ProQuest Dissertations - Historia Antigua

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