, while theCarthaginians strove to hold on to their conceived identity as Carthaginians. Thus,ultimately, the Carthaginians refused surrender under these terms, and the Roman armycaptured the city and destroyed it. 10App. Pun. 131, Livy Per. 51. Laurence (1996), pp. 117-119 notes that the account of the sack ofCarthage emphasized the burning of the city's main temple as a symbol of burning the whole city. As often150

As illustrated by these passages from Livy and Appian, the Romans conceived ofa city as a combination of the people and their possessions, which could be removed at aRoman general's discretion, and the material and religious landscape of the city itself,which could not, or at least should not, be removed. The material landscape wascomprised of the fields, the waterways, and the physical structures, including secularstructures like naval yards and walls, and sacred structures like temples and tombs. Theconceptual landscape included the human-imposed divisions of the space, such as thecommissioners' original designation of sacred and secular space, as well as the socialdefinitions affirmed through the landscape: citizenship of the city, self-identification asworshippers of the gods, and a connection to the land itself through honoring ancestralgraves. Through Censorinus' response, Appian highlights the way in which theCarthaginians, as colonists in a different location, were intended to adapt their newlandscape: they should appropriate the physical elements of their new home and recreatethe conceptual elements of the city they left behind, and thereby they would create a newpatria.This view of colonization acknowledges the relationship between colonists, theirmother city, and their new home. There are two further, interrelated considerations in therelationship between colonists and their landscape, however. First, there is the localpopulation and their relationship with the landscape to take into account. Second, thecolonial landscape, in whatever form its original inhabitants had given it, was not ain literary or pictorial sketches of a city, (such as on glass vessels depicting Puteoli (Laurence (1996), p.118 fig. 1)) one temple of great importance to the city came to act as a focus for civic identity. Laurenceconcludes that "these major temples can be seen to be the places where the inhabitants could express theirdistinctive qualities and feel the continuity with their ancestors who had worshipped there."151

passive element in the act of colonization. Thus, in situations where a colony was notfounded ex novo, the colonists had an extant cultural landscape to negotiate, especially inthe existing temples or shrines to local deities.Laurence suggests that it was the association of city, population, and gods that lentthe city cultural meaning over the course of time. 11Through beginning to worship inlocal sanctuaries, the colonists could insert themselves into the cultural meaning of aplace and allow themselves to be defined by their own processions to, and worship of, thetutelary deities of their new home. Similarly, at the same time as they built their civicstructures into the landscape, the land itself dictated their occupations: sea-farers, farmers,miners, etc. Eventually, the colonists shared with the locals the self-definition imposedby the landscape because the point of colonization is to control land, resources, andaccess routes, but the outcome of colonization is the creation of a new community in anew and dynamic landscape. In short, colonization, with its political and economicmotives, is the background situation in which the religious systems of the coloniesdeveloped.III.The Religious LandscapeThroughout the previous discussion of the interrelationships between landscape and thehuman elements of colonization, the gods, temples, and cemeteries manifestedthemselves as crucial nodes within the landscape. 12In Italy, the physical location of11 Laurence (1996), p. 120.12 Laurence (1996), p. 111 "the building and dedication of a temple created a node in the landscape thatneeded to be maintained and perpetuated by the attention of human activity, and it was difficult for such a152

temples or sanctuaries occurred in or near several landscape features: natural,geographical features such as hills, bodies of water, or groves; urban or suburbanlocations such as the center or edges of communities, cultivated areas, and transportroutes; and liminal areas such as cemeteries and territorial boundaries. Frankfurterconcludes, with reference to the imperial period, that "in this way, cult places bothintegrated and demarcated social identity."This observation holds true also for theRepublic.To simplify, there are five (more or less) distinct zones/features of the landscapein a colony: city, cemetery, transport network, cultivated land, and natural landscape, aswell as the borders between these features. 14Sanctuaries can be found in or near all fivelandscape zones (Figure 4.1), and thus, they are the best indicators of the interactionbetween locals and colonists. In effect, participation at a sanctuary can 'pin down' thelandscape for a group of people through 'competitive worship,' but it can also create ashared ideological landscape for both groups. The point is that, as the landscape is bothbuilding to be removed causing the temple to become part of the landscape." Cf. Laurence (1994), pp. 68-75.13 Frankfurter (2006), p. 548. Cf. Mitchell (1993), pp. 19-31; Derks (1998), pp. 132-44. Frankfurter urgesthat "we must consider a more complex series of overlapping and concentric "centers" for religious activityin the Roman world: minor temples, modest shrines, cultic places afforded by the landscape (springs,mountaintops), and the home itself."14 Frankfurter (2006), p. 548 has a similar list of sanctuary locations for the Roman imperial period:"Outside Rome, the location of temples and sanctuaries depended on landscape features (hilltops, rivers andsprings, forests), economy (the edges of cultivated areas, towns and districts seeking the favors of particulargods), and cultural or local identity (the boundaries or pilgrimage centers of agricultural, pastoral, warrior,or mercantile peoples)." For a categorization in a Greek context, see Pedley (2005), Chapter 4: "The Sitingof Sanctuaries" pp. 39-56. Pedley's discussion of the placement and function of sanctuaries in the Greekworld focuses on the following categories: natural, interurban, urban, suburban, extraurban, and ruralsanctuaries. These are slightly different from the categories introduced here, which are more pertinent toItalian and Roman religious systems for the Republic. I generated the categories for Figure 4.1 fromobservation of the placement of sacred sites in and around Roman and other Italian cities. Not every cityhas a sanctuary in every possible location, nor is the diagram intended to indicate a specific colonial siteplan.153

the object of control and the arena in which the struggle is made manifest, participation inthe ubiquitous religion and cults is one way for the dynamic of integration to manifestitself.Natural Landscape / Uncultivatedby Colony (Includes Springs,Caves, Groves etc.)Arrows indicate the possibleplacement of sanctuaries inthe landscapeKey to Sanctuary LocationsOGreco-Roman Type Cemetery^Colonial Farm Land1 - Caves, Springs, andGroves2 - Territory Border3 - Extra-Urban4 - Funerary Cult5 - Forum / Arx6 - Intra-city7 - Suburban8 - Roads, Harbors, andMountain PassesFigure 4.1: Abstract Model of the Colonial Landscape(NB: Does not indicate any preconceived or general colonial site plan)For the purposes of analyzing the relationships between the human elements ofcolonization and the religious landscape of specific colonies, it will be sufficient to focuson the colonists, locals, and religious landscape elements of the colonial agency diagramintroduced in chapter 1, Figure 1.3. The resulting triangle is given by Figure 4.2. As withthe colonial agency chart, the local population had an independent and (often) prior154

elationship with the religious landscape of a location. They defined sacred areas, createdsanctuaries and temples, and buried their ancestors in cemeteries (Figure 4.2, A).Through paying ritual attention to these places, the locals claimed the landscape anddefined themselves by it.Community built throughcommon worship?A: Create amworship atrural shrinesB: Adaptationof worship tonew custom(at least sharedworship)C: Respect for/introduction ofnew gods, newplaces, newprocessionsD: Monumentalization ofsome sanctuaries,E: syncretism with Romangods,F: introduction of Romanmodes of worshipReligious LandscapeIncludes Sanctuaries, Temples and GodsFigure 4.2: Religious Landscape Model of the Colonial TriangleWhen colonization entered the picture, the colonial commissioners defined whatspace would be sacred for the new community. 15As the colonists lived within thelandscape, they introduced some of their own gods, but also adopted some local deities(Figure 4.2, C, E, and F). 16 In turn, the local population adapted to the new modes of15 Thus, in the analysis of specific sites, wherever there is a suggestion that a commissioner or other humanelement affected the religious landscape, this will be presented as an extension of the triangle. For many ofthe colonies, however, either no commissioners are known or it is impossible to tell if a cult was the directresult of action by a commissioner. This is why commissioners are left out of the generalized model.16 Therefore, in this model, deities are treated as a fixed part of the landscape, just as in the Appian passagediscussed above.155

worship as well as continuing their own (Figure 4.2, B). Prosperity often broughtmonumentalization of the religious environment (Figure 4.2, D). As always, though, thelandscape influenced the religious practices of the colonists and the locals as they stroveto adjust to each other's adaptations of the religious landscape (Figure 4.2, B and C).Through this cross-pollination of religious ideas, the colonists and locals built acommunity. With the evidentiary cautions introduced in Chapter 1 (pp. 44 f.) in mind, letus turn to analysis of the development of sacred landscapes in Fregellae, Paestum, andSora. The focus of this chapter will be temples, which are securely positioned in thelandscape, as well as votive deposits, which indicate the presence of sanctuaries for whichthe exact location is sometimes conjectural. The following discussion demonstrates twopropositions: first that the religious landscapes of these colonies were distinct from oneanother and also from Rome; and, second, that the cults acted to define boundaries,demarcate colonial space, claim common Italic or Mediterranean identities, and integratevarious waves of colonists and locals into one, more or less unified community.The Religious Landscape in FregellaeFregellae lies along the left bank of the Liris River, in a place that was ideal to controlboth the access across the Liris near the junction with the Melfa River and also the routebetween southern Latium and northern Campania and the Tyrrhenian Sea. 17Due to theextreme strategic importance, this area was highly contested among the Volsci (originalinhabitants), the Samnites (western neighbors of the Volsci), and the Romans, amongSalmon (1970), p. 57. Maggi and Troso (2007), p. 263.156

others, throughout the fifth and fourth centuries BCE. 18The original town of the OpiciVolscians, also named Fregellae, was at the Arx Fregellae (Rocca d'Arce). 19TheSamnites destroyed the Volscian Fregellae in 345 BCE.In 328 BCE, the first Latincolony at Fregellae was planted, not at the old Volscian settlement, but along the Liris inorder to hinder Samnite penetration into the area. 21The colonists were forced to abandonthis colony after the Romans were defeated at the Caudine Forks.Upon regainingcontrol in 313 BCE, the unknown commissioners re-founded the Latin colony ofFregellae on the same location, this time successfully.In 177 BCE, a deputation of Samnites and Paelignians cited that 4,000 familieshad left their territory and moved to Fregellae, although there had been no decrease of themilitary supplement they owed to Rome, nor an increase in the Fregellan contingent. 24This influx of Samnites and Paeligni into Fregellae was effectively almost a thirdcolonization.It is likely that they were drawn to the prestige and prosperity ofFregellae, especially in light of the transhumant sheep routes controlled by the colony.The citizens of the town rebelled against Rome in 125 BCE; in response, the town wasCoarelli (1998), pp .29 ff. There was also an Etruscan presence in the region, which may have influencedthe Roman progression into the area in the fourth century. Cf. Quilici Gigli (1970); Colonna (1974).19 Coarelli (1998), p. 32.20 Livy 8.23.6; Dion. Hal. 15.8.5. See also Livy 8.19.1 for the Volscian embassy (from Fabrateria andLuceria) to Rome to asked for protection from the Samnites. See Coarelli (1998), p. 30 and a discussion onp. 47 for the date, which is unknown, but between 354 and 328. It is most likely 345, as a Samnite responseto Roman occupation of Sora.21 Salmon (1970), p. 57 and n. 69 on pp. 174-5. Cf. Livy 8.22.2. Salmon speculates that the (unrecorded)number of settlers was probably 2,500, the same as Cales and Luceria. Almost simultaneously (329), theRomans planted the citizen colony of Tarracina on territory taken from the Volscian city of Privernum,south of Fregellae on the Tyrrhenian coast (Livy 8.21.11; Veil. Pat. 1.14.4).22 Salmon (1970), p. 58.23 Ibid. p. 59. Rome re-established both Cales and Fregellae, but it is unknown whether extra men were sentor not. The primary sources are silent on the re-founding of the colony, although it is a certainty from thesubsequent role of Fregellae in the Hannibalic War.24 Livy 41.8.6-12; Strabo 5.233, 237.157

destroyed by the Roman praetor, L. Opimius, and subjected to a devotio. The townOftbecame a village with a market and a few cults.A new colony was founded the nextyear at Fabrateria Nova, south of Fregellae on the other side of the Liris River.Thiswas effectively the end of Fregellae as an independent city, let alone a place of greatinfluence among the Latin colonies and their allies.For the religious topography of Fregellae, it is necessary to turn to the physicalremains of the landscape. Excavations in Fregellae have yielded a fortress of polygonalmasonry on the summit of the Rocca d'Arce, with datable material from the Bronze tolate Iron Ages. 28This corresponds to the original Volscian Fregellae, which dominatedthe pre-Via Latina travel route through the area. Archaeologists also uncovered a publicarea with two areas of habitation and a number of possible sanctuaries in the Opri Plain. 29Habitation on this plain existed from the end of the fourth century BCE, whichcorresponds to the dates of both Latin colonies (328, 313). 30Thus, it is likely that theLatin colony of Fregellae was founded ex novo, i.e. on virgin territory. Unfortunately,many of the sanctuaries in and around Fregellae have not yet been fully excavated, and sotheir dates and attributions remain conjectural. There is still enough data about the forum25 Coarelli (1998), p. 40.26 Strabo 5.3.6. Cf. Coarelli (1998), pp. 41-45 for destruction and continuity within the town.27 For later references to the city see: Cic. Brut. 170; Plut. C. Grac. 3.1; Cic. Fin. 5.62; Phillipp. 3.17; LivyPer. 60; Obseq. 30, 52; Auth. adHeren. 4.14, 22, 37; Veil. Pat. 2.6.3; Val. Max. 2.8.4; Amm. Marc.25.9.10; Macrob. Sat. 3.9; Strabo 5.237; Cic. Inv. rhet. 1.8.11; Fest. 91M; Plin. NH 3.64; Columella Rust.3.2.27; C/LX p. 546.28 Coarelli (1998), p. 4829 Ibid. Cf. in brief Maggi and Troso (2007), p. 263.30 For habitation dates see Coarelli (1998), p. 48. Monti (1998) posits the theory that the first Latin colony(328) was located in the Volscian city on Rocca d'Arce, and the second (313) on the plain. There is notenough evidence to confirm or exclude this theory.158

area, the extra-urban cult of Aesculapius, and the locations of the other sanctuaries todraw some conclusions as to the role of the religious landscape in shaping the colony.Excavations have revealed a comitium and curia complex at the north end of theforum, to the eastern side of the Via Latina.Adjacent to the comitium are the remainsof a small temple with architectural terracottas pertaining to at least three building phases,from the end of the fourth century through the beginning of the second century BCE.The first phase is practically contemporaneous with the foundation of the Latin colony.The second phase of architectural terracottas dates from the first decades of the secondcentury BCE, contemporary with the monumentalization of the comitium complex. Theterracottas are in a very polished Hellenistic style, with the additional feature of a Greekname in Latin characters scratched into one of the architectural pieces. This suggests thatthe temple was decorated by a Greek artist, who might have been hired during one of theeastern wars (in which the Fregellans participated) to complete a more monumental,sophisticated city center for the colony.This is the same move towards monumentalization which can be seen in the ,second phase of the neighboring curia. The renovation of this monument is analogous instructure with late-Republican temple-theater structures, in particular the theater-TempleB complex at Pietrabbondante, the common sanctuary of the Samnite Penetri. 34Thisconnection may be significant given the late date of the parallel at Pietrabbondante, builtnearly a century after the complex at Fregellae. It suggests the possibility that the31 See Coarelli ed. (1998), Table 2, p. 122 and Table 3, p. 123 after G. Batocchiori and L. Romagnoli.32 Coarelli(1998),p.60.33 Ibid.34 Ibid.159

erstwhile monuments of Fregellae imprinted on its Sabellic inhabitants, who thenrecreated the architectural shape in their common sanctuary. At the very least, Fregellaewas one of the forerunners of this architectural trend.Such a close location to, and contemporaneous monumentalization with, thecomitium and curia complex, suggests that the forum temple venerated a cult with apolitical character. This is confirmed by the total absence of ex votos found at the templethus far. The temple was probably the location of sacrifices before assemblies thatoccurred in the comitium and curia, but not a center for the more personal sort of worshipthat accumulated small terracotta offerings for the god. Based on an inscription to thegoddess Concordia found in Fabrateria Nova, 35 the substitute colony founded after thedestruction of Fregellae, and the political nature of the forum temple, Coarelli suggeststhat the temple was dedicated to Concordia.This seems a likely attribution. In Rome,the tribune Gnaius Flavius dedicated a temple of Concordia in the forum in 304 BCE,when tensions between plebeians and patricians were running high.The personificationof Concordia was one of a number of new, abstract deities inspired in Rome in the latefourth and early third centuries through contact with the Greeks in Southern Italy. 38Homonoia, the Magna Grecian and Sicilian equivalent of Concordia, symbolized thepolitical shift from an oligarchy to democracy, and the cult served as a religious guarantor3iCIL X 5574.36 Coarelli (1998), p. 60. There is a parallel cult to Concordia in the forum of Cosa.37 Livy 9.46. Two notes about this passage: first, this is the incident that prompted the senate to affirm thatonly generals and consuls could dedicate temples in Rome. Second, Livy said Gnaius Flavius also servedon the commission to found a colony, although no colony is mentioned. The coincidence between the refoundingof Fregellae in 313 or 312, a temple of Concordia in the forum of Fregellae, and Flavius' knownconnection with Concordia is intriguing, but there is not enough evidence to link these events conclusively.38 Curti (2000), p. 80. Cf. Giangiulio (1982), pp. 981-92.

of the new order.In Rome, it has been argued that Flavius intended the temple ofConcordia to represent a new way of conceiving the community of patrician and plebeianelites, as they merged into a new oligarchy for Rome. 4Concordia's message of new order and the melding of parts of the populationcould have corresponding significance within the context of the colony of Fregellae. It isimportant to recognize that the evidence for this particular goddess in the forum temple atFregellae is tentative: it rests on the location of the temple and the assumption that thegoddess was transferred from Fregellae to Fabrateria Nova. This evidence allows us toposit the attribution of the forum temple at the time of the destruction of the city, but doesnot indicate at which phase of the temple the cult was adopted. The first phase of thetemple can be dated concurrently with the foundation of the colony. At this time, therewas little requirement for the political or social implications of a cult of Concordia.Moreover, Concordia had not yet been introduced into Rome, and the colonists may ormay not have had their own contact with the Greek towns of Southern Italy.For the second phase of the forum temple (early second century), the Hellenisticstyle and Greek artist for the temple demonstrate contact between the Fregellans andGreeks, probably gained through the former's participation in Rome's war againstAntiochus III of Syria, c. 190 BCE. 41The colonists, or at least their magistrates, wouldalso have been aware of the temple in Rome and its connotations. Livy's and Cicero's39 Curti (2000), pp. 80-81.40 Curti (2000), p. 81. See also Colonna (1981), p. 232 for the joining of patrician and plebeian elite.41 Several friezes preserved in the Museo Archeologico di Fregellae in Ceprano depict trophies, a wingedVictory with an oracular tripod, and ships. These friezes most likely adorned the tablinum of a house whichbelonged to one of the Fregellans that participated in the war against Antiochus. Coarelli (1998), pp. 63-64.161

mentions of the Fregellan emissaries to Rome on behalf of the Latins in 209 BCE and 177BCE demonstrate at least that two of the Fregellan political elite saw the Roman templeof Concordia, which had been built in the Roman forum in 304 BCE. 42In the third phase of the temple (second century), the descendants of the originalLatin and Roman colonists were dealing with the influx of Samnite and Paelignicolonists. Concordia and her ability to safe-guard the melding of different but parallelclasses of the population would have resonated with the Fregellan elites and their newSabellic counterparts. 43I suggest that the temple in the forum of Fregellae took on adedication to Concordia during the second century, either through Greek influence or outof need for the political and social implications of the cult as introduced in Rome, orboth. 44If the latter is the case, then the religious landscape of Fregellae acted as a canvason which the colonists' anxiety over the changing population was made manifest andameliorated.The three other urban and suburban cult places in Fregellae have not yet beenexcavated. 45There is a small temple west of the forum but east of the river; votiveterracottas have been found there, but there is no other information about the sanctuary orits attribution. 46In the northeastern quadrant of the city, fragments of terracottaarchitectural pieces surfaced in a test trench dug in 1992, but again there is no42 209 BCE: Livy 27.9.2 ff., 10.3 f.; 177 BCE: Cic. Brut. 170.4j See Coarelli (1998), pp. 40-41 for the blending of parallel classes of the population.44 Before assimilation to Concordia, this temple may have been dedicated to any deity. It is dangerous tospeculate which one without risking a hypothesis based on (or in arbitrary opposition to) the notion thatRoman and Latin colonies tried to duplicate a Roman religious landscape.45 Coarelli (1998), p. 61.46 Nicosia (1979), pp. 28-34; Crawford (1985), p. 93.162

information about the deity or the sanctuary as of yet.The third of the sanctuaries is thesuburban shrine, possibly dedicated to Hercules, in the southeastern quadrant of the city.At this location, excavators found votive terracottas and black-painted ceramic ware, insome cases painted with a letter 'H.'While examples exactly like this appear only inFregellae, the phenomenon of'H' inscribed pocula deorum are common in sanctuaries ofHercules. 49It is not surprising to find evidence of a cult of Hercules at Fregellae because thecult is common throughout central Italy and especially in Sabellic areas. 50A commonfeature of the myth of Hercules' travels throughout Italy was the friendly union betweenGreek and native as depicted through Hercules' relationships with native women as wellas through the ultimate submission of natives to the traveling Greeks. 51This is aparticularly powerful message in a colonial setting, especially for the colonists who areattempting to pacify the local populations. Moreover, since the Samnites and Paeligniwere among the native people to adopt the worship of Hercules, a cult place near thesouthern exit to the valley suggests a conceptual boundary where Hercules is mediatingCoarelli, (1998), p. 61. This is probably the same area as the one in which Colasanti found the element ofthe thesaurus, conserved on the Fiorelli farm (Colasanti (1906), pp. 101-103, Coarelli (1981), fig. 19 on p.41).48 Nicosia (1979), pp. 26-28; Crawford (1985), p. 93, fig. 2.49 Morel (1973), p. 49.50 Coarelli (1998), p. 61. Cf. Torelli (1993).51 Leigh (2000), p. 127. The Cacus myths offer a slightly more complicated pattern of interaction betweenHercules and the Italians. In the prose versions of Livy (1.7.3) and Dionysius of Halicarnassus (Ant. Rom.1.39), Cacus is a local thief whom Hercules overcomes before making an alliance with King Evander. Thepoetic reworks of this myth, beginning with Virgil (Aen. 8.185-275), cast Cacus as an ogre (Cf. Ovid Fast.1.543-86 and 5.643-52; Prop. 4.9.1-20). This later version perhaps reflects the influence of a satyr drama(Cf. Sutton (1977)). The ultimate conclusion of the episodes leaves Hercules in a position of power relativeto the native populations.52 Salmon (1967), pp. 170-171 and n. 1 on p. 171. There was an important Sabellic shrine to Hercules onthe border between Nola and Abella (Pulgram (1960), pp. 16-29) and a possible sanctuary to the god inPaelignian territory at Monte Morrone.163

etween the mixed Sabellic and Latin Fregellans and their Aumncan and Campanianneighbors to the south.Finally, Hercules cults are also connected with sheep farming and transhumance,such as that practiced in the Sacco and Litis Valleys. 54Again, this might have links withthe third wave of Fregellan colonists, who moved to the area in part because of itseconomic prosperity. 55More excavation is needed to determine if the date of thesanctuary allows us to posit that it was something the Samnites and Paeligni brought withthem, or if these new inhabitants adopted this extant and familiar cult to help ease theirrelationship with their new Latin fellow-townsmen. All we can say with any certaintynow is that Hercules was worshipped with the pocula deorum, which were inspired byRoman custom. 5Fregellae also boasted several extra-urban sanctuaries, the most prominent ofwhich was the sanctuary of Aesculapius, located northwest of the city on an elevated spurin the terraces overlooking a possible route to a port on the Liris. 57From the end of thefourth century, the site was the location of a healing cult, which left little trace in theterrain but an abundance of votive terracottas. 58The cult seems to have honored a water53 Torelli (1993), pp. 114-117.54 Y or for a pecuaria in the region see CIL X 5074 (Atina); 5850 (Ferentinum). A parallel cult at AlbaFucens suggests there may have been aforumpecuarium near the sanctuary of Hercules in Fregellae. Thehouses in Fregellae from the second century BCE had rooms ideal for the washing of wool, which confirmsthat the forum was most likely for sheep instead of cattle.55 Frayn(1993),p.99.56 See the discussion of these artifacts in chapter 5, pp. 216-217.57 Coarelli (1998), p. 62 and Fregellae 2 (1986). Coarelli notes that the sanctuary may not have been builtoutside the city walls, but perhaps only outside ihepomerium, because of the foreign and medical characterof the cult. This suggestion is based on some blocks found halfway down the hillside, which may be wall orpart of the road to the port (cf. Monti (1999), p. 38), and also the assumption that the cult was consideredforeign outside of Rome, which is uncertain.58 Monti (1999), p. 36; Lippolis (1986), pp. 38-41; Cornelia (1986), pp. 75-81.164

guardian and fertility goddess, which is not surprising given the proximity of the LirisRiver. 59The terracotta votives also relate to the cult of Mefitis, an Oscan goddess relatedto sulphurous fumes. 60Thus, the original deity that the Latin colonists chose to worshipin this location was of local derivation.During the second century, the Fregellans dedicated to Aesculapius a monumentalsanctuary with temple complex on the same terrace, overlooking a valley that led down tothe river port. The Tuscan-style edifice occupied the center of a slightly lower terrace andfaced back toward the forum of the colony, with a scenographic disposition adopted frommonumental Hellenistic architecture. 61At the center, the temple sat on top of a cementpodium with a portico boasting red stucco columns and walls painted in the first style.Near the stairs leading up to the pronaos, there was a small money-box consisting of ashaft of small, stone blocks closed by a hemispheric cover. 63The hillside opposite thesanctuary was perhaps used as a natural cavea or was completed with wooden structuresfor the duration of any games presented. 4On the whole, the terrace complex had aspectacular view overlooking the river valley and the access thereto, as well as a theaterarea, which are features of sanctuaries to Asklepios in the wider Greek world, whereinsick guests were lodged in a healthful environment. 65The Fregellan complex was one ofthe first models of this type of edifice located on a terrace in Italy; parallels are foundMaggi and Troso (2007), p. 264.Glinister (2006), p. 22 with bibliography.Coarelli (1998), p. 62; Monti (1999), p. 38.Monti (1999), pp. 38-40; Maggi and Troso (2007), p. 264.Monti (1999), p. 38.Coarelli (1998), p. 62; Monti (1999), p. 38.Monti (1999), pp. 36-38.165

more often in the Eastern Aegean, for example at Cos, Delos, and Rhodes.This use ofHellenistic spatial arrangement may indicate that this complex, too, was designed by aGreek architect, although with continued use of local, traditional architectural forms. 67The implications are that this cult and temple was not a direct Roman imposition so muchas it implies that the Fregellans were following Greek tradition, perhaps with the help of aGreek craftsman, who nevertheless incorporated local traditions.The date of the monumental Aesculapius complex is debated, although the debateis only between periods falling within the first half of the second century BCE. The cruxof the argument is whether it was built before or after the Samnite and Paeligni colonistsjoined Fregellae in 177 BCE. Based on the first-style painting in the portico, Coarelli/TOplaces the date in the mid-second century or a little before.This date would correspondwith a continued state of economic prosperity following the influx of Samnite andPaeligni colonists. Monti argues instead that the date should be placed in the earlysecond century, just after 190 BCE, because of similarities to the temple of Veiovis in theCampidoglio in Rome. 69If this is the case, Monti argues, perhaps Aesculapius wasintroduced into Fregellae after the elites came into contact with the deity during the firstSyrian War. 70This would be contemporary with the monumentalization of the forum,which also shows influence from the Greek East. The debate is essentially whether56 Monti (1999), pp. 38-39; Maggi and Troso (2007), p. 264.67 Monti (1999), p. 39.68 Coarelli (1998), p. 62; Monti (1999), p. 40.69 Monti (1999), pp. 49-50. Monti cites the same plan, same feast days (p. 49, n. 93; Livy 34.53.7, CIL I 2pp. 231, 305; et ai), same proximity to water, and the association of Apollo to Veiovis. Maggi and Troso(2007), p. 264, also follow this date.70 Monti (1999), p. 50. Maggi and Troso (2007), p. 264, associate the cult at Fregellae with the importationof Aesculapius to Rome in 291 BCE.166

Fregellae's economic prosperity, which led to the construction of the Aesculapiuscomplex, drew new Samnite and Paeligni colonists, or the new colonists contributed tothe economic prosperity which created the Aesculapius complex.Two more extra-urban shrines have come to light through various archaeologicaland construction projects performed near the excavation site of Fregellae. The first isalong the Via Latina at the northern exit from the colony. Traces of a sanctuary, locatedjust before the highway overpass, were casually reported after road work was carried outthere in 1990. 71These include undated fragments of architectural terracottas andterracotta slabs bearing fragments of a large, unreadable inscription done in relief. Adove motif found among these fragments suggests that this sanctuary may have beendedicated to Venus. Architectural pieces from another extra-urban sanctuary werediscovered along the Melfa River, southeast of Fregellae, near Roccasecca. Themonastery of S. Vito there incorporated blocks of stone associated with a Republicanbridge across the Melfa as well as a pagan temple located on the bank of the river. 72Thetemple fragments seem to belong to an older part of the temple, which was destroyed byCarthaginian troops during the Second Punic War. 73The deity is unknown, but thetemple did lie on the southeastern border where the Via Latina left Fregellan territory onits way to Interamna Lirinas. 74Thus these two sanctuaries arguably may be taken to markthe borders where the Via Latina leaves the site of Fregellae at the northern edge of theOpri Valley and where the road exits Fregellan territory to the southeast.7I Coarelli(1998),p. 62.72 Giannetti (1976), pp. 44-45.73 Livy 26.9.1-13 for Carthaginian activities around Fregellae.74 Giannetti (1976), p. 37.

To summarize, then, the original colonists of Fregellae (328) had altars tounknown deities, but were not yet able to build temples before the Samnites exterminatedthem. 75During the end of the fourth century, probably after the second colonization(313), the colonists worshipped a fertility deity on the terraces overlooking the Liris andalso built a temple in the forum. A century or more later, in the first half of the secondcentury BCE, the Fregellans reworked the forum temple to include the goddess Concordiaand also to demonstrate the prosperity of the city. At the same time or shortly thereafter,the terrace sanctuary underwent monumentalization to include Aesculapius and reflectHellenistic tastes. Both cults united the Fregellans with their new Samnite and Paelignineighbors, as did the cult of Hercules. Both were also a sign of the continued economicprosperity of Fregellae. In short, the economic and political landscape influenced thereligious practices of the colonists and the locals as they strove to adjust to each other.Through this cross-pollination of religious ideas, the colonists and locals built acommunity.Although the possible sanctuaries of Hercules, Venus, and those along the ViaLatina cannot be dated, and so the development of the sanctuaries cannot be inserted intothe community building between the Fregellans and Samnites and Paeligni, they doexplicate Fregellan control over their religious environment. The sanctuaries and templesof Fregellae lie within four of the five landscape zones illustrated by Figure 4.1, above:namely, within the city (Concordia temple, Hercules, et al), along transport routes75 Livy 9.12.5-8. Appian's discussion of the fall of Carthage (Pun. 89) includes temples as one of the mainconcerns of the inhabitants of that ancient city, which suggests that Livy might have mentioned them inconnection to the fall of the first Fregellan colony for greater impact, if they had existed. Eight years is alsoa very short time for colonists founding their city on virgin territory in a hostile region to found temples.168

(Venus(?) sanctuary, temple on the Melfa River, and Aesculapius complex), in cultivatedland (Hercules shrine), and in the natural landscape (the terraces of the Aesculapiuscomplex). In short, the Fregellan religious spaces acted to define Fregellan control overthe Via Latina and the Liris River Port as well as over the colonial territory in general, tomark the source of the economic prosperity of the city, to connect the health of thepopulation with the purity of the natural landscape, and, ultimately, to conceptually andideologically integrate populations within the city.As a final observation, the identified cults of Fregellae, including the cult in theforum, are not to the gods traditionally identified as central to the Roman state cult.Concordia and Aesculapius were foreign gods or inspired by foreign gods, and joined theRoman pantheon during the course of the middle Republic. Both were influenced byGreek or Magna Grecian cults, whence also their import to Fregellae seems to have come.Even the cult of Hercules was a wider Italic cult of travel, transhumance, and colonialcommunity. The Roman cult was located in the Forum Boarium near the Tiber RiverPort, whereas the Fregellan cult was located away from the Liris river in what may havebeen the pasture area for the colony. The most that can be said for these two cults is thatthey partake of the same Greek myths and Italic traditions. Overall, the cults of Fregellaewere not a copy of the cults of Rome as translated by the Latin colonists, but developed intheir own right out of the needs of the inhabitants of their own city.169

The Religious Landscape ofPaestumThe Roman re-colonization ofPaestum (Greek Poseidonia) and the subsequentadaptations of the religious system there provide a contrast to the ex novo foundation ofFregellae. Paestum received a contingent of Latin colonists in 273 BCE, as a sistercolony to Cosa. 76The colonists occupied and partially reshaped the earlier Greek colonyof Poseidonia, which had been founded around 600 BCE and transferred under Lucanian77hegemony at the end of the fifth century BCE.The multiple shifts in controldemonstrate the strategic importance of this coastal town in the southern Gulf of Salerno,on the fertile alluvial plain between the mouth of the rivers Silarus and Capodifiume (to78the northeast and south, respectively).Prosopographic evidence suggests that thepopulation ofPaestum after the foundation of the Latin colony was mixed, including both7Qpeople of Latin and Oscan descent.Thus, the Roman colonists joined the remainingGreek and Lucanian populations of the city instead of driving them out of the cityaltogether. 80The Greek colony of Poseidonia celebrated a rich and varied religious life, withtwo major sacred precincts within the city (labeled the North and South Sanctuaries inmodern studies) as well as numerous suburban and extra-urban sanctuaries. 81Thus, whenthe Latin colonists joined this thriving city, there was already a significant local religious76 Veil. Pat. 1.14.777 Greco, D'Ambrosio, and Theodorescu (1996), pp. 15-17.78 Muggia, Anna. Brill's New Pauly. (2009) s.v. "Poseidonia, Paistos, Paestum."79 Bradley (2006), p. 175; Torelli (1999a), p. 76; Crawford (2006); Salmon (1970), p. 174 n. 65; andDegrassi (1967) III.338.80 Bradley (2006), pp. 172-173; Torelli (1999a), p. 43. According to Greco (1988, p. 82), the Latin colonyincreased the overall territory of the city from 70 to 120 ha.81 See Ammerman (1993), p. 135.170

landscape with a Greek pedigree not disturbed by its later Lucanian masters.Inside thecity, the colonists retained the use of nearly all of the sacred spaces with the exception ofthose related to the Greek and Lucanian political administration, such as those at theekklesiasterion and the heroon.Otherwise, the newest colonists did not significantly add to the religiouslandscape of Paestum, with a few minor exceptions. Instead they immersed themselves inthe local religious system. What follows is a summary of the colonists' significantchanges to the religious landscape (the ekklesiasterion, heroon, and early small temples)and continued use of certain temples (in both urban sanctuaries as well as extra-urbansites) with a view to how the slight changes in the religious system affected both colonistsand locals. The Latin colonists made changes to the fabric of Paestum, but gradually andwithout destroying many of the monumental structures of the former rulers there. 84Among the changes that were made were the ritual burial of the heroon andekklesiasterion. The original construction of the heroon dates to the late sixth or earlyfifth century BCE; the small, door-less and windowless structure adorned the western sideof the Greek agora? 5In Greek colonies, such shrines commemorated the oikistes (real ormythical) after his death and served as a focus for rituals relating to the health of the82 Crawford (2006), p. 63.83 For the ekklesiasterion and heroon see Torelli (1999a), p. 16. For reuse of the Greek temples: Bradley(2006), p. 173 and, in general, Torelli (1999a) and Crawford (2006) with further bibliographical references.84 Crawford argues this convincingly throughout his 2006 article.85 Torelli (1999a), p. 16. Greco (2001b), pp. 48-52. Wilson (2006) pp. 46-47 notes that the shrine had nohuman remains, and so may have been the cenotaph of a hero, possibly the founder of Sybaris, which wasdestroyed in 510 BCE. Refuges from Sybaris may have brought the cult to Poseidonia or urged the citizensthere to create their own founder's cult.171

community. This was very different from the Roman practice of founding colonies, inwhich the three colonial founders returned to Rome to continue their careers.As a symbol of the political health of the Greek colony, the heroon was anideological threat to the dominance of the new, Latin colony. Thus, the Latin coloniststiled the roof, constructed a protective wall around the shrine, and buried it.Thematerial from the fill dates from the fourth through the beginning of the third centuryBCE, so it seems that the Latin colonists buried the heroon very shortly after thecolonization in 273 BCE.The significance of the burial is that it removed the heroonfrom sight and from its original festal use without impinging on the sacred nature of thesite. The Latin colonists respected the hero divinity by not destroying the sacellum;rather, their action sent a clear message of the change in political authority to theremaining Greek and Lucanian inhabitants.The other change to the religious landscape of Paestum stemming from thepolitical conversion of Latin colonization was the ritual burial of the ekklesiasterion andits associated sanctuary. The ekklesiasterion had been the political meeting place for theGreek colony and was used in the same capacity by the later Lucanian populace, as seenby a stele found there with a painted Oscan inscription to Jupiter in Greek letters. 89TheLucanians also built a small temple, perhaps a reconstruction of a more ancient structure,in the area of the ekklesiasterion. This temple was probably to Zeus Agoraios, based on86 We have no evidence that the commissioners remained in the colonies, as a rule. Moreover, while thecommissioners became patrons of the colony, they were not apotheosized upon their death as protectors ofthe colony, as Greek founders could be.87 Greco, D'Ambrosio, and Theodorescu (1996), pp. 39-41.88 Greco (2001b), p. 49.89 Ibid., p. 53. Cf. Greco, D'Ambrosio, and Theodorescu (1996), pp. 43-45.

