Navigation – Plan du site

AccueilNuméros133-2Italia Picta : Savoirs, contacts ...Concluding thoughts

Italia Picta : Savoirs, contacts et interconnaissance dans la péninsule italienne (Ve-IIe s. av. n. è.)

Concluding thoughts

Italia picta : interactions, identities and Italian koiné
Saskia T. Roselaar
p. 381-394

Résumés

Cet article conclusif réunit le large éventail de thèmes étudiés au sein de ce dossier consacré aux relations entre Rome et les peuples de la péninsule italienne d’une part, et entre les différentes peuples d’Italie d’autre part, avant et pendant la conquête romaine. Les occasions étaient nombreuses pour des individus issus de cités ou d’ethnies différentes de se rencontrer, que ce soit dans le cadre d’échanges commerciaux ou guerriers. Cela a contribué à une mobilité intense à travers la péninsule. Dans le même temps, une koine toujours plus concrète se manifestait sous plusieurs aspects, celui des institutions – avec les magistratures par exemple –, des évolutions linguistiques ou des échanges culturels entre différents peuples, même si le sentiment d’une identité italienne commune n’apparut que relativement tard, au cours du IIe s. av. n. è. L’article envisage en outre la manière dont Rome et les peuples italiens furent en mesure d’obtenir des informations les uns sur les autres et sur les régions les plus éloignées de l’Italie.

Haut de page

Texte intégral

Introduction

1This dossier unites a wide range of issues regarding the relationships between the Italian peoples before and during the Roman conquest. Recent scholarship has given great attention to the role and agency of the Italians during this crucial period in Roman and Italian history. This dossier provides new focus on the interactions that Italians maintained, both with each other and with Romans. Despite the variety of subjects discussed in this dossier, the individual articles display some common themes. This conclusion will aim to gather together the various strands of the individual articles, in order to identify some common themes and highlight the main conclusions that can be drawn from the articles collected here.

Knowledge and information: identity plays

2An important issue in this dossier is knowledge, especially the knowledge that Romans held about Italy and the Italian peoples. Knowledge and information are central issues in the article by Baudry and Bur and in the article by Bertrand, although they discuss very different subjects. Baudry and Bur focuse on the question whether Italian prosopography can be written on the basis of works by Roman authors – this of course depends on the knowledge these Roman writers had about the Italians they wrote about, as well as their intentions and agenda in writing their works, an issue also highlighted by Tagliamonte. On the other hand, Bertrand focuses on the knowledge that was available to the Romans when establishing colonies in Italy.

  • 1 Verboven 2021.

3In ancient societies, the degree of knowledge that could be gathered about any subject was restricted by the physical and virtual distance between places and people. This means that rationality in economic and political decisions was always bounded by the limits of the information available at any particular moment. In order to overcome this problem, informal or more formalized social networks were the prime providers of reliable information.1

  • 2 Liv., 10, 1, 7-9 on Alba Fucens.
  • 3 Liv. 39.23.3-4.
  • 4 Roselaar 2019, p. 93-118.

4As discussed by Bertrand, knowledge played an important role in the foundation of colonies. When a colony was established, the Roman state needed to determine the best spot. The ideal location depended on a number of considerations, such as the presence of hostile Italian populations nearby, the distance from Rome, options for the transport of people and goods, the economic possibilities in the area, et cetera. Colonies were often established soon after the conquest and therefore the first long-term contact with Rome, so that no detailed information about the area was available at the moment a decision about the foundation had to be taken. Therefore, the founders focused especially on defensible sites, not on economically viable sites, since the main aim of a colony was to pacify the surrounding area.2 Many colonies were established in locations which were eminently suitable to serve as bulwarks to control the local population. An example is Luceria, located on a defensible outcrop from which the surrounding plain could be viewed. Nevertheless, economic considerations could not be entirely forgotten, as the colonies were expected to provide for themselves, without assistance from Rome. Therefore, many colonies were located in places which offered economic opportunities, either in fertile territory for growing crops, such as Venusia, or in favourable locations for trade, such as Brundisium. However, some colonies were unsuccessful. Some were even abandoned, most famously Sipontum and Buxentum, founded in 194.3 Considering their marginal location within Italy’s economic networks, especially when compared to flourishing harbour towns such as Brundisium or Puteoli, this is not surprising. This raises the question as to why the Roman state chose to establish colonies here – did the Senate receive insufficient or incorrect information about the possibilities of these sites? In fact, many colonies only experienced economic prosperity long after their foundation, especially in the second century, when Italy as a whole experienced fast economic development.4

  • 5 Liv., 9, 16, 6.
  • 6 App., B.C., 1, 38.

