ProQuest Dissertations - Historia Antigua
ProQuest Dissertations - Historia Antigua ProQuest Dissertations - Historia Antigua
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
- Page 1 and 2: NOT EFFIGIES PAR VAE POPULI ROMAN!:
- Page 3 and 4: COPYRIGHTAmanda Jo Coles2009
- Page 5 and 6: AcknowledgementsI give heartfelt th
- Page 7 and 8: intention and colonial strategy hel
- Page 9: List of TablesFigure 5.1: Influence
- Page 13 and 14: settlements in alien lands," and co
- Page 15 and 16: in the late fourth century BCE; thu
- Page 17 and 18: Aquileia in 181 BCE.Bispham also il
- Page 19 and 20: II.Agency in Roman ColonizationFind
- Page 21 and 22: Figure 1.1:The Statist Model ofRoma
- Page 23 and 24: comparisons between religion in the
- Page 25 and 26: BCE, when Roman power expanded and
- Page 27 and 28: nomenclature of Paestum shows a mix
- Page 29 and 30: determinant factors in the relation
- Page 31 and 32: were soft and wealthy.In part, the
- Page 33 and 34: contact with Magna Graecia or incre
- Page 35 and 36: Reports to senate,founds templesGen
- Page 37 and 38: defined landscape. The landscape wa
- Page 39 and 40: neighbors: "[d]espite its undeniabl
- Page 41 and 42: Roman religion, there was also no r
- Page 43 and 44: propitiate. 113Yet, C. Marius was a
- Page 45 and 46: This section addresses continuity a
- Page 47 and 48: Capodifiume for at least the first
- Page 49 and 50: Was Roman Religion Imposed on the C
- Page 51 and 52: The Capitolium IssueEven as the gen
- Page 53 and 54: VI.Evidentiary CautionsLiteratureUn
- Page 55 and 56: two commissions, four of which mere
- Page 57 and 58: certain far-flung mid-Republican co
- Page 59 and 60: language and epigraphic tradition b
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
Change language