analogy to other Greek towns such as Metapontum as well as the inscription on theLucanian stele. 9As with the heroon, the Latin colonists ritually buried the ekklesiasterion andeventually constructed their own sanctuary above and slightly to the north of it. 91Curti,Dench, and Patterson assert that the colonists of 273 BCE destroyed the structure justafter the colonization, 92 but the contents of the fill over the cavea suggests that theekklesiasterion was not buried until c. 200 BCE.This does not indicate that it was stillin use as a meeting place in the early generations of the Latin colony, while the comitiumwas under construction, although this is possible. 4The Lucanian stele was left in place,so probably the destruction was not immediate and total. After the ritual burial of theekklesiasterion, the citizens of Paestum built a new sacred complex over the top;subsequent use as a Medieval cemetery and poor excavation record-keeping prevent asecure attribution to any particular deity. 95A small bronze plaque from the third centuryBCE, inscribed with 'IVE' and found in the forum area suggests that a cult to Jupitercontinued in Paestum, but this artifact cannot be connected to any particular structure. 9690 Greco (2001b), p. 53. Cf. Crawford (2006), p. 63; Greco, D'Ambrosio, and Theodorescu (1996), pp. 42-43. The stele was dedicated c. 300 BCE in fulfillment of a vow by Statis Statilies to Jupiter, whichindicates that the Lucanians probably continued use of the ekklesiasterion and worship of its patron god,although under a different name.91 Torelli (1999a), p. 16. Cf. Greco, D'Ambrosio, and Theodorescu (1996), pp. 43-46.92 Curti, Dench, and Patterson (1996), p. 186.93 Crawford (2006), p. 65.94 Torelli (1999a), p. 23. See Crawford (2006), pp. 65-66 for the caution on whether it was in use or not.95 Greco, D'Ambrosio, and Theodorescu (1996), p. 46.96 Torelli (1999a), p. 34. IVE is an archaic formulation: Iu(v)e(i) = '(sacred) to Jove' Torelli would like toassociate this piece with the North Sanctuary, where a block inscribed with lovei {ILP 5 = CIL I 2 3147) wasfound (Torelli (1999b), pp. 52-53). I see no reason why there could not have been two altars or shrinesdedicated to Jupiter in Paestum. In any case, we do not have enough evidence for the exact location(s).173

In addition to these politico-religious actions, the Latin colonists built severalsmall temples and shrines in the northern part of the South Sanctuary as well as a piscina07shrine, Marsyas dedication, and a temple in the forum.These structures were not allbuilt or even planned at the moment of colonization, but arose over the course of the nextfew centuries. The gods venerated in them include Hercules, Mater Matuta, MagnaMater, Mens Bona, Marsyas, and Venus Verticordia/ Fortuna Verilis, none of which arethe gods of the Roman state even if most of them have strong Roman precedents.Perhaps the first of the new temples built in the Latin colony was the so-calledItalic temple, which was at the northernmost reaches of the South Sanctuary. The smalltemple (15 x 7.2m) was oriented on a north-south axis in line with the construction of theORbuildings in the new forum.It faced into the existing sanctuary, but was separated fromit by the temenos wall." Ultimately, the construction of the basilica on the southern sideof the forum required the demolition of this temple in the Augustan period, when a newsmall temple was built to the west. 100Torelli finds the placement of this templesignificant: it defined the border between the South Sanctuary and the new forum of thecolony. 101Such a placement also indicates, according to Torelli, that the deity veneratedin this temple was not immediately identifiable with the Greek gods already worshippedin the sanctuary. Based on this separation and the find of statuettes of babies in97 See Pedley (1990), figure 3 for a map of the city. See also Torelli (1999a), pp. 48-49, although thereferences to the map of the south sanctuary throughout Torelli's text are confused.98 Greco, D'Ambrosio, and Theodorescu (1996), p. 69.99 Torelli (1999b), p. 61.100 Torelli (1999a), p. 61. Cf. Greco, D'Ambrosio, and Theodorescu (1996), pp. 65, 68-70.101 Torelli (1999a), p. 62174

swaddling clothes, Torelli suggests that this was a temple to Mater Matuta. 102I find thisan acceptable attribution since this goddess has clear Latin connections: she was alsovenerated in Satricum, Rome, and the grove outside of Pisaurum.Three of Torelli's other suggestions for deities worshipped in the northern part ofthe South sanctuary are not as well grounded in the archaeological evidence. Torelliasserts that the round structure to the east of the Temple of Mater Matuta is a shrine ofHercules based only on its shape. 104Greco, D'Ambrosio, and Theodorescu offer themore likely explanation that it was a bench for one of the restructurings of the gardenspace. 105Torelli uses the placement of the Mater Matuta temple and nearby Asculapiusshrine to draw a comparison to the Roman temples between the Forum Holitorium, TiberIsland, and Forum Boarium. 106Based on this comparison and the benches found in anearby temple, Torelli suggests that this temple was dedicated to Magna Mater and itsneighbor to Victoria, by association and comparison to Rome. 107Greco, D'Ambrosio,and Theodorescu also attribute the temple with benches to Magna Mater, but cautiouslyremain silent on the other. 108Furthermore, they are silent on the attribution of theamphiprostyle temple, which Torelli argues is also to Hercules based on coinagedepicting the hero-god, comparison of the temple with that of Hercules Invictus in Rome,102 Torelli (1999b), p. 62. See Crawford (2006) p.68 n. 17 for a critique of Torelli. Crawford notes thatTorelli does not prove his argument against Greco that the statues of children are colonial not Lucanian. Allthe placement proves is that the statues are earlier than the second reconstruction of the area around the socalledItalic Temple. Greco, D'Ambrosio, and Theodorescu (1996), pp. 68-70 remain silent on theattribution.103 CIL XI 6301 (Pesaro). Torelli (1999b), p. 62. Coarelli (1988), p. 205 f.104 Torelli (1999b), pp. 62-63; (1999a), p. 61.105 Greco, D'Ambrosio, and Theodorescu (1996), pp. 69-70.106 Torelli (1999b), pp. 62-63. Torelli justifies this with reference to Aulus Gellius (NA XVI.13.9).107 Torelli (1999b), p. 64; (1999a), pp. 68-70.108 Greco, D'Ambrosio, and Theodorescu (1996), p. 74.175

and an inscription found somewhere in the southern sanctuary.While the temple ofMater Matuta and nearby temples were constructed in the first generations of the Latincolony, the amphiprostyle temple was first constructed in the archaic period, reworked inits present form in the fourth century BCE, and repaved in the second, showingcontinuous use throughout the changes of government in Paestum. 110In short, I acceptthe attribution of the Mater Matuta temple and the Magna Mater temple, as well as theexistence of a Hercules shrine somewhere in the south sanctuary of Paestum, although Ido not think that we can securely attribute it to either of Torelli's choices.In the newly restructured forum, the Latin colonists gradually created threeimportant shrines which can be identified through artifacts or inscriptions. The first ofthese, which dates to the foundation of the colony, was a sanctuary with associated poollocated north of the west side of the forum. A platform at the edge of the pool probablyheld a statue of Venus Verticordia/Fortuna Virilis, which was ritually bathed in the poolduring her festival. 111Crawford suggests that this structure might also have strongconnections to Lucanian water sanctuaries, e.g. Rossano di Vaglio and Roccagloriosa. 112On the north side of the forum, the colonists built a comitium some time in the thirdcentury BCE. 113At the end of the second or beginning of the first century BCE, a singlecellatemple on a high podium was constructed over the southwest corner of the19 ILP 4: C. Folius T.f. / H(e)rcolei merit(o). Torelli (1999b), p. 64 and n. 130 for the lack of specificity infind spot.110 Greco, D'Ambrosio, and Theodorescu (1996), pp. 72-73.111 Ibid. pp. 60-62. Torelli (1999a), pp. 35-38; (1999b), pp. 65-68.112 Crawford (2006), p. 66.113 Greco, D'Ambrosio, and Theodorescu (1996), pp. 55-58.176

comitium. 114The citizens of Paestum dedicated this temple to Bona Mens, according toseveral inscriptions found in the forum area. 115Crawford assumes that a capitolium musthave existed at the east end of the forum, which lies under the modern road. 116Such adetermination will have to await excavation of that area.At the crossroads in the south-west corner of the forum excavators found the117famous third century BCE bronze statue of the Silenus Marsyas.This statue bearsresemblance to a denarius produced by Censorinus of a similar statue erected in Rome in294 BCE to commemorate plebeian freedoms. Limbs of another similar statue wereliftalso found at Alba Fucens (303 BCE). 119Coarelli proposes that such a statue belongs in• 190 •the comitium in all of the other Latin colomes.Servius (adAen. 3.20) notes in liberiscivitatibus simulacrum Marsyae erat, qui in tutela Liberi partis est (In free communities,there was an image of Marsyas, who is under the protection of his father Liber. Trans.Coles.) This passage indicates that the statues of Marsyas were common in free cities, atleast in Servius' time, which does not automatically imply that they were in all Latincolonies from the third century BCE onwards. The statue in Paestum, however, exists. In114 Ibid, p. 58.115 Ibid. Torelli (1999a), pp. 64-67; (1999b), p. 65. The inscriptions are ILP 8-19. This is the so-called'Temple of Peace.'116 Crawford (2006), p. 66. In the note attached to this comment (n. 58, p. 71) Crawford denouncesTorelli's (1999b, pp. 54-6 and 61-71) "reckless attribution of the various temples to deities of the colony, inorder to attribute to Paestum a copy of part of the sacred topography of Rome." Crawford's assumption thata capitolium lies in the unexcavated half of the forum is probably based on the discovery of inscriptionsreading Iovei-Minervae.117 Greco, D'Ambrosio, and Theodorescu (1996), pp. 63, 136-137. The authors assert that this statue musthave once stood in the comitium, across the forum. In the crossroads where the statue was found, there wasa small brick shrine on the south east corner and an altar of the Lares Compitalicii.118 Torelli (1999b), pp. 73-74.119 For a description of the limbs and comparison to Roman examples, see Liberatore (1995).120 Coarelli (1985), p. 97. Coarelli also mentions the Marsyas at Cosa, but this is an Augustan marble statuewith iconography relating more to the myth of the contest with Apollo (for which see: Melanippides of177

that place, it represented the indicium libertatis of the Latin colonists of Paestum.Torelli postulates that the colonists were therefore primarily plebeian, which iscorroborated by the type of new shrines installed by them: Mater Matuta, Magna Mater,* 199and especially Mens Bona, the good memory of a client to his patron.Thus, the newcults of the Latin colony of Paestum were inspired by cults familiar to the Roman andLatin colonists without directly modeling the cults pertaining to the Roman government.The new Latin and Roman elements of the religious system in Paestum were notthe only cults honored by the colonists, however. Archaeological evidence indicatescontinuation of worship at the major shrines throughout the city and countryside. In thecity's North Sanctuary, the colonists worshipped Minerva at the temple of Athena.Inthe South Sanctuary, veneration of Apollo continued as well: the colonists erected a newmonumental altar for the temple. 124The sanctuary of Aesculapius, originally constructedaround 300 BCE, also was incorporated into the religious landscape of the Latincolony. 125As mentioned above (pp. 171-173), the Latin colonists only destroyed or deemphasizedthe urban sanctuaries with political significance to the local population.Melos, PMG 758; Hdt. 7.26; PL Symp. 215b; Diod. Sic. 3,59,2ff.; Anth. Pal. 7.696; 9.266; 16.6; Alex.Polyh. FGrH273 F 76; Ov. Met. 6.382-400; Apul. Flor. 3)121 Torelli (1999b), pp. 73-74. For a similar conclusion in Alba Fucens, see Liberatore (1995), p. 254.122 Torelli (1999b), pp. 71-79. Torelli also pushes his conjectural temple identifications into thisconclusion, although he does admit that they are superfluous and the solidly-evidenced temples are enoughto support the plebeian leanings of the colonists (p. 71.) Torelli also brings up the evidence that Paestumoffered significant help to Rome during the Punic Wars, as a client would to his patron (pp. 79 based onLivy 22.36.9 and 26.39.5). I think that Torelli's inference that the colony was flooded with freedmen half acentury after the colonization (based on a letter from Philip V to the Larisseans (SIG114. 543,11. 32 f.)) isunsupported. The same attitudes correspond well with the client-patron dynamic.123 As known from a block of stone inscribed with [MJenervae (ILP 6 = CIL I 2 3148) and the rim of adolium also inscribed with the name of the goddess (Torelli (1999b), pp. 52-53.) Cf. Torelli (1999a), pp.45-47.124 Torelli (1999b), p. 59. Greco, D'Ambrosio, and Theodorescu (1996), p. 71.125 Crawford (2006), p. 62. Torelli (1999b), p. 61. Greco, D'Ambrosio, and Theodorescu (1996), pp. 70-71.178

Thus, the remaining Greek and Lucanian inhabitants would have retained the use of thetemples and cults that pertained to their daily lives and even shared these spaces with theLatin colonists.Of the extra-urban sanctuaries, some show a continuity of worship while othershave yielded no evidence of activity after the Greek or Lucanian phases of occupation.The sanctuary of S. Venera, just south of the urban center, boasted a new, third centuryBCE portico and continued dedications in the second century BCE.The Heraion at theFoce del Sele received a new shrine around 250 BCE.Between the city and the sea,the small shrine to the so-called 'Camping Apollo' shows monumentalization at the endof the third century BCE; the new sacellum resembled the Pompeian temple of Isis, to1 TOwhom the Paestan shrine was also dedicated.The sanctuary at the source of theCapodifiume (Demeter) also continued to attract worshippers into the period of the Latincolony. 129This does not seem to be the case for the extra-urban cult sites at Linora,Getsemani, and perhaps Agropoli (all of uncertain attribution), and Fonte (Hera),Albanella (Demeter), 'Acque che Bolle' (Demeter and Kore). 130Torelli sees the Latincolonists' focus on the urban sanctuaries to the detriment of many of the extra-urban onesas a removal of everything Greek and an inversion in the religious system to emphasize126 Crawford (2006), p. 67. Torelli (1999b), p. 49. See Ammerman (1991) for a discussion of the nakedstanding goddesses of this shrine; Ammerman concludes that the original deity of this sanctuary wasPhoenician Astarte or Cypriot Aphrodite, who became Venus in Roman period.127 Ibid.128 Torelli (1999b), pp. 50-51. This is confirmed by an inscription (ILP 160), in which Laureia Q.f.commemorates the dedication of a temple. Within the temple, votive doves, cupids, and female statues alsosuggest Isis.129 Torelli (1999b), p. 51.130 Ibid, with references. See also Greco (2001a), p. 158.179

the "clear hegemony of the city over the countryside." 131I would argue instead that thecolonists did not need the extra-urban sanctuaries to stand as markers of their territory orto build a community with the local population outside of the walls, as the Greekcolonists had. 132Thus, the Latin colonists continued to worship at one of the two or moreextra-urban shrines of Hera and one of the three or more shrines of Demeter. Moreimportantly, the Greek, Lucanian, and colonial elements of Paestum's population wereprimarily within the city walls. It was far more critical to create a community (throughjoint worship at the extant temples) to meld those elements than to focus attention outsideof the walls.To summarize, the Latin colonists joined a community of Greek and Lucanians ina city that already boasted a very active religious system. Just after the colonialfoundation in 273 BCE, the colonists segregated the heroon, the symbol of the Greekfoundation, created the piscina with its shrine to Fortuna/Venus, and built a small templeto Mater Matuta on the southern edge of the new forum, facing the main sanctuary of thecity. Also in the third century, the Latin colonists established a shrine to Marsyas andembellished the Iseum in the western suburbs of the city. Around the turn of the century,they buried the ekklesiasterion with its altar to Lucanian Jupiter. Sometime in the secondcentury BCE, the colonists built a temple to Bona Mens in the forum of Paestum. Finally,they built temple to Magna Mater (and several unidentified temples) at an unspecifieddate during the Republic. While the Latin colonists were adding all of these temples to131 Ibid., p. 52. Torelli further asserts that the change "indicates a fierce and definitive eradication from theland of the Greek element." This statement is too strong in light of the continuation of worship at all of themonumental Greek temples within the city.132 See de Polignac (1995), pp. 92-93, 100, and 103 for the Greek cults of Poseidonia.180

the city, they continued worshipping at the erstwhile Greek sanctuaries to Hercules,Minerva/Athena, Jupiter/Zeus, Hera (at Foce del Sele), Venus/Aphrodite (at SantaVenere), and Demeter (at Campodifiume). They also maintained the Lucanian sanctuaryof Aesculapius.The sanctuaries of Paestum lie within at least three of the five landscape zonesillustrated by Figure 4.1: within the city (North and South Sanctuaries, piscina, and BonaMens), along transport routes (Santa Venera, Foce del Sele), and in cultivated land(Demeter). 133Several of these sanctuaries also fall into border territory. The Heraion atFoce del Sele was the northern border of the Greek colony, and probably continued tofunction in this way for the Latin colony.Within the city, the newest temples delimitedthe space of the new forum: Mater Matuta between the forum and the south sanctuary andthe piscina between the forum and the rest of the old agora to the north. It was as if theLatin colonists were marking the forum as a very small Latin space within the widerpopulation of the city. In short, the Latin colonists reused the major sanctuaries of theGreeks that seemed necessary to retain control of the edges of the territory, while ignoringthe duplicate shrines in the countryside. They seemed to find it more important toworship at the shrines within the city, alongside their new Greek and Lucanian neighbors,and to create new shrines immediately after the foundation of the Latin colony to markthe forum area.de Polignac (1995), p. 93. De Polignac refers to Demeter of Poseidonia in general, here.134 For the location and decoration of the Heraion at Foce del Sele see G. Greco (2001). Cf. de Polignac(1995), pp. 98-106 for the role of sanctuaries as a marker of territory.181

Even more so than the example of Fregellae, the cults of the Latin colony ofPaestum were not to the tutelary deities of Rome. As one might expect, the cults retainedmany attributions given to them by the Greek locals. The cults that the colonists added toPaestum bore a strong plebeian message, one that spoke to the probable politicalsympathies of the colonists. While these cults were meant to reinforce the relationshipbetween the Latin colonists as clients and the Roman senate, or more likely the unknowncommissioners, as patrons, they were clearly the choices of the clients themselves.Finally, the cults of Paestum bear some similarities to those of the colony of Fregellae,but only superficially. Both had a sanctuary of Aesculapius and of Hercules, but atFregellae these were extra-urban cults as compared to the urban examples in Paestum.Both colonies also had sanctuaries to Venus on one of the major roads leading out of thecity. Despite these superficial similarities, the two colonies did not have the samereligious system in general because they had vastly different local populations and preexistinglandscapes with which to work after foundation.The Religious Landscape ofSoraDistinct from those of Fregellae and Paestum, the cults of Sora provide a third uniqueexample of a religious landscape in a Latin colony in south-central Italy. The Latincolony at Sora was founded in 303 BCE in a location sheltered by Monte San Casto to thewest and the Lins river on the north, east, and south.Prior to the Roman occupation inMezzazzappa (2003), p. 99. This is the modern Rovetto Valley, 285m above sea level.182

315 and 305 BCE 136 and the official colonial foundation two years later, 137 the city wasno t m tone of the main Volscian strongholds.The location was of such vital strategicimportance that the Samnites occupied the city several times,but in the end the Romangenerals won the territory for the purposes of exploiting its strategic control over the heartof the central Apennines and establishing a bulwark against the Samnite armies. 140Livyexplicitly states that the bulk of the local population of Sora remained there after therevolt in 305 BCE. 141Thus, the Latin colonists of 303 BCE joined a local population ofVolscians, which had most likely undergone significant depredations throughout thestruggles with the Samnite and Roman armies.Much of the archaeological patrimony of Sora has been lost due to continuousoccupation of the site, violent earthquakes, and frequent flooding of the Liris river. 142Nonetheless, there is evidence of two Republican temples in the city center, a cliffsanctuary to the north, and another sanctuary on the summit of Monte San Casto to thenorthwest. A temple of Isis was located perhaps in the northern suburbs of the city; thistemple is outside of the current study since it was not constructed before the first centuryBCE. 143The other sacred precincts may have been part of one large sanctuary complex136 Livy 7.28.6 and 9.23.2; Diod. Sic. 19.72.3. Livy seems to be chronologically confused at 9.23.2, wherehe relates that the Roman consuls are making war on Sora because the citizens there put the Romancolonists to death. At 7.28.6, Livy only gives notice that the Volscians were beaten and Sora taken. Thereis no indication that a colony was sent to Sora at this time. Cf. Salmon (1970), p. 175 n. 76.137 Livy 10.1.1; 3.2; 9.8; Veil. Pat. 1.14.5.138 Livy 10.1.2. For the Volscians in Sora before Roman occupation, see Rizzello (1998), pp. 7-36.According to archaeological evidence, the territory of Sora had been occupied sparsely in the Bronze andIron ages. Livy 9.24.1-15 suggests that, in the sixth and fifth centuries BCE, the Volscians restructuredtheir scattered settlements into a single community in this location. Cf. Mezzazzappa (2003), p. 121.139 Livy 9.43.1; 44.16; Diod. Sic. 20.80.1.140 Mezzazzappa (2003), pp. 99-100.141 Livy 9.24.14-15.142 Mezzazzappa (2003), p. 100.143 Ibid., pp. 115-116.183

that encompassed the area from the colony's forum, up the eastern face of Monte SanCasto, to the summit of the citadel. 144Overall, it seems that the Latin colonists adoptedthe local gods and embellished this sacred complex.The main temple of Sora (Temple A) probably stood adjacent to the forumboarium, which was still used as a livestock market even within living memory. 145Currently, the cathedral of Santa Maria Assunta overlies the podium of the third centuryBCE temple and incorporates the ancient walls in its foundations and inner structures. 1Several different plans have been posited for this temple: three-ce//ae, 147 one cella withalae, m or a single cella. 149 The latter two plans are based on the actual remains insteadof an assumption that this temple is a capitolium. For the purposes of this discussion, it isnot important whether there were alae or not. The attribution of this temple is uncertainand will be discussed below.Behind and four meters above the cathedral lie the remains of the podium from asecond temple (Temple B). This temple was smaller than its contemporary, Temple A,and a street of approximately four meters in width ran between the two. 150 It is probablethat the street formed a sort of via sacra for processions to the two temples. 151The144 Rizzello (1980), p. 87. See Mezzazzappa (2003), fig. 21, p. 125 for an archaeological map of Sora.145 Private conversation with Dr. Alessandra Tanzilli, curator of the Museo della Media Valle del Liri, whoremembered visiting the market in her childhood. The forum has not been formally excavated, however, soits attribution and use in antiquity is conjectural.146 Mezzazzappa (2003), pp. 101-103.147 Zevi-Gallina (1978), p. 64.148 Mezzazzappa (2003), p. 103. The alae are based on the existence of a piece of wall between the leftnave and central aisle of the cathedral. This wall has since been demolished. (Ibid. n. 32)149 A. Tanzilli (forthcoming). The single cella plan is on display in the newly-remodeled museum exhibiton the Republican colony.150 Mezzazzappa (2003), p. 104.151 Ibid, pp. 122-123.184

attribution of this temple is again uncertain due to the loss of evidence from earthquakesand reuse of the space.Several possibilities exist for the attribution of Temples A and B. The elements ofarchitectural decoration found near Temple A include an antefix of Diana as PotniaTheron with rampant felines; another such antefix of slightly different style was also1 Ofound in a votive deposit on top of Monte San Casto.A marble relief of Hercules,dateable to the third or second century BCE was discovered near the temple.Excavations have unearthed a donario with a bronze helmet and inscription to Minervawhich dates between 89 and 44 BCE. 154An altar in two fragments bearing an inscriptionto Mars came to light in the outer court of the cathedral. 155The inscription (MARTET)probably dates to the second century BCE, sometime after the original construction of thetemple. 156Thus, these two temples could be dedicated to Diana/Potnia Theron, Hercules,Minerva, Mars, or some combination of these deities.It seems most likely to me that Temple A was originally dedicated to Mars, andTemple B belonged to the worship of Hercules or one of the other deities at the cliff sideshrines and sanctuary on Monte San Casto (see below for discussion of these). The152 Mezzazzappa (2003), p. 103 and n. 29 for the antefix from Monte San Casto. Cf. Marta (1982) for adiscussion of these.153 Mezzazzappa (2003), p. 103.154 Ibid. The money found in the donario dates from 118 BCE to 40 CE (Zevi-Gallina (1978), p. 65). Thespecificity of the dating of the denario itself arises from the inscription (AE (1985) 266), which names Sex.Curfidius and M. Caesius as quattorviri, an office of the municipium established in Sora after the SocialWar and before the colony of 44 BCE. For the coins, see Catalli and Scheid (1994). See also an associatedinscription with a dedication by L. Firmius, last IHIvir and first pontifex of new colony CIL 5713 (= ILS2226 and ILLRP I.498a.) Similar treasure boxes were found in Arpinum, Fregellae (at the Aesculapiussanctuary), Beneventum, and modern San Vittore.155 Mezzazzappa (2003), p. 103. The pieces were originally held together with a swallow-tail join.156 Zevi-Gallina (1978), p. 65. The new signage in the museum indicates that this inscription dates to thefourth century BCE, but this is not reflected in the publications.185

proximity to the forum boarium fits common practice for Hercules, and also seems tosuggest that one of the valences of the Soran Mars was economic or commercial. 157TheMinerva dedication is later and does not correspond to other early votives found in thearea, so is probably part of a first century addition to, or refiguring of, the sanctuary.Finally, this later Minerva dedication is the only evidence for any one of the CapitolineTriad in Sora, so Temple A was in all probability not a capitolium.The plaque depicting Hercules found near the temples in the city's center suggeststhat one or both of these temples had ties to the cliff-side sanctuary located approximatelyhalf of a kilometer outside the city center on the eastern side of Monte San Casto at theplace currently known as Rava Rossa.This sanctuary consists of shrines carved intothe stone of the cliff with votive inscriptions, a votive altar, and other offerings. 160Theguild oflignari dug three little shrines, at least one of which can be securely attributed tothe forest god, Silvanus. 161The date of use for the cliff-side sanctuary, as a whole, wasbetween the second century BCE and the second century CE. 162Since the sanctuary doesnot predate the foundation of the Latin colony, this is a clear example of the landscapeimpacting the religious system of a colony. The steep cliffs between the city center andthe arx inspired worship of Hercules and Silvanus, gods of the wild.Dr. Tanzilli (pers. com.)158 Dr. Tanzilli (pers. com.)159 Mezzazzappa (2003), pp. 105-106 and Tanzilli (2006), p. 15 n. 2.160 CIL X 5709-5710 for the votive inscriptions (see Mezzazzappa (2003), pp. 105-106, n. 41 for furtherbibliography on these).161 The two inscriptions read: L. Sabidius Memor/ D(onum) D(edit) (5710) and Cultores/Silvani/Cur(ante)/MAlbio Piero (5709). In the niche belonging to this last inscription, there was a groove which probablyheld a bronze statue of Silvanus. Such a statue was found nearby, but has since been lost (Cf. Mezzazzappa(2003), p. 104 n. 44 with bibliography). In the 10 meters between the two niches with inscriptions, thereare four punctures for affixing a votive tablet.162 Tanzilli (2006), p. 15 n. 2.186

The votive altar found at the cliff-side sanctuary dates to the second century BCE;a pair of brothers, Marcus and Publius Vertuleius, dedicated it to Hercules in thanks forsaving their father from economic ruin. 163The dedication stipulates apollouctum, asacred banquet, which probably took place in the forum, since there was little room for alavish feast at the cliff-side shrine. 164If Temple B was indeed dedicated to Hercules, thenthe banquet may have taken place in the courtyard of that structure. The purpose of theinscription further strengthens my conclusion that the Hercules cult at Sora had, at least inpart, an economic valence.A further tie existed between the city's temples and the sanctuary on Monte SanCasto, as seen by the terracotta antefixes depicting Potnia Theron in both locations. Thevotive deposit at Monte San Casto also contained 9 other antefixes, a warrior's head withhelmet, several partial statues or heads of women, a foot with sandal, a hand, a boar, anda seventh-sixth century BCE aryballos. 165The items date from as early as the fourthcentury BCE, with the exception of the aryballos, which may have been dedicated as anantique. 166Some of these elements show interesting ties to votives from the cults of othermid-Republican colonies in the region. The warrior's head with helmet is a very rare typeof votive, but one was found in a deposit outside of Minturnae at the sanctuary of MaricaCIL X 5708: MP Vertuleieis/ Cf/ quod re sua difeidens/ asper/ qfleictaparens timens/ heic vovit votohoc/solut/ (de)cuma facta/poloucta leibereis lube(n)tes dorm danunt/ Hercolei Maxume/ mereto semol te/or ant se voti crebro/condemnes. The inscription is in Saturnian meter. Mommsen {ad loc.) mistakenlythought this altar was found inside the city rather than at the cliff-side sanctuary. Cf. Tanzilli (2006), p. 15n. 2, who follows Lommatzsch (1918), p. 630.164 Tanzilli (2006), p. 15 n. 2.165 The objects from the votive deposit, excavated in 1951, passed into private collections. Rizzello (1980,pp. 84-88) was able to ascertain that the items mentioned here were found in the deposit. The boar has beenmistaken for a calf in the original publication: A. Lauri (1953), p.6.166 Mezzazzappa (2003), p. 112.187

on the mouth of the Garigliano river, which is the confluence of the Gari river and theLitis river. 167One of the female heads has smooth hair to her temples, where it iswrapped in a series of curls; this type is similar to those frequently found at Fregellae,also on the Liris river. 168Thus, it seems that there was a sort of communication amongthese shrines along the Liris river, perhaps economically through the trade of similarvotives via an itinerant peddler or as pilgrimage sites for individual worshippers.The warrior's head, which probably depicts the god Mars, 169 and boar, which issacred to Mars, suggest a further connection between the temples in Sora's center and theshrine on Monte San Casto. Thus, I agree with Rizzello's suggestion that the threesanctuaries in Sora formed a single, large religious complex. 170At least one of the lowertemples was dedicated to Mars, the other perhaps to Hercules. Halfway up the hill,rested a cliff-side shrine to Hercules and Silvanus. After a half hour climb farther, 171 aworshipper would reach a sanctuary with a shrine decorated with Potnia Theron antefixesand housing a female statuette and various votive objects, including women's heads.Based on the type of statue, which could depict Diana or an Amazon, and one of theheads, which seems to follow traditional depictions of Diana, Rizzello attributes thesanctuary to Diana in her guise as mistress of the animals. 172I agree with this attribution,especially in light of the proximity of the Hercules/Silvanus sanctuary. The two form a167 Rizzello (1980), p. 85. Mingazzini (1938), tables XXV 16 and XXVI 19. There was another suchvotive found at Capua, cf. Bonghi Iovino (1965), Vol. I, p. 86, table XXIX 4.168 Rizzello (1980), p. 86. Ferrea (1979), p. 207 XXXVII, 3.169 Rizzello (1980), p. 87.170 Ibid., pp. 86-87.171 Ibid., pp. 86. The sanctuary on Monte San Casto was not located on a major road, but on the summit ofa local hill. A climb was necessary to approach it.172 Ibid.188

pair of extra-urban cults that cater to the population as a whole: Silvanus focusing on themale members of the community, Diana on the female.Therefore, based on the (admittedly tentative) dating of these three sanctuaries,the Latin colonists retained the use of the Volscian shrine on top of Monte San Casto,which showed worship from the fourth century BCE. 174They devoted small objectsthere, some of which showed a connection to cults in other colonies along the Liris rivervalley. The colonists built the two temples in the forum area in the early third century.Votives pertinent to Mars and decoration indicative of Potnia Theron appear at both theurban and extra-urban sanctuaries. The Hercules and Silvanus shrine arose some time inthe following century, perhaps from the pressure to add a masculine liminal cult to thearea or perhaps as part of a growing sanctuary to Mars, Diana, and Hercules. Based onFigure 4.1, these linked sanctuaries fall in two of the five landscape categories: city(temples) and natural landscape (cliff and peak sanctuaries).It is interesting to note that the later shrine to Isis lay on the road out of the city,much as the Venus shrines in Fregellae and Paestum did. Unfortunately, this observationtells us nothing about the priorities of the Republican colony, and so it cannot be pushedfarther. It is sufficient to note once again that the cults in Sora were not to the tutelarydeities of Rome in the middle Republic. Nor was there significant coincidence with thedeities of Fregellae or Paestum, with two exceptions. One is the ever-present Hercules,See Cato Agr. 83 for the restriction of rites to Silvanus to men only. For the integrative functions ofprocessions to extra-urban cults see de Polignac (1995), pp. 60-81.174 Livy (9.23.2) mentions the betrayal of the Soran arx to a troop of Romans. Based on the topography ofSora and the placement of the city's walls, Monte San Casto must be that arx and the votive deposit foundthere probably marks the location of the main sanctuary.189

although the Soran Hercules was a nature deity as opposed to the primarily pastoralFregellan Hercules and urban Paestan Hercules. The other exception does not relate towho was worshipped, but how. Votives found on Monte San Casto in Sora were similarto those used also in Fregellae. This is a piece of precious evidence of shared religiouscustom between colonial populations along the Liris river valley. It most likely indicatesthat the two colonies had open lines of communication rather than that this customderived from a common source, i.e. Rome.IV.ConclusionsEach of the religious systems in Fregellae, Paestum, and Sora proved to be different, bothfrom one another and from that of Rome. This is no surprise given the importance of thelocation of the sanctuary in defining the god who was worshipped there, e.g. the shape ofthe sanctuary and nearness to water that characterize cults of Aesculapius. As withHercules and Silvanus at Sora, the landscape could also suggest to the colonists what sortof gods they should worship. Not all colonies had the right natural conditions for everygod known throughout Italy and the Mediterranean. Thus, the uniqueness of each andevery colonial religious system follows logically from the fact that the landscape of eachcolony was different.Moreover, as seen with Appian's report of the debate between Banno andCensorinus about whether the Carthaginians should leave Carthage, the temples in a cityhelped define who the citizens were: they were the people who lived in this city andmaintained the pax deorum with these gods. When colonists entered the place, they too190

defined themselves through their use of religious space. In Paestum, the Latin colonistscreated cults to Mater Matuta, Marsyas, Magna Mater, Fortuna/Venus, and Mens Bona,through which they advertised their status as free citizens of Paestum who were willinglyentering into a cooperative relationship with Rome, their patron. At the same time, theycontinued to worship at local temples alongside the other inhabitants of Paestum. Thecolonists used religion to define themselves in relation to Rome, but also to create acommunity with the local population. Now, they all were the people who lived in thiscity and maintained the pax deorum with these gods.Finally, the cults afforded the colonists a way to define their space andcommunicate with the outside world. 175The examples of Paestum, Fregellae, and Sorashow three levels at which this could work. In Paestum, the sanctuaries of Mater Matutaand Fortuna/Venus defined the forum in opposition to the large Greek sacred complexesthat surrounded it. This created and advertised a small, Latin space inside the largermulticultural city. In Fregellae, the shrine to Venus and the small temple on the MelfaRiver marked the boundaries of the colonial territory and announced Fregellan controlover the Via Latina. These two examples demonstrate the separating function of sacredspace. The occurrence of identical votives on Monte San Casto in Sora, at Fregellae, andat the sanctuary of Marica at the mouth of the Gargliano suggest that there was religiouscommunication between colonies despite the lack of identical religious systems. Thus,although Latin colonies were independent members of the wider cultural context ofSee de Polignac (1995), pp. 89-127 for his original discussion of cults and colonial foundation for theGreek world.