5With regard to the information that was available before a colony was founded, the Senate could use various sources, as Bertrand discusses. A first source were local people who were loyal to Rome, who had the best knowledge of the local situation. Information could also be provided by the commanders who had conquered the area in which the colony was to be founded. In fact, it is clear that personal connections played a great role on the gathering of information, as it did in many aspects of Roman life. Recruitment of soldiers, for example, could be organized by personal relationships between Roman and Italian commanders. L. Papirius Cursor in 293 had “a remarkable power of command … that was equally effective with citizens and allies”.5 Two hundred years later, the Social War was preceded by negotiations between the various Italian peoples involved. In an effort to prevent the war, the Senate sent out men to inquire about what was going on, “choosing those who were best acquainted with each [town], to collect information quietly’”.6 The Roman approach to deal with the rumours of Italian discontent was thus to send individual Romans to the Italian towns with which they had personal connections, again attesting the importance of social relationships between Romans and Italians.

  • 7 Liv., 4, 47, 6-7.
  • 8 Liv., 9, 26, 4.

6The sources state that the people (or at least the tribuni plebis) in the fifth and fourth centuries often opposed colonies, and preferred viritane distributions near Rome.7 Knowledge might have played a role in such cases: perhaps the colonies were too far away and in unknown territory, and therefore caused resistance among the people. Even if this image is too simple, it seems that fear of the unknown was an important factor in the resistance against colonies. The further away the colony was located, the more land the Senate had to give to the colonists in order to convince them to go. Faraway places like Luceria were unpopular, because being sent there felt like a banishment.8

7Information is also discussed in Tagliamonte’s paper. He argues that the Romans received information from external observers, directly or indirectly, often in connection with warfare. If the Romans wanted to establish a colony, the best opportunity to scout the terrain occurred during the conquest of the area, as also pointed out by Bertrand. Accurate information during battle was also important, as Tagliamonte points out, especially in order to prevent friendly fire. The Italian peoples used various methods to distinguish themselves from others, e.g. symbols painted on their shields, flags, musical signals, and distinctive weapons and armour. However, as with the language and institutions described elsewhere in this dossier – which I will discuss below – there was some overlap in the way the Italians looked in battle, so that mistakes could not be excluded.

8As Baudry and Bur discuss, we should be aware of the fact that most of the surviving sources were written by Roman authors, which raises questions about the reliability of the sources and the way in which information was presented in Roman sources. On the one hand, the Romans did not necessarily have accurate knowledge about the culture and history of the Italian peoples. And on the other, even if Roman authors did have reliable knowledge, it was not always their aim to present the Italians in an accurate and objective manner. In many cases, Roman authors presented the Italians in a rather stereotypical way. This led to the formulation of prejudice, either positive or negative.

  • 9 Cato, Contra Thermum (Festus 350L). See Serv., Aen., 8, 638.
  • 10 Liv., 9, 13, 7.

9On the positive side, there were many legends about the frugality and honesty of Italic peoples. Especially the Sabines, who had been instrumental in the creation of Roman state, came to embody the moral virtue of the Romans. Cato the Elder says about himself that “from my earliest days I kept myself away for the whole of my youth in frugality, hardship, and hard work, by tending the land, the Sabine rocks”.9 This hard upbringing instilled in him the essential virtues of frugality, manliness, and stamina, which were the mainstays of Roman society. Many Italic peoples were ascribed such virtues, often in contrast to the Greek luxury that had invaded Rome. The Samnites for example were presented as simple and primitive: “The Samnites, … living the free open-air life of mountaineers themselves, despised the less hardy cultivators of the plains who, as often happens, had developed a character in harmony with their surroundings”.10

  • 11 Already by the late second century Roman and Sabine together could be opposed to Greek, as Luciliu (...)
  • 12 D.H., 2, 49, 1-5.
  • 13 Gruen 1992, p. 83.

10This primitivism became a positive trait: rural Italians had retained the ‘Roman’ values which city-dwelling Romans had lost.11 Therefore, Roman authors tried to claim these ‘Italian’ virtues for themselves. Dionysius explains that the Sabines were of Spartan origin, and therefore were the most austere of the Italians.12 Since the Romans followed the Sabine customs, according to Cato, they were the hardiest of Italians too. Cato’s aim, according to Gruen,13 was not to resist Hellenism, but to highlight in which aspects Rome was unique and which qualities and values set Rome apart. This question had become more important in the second century, when Rome was the political and military master of Italy and the Mediterranean; it now aimed to become the cultural master too. Cato encouraged his fellow Romans to articulate their own national character, but through the medium of Italian historiography.

11In this dossier, Smith shows how knowledge about the Italian peoples could be used by the Romans to further their own agenda. The Romans used the ethnography of Italy to reflect on their own history and values. To use Sabinum as an example: when Sabinum was conquered by Rome in the third century, this occurred at a time when the Romans were in the process of developing a new image of themselves, which matched their new status as the dominant power in Italy. This dominance came to be, in the late third and second century BC, accompanied by unprecedented economic growth and a higher living standard. The theme of Italian frugality in contrast to this new luxury remained an important theme within Roman national autobiography. The Romans were becoming wealthy, but at the same time wished to maintain the quintessential values that made up the Roman character. They did so by subsuming the values of the Italian peoples they had conquered. By claiming Italian values for themselves, the Romans solved this economic and ethnographic paradox.

  • 14 Roselaar 2010, p. 155-165.
  • 15 Terrenato 2012.

12Smith shows that Cato has some Italian heroes, especially M’ Curius Dentatus, who was famous for his austere life and good faith towards other peoples. Cato even visited Dentatus’ farm in Sabinum, in order to remind himself of Dentatus’ virtues. It is not clear, however, whether Dentatus was actually a Sabine. Cato’s visit to Dentatus’ villa shows the important role of the villa in Cato’s identity. In his own work De agri cultura, Cato paints an exact picture of what a villa should look like, emphasizing its austerity. Even if Cato’s overstates the austerity of his ideal villa,14 his description is still a powerful social statement. Although there is little evidence for the presence of such villas in Sabinum or elsewhere in Italy, the number of villas in the suburbium was certainly growing in Cato’s lifetime. Perhaps Dentatus’ example reminded Cato to avoid the dangers of the villa and its seduction; the luxury that came with increased wealth could easily destroy traditional Roman values such as frugality and stamina. Dentatus, and by expansion the Sabines, embodied the ethnographic paradox of the transformation of the Sabines from enemies to morally admirable partners of empire. The use of exempla in this way was not without danger; as Smith shows, already in the second century Lucilius satirized the ‘rustic-shtick’ of Cato.15

  • 16 Roselaar 2010, p. 302-303.
  • 17 Plaut., Bacch., 11-13. See also Capt., 880-90; Hor., Sat., 1, 7.
  • 18 Dench 1995, p. 76. See Wallace-Hadrill 1999, p. 308.
  • 19 Roselaar 2019, p. 192-196.

13These exempla often show a kind of tension between Romans and Italians: Rome appreciated the contributions of the Italians, but was also afraid the Italians would outmatch Rome. An example is the case of Praeneste, which could be presented as backward, but also as arrogant. Praeneste was very wealthy in the second century, so that a degree of pride among its inhabitants made sense. Due to its anomalous civic status – the town had remained allied, so that Rome had no power over it16 – and its close distance to Rome, Romans could feel apprehensive at its power. In Plautus’ plays, Praeneste appears several times as a byword for arrogance. In the Bacchides a character asks his slave about another man: “Of what country did he seem to you?”, to which the slave replies: “I think he is of Praeneste; he was such a boaster”.17 In the case of Praeneste, these jokes may actually “reflect real anxiety about a potential cultural and political threat to Rome, and seek to ‘cut her down to size”’.18 By making fun of the Praenestines, Romans could make themselves believe the threat was not so great.19 This tension is also clear in Cato’s treatment of the Sabines. He uses them as an example for Roman behaviour, but especially in order to re-articulate Rome’s own identity in the face of increasing Hellenistic influence. The Sabines become the ‘ideal Romans’, rather than being lauded for their own particular characteristics.

14As has become clear in this section, a crucial issue in every paper in this dossier is identity. As already indicated in the first part of this paper, the identities of the Romans and Italians were constantly changing during the Republican period. As Baudry and Bur point out, some Italians became Roman citizens, but this did not necessarily change their identity, i.e. the way they thought about themselves and their relationship with other Italian peoples.

  • 20 Cornell 2004.