Italian communities, they also sometimes retained awareness of the origins they sharedwith other Latin colonies in the region.192

Chapter 5: Religious Trends in Mid-Republican ColoniesI. IntroductionThe previous chapter demonstrated that each colony's pantheon was distinct and had itsown particular religious influences. In short, the religious system in each colonyreflected, and acted upon, the relationship between the Roman and Latin settlers and thepre-existing populations. In Northern Italy, these local populations included Etruscans,Gauls, and Ligurians. In South-Central Italy, the colonists interacted primarily with theVolscians, Samnites, Campanians, Lucanians, Daunians, and Greek settlers. 1Whatfollows is a discussion of the literary, epigraphic, and archaeological evidence for aselection of colonial cults in these regions in order to explore the various forms each deityor group of deities adopts according to the local influences. Thus, I have chosen toexamine gods and goddesses that could be argued to be Roman impositions in order todemonstrate the variety of ways each is worshipped throughout the colonies. The mainsections deal with the evidence for Juno, Diana, Minerva, Hercules, Mars, and Jupiter.The last section evaluates the Capitoline triad and its place in mid-Republicancolonization.Where there are cults to Roman conceptions of a deity, such as Juno Regina orJupiter, I argue that the impetus for their foundation did not come from the Roman senatepromulgating a policy of religious Romanization. Instead, these cults were introduced1 Certain colonies were isolated from the rest, and the local populations around these colonies belonged to adifferent ethnic group altogether. Sipontum is one such colony; the local Daunian culture is distinct fromany other examined in this work. Moreover not much is known about the cults of the Roman colony there.See the volume entitled Siponto Antica, Mazzei, ed. (1999). Buxentum is another isolated colony where notmuch is known about the colony yet. Cf. Trillmich (1988) (with response by Greco (1990)) andJohannowsky (1992). These colonies have been omitted from the following discussion of colonial cults.193

through the actions of one of the colonial commissioners, his family, or his clients,sometimes in reaction to cults fostered by a rival commissioner. Overall, I suggest thatthe cults of gods such as Diana, Minerva, or Hercules, for example, do not follow Romancustoms, but incorporate Mediterranean, Italic, or Latin elements. Thus, the cults drewthe community of colonists together with the local populations by means of a sacredprecinct recognizable to all involved. They were not a carbon copy of a Roman cultmeant to emphasize the dominance of the Romans in the center, but created a functioningcommunity for colonists relocated amongst a host of diverse neighbors. Thus, the onlyoverlap between Roman religion specifically and the religious systems in the colonieswas the need to draw the community of the gods and their diverse worshippers closertogether in order to maintain the pax deorum.II.DeitiesJunoJuno was not as widely worshipped in mid-Republican Italy as many other deitiesdiscussed in this chapter, and the same holds true for the Roman and Latin colonies. Thefew attestations of Juno we do have from the colonies are very diverse. In southern Italy,at Beneventum (268 BCE), Juno Quiritis received a dedicatory inscription dating to thefirst few decades after the colony was founded. This warlike version of the goddess alsooccurred at Falerii, Tibur, and in the Campus Martius in Rome (by evocatio in 2412 ILLRP 169 = CIL I 2 396 = CIL IX 1547 = ILS 3096. Iunonei Quiritei sacra / C(aius) Falcilius L(uci)ffilius) consol/ dedicavit//]ti/[3]leius L(uci) ffilius) prfaetor?). M.R. Torelli (2002), pp. 83-85.194

BCE). 3There are no contemporary attestations of this goddess in Campania or Samnium,which indicates that the Latin colonists of Beneventum introduced the political goddess toher new home. 4Continuation of the cults of Hera at Paestum suggests some syncretismwith Juno occurred for the Latin colonists (see Chapter 4, p. 179). The waning of the cultat Foce del Sele and lack of new monumentalization at the Heraion in the SouthernSanctuary at Paestum give the impression that Juno as Hera was not the most prominentgoddess in the new colony, however. 5In Northern Italy, Juno was worshipped in the sacred area located one mile southof the small citizen colony of Pisaurum, founded on the Adriatic in 184. Unlike inBeneventum and Paestum, the colonists of Pisaurum retained their Roman citizenshipbecause they were part of a colony of Roman citizens rather than a colony whose citizenswere granted the ius Latinum. 6In the sacred area, 14 small, truncated pyramids havebeen found which bear inscriptions to a range of deities, including Juno (CIL I 2 370:iunone), Juno Lucina (CIL I 2 371: iuno(ne) loucina), and Juno Regina (CIL I 2 378). 7Thislast inscription reads: iunone re(gina) / matrona /pisaurese / dono dedrot. The epithetsof Juno suggest first that these were personal dedications to deities special to thededicator. Second, the dedications outside of Pisaurum covered several aspects of the3 M.R. Torelli (2002), p. 84. Falerii: Dion. Hal. 1.21.1-2, Ov. Amor. 111.13.31. Tibur: Servius adAen. 1.17(see Torelli p. 84 n. 60 for further bibliography. It is possible that the Tibur cult was transferred fromFalerii.) Rome: Inscr. Ital. Ill, 2, p. 518.4 M.R. Torelli (2002), pp. 84-85.5 Torelli (1999b), p. 49.6 Salmon (1970), p. 70.7 In all there were fourteen stone truncated pyramids of local sandstone found one mile south of Pisaurum.The letters are carved in archaic script, with all but one of the cippi written in the same hand. They date tothe third or early second century BCE. CIL I 2 368-81 = CIL I 2 3, pp. 878-9; Degrassi, ILLRP 1.13-26;Dassau, ILS2970-83; Cresci Marrone and Mennella (1984), p. 89-150 #1-4; Trevisiol (1999), p. 94-101,#81-94; Harvey (2006), p. 136; Bispham (2006), p. 114; Prosdocimi (1989), p. 531.195

worship of Juno: both the birth-related valence of Juno Lucina and the political aspect ofJuno Regina, here specifically labeled as "Matrona Pisaurese."In general, these fourteen cippi date to around the time of the foundation of thecolony. While the deities on the cippi do not seem to have any relationship to oneanother, they all trace back not to gods otherwise found near Pisaurum, but to central andwestern Italian deities. 8Furthermore, based on the deities on the cippi, the worshippersin this sacred location were probably matronae, not the magistrates who might beinvested in assuming aspects of Romanitas through adopting the Capitoline Triad. 9Here,again, the evidence for the cult of Juno in Northern Italy suggests not an imperialisticimposition, but adoption by the colonists for the purposes of their own religiousobservance.Perhaps the most interesting manifestation of Juno Regina is in Luna. This is theonly secure attestation of a cult to the Capitoline Triad that existed from the foundation ofa mid-Republican colony. Luna was founded by a commission headed by MarcusAemilius Lepidus 177 BCE. It was the third of the large, citizen colonies which AemiliusLepidus and his colleagues founded, the first two being Mutina and Parma in 183. Thefoundation of these colonies, along with the viritane distributions of 173, earned Lepidus'family a lasting clientele, from which Lepidus, the consul of 78 BCE, benefited. 10To thisday, the Cispadane region in Northern Italy is still named 'Emilia' after his family. 118 Harvey (2006), p. 123.9 Bispham (2006), p. 114.10 Rossignani (1995), p. 61.11 Salmon (1970), p. 106.196

During a battle against the hill-dwelling Ligurians in 187 BCE, Lepidus vowed atemple to Diana. 12He then attacked the Ligurians on the far side of the mountain, andduring the last pitched battle, he vowed a temple to Juno Regina.Afterwards, hemarched into Gallic territory and began construction of the Via Aemilia from Placentia toAriminum. In 180 BCE, Lepidus dedicated the temples he vowed during his campaignsof 187.Et alter ex censoribus M. Aemilius petit ab senatu ut sibi dedicationis causatemplorum reginae Iunonis et Dianae, quae bello Ligustino octo ante annisuouisset, pecunia ad ludos decerneretur. uiginti milia aeris decreuerunt._dedicauit eas aedes, utramque in circo Flaminio. ludosque scaenicos triduumpost dedicationem templi Iunonis, biduumpost Dianae, et singulos dies fecit incirco. idem dedicauit aedem Larum permarinum in Campo. uouerat earn annisundecim ante L. Aemilius Regillus nauali proelio aduersus praefectos regisAntiochi. Livy 40.52.1-4.One of the censors, M. Aemilius, asked the senate for a sum of money to bedecreed for the Games on the occasion of the dedication of Queen Juno andDiana, which he had vowed eight years previously, during the Ligurian war. Asum of 20,000 ases was granted. He dedicated the temples which both stood inthe Circus Flaminius, and exhibited scenic Games for three days after thededication of the temple of Juno, and for two days after the dedication of thetemple of Diana. He also dedicated a temple to the Lares Permarini in theCampus Martius. This temple had been vowed by L. Aemilius Regillus elevenyears previously, during the naval action against the commanders of KingAntiochus. (Trans. Roberts)Lepidus placed the temple of Juno Regina in the Circus Flaminius, outside of thepomehum, but in an area which was close to the city and often frequented, especiallyduring religious festivals and games. Although Juno Regina was a goddess of theCapitoline Triad, 14 she was also associated with the Etruscan goddess, Uni, to whom M.Furius Camillus had built a temple on the Aventine Hill in 396 BCE following herFor discussion of the temple of Diana and its significance, see below.Livy 39.2.For Juno Regina in capitolia outside Rome, Barton (1982), p. 260.197

evocatio from Veii.By vowing a temple to a goddess already well housed, AemiliusLepidus emphasized his own dedication to the needs of the state, as demonstrated by hisallegiance to one of the patron goddesses of the city. 16By vowing a temple that would beplaced outside the pomerium, rather than merely offering games or an extravagantdedication at the Capitoline temple, Lepidus reminded his audience of the foreigndimension of the goddess, echoing her Italic connections as well as reminding them of thesimilar temple built by Camillus, the conqueror of Veii. Thus, he borrowed the role ofsavior of Rome for himself.We should view the capitolium in Luna in light of Lepidus' dedication of a templeto Juno Regina in Rome. Ten years into his efforts to calm and reshape Northern Italyand three years after visually advertising his devotion to the needs of the Roman state,Lepidus headed the commission to found Luna. It is no coincidence that the two greattemples in Luna honor, in part, the two goddesses to whom Lepidus built temples inRome, Diana and Juno Regina. It is possible that Lepidus himself suggested theconstruction of the Luna temples, but it is also possible that the colonists, as his newclients, decided to honor their patron through choosing the goddesses he, himself,favored.15 Richardson (1992), pp. 215-217.16 Orlin (1997), pp. 72-3. "To drive home the point [Lepidus] vowed the two temples. This was indeed adramatic statement, but one which called attention to the gods, to the state, and to Lepidus' position inrelation to them, and only after that to his personal accomplishments." Orlin dismisses the older theoriesthat Lepidus felt a special debt to both Diana and Juno, that he gave his campaign drama through religionthat it lacked through military prowess (Pietila-Castren (1987), p. 104), that the temple for Juno was meantas a companion to the recent temple to Jupiter Stator (Richardson (1992), p. 216), and that Juno wasrecommended to Lepidus by the pontiffs (Weigel (1982-3), pp. 188-189). I think the latter theories are welldismissed, but in a polytheistic society, there is no reason why a person cannot have a special connection tomore than one deity.198

The capitolium portrays Mediterranean mythological themes as well as imagery ofcommon Etruscan and Roman genealogical myths. 17Thus, the capitolium as a physicalmonument displayed the need of the colonists for cooperation with their Etruscanneighbors in their new port-based community. To the greater Roman audience in Rome(and perhaps more specifically to Lepidus), however, the presence of a capitolium in oneof the large, citizen colonies suggested that the shift in the size of the citizen coloniesaccompanied a shift in the conception of what a colony should be. I posit that, in theearly second century, colonies were only beginning to be conceived as little models ofRome through the introduction of & capitolium. Moreover, this shift did not arise from apolicy promulgated by the senate in Rome as a whole, but under the influence of asmaller group of magistrates and the colonists who became their clients.To summarize: Juno appeared in the mid-Republican colonies as Juno Quiritis(Beneventum), Juno as Hera (Paestum), Juno Lucina and Juno Regina (Pisaurum), andJuno Regina as part of the Capitoline Triad (Luna). These colonial cults derived theirorigins from very different sources. The goddess in Beneventum had clear Latin origins;she only reached Rome itself twenty years after the foundation of Beneventum. Juno inPaestum arose from syncretism with the goddess Hera, who had been one of the patrondeities of the former Greek colony in that location. Juno Lucina and Juno Regina weregoddess from Latium and Etruria who made their way into Rome in 375 and 396 BCE,respectively. Thus, their attestations in the grove outside of Pisaurum could have beeninspired by worshippers from anywhere in the area around the Tiber Valley. Finally, JunoStrazzula(1992), p. 182.199

Regina in Luna was clearly a Roman goddess with the patronage of a preeminent Romangeneral. From the diversity of the cults of Juno, it is clear that there was not a single,colonial package of cults for each new foundation. Rather the religious system of eachcolony developed according to the needs and choices of the colonists.DianaLike the cults of Juno throughout Italy, worship of Diana also incorporated a wide varietyof sources. In particular Diana's cults partook of aspects of her Mediterranean, Italic, andlocal customs. This section addresses the variety of cults of Artemis or Diana foundthroughout the Mediterranean, the architectural and epigraphic evidence for Diana aspotnia theron in Italy, and finally, Diana as Luna in the colony of Luna. These examplesdemonstrate that the worship of Diana in third and second century Italy employed theLatin conception of Diana as enabler of peaceable meeting of the local and colonialcommunities. At the same time, the cult iconography also employed Mediterranean-widedepictions of the Artemis or Diana figure, as at Luna.The Diana or Artemis or potnia theron figure enjoyed wide-spread reverencethroughout the Mediterranean leading up to the mid-Republican period. According to thecontext, we may conceptualize Diana as a Mediterranean goddess, a Latin goddess, aRoman or local goddess, or a combination of these geographical designations. The mostprominent shrine of Artemis in the Greek world was the great extra-urban sanctuary ofArtemis at Ephesus. By the sixth century BCE, Greek Artemis and her myths had18 For commentary on Italian towns selecting parts of Roman culture and rejecting others, see in generalLomas (2004), pp. 199-210.200

penetrated Etruscan religion as Aritimi or Arturnes, goddess of hunting and fertility, alongside Tuir, the Etruscan deification of the Moon. 19The statue of Artemis at Ephesus wasalso copied for extra-urban shrines to Artemis in Greek colonies, such as Masillia.These are cults that partook in the Mediterranean-wide worship of Diana. It was thestatue of the Ephesian Artemis that was placed in the shrine of Diana, outside thepomerium on the Aventine Hill in the sixth century BCE.Not only was Rome's cult of Diana inspired by the Ephesian cult, but it was alsoin direct response to the prominence of the extra-urban Latin cult of Diana Nemorensisnear Aricia.The cult of Diana at Nemi is one of the most prominent sources of theLatin conception of Diana's ideology. The Latin Diana was a moon goddess andhuntress, a fertility goddess and guardian of childbirth. As Green illustrates in her 2007work on Diana at Aricia, the most important function of the cult of Diana Nemorensiswas the guarantee of "security for peaceful meetings of rival communities," includingLatins and their neighbors, the Etruscans. 23It was this very function that the Roman cultof Diana on the Aventine unsuccessfully attempted to subsume under Roman control.Unfortunately for Rome, the shrine of Diana at Aricia remained the region's primary cultto this goddess as well as a symbol of Latinitas. 24Finally, the Artemis Persica or potniatheron, mistress of the animals, appears in terracotta architectural features across Italy,19 Turfa (2006), pp. 63-66.20 Green (2007), p. 85.21 Ibid.22 See Livy 1.45.1 -3 for the Servian origins of the cult of Diana on the Aventine as a rival for Diana atAricia.23 Green (2007), p. 90.24 Cornell (1995), p. 295.201

spreading perhaps from Capua or Falerii in the third century BCE and gaining popularitythroughout Italy during the next hundred years. 25Thus, what began as an Easternconception of the Artemis divinity became a local Italian artistic motif.The common elements of all of these approaches to Diana are that her divinityrepresents many borders, such as the divides between light and darkness, man and beast,civilization and wilderness, and what is ours and what is theirs, in terms of territory. As aconcrete symbol of her ideological territory, Diana's altars and temples are almost alwayslocated outside of the civic space, even when firmly in control of one city, such as atEphesus or Alicia or Rome. Thus, the cult of Diana embodied a multi-valence of bordersand space, which afforded the cults of Diana in Italy a choice of associations throughwhich to stitch the colonists and locals into coherent communities.One of the most wide-spread representations of Diana in Italy is the terracottaantefix depicting apotnia theron deity. This trend in terracotta temple decoration isfound in Northern Italy in Ariminum (268), Bononia (189), Aquileia (181), Luna (177). 26In the colonies in Samnium and Campania, these antefixes are found at Fregellae (328,316), Luceria (315), Sora (303), Interamna (312), and Minturnae (295). 27 All of thecolonial terracotta decorative pieces are dated to the third and second centuries, at whichtime these potnia theron type decorations were common in Rome, but also in Italicshrines such as the Samnite sanctuary complex at Pietrabondante.This type of25 For Capua: Blazquez Martinez (1953), p. 266. Torelli (1999b), p. 124 cites Falerii as the original sourceof this motif.26 See especially Fontana (1997), pp. 226-227,236-237,265-266.27 Luceria: d'Ercole (1990), plate lOOg. Sora: Rizello (1980), p. 87 and n. 18 for bibliography on thesamples at Fregellae, Interamna, and Minturnae.28 Fontana (1997), p. 236.202

terracotta antefix continued to spread into the Transpadane region through the firstcentury even as temple decoration in Rome privileged Hellenistic marble schemes.Torelli attributes the prevalence of the potnia theron terracotta sculpturaldecoration to a bid for Latinitas in the pre-Social war climate.In the middle Republic,the potnia theron motif sprung from Capua and Falerii and could be found also inEtruscan sanctuaries at Volsini, Tarquinia, Clusium, and Volterrae.So, for this period,the use of these terracotta figures on colonial temples served not as a connector to thepolitical status of the Latins, but as a tie to the culture of central Italy for colonists in aforeign environment. The figures also tapped into the Latin notion of the cult of Diana asa safe meeting place for rival communities. It is not yet the Latin status that is important,but the function of the deity in building communities. The use of potnia theronarchitectural detail may not necessarily allow the secure identification of Diana orArtemis temples in each of these colonies, but it does suggest that the temples to whichthe decoration belonged partook of the protection at the boundaries which the potniatheron deity symbolized. Thus, for Northern Italy especially, Fontana posits that theseantefixes advertised Rome's role as protector against the incursions of the Gauls andLigurians to the colonists living in Bononia and to the Roman allies. 32Diana also appears, as did Juno and Minerva, in the sacred area south of thecitizen colony of Pisaurum (184).Harvey noted that the Diana of the inscription is29 Torelli (1999b), pp. 123-4.30 Ibid.31 Blazquez Martinez (1953), p. 266.32 Fontana (1997), pp. 236-7.33 CIL I 2 376: cesula / atilia / donu(m) / da(t) diane. Note the rare archaic dative -e ending, which is alsoattested at Tusculum and among the Marsic people. {CIL I 2 368-81 = CIL I 2 3, pp. 878-9; Degrassi, ILLRP203

surely not Diana of the Aventine, but the more widely spread Latin Diana worshipped in agrove near Tusculum, as indicated by the unusual dative ending. 34It is expected thatLatin colonists would participate in the worship of the goddess of the grove, such as atTusculum or Nemi, who secured the meetings of rival communities; indeed inscriptionshave been found at Nemi from colonists at Ariminum.It is unexpected, however, thatthe deities worshipped outside of a Roman colony full, ostensibly, of Roman citizens, arenot specifically Roman deities, but deities of a broader Italic derivation.This is furtherevidence that Pisaurum contained non-Roman members, probably due to the shortage ofRoman citizen volunteers. Furthermore, the variety in the sacred area is clear evidencethat Rome did not stamp a pure Roman religion, if such a thing existed, on each colony,even those full of Roman citizens. We may instead interpret this sacred area as a neutralmeeting place for a variety of peoples - the Romans in the colony, Latins of nearbymunicipalities and colonies, and possibly even the preexisting Gallic populations. 37Thevariety of small dedications to central Italic deities, including Diana, suggests thatpersonal ties to gods were honored here.When we turn to the cult of Diana in the colony of Luna, we see a cult thatencompasses elements of the Mediterranean, Italian, and Latin worship of the goddess.As mentioned above, Lepidus vowed a temple to Diana during a battle against the hill-1.13-26; Dassau, ILS 2970-83; Cresci Marrone and Mennella (1984), pp. 89-150 #1-4; Trevisiol (1999), pp.94-101, #81-94; Harvey (2006), p. 136.)34 Harvey (2006), p. 124.35 ILLRP11 = CIL I 2 .40, Harvey (2006), p. 124.36 Cf. Harvey (2006), pp. 120-126 for a full discussion of the variety of gods, many of which are not ofRoman derivation, honored in this grove.37 Similarly, the variety of dedications at the Diana sanctuary on Monte San Casto in Sora also indicates thatit served as a point of contact with other communities in the Liris river valley. See Chapter 4, p. 188.38 Harvey (2006), p. 128.204

dwelling Ligurians in 187 BCE, after which he disarmed the Friniates, another tribe ofLigurians, and moved them from the mountains to the plains.Lepidus dedicated thetemple to Diana, along with the temple to Juno Regina, in 180 BCE near the CircusFlaminius, which was outside of the pomerium as well as in a well-populated area ofRome. 40Through this conspicuous placement of his temple to Diana, Lepidus wasadvertising to the Roman citizens that he had called upon the Latin goddess of thewilderness while fighting the barbarians of the hills, and she had answered him. He wasdeclaring his own role as protector of the civilized Roman people from barbarians, one ofthe border issues that were inherent to the worship of Diana.The religious situation in Luna complements the religious message that Lepiduspresented to the Roman people. Three years after Lepidus dedicated his temple to Dianain Rome, he led colonists to the port of Luna. This was the same port from which theRomans had led campaigns against the Ligures and had deported 47,000 Ligurians in 181and 180. 41 It was also the portal to economic activity for the entire region. 42 The Pisans,the Etruscans who originally controlled the port, 43 certainly prospered through trade inmarble and timber from the sixth through the third centuries. Indeed, the Pisans probablywere sorely disappointed when a colony of 2,000 Roman citizens settled at Luna; this39 Livy 39.2 ff.40 Livy 40.52.1.41 Livy 40.37.8-9, 38.1-7,41.1-4.42 Rossignani (1995), p. 64.43 Livy 41.13.4-5: Lunam colonia eodem anno duo milia ciuium Romanorum sunt deducta. triumuirideduxerunt P. Aelius Lepidus Cn. Sicinius; quinquagena et singula iugera et semisses agriin singulos dati sunt, de Liguribus captus ager erat; Etruscorum ante quam Ligurum fuerat.205

disappointment manifested itself nine years later, when the Pisans asked Rome for acommission to verify that the colonists were not exceeding their land allotments. 44Thus, Luna was a port torn between three worlds: that of the Etruscan-derivedPisans, the warlike Ligurians, and the newly settled Roman colonists. This is theaudience for the two temples which were built within the first decades of the founding ofthe colony. The deities worshipped in the Grand Temple are not attested by inscription,but the attribution to Diana is fairly certain based on archaeological evidence found at thetemple. First, the pedimental sculptures show a seated goddess with one breast bared. 45The goddess is flanked by an Apollo figure on the left and an unidentified male figure tothe right; this third figure might be a Dionysus or Liber figure, which would suggest apossible ideological link with Delphi. 4Within the temple, archaeologists also foundgilded bronze torches, similar to those held by Artemis Phosphoros at Delos. Byappropriating the Mediterranean depictions of the goddess, the builders of the temple mayhave meant to appeal to travelers, who came to the port of Luna for commercial purposes.Finally, the temple is located on the highest spot in the colony, which is the naturallocation for the eponymous deity, Luna. Thus it is fairly certain that the Grand Templehonored Diana as Luna.If this attribution is correct, several associations become clear. First, the earlymagistrates of the colony reinforced their patronage ties with Aemilius through dedicatingLivy 45.13.10.See Fontana (1997), pp. 265-6, figg. 74-78.Strazzula(1992),p. 170.206

the floor of the Grand Temple.This dedication indicates that the magistrates were notonly nodding to their patron's connection with Diana, but also performing a publicbenefaction for their own prestige in their new community. Second, the placement of thetemple within the city, but near the northern gate that faces the Ligurian hills, suggeststhat the cult of Diana adopted two roles: first as the patron goddess of the city and hercitizens. As such, Diana's customary place was within the walls on the highest possiblelocation. Furthermore, because a significant part of the population was now Roman andon the northern edges of Roman territory facing a bitter Ligurian enemy, Diana's secondrole was as protectress of the civilized world from the barbarian Ligurians. Theplacement of the temple so near the gate, which faces the northern hills emphasizes thismessage. On a regional scale, this temple was on the borders of the territory, it was stillmediating between Rome and her allies, such as Pisa, and the barbarian other.Strazzulla and Rossignani posit that the multi-cultural iconography of the templeacts as a dialogue between the Roman colonists and the not yet fully integrated locals, towhom the message is both conciliatory and an expressed wish of substitution of Romansfor locals, rather than coexistence.I suggest that the message is more complicated thanthat. The presence of the potnia theron antefixes discussed earlier ties this temple also tothe Latin conception of Diana as a goddess who offers a safe place of meeting to hostile47 CIL I 2 3368: L. Folcinifujs L.f. C. Fabius [f.J duovirum/pav[im]en[tumfaci]un[d]um dederun(t)eisfdemque probaverunt]. This dedicatory inscription was found inlaid with white tiles in the black sherdpavement of the pronaos of the Grand Temple of Luna. The letters are 8-9 cm high, and the overall lengthof the inscription is 5.4 m. The dedication seems to pertain to the first phase of the temple, during the firstdecades of the second century BCE. Cf. Calabi Limentani (1973-4), cc. 828 f., n. 67, table 229; Coarelli(1985-87), pp. 31 f.; Strazzulla (1992), p. 163, n. 10; Fontana (1997), pp. 260-261.48 Rossignani (1995), p. 65.207

peoples. With this added element, it is clear that the Roman colonists were sending areligious message in which coexistence with the Etruscan and Ligurian neighbors was akey feature. A message of coexistence is likely, and even necessary, when one considersthat the port of Luna served as a major gateway to economic activity for the entire region.The Pisans prospered from their control of the port before the foundation of the Romancolony, and probably continued to use the port afterwards, even if only to a small degree.The Ligurians that Lepidus resettled on the plains probably traded with Luna for maritimenecessities. Thus, these two populations came into economic contact with the colonists,as did any traders who brought merchandise into the port from the greater Mediterraneanworld. Along with economic contact came exposure to the visual cues built into thetemple of Diana at Luna.In conclusion, the worship of Diana in the Roman and Latin colonies followedtrends from Asia Minor, from Delphi, from Delos, from Rome, and most importantly,from the Latin cult of Diana Nemorensis. It is clear that Rome did not stamp the Romancult of Diana on her colonies during the middle Republic. 49Rather, the colonists partookof the broader Italian and Mediterranean worship of this complex goddess. If there was asingle message in all cults of Diana in Italy, it was the peaceable meeting of rivalcommunities - a message that does not benefit the Romans at the center, but the colonistsliving next door to the local populations in Northern Italy, Samnium, and Campania.Compare this with the first century CE custom of building colonial altars stipulating the same laws andrites as with the altar to Diana on the Aventine. There was one such at Ariminum (CIL XI361, cf. Bispham(2006), p. 73 and Beard, North, and Price (1998), 1.329 f). Thus, it was possible for Roman religious208

MinervaThe worship of Minerva throughout the colonies in Italy also boasted diverse origins thatlent the goddess different attributes according to the needs and choices of herworshippers. If the local population worshipped a military or political version of thegoddess, then the colony absorbed that goddess into the new pantheon, as in Luna andPaestum. Minerva served instead as a forum or perhaps commercial deity in the coloniesof Aquileia, Ariminum, and Sora. Finally, the goddess took on characteristics of hereastern counterpart in Luceria. Thus, the cult to Minerva throughout Italy speaks to theflexibility of religious interpretation and the importance of local deities in each colonialreligious system.In the midst of a description of the Insubres' preparations for war in 223 BCE,Polybius refers to a temple of Athena.oi 8E TCOV Ivooufipcov TTPOEOTCOTES 8ECOPOUVTE$ auETa0ETov ouaav Tr|v£-TTl(3oAf|V TCOV 'PcOHaiCOV, EKpiVCCV TfjS TUXHS Aa[3ETv TTEipaV KOtlSiccKtvBuvEuaai Trpos auTous 6AoaxEpco$. ouvaGpoiaavTEs ouv cmdaas (TCCSuTrapxouoas BuvdjiEis) ETTI Tairrov Kai xag XP U °°S onuEias xds 6tKivr|TousAEyouevaj KOSEAOVTES EK TOU Tfjs ASnvas ispou Kai TaAAaTtapaoKEuaoaiiEvoi BEOVTCOS UETCI TOUTO TE8appr|K6Tcos Kai KaTaTTAnKTiKcosavTEOTpaTOTTsSEuoav TCNS TTOAEMIOIS. Polyb. 2.32.6The chieftains of the Insubres, seeing that the Romans were determined to attackthem, resolved to stake everything on bringing their enemies to a decisive battle.They gathered all their forces, took down the golden standards which are knownas 'the immoveables' from the temple of Athena, and made all other preparationsfor war. (transl. Scott-Kilvert)This temple was probably located in the Insubrian capital of Mediolanum (Milan). 50Polybius' presentation of the preparations for war, including the golden standards ofcustoms to be transferred to the colonies under the Empire, but there is no evidence for such a phenomenonduring the middle Republic.50 Walbank(1979),p. 143 n. 1.209

Athena, indicates that the Insubrian goddess was a goddess of war and victory, much asthe Roman Minerva. 51The statue of Minerva in the pedimental sculpture at Luna depictsthe goddess in her armor. 52Thus, in choosing to found a cult to the Capitoline Triad, thecolonists in Luna not only flattered their patron, Lepidus, through his connection to JunoRegina, but they forged a link to their Gallic neighbors, who also worshippedMinerva/Athena as a military goddess.In Paestum, the cult of Minerva more obviously overtook the local worship ofAthena. The great temple to Athena in the Greek colony of Poseidonia stood at the top ofa slight rise overlooking the city. It was built at the end of the sixth century BCE.Anarchaic small temple, dating to c. 580 BCE, stood beside the Athenaion. The attributionto Athena is based on votives found near the temple: terracotta statuettes of a female deitywearing a helmet or bearing a round shield with the head of a Gorgon. 54The Latincolonists transferred their worship at this sanctuary to the corresponding Roman version,Minerva. Two artifacts were found in the North Sanctuary with the word "Menervae"inscribed on them: the lip of a dolium {[M]enerv[ae] ILP 7) and a large block{[MJenervae ILP 5 = CIL I 2 3147). 55The continuation of worship of the same goddess atthe same shrine probably allowed a point of common culture between the Latin colonistsand their Greek and Lucanian neighbors.51 Caes. B Gall. 6.17.2 also comments on a Gallic goddess that corresponds to Minerva. On the syncretismof Minerva with a Celtic goddess: Mastrocinque (1991), p. 221 ff.; Chirassi Colombo (1976), p. 204 ff.;Cantarelli (1987), p. 101 ff.; Cenerini (1992), p. 105; Scheid (1992), p. 35; and on Celtic Minerva: DeVries (1982), p. 107 ff.52 See Strazzula (1992), Tav. IVa, Andreen C:2.5j Greco, D'Ambrosio, and Theodorescu (1996), p. 34.54 Ibid. p. 142.55 Torelli (1999b), pp. 52-53.210

Inscriptions to Minerva also appear in the colonies of Sora, Ariminum, andAquileia. Unfortunately, the inscriptions do not provide much information as to the rolethe goddess played in the colony. A first century BCE inscription from Sora bore adedication to Minerva associated with a donario; it was found near the forum of thecolony. 56A second or early first century BCE inscription to the goddess from Q. Pupius,a member of a well-known gens in Cisalpine Gaul, probably once stood in the forum ofAriminum. 57Finally, at Aquileia, three dedicatory inscriptions have been found dating toCOthe Republican period.Based on the inscriptions, the goddess Minerva in Aquileia wasvenerated by freedmen and slaves. 59The evidence at Aquileia suggests that the Romangoddess of the Capitoline was not introduced into the colony, or if she was, her worshipmutated to fit the needs of the lower classes by the century after the foundation of thecolony.For Aquileia and Ariminum, Fontana posits that Minerva had a connection to thewool trade. 60She bases this conclusion on an inscription from the Principate to MinervaAugusta from the fullers of Aquileia. 61For Ariminum, her argument derives fromhypothesized pastoral connections of the gens Pupia.If these connections are correct,56 AE (1985) 266. Sex(tus) Curfidius C(ai) ffilius) / M(arcus) Caesius L(uci) ffilius) / Minervae p(ondo)XXS/ d(e) s(enatus) s(ententia)/faciendum) c(uraverunt) // Mvir(i). See Chapter 4, pp. 185, especially n.154.57 CIL XI 359 = CIL 12128 (p 1082) = ILLRP 241 = ERimini 23. Qfuintus) Pupius / Salvius / Minervai /v(otum) s(olvit) l(ibens) m(erito). Cf. Mansuelli (1941), p. 39. Fontana (1997), p. 222-3,242-3.58 CIL I 1457, 1462, and 1463. Fontana (1997), pp. 115-24, 197-8, 201-2.59 Fontana (1997), p. 120.60 Fontana (1997), pp. 123-124 (Aquileia) and 222-223 (Ariminum).61 CIL V 801 = Pais 66 = InscrAqu I, 301 = D 3128 = IEAquil 240. Minervae / Aug(ustae) sac(rum) /M(arcus) Valerius / Venustus / et Mulcedatia Tais / gentilibus / Artorianis lotoribus / aram d(ono)d(ederunt).62 Fontana (1997), p. 223.211

these cults of Minerva show characteristics not of a Gallic or Roman interpretation of theCeltic goddess, but of an Italic interpretation that links her to the goddess that assistedHercules in his endeavors. 63I think Fontana's suggestions are inspired, but should beviewed with caution. The wool connection at Aquileia could have arisen during thePrincipate, and so might have nothing to do with the original cult of the Latin colonists.Furthermore, there is not enough in the inscription at Ariminum to suggest by itself that itwas dedicated from a shepherd to his pastoral goddess. I think the most that can be saidabout these Minervas is that they were worshipped in the forum or in the colony.In the southern colony of Luceria, Minerva took the form of an easterncounterpart: Athena Iliaca. Evidence for this cult was found in the votive deposit on theBelvedere hill. 64The cult place was used both by the Daunian local population and thenby the Latin colonists of 315 BCE. 65The items found in the deposit point to akourotrophic goddess but also to an armed Minerva, caretaker of dogs, healer, andguardian of marriage.Strabo identifies this multi-function goddess as Athena Iliaca.The complex physiognomy of the votive deposit leads D'Ercole to conclude that the cultto Trojan Athena began with the Latin colony, and the main attributes apply to a culturalsituation from the Etruscan-Latin-Campanian region.D'Ercole adds that the richness ofthe votives and multiplicity of roles ascribed to the goddess, including protector of63 Fontana (1997), p. 115 ff.; Wissowa (1912), p. 252 ff.; Latte (1960), p. 163 ff.; Girard (1970), p. 469 ff.;Castagnoli (1979), p 4 ff.; Torelli (1984), p. 50 f.64 The catalog of this deposit is published in D'Ercole (1990).65 Ibid. p. 290 and 302 n. 693 regarding the presence in the deposit of fourth century antefixes, whichpredate the colony.66 Ibid. pp. 290-291.67 Strabo 6.264.68 D'Ercole (1990), p. 300. Cf. p. 302 on Torelli's interpretation of this cult as the Roman declaration oftheir imperialist policies in southern Italy. Torelli (1984), p. 227 ff.212

animals and healing, suggests that the elite among the Daunian locals used this sanctuaryand brought in local religious traditions. 69Thus, the cult may have started with the Latincolonists, but it served as a point of conspicuous consumption and interaction for thelocal population as well.The evidence for the worship of Minerva in the colonies in Italy indicates thatthere were several aspects of Minerva available for worship. One of them was theCeltic/Roman warrior goddess (as recognized by the Greek Polybius, who was familiarwith the Greek conception of Athena as warrior). It was this goddess who appeared in thepedimental sculptures of the capitolium at Luna. In other colonies, however, otheraspects of Minerva appealed to her worshippers more, including healing at Luceria andperhaps commercial aspects at Aquileia and Ariminum. Minerva's cult may have beeninstituted by the Latin or Roman colonists, but it often adopted a local valence as well.Furthermore, the variety of interpretations of Minerva in the colonies implies that thecolonists drew on Mediterranean, Italic, and Roman conceptions of the goddess accordingto their own needs. The worship of Minerva in Italy was an ad hoc development, whichserved not the population of the city of Rome, but the colonists and the local populations.HerculesAlthough Hercules was originally a Greek hero, he was naturalized and worshipped sowidely throughout Italy that he can almost be considered a native Italian god. 70There isdebate over whether his cult spread throughout archaic Italy by means of EtruscanD'Ercole(1990),p. 303.Prosdocimi (1989), p. 529.213

colonization, contact with Greek colonists, images on coins from Magna Graecia,veneration by transhumant shepherds, or even through the movements of mercenarybands. 71These methods need not be mutually exclusive; they all could have functionedin tandem, leading to the widespread and diverse worship of Hercules in almost all partsof the Italian peninsula. 72Dionysius of Halicarnassus presents an account of Hercules asa colonizer, 73 which might suggest that Hercules was particularly important in thisvalence to the Roman and Latin colonists of the middle Republic. The evidence forworship of Hercules, such as small bronze figures, pocula deorum, inscriptions, andtemples, are so diverse in the colonies and so widespread in other Italian communitiesthat I would argue instead that the colonists adopted Hercules according to their needs asa community, not simply because they were colonists.Hercules' function as a colonizer is certainly one aspect of his worship. Bisphamdraws attention to the connotations of the cult found in Sicily and Southern Italy, whereHercules' endeavors resonated with the promotion of cultural and economic interactiontypical of colonial experience. 74The connection between Hercules' exploits andcolonization was noted even in antiquity by Dionysius of Halicarnassus {Ant. Rom. 1.38-44). Dionysius offers a 'truer' version of Hercules' travels in Italy {Ant. Rom. 1.41.1 f.)which deals not with cattle, but with Hercules as commander of a large army whichdestroyed despotisms, avenged injured states, and established humane and sociableVon Wonterghem (1992), pp. 320-322 for a discussion of, and evidence for, these methods in terms ofthe Osco-Sabellic peoples.72 Ibid., p. 322.73 Ant. Rom. 1.38-44.74 Bispham (2006), pp. 113-4.214