15As has often been argued before,20 Tagliamonte points out the importance of warfare for the transformation of identities. Identity was created in opposition to others, i.e. through a contrastive identity, especially those with whom one was at war. Warfare was therefore an element of the creation of ethnic and political creation structures and auto-identification. In creating a Roman identity, as opposed to the various Italian peoples that the Romans fought, Roman authors in fact had very little interest in individual Italians. The Romans usually approached the Italian peoples as collectives, to which specific characteristics could be ascribed, as in the case of the Sabines. Individuals, such as Cato’s hero Dentatus, could be presented as exempla, but were still composed of stereotypes, rather than giving a reliable depiction of an individual’s personality. Individual Italians only came into view after the Social War, when they had the power to actually influence Roman politics.

  • 21 Roselaar 2019, p. 240-241.

16The use of stereotypes by Cato and others suggests that the Sabines had experienced a static, unchanging history and identity, but some important changes are visible. Throughout the Republican period, Roman politicians who claimed an Italian background could use their Italian identity to reinforce their civic status. For example, as discussed by Smith, the Marcii claimed Sabine connections, and in the fourth century major building works occurred in the Quirinal, potentially inventing or reshaping Sabine elements of the hill. In 144 Marcius Rex rebuilt the Aqua Marcia, which he claimed was originally built by Ancus Marcius. Thus, he used the achievements of his Italians ancestors to enhance his own status. After the Social War, Italians were eager to make use of the stereotypes of frugality and hard work, which had been ascribed to them earlier.21 At this point in time, the Italians thus possessed agency over the way in which their identities were shaped and employed.

  • 22 Bispham 2007, p. 446.
  • 23 Buchet 2015.

17From the Augustan period, the identity of the Italians became increasingly static. The creativity of local expressions gradually diminished in this period, so that local traditions became harmless folklore, rather than a potential mechanism for serious discontent. This occurred because “monarchy viewed this continued pretence of independence within the Roman state as inimical to its control, and while (...) poets glorified the past of the Italian populi, their public aspects were surreptitiously degraded”.22 Thus, Tibur becomes, in the works of Augustan writers and Horace in particular, frozen as a locus amoenus, a place which exists mainly in and for philosophical and poetical inspiration. Its identity is no longer under the control of its inhabitants, but becomes fixed around a small number of topoi.23 Similarly, Roman interest in Sabine history and values continued into the imperial period, but in a rather fossilized way, as was also the case for other peoples. Thus, just as Cato’s representation of the Sabines served his own purposes and deprived the Sabines of agency, a century and a half later the Italians lost control of the way in which their peoples were represented in Roman narrative.

Migration and mobility

  • 24 Roselaar 2019, p. 113.
  • 25 Isayev 2017, p. 38.
  • 26 For Minturnae, see Guidobaldi – Pesando 1989, p. 38; Crimaco 2002, p. 89-90. For Fregellae, see Co (...)
  • 27 Plb. 10, 1, 9. See Aprosio 2008, p. 89-90.
  • 28 CIL I2 3201; see Humbert 1978, p. 346.
  • 29 ILLRP 776 = CIL I2 779 = XII.5388.

18An interesting issue with regard to colonization is the fact that many colonies seem to have been magnets for immigrants. Bertrand does not discuss this in detail in her paper, but the high level of mobility within ancient Italy is indicated in several of the other papers. Many colonies grew quickly, especially in the second century BC – which in some cases was two centuries after the foundation of the colony.24 It is likely that this growth was caused mostly by immigration into the colonies, by people who were interested in the economic opportunities these towns had to offer. Italians were free to move into any colony they wanted; the Roman state did not attempt to limit this mobility, except in the case of the inhabitants of Latin and Roman colonies.25 Some towns, such as Aquileia and Puteoli, had already been important centres before the colonial foundation, so the local population may simply have remained when the colony was created. Other colonies, like Minturnae, Brundisium, and Fregellae,26 only developed into prospering centres later on, especially in the second century, and did therefore not attract immigrants from the moment of their foundation. Considering Brundisium’s role as a major trade port, especially for the provisioning of Roman armies fighting in Greece, economic immigration must have been considerable.27 For some towns we have evidence for the presence of incolae, a term used for people who did not hold civic rights in the town. They may have migrated to these towns from elsewhere, or have been local inhabitants who did not hold civic rights. In Aesernia, a Latin colony, an inscription dating to the second century records Samnites inquolae,28 as does a text from Sena Gallica, a colony with Roman status.29

  • 30 Cébeillac-Gervasoni 1978, p. 241-242.

19There does not seem to be much difference between Latin and Roman colonies with respect to the presence of Italians, nor between colonies and other towns. In both Roman and Latin colonies, the evidence for the presence of Italians is strongest in the colonies that developed into important trade centres. Migration did not affect all towns and regions in Italy equally: towns which became important (economic) centres attracted immigrants, while those which were not well connected to the newly emerging economic networks experienced a decline in population. In areas which flourished economically, locals were more inclined to stay and contribute further to local economic prosperity.30 In fact, not all colonies flourished, as was the case with Sena Gallica, Sipontum, Paestum, Interamna Lirenas and many others. After a colony was established, Roman interference in the affairs of its colonies was usually limited, so that the colonial status was not a guarantee of economic success.

  • 31 Imag. Ital. CUMAE 8 = ST Cm 14.
  • 32 Imag. Ital. TEANUM SIDICINUM 25; see Imag. Ital., p. 2, 4.
  • 33 Plb. 34, 10, 10 (Str., 4, 6, 12).

20Not only colonies attracted migrants. While colonies were a form of state-organized mobility, Italians mostly migrated independently, without interference of the Roman state. Epigraphic evidence provides some interesting glimpses into such movements. Some funerary inscriptions record explicitly that the deceased had not been born in the town in which he died. A text from Cumae, for example, records Dekis Hereiis Dekkieis Saipinaz (Decius Herius, son of Decius, from Saepinum).31 In these cases migration is clearly attested: someone moved from one place to another, but still identified himself by his place of birth. In other cases, we can only surmise that migration may have taken place. For example, around 300 a pot was marked in Teanum Sidicinum in Campania by a man called Plator, a name originating from Messapia.32 When such independent migration is mentioned, it is often in relation to economic opportunities. For example, Polybius describes how a newly discovered gold mine in the Alps attracted many Italians, who worked the mine together with the locals, probably in the early second century.33 As Dupraz suggests in this dossier, linguistic information may provide additional clues. He suggests that similarities between Iguvium, an Umbrian town with allied status, and other areas may have been caused by high levels of mobility. Perhaps many inhabitants of Iguvium were multilingual and had travelled to or lived in other communities. Lanfranchi argues the same, and points out that many of Rome’s elites were not originally from Rome at all.

  • 34 Morley 1996, p. 53; Erdkamp 2008, p. 438-441.
  • 35 Toynbee 1965, 2, p. 9-14; Gabba 1977, p. 275-279; Hopkins 1978, p. 11-13.
  • 36 Coarelli 1977.
  • 37 Erdkamp 2008, p. 428-429.
  • 38 Inscr. Aq. 1, 69: lanifica circlatrixs.

21Rome itself naturally attracted many immigrants, who contributed to its enormous growth in the last two centuries BC. Based on figures for mortality and fertility in the city, it has been argued that a great influx of people from Italy and elsewhere would have been needed to sustain the growth of the city of Rome. Morley estimates that over 10% of people from Italy must at some point have lived in Rome, even if they did not stay there permanently.34 Often this migration is presented in a negative way: the people of Italy are supposed to have been deprived of their economic resources by the Roman conquest. Unable to feed themselves, they drifted to the city.35 However, in many periods the city’s growth was caused by pull factors, such as job opportunities in public building and shipping.36 As we have seen, many other Italian cities also experienced population growth, especially those which were important economic centres and therefore had jobs to offer. Many towns saw an increase in public building in the second century, which would have required labourers for a few months or years. Harbour towns offered seasonal work, e.g. as porters or rowers, since the sailing season lasted from about March until October.37 The temporary nature of the wool industry also attracted labourers who travelled around looking for work: an early-first century BC inscription from Aquileia commemorates a female travelling woolworker.38

  • 39 See Isayev 2017; Roselaar 2019, p. 36-40.
  • 40 Cato, Agr., 1, 1, 3, 136, 144-5. See Garnsey 1980; Erdkamp 2008, p. 425-430.
  • 41 Cato, Agr., 14, 136.
  • 42 Suet., Vesp., 1, 4.

22Other types of voluntary migration also occurred in Republican Italy.39 For seasonal migration we have very little evidence, although it must have been very common. Many economic activities were seasonal, such as pasturing and the harvest. For example, Cato gives a great deal of advice on how to recruit temporary workers for the harvest and emphasizes that a farm should be located in areas with plenty of wage labourers.40 He also gives arrangements for contracting building work and letting out land to tenants.41 A famous story about Vespasian’s great-grandfather, who would have lived in the early first century BC, says that he “came from the region beyond the Po and was a contractor for the day-labourers who come regularly every year from Umbria to the Sabine district, to till the fields”.42 The fact that middlemen specialized in providing labourers suggests that such arrangements were common.