modes of life. Bispham notes that Dionysius' version of Hercules' travels is differentfrom the Aeneid, and thus is not the Augustan version of events but derives from one ormore Republican accounts. 75If so, then Dionysius might well offer a Republicanjustification of colonization as well as the movement of great groups of Ligurians toSamnium. 76Nevertheless, the colonization aspect of the worship of Hercules was notnecessarily the first or only one that the colonists adopted.As shown by archaeological evidence, worship of Hercules in the coloniesoccurred in different ways, which suggest diverse origins of the rites depending on thechoices made by the practitioners. One very common votive offering to Hercules was asmall, bronze figurine of the 'Hercules in Attack' type, with raised club in his right handand the lion skin over his bent left arm. Examples of these have been found in cult placesassociated with the colonies of Pisaurum, Bononia, and Aquileia in the north, but they area widely known Umbro-Sabellic phenomenon and so occur frequently in the central77Apennines, e.g. at Beneventum and Luceria.The first occurrences of the Hercules typedate to the fifth century BCE and continued to be used as votives and in domestic cult inone form or another through the imperial period, e.g. at Aquileia. 7870They were found atboth urban and rural sanctuaries.Prati suggests that these figures constitute the lastmaterial expression of the local religious devotion and that the use of metal indicates that75 Bispham (2006), pp. 116. Cf. Sutton (1977), pp. 391-393.75 Livy 40.38, 41. Scott (1992), p. 93 and Bispham (2006), p. 116.77 See Von Wonterghem (1992), p. 321; Fontana (1997), pp. 106-107; and Colonna (1970) with appendiceslisting the figurines at each site and museum.78 Bertacchi (1994), pp. 36-37 and fig. 37 of an imperial bronze figurine of Hercules with lion skin. Thisshows one development of the type, which began to show greater diversity and artistry from the fourthcentury BCE on (cf. Von Wonterghem (1992), p. 324 and figg. 8-9). Other models include the 'Hercules inRepose' and 'Hercules Drinking.'79 Von Wonterghem (1992), p. 324.215

they were the offerings of the wealthy classes whereas terracotta votives belonged to thepoor. 80This explanation of the artifacts does not allow for the element of conscious01choice by the worshippers, however.Another indicator of Hercules worship comes in the form of a black-glazeddrinking cup, ihepocula deorum, with the name of the god painted or inscribed either asan initial 'H' or in the genitive. 82The prototype for these cups comes from Rome,whence they spread throughout Latium and Southern Etruria in the fourth and thirdcenturies BCE. 83The colonial versions were a local copy from the Roman pattern, as inthe case of Ariminum, 84 if not Roman imports themselves. Excavators have discoveredthese at several colonies, including Ariminum, Cales, Fregellae, Cosa, Paestum, and AlbaFucens. 85Bispham asserts that the worship of Hercules, as represented by these cups,Qgrwas tied to rituals of migration and foundation.While this may certainly sometimes bethe case, it certainly does not follow automatically from the presence of such cups, which,it is important to remember, were used also in and around Rome, Latium, and southernEtruria. 87It is tempting to assign the small bronze representations of Hercules to the precolonialphase of worship and the pocula to the colonial phase, especially since strong80 Prati (2007), p. 38.81 See in general Webster (2001) on choice as a determining factor in religious expression.82 The genitive is most common with gods other than Hercules. De Bellis (1995), p. 369, and in general,Morel, Torelli, Coarelli et al (1973) and Morel (1988), p. 57-60. Other names for these are 'atelier despetites estampilles' and 'Heraklesschalen.'83 De Bellis (1995), p. 369. Morel, Torelli, Coarelli et al. (1973) and Morel (1988).84 De Bellis (1995), p. 369. The Hercules cups are the most common at Ariminum: Susini (2000), p. 10.85 Ibid, p. 386. Bispham (2006), p. 108 and 143 nn. 187ff. esp. 192; Morel (1988), p. 57-60; Susini (1965),p. 147 fig. 3; Fontemaggi & Piolanti (2000), p. 510f. fig. 180 a-c; and Fontana (1997), p. 220f. Torelli(1993)p. Ill ff.86 Bispham (2006), p. 100 and Ortalli (2000), p. 503.87 For example, one was found at a possible sanctuary in the vicus Cermalus in Rome (CIL XI 6786).216

examples of both occurring simultaneously in one colony have not yet been discovered.This is an argument from silence, however, and it is belied by the presence of thirdcentury bronze heads found at Ariminum, where there were also pocula to Hercules.Although the heads do not depict Hercules, clearly the technology and materials to makevotives of Hercules existed. Thus, worship of Hercules by pocula or figurine was achoice that the colonists and post-colonial locals of Ariminum made.Finally, there are temple structures and inscriptions dedicated to Herculesthroughout Italy, including in and near the colonies. Paestum boasted the amphiprostyletemple discussed in Chapter 4.Along the road to Naples, Puteoli also had a temple toHercules, which predated the Roman colony and perhaps continued in use to the thirdcentury CE. 90Although not a colony, Campochiaro near Luceria also claimed a greatsanctuary to the pastoral representation of the god. lAs detailed in Chapter 4, a secondcentury BCE inscription to Hercules in his commercial guise was dedicated at a cliff-sidesanctuary in Sora. 92Another second century BCE inscription appears on two fragmentsof an altar to the god in Aquileia.Hercules also is listed on the third century BCEAgnone Tables, found in a town near the colony of Isernia, as well as on the secondcentury BCE Cippo Abellano, found between Beneventum and Naples. 94See Fontemaggi and Piolanti (2000), p. 108 for the bronze heads, which perhaps represent Vulcanus.89 Chapter 4, p. 175. Cf. Torelli (1999b), pp. 62-64.90 Gialanella (2003), pp. 76-78. Evidence for the attribution of the temple derives from a votive depositcontaining a black-glazed relief of a reclining Hercules.91 For a thorough discussion of this sanctuary complex, see Capini (2003).92 Chapter 4, p. 187.93 CIL I 2 3414. C(aius) Albi(us) [l(ibertius)] / Andies / H(erculi) a(ram) d(at) / C(aius) Dindius T(iti)l(ibertius) / Mogio H(erculi) a(ram) d(at). Fontana (1997), pp. 191-192. See also pp. 196-197 for anothersmall altar to Hercules from the second century.94 Von Wonterghem (1992), p. 320. Cf. Prosdocimi (1989), p. 529217

As much as the various types of structures and dedications to Hercules show thediversity of the cult, so much more so does the placement of these sanctuaries. VonWonterghem posits that one of the purposes of the small bronzes was to serve in domesticcult, which is why they are sometimes found outside of known sanctuaries. 95Herculeswas also one of the gods of springs, in which guise he was venerated at the sanctuary ofMarica outside Minturnae.In Fregellae, the votives to the god were located in the fieldnear the town, where flocks were probably kept before sale.The sanctuary atnoCampochiaro seems to have been along a major transhumance route.In Sora, acommercial Hercules shared his sanctuary with the god Silvanus in the woods outside oftown." Hercules also appeared in the commercial centers at Paestum and, of course,Rome.Thus, the cult of Hercules was prominent throughout Italy and crossed social andgroup boundaries, as Bispham asserts, 100 but his worship was not uniform in dedicationtype or cult location. Certainly Dionysius of Halicarnassus supports the assertion of suchuniversal but varied worship when he quips:TToXXaxfj 5e Kai aXXrj Tfjs IxaXias CCVETTCCI Teuevn xcp 8eco, Kai ficouoiKara TTOXEIS TE I'SpuvTai Kcti Trap' 660U5, KCU crrravicos av supoi T15iTaXias x^pov, EV0a uf] TuyxavEi TIUCOUEVOS 6 8E05. Ant. Rom. 1.40.6In many other places also in Italy precincts are dedicated to this god and altarserected to him, both in cities and along highways; and one could scarcely findany place in Italy in which the god is not honored. (Trans. Cary)95 Von Wonterghem (1992), p. 323.96 For Hercules and springs in general, see Leigh (2000).97 Coarelli(1998),p.38.98 Von Wonterghem (1992), p. 324 and figure 4 on p. 342.99 See Chapter 4, p. 186. There was also a sanctuary to Silvanus Liber outside of Pisaurum {CIL XI6317)although there is no evidence of Hercules there.100 Bispham (2006), p. 113.218

Moreover, because the worship of Hercules was so diverse in the colonies, it could nothave begun and ended with Hercules as a colonizing god nor as a Roman imposition.Clearly, the worship of Hercules was shaped by the needs and choices of the local andcolonial populations.MarsAlong with Hercules as colonizer, Mars was another god that had a link with themovement of Italian populations through his role in the Sabellic ver sacrum. UnlikeHercules, however, evidence of the worship of Mars is scarce in the colonies of themiddle Republic. Small bronze figurines, similar to those of Hercules discussed above(pp. 224-225) mark archaic worship of the warlike god. We also have his name ininscriptions dating to the third century BCE. The following section compares the archaicrole of Mars with the evidence for later cults in order to see if there is any connectionbetween Mars as colonizer and the Latin and Roman colonies of the middle Republic.Although a ver sacrum was vowed to Jupiter in Rome in 217 BCE, the custom haslegendary origins with the Sabines. 101The Sabellic ver sacrum involved sacrificing all ofthe fruits of the spring to a god, usually Mars, and sending the children born that year to acolony after they had reached the age of majority. 102Strabo (5.4.12) outlines the process:Prosdocimi (1989), pp. 528-529. For the Roman ver sacrum see Heurgon (1957) Chapter 3: "Le 'VerSacrum' Romain de 217," pp. 36-51.102 Prosdocimi (1989), p. 528 argues that the ver sacrum was not a factual reality but an idealized reality orideology of a reality. One of the reasons he cites is that the animals born in the year of the vow would havebeen too old to go to the colony with the humans. I think he overlooks the sacrifice of the animals, whichoccurred the year after the vow, or in the case of the Roman ver sacrum, the year after the conditions of thevow were fulfilled.219

TTepl 8E 2auviTcbv Kai TOIOUTOS TIS Xoyos cpEpETai, 8IOTI TTOXEUOUVTESSapJTvoi TTOXUV xpovov "npos TOUS 'OpfJpiKous EU^OVTO, Ka8aTfEp TCOV'EXXr|VCOV TIV£$, TCC yEVO|iEVa TCp ETEl TOUTCp KaBlEpCOCKIl, VlKT^OaVTES 8E TCOVyEvoiJEVGOV TCX [ikv KaTeOuaav TCX 5E KaSiEpcooavacpopias 8E yEvn8Eior|s, ETTTETIS cos EXP>1 V KaSispcooai Kai TO TEKVO. oi 8' ETroinaav TOUTO Kai TOUSyEvouEvous TOTE TraT8as >\pEcos ETTE^UIOOV, av8pco8EVTas 8'EOTEiXav EISctTroiKiav, riynoaTo 8E Taupos" EV 8E TTJ TCOV 'OTTIKCOV KCtTsuvaoBEVTos(ETviyxavou 8E KCOHTISOV ^COVTES) EK(3CXX6VTES EKEIUOUS i8pu0rioav auTo6i KaiTOV TaOpov eacpayiaoav Tcp "ApEi TCO 86UTI aurov riyEiiova KaTa Tf]v TCOVuavTEcov diTOcpaoiv.Concerning the Samnites there is another story current to this effect: The Sabini,since they had long been at war with the Ombrici, vowed (just as some of theGreeks do) to dedicate everything that was produced that year; and, on winningthe victory, they partly sacrificed and partly dedicated all that was produced;then a dearth ensued, and some one said that they ought to have dedicated thebabies too; this they did, and devoted to Mars all the children born that year; andthese children, when grown to manhood, they sent away as colonists, and a bullled the way; and when the bull lay down to rest in the land of the Opici (who, asit chanced, were living only in villages), the Sabini ejected them and settled onthe spot, and, in accordance with the utterance of their seers, slaughtered the bullas a sacrifice to Mars who had given it for a guide. (Transl. Jones)Strabo's account highlights several important aspects of the ritual: first it can be inferredthat the vow requested of Mars assistance during the current war. Thus, Mars is stillfunctioning as the god of war at the outset of this process. When the Sabines becamesuccessful in their campaign, they sacrificed or dedicated the fruits of the year. Thissacrifice was not sufficient, so the children were added to the scope of the vow.The second important point is that, once the children had reached adulthood, Marstook on the role of guide and guardian. Basically, he became a god of colonization as anoffshoot of his role as warrior. Dionysius of Halicarnassus (Ant. Rom. 1.16.3) adds thatMars continued to grant prosperity to the new colonists:6 TE 6EOS, cp Kcnrovouaa0ETEv aiTEXauvouEvoi, auXXapifiavEiv avrrois cos T &TTOXXCX E86KEI

This implies that the colonists maintained the worship of Mars in their new communities.Dionysius of Halicarnassus does not specify that Mars was the god to whom the colonistswere vowed; he uses the formula BECOV OTCO twice more in the narrative regarding the versacrum. 103Nonetheless, Strabo's account is clear on the deity worshipped.Finally, Strabo (5.4.12) states that a bull led the Sabine colonists, the Samnites, toland of the Opici and lay down as a sign that the colonists were to settle there. In honorof the bull, whom they believed to be the god in animal form, the Samnites named thearea Bovianum. 104The Samnites in this area belonged to the Pentri tribe, who alsoinhabited the later Latin colony of Aesernia. 105Another tribe of Samnites were called theHirpini, perhaps after a legend that Mars in wolf form led Sabine colonists south to thearea of Malventum, which would later be the Latin colony of Beneventum. 106Straboelsewhere mentions that the Picentes were Sabine colonists who, having followed awoodpecker (picus), settled in the area around the later Latin colony of Ariminum. 107Thus, these Sabellic populations, which lived in areas where the Romans later colonized,were thought to have had a strong connection to the god Mars according to literaturewritten centuries after the period in question. 108There is also archaeological evidence of the worship of Mars during the archaicperiod, especially in northern Italy around the territory of the Picentes. Small bronze103 Dion. Hal. Ant. Rom. 1.16.2, 1.16.4.104 Prosdocimi (1989), p. 528.105 Salmon (1967), p. 44.106 Ibid, p. 46.107 Strabo 5.4.2.108 See Salmon (1967), pp. 167-168 for discussion of other evidence of Mars/Mamers worship among theSamnites.221

figurines in an attacking pose, wearing a helmet with a tall crest and some form ofcuirass, have been found in and around the colonies of Bononia, 109 Ariminum, 110 andPisaurum. 1 ' lThese figurines are of the Umbro-Sabellic type and date between the sixthand fourth centuries BCE. Von Wonterghem posits that Mars and Hercules filled thesame symbolic functions, but in the north and south, respectively. 112The occurrence of aselect few statuettes of Mars in the south or Hercules in the north, as at Bononia,Pisaurum, and Aquileia, suggests that the choice of which god to worship was a personalone for the dedicator.Isolated inscriptions suggest that Mars continued to be worshipped in some ofthese places during the third and second centuries. The names Mars Grabovius and MarsHorius appear on the third century Iguvine tablets, found at Gubbio in Umbria (c. 80 kmi ninland from the colonies of Pisaurum and Sena Gallica).As discussed in chapter 4 (p.194), the Latin colony of Sora boasted an altar to Mars near the forum as well as ahelmeted head of a rare type also found at Capua and outside Minturnae. 114Beyond theseinscriptions evidence of the worship of Mars in Italy is rare for the middle Republic,especially in the Latin and Roman colonies. 115109 Colonna (1970), pp. 36-37, #41.110 Ibid., pp. 25-26, #1.1,1 Ibid., pp. 78-79 (#181), 76 (#174), 72 (#161), and 69-70 (#149). Such figurines are also displayed in themuseums at Bologna (Colonna #69 and #121), Lucca (#16), and Parma (# 20 and #227), although theprovenance of these examples is uncertain.112 Von Wonterghem (1992), p. 321 and figure 2, p. 340.113 Tavole Iguvine la 11; VIb 1. Prosdocimi (1989), pp. 484-485. Von Wonterghem (1992, p. 321) usesMars' names in this inscription along with the lack of Mars in the Agnone Tables found in the territory ofthe Pentri as evidence of the split in function between Mars and Hercules.114 Rizzello (1980), p. 85. Mingazzini (1938), tables XXV 16 and XXVI 19. Capua: Bonghi Iovino (1965),Vol. I, p. 86, table XXIX 4.115 In a Roman context, there is slightly more evidence although none of it has any direct relevance forcolonization, see Gordon's entry under 'Mars' in Brill's New Pauly for references. Mars was, however,important in Roman rituals of purification: see Cato Agr. 141, wherein Mars was venerated at the lustratio222

In conclusion, we do not have evidence of wide-spread veneration of Mars in theRoman and Latin colonies of the middle Republic. Although the warrior god became thepatron of Sabellic colonization efforts, and archaeological evidence shows worship of thegod in some of the areas where Latin colonies were founded in the third century, Marswas not one of the gods prominently adopted by the Latin colonists. There could beseveral explanations for this. First, of course, we might not have found evidence forMars' cult in the colonies yet or the rituals did not leave permanent evidence. Second,one possible hypothesis is that Mars was the god, not of Italian colonization in general,but of Samnite colonization specifically. When the praetor A. Cornelius Mammulavowed a ver sacrum in 217 BCE, the resulting sacrifices (in 195 and 194 BCE) weremade to Jupiter, not Mars. 116 Thus, Jupiter not Mars would be a more likely god ofRoman colonization. Third, Mars is primarily the god of war, although he does havesome agricultural connections as well. 117As such, his is a poor choice of cults withwhich to draw two or more (formerly hostile) communities together. In any case, it seemsthat Mars was not a popular choice for worship in the Latin and Roman colonies.agri, and the passages relevant to the lustratio of the Roman state and army: Dion. Hal. 4.22.1{suovetaurilia) and Cic. Div. 1.102 and App. B Civ. 5.96 (lustratio exercitus, lustratio classis).116 Livy 22.10. The vow was discharged in 195 and again in 194: Livy 33.44 and 34.44. Livy's notice ofthe colonizations of 194 BCE comes immediately after (34.45). This will be discussed further in the sectionon Jupiter, below (pp. 228-229).117 See especially the theories proposed by Dumezil (1970) and the passage in Cato Agr. 141. Prosdocimi(1989, p. 493-496 and 528) dismisses the agrarian valence of Mars by arguing that the lustration of thefields is a sub-ritual in Mars' greater powers over purifications, not a specific connection to the fieldsthemselves.223

JupiterCults of Jupiter, too, are not prominent in the colonies, although they occur morefrequently than those of Mars. Beyond the capitolium at Luna, there are literary noticesof an altar or temple in three mid-Republican colonies (Ariminum, Minturnae, andPisaurum), a temple in a fourth (Potentia), and inscriptions for a fifth (Paestum). Theliterary references to Jupiter are from Livy, so it is impossible to tell if the cult wasRoman or not through the Romano-centric viewpoint of the author. Nonetheless, thissection discusses these references as well as contemporary Italic cults to Jupiter beforereturning to the issue of the ver sacrum.In 217 BCE, C. Flaminius, a consul designate, ordered troops to muster inAriminum (268) on the Ides of March and surreptitiously left Rome without performing11 Sthis religious duties there.Upon entering office, Flaminius was supposed to performvows on the Capitol, visit the temple of Jupiter Optimus Maximus on his first day ofoffice, proclaim the Latin Festival and the annual sacrifice to Latin Jupiter, and takeauspices before leaving for his province with all pomp and circumstance. Although thesenate recalled Flaminius, he chose to enter into his office in Ariminum instead andperformed his sacrifice there:Paucos post dies magistratum iniit, immolantique ei uitulus iam ictus e manibussacrificantium sese cum proripuisset, multos circumstantes cruore respersit;fugaprocul etiam maior apudignaros quid trepidaretur et concursatiofuit. Idaplerisque in omen magni terroris acceptum. Livy 21.63.13-14.A few days afterwards he entered upon office, and whilst offering his sacrifice,the calf, after it was struck, bounded away out of the hands of the sacrificingpriests and bespattered many of the bystanders with its blood. Amongst those ata distance from the altar who did not know what the commotion was about there1,8 Livy 21.63 f.224

was great excitement; most people regarded it as a most alarming omen. (Trans.Roberts)That Flaminius still observed a religious sacrifice at Ariminum suggests that there was analtar to Jupiter there, which Flaminius deemed a suitable substitute for the CapitolineTemple in Rome. Although this passage is not conclusive evidence that there was a cultto Jupiter in Ariminum, we can infer that an acceptable (to Flaminius' mind) alternativeto the Capitoline Temple was available, most likely an altar to Jupiter. Alternatively, hecould have used a field altar (see Chapter 3 pp. 135-136).The other two locations of temples to Jupiter given by Livy are less conjectural.Livy twice mentions that lightning struck the temple of Jupiter in Minturnae, implyingthat there was indeed such a structure. The strikes took place in 207 BCE and in 191BCE. Livy reports the first strike as affecting both the temple of Jupiter and the grove ofMarica, which was at the mouth of the river. 119Guidobaldi suggests that this means theoriginal temple was outside of the castrum of the original colony, although she admits thelocation is far from certain.After the first strike, the colonists rebuilt the temple,perhaps moving it inside the city. Livy's second notice of a lightning strike mentions thatthe temple and the booths in the forum were struck.Inscriptions reading fulgur havebeen found in the forum, confirming the location of at least the second temple. 122Finally, in 174 BCE, Q. Fulvius Flaccus, censor, let a contract for a temple toJupiter at Pisaurum using colonial funds. The pertinent passage of Livy is corrupted:119 Livy 27.37.2-3120 Guidobaldi and Pesando (1989), p. 39.121 Livy 36.37.3.122 ILLRPpp. 31-35. Guidobaldi and Pesando (1989), pp. 39 and 51-52. Guidobaldi remains cautiousabout the exact date of the inscriptions as they could belong to any lightning strike. Livy records anothersuch portent for 169 BCE (43.13).225

censores eo anno creati Q. Fuluius Flaccus etA. Postumins Albinus legenmtsenatum; .... et alter ex Us Fuluius Flaccus — nam Postumius nihil nisi senatusRomani populiue iussu se locaturum — ipsorum pecunia Iouis aedemPisauri et Fundis et Potentiae ... haec ab uno censore opera locata cum magnagratia colonorum.. Livy 41.27.1, 11, 13.Q. Fulvius Flaccus and A. Postumius Albinus were elected censors this year andrevised the roll of the senate. ... Postumius gave out that without the orders ofthe Roman senate or people he would not spend their money, so Fulvius Flaccus,acting alone, built a temple to Jupiter at Pisaurum and at Fundi ... These workscontracted for by one of the censors were greatly appreciated by the members ofthe colony. (Trans. Roberts)If Flaccus did construct the temple of Jupiter at Pisaurum from colonial funds, then hismotive was certainly to gain the gratitude of the colonists for himself, as Livy asserts atthe end of the same passage. Furthermore, if the emended text is correct in thatPostumius objected, it was not to using Rome's public funds for a colonial buildingproject, since the pair had contracted for tasks at Auximum as well. Rather Postumiusobjected to Q. Fulvius Flaccus using public funds to increase the client-bonds his familygained in Pisaurum, which the censor's brother, Marcus, had founded.Moreover,when one considers the apparent rivalry between the Fulvii and M. Aemilius Lepidus, thecensor's interest in adding a temple of Jupiter to Pisaurum in 174 seems significant. Justthree years previously, Lepidus founded Luna. The capitolium in Luna must have beennearing completion by 174. It is possible that Fulvius was inspired by Lepidus'innovation and the enthusiasm his colonists displayed in erecting two large temples totheir patron's goddesses. It may be a stretch to assume that Fulvius' temples to Jupiter inBispham (2006), pp. 120-1. Cf. Guidobaldi and Pesando (1989), p. 43. Bispham also notes that thebuilding program focuses on citizen colonies and ager Romamis, only where it is not overly advantageousto one man. Latin colonies were not included in Roman urban renewal schemes. The other projects let outwere for the improvement of civic structures, roads, etc. The only bone of contention was the temples, inthis case, and other improvements to land owned by the Fulvius family's clientele.226

Pisaurum and Fundi were capitolia, but they were certainly an introduction into a colonialsetting of a Roman deity promoted by a Fulvius, not by Roman senatorial policy.As a final note on the Fulvian embellishment of the colonies, a major forumtemple has been found in Pisaurum's sister colony of Potentia. There is no goodepigraphic data to confirm that this is a temple to Jupiter, but the excavators assume thatit is based on its location, architecture, decorative style, and Livy's mention of Fulvius'building plans in Pisaurum. 124Given the wide array of temples seen throughout thecolonies, I am not comfortable with this assumption until more corroborating evidence isexcavated.As discussed in Chapter 4, the Latin colonists of Paestum continued the worshipof Greek Zeus Agoraios and his Lucanian counterpart.The Latin Jupiter is attestedthrough two inscriptions, one on a large stone found in the North Sanctuary and the other1 Of*a bronze plaque found in the forum area.Inscriptions also attest to the third centuryworship of Jupiter by Italic populations outside of Pisaurum (the Iguvine Tablets) and197near Aesernia (the Agnone Tablets).Livy further attests that Jupiter was an importantdeity to the Samnites: any warrior not taking the oath to follow the commanders intobattle was immediately sacrificed to that god.Thus, while we know that Jupiter wasimportant to the Romans, he was also significant to the Samnites and Greeks. The lack ofconcrete archaeological evidence to explain the nature of the cults to Jupiter in124 Vermeulen, Hay, and Verhoevan (2006), pp. 230-231.125 See above, pp. 172.126 Torelli (1999b), pp. 52-53.127 For Jupiter's name in the Agnone Tablets, see Salmon (1967), p. 160. For the Iguvine Tablets seeProsdocimi (1989), p. 485.128 Livy 10.38.3.227

Ariminum, Minturnae, and Pisaurum does not allow us to make a determination that thesecults were Roman or of a different derivation.As a last note on the frustrating lack of evidence for what form worship of Jupitertook in specific Latin and Roman colonies, let us return to the ver sacrum dedicated inRome in 217 BCE (Livy 22.9-10, Plut. Fab. 4.4) and discharged unsuccessfully in 195(Livy 33.44) and successfully in 194 BCE (Livy 34.44). Livy is clear that this vow wasmade to Jupiter: quaeque profana erunt Ioui fieri (22.10.3). Immediately after the lastnotice of the sacred spring of 194, Livy reports an unprecedented number of colonialfoundations: Puteoli, Volturnum, Liternum, Salernum, Buxentum, Sipontum, Tempsa,and Croton. 129Each of these was a maritime colony given 300 citizens.While this may seem to fulfill the Sabellic formula for the ver sacrum, asdiscussed above, there are several discrepancies. First, the deity in the Roman examplewas Jupiter, not Mars. Jupiter was, however, the patron deity of the Roman state, so adedication to him is not surprising.Second, the vow of the sacred spring nevermentioned sacrifice of anything beyond animals: quod uer attulerit ex suillo ouillocaprino bouillo grege (Livy 22.10.3) and eviavrrou UEV aiycbv KOH OUCOV KOU TrpofJonxovKOU Bocbv Efnyovnw (Plut. Fab. 4.5). There is no mention of colonists in the vow itself.Finally, the timing of the sacrifices and colonization is askew. In a Sabellic versacrum, the fruits of the year were sacrificed that year, and the children born that yearwere dispatched to their new colony when they had grown up. In the Roman version, thesacrifice of the animals did not occur for over 20 years (217 to 195 BCE). Moreover, at129 Livy 34.45.130 Heurgon(1957),p.39.228

the decision of the pontifex maximus and the senate, the sacrifice was repeated the nextyear (194 BCE). Only then does Livy mention colonies, but I think this is a coincidence.Some or all of these colonies had been planned two years before the first attempt toperform the sacrifices. 131If the ver sacrum of 194 was intended to accompany thecolonization, why was the one in 195 performed? It is a much more simple answer if thetwo events are not related but merely reported by Livy in the same breath, as it were.It seems that the Roman ver sacrum was not identical to the Sabellic formula, sowe cannot expect that the Roman colonists were led out and protected by Jupiter in thesame way the Samnites were by Mars. Furthermore, there is insufficient archaeologicalevidence in these colonies to determine if Jupiter was venerated there especially, if at all.Jupiter was prominent in the colonies of Luna, Pisaurum, Minturnae, and Paestumcertainly, and perhaps also Potentia and Ariminum. These hardly constitute a majority ofthe colonies founded in the middle Republic. Thus, until more concrete evidence hassurfaced, Jupiter cannot be said to be the (or even a) patron god of Roman colonization.Gods in the Colonies: ConclusionsIn general, the cults in the mid-Republican colonies exhibit religious influences fromcentral Italy, Greece, or Samnium much more than they do a strictly Roman influence.The strength and source of influences on the colonial cult depends on the god in question,however. The location of the colonies and specific local populations are also important.The influences on each cult discussed in this chapter are summarized in Figure 5.1.131 In 197 BCE, the lex coloniae was passed to found Volternum, Liternum, Puteoli, and Salernum at thevery least. Livy 32.29.3-4.

In the colonies in Northern Italy, the religious influences included Central Italian,Eastern, Greek, Latin, Sabellic, Gallic, Etruscan, and Roman sources. When split bylocation more specifically, it becomes clear that the Sabellic influences only occurred inthe colonies located near the Picentes, a tribe of Sabellic origins. These colonies includeAquileia, Ariminum, Bononia, and Pisaurum. Luna, a colony in the eastern half ofNorthern Italy does not show Sabellic influence, but it does have a stronger Etruscan andGreek connection, which is not surprising in an important port town.Figure 5.1: Influences on Colonial Cults Discussed in Chapter 5Northern ColoniesAquileiaAriminumBononiaLunaPisaurumPotentiaJuno Diana Minerva Hercules Mars JupiterR, E, GrL, E, CoC, EaC, EaC, EaR, Gr, C,EaLC?C?R,GGr, SGr, RGr, SGr, SSSSSU?RRR?Southern ColoniesBeneventumCalesFregellaeInteramnaLuceriaMinturnaePaestumPuteoliSoraLGrC, EaC, EaC, EaC, EaV, C, Co, EaC.DGrUGr, SGr, RGr, RGr, SGr, CGr, RGrGr, R, CoCoUUGrInfluence AbbreviationsC = Central ItalianCo = Colony SpecificD = DaunianE = Etruscan? = Attribution or Influence UncertainEa = EasternR = RomanG = GallicS = Samnite/SabellicGr = GreekU = UnknownL = LatinV = VolscianHeurgon (1957), p. 51 comes to the conclusion that the whole episode is an anachronism.230

The specific deity to whom a cult is dedicated also affects the influences on the cult, e.g.temples decorated with ihepotnia theron motif show eastern influence as importedthrough central Italy. Hercules cults, of course, were strongly tied to Greek myth but thegod could be venerated in a Sabellic or Roman manner.In the colonies planted in Samnium and Campania, the religious influences camefrom Central Italian, Eastern, Greek, Latin, Sabellic, Volscian, Daunian, and Romansources. Some cultic borrowings were very site-specific, such as the Daunian influenceon the cult of Trojan Athena in Luceria, the Greek activity in Paestum, and the matchingitems found in shrines at Sora, Fregellae, and Minturnae, all located on the Liris river. Inthe southern colonies, too, the use of the potnia theron motif and the worship of Herculesbore their own specific influences. Again, the Sabellic influence is prominent in coloniesaround Samnium, but the worship of Hercules in colonies where the Samnites had notbeen as successful against the Romans seems to tend more towards Roman expressions ofworship, such as Cales, Fregellae, Sora, and Paestum. The scarcity of evidence makesthis a tentative conclusion at best, however.In all, there is no denying that Roman cults had some influence on the religion ofthe Roman and Latin colonies. Nonetheless, this influence does not seem to be strongerin small, citizen colonies such as Minturnae, Puteoli, Pisaurum, or Potentia; nor do thesecolonies shun non-Roman forms of cult. Latin colonies also do not avoid strictly Romanforms of worship, such as the pocula deorum, and at the same time they, too, are open toGreek, central Italian, and Sabellic cult practices. Of course, the six gods discussed inthis chapter are just a fraction of the full pantheon worshipped throughout the colonies.231

Even with this restricted sample set, it seems that the religious systems of the colonieswere 1) each unique, 2) open to the same sorts of influences that affected cults throughoutItaly, and 3) not direct copies of the Roman religious system. Rather, each colonialpantheon reflected the choices of the colonists and served their need to create a successfulcommunity with the local populations.III.The Capitoline TriadAccording to Zanker, a capitolium located on a high podium, subordinating a centralsquare, served to emphasize the "central importance of Roman pietas in the Roman valuesystems." 133His examples include the fourth and third century colonies of Ostia, Antium,Tarracina, Minturnae, and Pyrgi as well as Augustan colonies.Bispham, on the otherhand, urges scholars to leave any discussion of capitolia out of mid-Republican colonialstudies, especially of Latin colonies. 135His study contains a close analysis of Cosa, AlbaFucens, Ariminum, Tarracina, and Minturnae, with select details about other colonies. Itis not a study of one particular area, nor does he restrict himself to Latin colonies.Bispham explains that three processes led to the gradual adoption of the Capitoline Triadas an expression of Roman identity in the colonies throughout Italy: Rome's increasingmilitary dominance in Italy from the third century BCE on, the new wealth brought byZanker (2000), p. 33. Zanker does admit that it is difficult to say if the capitolium was prescribed byRome (p. 35).134 Zanker (2000), p. 27-9. Zanker is attempting to create an idealized portrait of what is Roman about aRoman city, so he does not concern himself with the archaeological dating of the capitolia in these colonies.See also Horden and Purceil (2000), p. 457: 'The colonies of Rome contained their versions of theCapitoline Temple of Jupiter, evoking the hill at the heart of the mother city and the ruling god whoguaranteed Roman military success.*135 Bispham (2006), p. 93 and 117-122.232

successful conquest in the second and first centuries, and the need the elites of oldercolonies felt to emulate the urban framework in the newer colonies in the north.Bispham concludes that "in the late third century Iuppiter becomes a noticeable part ofthe colonial pantheon for the first time," but not all temples to Jupiter are capitolia.Torelli sees the introduction of capitolia as a standard colonial feature occurring in thelate second century, when the magistrates of the Latin colonies began to earn Romancitizenship upon leaving office.His discussion covers only the Latin colonies of Cosaand Paestum, however.The preceding discussions of colonial capitolia are responding to the lateRepublican custom of adding a temple to the Capitoline Triad to already existing coloniesas part of the desire for Romanitas that led to the Social War. Bispham is correct indismissing the notion of a colonial foundation kit that includes a capitolium, especially inmid-Republican colonies. Bispham goes on to assert that "by the time of the foundationof Luna in 177, it was becoming unthinkable that a Roman colony should not have atemple to the Capitoline triad."This still assumes both that the Romans had alreadydeveloped a standard form of colony, one with a capitolium, and that the impetus forfounding colonial cults came from the center.The very diversity demonstrated throughout this chapter for the worship ofindividual gods contradicts the notion that there was yet a standard form of colony with astandard set of gods. I propose that the capitolium in Luna was not an automatic addition136 Bispham (2006), p. 118.137 Ibid. p. 122.138 Torelli (1999b), p. 39 f. and 56.139 Bispham (2006), p. 118.233

to a colony's religious system, but an innovation and, thus, the start of a new fashion incolonial religion. Luna is the first colony in Northern Italy where an identifiablecapitolium is present from the foundation of the colony. 14The three-ce//a temple wasdecorated with architectural elements datable to the second quarter of the second century,i.e. within the first fifteen years of the colony's life. 141It is identifiable as a capitoliumbecause of a pedimental sculpture of Minerva and a second scene depicting the myth ofTelephus, echoing from the Pergamene altar of Zeus. 142Thus, through its artistic scheme,this temple draws together Mediterranean elements with Etruscan and Romangenealogical myths. 14It allowed the colonists to convey not only their worldliness to thetravelers entering the port town, but also their common ties with the Etruscans citizens ofPisa. Despite the presence of the Roman patron deities, the overall message was one ofcommunity, which benefited the colonists first and the citizens of Rome only second, ifthe communal feeling kept the Etruscans pacified.To the Roman magistrates watching from the center, however, the temple toJupiter, Juno Regina, and Minerva might have seemed like a means for Lepidus, one ofthe founders of Luna, to flaunt his new clientele. The colonists' very eagerness to buildtwo large temples to the goddesses that Lepidus chose to venerate with temples in Romedemonstrates how closely tied they were to their patron. The Luna temple to Jupiter,Juno, and Minerva is not the product of an attitude in which it was "unthinkable" not to140 Ibid. Cf. Rossignani (1985), pp. 55-7. Architectural decoration fromthe capitolium: Forte (1992),pp. 195 ff.141 Forte (1992), p. 195.142 Strazzula(1992),pp. 172-183. Rossignani (1985), pp. 55-7.m Strazzula (1992), p. 182. Strazzula attributes the combination of Etruscan and Roman genealogy to theinfluence of Pisa, based on the assumption that Luna was the colony founded on Pisan land. The234

have a colonial capitolium, but rather it is a unique case among a long-standing scatter ofcultic influences. Since so much of the Roman political system depended on popularityand success, Lepidus' achievements could have been something the other magistratesmight envy and try to emulate, however, leading to more capitolia in later colonies.Why was the capitolium not a popular addition to recently founded colonies inNorthern Italy in the middle Republic, though? There were two contemporary attitudes inRome which make the idea that the commissioners imposed Rome's patron deities ontothe colonies unattractive. First, the Roman people were acknowledged as the mostreligious by close observers such as Polybius, and they themselves attributed theirmilitary success to their attentiveness to the pax deorum. 144In a recent article, E. Orlinnotes that Rome did not deprive local people of the cults adopted through evocatio or onthe advice of the Sibylline Books, but took on the responsibility for the proper cultivationof deities in Rome. 145This habit demonstrates that the flow of religious customs couldoccur from the periphery to the center. That the Romans consistently did not deprive thelocals of the cult so much as take on the cult in Rome, seems to be a conscious decisionon the part of the Roman magistrates and senate in an effort to maintain Romansuperiority of orthopraxy in regards to the pax deorum. Livy's narrative betrays a veryRomano-centric assumption that foreigners did not understand religious matters properlycommunity-building purpose of these decorations still stands if Luca was the colony on Pisa land, and Lunawas founded on land which the Pisans wanted back from the Ligurians.144 For the Romans as religious see Polyb. 6.56.6-14. For the late Republic view that religious scruple ledto military success, see Cic. Har. Resp. 19. See also Livy 30.30.26 where Livy has Hannibal declare thatthe Romans will control all of Spain, Italy, and Africa because: quando ita dis placuit, externa etiam terramarique uideamus regentes imperio.145 Orlin (2007), p. 62.235

since they could not keep the gods happy.Thus, it would not fit with the assumptionof superior Roman religious knowledge to give a colony a cult to the most Roman ofgods, especially a Latin colony. Even a capitolium in a colony of Roman citizens wouldimply that the Capitoline Triad had been removed from their accustomed location on theCapitoline Hill. Conversely, the colonists did not ask for temples to Jupiter until afterLuna established a capitolium, which indicates that Romanitas, or the quality of beingidentical to Rome, was not an important factor to the colonists of the early secondcentury. The benefits of being Roman really became attractive to the Italians in the latesecond and early first centuries. 147Second, the Capitoline temple was the symbol of the foundation of the Republic, ameans of keeping time in Rome, and the religious focus of the consular activities. 148Although it was planned and funded by the Tarquins, it became the symbol of the newRoman government. What would be the ideological implication of creating this mostRoman of temples immediately upon the foundation of a new colony? Since the Romanpeople of the late sixth century wanted to remake their government into a Republic, theyhad essentially to take over the role of the Tarquins and rework the kingship, a positioninimical to Romans for the next half century. The appropriation of the Tarquin-madeCapitoline Temple was the physical symbol of the revolution. If the Roman magistrates146 Davies (2004) pp. 60-61 in reference to Livy 2.44.12, 10.11.2, and especially 40.58.3-7, which detailsthe fall of the Bastarnae to a storm and the gods' ill favor. It is necessary to acknowledge that this may bean early to mid-Republican attitude, or it may be a late Republican imposition onto Livy's material. In lightof the lack of capitolia in the colonies of the early second century, as well as evocatio rituals, theassumption that the enemies lost to Rome because they did not have a good rapport with the gods seems tobe present in the middle Republic.147 Torelli (1999), p. 39 f. and 56.148 Purcell (2003), p. 30.236

uilt a capitolium in a colony, they would ideologically be assuming the role of theTarquins. This would imply the counter position of the colony as Republic, which wouldinvite the rejection of Roman rule by the colony just as the monarchy was rejected byRome. This is not an idea that the Roman magistrates would foster in the colonies,especially in light of the refusal of the colonists to provide troops during the HannibalicWar, and their subsequent two-fold punishment. 1 9The ideological difficulty of founding a capitolium disappears if the colonistsrequest such a temple themselves. Then, they are aligning with the Roman Republic andpose no threat of uprising. The requisite is a desire for Romanitas, which only began withthe large citizen colonies founded by Lepidus, and the example of the Luna capitolium inthe second century BCE. The underlying theme of the suggestions that Roman senatorsdid not trust foreigners to properly cultivate the gods and that they would have avoidedaligning themselves with the Tarquins ideologically is that the Roman senate would haveno reason to stamp Roman religion onto the colonies. Indeed, archaeological evidencedemonstrates that colonial religion followed Mediterranean, Italic, Latin, local, andRoman religious customs, even in the worship of Jupiter, Juno, and Minerva.Livy 27.9 for the offense and 29.15 for the punishment.237