  • 43 Erdkamp 2008, p. 423-424; Roselaar 2010, p. 173-179.
  • 44 Barker – Lloyd – Webley 1978, p. 48-49.
  • 45 Varr., R., 2, 9, 6. See also Varr., R., 2, 1, 16 (Apulia-Samnium); 2, 1, 17; 2, 2, 9; Hor., Epod.,(...)

23Transhumant pasturing was another important type of migration that created ties between different areas of Italy.43 In the second century an increase in large-scale animal husbandry occurred, both through short-distance (vertical) and long-distance (horizontal) transhumance. In the Biferno valley in Samnium, for example, sheep farming became an important part of the local economy in the later second century, bringing considerable wealth to the local elites.44 These activities could connect regions over considerable distances: Varro relates how “Publius Aufidius Pontianus, of Amiternum, had bought some herds of sheep in furthest Umbria, ... providing that the shepherds should take them to the pastures of Metapontum and to market at Heraclea”.45

24We may conclude that a wide variety of possibilities existed for economic migration throughout Italy in the Republican period. This must have had an enormous impact on the cultural and linguistic integration of Italy. The high level of mobility in ancient Italy most likely contributed to the appearance of a cultural koine within Italy, which is discussed in many of the papers in this dossier. This koine started to appear at a relatively early stage, but did not influence all aspects of culture, as will be explored in the next sections.

Changes in language and institutions

  • 46 Harris 1971, p. 172.
  • 47 Letta – D’Amato 1975; De Simone – Marchesini, 2002; Imag. Ital.
  • 48 Imag. Ital. ATINA LUCANA 1 = ST Lu 2. See Fraschetti 1981, p. 205.

25An important part of culture is language. In fact, language change came relatively slowly. Most Italian languages remained in use until after the Social War. Rome did not exert pressure on the Italians to change their languages.46 This means that there was much variation in the rate of change in the Italic languages. Some dialects, such as Marsic and Vestinian, already show much Latin influence in the third century. Others, like Paelignian, Etruscan, and Messapian, changed much slower.47 We must remember that in some cases a complicated mix of language traditions was already in use. In Lucania, for example, many inscriptions used the Oscan language, but were written in Greek characters, while using Latin terms for institutional terms.48

  • 49 Kaimio 1975, p. 218-221; Benelli 1994; Bonfante – Bonfante 2002; Sisani 2008, p. 115-116.
  • 50 TLE 541.

26Etruscan was the slowest of all Italic languages to disappear, although it experienced different rates of change in different locations. Latin appeared in Etruria in official texts by the late second century and in private texts in the early first century.49 The earliest changes occurred in the naming system: from the second century Etruscans started to use both Etruscan and Latin names on grave inscriptions. Sometimes the names were simply Latinized: Ca. Puplece Ma. fel. became C. Publicius Marci filius.50

  • 51 Sisani 2008, p. 112-113.
  • 52 Bradley 2000, p. 205-214; Benelli 2001, p. 8-9; Sisani 2008, p. 103-104.
  • 53 E.g. ST Um 37. See Harris 1971, p. 169-187; Coarelli 1996, p. 249; Nonnis – Sisani 2012, p. 56-60.

27Umbrian shows grammatical changes in the second century, with more private texts appearing in Latin, and the Umbrian language increasingly written in the Latin alphabet, as the tabulae Iguvinae show.51 Private inscriptions also show early Latin influence. However, only after the Social War inscriptions were written exclusively in Latin.52 In some towns, such as Reate, radical linguistic change accompanied the Roman conquest. This was an area of viritane settlement, so it seems that viritane settlers caused the disappearance of local epigraphic testimonies.53 It is unlikely that viritane settlers from Rome expelled the locals, but there were probably many occasions for interaction between settlers and locals in these circumstances and therefore more linguistic change here than in other areas.

  • 54 Salmon 1982, p. 21; Keaveney 1987, p. 23. For language change see Langslow 2012; for the Vestini s (...)