IV.ConclusionsIn his study of Roman religious policy in the colonies of Ardea, Veii, Ostia, Alba Fucens,and Cosa, Torelli decides that "flexibility was and remained the determining factor ofRoman colonial policy in terms of religion, at least until the second century B.C."Torelli concludes that the "desire for peace and order and fear of the wrath of alien godspowerfully combined to form this flexible attitude towards local and 'national' religions,to shape a master tool for the early steps of Roman imperialism." While the flexibility ofreligion in the colonies is a point well made, the 'master tool for the early steps of Romanimperialism' begs the question of who was utilizing religion as a tool in the colonies, inwhat way, and to what end. If there were the beginnings of Roman imperialism in thereligious sphere of Roman colonization in the fourth and third centuries, surely thatpolicy would continue to develop and be prominent in the religious atmosphere of thecolonies founded in the third and second centuries. Scrutiny of religion in coloniesthroughout Italy shows Torelli's flexibility of religion applied there well into the earlysecond century BCE. There is no indication that the colonies were founded under aunified policy of Roman imperialism, however. Nor do the cults of Jupiter, Juno,Minerva, Diana, Mars, or Hercules betoken the existence of a 'master tool for the earlysteps of Roman imperialism.' Although religion became such an imperialistic tool underthe Empire, it was not yet one during the middle Republic.What, then, is the difference between 'Romanization' and the spread of culturethrough Roman expansion? Certain religious customs, tastes in luxuries, or even civicinstitutions may have spread because the Roman magistrates conquered and (re)settled238

areas with Roman and Latin colonists.The religious customs, at the very least, werenot customs specific only to the Romans; thus, the spread of religion in the colonies wasnot 'Romanization.' Rather it was the colonists taking their Italic, Latin, or Greek (or acombination thereof) tastes and customs with them to their new homes. For example,while Jupiter, Juno, and Minerva appear in some colonies, they are not always (or evenfrequently) worshipped as the Capitoline Triad. Diana and Hercules, too, appear,although not in Roman guises, rather as Latin, Mediterranean, or Italic deities. Thespread of participation in shared Mediterranean, Italic, Latin, local, or Roman customs -or a new hybrid of these customs - was not the purpose of Roman expansion, but a result.The overarching principle behind the introduction or observation of cults in the colonieswas that religion was communication between new neighbors, a neutral common groundthrough which to reconcile a community. Moreover, the religious choices in the colonieswere not driven by the Roman center, but by the needs of the colonists.Woolf and North note that religion develops from polis-religion to religion "as achoice of differentiated groups offering different qualities of religious doctrine, differentexperiences, insights, or just different myths and stories to make sense of the absurdity ofhuman experience."Although this statement was an assessment of polis-religion in theprovinces, the point is also well made for mid-Republican colonial religion. The150 Torelli (1999), p. 42.151 Ariminum had a similarity of Black Glaze pottery to Roman types before c. 240 BCE (Bispham (2006),p. 87) which indicates the spread of culture because of colonists' preferences. A similar phenomenonoccurred in the political sphere at Ariminum: the magistrates were called cosoles ILLRP 77 (Bispham(2006), p. 88 n. 79, cf. Cicala (1995)) but only until around the second century when magistrates werecalled duoviri: ILLRP 545. Clearly the colonists made choices as time passed about which customs theypreferred.152 North (1992), p. 178. Cf. Woolf (1997), p. 42.239

colonists are not given a portable form of the polis-religion of Rome, but they have theirchoice of the religious customs they held as Romans or Latins, of the cults commonthroughout the Mediterranean, of the Italic cults of their new neighbors, or of combiningelements of all of these until they had created the cultural ideology that best made senseof their specific colonial situation.240

Chapter 6: ConclusionsI. Summary of ArgumentsFor the Roman state, the benefits of founding a colony were military and defensive innature, but the colonial commissioners aspired to found colonies for their own reasonsand to their own benefits. This individual impetus to colonize sometimes arose from amilitary or personal connection with the location to be colonized combined with theperquisites obtained from leading out the colonists. The advantages that accompanied thedifficult task of establishing a colony included an increased clientele, political favor orassistance with a later political career, and even economic resources. Colonies were alsoan arena in which the commissioners could express political and personal rivalries oreven differing opinions on foreign policy. Not all of these reasons or benefits pertained toeach individual commissioner. Rather, the commissioners each had their own reason orcombination of reasons to assume this time-consuming magistracy. We may never knowwhat the reasons for colonizing were for some of the commissioners since the primarysources for this period are fragmentary in places or disinterested in others.The connections between the triumviri on several boards strongly suggest that thecommissioners had the option of arranging their own college and submitting their namesas a unit to the magistrate who presided over the election. In that case, the comitia tributawould vote for their choice of boards, or merely confirm the one board whose names werepresented. The diversity among the provisions of the leges coloniae implies thatfounding a colony, from its initial suggestion on the senate floor to the foundation itself,was an ad hoc process. Thus, the commissioners might well have exerted a considerable241

amount of influence over the type of colony, its location, and its structure. In this way,they had the ability to pursue the individual interests that prompted them to colonize.The common factor on each of the commissions was that at least one of thecommissioners had significant military experience. Former consuls and military praetorshad the skills to enroll the colonists where necessary, lead them to their new home, keepthem fed along the way, and divide and distribute the land in the new colony. Inparticular, these magistrates as a group were familiar with constructing camps,demarcating sacred and secular land, and vowing temples to the deities of their choice.There is some evidence that a few colonial commissioners influenced the construction oftemples to their tutelary deities in the colonies that they founded. Once these tasks wereaccomplished, and the colonial charter was instituted, the role of the commissioners, andhence the primary Roman influence, was concluded.The rest of the religious and civic structure of the colony was left to the firstcolonial magistrates and priests, especially in the Latin colonies, which had their owngoverning bodies. Indeed, the commissioners' prior military, political, and/or priestlyexperience rarely prepared them, as a group, for the tasks of instituting a new calendar,training priests, or establishing religious tenets. These tasks most likely fell to the newcolonial magistrates and priests, who may have been invested with their offices in Romeso that they could study the Roman ritual system in order to assist the commissioners infounding the colony with the correct rituals and prayers.Whether or not the first priests of the colony were officially trained in the Romanreligious system, they formed their own colleges in their new community. There, they

faced the challenge of creating and maintaining a fully functioning religious system fortheir new community. Furthermore, the commissioners had demarcated the secular andreligious space for the colony, but the colonists themselves built the walls, temples, andhomes which comprised the physical space in which they dwelled. In addition toconstructing the physical space of the colony, the colonists also defined the space withmental constructs such as the concept of individual land ownership or specific religiousattributions. By living in the physical and conceptual space of the colony, the colonistswere affected by the landscape. They adapted themselves to the land at the same time asthey adapted the land to their needs.One of the biggest challenges that faced new colonists, regardless of where thecolony was located, was interacting with the local population. Sometimes the locals werein neighboring towns, but sometimes the locals were still living within the same city towhich the colonists were trying to lay claim. In the case of Fregellae, the first two wavesof colonists needed to establish their living space in a previously unoccupied locationwhile negotiating their relationship with their (often hostile) Samnite and Campanianneighbors. These first colonists fostered cults that corresponded with their landscape,such as the healing and fertility sanctuary overlooking the Liris River. Then, as a wave ofSamnite and Paeligni colonists joined the Fregellans, the cults of the colony assumedguises that were widely recognized throughout the region, such as the worship ofAesculapius and Hercules. In general, the Fregellan cults marked colony's control overthe transportation network, advertized the prosperity of the community, and ultimatelyintegrated the various human elements into one, coherent community.243

In contrast, the Latin colony in Paestum was placed in a city that already had arich history and religious landscape. Thus, the colonists were able to join worship atmany of the local sanctuaries, although they repurposed the cults that related directly toGreek political control in the city, e.g. the heroon and ekklesiasterion. The Latincolonists also added temples that spoke to their patron-client relationship with Rome aswell as delimiting a specifically Latin space in the middle of the city. Through thispattern of cultic activity, the colonists created a community with the local Oscan andGreek populations through common worship at the same time as they advertized theirown identity.The Latin colony at Sora provides yet a third example of the influence of thereligious landscape on the building of communities. The Latin colonists continuedworship at the Volscian shrine on Monte San Casto, while adding temples in the forumand a sanctuary to Hercules between the two sites in a cliff-side sanctuary ideal forworship of that god and Silvanus. The votives found at the summit of Monte San Castodemonstrate that there was a connection between this cult and those in the colonies alongthe Liris river, i.e. Fregellae and Minturnae. Thus, the cults in Sora not only drew theLatin and Volscian inhabitants together in common worship, but also served as aconnector between colonies in the area.The three religious systems in the colonies of Fregellae, Sora, and Paestum wereall distinct from one another. Nonetheless, the common element was the ability of thecults to draw populations within the city or even within the region together. Equally asimportant, the cults in these colonies did not honor the gods traditionally identified as

those central to the Roman state cult, such as Jupiter, Juno Regina, Minerva, Vesta, etc.Rather, the deities worshipped in the colonies exhibited Greek or Italic origins. In short,the cults were not Roman in origin, imported intact by the Latin colonists. Instead theydeveloped in accordance with the requirements of the inhabitants of the colony and theirneed to integrate with their neighbors.Similar independent religious systems developed in the colonies throughoutNorthern Italy, Samnium, and Campania. No colony, whether Latin or Roman, had anidentical religious system to Rome or to another colony, but there were significantreligious trends throughout the colonies. Moreover, these religious trends did notslavishly follow the religious developments in Rome, which were concerned with theintegration of the patricians and plebeians as well as with maintaining Rome's paxdeorum. Cults of Juno, Diana, Minerva, and Hercules had different attributes whencompared with cults of the same god in another colony. Where the colonists worshippedJupiter, Juno, and Minerva, they did so as separate deities, with the exception of thetemple at Luna. Nor did the religious systems in the colonies seem to favor only orconsistently gods that literary sources identify as deities associated with colonization,such as Jupiter, Mars, or Hercules. Finally, the cults of Diana and Hercules, especially,demonstrated that the colonies participated in the wider local, Latin, Italian, andMediterranean religious systems. Thus, these cults served to draw the colonists togetherwith the locals in a shared religious tradition familiar in part to both groups.245

II.ConclusionsOverall, trying to create a rigid policy of colonization or fill in the blanks for one colonybased on analogy to others diminishes the individuality and, thus, what is most interestingabout the religious systems of each colony. The outlines of Roman colonization can,however, be depicted by a macro-model, such as the Colonial Agency Chart (Figure 1.3),which allows for the differences as well as common traits of mid-Republican colonizationefforts. There are certainly similarities between colonies because they were produced bysimilar situations and legal processes. The colonies were founded by commissioners withsimilar skill-sets and housed colonists that mixed Romans and Latins with localpopulations of Greeks, Samnites, or Etruscans, among others. Nonetheless, this system isflexible, so admits different motivations and diverse outcomes in colonial religionespecially.Thus, if we focus on the efforts and motivations of individuals and small groupsamong the commissioners, the colonists, and the locals, the uniqueness of each colony'sset of gods, temples, and rituals shines through. It is then also possible to see that thereligious systems of the Roman and Latin colonies fit the requirements of the colonistsinstead of following a Roman agenda of cultural expansion. Nonetheless, the very fact ofdiversity and choice in constructing the colonial religious environment implies that somecolonies may have been very similar to Rome, such as Luna, while others had very littlethat is purely Roman in them, such as Fregellae or Sora. The local population contributedto the diversity of each colony's religious system. For example, the cults of Paestum246

etained a distinctly Greek character, or, more generally, the colonies with Sabellicneighbors favored the use of small bronze figurines in their worship of Hercules or Mars.The type of colony, whether Latin or citizen, did not seem to dictate the colony's religioussystem in terms of its adoption of Roman forms of worship over local ones. The colony'slocation and level of prosperity, however, did correspond to the breadth of worship in thetown; i.e. the lucrative port colonies at Luna and Aquileia had monumental sanctuariesthat showed influences from around the Mediterranean.In general, Roman colonization is the background against which the religioussystems of the colonies developed. While the decision to found a colony had militarysignificance for the Roman senate and often personal significance for the commissionersinvolved, the military or personal connotations did not dictate every aspect of thereligious system in the colony. It seems to me that colonial religious systems in themiddle Republic were focused on integration, not conquest. The colonists sought tointegrate with their immediate neighbors to the extent necessary to live peaceably andprosperously.It is true that the integration among colonial and local populations was sometimesa long, difficult, and bitterly earned process whether the colony was located on an activemilitary front, e.g. the difficulty establishing and defending Placentia and Cremona, or ina pacified area, e.g. the need to supplement the colonies of Sipontum and Buxentumwithin ten years of their foundation. If the integration was successful, however, thecolony prospered and became a functioning community in its own right. The integrationat Fregellae worked too well: the colony became so prosperous and independent from247

Rome that a Roman army destroyed it in 125 BCE. Many other successful colonies werealso able to function well as independent cultural entities which happened to have beenfounded by, and remained politically tied to, Rome.It was in the interests of the Roman government to allow the colonists to find theirown means of stabilizing the communities in their territory. The rewards for Rome werea more stable local population as well as an outpost of Roman citizens or Latin allies,whom the Roman senate could call on for regional assistance and military support. Onthe whole, Rome's pattern of sending Latin colonies, especially, to conquered territorywas a way to reinforce Rome's already extant system of allies, and thus to create a moreintegrated and stable Italian peninsula In light of the diversity of colonial religiousinstitutions, I think that the colonies were not mini-Romes sent out to make the Italianpeninsula more Roman, but that they were their own communities taking part in thegreater local, Latin, Italic, and Mediterranean cultural networks.248

Appendix 1: Primary Sources for the Colonial CommissionersI. Colonies and Commissioners (arranged chronologically)Antium: (Livy 3.1-7, Dion. Hal. 9.59.1-3)Antio capto, Ti. Aemilius et Q. Fabius consules fiunt. Hie erat Fabius qui unusexstinctae ad Cremeram genti superfuerat. lam priore consulatu Aemilius dandiagri plebi fuerat auctor; itaque secundo quoque consulatu eius et agrarii se inspem legis erexerant, et tribuni, rem contra consules saepe temptatam adiutoreutique consule obtineri posse rati, suscipiunt, et consul manebat in sententia sua.Possessores et magna pars patrum, tribuniciis se iactare actionibus principemciuitatis et largiendo de alieno popularem fieri querentes, totius inuidiam rei atribunis in consulem auerterant. Atrox certamen aderat, ni Fabius consilio neutriparti acerbo rem expedisset: T. Quincti ductu et auspicio agri captum priore annoaliquantum a Volscis esse; Antium, propinquam, opportunam et maritimamurbem, coloniam deduci posse; ita sine querellis possessorum plebem in agrosituram, ciuitatem in concordiafore. Haec sententia accepta est. Triumuiros agrodando creant T. Quinctium A. Verginium P. Furium; iussi nomina dare qui agrumaccipere uellent. Fecit statim, utfit, fastidium copia adeoque pauci nominadedere ut ad explendum numerum coloni Volsci adderentur; cetera multitudoposcere Romae agrum malle quam alibi accipere. Livy 3.1-7.For the year following the capture of Antium, Titus Aemilius and QuinctiusFabius were made consuls. This was the Fabius who was the sole survivor of theextinction of his house at the Cremera. Aemilius had already in his formerconsulship advocated the grant of land to the plebeians. As he was now consul forthe second time, the agrarian party entertained hopes that the Law would becarried out; the tribunes took the matter up in the firm expectation that after somany attempts they would gain their cause now that one consul, at all events, wassupporting them; the consul's views on the question remained unchanged. Thosein occupation of the land - the majority of the patricians - complained that thehead of the State was adopting the methods of the tribunes and making himselfpopular by giving away other people's property, and in this way they shifted allthe odium from the tribunes on to the consul. There was every prospect of aserious contest, had not Fabius smoothed matters by a suggestion acceptable toboth sides, namely, that as there was a considerable quantity of land which hadbeen taken from the Volscians the previous year, under the auspicious generalshipof T. Quinctius, a colony might be settled at Antium, which, as a seaport town,and at no great distance from Rome, was a suitable city for the purpose. Thiswould allow the plebeians to enter on public land without any injustice to those inoccupation, and so harmony would be restored to the State. This suggestion wasadopted. He appointed as the three commissioners for the distribution of the land,T. Quinctius, A. Verginius, and P. Furius. Those who wished to receive a grantwere ordered to give in their names. As usual, abundance produced disgust, andso few gave in their names that the number was made up by the addition of249

Volscians as colonists. The rest of the people preferred to ask for land at Romerather than accept it elsewhere. (Trans. Roberts)r\ 5E (3ouAr) TCOV 8r)udpxcov dvaKivouvTcov irdAiv TO TrAfi8os em TTJKAnpouxig, Kai auvaycovi^ouEvou BocTEpou TCOV urrotTcov auroTs AiuiAiou86yiia ETTEKUPCOOE, 6Epaire0aai TE Kai dvaAa|3ETv TOU$ iTEvnTas fJouAonEvn,BiavsTuai Tiva laoTpav auroTs EK TTJS AVTIOTCOV xcopas, r\v Tcp irpoTEpcp ETEISopaTi EA6VTE$ KaTEaxov. Kai dTTE8Eix8r|aav liysuovES Tfjs KAnpouxias TITOSKOIVTIOS KaTTiTcoAtvos, GO TrapEBoaav AVTIOTOI a

Helua; quipraeter minime populare ministerium, agro adsignando sociis quernpopulus Romanus suum iudicasset cumplebem offendissent, neprimoribusquidem patrum satis accepti, quod nihil gratiae cuiusquam dederant, vexationesadpopulum iam die dicta ab tribunis, remanendo in colonia, quam testemintegritatis iustitiaeque habebant, vitavere. Livy 4.11The new consuls were Marcus Fabius Vibulanus and Postumius AebutiusCornicinen. The previous year was regarded by the neighbouring peoples,whether friendly or hostile, as chiefly memorable because of the trouble taken tohelp Ardea in its peril. The new consuls, aware that they were succeeding mendistinguished both at home and abroad, were all the more anxious to obliteratefrom men's minds the infamous judgment. Accordingly, they obtained a senatorialdecree ordering that as the population of Ardea had been seriously reducedthrough the internal disturbances, a body of colonists should be sent there as aprotection against the Volscians. This was the reason alleged in the text of thedecree, to prevent their intention of rescinding the judgment from being suspectedby the plebs and tribunes. They had, however, privately agreed that the majorityof the colonists should consist of Rutulians, that no land should be allotted otherthan what had been appropriated under the infamous judgment, and that not asingle sod should be assigned to a Roman till all the Rutulians had received theirshare. So the land went back to the Ardeates. Agrippa Menenius, T. CluiliusSiculus, and M. Aebutius Helva were the triumvirs appointed to superintend thesettlement of the colony. Their office was not only extremely unpopular, but theygave great offence to the plebs by assigning to allies land which the Romanpeople had formally adjudged to be their own. Even with the leaders of thepatricians they were out of favour, because they had refused to allow themselvesto be influenced by any of them. The tribunes impeached them, but they avoidedall further vexatious proceedings by enrolling themselves amongst the settlers andremaining in the colony which they now possessed as a testimony to their justiceand integrity. (Trans. Roberts)Cales: (Livy 8.16.12-14)consules creati sunt T. Veturius Sp. Postumius. etsi belli pars cum Sidicinisrestabat, tamen, ut benejicio praeuenirent desiderium plebis, de coloniadeducenda Cales rettulerunt; factoque senatus consulto ut duo milia quingentihomines eo scriberentur, tres uiros coloniae deducendae agroque diuidundocreauerunt K. Duillium T. QuinctiumM. Fabium. Livy 8.16.12-14.The consuls elected were T. Veturius and Spurius Postumius. Although there wasstill war with the Sidicines, they brought forward a proposal to send a colony toCales in order to anticipate the wishes of the plebs by a voluntary act of kindness.The senate passed a resolution that 2500 names should be enrolled, and the threecommissioners appointed to settle the colonists and allocate the holdings wereCaeso Duillius, T. Quinctius, and M. Fabius. (Trans. Roberts)251

Saticula: (Festus, Gloss. Lat. p458 L)Saticula oppidum in Samnio captum est: quo postea coloniam deduxeruntTriumviri M. Valerius Corvus, Iunius Scaeva, P. Fluvius f Longus ex S. C. Kal.Ianuaris P. f Papirio Cursore, C. Iunio II Cos.Saticula: a town captured in Samnium, where afterward the Board of Three, M.Valerius Corvus, Iunius Scaeva, and P. Fluvius Longus led a colony by virtue ofthe senatus consultum on the kalends of January in the year P. Papirius Cursorand C. Iunius (bis) were consuls. (Trans. Coles)Minturnae and Sinuessa: (Livy 10.21.7-10)Turn de praesidio regionis depopulatae ab Samnitibus agitari coeptum; itaqueplacuit ut duae coloniae circa Vescinum et Falernum agrum deducerentur, una adostium Lirisfluuii, quae Minturnae appellata, altera in saltu Vescino, Falernumcontingente agrum, ubi Sinope dicitur Graeca urbsfuisse, Sinuessa deinde abcolonis Romanis appellata. Tribunis plebis negotium datum est, utplebei scitoiuberetur P. Sempronius praetor triumuiros in ea loca colonis deducendis creare;nee qui nomina darent facile inueniebantur, quia in stationem se prope perpetuaminfestae regionis, non in agros mitti rebantur. (Livy 10.21.7-10)The next question was the protection of the district which had been devastated bythe Samnites, and it was decided to settle bodies of colonists about the Vescinianand Falernian country. One was to be at the mouth of the Liris, now called thecolony of Menturna, the other in the Vescinian forest where it is contiguous withthe territory of Falernum. Here the Greek city of Sinope is said to have stood, andfrom this the Romans gave the place the name of Sinuessa. It was arranged thatthe tribunes of the plebs should get a plebiscite passed requiring P. Sempronius,the praetor, to appoint commissioners for the founding of colonies in those spots.But it was not easy to find people to be sent to what was practically a permanentoutpost in a dangerously hostile country, instead of having fields allotted to themfor cultivation. (Trans. Roberts)Placentia and Cremona: (Livy 21.25.2-5, 32.26.1-3, Polyb. 3.40.3-10, Asc. Pis. P3 C)Boii sollicitatis Insubribus defecerunt, nee tarn ob ueteres inpopulum Romanumiras quam quod nuper circa Padum Placentiam Cremonamque colonias in agrumGallicum deductas aegre patiebantur. Itaque armis repente arreptis, in eumipsum agrum impetu facto tantum terroris ac tumultus fecerunt ut non agrestismodo multitudo sed ipsi triumuiri Romani, qui ad agrum uenerant adsignandum,diffisi Placentiae moenibus Mutinam confugerint, C. Lutatius, C. Seruilius, M.Annius. Lutati nomen haud dubium est; pro Annio Seruilioque M'. Acilium et C.Herennium habent quidam annales, alii P. Cornelium Asinam et C. PapiriumMasonem. Idquoque dubium est legati ad expostulandum missi adBoios uiolati252

sint [incertum] an in triumuiros agrum metantes impetus sit /actus. Livy 21.25.2-5.Boii, who had been tampering with the Insubres, rose in revolt, just as though hehad already crossed the Alps, not so much in consequence of their old standingenmity against Rome as of her recent aggressions. Bodies of colonists were beingsettled on Gaulish territory in the valley of the Po, at Placentia and Cremona, andintense irritation was produced. Seizing their arms they made an attack on theland, which was being actually surveyed at the time, and created such terror andconfusion that not only the agricultural population, but even the three Romancommissioners who were engaged in marking out the holdings, fled to Mutina,not feeling themselves safe behind the walls of Placentia. The commissionerswere C. Lutatius, C. Servilius, and M. Annius. There is no doubt as to the nameLutatius, but instead of Annius and Servilius some annalists have Manlius Aciliusand C. Herennius, whilst others give P. Cornelius Asina and C. Papirius Maso.There is also doubt as to whether it was the envoys who had been sent to the Boiito remonstrate with them that were maltreated, or the commissioners upon whoman attack was made whilst surveying the ground. (Trans. Roberts)In Gallia nihil sane memorabile ab Sex. Aelio consule gestum. Cum duosexercitus inprouincia habuisset, unum retentum quern dimitti oportebat, cui L.Cornelius proconsul praefuerat—ipse ei C. Heluium praetor em praefecit—,alterum quern inprouinciam adduxit, totumprope annum CremonensibusPlacentinisque cogendis redire in colonias, unde belli casibus dissipati erant,consumpsit. Livy 32.26.1-3In Gaul nothing of any importance was accomplished by the consul Sex. Aelius,though he had two armies in the province. He retained the one which L. Corneliushad commanded and which ought to have been disbanded, and placed C. Helviusin command of it, the other army he brought with him into the province. Almostthe whole of his year of office was spent in compelling the former inhabitants ofCremona and Placentia to return to the homes from which they had beendispersed by the accidents of war. (Trans. Roberts)EV oacp 5' OUTOI Trepi TCXJ Kcrraypa

ou Tfjv E^rjynoiv liuETs EV TTJ TrpoTepa PupSAcp TauTris ETroir|oauE6a.TTapatcaAEaavTES 5E TOUS "lvoou.(3pas Kai auu.cppovrjoavTES KOTO Tf)vTTpoysyEVTinEVTiv 6pyf)v KOCTEaupav TT|V KaTaKEKAnpouxr)UEvr)v xcopav UTTO'Pcouaicov Kai TOUS cpEuyovTas ouv8icb£avTEs EIS MoTivnv, cnroiKiavvriTdpxouaav 'Pcouaicov, EiroAiopKouv. EV OTS Kai xpsTs avBpas TCOV ETn

Cn. Cornelius Scipio. Eamque coloniam LIII ... deductam esse invenimus:deducta est autem Latina. Duo porro genera earum coloniarum quae a populoRomano deductae sunt fuerunt, ut Quiritium aliae, aliae Latinorum essent. De seautem optime meritos Placentinos ait, quod Mi quoque honoratissima decretaerga Ciceronem fecerunt certaveruntque in ea re cum tota Italia, cum de reditueius actum est. Asc. Pis. P3 C"This is not meant to express contempt for Placentia, which he is given to boast ashis birthplace: for neither does my own natural disposition allow such a thing, nordoes its high rank as a municipium, especially one which has deserved so well ofme, permit it." I confess that I am in a great quandary as to what reason Cicerocould possibly have for calling Placentia a municipium. For I note in the Annalsof those who wrote on the Second Punic War the tradition that Placentia wasfounded as a colonia on 31 May in the first year of that war, in the consulship ofP. Cornelius Scipio, father of the elder Africanus, and Ti. Sempronius Longus.Nor can the point be made that this colony was founded in the manner in whichseveral generations later Cn. Pompeius Strabo, father of Cn. Pompeius Magnus,founded Transpadane colonies. For Pompeius established them not with newcolonists, but granted the Latin Right to the old inhabitants who remained there,so that they might enjoy the rights held by the rest of the Latin colonies - that is,that by standing for magistracies they might attain Roman citizenship. But atPlacentia six thousand men were installed as the original colonists, among themtwo hundred equites. The purpose of their installation was that they shouldconfront the Gauls who were in the possession of that part of Italy. A Board ofThree, P. Cornelius Asina, P. Papirius Maso, and Cn. Cornelius Scipio, foundedit. And we have discovered that this colony was founded ... fifty-three... ; and itwas founded as one of Latin status. There were, of course, two kinds of coloniaewhich were founded by the Roman people, so that some were of full Romancitizens, others of Latins. He states that the Placentines had deserved extremelywell of him, since they had passed decrees paying him the highest honors, and hadin this respect vied with all Italy when action was taken to secure his recall fromexile. (Trans. Lewis)Venusia: (Livy 31.49.4-6, Plut. Flam. 1.4)Ludi deinde a P. Cornelio Scipione quos consul in Africa uouerat magnoapparatu facti. et de agris militum eius decretum ut quot quisque eorum annos inHispania aut in Africa militasset, in singulos annos bina iugera agri acciperet:eum agrum decemuiri adsignarent. triumuiri item creati adsupplendum Venusiniscolonorum numerum, quod bello Hannibalis attenuatae uires eius coloniae erant,C. Terentius Varro T. Quinctius Flamininus P. Cornelius Cn. f. Scipio; hi colonosVenusiam adscripserunt. Livy 31.49.4-6.The Games which Scipio had vowed when he was proconsul in Africa werecelebrated with great splendor. A decree was made for the allotment of land to hissoldiers; each man was to receive two iugera for every year he had served in255

Spain or in Africa, and the decemviri managed the allotment. Commissionerswere also appointed to fill up the number of colonists at Venusia, as the strengthof that colony had been diminished in the war with Hannibal. C. Terentius Varro,T. Quinctius Flamininus and P. Cornelius, the son of Cnaeus Scipio, were thecommissioners who undertook the task. (Trans. Roberts)810 KCU TTEUTrouevcov dTroiKcov E'IS 5UO TTOXEIS, NdpvEidv TE KOU Kcbvaccv,dpxcov ripEBr) KCCI oiKioTrjs. TOUTO 8' aCrrov ETifjpE udAicrra Tag Sid psoou KCUauvrj0Eis TOTS VEOIS dpxds uTTEpPdvTa, 8rmapxiav Kal crrpaTnyiav Kaidyopavoniav, EU0U$ avrrov uTraTEias crrpaTTiyiav KOU dyopavoniav, EUBUSOCUTOV uTraTEiag d^iouv, Kal KaTrjEi, T01/5 diro TCOV KAnpouxicov E'XCOVTrpo6uuous. Plutarch Flam. 1.4[Administration of justice and military skill] obtained him the office of leader andfounder of two colonies which were sent into the cities of Narnia and Consa;which filled him with loftier hopes, and made him aspire to step over thoseprevious honors which it was usual first to pass through, the offices of tribune ofthe people, praetor and aedile, and to level his aim immediately at the consulship.Having these colonies, and all their interest ready at his service, he offeredhimself as candidate... (Trans. Dry den)Narnia (suppl): (Livy 32.2.6-7)Et Narniensium legatis querentibus ad numerum sibi colonos non esse etimmixtos quosdam non sui generis pro colonis se gerere, earum rerum causatresuiros creare L. Cornelius consul iussus. Creati P. et Sex. Aelii—Paetisfuitambobus cognomen—et Cn. Cornelius Lentulus. Quod Narniensibus datum erat,ut colonorum numerus augeretur, id Cosani petentes non impetrauerunt. Livy32.2.6-7Delegates also came from Narnia who stated that their colony was short of itsproper number and that some of inferior status had found their way amongst them,and were giving themselves out to be colonists. The consul L. Cornelius wasinstructed to appoint three commissioners to deal with the case. Those appointedwere the two Aelii - Publius and Sextus, both of whom had the cognomen ofPaetus - and Cn. Cornelius Lentulus. The colonists at Cosa also requested anaugmentation of their number, but their request was refused. (Trans. Roberts)Volturnum, Liternum, Puteoli, Salernum, Buxentum: (Livy 32.29.3-4, 34.45.1-2)C. Atinius tribunus plebis tulit ut quinque coloniae in oram maritimamdeducerentur, duae ad ostia fluminum Uolturni Liternique, una Puteolos, una adCastrum Salerni: his Buxentum adiectum; trecenae familiae in singulas coloniasiubebantur mitti. Tresuiri deducendis Us, qui per triennium magistratum haberent,creati M. Seruilius Geminus Q. Minucius Thermus 77. Sempronius Longus. Livy32.29.3-4256