28In areas where the majority of inhabitants held Roman citizenship, language change occurred fairly quickly, but this also happened among some of the non-citizen groups, especially those closer to Rome, such as the Marsi and Vestini. Allied areas further away, such as Etruria, Messapia, and most Oscan-speaking areas, used their own languages for longer, with most of them disappearing in the first century BC. It is also interesting to note that there was no direct relation between different types of cultural development: Campania for example was more urbanized than the Marsic and Samnite areas, but less Latinized than the Marsic region.54

29An important question, which is the focus of many papers in this dossier, is the direction of mutual influence between the Italian peoples. As discussed by Dupraz in this dossier, Rome was not the only source of innovation, neither in institutions nor in the terminology attached to them. The changes in the Italian peninsula were part of a polycentric and parallel development. This is shown by the developments in the word tribus, as Dupraz describes. It derives from a shared Italian concept, but was used in different ways in different locations. This shows that common concepts existed, which corresponded specific words indicating specific technical terms. There were also parallels between languages in phrases and expressions, which may be explained by close contacts between various communities. Thus, despite the continued multilingualism in Italy, there was much influence between languages, as well as a shared institutional terminology. Still, there were also differences between languages; as Dupraz shows, the Latin word populus had a different meaning than the Umbrian puplum, despite the linguistic similarity of the words. Neither was Latin tribus the same as Umbrian trifu. Variations in ritual terminology were also caused by variations in the rituals that they described.

  • 55 Porzio Gernia 1970, p. 98-100. In tabula Bantina l. 2, q appears as an abbreviation of quaestor, s (...)

30With regard to the administration of Italian towns and peoples, the sources show a large degree of parallel with Roman titles for magistrates. For example, the Roman terms quaestor, aedile, censor, senate, legate, praefectus, imperator, civis, and comitia all appear in Oscan texts: kvaísstur or kvestur, aídil, censtur or keenzstur, senateís, lígatús, praefucus, embratur, ceus, and comono. These texts come from widely varying locations in Italy.55 However, not all these magistracies appear regularly: censors, aediles, quaestors, and tribuni plebis are rare. Thus, local magistracies could take different configurations depending on local needs, whether or not they were derived from Roman examples in name or in function.

  • 56 Adams 2003, p. 115.
  • 57 Crawford – Coleman 1996, p. 274-276; see Bispham 2007, p. 142-151; Wallace-Hadrill 2008, p. 94-95.
  • 58 Bradley 2000, p. 206; Bispham 2007, p. 145.

31In any case, the similarities between Italian and Latin titles in the epigraphic evidence certainly do not indicate that Italian states adopted the administrative systems of Rome. In fact, many towns displayed local pride in the late second century, and rightly so, since at the time many Italian cities were at the height of their prosperity and Italian businessmen were known throughout the Mediterranean. This pride was visible in the continued use of their own languages: in the late second and first century some texts seem to consciously avoid Roman influence. The Oscan tabula Bantina, for example, has been interpreted as an attempt to strengthen local identity by writing down local laws in the local language. Its creation may have been motivated by the fear that Oscan would disappear, although it certainly was still in use, judging from the many inscriptions written in Oscan at this time.56 The Oscan text may even have been written to symbolize independence from Rome – especially if it was written during the Social War, as suggested by some. In this case Venusia would be an especially suitable example, since it, as the only Latin colony, revolted against Rome.57 The tabulae Iguvinae – dated to 200-120 for the Umbrian texts and 150-70 for the Latin – may be interpreted similarly as an attempt to save the local language in a changing world. Both these texts were influenced by Rome, in content as well as language. For example, it is likely that the Bantians used a Roman model for their text, perhaps from the nearby Latin colony Venusia. However, this does not make the effort of preserving Italian languages and laws any less significant, as it shows how important language was to the Italians that spoke it.58

  • 59 Campanile – Letta 1979, p. 38; Dench 1995, p. 159.
  • 60 Imag. Ital. TERVENTUM 8 = ST Sa 4.
  • 61 E.g. Imag. Ital. ATINA LUCANA 1 = ST Lu 2 refers to a building set up [sena]teis tanginod (de sena (...)
  • 62 Brunt 1965, p. 100; Campanile – Letta 1979, p. 41.
  • 63 Salmon 1967, p. 88; Mouritsen 1998, p. 77.