C. Atinius, one of the tribunes of the plebs, carried a proposal for founding fivecolonies on the coast, two at the mouths of the Volturnus and Liternus, one atPuteoli, one at the Castrum Salerni, and finally Buxentum. It was decided thateach colony should consist of 300 households, and three commissioners wereappointed to supervise the settlement. They were to hold office for three years.The commissioners were M. Servilius Geminus, Q. Minucius Thermus andTiberius Sempronius Longus. (Trans. Roberts)Coloniae ciuium Romanorum eo anno deductae sunt Puteolos UolturnumLiternum, treceni homines in singulas. item Salernum Buxentumque coloniaeciuium Romanorum deductae sunt, deduxere triumuiri Ti. Sempronius Longus, quiturn consul erat, M. Seruilius Q. Minucius Thermus. ager diuisus est, quiCampanorum fuerat. Livy 34.45.1-2During the year a number of Roman citizens were settled as colonists in Puteoli,Volturnum and Liternum; three hundred were assigned to each place. Similarsettlements were made in Salernum and Buxentum. The commissioners whosupervised the emigration were Tiberius Sempronius Longus who was consul atthe time, M. Servilius and Q. Minucius Thermus. The land distributed amongstthem had formed part of the domain of Capua. (Trans. Roberts)Vibo Valentia and Copia (Castrum Frentinum): (Livy 34.53.1-2, 35.9.7-8, 35.40.5-6)Exitu anni huius Q. Aelius Tubero tribunus plebis ex senatus consulto tulit adplebem plebesque sciuit uti duae Latinae coloniae, una in Bruttios, altera inThurinum agrum deducerentur. his deducendis triumuiri creati, quibus intriennium imperium esset, in Bruttios Q. Naeuius M. Minucius Rufus M. FuriusCrassipes, in Thurinum agrum A. Manlius Q. Aelius L. Apustius. ea bina comitiaCn. Domitiuspraetor urbanus in Capitolio habuit. Livy 34.53.1-2At the close of the year Q. Aelius Tubero, a tribune of the plebs, acting on aresolution of the senate, brought a proposal before the plebs, which was adopted,for the settlement of two Latin colonies, one in Bruttium and the other in theterritory of Thurium. The commissioners who were to supervise the settlementwere appointed for three years. Those who were to make the arrangements inBruttium were Q. Naevius, M. Minucius Rufus and M. Furius Crassipes; those putin charge of the Thurium settlement were A. Manlius, Q. Aelius and L. Apustius.The elections in which they were chosen were held by the City praetor, Cn.Domitius, in the Capitol. (Trans. Roberts)eodem anno coloniam Latinam in castrum Frentinum triumuiri deduxerunt A.Manlius Uolso L. Apustius Fullo Q. Aelius Tubero, cuius lege deducebatur. triamiliapeditum iere, trecenti equites, numerus exiguus pro copia agri. daripotueretricena iugera inpedites, sexagena in equites: Apustio auctore tertiapars agridempta est, quo postea, si uellent, nouos colonos adscribere possent; uicenaiugerapedites, quadragena equites acceperunt. Livy 35.9.7-8257

During the year a Latin colony was settled at the Castrum Frentinum in theterritory of Thurium. The commissioners who superintended the colonizationwere A. Manlius Volso, L. Apustius Fullo and Q. Aelius Tubero, the latter ofwhom had brought in the bill for its settlement. The colonists comprised 3000infantry and 300 cavalry, a small number in proportion to the amount of landavailable. Thirty iugera might have been allotted to each infantryman and 60 toeach of the cavalry, but on the advice of Apustius a third of the land was reserved,which could, were it desired, be assigned to fresh colonists. The infantry received20 iugera and the cavalry 40 each. (Trans. Roberts)Eodem hoc anno Uibonem colonia deducta est ex senatus consulto plebique scito.tria milia et septingenti pedites ierunt, trecenti equites; triumuiri deduxerunt eosQ. Naeuius M. Minucius M. Furius Crassipes; quina dena iugera agri data insingulos pedites sunt, duplex equitibus. Bruttiorum proxime fuerat ager; Brutticeperant de Graecis. Livy 35.40.5-6During the year the senate and people authorized the formation of a militarycolony at Vibo; 3700 infantry and 300 cavalry were sent there. The supervisors ofthe settlement were Q. Naevius, M. Minucius and M. Furius Crassipes. Fifteeniugera were allotted to each infantryman and double the number to the cavalry.The land had previously belonged to the Bruttii, who had taken it from theGreeks. (Trans. Roberts)Sipontum (1st): (Livy 34.45.3)Sipontum item in agrum qui Arpinorum fuerat coloniam ciuium Romanorum aliitriumuiri, D. Iunius Brutus M. Baebius Tamphilus M. Heluius deduxerunt. Livy34.45.3A colony of Roman citizens was also established at Sipontum on land which hadbelonged to Arpi. The commissioners in this case were D. Junius Brutus, MBaebius Tamphilus and M. Helvius. (Trans. Roberts)Tempsa and Croton: (Livy 34.45.4-5)Tempsam item et Crotonem coloniae ciuium Romanorum deductae. Tempsanusager de Bruttiis captus erat: Bruttii Graecos expulerant; Crotonem Graecihabebant. triumuiri Cn. Octauius L. Aemilius Paulus C. Laetorius Crotonem,Tempsam L. Cornelius Merula Q. C. Salonius deduxerunt. Livy 34.45.4-5Roman citizens were also sent as colonists to Tempsa and Croton; the territory ofthe former had been taken from the Brutii, who had expelled the Greeks from it;Croton was still held by the Greeks. The commissioners for the colonization atCroton were Cnaius Octavius, L. Aemilius Paulus and C. Laetorius; those forTempsa were L. Cornelius Merula and C. Salonius. (Trans. Roberts)Placentia and Cremona (suppl), Bononia: (Livy 37.46.9-47.2, 57.7-8)258

ex Gallia legatos Placentinorum et Cremonensium L. Aurunculeius praetor insenatum introduxit. Us querentibus inopiam colonorum, aliis belli casibus, aliismorbo absumptis, quosdam taedio accolarum Gallorum reliquisse colonias,decreuit senatus, uti C. Laelius consul, si ei uideretur, sex milia familiarumconscriberet, quae in eas colonias diuiderentur, et ut L. Aurunculeius praetortriumuiros crearet ad eos colonos deducendos. creati M. Atilius Serranus L.Ualerius P.f. Flaccus L. Ualerius C.f. Tappo. Haud ita multopost, cum iamconsularium comitiorum appeteret tempus, C. Laelius consul ex Gallia Romamrediit. is non solum ex facto absente se senatus consulto in supplementumCremonae et Placentiae colonos scripsit, sed, ut nouae coloniae duae in agrum,qui Boiorum fuisset, deducerentur, et rettulit et auctore eopatres censuerunt.Livy 37.46.9-47.2A deputation arrived from Placentia and Cremona in Gaul, and were introduced tothe senate by L. Aurunculeius. They complained of the scarcity of men; some hadbeen carried off by the casualties of war, others by illness, and some had leftowing to the annoyance from the Gauls in their neighborhood. The senate decreedthat the consul C. Laelius should, if he approved, draw up a list of 6000 familiesto be distributed between the two colonies, and L. Aurunculeius was to nominatethe commissioners for settling the new colonists. Those nominated were M.Atilius Serranus, L. Valerius, P. F. Flaccus, L. Valerius and C. F. Tappo. [37.47]Not long afterwards, as the date of the consular elections was approaching, theconsul C. Laelius returned from Gaul. In pursuance of the decree which the senatehad made before his arrival, he enrolled colonists to reinforce the population ofCremona and Placentia, and he also brought forward a proposal which the senateadopted for founding two new colonies on land which had belonged to the Boii.(Trans. Roberts)eodem anno ante diem tertium Kal. Ianuarias Bononiam Latinam coloniam exsenatus consulto L. Ualerius Flaccus M. Atilius Serranus L. Ualerius Tappotriumuiri deduxerunt. tria milia hominum sunt deducta; equitibus septuagenaiugera, ceteris colonis quinquagena sunt data, ager captus de Gallis Boisfuerat;Galli Tuscos expulerant. Livy 37.57.7-8On December 13th of this year the colony of Bononia was founded in pursuanceof a senatorial decree, the three commissioners being L. Valerius Flaccus, M.Atilius Serranus and L. Valerius Tappo. The colonists numbered 3000; the equitesreceived each seventy iugera, the other settlers fifty. The land had been takenfrom the Boii who had themselves formerly expelled the Etruscans from it.(Trans. Roberts)Sipontum and Buxentum (suppl): (Livy 39.23.3-4)extremo anni, quia Sp. Postumius consul renuntiauerat peragrantem se propterquaestiones utrumque litus Italiae desertas colonias Sipontum supero, Buxentuminfero mari inuenisse, triumuiri ad colonos eo scribendos ex senatus consulto ab259

T. Maenio praetore urbano creati sunt L. Scribonius Libo M. Tuccius Cn. BaebiusTamphilus. Livy 39.23.3-4S. Postumius had reported that whilst engaged on his enquiries he had traversedboth coasts of Italy, and had found two deserted colonies, Sipontum on theAdriatic and Buxentum on the Mediterranean. Three commissioners wereappointed by the City praetor to enroll colonists for these places, namely, L.Scribonius Libo, M. Tuccius and Cn. Baebius Tamphilus. (Trans. Roberts)Cales: {CIL I 2 .l p200 = Inscr. ltd. 13.3.70a)[P. Claudius Ap. f. P. n. Pulcher colonojs adscripsit Cales; co(n)s(ul) cum [L.Porcio; Jllvijr coloniam deduxit Graviscam. CIL I 2 .l p200 = Inscr. Ital. 13.3.70aP. Claudius Pulcher, son of Appius, grandson of Publius enrolled colonists forCales; consul with L. Porcius; commissioners to lead out the colony of Graviscae.(Trans. Coles)Potentia and Pisaurum: (Livy 39.44.10, Cic. Brut. 79)eodem anno coloniae duae, Potentia in Picenum, Pisaurum in Gallicum agrum,deductae sunt, sena iugera in singulos data, diuiserunt agrum coloniasquededuxerunt iidem tresuiri, Q. Fabius Labeo, et M. et Q. Fuluii Flaccus etNobilior. Livy 39.44.10Two colonies were founded this year, one at Potentia in the Picene district, theother at Pisaurum in the land of the Gauls. Six iugera were allotted to eachcolonist; the commissioners who supervised the settlement were Q. Fabius Labeo,M. Fulvius Flaccus and Q. Fulvius Nobilior. (Trans. Roberts)Q. Nobiliorem M. f. iam patrio instituto deditum studio litterarum—qui etiam Q.Ennium, qui cum patre eius in Aetolia militaverat, civitate donavit, cum triumvircoloniam deduxisset. Cic. Brut. 79Q. Nobilior, the son of Marcus, who was inclined to the study of literature by hisfather's example, and presented Ennius (who had served under his father inAetolia) with the citizenship, when he founded a colony as triumvir. (Trans.Jones, with my emendations)Parma and Mutina: (Livy 39.55.7-8)eodem anno Mutina et Parma coloniae ciuium Romanorum sunt deductae, binamilia hominum, in agrum quiproxime Boiorum, ante Tuscorum fuerat, octonaiugera Parmae, quina Mutinae acceperunt. deduxerunt triumuiri M. AemiliusLepidus T. Aebutius Parrus L. Quinctius Crispinus. Livy 39.55.7-8260

Mutina and Parma were also colonized this year by Roman citizens. Twothousand men were settled in each colony on land which had recently belonged tothe Boii, formerly to the Tuscans. Those at Parma received eight iugera each,those at Mutina, five. The allocation of the land was carried out by M. AemiliusLepidus, T. Aebutius Parrus and L. Quinctius Crispinus. (Trans. Roberts)Saturnia: (Livy 39.55.9)et Saturnia colonia ciuium Romanorum in agrum Caletranum est deducta.deduxerunt triumuiri Q. Fabius Labeo C. Afranius Stellio Ti. SemproniusGracchus, in singulos iugera data dena. Livy 39.55.9Saturnia, also, a colony of Roman citizens, was founded under the supervision ofQ. Fabius Labeo, C. Afranius Stellio and Tiberius Sempronius Gracchus. Teniugera were assigned to each colonist. (Trans. Roberts)Aquileia: (Livy 39.55.5-6, 40.34.2-3; CIL I 2 .621)Mud agitabant, uti colonia Aquileia deduceretur, nee satis constabat, utrumLatinam an ciuium Romanorum deduci placer et. postremo Latinam potiuscoloniam deducendam patres censuerunt. triumuiri creati sunt P. Scipio NasicaC. Flaminius L. Manlius Acidinus. Livy 39.55.5-6They were at the time discussing the question of sending colonists to Aquileia,and the question was whether they should make it a Latin colony or send Romancitizens. It was finally decided that the colony should consist of Latin settlers. Thecommissioners for superintending the settlement were P. Scipio Nasica, C.Flaminius and L. Manlius Acidinus. (Trans. Roberts)Aquileia colonia Latina eodem anno in agrum Gallorum est deducta. tria miliapeditum quinquagena iugera, centuriones centena, centena quadragena equitesacceperunt. tresuiri deduxerunt P. Cornelius Scipio Nasica C. Flaminius L.Manlius Acidinus. Livy 40.34.2-3Aquileia, a city situated on land belonging to the Gauls, received this year a bodyof Latin colonists; 3000 infantry soldiers were settled there, and each man wasallotted 50 iugera, the centurions 100, and the cavalry men 140. The supervisorsof the settlement were P. Cornelius Scipio Nasica, C. Flaminius and L. ManliusAcidinus. (Trans. Roberts)L. Manlius L. f. Acidinus trivvir Aquileiae coloniae deducundae CIL I 2 .621L. Manlius Acidinus son of Lucius, commissioner for leading out the colony ofAquileia. (Trans. Coles)Graviscae: (Livy 40.29.1-2, CIL I 2 .l p200 = Inscr. Ital. 13.3.70a)261

Colonia Grauiscae eo anno deducta est in agrum Etruscum, de Tarquiniensibusquondam captum. quina iugera agri data; tresuiri deduxerunt C. Calpurnius PisoP. Claudius Pulcher C. Terentius Istra. Livy 40.29.1-2A colony was settled this year at Gravisca in Etruria on territory which hadformerly been taken from the Tarquinii. Five iugera were given to each man; thesupervisors of the settlement were C. Calpurnius Piso, P. Claudius Pulcher and CTerentius Istra. (Trans. Roberts)[P. Claudius Ap. f. P. n. Pulcher colonojs adscripsit Cales; co(n)s(ul) cum [L.Porcio; Illvijr coloniam deduxit Graviscam. CIL I .1 p200 = Inscr. Ital. 13.3.70aP. Claudius Pulcher, son of Appius, grandson of Publius enrolled colonists forCales; consul with L. Porcius; commissioners to lead out the colony of Graviscae.(Trans. Coles)Luca?: (Livy 40.43.1)Pisanis agrum pollicentibus, quo Latina {Luna Mommsen; Latina = Luca:Beloch, Bormann, Pais) colonia deduceretur, gratiae ab senatu actae; triumuiricreati ad earn rem Q. Fabius Buteo M. et P. Popilii Laenates. Livy 40.43.1Pisae offered land for the foundation of a Latin colony and was thanked by thesenate. The supervisors of the settlement were Q. Fabius Buteo and the twoPopillii Laenates, Marcus and Publius. (Trans. Roberts)Luna: (Livy 41.13.4-5)et Lunam (ed. Basil. 1531 Mommsen, Beloch, Bormann, Solari, Pais; et Lucamed. Basil. 1535) colonia eodem anno duo milia ciuium Romanorum sunt deducta.triumuiri deduxerunt P. Aelius Lepidus Cn. Sicinius; quinquagenaet singula iugera et semisses agri in singulos dati sunt, de Liguribus captus agererat; Etruscorum ante quam Ligurumfuerat. Livy 41.13.4-5Two thousand Roman citizens were settled as colonists at Luna under thesupervision of P. Aelius, M. Aemilius Lepidus and Cnaeus Sicinius. Fifty-one anda half iugera were allotted to each colonist. The land had been taken from theLigurians; it had previously been in the possession of the Etruscans. (Trans.Roberts)Aquileia (suppl): (Livy 43.17.1)Eo anno postulantibus Aquileiensium legatis, ut numerus colonorum augeretur,mille et quingentae familiae ex senatus consulto scriptae triumuirique, qui easdeducerent, missi sunt T. Annius Luscus, P. Decius Subulo, M. CorneliusCethegus. Livy 43.17.1262

The Aquileians sent to Rome during the year to ask that the number of colonistsmight be augmented, and the senate ordered a list to be made of 1500 households.The commissioners who were to settle these colonists were T. Annius Luscus, P.Decius Subulo, and M. Cornelius Cethegus. (Trans. Roberts)II.Sources for the Luna/Luca debate:dimissis legatis disceptatum inter Pisanos Lunensesque (cod. Bormann;Lucensesque Mommsen, Beloch, Solari, Pais) legatos est, Pisanis querentibusagro se a colonis Romanis pelli, Lunensibus (as above) adfirmantibus eum, dequo agatur, ab triumuiris agrum sibi adsignatum esse, senatus, qui definibuscognoscerent statuerentque, quinque uiros misit Q. Fabium Buteonem, P.Cornelium Blasionem, T. Sempronium Museum, L. Naeuium Balbum, C.Apuleium Saturninum. Livy 45.13.10 (168 BCE)Their departure was followed by the arrival of deputations from Pisae and Luna,who had a dispute. The Pisans complained that they had been expelled from theirterritory by the Roman colonists; those from Luna asseverated that the land inquestion had been assigned to them by the commissioners who settled the colony.The senate sent five commissioners to investigate the facts and fix the boundaries- namely, Q. Fabius Buteo, P. Cornelius Blasio, T. Sempronius Musca, L. NaeviusBalbus and C. Apuleius Saturninus. (Trans. Roberts)Cn. autem Manlio Vulsone et Fulvio Nobiliore coss. Bononia deducta coloniaabhinc annosferme ducendos septendecim etpost quadriennium Pisaurum acPotentia interiectoque triennio Aquileia et Gravisca etpost quadrennium Luca.(cod. Zumpt; Luna Madvig, Mommsen, Pais) Veil. Pat. 1.15.2But, about two hundred and seventeen years ago, in the consulship of GnaeusManlius Volso and Fulvius Nobilior, a colony was established at Bononia (189BCE), others four years later at Pisaurum and Potentia (184 BCE), others threeyears later still at Aquileia and Gravisca (181 BCE), and another four yearsafterwards at Luca (177 BCE). (Trans. Shipley)primum Etruriae oppidum Lunaportu nobile, colonia Luca (portu nobile colonia,Luca Mommsen) a mari recedenspropiorque Pisae inter amnes Auserem etArnum ortae a Pelope Pisisque sive a Teutanis, Graeca gente. Pliny HN 3.50The first town in Etruria is Luna, famous for its harbor; then the colony of Luca,some way from the sea and nearer to Pisa, between the rivers Auser and Arno,which owes its origin to the Pelopidae or to the Greek tribe of the Teutani. (Trans.Rackham)III.Sources for Viritane Distributions and the Movement of Enemy PopulationsDistribution of Lands in Gaul (232 BCE)263

HETOt 5E TOUTOV TOV

Seruilius Q. Caecilius Metellus C. et M. Seruilii—Geminis ambobus cognomenerat—L. etA. Hostilii Catones P. Villius Tappulus M. Fuluius Flaccus P. AeliusPaetus T. Quinctius Flamininus. Livy 31.4.1-3Towards the close of the year the question was brought up as to the holdingswhich were to be assigned to the veteran soldiers who had served with Scipio inAfrica. The senator decreed that M. Junius, the City praetor, should at hisdiscretion appoint ten commissioners for the purpose of measuring and allottingthat portion of the Samnite and Apulian territory which had become State domain.The commissioners were P. Servilius, Q. Caecilius Marcellus, the two Servilii,Caius and Marcus - who were known as "The Twins" - the two Hostilii Catones,Lucius and Aulus, P. Villius Tappulus, M. Fulvius Flaccus, P. Aelius Paetus andT. Quinctius Flamininus. (Trans. Roberts)Ludi deinde a P. Cornelio Scipione quos consul in Africa uouerat magnoapparatu facti. et de agris militum eius decretum ut quot quisque eorum annos inHispania aut in Africa militasset, in singulos annos bina iugera agri acciperet:eum agrum decemuiri adsignarent. triumuiri item creati ad supplendum Venusiniscolonorum numerum, quod bello Hannibalis attenuatae uires eius coloniae erant,C. Terentius Varro T. Quinctius Flamininus P. Cornelius Cn. f. Scipio; hi colonosVenusiam adscripserunt. Livy 31.49.4-6The Games which Scipio had vowed when he was proconsul in Africa werecelebrated with great splendour. A decree was made for the allotment of land tohis soldiers; each man was to receive two iugera for every year he had served inSpain or in Africa, and the decemviri managed the allotment. Commissionerswere also appointed to fill up the number of colonists at Venusia, as the strengthof that colony had been diminished in the war with Hannibal. C. Terentius Varro,T. Quinctius Flamininus and P. Cornelius, the son of Cnaeus Scipio, were thecommissioners who undertook the task. (Trans. Roberts)Movement of Ligurians to Apulia and Samnium (180 BCE)P. Cornelius et M. Baebius, qui in consulatu nihil memorabile gesserant, inApuanos Ligures exercitum induxerunt. Ligures, qui ante aduentum inprouinciam consulum non exspectassent bellum, improuiso oppressi sunt; adduodecim milia hominum dediderunt se. eos consultoper litter as prius senatudeducere ex montibus in agros campestres procul ab domo, ne reditus spes esset,Cornelius et Baebius statuerunt, nullum ahum antefinem rati fore Ligustini belli.Ager publicus populi Romani erat in Samnitibus, qui Taurasinorum traducere Ligures Apuanos uellent, edixerunt, ut Ligures Apuani demontibus descenderent cum liberis coniugibusque, sua omnia secum portarent.Ligures saepeper legatos deprecati, nepenates, sedem in quageniti essent,sepulcra maiorum cogerentur relinquere, arma obsides pollicebantur. postquamnihil impetrabant neque uires ad bellandum erant, edicto paruerunt. traducti suntpublico sumptu ad quadraginta milia liberorum capitum cumfeminispuerisque.265

argenti data centum et quinquaginta milia, unde in nouas sedes compararent,quae opus essent. agro diuidendo dandoque idem, qui traduxerant, Cornelius etBaebius praepositi. postulantibus tamen ipsis quinqueuiri ab senatu dati, quorumex consilio agerent. Livy 40.37.9-38.8P. Cornelius and M. Baebius, who during their consulship had done nothing ofany importance, now, at the beginning of spring, led their armies against theApuani. [40.38]This Ligurian tribe, who had not expected that war would beginbefore the arrival of the new consuls, were taken wholly by surprise, and after acrushing defeat surrendered to the number of 12,000. After consulting the senateby letter, Cornelius and Baebius decided to remove them from their mountainsinto some open and level country far from their homes, so that there could be nohope of return; for they did not see any other end of the Ligurian wars. There wassome land in Samnium, forming part of the State domain, which had belonged toTaurania. The consuls wished to settle the Ligurians in this district, and theyissued an order for them to come down from Anidus and their mountain homeswith their wives and children and take all their property with them. The Liguriansmade frequent appeals through their envoys, begging that they might not becompelled to abandon their household gods, the homes in which they had beenborn and the burial-places of their forefathers, and promising to surrender theirarms and give hostages. When they found all their appeals fruitless, and knew thatthey were not strong enough for war, they obeyed the consuls' edict. As many as40,000 freemen with their wives and children were transported at the expense ofthe government; 150,000 silver denarii were allowed them to procure necessariesfor their new homes. Cornelius and Baebius were also authorised to distribute andassign the land; they asked, however, that five assessors might be appointed toassist them, and the senate appointed them. (Trans. Roberts)Complaints on Movements of Latins to Rome (187 and 177 BCE)legatis deinde sociorum Latini nominis, qui toto undique ex Latio jrequentesconuenerant, senatus dolus est. his querentibus magnam multitudinem ciuiumsuorum Romam commigrasse et ibi censos esse, Q. Terentio Culleoni praetorinegotium datum est, ut eos conquireret, et quern C. Claudio M. Liuio censoribuspostue eos censores ipsum parentemue eius apudse censum esse probassent socii,ut redire eo cogeret, ubi censi essent. hac conquisitione duodecim miliaLatinorum domos redierunt, iam turn multitudine alienigenarum urbem onerante.Livy 39.3.4-6The senate then gave audience to the deputations who had come from all the citiesand colonies of the Latin allies. Their grievance was that a large number of theircitizens had migrated to Rome and were placed on the census there. Q. TerentiusCulleo, one of the praetors, was charged with the task of finding them out, andwhoever was proved to have been registered at home during the censorship of C.Claudius and M. Livius or their successors, he was to order his return to the cityin which he had been registered; 12,000 Latins returned in consequence to their266

homes. Even then the City was overcrowded by the multitude of immigrants.(Trans. Roberts)mouerunt senatum et legationes socium nominis Latini, quae et censores etpriores consules fatigauerant, tandem in senatum introductae. summaquerellarum erat, dues suos Romae censos plerosque Romam commigrasse; quodsi permittatur, perpaucis lustris futurum, ut deserta oppida, deserti agri nullummilitem dare possint. Fregellas quoque milia quattuor familiarum transisse ab seSamnites Paelignique querebantur, neque eo minus aut hos out illos in dilectumilitum dare, genera autemfraudis duo mutandae uiritim ciuitatis inducta erant.lex sociis [acj nominis Latini, qui stirpem ex sese domi relinquerent, dabat, utdues Romani fierent. ea lege male utendo alii sociis, aliipopulo Romanoiniuriam fadebant. nam et ne stirpem domi relinquerent, liberos suos quibuslibetRomanis in earn condicionem, ut manu mitterentur, mandpio dabant, libertiniquedues essent; et quibus stirps deesset, quam relinquerent, ut dues Romani * *fiebant. postea his quoque imaginibus iuris spretis, promiscue sine lege, sinestirpe in duitatem Romanam per migrationem et censum transibant. haec nepostea fierent, petebant legati, et ut redire in duitates iuberent sodos; deinde utlege cauerent, ne quis quern ciuitatis mutandae causa suumfaceret neuealienaret; et si quis ita ciuis Romanus factus esset, . haecimpetrata ab senatu. Livy 41.8.6-12Delegates from the Latin allies, after numberless appeals to the censors and thelate consuls, were at length admitted to an audience of the senate, and theirstatement made a great impression. The gist of their complaint was that theircitizens who were on the Roman register had migrated in great numbers to theCity, and if this were allowed it would come to pass in a very few lustra that thetowns and fields would be deserted and incapable of furnishing any men for thearmy. The Samnites and Paeligni stated that 4000 families had gone from them toFregellae, but they were not diminishing their contingents, nor were theFregellans increasing theirs. The practice of individuals changing their citizenshipled to two kinds of fraud. The law allowed those amongst the Latin allies whochose, to become Roman citizens if they left male progeny behind in the oldhome. This law was abused to the injury of the allies and of the Roman people.For in order to avoid any male descendants being left at home, they gave theirchildren as slaves to some Roman or other, on condition that they should bemanumitted, and as freedmen become citizens, whilst on the other hand those whohad no male descendants became Roman citizens. Subsequently, even this legalpresence was brushed aside. In defiance of law and without any male descendantsthey migrated to Rome and were placed on the City register. The delegates askedthat this might be stopped for the future, and that those who had migrated shouldbe ordered to return to their homes. They asked further that a law might be passedmaking it illegal for any person to adopt or manumit any one with the view ofchanging his citizenship, and also require those who had become Roman citizensby this means to renounce their citizenship. The senate granted these requests.(Trans. Roberts)267

Distribution of Lands in Liguria and Gaul (173 BCE)Eodem anno, cum agri Ligustini et Gallici, quod bello captum erat, aliquantumuacaret, senatus consultum factum, ut is ager uiritim diuideretur. decemuiros inearn ex senatus consulto creauit A. Atilius praetor urbanus M. AemiliumLepidum C. Cassium T. Aebutium Parrum C. Tremellium P. Cornelium CethegumQ. et L. Apuleios M. Caecilium C. Salonium C. Munatium. diuiserunt dena iugerain singulos, sociis nominis Latini terna. Livy 42.4.3-4There was a quantity of land taken in the wars with the Ligurians and the Gaulswhich was lying unappropriated, and the senate passed a resolution that it shouldbe distributed amongst individual holders. In pursuance of this resolution the Citypraetor appointed ten commissioners to supervise the allotment, M. AemiliusLepidus, C. Cassius, T. Aebutus Carus, C. Tremellius, P. Cornelius Cethegus,Quintus and Lucius Apuleius, M. Caecilius, C. Salonius, and C. Menatius. EachRoman citizen received ten iugera, each of the Latin allies, three. [Trans. Roberts]268

Appendix 2: Magistracies Held by CommissionersSeveral scholars have tallied the correspondence between the colonial commissioners andthe offices they had held, in more or less detail. MacKendrick counts 88 commissionersmentioned by Livy down to the year 168 BCE: 21 of these were consuls, 26 werepraetors, and 20 were just starting their political career. 1Gargola offers a more thoroughanalysis of the consuls and praetors between 219 and 169 BCE: 57 names are known forthis period, 11 of whom were consuls, and 19 were praetors. Gargola notes that collegesthat founded citizen colonies had fewer consuls than those of Latin colonies, but not by avery large margin. While these statistics are interesting in terms of number of highrankingofficers available to found colonies, they do not tell us much about thecomposition of individual colleges. Thus, what follows is an analysis of the number ofcommissions with former consuls or praetors, pro-magistrates, military legates, tribunesof the plebs, aediles, and priests. These are the best attested magistracies in the literarysources.Out of the twenty two colonial commissions between 338 and 169 where some orall of the commissioners are named, only three colonization efforts did not have at leastone former consul or provincial praetor: Copia (194), Tempsa (194), and the supplementof Aquileia (169). 4Tempsa should be discounted due to a corruption in the sources for1 MacKendrick (1952), p. 141.2 Gargola (1995), p. 60 and nn. 45-6 p. 210.3 ibid, p. 61. Of the 27 commissioners to found citizens colonies, four were consuls and nine praetors. Ofthe 27 commissioners to found Latin colonies, there were seven of both consuls and praetors. Because thereis not a very large difference between the composition of the colleges to found Latin colonies and those tofound citizen colonies, the distinction is ignored here. For the purposes of this study, it is enough to showthat the tresviri were chosen for their qualifications.4 See Appendix 3 for references and magistrate names.269

one of the members lest we make an argument from silence; it should be noted however,that one of the two known members of the college for founding Tempsa was an urbanpraetor before becoming triumvir. The supplementation of Aquileia in 169 also should bedisregarded because it is the last supplement for which we have notice; it is impossible totell if it is an anomaly or marks the beginning of a trend.Discounting the latter two examples, there is only one commission out of twentythat did not contain a definite general in the Roman army. The commissions for Copiaand Tempsa both had urban praetors, however, who were still experienced in armysupply. These two commissions were also in a year in which ten colonies were eithervoted or were in the process of being founded, which would require a larger number ofavailable men than ever needed for colonization before. Thus, it seems that the preferredcomposition of a colonial commission would include at least one man who hadcommanded an army. This attests to the usefulness of the skill-set gained bycommanding a Roman legion and its applicability to Roman colonization.Moreover, sixteen out of the twenty two commissions had at least one formercommander who had led a legion multiple times, whether as praetor and consul, consultwice, or through a pro-magistracy. 6Both consuls and praetors could have their5 Copia: Livy 34.53.1-2, 35.9.7-8; Tempsa: Livy 34.45.3-5; Aquileia: Livy 43.17.1. See also Gargola(1995), pp. 60-63 for a breakdown of the consular and praetorian members of the commissions (especiallynn. 45, 46, and 51-56 on pp. 210-212 for lists of magistrates and references in Livy), although withoutdiscussion of what sort of praetor nor of any other magistracies held by the commissioners. See alsoGargola (1995), p. 212 n. 64 for the suggestion that the Aquileia supplement in 169 could not find enoughranking magistrates to fill the commission. See Salmon (1970), p. 112 f. for die break in colonization after169.6 The commissions that did not were the two commissions to Placentia and Cremona (219-218), the first ofwhich saw the commissioners taken prisoner for 15 years; these commissions are debatable in their makeup:see Gargola (1990). Also on the list of colleges without a more experienced commander are ViboValentia (194), Copia (194), Tempsa (194), and the supplement to Aquileia (169). The reasons for270

command extended into a pro-magistracy by a vote of the senate. The first recordedinstance of a pro-magistracy was in 326 BCE when Q. Publilius Philo was voted aprorogatio imperii in order to finish his capture of Naples. 7The titles of the powersinvolved were imperium pro consule or pro praetore, and these positions granted all ofthe powers previously held by the general as consul or praetor. This includes the duties toenroll troops if not already in the field, to requisition supplies, and to ensure the troopshave a safe camp each night. The fact that over a third (25 of 65) of the knowncommissioners had held multiple commands in the army reinforces the view that thetresviri coloniae deducendae were chosen or formed themselves specifically so that atleast one man on each commission had the experience that would allow them to found acolony: the commissions included the men who had the most experience possible becausethey had successfully led a legion many times.Three colonial colleges, those for Vibo Valentia (194), Copia (194), and thesupplement for Aquileia (169) all had legates as their most experienced militarycommissioners. These are among the colleges that were exempt from discussion ofmilitary commanders, above, but they, too, had members that brought military experienceto the colonization effort. 8Broughton divides legateships into three categories: envoys,ambassadors, and lieutenants, who controlled one of the legions under orders from theexcluding Tempsa and Aquileia are the same as given above. Note that the least experienced commissionsare either the ones we know least securely or the ones for the year in which the most commissions wereformed.7 Southern (2006), p. 66: "It has been pointed out that during the Republic the prolongation of a commandoften had far less to do with military necessity than with political influence at Rome, but the establishmentof the pro-magistracy was a useful device that separated the annual magisterial office on one hand from itsfunction and power on the other."271

commander. 9The colonial colleges for Vibo Valentia and Copia both held at least onelieutenant, but the commission to supplement Aquileia had only one envoy and oneambassador legate. Perhaps the changing nature and interests of colonization at this timeor the lack of available magistrates influenced the relative lack of magisterial experienceon this commission, 10 or perhaps by this time it was enough that M. Cornelius Cethegus'legateship had involved a journey through Aquileia two years before the colony neededsupplementation. 11His experience with the territory might have made up for any lack ofmilitary experience.As for legates who were lieutenants of a legion, the precedent for their magistracybegan after the second Punic War or at least by the 190s during the Macedonian Wars. Atthat time, a commanding magistrate requested that the senate appoint one or more maturelegates of senatorial rank; these legates came on campaign with the legions. Thecommander could delegate part of his duties to the legates, whether it was ambassadorialduties or control over a portion of the troops and ships.This semi-independent controlover the troops and ships required much the same experience that commanding the entirearmy required, including arranging supplies and setting up marching camps. Thus, thecolleges to found Vibo Valentia and Copia were not without men experienced in how tomove troops, provide for them, and house them. Rather, they had men who had thisexperience, but not as much as other commanders. This was probably because of the8 There are numerous other legates on the commissions, but if the commissioner was also a consul or apraetor, the legateship fades in importance. See Appendix 3 for a list of commissioners and references, cf.Broughton MRR (1968 reprint) I and II for the magistracies held by the commissioners.9 Broughton, MRR (1951) I.x.10 Gargola (1995), p. 212 n. 64 on the lack of available magistrates.u Livy43.1.272

extreme draw on the pool of magistrates already exerted by the number of colonies sentout in 194, let alone the preexisting military and governmental needs of the Roman state.Military commands were not the only magistracies that offered skills that aided inthe foundation of colonies. A significant portion of the commissioners had also served ayear as tribune of the plebs. Eight former tribunes of the plebs served on sixcommissions: two on the commission to found the five citizen colonies of Volturnum,Liternum, Puteoli, Salernum, and Buxentum (197-194); one on the college for Copia(194-3), a Latin colony; one possibly was a commissioner to found Sipontum (194), acitizen colony; one on the college for leading the supplement to Placentia and Cremonaand founding Bononia (190-189), all Latin colonies; one on the college to lead out thesupplement for Sipontum and Buxentum (186), citizen colonies; and two on the board tofound Saturnia (183), a citizen colony.Of the commissions for the Latin colonies outlined above, it seems that themagistrates had reasons for their position on the committee that had little to do with theirroles as tribune of the plebs. For Copia (194-3), the tribune of the plebs, Q. AeliusTubero, brought the motion to found both Copia and Vibo Valentia before the conciliumplebisP His position on the college to found one of the two colonies may therefore showthe support of the concilium plebis and comitia tributa: it approved the measure to such adegree as to award the proposer a place on the commission. 14In the case of thesupplement to Placentia and Cremona (190) and the foundation of Bononia (189), L.12 Keppie (1998), p. 40.13 Livy 34.53.1-214 Note that the commission did not actually found Copia until 193, so the ban on tribunes leaving Romewould not apply to Tubero, who was tribune in 194.273

Valerius Tappo, the former tribune of the plebs, was praetor of Sicily in 192 andpropraetor in 191, and thus his role as commander may have carried more weight than hisprevious tribunate. In contrast, where citizen colonies had one or more tribunes, often thetribunes had held no or few other offices before becoming triumvir.For the five citizen colonies, both tribunes of the plebs were also curule aedilesbefore the commission; for Sipontum, the tribunate was the only magistracy M. BaebiusTamphilus held before becoming triumvir. In the case of the supplement for Sipontumand Buxentum, the tribune of the plebs was later a plebeian aedile and a praetor. ForSaturnia, one only of the former tribunes of the plebs was solely a tribune; the other waslater a praetor. 15Moreover, Q. Aelius Tubero (Copia), M. Baebius Tamphilus(Sipontum), and perhaps T. Sempronius Gracchus (Saturnia) were still in their tribunateswhen they were on the commission to found their colonies, which indicates two things:that they still possessed the full power of the tribunate for that year, and that they couldnot leave Rome, which suggests that the commissioners may have split the duties offoundation amongst themselves to accommodate those magistrates forbidden to leaveRome. 16The placement of tribunes in most of the commissions to found citizen coloniessuggests that the concilium plebis conceived of the former tribunes as having the interestsVolturnum, Liternum, Puteoli, Salernum, Buxentum: The tresviri were M. Servilius Pulex Geminus C.fP.n., Q. Minucius Thermus Q.f L.n., and T. Sempronius Longus Ti.f C.n (Livy 32.29.3-4, 34.45.1-2, Veil.Pat. 1.15.2, Jer. Chron. 191 pl36 Helm, CIL I 2 .2.698 (Puteoli)). Sipontum: The college included M.Helvius, D. Iunius Brutus, and M. Baebius Tamphilus Q.f Cn.n. (Livy 34.45.3-5). Sipontum and Buxentum(suppl.): The commissioners were L. Scribonius Libo, M. Tuccius, and Cn. Baebius Tamphilus Q.f Cn.n.(Livy 39.23.3-4). Saturnia: The tresviri were Q. Fabius Labeo Q.f Q.n., C. Afranius Stellio, and T.Sempronius Gracchus P.f Ti.n. (Livy 39.55.9)16 MacKendrick (1952), p. 142 suggests some sort of rotation of office for the three years, but I think therecould equally have been a division of duties independent of the calendar year. For other magistrates tied toRome or out in the field for part or all of the three-year period before the foundation of their colony, seeAppendix 3, the Colonial Commissioners Chart.274

of the citizen colonists at heart, even after they had lost their protective powers andsacrosanct status.Not all citizen colonies had a tribune of the plebs on the founding commission,though. The citizen colonies that did not are Tempsa (194), for which again there is acorruption of the third name in the college; Croton (194); Potentia and Pisaurum (184);Parma and Mutina (183); Graviscae (181); and Luna (177). It is important to note thatPotentia and Pisaurum begin the trend of large citizen colonies modeled on the oldconcept of the Latin colony: there were usually 3,000 or more families enrolled in thelarger citizen colonies, so the new community needed its own governing bodies, unlikethe previous, smaller citizen colonies, which only had 300 families and few magistrates. 17Parma and Mutina, Graviscae, and Luna follow this new pattern of large, citizen colonies.Perhaps the change in the size and constitution of the new citizen colonies also negatedthe perceived benefit of having a tribune of the plebs on the board.The last magistracy that appears in the career history of a significant number ofcommissioners is the aedileship. Twenty four of the sixty five known commissionerswere aediles; this means that thirteen of the twenty two attested commissions between334 and 169 had at least one former aedile. There were also a number of priests on thecommissions. Nine of the sixty five commissioners were priests at the time of theircommission, arranged over eight of the twenty two commissions (338-169 BCE). Thepontifices on the colonial commissions from 338 to 169 were M. Valerius MaximusCorvus (Saticula, 313), L. Valerius Flaccus (Placentia, Cremona, and Bononia, 190-189),17 Salmon (1970), p. 104.275

Q. Fabius Labeo (Potentia and Pisaurum, 184, and Saturnia 183), and M. AemiliusLepidus (Parma and Mutina, 183 and Luna 177). Of these, L. Valerius Flaccus and M.Aemilius Lepidus served in the college together from 196; they were joined in 180 by Q.Fabius Labeo, well after his colonial foundations.The augures were P. Aelius Paetus and Cn. Cornelius Lentulus (Narnia, 199), M.Servilius Geminus and T. Sempronius Longus (Volturnum, Liternum, Puteoli, Salernum,Buxentum, 197-194), and L. Aemilius Paulus (Croton, 194). Of these men, P. AeliusPaetus, Cn. Cornelius Lentulus, M. Servilius Geminus, and perhaps T. Sempronius1 RLongus and T. Sempronius Gracchus were augurs together from before 200. L.Aemilius Paulus joined them in 192, after he helped to establish Croton. Between thepontiffs and augurs, these men are spread over six out of twenty two colonialcommissions between 338 and 169, leaving aside, of course, those men who were not yetpriests at the time they helped establish their colony.There were also three decimviri sacris faciundis on colonial commissions: C.Papirius Maso (possible commissioner for the second attempt to establish Placentia andCremona in 218 - Cf. Gargola (1990)), T. Sempronius Longus (maritime colonies of 194,It is interesting to note that over half of the nine augurs during the early second century were oncommissions to found colonies; another augur during this period was L. Quinctius Flamininus, brother tothe commissioner for Venusia (200). Scullard (1951), p. 80 n. 5 posits cooperation among four of thesemen (M. Servilius Geminus, Cn. Cornelius Lentulus, P. Aelius Paetus, and Ti. Sempronius Gracchus) todelay the elections for 201. By 179, the augural college contained L. Aemilius Paulus, P. Aelius Paetus, M.Servilius Geminus, Ti. Sempronius Longus, and probably T. Sempronius Gracchus, all of whom werecolonial commissioners, as well as the relatives of commissioners L. Quinctius Flamininus, C. ClaudiusPulcher (brother of P. Claudius Pulcher on commissions for Cales (185) and Graviscae (181)), and P.Scipio (son of Africanus, who perhaps was instrumental in the foundation of the maritime colonies of 194)(cf. Scullard pp. 179-180 n. 4). The ninth augur is unknown (cf. Rttpke (2005), Vol. 1 p. 87) butnonetheless, these men and their families show an obvious interest in both the priesthood and colonization.This suggests that both provided a certain level of prestige and advantage to ambitious men. Cf. Hahm(1963), pp. 75-76 for the assertion that the augurate was the most prestigious priesthood.276

also an augur), and C. Laetorius (Croton, 194).The large number of priests on thecommissions, given that there were only up to 28 priests on these colleges in Rome at anygiven time, is not surprising since, as Cicero noted, the coincidence of magistracies andpriesthoods was one of the strengths of the Roman state.In summary, all of the colleges of tresviri coloniae deducendae between 219 and169 BCE contained a very high number of military leaders, whether consuls, praetors,pro-magistrates, or legates. Nearly half of the colleges also had at least one former aedileas a member. The commissions for the small, citizen colonies also contained at least oneformer tribune of the plebs. Some commissioners were young, inexperienced men, forwhom founding the colony would have been a learning experience. Finally,approximately ten percent of the commissioners were also priests; this number roughlycorresponds to ratio of priests to senators in Rome at this time: 28 pontiffs, augurs, anddecimviri out of 300 senators. Thus, the significant factor in the overall selection ofcolonial commissioners seems to have been their military experience.19 Since we have no indication that this sort of priesthood was instituted in the colonies, and furthermore,since the expertise of these priests related directly to the consultation of the Sibylline Books in Rome, theskills/duties of these men as decimviri had no bearing on colonization. Thus, they are left aside here.20 Cic.Dom. 1.1.277

CommissionAntiumAppendix 3: Colonial Commissioner ChartDate467ColonyTypeP. LatinLivvReference3.1.6OtherReferencesDH 9.59.2;MRR 1.32Initiating Magistrate fs)T. Aemilius (cos) trying toget land for plebeianfamilies from patricianholdings. Q. Fabius (cos)suggested sending them tocolony.Ardea442P. Latin4.11.5Diod. 12.34.5;MRR 1.54Cos M. Fabius Vibulanusand Postumus AebutiusCornicen need to hide decabout Ardea, enrolled col,but only after nativeRutuliansNepet383P. Latin6.21.4Senate appointedcommission of 3Cales334Latin8.16.14Veil. 1.14.3;MRR 1.141InteramnaSucasina9.28.7-8Senate passed resolution(313), but left it to cos of312 M.Valerius and P.Decius to elect 3commissioners278

Appendix 3: Colonial Commissioner ChartCommissionAntiumCommissionersT. Quinctius L.fL.n CapitolinusBarbatusBroushtonMRKRef.2.610Significant ranksbefore iiivircos (471, 468)Significant Ranksafter iiivircos 4x, Q, et al.Aulus VerginiusCaeliomontanus2.633cos 469leg lieut 455Publius FuriusMedullinus Fusus2.569cos 472leg lieut 464ArdeaMenenius AgrippaLanatus T.fAgrippa.n2.590nonecos 439, tr mil 419,417T. Cloelius Siculus2.548tr mil 444M. Aebutius Helva2.525noneNepetno namesCalesCaeso Duillius2.561cos 336T. QuinctiusPoenus CapitolinusCrispinus2.611diet 361, mag.eq360, cos 354, 351M. Fabius2.562either Ambustus (cos360, 356, 354) orDorsuo (cos. 345)InteramnaSucasinano names279

Appendix 3: Colonial Commissioner ChartCommissionAntiumCommissionersT. Quinctius L.fL.n CapitolinusBarbatusAulus VerginiusCaeliomontanusPublius FuriusMedullinus FususPriesthoodStart Date(Priesthood)ArdeaMenenius AgrippaLanatus T.fAgrippa.nT. Cloelius SiculusM. Aebutius HelvaNepetno namesCalesCaeso DuilliusT. QuinctiusPoenus CapitolinusCrispinusM. FabiusInteramnaSucasinano names280

?CommissionAppendix 3: Colonial Commissioner ChartDatebefore305ColonyTypeLiwReference9.46.3OtherReferences=LiciniusMacer fr. 19PInitiatins Masistrate(s)Saticula313LatinFestus p458 L,Veil. 1.14.4;MRR 1.159Minturnaeand Sinuessa10.21.7-10Trib.pleb to get plebisciteto order P. Sempronius (pr)to nominate 3commissionersPlacentia andCremona (1st)219-218Latin21.25.1-7Polyb. 3.40.3-10, Asc. Pis.P3 Clark;MRR 1.240-242 (with ref.)Placentia andCremona(2nd)218LatinSee 1stfoundation281

Appendix 3: Colonial Commissioner Chart?CommissionCommissionersCnaeus FlaviusBrouehtonMRRRef.Significant ranksbefore iiiviriiivir nocturn?Before 305Significant Ranksafter iiivirtr.pl? 305, aed.cur304SaticulaM. ValeriusMaximus CorvusM.fM.n2.630tr.mil 349, cos 348,346, 343, 335,aed.cur? 345 et al.pr (6) 308, cos 300,299 (suff)D. Iunius BrutusScaeva2.576Mag.eq 339, cos 325P. Fulvius Longus2.568noneMinturnaeand Sinuessano namesPlacentia and C. Lutatius CatulusCremona (1st) C.fCnM. AciliusC. Herrenius2.5832.5252.572cos 220 (Gargola1990)pr (Gargola 1990)pr (Gargola 1990)Placentia andCremona(2nd)P. Cornelius(Scipio) Asina Cn.fL.n2.556cos 221 (Gargola1990)C. Papirius MasoL.f2.599(Gargola 1990)Cn. CorneliusScipio2.555 (not inRE)(Gargola 1990)

?Appendix 3: Colonial Commissioner ChartCommissionCommissionersCnaeus FlaviusPriesthoodStart Date(Priesthood)SaticulaM. ValeriusMaximus CorvusM.fM.nPontiff(mentioned,may not behim)340D. Iunius BrutusScaevaP. Fulvius LongusMinturnaeand Sinuessano namesPlacentia and C. Lutatius CatulusCremona (1st) C.fCnM. AciliusC. HerreniusPlacentia andCremona(2nd)P. Cornelius(Scipio) Asina Cn.fL.nC. Papirius MasoL.fCn. CorneliusScipioXvir s.f.220 (213 inMRR)

CommissionVenusia(suppl)Appendix 3; Colonial Commissioner ChartDate200electedColonyTypeLatinLiwReference31.49.6OtherReferencesPlut. Flam.\A;MRR1.325-6Initiating Magistratefs)No mag mentioned, butjust after P. CorneliusScipio Africanus' triumphand land distNarnia (suppl) 199electedLatin32.2.6-7MRR 1.329Spokesman fin Narnia,then cos L Corneliusordered to est board

CommissionVenusia(suppl)Appendix 3: Colonial Commissioner ChartCommiss ionersC. Terentius VarroC.fM.nBrouehtonMRRRef.2.625Significant ranksbefore iiivirQ by 222, aed.pl by221?, aed.curby220?, pr (Sardinia?)218, cos 216(Cannae), procos(Picenum) 215-213,propr (Etruria) 208-7Significant Ranksafter iiivirT. QuinctiusFlamininus T.f L.n2.611tr.mil 208, propr.(Tarentum) 205-4,Xvirag.dand. 201-200Q 199?, cos 198,procos 197-194,cens 189 et al.P. Cornelius ScipioNasicaCn.fL.n2.556Q c.200aedxur 197, pr(Further Spain)194, propr 193, cos(CisG) 191, procos190 (see below)Narnia (suppl)P. Aelius PaetusQ.fP.naed.pl 204, pr 203,mag.eq 202, Xvir ag.201-200, cos 201,cens 199leg.amb. 196-195,193-192Cn. CorneliusLentulusL.fL.nS. Aelius PaetusQ.fP.n Catustr.mil 216, Q 212,aed.cur 205, cosFleet 201, procosFleet 200cur.aed 200leg.amb. 196-195cos 198, cens 194

Appendix 3: Colonial Commissioner ChartCommissionVenusia(suppl)CommissionersC. Terentius VarroC.fM.nPriesthoodStart Date(Priesthood)T. QuinctiusFlamininus T.f L.nP. Cornelius ScipioNasicaCn.f L.nLed inMagna MaterNarnia (suppl) P. Aelius PaetusQ.fP.naugur208Cn. CorneliusLentulus L.f L.naugurbef217S. Aelius PaetusQ.fP.n Catus

Appendix 3; Colonial Commissioner ChartCommissionDateColonyTypeLivyReferenceOtherReferencesInitiating Magistrate fs)Volturnum,Liternum,Puteoli,Salernum,Buxentum197elected,194fiidCitizen32.29.3-4,34.45.1-2Veil. 1.15.2,Jerome Chr.Ad an 191pi36 Helm,CIL I 2 .2.698(Puteoli);MRR 1.334-5,345-6C. Atinius (trib.pl.)Vibo Valentia194elected,192fhdLatin34.53.1-2,35.40.5-6MRR 1.345and 351Q. Aelius Tubero (trib.pl.)following directive ofsenateCopia(CastrumFrentinum)194elected,193 fedLatin34.53.1-2,35.9.7-8MRR 1.345-6,349, and 351Q. Aelius Tubero (trib.pl.)following directive ofsenate, Cn. Domitius (u.pr)presided over elections

Appendix 3: Colonial Commissioner ChartCommissionCommissionersBroushtonMRRRefSignificant ranksbefore iiivirSignificant Ranksafter iiivirVolturnum,Liternum,Puteoli,Salemum,BuxentumM. Servilius PulexGeminus C.f P.n2.619aedxur 204, mag.eq203, cos (Etruria)202, procos201,Xvirag.201Q. MinuciusThermus Q.f L.n2.592tr.pl 201, aed.cur198pr (Hither Spain)196, promag 195,cos(Liguria) 193,procos 192-190T. SemproniusLongusTi.fC.n2.616tr.pl 200, aed.cur198pr (Sardinia) 196,promag 195, cos(CisG and Liguria)194, et al.Vibo ValentiaM. Minucius Rufus2.592pr.pereg. 197leg.amb 193Q. Naevius Matho2.594nonepr in quaestio deveneficis andSardinia 184M. FuriusCrassipes2.569leg.env 201, leg.lieut200pr (CisG) 187,(Sicily) 173Copia(CastrumFrentinum)L. Apustius FulloAulus ManliusVulsoCn.fL.n2.5322.587 and645-6aed.pl 201, leg.lieut200-199, pr.urb 196nonepr.suff? 189?, cos(CisG and Istria)178, procos 177Q. Aelius TuberoMissing fromMRRtrib.pl. 194(Kondratieff(2003)p. 630)pr 192, propr 191,cos 181, procos180, leg.env/amb185-4 (Kondratieff(2003) p. 630)

Appendix 3: Colonial Commissioner ChartCommissionVolturnum,Liternum,Puteoli,Salernum,BuxentumCommissionersM. Servilius PulexGeminus C.f P.nQ. MinuciusThermus Q.f L.nPriesthoodaugurStart Date(Priesthood)211T. SemproniusLongusTi.f C.nXvir s.f. (andaugur?)210 (both)Vibo ValentiaM. Minucius RufusQ. Naevius MathoM. FuriusCrassipesCopia(CastrumFrentinum)L. Apustius FulloAulus ManliusVulsoCn.fL.nQ. Aelius Tubero289

Appendix 3: Colonial Commissioner ChartCommissionSipontum(1st)Date194fodColonyTypeCitizenLivyReference34.45.3-5OtherReferencesMRR 1.345Initiating Masistrate(s)Livy doesn't sayTempsa194 fhdCitizen34.45.3-5MRR 1.345Livy doesn't sayCroton194 fhdCitizen34.45.3-5MRR 1.345Livy doesn't say

Appendix 3: Colonial Commissioner ChartCommissionCommissionersBrouehtonMRRRef.Significant ranksbefore iiivirSignificant Ranksafter iiivirSipontum(1st)M. Helvius2.572aed.pl 198, pr(Farther Spain) 197,procos 196-5D. Iunius Brutus2.576maybe leg.lieut orprefect 212 (Ref?,not MRR)M. BaebiusTamphilus Q.fCn.n2.537tr.pl 194?pr (Nearer Spain +Bruttium) 192,propr (Mac + Gc)191, cos 181,procos 180 (Lig +Samnium)TempsaL. CorneliusMerula L.f2.554pr.urb 198cos 193C. Salonius2.613noneXvirag. 173Quintus—CrotonCn. Octavius2.595tr.mil 216, aed.pl206, pr Sardinia 205C. Laetorius2.578aed.cur 216, pr(CisG)210,propr209, leg.lieut 205,200L. AemiliusPaullusL.f M.n2.528Q195?aed.cur 193, pr(Farther Spain)191, procos 190-89, cos 182, procos(Liguria) 181, cos(Mac) 168, procos167, cens 164 etc.291

Appendix 3; Colonial Commissioner ChartCommissionSipontum(1st)CommissionersM. HelviusPriesthoodStart Date('Priesthood)D. Iunius BrutusM. BaebiusTamphilus Q.fCn.nTempsaL. CorneliusMerula L.fC. SaloniusQuintus—CrotonCn. OctaviusC. LaetoriusXvir s.f209L. AemiliusPaullus L.f M.naugur192

Appendix 3: Colonial Commissioner ChartCommissionPlacentia andCremona(suppl),BononiaDate190elected,Bononiafhdl89ColonvTypeLatinLivvReference37.46.9-47.2, 57.7-8OtherReferencesVeil. 1.15;MRR 1.359and 364Initiatins Maeistrate(s)envoys ushered in by L.Aurunculeius (pr 190), C.Laelius (cos) should enrollcol, L. Aurunculeius estboard, C. Laelius proposed2 new col on terr of BoiiSipontum andBuxentum(suppl)186electedCitizen39.23.3-4MRR 1.372Sp. Postumius (cos) madeobserv., pr T. Maenius toenrol colCales (suppl.)185Inscr. Italiae13.3 70aPotentia andPisaurum184 fiidCitizen39.44.10Cic. Brut. 79;MRR 1.377Livy doesn't say

CommissionPlacentia andCremona(suppl),BononiaAppendix 3; Colonial Commissioner ChartCommissionersL. Valerius FlaccusP.fL.nBrouehtonMKSLRef.2.629Significant ranksbefore iiivirtr.mil? 212, aed.cur201,leg.lieut200, pr(Sicily) 199, cos(CisG) 195, procos194, leg.lieut 191Significant Ranksafter iiivircens. 184, princepssen 184L. Valerius Tappo2.631tr.pleb 195, pr(Sicily) 192, propr?191M. Atilius Serranus2.534nonepr (Sardinia) 174,promag 173Sipontum andBuxentum(suppl)L. Scribonius LiboM. Tuccius2.6142.627aedxur 194, pr.pereg192aedxur 192, pr(Apulia andBruttium) 190, propr189-8Cn. BaebiusTamphilus Q.fCn.n2.537tr.pleb 204 or 203,aed.pl 200, pr(Ariminum) 199cos 182, procos(Liguria) 181Cales (suppl.)P. ClaudiusPulcher Ap.fP.n2.547-8aed.cur 189, pr(Tarentum) 187?cos (Liguria) 184,iivircd 181 (seebelow)Potentia andPisaurumQ. Fabius LabeoQ.fQ.n2.562Q.urb? 196, pr Fleet189,promagl88cos 183 (see below)M. Fulvius Flaccus2.567noneleg.lieut 181,tr.mil? 180 etal.Q. Fulvius NobiliorM.fM.n2.568noneaed.cur 160, pr by156, cos 153, cens136

Appendix 3: Colonial Commissioner ChartCommissionPlacentia andCremona(suppl),BononiaCommissionersL. Valerius FlaccusP.fL.nPriesthoodpontiffStart Date(Priesthood)196L. Valerius TappoM. Atilius SerranusSipontum andBuxentum(suppl)L. Scribonius LiboM. TucciusCales (suppl.)Cn. BaebiusTamphilus Q.fCn.nP. ClaudiusPulcher Ap.fP.nPotentia andPisaurumQ. Fabius LabeoQ.fQ.npontiff180M. Fulvius FlaccusQ. Fulvius NobiliorM.fM.n

CommissionParma andMutinaAppendix 3: Colonial Commissioner ChartDate183 fiidColonyTypeCitizenLiwReference39.55.6-8OtherReferencesMRR 1.380-1Initiating Masistrate(s)Livy doesn't saySaturnia183 fhdCitizen39.55.9MRR 1.380Livy doesn't sayAquileia183elected,fhd 181Latin39.55.5-6,40.34.2-3MRR 1.380and 386Sen debating whether Lator cit296

Appendix 3: Colonial Commissioner ChartCommissionCommissionersBrouehtonMRRRef.Significant ranksbefore iiivirSignificant Ranksafter iiivirParma andMutinaM. AemiliusLepidus M.f M.n2.526aedxur 193, pr(Sicily) 191, promag190, cos 187cens 179 (seebelow)L. QuinctiusCrispinus2.611pr (nearer Spain)186, promag 185-4T. Aebutius Parrus2.525nonepr (Sardinia) 178,propr 177-5, Xvirag. 173SaturniaQ. Fabius LabeoQ.fQ.n2.562Q.urb? 196, pr Fleet189, promag 188,iiivir cd 184, cos 183procos (Liguria)182-1C. Afranius Stellio2.528tr.pl 196, pr 185T. SemproniusGracchus P.f Ti.n2.615leg.env 190, amb185, tr.pl 187 or 184(Kondratieff(2003)p. 631 favors 187),aedxur 182, pr(Nearer Spain) 180,procos 179-8, cos177, procos 176-5,cens 169, cos 163etal.AquileiaP. Cornelius ScipioNasica2.556(see above) iiivir200,aed.cur 197, pr(Further Spain) 194,propr 193, cos(CisG) 191, procos190leg.amb? 183,comm on Spanishextortion 171C. Flaminius C.fC.n2.565Q 209, aedxur 196,pr (Nearer Spain)193, promag 192-0,cos 187L. ManliusAcidinus L.f L.n2.586pr (Nearer Spain)188, procos 187-5cos 179297

Appendix 3; Colonial Commissioner ChartCommissionParma andMutinaCommissionersM. AemiliusLepidusM.fM.nPriesthoodpontiffStart Date(Priesthood)199, PM from180L. QuinctiusCrispinusT. Aebutius ParrusSaturniaQ. Fabius LabeoQ.fQ.npontiff180C. Afranius StellioT. SemproniusGracchus P.fTi.naugur204? Livy29.38.7AquileiaP. Cornelius ScipioNasicaC. Flaminius C.fC.nL. ManliusAcidinus L.f L.n

Appendix 3; Colonial Commissioner ChartCommissionGraviscaeDate181 fadColonyTypeCitizenLivvReference40.29.1-2OtherReferencesCILI 2 .lp200= Inscr. It.13.3.70a; MRR1.386Initiating Masistrate(s)Livy doesn't sayLuca?180electedLatin40.43.1MRR 1.390People of Pisa offer landfor fad of Latin colLuna177 fadCitizen41.13.4-5MRR 1.399Livy doesn't sayAquileia(suppl)169electedLatin43.17.1MRR 1.426Aquileians sent to Rome

Appendix 3; Colonial Commissioner ChartCommissionGraviscaeCommissionersP. ClaudiusPulcher Ap.fP.nBrouzhtonMRSLRef.2.547-8Significant ranksbefore iiiviraed.cur 189, pr(Tarentum) 187?,Cales supp 185, cos(Liguria) 184Significant Ranksafter iiivirC. Calpurnius PisoC.fCn2.541pr (Farther Spain)186, promag 185-4cos 180C. Terentius Histra2.624pr (Sardinia) 182Luca?Q. Fabius Buteo2.562Q (Spain) 188-6?, pr(CisG) 181,propr180Vvir fin cognoscstat 168M. PopilliusLaenasP.fP.n2.605nonepr (Sardinia) 176,cos 173, procos172, tr.mil 169,cens 159 et al.P. Popillius Laenas2.605noneLunaM. AemiliusLepidusM.f M.n2.526aed.cur 193, pr(Sicily) 191, promag190, cos 187, iivircd183,censl79cos 175, Xvirag.173, princepssen179, 174, 169, 164,159,154Cn. Sicinius2.621aed.pl 185, pr(Sardinia) 183pr.pereg 172,promag 171L. Aelius Tubero(P.?)2.526aed.pl 202, pr(Sicily) 201, pr.urb177Aquileia(suppl)T. Annius LuscusP. Decius Subulo2.5302.559leg.amb 172noneleg.env 168M. CorneliusCethegus2.551leg.env 171pr by 163, cos 160

Appendix 3: Colonial Commissioner ChartCommissionGraviscaeCommissionersP. ClaudiusPulcher Ap.fP.nPriesthoodStart Date(Priesthood)C. Calpurnius PisoC.fC.nC. Terentius HistraLuca?Q. Fabius ButeoM. PopilliusLaenas P.f P.nP. Popillius LaenasLunaM. AemiliusLepidusM.fM.npontiff199, PM from180Cn. SiciniusL. Aelius Tubero(P.?)Aquileia(suppl)T. Annius LuscusP. Decius SubuloM. CorneliusCethegus301

BibliographyAbbott, F.F. "The Colonizing Policy of the Romans from 123 to 31 B.C.," ClassicalPhilology 10.4 (1915): 365-380.Adamesteanu, D. "Indigeni e Greci in Basilicata," ASCL XL (1972): 27-45.Alcock, S.E. "Greece: a Landscape of Resistance?" in Dialogues in Roman Imperialism:Power, Discourse, and Discrepant Experience in the Roman Empire, ed. D.J.Mattingly. JRA Supplement 23 (1997): 103-115.. "Roman Colonies in the Eastern Empire: A Tale of Four Cities," in TheArchaeology of Colonial Encounters: Comparative Perspectives, ed. Stein. SantaFe, NM: School of American Research Press, 2005; pp. 297-329.. "Spaced-out sanctuaries : the Ritual Landscape of Roman Greece," TheoreticalRoman Archaeology. 1 (1993): 155-165.Ammerman, R.M. "Children at Risk: Votive Terracottas and the Welfare of Infants atPaestum," Hesperia Suppl. 41 (1993): 131-151.. "The Naked Standing Goddess: a Group of Archaic Terracotta Figurines fromPaestum," AJA XCV (1991): 203-230.Ando, C. "Introduction: Religion, Law and Knowledge in Classical Rome," in RomanReligion, ed. C. Ando. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press, 2003; pp. 1-15.Arthur, P. "Territories, Wine and Wealth: Suessa Aurunca, Sinuessa, Minturnae, and theAger Falernus," in Roman Landscapes: Archaeological Survey in theMediterranean Region, edd. Barker and Lloyd. London: British School at Rome,1991; pp. 153-159.Astin, A.E. "Roman Government and Politics, 200-134 B.C.," CAH VIII (1989), pp.163-196.Attema, P. "Landscape Perception in Archaeology: the Urban and Colonial Experience,"in New Developments in Italian Landscape Archaeology, edd. Attema el al.Oxford: BAR International Series 1091 (2002): 211-212.Badian, E. Foreign Clientelae (264-70 B.C.). Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1958.. "L. Papirius Fregellanus," CR V, N.S. (1955): 22-23.Barton, I.M. "Capitoline Temples in Italy and the Provinces (especially Africa)," ANRW11.12.1(1982): 259-342.

Basso, K. "Wisdom Sits in Places: Notes on a Western Apache Landscape," in Senses ofPlace, edd. Feld and Basso. Santa Fe, NM: School of American Research Press,1996; pp. 53-90.Beard, M., J. North, and S. Price. Religions of Rome, 2 vol. Cambridge: CambridgeUniversity Press, 1998.Bearzot, C. "Fenomeni Naturali e Prodigi nell'Attacco Celtico a Delphi (279 a.C.)," CISAXV (1989): 71-86.Bencivenga Trillmich, C. "Pyxous-Buxentum," MEFRA C 1988: 701-729.Bertacchi, L. Basilica, Museo, e Scavi - Aquileia. Rome: Istituto Poligrafio e Zecca delloStato, 1994.Bispham, E. "Coloniam Deducere: How Roman Was Roman Colonization During theMiddle Republic?" in Greek and Roman Colonization: Origins, Ideologies, andInteractions, edd. Bradley and Wilson. Wales: Classical Press of Wales, 2006;pp. 73-160.. "Mimic? A Case Study in Early Roman Colonization," in The Emergence of StateIdentities in Italy, edd. E. Herring and K. Lomas. London: Accordia ResearchInstitute, 2000; pp. 157-186.Blazquez Martinez, J.M. "Relieve de Italico con una Representacion de la 'PotniaTheron,'" Archivo Espanol de Arqeologia 26.1 No. 88 (1953): 263-268.Bodel, J. "Thirteen Latin funerary inscriptions at Harvard University," AJA XCVI (1992):71-100.Bonghi Iovino, M. Capua Preromana: Le Terrecotte Votive. Vol. I. Firenze: Sansoni,1965.Bourque, N. "An Anthropologist's View of Ritual," in Religion in Archaic andRepublican Rome and Italy: Evidence and Experience, edd E. Bispham and C.Smith. London and Chicago: Fitzroy Dearborn Publishers, 2000; pp. 19-33.Bradley, G. "Colonization and Identity in Republican Italy," in Greek and RomanColonization: Origins, Ideologies, and Interactions, edd. Bradley and Wilson.Wales: Classical Press of Wales, 2006; pp. 161-187.Brennan, T.C. "Book Review: Lands, Laws, & Gods," AJPh 118.1 (1997): 143-146.Briscoe, J. A Commentary on Livy: Books 38-40. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 2008.. A Commentary on Livy: Books XXXIV-XXXVII Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1981.303

. A Commentary on Livy: Books XXXI-XXX1II. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1973.Broughton, T.R.S. The Magistrates of the Roman Republic, 2 nd ed., 2 vol. New York:American Philological Association, 1968.Burkert, W. Creation of the Sacred: Tracks of Biology in Early Religions. London andCambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1996.Calabi Limentani, I. "Epigrafi," in Scavi di Luni I. Roma: 1973-4; pp. 813 ff.Cantarelli, F. "Considerazioni sul Culto di Minerva alia Luce dei Nuovi RitrovamentiArcheologici ed Epigrafici," in La Valcamonica, 1987; 100 ff.Capini, S. "II Santuario di Ercoles a Campochiaro," in Santuari e Luoghi di Cultonell'Italia Antica, edd. L. Quilici and St. Quilici G\%\i. ATTA 12 (2003): 233-250.Cary, E. trans. Dionysius of Halicarnassus: Roman Antiquities, Voll. 1-7. Cambridge,MA and London: Harvard University Press, 1937-1950. (Loeb)Castagnoli, F. "II Culto di Minerva a Lavinium," QuadLincei 246 (1979)Catalli, F. and J. Scheid. "Le Thesaurus de Sora," Revue Numismatique Vol. 6, No. 36(1994): 55-65.Cenerini, F. "Scritture di Santuari Extraubani tra le Alpi e gli Appennini," MEFRA 104.1(1992): 91-107.Chirassi Colombo, I. "I Culti Locali nelle Regioni Alpine," AAAd 9 (1976): 173 ff.Cicala, V. "Diana Ariminese: Tracce di Religiosita Politica," in Pro Poplo Arimenese,edd. A. Calbi and G. Susini. Faenza: Fratelli Lega Editore, 1995; pp. 355-365.Coarelli, F "Fondazione di Luni. Problemi Storici e archeologici," in Luni e I 'OccidenteRomano. QuadStudLun 10-12 (1985-87): 17 ff., ed. Fregellae 2: II Santuario di Esculapio. Rome: Quasar, 1986.. "L' Area Sacra di Largo Argentina. Topografia e Storia," in L Area Sacra diLargo Argentina. Roma: 1981; pp. 9 ff.. "La Storia e lo Scavo," in Fregellae 1: Le Fonti, La Storia, II Territorio. Coarelli,Filippo and Pier Giorgio Monti edd. Rome: Quasar, 1998; pp. 29-69.. II Foro Boario: dalle Origini alia Fine della Repubblica. Rome: Quasar, 1988.. II Foro Romano, II. Rome: Quasar, 1985.304

Colonna, G. "Ricerche sugli Etruschi e sulgi Umbri a Nord degli Appennini," SE 42(1974): 3-27.. "L'Ideologia Funeraria e il Conflitto delle Culture," in Archeologia Laziale IV. S.Quilici Gigli, ed. Quaderni di Archeologia Etrusco-Italica. 5 (1981): 229-232.Cornelia, A. Imateriali votivi di Falerii. Rome: Corpus delle Stipi Votive in Italia I,RegioVII, 1,1986.Cornell, T.J. The Beginnings of Rome: Italy and Rome from the Bronze Age to the PunicWars (c. 1000-264 BC). London and New York: Routledge, 1995.Crawford, M.H., L. Keppie, and M. Vercnocke. "Excavations at Fregellae, 1978-84: AnInterim Report on the Work of the British Team," PBSR LIII (1985): 72-96.Crawford, M. "From Poseidonia to Paestum via the Lucanians," in Greek and RomanColonization: Origins, Ideologies, and Interactions. Bradley and Wilson edd.Wales: Classical Press of Wales, 2006; pp. 59-72.Cresci Marrone, G. and G. Mennella, edd. Pisaurum, I: Le Iscrizioni della Colonna.Pisa: Giardini, 1984.Crimaco, L. "Inscriptions," in Nova Antiqua Phlegraea. C. Gialanella, ed. Naples: ElectaNapoli, 2003; pp. 37-38.Crumley, C.L. "Sacred Landscapes: Constructed and Conceptualized," in Archaeologiesof Landscape: Contemporary Perspectives, edd. W. Ashmore and A.B. Knapp.Oxford: Blackwell Publishers, 1999; pp. 269-276.Curti, E., E. Dench, and J.R. Patterson. "The Archaeology of Central and SouthernRoman Italy: Recent Trends and Approaches," JRS 86 (1996): 170-189.Curti, E. "From Concordia to the Quirinal: notes on religion and politics in midrepublican/hellenisticRome," in Religion in Archaic and Republican Rome andItaly: Evidence and Experience, edd. E. Bispham and C. Smith. London andChicago: Fitzroy Dearborn Publishers, 2000; pp. 77-91.David, J.-M. The Roman Conquest of Italy, trans. A. Nevill. Bodmin, Cornwall: HartnollsLtd., 1997. [Translation of Romanisation de Vltalie. 1994]Davies, J.P. Rome's Religious History: Livy, Tacitus andAmmianus on their Gods.Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2004.Davies, J. "Roman Religion and Roman Funerals," Chapter 10 in Death, Burial, andRebirth in the Religions of Antiquity. London and New York: Routledge, 1999;pp. 139-154.305

de Antonellis, G. Storia di Benevento. Collana: Siti Storici e Culturali 1 (1997): 9-20.de Bellis, A.F. "I Pocola Riminesi," in Pro Poplo Arimenese, edd. A. Calbi and G.Susini. Faenza: Fratelli LegaEditore, 1995; pp. 367-391.de Cazanove, O. "Pre-Roman Italy, Before and Under the Romans," in A Companion toRoman Religion, ed. J. Rupke. Oxford: Blackwell Publishing, 2007; pp. 43-57.. "Some Thoughts on the 'Religious Romanisation' of Italy before the Social War,'in Religion in Archaic and Republican Rome and Italy: Evidence and Experience,edd. E. Bispham and C. Smith. London and Chicago: Fitzroy DearbornPublishers, 2000; pp. 71-76.de Selincourt, A., trans. Livy: The War with Hannibal Books 21-30. London: PenguinBooks, 1965.De Vries, J. / Celti. Etnia Religionsita Visione del Mondo. Milano: 1982.Degrassi, A. Scritti Vari di Antichitd, III. Venezia, Trieste: Societa Istriana diArcheologia e Storia Patria, 1967.Dench, E. From Barbarians to New Men: Greek, Roman, and Modern Perceptions ofPeoples of the Central Apennines. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1995.D'Ercole, M.C. La Stipe Votiva del Belvedere a Lucera. Rome: Bretschneider, 1990.Derks, T. Gods, Temples, and Ritual Practices: the Transformation of Religious Ideasand Values in Roman Gaul. Amsterdam: Amsterdam University Press, 1998.Dietler, M. "The Archaeology of Colonization and the Colonization of Archaeology:Theoretical Challenges from an Ancient Mediterranean Colonial Encounter," inThe Archaeology of Colonial Encounters: Comparative Perspectives, ed. Stein.Santa Fe, NM: School of American Research Press, 2005; pp. 33-68.Dorcey, P.F. The Cult ofSilvanus: A Study in Roman Folk Religion. Leiden, New York,Koln: E.J. Brill, 1992.Dougherty, C. The Poetics of Colonization: From City to Text in Archaic Greece.Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1993.Dryden, J. trans. Plutarch's Lives. A.H. Clough, ed. Little, Brown and Co., 1885.Dumezil, G. Archaic Roman Religion, Vol. I. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press,1970.Durante, A.M. and L. Gervasini. Zona Archeologica e Museo Nazionale: Luni. Rome:Istituto Poligrafico e Zecca dello Stato, 2000.

Eckstein, A.M. "The Foundation Day of Roman Coloniae," CSCA XII (1979): 85-97.Edlund-Berry, I. "Hot, Cold, or Smelly: the Power of Sacred Water in Roman Religion,400-100 BCE," in Religion in Republican Italy, edd. Schultz, C.E. and P.B.Harvey, Jr. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2006; pp. 162-180.. "Power and Religion: How Social Change Affected the Emergence and Collapseof Power Structures in Central Italy," in The Archaeology of Power, Vol. 2:Papers of the 4 th Conference of Italian Archaeology, edd. Herring, Whitehouse,and Wilkins. London: Accordia Research Centre, 1991; pp. 161-172.Ewins, U. "The Early Colonization of Cisalpine Gaul," PBSR 7 (1952): 54-71.Feig Vishnia, R. State, Society, and Popular Leaders in Mid-Republican Rome, 241-167B.C. London and New York: Routledge, 1996.Ferrea, L. "Teste Votive di Fregellae," Quaderni del Centro di Studio per ArcheologiaEtrusco-Italica III (1979): 207-208.Fontana, F. / Culti di Aquileia Repubblicana: Aspetti della Politica Religiosa in GalliaCisalpina tra ilIIIe ilIISec. A.C. Rome: Quasar, 1997.Fontemaggi, A. and O. Piolanti. "Scheda no. 180," in Aemilia: La Cultura Romana inEmilia Romagna dal IIIsecolo a.C. all Eta Constantiniana, ed. Marini Calvani.(Venice, 2000): 510-11.. 'Catalogo dei Materiali Esposti,' in Rimini Divina, edd. Fontemaggi and Piolanti.Rimini: Ramberti Arti Graphiche, 2000; pp. 101-104.Forte, M. "Le Terrecotte Architettoniche di Luni: la Ricomposizione del RivestimentoFittile del Grande Tempio e del Capitolium," in La Coroplastica TemplareEtruscafra il IV e il IISecolo a.C, ed. Maetzke. Firenze: Istituto Nazionale diStudi Etruschi e Italici, 1992; pp. 185-223.Frankfurter, D. "Traditional Cult," in A Companion to the Roman Empire, ed. D. Potter.Oxford: Blackwell Publishing, 2006; pp. 543-564.Frayn, J.M. Markets and Fairs in Roman Italy: Their Social and Economic Importancefrom the Second Century BC to the Third Century AD. Oxford: Clarendon Press,1993.Frova, A. "Nota sulle Opere Pubbliche a Luni," Centro Studi Lunensi Quaderni 9 (1984):35-44.Gabba, E. "Caio Flaminio e la sua Legge sulla Colonizzazaione dell'Agro Gallico,"Athenaeum 57 (1979): 159-163.

Gage, J. Apollon Romaine. Essai sur le Culte d'Apollon et le Developpment de 'RitusGraecus' a Rome des Origines a Auguste. Paris: 1955.Gargiulo, P. "Liternum: the Latest Finds," in Nova Antiqua Phlegraea, ed. C. Gialanella.Naples: Electa Napoli, 2003; pp. 115-117.Gargola, D.J. "Mediterranean Empire (264-134)" in A Companion to the RomanRepublic, edd. Rosenstein and Morstein-Marx. Oxford: Blackwell PublishingLtd, 2006; pp. 147-166.. "The Colonial Commissioners of 218 B.C. and the Foundation of Cremona andV\acerAiz h n Athenaeum 68 (1990): 465-473.. Lands, Laws, & Gods: Magistrates & Ceremony in the Regulation of PublicLands in Republican Rome. Chapel Hill and London: University of NorthCarolina Press, 1995.Geertz, C. "Religion as a Cultural System," in The Interpretation of Cultures. New York:Basic Books, 1973; pp. 87-125.Gialanella, C. "Puteoli: The 'Acropolis' of Rione Terra, History and Topography," inNova Antiqua Phlegraea, ed. C. Gialanella. Naples: Electa Napoli, 2003; pp. 15-21.. "Puteoli: The Forum," in Nova Antiqua Phlegraea. C. Gialanella, ed. Naples:Electa Napoli, 2003; pp. 48-50.. "Remains Pre-dating the Foundation of the Colony of Puteoli: a Dwelling and aSanctuary," in Nova Antiqua Phlegraea, ed. C. Gialanella. Naples: Electa Napoli,2003; pp. 76-78.. ed. Nova Antiqua Phlegraea: New Archaeological Treasures from the PhlegraeanFields, trans. M. Weir. Naples: Electa Napoli, 2003.Giangiulio, M. "Edifici Pubblici e Culti nelle Nuove Iscrizioni da Entella," ASNP XII(1982): 945-992.Giannetti, A. "Resti di un Ponte Romano, di un Tempio Pagano e della Via Latinanell'Agro di Aquinum (Aquino) e Fabrateria Nova (S. Giovanni Incarico)," RAL31 (1976): 35-48.Girard, J.L. "Les Origines du Culte de Minerve," REL 48 (1970): 469-472.Glinister, F. "Reconsidering 'Religious Romanization,"' in Religion in Republican Italy,edd. C.E. Schultz and P.B. Harvey, Jr. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press,2006; pp. 10-33.308

. "Sacred Rubbish," in Religion in Archaic and Republican Rome and Italy:Evidence and Experience, edd. E. Bispham and C. Smith. London and Chicago:Fitzroy Dearborn Publishers, 2000; pp. 54-70.Gordon, R. "From Republic to Principate: Priesthood, Religion, and Ideology," in RomanReligion, ed. C. Ando. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press, 2003; pp. 62-83.Originally in Pagan Priests: Religion and Power in the Ancient World, edd. Beardand North. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press, 1990; pp. 179-198.Greco, E., I. D'Ambrosio, and D. Theodorescu. Poseidonia Paestum. Taranto: ScorpioneEditore, 1996.Greco, E. "La Citta e il Territorio nel IV sec. a.C," in Da Poseidonia a Paestum, ed.Cipriani. Paestum: Ingegneria per la Cultura, 2001; pp. 151-159. (2001a). "Spazi Pubblici e Santuari Urbani dall'Eta Arcaica (fine VI sec. a.C.) aliaFondazione della Colonia Latina (273 a.C.)," in Da Poseidonia a Paestum, ed.Cipriani. Paestum: Ingegneria per la Cultura, 2001; pp. 31-57. (2001b). "Note di topografia e di urbanistica, II," AION (archeol) XII (1990): 247-262.Greco, G. "Le Metope del Santuario di Hera alia Foce del Sele," in Da Poseidonia aPaestum, Cipriani ed. Paestum: Ingegneria per la Cultura, 2001; pp. 59-89.Green, C.M.C. Roman Religion and the Cult of Diana at Aricia. New York: CambridgeUniversity Press, 2007.Gruen, E.S. "Romans and Others," in^4 Companion to the Roman Republic, edd.Rosenstein and Morstein-Marx. Oxford: Blackwell Publishing Ltd, 2006; pp.459-477.Gualtieri, M. and F. de Polignac. "A Rural Landscape in Western Lucania," in RomanLandscapes: Archaeological Survey in the Mediterranean Region, edd. Barkerand Lloyd. London: British School at Rome, 1991; pp. 194-203.Guidobaldi, M.P. and F. Pesando. "La Colonia Civium Romanorum," in Minturnae, ed.Coarelli. Rome: Nuova Editrice Romana, 1989; pp. 35-66.Hahm, D.E. "Roman Nobility and the Three Major Priesthoods, 218-167 B.C.," TAPA 94(1963): 73-85.Hanson, W.S. "Forces of Change and Methods of Control," in Dialogues in RomanImperialism: Power, Discourse, and Discrepant Experience in the RomanEmpire, ed. D.J. Mattingly. JRA Supplement 23 (1997): 67-80.Harmon, D.P. "The Family Festivals of Rome," ANR WIIA6.2 (1978): 1592-1603.309

. "The Public Festivals of Rome," ANRWIU 6.2 (1978): 1440-1468.Harris, W.V. "Roman Expansion in the West," in Cambridge Ancient History VIII: Romeand the Mediterranean to 133 B.C. 2 nd edition, edd. A.E. Astin et al. Cambridge:Cambridge University Press, 1989; pp. 107-162.Harvey Jr., P.B. "Religion and Memory at Pisaurum," in Religion in Republican Italy,edd. C.E. Schultz and P.B. Harvey, Jr. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press,2006; pp. 117-136.Helgeland, J. "Roman Army Religion," ANRWIU6.2 (1978): 1470-1505.Herring, E. '"Using Your Religion': Native Ritual and Belief in Southern Italy in the 5 thand 4 th Centuries BC," in Approaches to the Study of Ritual: Italy and the AncientMediterranean, ed. Wilkins. London: Accordia Research Centre, 1996; pp. 143-182.. "Identity Crises in SE Italy in the 4 C. BC: Greek and Native Perceptions of theThreat to their Cultural Identities," in Roman by Integration: Dimensions ofGroup Identity in Material Culture and Text, edd. Roth and Keller. JRA Suppl. 66(2007): 11-25.Heurgon, J. Trois Etudes sur le "Ver Sacrum." Bruxelles: Latomus, 1957.Horden, P. and N. Purcell. The Corrupting Sea: A Study of Mediterranean History.Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2000.Hulme, P. Colonial Encounters: Europe and the Native Caribbean, 1492-1797. NewYork: Routledge, 1992.Izzet, V. "Tuscan Order: the Development of Etruscan Sanctuary Architecture," inReligion in Archaic and Republican Rome and Italy: Evidence and Experience,edd. E. Bispham and C. Smith. London and Chicago: Fitzroy DearbornPublishers, 2000; pp. 34-53.Jannot, J.-R. Religion in Ancient Etruria, trans. J.K. Whitehead. Madison, WI:University of Wisconsin Press, 2005. [Translation and 2 nd ed. of Devins, dieux etdemons.]Johannowsky, W. "Appunti su Pyxous-Buxentum," ASMG 1992 3rd s. 1: 173-183 pi. 31-34.Jones, E. trans. Cicero: Brutus. London: B. White, 1776.Jones, H.L. trans. Strabo: Geography Vol. II. Cambridge, MA and London: HarvardUniversity Press, 1923. (Loeb)310

Keller, J. "Rome and her Italian Allies: Conflicting Interests and Disintegration," inRoman by Integration: Dimensions of Group Identity in Material Culture andText, edd. Roth and Keller. JRA Suppl. 66 (2007): 43-57.Kemkes, M. and N. Willburger. Der Soldat und die Gotter : Romische Religion amLimes. Stuttgart: Theiss, 2004.Klingshirn, W.E. "Inventing the Sortilegus: Lot Divination and Cultural Identity in Italy,Rome, and the Provinces," in Religion in Republican Italy, edd. C.E. Schultz andP.B. Harvey, Jr. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2006; pp. 137-161.Knapp, A.B. and W. Ashmore. "Archaeological Landscapes: Constructed,Conceptualized, Ideational," in Archaeologies of Landscape: ContemporaryPerspectives, edd. W. Ashmore and A.B. Knapp. Oxford: Blackwell Publishers,1999; pp. 1-30.Latte, K. Romische Religionsgeschichte. Munchen: 1960.Laurence, R. "Ritual, Landscape, and the Destruction of Place in the RomanImagination," in Approaches to the Study of Ritual: Italy and the AncientMediterranean, ed. Wilkins. London: Accordia Research Centre, 1996; pp. 111-121.Lauri, A. II castello comunale di S. Casto in Sora (Lazio): ricordi storici: lavori eseguitidal 1930 al 1953. Sora: Uberti & Pisani, 1953.Le Bonniec, H. Le Culte de Ceres a Rome, des Origines a la Fin de la Republique. Paris:Klincksieck, 1958.Lewis, R.G. trans. Asconius: Commentaries on Speeches by Cicero. Oxford: OxfordUniversity Press, 2006. (with Latin text edited by A.C. Clark)Leigh, M. "Founts of Identity - The Thirst of Hercules and the Greater Greek World,"JMS 10.1&2 (2000): 125-138.Liberatore, D. "Un Marsia nel Foro di Alba Fucens? Un Proposto di Identificazione,"Ostraka 4.2 (1995): 249-255.Lindstrom, L. '"Big Man:' A Short Terminological History," American Anthropologistn.s. 83.4 (1981): 900-905.Lippolis, E. "L'Architettura," in Fregellae 2. ed. F. Coarelli. Rome: Quasar, 1986; pp.29-41.Livi, V. "Religious Locales in the Territory of Minturnae: Aspects of Romanization," inReligion in Republican Italy, edd. C.E. Schultz and P.B. Harvey, Jr. Cambridge:Cambridge University Press, 2006; pp. 90-118.311

Lloyd, J. "Farming the Highlands: Samnium and Arcadia in the Hellenistic and EarlyRoman Imperial Periods," in Roman Landscapes: Archaeological Survey in theMediterranean Region, edd. Barker and Lloyd. London: British School at Rome,1991; pp. 180-193.Lomas, K. "The City in Southeast Italy: Ancient Topography and the Evolution of UrbanSettlement 600-300 BC," Accordia Research Papers 4 (1994): 63-77.. "Italy during the Roman Republic, 338-31 BC," in Cambridge Companion to theRoman Republic, ed. H. Flower. Cambridge and New York: CambridgeUniversity Press, 2004; pp. 199-224.Lommatzsch, E. Inscriptiones Latinae Antiquissimae ad C. Caesaris Mortem, editioaltera, pars posterior, fasc. I, sect. 3 Berlin: Georgium Reimerum, 1918.MacKendrick, P.L. "Roman Colonization," Phoenix 6.4 (1952): 139-146.. "Cicero, Livy, and Roman Colonization," Athenaeum n.s. XXXII (1954): 201-249.. "Roman Town Planning," Archaeology 9 (1956): 126-133.Magdelain, A. "Auspicia ad Patres Redeunt," in Hommages ... Jean Bayet. Bruxelles:Berchem, Latomus. Revue d'Etudes Latines, 1964; pp 427-473.Malcovati, E. "L. Papirius Fregellanus." Athenaeum XXXIII (1955): 137-140.Mansuelli, G.A. Ariminum (Rimini), Regio VIII-Aemilia. (Spoleto, 1941)Marta, R. La Cattedrale di Sora: Inizio di un Restauro. Sora: Pasquarelli, 1982.Mastrocinque, A. "Culti di Origine Preromana nell'Italia Settentrionale," in Die Stadt inOberitalien und den Nordwestlichen Provinzen des Romischen Reiches, edd. W.Eck and H. Galsterer. Koln: 1991; pp. 217-226.Mazzei, M., ed. Siponto Antica. Foggia: Claudio Grenzi Editore, 1999.Mezzazzappa, S. "La Forma della Citta di Sora e i suoi Santuari," in Santuari e Luoghi diCulto nell'Italia Antica. L. Quilici and St. Quilici Gigli, edd. ,47X4 12 (2003): 99-126.Mierse, W.E. Temples and Towns in Roman Iberia: the Social and ArchitecturalDynamics of Sanctuary Designs from the Third Century B.C. to the Third CenturyA.D. Berkeley: University of California Press, 1999.Migliaro, E. "Ercole in Valsugana (CIL V 5049)," in Culti Pagani nell 'ItaliaSettentrionale, ed. A. Mastrocinque. Trento: 1994; pp. 119-130.312

Mingazzini, P. "II Santuario della dea Marica alle foci del Garigliano," MonumentiAntichi 37 (1938): 684 ff.Mommsen, T. Romisches Staatsrecht, I; 11,1; 2; 111,1; 2.4. Aufl. Tubingen: Sonderausg.der Wiss. Buchgemeinschaft, 1953.Monti, P.G. "Carta Archeologica del Territorio," in Fregellae 1: Le Fonti, La Storia, IITerritorio, edd. Coarelli and Monti. Rome: Quasar, 1998; pp. 81-112.. "I Templi a Cella Trasversale: Una Testimonianza di Fregellae nell' Ambito di unaRare Tipologia Architettonica," RAL 9.10 (1999): 19-55.Morel, J.-P. "Artisanat et Colonisation dans l'ltalie Romaine aux Ive et Hie Siecles av. J.-C," DdA ser. 3, 6.2 (1988): 49-63.Morel, J.-P., M. Torelli, F. Coarelli, et al., "La Ceramica di Roma nei Secoli IV e IIIa.C," in Roma Medio Repubblicana. Aspetti Culturali di Roma e del Lazio neiSecoli IVe IIIa.C. Rome: L'Erma di Bretschneider, 1977; pp. 43-72.Moreno, P. Scultura Ellenistica I-II. Roma: Istituto Poligrafico e Zecca dello Stato,Libreria dello Stato, 1994.Morris, I. "The Early Polis as City and State," in City and Country in the Ancient World,edd. Rich and Wallace-Hadrill. London: Routledge, 1991; pp. 25-57.. Death-Ritual and Social Structure in Classical Antiquity. Cambridge: CambridgeUniversity Press, 1992.Mouritsen, H. "Pits and Politics: Interpreting Colonial Fora in Republican Italy," PBSR49 (2004): 37-67.Muccigrosso, J. "Religion and Politics: Did the Romans Scruple about the Placement oftheir Temples?" in Religion in Republican Italy, edd. C.E. Schultz and P.B.Harvey, Jr. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2006; pp. 181-206.Miinzer, F. Romische Adelsparteien und Adelsfamilien. Stuttgart: 1920.Nachtergael, G. La Galates en Grece et les Soteria de Delphes. Bruxelles : 1977.Nicolet, C. "Economie, Societe et Institutions au II s. av. J. C. De la Lex Claudia a l'AgerExceptus/Mnna/es (ESC) XXXV (1980): 871-894.Nicosia, S. Elio Aristide nell'Asclepieo di Pergamo e la Retorica Recuperata. Palermo:1979.313

Nock, A.D. "A Feature of Roman Religion," in Roman Religion. C. Ando ed. Edinburgh:Edinburgh University Press, 2003; pp. 84-97. Originally in Harvard TheologicalReview 32 (1939): 83-96.North, J. A. "Conservatism and Change in Roman Religion," PBSR 44 n.s. 30 (1976): 1-12.. "The Development of Religious Pluralism," in The Jews among Pagans andChristians, edd. Lieu, North, and Rajak. London: 1992; pp. 174-193.. "Democratic Politics in Republican Rome," Past and Present 126 (1990): 3-21.. "Religion in Republican Rome," in The Cambridge Ancient History, Vol. VII.2,2 nd edition, edd. Walbank et al. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1989;pp. 573-624.. "Religious Toleration in Republican Rome," in Roman Religion, ed. C. Ando.Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press, 2003; pp. 199-219. Originally inProceedings of the Cambridge Philological Society 25 (1979): 85-103.Ogilvie, R.M. A Commentary on Livy Books 1-5. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1965.Orlin, E.M. "Urban Religion in the Middle and Late Republic," in A Companion toRoman Religion, ed. J. Rupke. Oxford: Blackwell Publishing, 2007; pp. 58-70.. Temples, Religion and Politics in the Roman Republic. New York: E.J. Brill,1997.Ortalli, J. "Rimini: la Citta," in Aemilia: La Cultura Romana in Emilia Romagna dal IIIsecolo a.C. all Eta Constantiniana, ed. Marini Calvani. Venice: 2000; 501-6.Osborne, R. "Early Greek Colonization? The Nature of Greek Settlement in the West," inArchaic Greece: New Approaches and New Evidence, edd. Fisher and von Wees.London: Duckworth with the Classical Press of Wales, 1998; pp. 251-269.. "Why Did Athenian Pots Appeal to the Etruscans?" World Archaeology 33.2(2001): 277-295.Owen, S. "Analogy, Archaeology, and Archaic Greek Colonization," in AncientColonisations: Analogy, Similarity and Difference, edd. Hurst and Owen.London: Gerald Duckworth & Co., 2005; pp. 5-22.Pagliardi, N. "Fregellae," in Archeologia Laziale 111(1980): 183-7.. "Fregellae," in Archeologia Laziale 7F(1981): 95-100.314

Paton, W.R. trans. Polybius: Histories, Vol. 1-6. Cambridge, MA and London: HarvardUniversity Press, 1922-1927. (Loeb)Patterson, J.R. "Colonization and Historiography: the Roman Republic," in Greek andRoman Colonization: Origins, Ideologies, and Interactions, edd. Bradley andWilson. Wales: Classical Press of Wales, 2006; pp. 189-218.Pedley, J.G. Paestum. Greeks and Romans in Southern Italy. London: Thames andHudson, 1990.. Sanctuaries and the Sacred in the Ancient Greek World. Cambridge: CambridgeUniversity Press, 2005.Pfeilschifter, R. "The Allies in the Republican Army and the Romanization of Italy," inRoman by Integration: Dimensions of Group Identity in Material Culture andText, edd. Roth and Keller. JRA Suppl. 66 (2007): 27-42.Pfiffig, A.J. Religio Etrusca. Graz: Akad. Druck- & Verlagsanst, 1975.Pietila-Castren, L. Magnificentia Publico. The Victory Monuments of the RomanGenerals in the Era of the Punic Wars. Helsinki: Soc. Scient. Fennica, 1987.Pinna, A. "II Deposito Votivo di Fregellae," in Archeologia Laziale 7/(1979): 205-6.Piper, D.J. "Latins and the Roman Citizenship in Roman Colonies: Livy 34, 42, 5-6;Revisited," Historia 36.1 (1987): 38-50.Placido, D. "Le Vie di Eracle nell'Estremo Occidente," in Ercole in Occidente, ed.Mastrocinque. Trento: 1993; 63-80.Pompeius Festus, S. De Verborum Significatione quae Super sunt cum Pauli Epitome.CO. Mueller ed. Hildesheim and New York: Georg Olms Verlag, 1975.Prati, L. "Tracce del Passato," in Imagini Divine: Devozioni e Divinitd nella VitaQuotidiana dei Romani, Testimonianze Archeologiche dall 'Emilia Romagna, edd.J. Ortalli and D. Neri. Quaderni di Archeologia dell'Emilia Romagna 18 (2007):37-39, 163-165 ill.Proietti, L.M. "Lararia," in Nova Antiqua Phlegraea, ed. C. Gialanella. Naples: ElectaNapoli, 2003; pp. 38-41.Prosdocimi, A.L. "Le Religioni degli Italici," in Italia Omnium Terrarum Parens. Milan:Libri Scheiwiller, 1989; pp. 475-545.Pulgram, E. "The Oscan Cippus Abellanus. A new interpretation," AJPh LXXXI (1960):16-29.315

Purcell, N. "Becoming Historical: The Roman Case," in Myth, History, and Culture inRepublican Rome: Studies in Honor ofT.P. Wiseman, edd. D. Braund and C. Gill.Exeter, UK: University of Exeter Press, 2003; pp. 12-40.Quilici Gigli, S. "La Valle del Sacco nel Quadro delle Comunicazioni tra Etruria e MagnaGrecia/'SE XXXVIII (1970): 363-366.Raaflaub, K.A. "Between Myth and History: Rome's Rise from Village to Empire (theEighth Century to 264)," in A Companion to the Roman Republic, edd. Rosensteinand Morstein-Marx. Oxford: Blackwell Publishing Ltd, 2006; pp. 125-146.Rackham, H. trans. Pliny Natural History Vol. II. Cambridge, MA and London: HarvardUniversity Press, 1942. (Loeb)Rasmussen, S.W. "Review of C.M.C. Green, Roman Religion and the Cult of Diana atAricia," BMCR 2007.10.49.Rawson, E. "The Literary Sources for the Pre-Marian Army," PBSR 39 (1971): 13-31.. "Religion and Politics in the Late Second Century B.C. at Rome," Phoenix 28.2(1974): 193-212.Renfrew, C. "The archaeology of religion," in The Ancient Mind: Elements of CognitiveArchaeology, edd. C. Renfrew and E. Zubrow. Cambridge: CambridgeUniversity Press, 1994; pp. 47-54.. "Towards a Framework for the Archaeology of Cult Practice," in TheArchaeology of Cult: The Sanctuary at Phylakopi. London: The British School ofArchaeology at Athens, Suppl. 18,1985; pp. 11-26.Richardson Jr., L. A New Topographical Dictionary of Rome. Baltimore and London:1992.Ridgway, F.R.S. "Review: Italian Votive Bronzes," Classical Review n.s. 51.2 (2001):362-364.Riva, C. and S. Stoddard. "Ritual Landscapes in Archaic Etruria," in Approaches to theStudy of Ritual: Italy and the Ancient Mediterranean, ed. Wilkins. London:Accordia Research Centre, 1996; pp. 91-109.Rizzello, M. "II medio corso del fiume Liri: la dinamica degli insediamenti sorani dall'etaferro al periodo archaico," Terra dei Volsci. Annali 1 (1998): 7-36.. ISantuari della Media Valle del Liri, LV-ISecolo a.C. Sora: Centro di StudiSorani "Vicenzo Patriarca," 1980.Roberts, Rev. C. trans. Titus Livius: The History of Rome, Vol. 1-6. Ernest Rhys, ed.London: J. M. Dent & Sons, Ltd., 1905.316

Rogers, J.D. "Archaeology and the Interpretation of Colonial Encounters," in TheArchaeology of Colonial Encounters: Comparative Perspectives, ed. Stein. SantaFe, NM: School of American Research Press, 2005; pp. 331-354.Rossignani, M.P. "Gli Aemilii e l'ltalia del Nord," in Splendida Civitas Nostra: StudiArcheologici in Onore de Antonio Frova, edd. Manasse and Roffia. Rome:Quasar, 1995; pp. 61-75.. "L'Area al Nord del Foro," inLuni.Guida Archeologica, ed. Frova Sarzana: 1985;55-63.Roth, J.P. The Logistics of the Roman Army at War 264 B.C. -A.D. 235. Leiden: Brill,1999.Roth, R. "Introduction: Roman Culture Between Homogeneity and Integration," inRoman by Integration: Dimensions of Group Identity in Material Culture andText, edd. Roth and Keller. JRA Suppl. 66 (2007): 7-10.Riipke, J. "Communicating with the Gods," in A Companion to the Roman Republic, edd.N. Rosenstein and R. Morstein-Marx. Oxford: Blackwell Publishing, 2006; pp.215-135.. "Roman Religion," in Cambridge Companion to the Roman Republic, ed. H.Flower. Cambridge and New York: Cambridge University Press, 2004; pp. 179-195.. Fasti Sacerdotum. Vol. 1-3. Munchen: Franz Steiner Verlag, 2005.Russell, J. "The Origin and Development of Republican Forums," Phoenix 22.4 (1968):304-336.Sabbatucci, D. La Religione di Roma Antica dal Calendario Festivo all 'Ordine Cosmico.Milan: 1988.Salmon, E.T. "Roman Colonisation from the Second Punic War to the Gracchi," JRS 26.1(1936): 47-67.. "Roman Expansion and Roman Colonization in Italy," Phoenix 9.2 (1955): 63-75.. "The Coloniae Mar Utmlae," Athenaeum XLI (1963): 3-38.. Roman Colonization under the Republic. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press,1970.. Samnium and the Samnites. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1967.Scheid, J. "Epigraphie et Sanctuaires Guerisseurs en Gaule," MEFRA 104 (1992): 25-40.317

. "Sacrifices for Gods and Ancestors," in A Companion to Roman Religion, ed. J.Riipke. Oxford: Blackwell Publishing, 2007; pp. 263-271.Schultz, C.E., and P.B. Harvey, Jr. "Introduction," in Religion in Republican Italy, edd.C.E. Schultz and P.B. Harvey, Jr. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2006;pp. 1-9.Scott-Kilvert, trans. Polybius: The Rise of the Roman Empire. London: Penguin, 1980.Scott Ryberg, I. "Was the Capitoline Triad Etruscan or Italic?" AJPh 52.2 (1931): 145-156.. "Evidence from Early Roman Religion Concerning the Growth of the City,"TAP A 60 (1929): 221-228.Scott, R.T. "The Decorations in Terra Cotta from the Temples of Cosa," in Orbetello(1992): 91 ff.Shackleton Bailey, D.R. trans. Valerius Maximus: Memorable Doings and Sayings.Cambridge, MA and London: Harvard University Press, 2000. (Loeb)Shatzman, I. Senatorial Wealth and Roman Politics. Brussels: 1975.Sherwin-White, A.N. The Roman Citizenship. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1939.Shipley, F.W. trans. Velleius Paterculus: Compendium of Roman History. Res GestaeDivi Augusti. Cambridge, MA and London: Harvard University Press, 1924.(Loeb)Sluyter, A. Colonialism and Landscape: Postcolonial Theory and Applications. Oxford:Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, 2002.Smith, J.Z. "On Comparison," in Roman Religion, ed. C. Ando. Edinburgh: EdinburghUniversity Press, 2003; pp. 23-38.. Drudgery Divine: On the Comparison of Early Christianities and the Religions ofLate Antiquity. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1990.Smith, R.E. "Latins and the Roman Citizenship in Roman Colonies: Livy 34.42.5-6," JRS44(1954): 18-20.Stambaugh, J.E. "The Functions of Roman Temples," ANRWII. 16.1 (1978):554-608.Stein, G.J. "Introduction: The Comparative Archaeology of Colonial Encounters," in TheArchaeology of Colonial Encounters: Comparative Perspectives, ed. Stein. SantaFe, NM: School of American Research Press, 2005; pp. 3-31.Strazzulla, M.J. "Le Terrecotte Architettoniche Frontonali di Luni nel Problema dellaCoroplastica Templare nelle Colonie in Territori Etrusco," in La Coroplastica318

Templare Etruscafra il LVe ilIlSecolo a.C. ed. Maetzke. Firenze: IstitutoNazionale di Studi Etruschi e Italici, 1992; pp. 161-183.Susini, G. "Aspects de la romanisation de la Gaule Cispadane. Chute et Survivance desCeltes,"C&4/(1965): 143-163.. "Culti Salutari e delle Acque: Materiali Antichi nella Cispadana," StRomagnoli 26(1975): 321-338.. "L'assetto della religiosita riminese," in Rimini Divina, edd. Fontemaggi andPiolanti. Rimini: Ramberti Arti Graphiche, 2000; pp. 6-13.Sutton, D. "Greek Origins of the Cacus Myth," CQ n.s. 27.2 (1977): 391-393.Tanzilli, A. "Una Villa Romana in Via Ravo Asora," Latium 23 (2006): 15-21.Tibiletti, G. "La Politica Agraria dalla Guerra Annibalica at Gracchi," Athenaeum 28(1950): 183-266.Tilley, C. A Phenomenology of Landscape: Places, Paths and Monuments. Oxford:Berg, 1994.Torelli, M.R. Beneventum Romana. Rome: L'Erma di Bretschneider, 2002.Torelli, M. Lavinio e Roma: Riti Iniziatici e Matrimonio tra Archeologia e Storia. Rome:1984.. "Aspetti ideologici della colonizzazione romana piu antica," DdA 3.6 (1988): 65-72.. "Gli Aromi e il Sale: Afrodite ed Eracle ne\V Emporia Arcaica dell'Italia," inErcole in Occidente, ed. A. Mastrocinque. Trento: Universita degli studi diTrento, 1993; pp. 90-117.. Studies in the Romanization of Italy. Alberta: University of Alberta Press, 1995.. Paestum Romana, ed. M. Cipriani. Paestum: Sopratendenza Archeologica per leProvince di Salerno, Avellino, e Benevento, 1999. (=1999a). Tota Italia: Essays in the Cultural Formation of Roman Italy. Oxford: ClarendonPress, 1999. (=1999b)Toynbee, A.J. Hannibal's Legacy. The Hannibalic War's Effects on Roman Life, Vol. Iand II. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1965.Trevisiol, A., ed. Fonti Letterarie ed Epigrafiche per la Storia Romana della Provincia diPesaro e Urbino. Rome: L'Erma di Bretschneider, 1999.319

Turfa, J.M. "Etruscan Religion at the Watershed: Before and After the Fourth CenturyBCE," in Religion in Republican Italy, edd. C.E. Schultz and P.B. Harvey, Jr.Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2006; pp. 62-89.Valvo, A. "Permanenze Culturali in Eta Romana della Colonizzazaione Etrusca delFItaliaSettentrionale: I Casi dei Servi con Capacita Possessoria e degli Arusnates," inEmigrazione e Immigrazione nel Mondo Antico, ed. M. Sordi. Milano: Vita ePensiero, 1994; pp. 39-53.van Dommelen, P. "Colonial Constructs: Colonialism and Archaeology in theMediterranean," World Archaeology28..3 (1997): 305-323.. "Exploring Everyday Places and Cosmologies," in Archaeologies of Landscape:Contemporary Perspectives, edd. W. Ashmore and A.B. Knapp. Oxford:Blackwell Publishers, 1999; pp. 276-286.Vermeulen, F., S. Hay, and G. Verhoevan. "Potentia: an Integrated Survey of a RomanColony on the Adriatic Coast," PBSR LXXIV (2006): 203-236.Verzar-Bass, M. "Apollo a Piacenza? Contribute alio Studio della Scultura Ellenistica inCisalpma," MEFRA 102 (1990): 367-388.von Wonterghem, F. "II Culto di Ercole fra i Popoli Osco-Sabellici," in Heracles: d'UneRive a VAutre de la Mediterranee Bilan et Perspectives, edd. C. Bonnet and C.Jourdain-Annequin. Brussels: Academia Belgica-Ecole Francaise de Rome,1992; pp. 319-351.Walker, S. Memorials to the Roman Dead. London: British Museum Publications, 1985.Warden, P.G. "Italic and Etruscan Bronzes in the Hilprecht Collection, Philadelphia,"Etruscan Studies 5 (1998): 53-61.Wardman, A. Religion and Statecraft among the Romans. London: Granada Publishing,Ltd., 1982.Webster, J. "Creolizing the Roman Provinces," AJA 105.2 (2001): 209-225.Weigel, R.D. "The duplication of temples of Juno Regina in Rome," AncSoc XIII-XIV(1982-1983): 179-192.. Lepidus: the Tarnished Triumvir. London: Routledge, 1992.White, H. trans. Appian: Roman History Voll. 1-4. Cambridge, MA and London: HarvardUniversity Press, 1972. (Loeb)Whitehouse, R.D. "Ritual Objects: Archaeological Joke or Neglected Evidence?" inApproaches to the Study of Ritual: Italy and the Ancient Mediterranean, ed.Wilkins. London: Accordia Research Centre, 1996; pp. 9-30.320

Wilkins, J.B. "Introduction: Approaching the Study of Ritual," in Approaches to theStudy of Ritual: Italy and the Ancient Mediterranean, ed. Wilkins. London:Accordia Research Centre, 1996; pp. 1-8.Williams, J.H.C. "Roman Intentions and Romanization: Republican Northern Italy, c.200-100 BC," in Italy and the West: Comparative Issues in Romanization, edd. S.Keay and N. Terrenato. Oxford: Oxbow Books, 2001; pp. 91-101.Williams, J. "Religion and Roman Coins," in A Companion to Roman Religion, ed. J.Rupke. Oxford: Blackwell Publishing, 2007; pp. 143-163.Wilson, J.-P. '"Ideologies' of Greek Colonization," in Greek and Roman Colonization:Origins, Ideologies, and Interactions, edd. Bradley and Wilson. Wales: ClassicalPress of Wales, 2006; pp. 25-57.Wiseman, T.P. "Rome and the Resplendent Aemilii," in Tria Lustra, ed. H.D. Jocelyn.Liverpool: Liverpool Classical Monthly, 1993; pp. 181-192.. Remus: a Roman Myth. Cambridge and New York: Cambridge University Press,1995.Wissowa, G. Religion undKultur der Rbmer. Munchen: 1912.Woolf, G. "Becoming Roman, Staying Greek: Culture, Identity and the CivilizingProcess in the Roman East," PCPhS 40 (1994): 116-143.. Becoming Roman: the Origins of Provincial Civilization in Gaul. Cambridge:Cambridge University Press, 1998.. "Po/w-Religion and its Alternatives in the Roman Provinces," in Roman Religion,ed. C. Ando. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press, 2003; pp. 39-52.Originally in Romische Reichsreligion und Provinzialreligion, edd. H. Cancik andJ. Riipke. Tubingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1997; pp. 71-84.Yardley, J.C. trans. Livy: The Dawn of the Roman Empire Books 31-40. Oxford: OxfordUniversity Press, 2000.Zanker, P. "The City as Symbol: Rome and the Creation of an Urban Image," inRomanization and the City: Creation, Transformations, and Failures, ed. E.Fentress. JRA Supp. 38 (2000): 25-41.Zecchini, G. "C. Giulio Cesare e il Galata Morente," in "Dulce et Decorum Est ProPatria Mori": La Morte in Combattimento nell'Antichita. Milan: 1990; 247 ff.Zevi, F. and C. Valeri. "The So-Called Temple of Augustus," in Nova AntiquaPhlegraea, ed. C. Gialanella. Naples: Electa Napoli, 2003; pp. 22-25.321

Zevi-Gallina, A. "Sora. Scavi alia Cattedrale, I," in Archeologia Laziale, I: Incontro diStudio del Comitatoper I 'Archeologia Laziale. Roma : Cons. naz. delle ric, 1978;pp. 64-66.Ziolkowski, A. The Temples of Mid-Republican Rome and their Historical andTopographical Context. Roma: L'Erma di Bretschneider, 1992.322