32In other Italian texts that have survived, it seems that the Italians did not change their pre-existing administrative structures, but only changed the titles of magistrates to their Latin equivalents.59 For example, many towns already had a local council of elders and now adopted the title senatus for this body. Although it makes sense to suppose that such Latinized titles were only used in inscriptions aimed at a Roman audience, their origins speak against this. The cippus Abellanus for example was a treaty between the towns of Nola and Abella, and was not aimed at a Roman audience. Still, it not only uses the titles senate, quaestors, and legates, but also the Oscan titles of meddix. Another text from Pietrabbondante also mentions a censor and a meddix.60 Therefore, it seems that the use of Latinized titles was as a sign of influence from Rome on the administrative structure of the Italian states. However, this does not mean that the Italians experienced influence from Rome in other ways, e.g. cultural.61 The adoption of Latin titles for magistrates has been ascribed to ‘admiration for Rome’,62 but Roman models were only adopted because they answered specific Italian needs.63

  • 64 Liv., 23, 35, 13 ; 24, 19, 2 ; 26, 6, 13; TB l.12; Imag. Ital. BOVIANUM 20 = ST Sa 19; Imag. Ital. (...)
  • 65 Imag. Ital. VELITRAE 1 = ST VM 2.
  • 66 Cic., Fam., 15, 15, 1. See Campanile – Letta 1979, p. 42; on the municipalization of Italy see Bis (...)

33In allied areas much variation existed for the name of the leading magistrates: some towns had a meddix as their leading magistrates, others a dictator or praetor, while others had two praetors, or two or more aediles. After the Roman conquest we still find meddices, e.g. at Capua during the Second Punic War and in various inscriptions from Pietrabbondante and Campochiaro.64 Evidently pre-Roman government systems survived, even though local titles could be adapted if this suited local purposes. Even when Italians were granted citizenship, the Roman state did not order Italian states to change the titles of their magistrates: the town of Velitrae for example, where most inhabitants held the civitas sine suffragio, had two meddices as its leading magistrates in the third century.65 It was only after the grant of citizenship to the Italians in the Social War that the whole of Italy was municipalized, i.e. a Roman-type administration with duoviri as leading magistrates was introduced in most towns. Even in this period, however, there were still local variations: Arpinum still had three aediles in the first century.66

  • 67 D.H., 8, 11, 1; 8, 13, 1; Liv., 8, 3, 9.

34Lanfranchi in this dossier takes a closer look at the collegiality principle, an essential feature of most Roman magistracies. It is possible that this principle was adapted by Rome from the Italian model, but with the addition of a stricter delineation of their tasks. Later, collegiality was expanded to other magistrates, including the consuls. Rome therefore did not simply adopt an external model; collegiality was part of a very complex process that occurred in many parts of Italy. The Italic peoples also show some evidence for collegiality; some had generals who were colleagues.67 Perhaps Etruscan and Umbrian magistrates were also collegial; the meddix tuticus, on the other hand, was not collegial. Later examples (250-100) show that collegiality appeared in many locations (Messina, Pompeii, Umbria, Bantia). As Lanfranchi argues, the formation of collegiality in Italy was not directly influenced by Roman models of magistracies, nor did it serve as a model for Rome. Furthermore, there is no need to assume Greek influence, as the Italian situation offers sufficient explanation for what happened in Rome. This again illustrates the workings of the cultural koine in Italy, in which the Italian peoples experienced mutually influenced each other in a variety of aspects.

  • 68 Imag. Ital. TEANUM SIDICINUM 2 (= ST Si 3); TREBULA BALLIENSIS 1; HISTONIUM 4.

35Lanfranchi also presupposes a connection between the appearance of elected magistrates in Italy and in Rome. The creation of the tribuni plebis was the first time that elected magistrates appeared in Rome. Various other Italian peoples also had elected magistrates, as least in later periods: the Tabula Bantina and several Oscan inscriptions, dated to 250-100, also mention tribuni. However, they seem to have been handling fines and public building, suggesting they were more like the aediles in Rome. It has been suggested that the term tribuf plífríks68 was related to the verb ‘build’, rather than directly influenced by Rome. Thus, even if there was any Roman influence, the Italian peoples still gave their tribunes other tasks than the Roman ones. Developments also took place with regard to the cursus honorum. Many Italian peoples at first had only one or two magistrates, with gradually a more complex cursus appearing over time. An organised cursus honorum appeared in most places in Italy not until the third century. This shows the progressive organisation of local politics, which is paralleled in Rome itself.

Koine and identity

  • 69 Bourdin 2012, p. 550-551.
  • 70 Cornell 2004; Dench 1995, p. 202-212; Isayev 2017, p. 89-92.
  • 71 Stek 2013, p. 348-350.

36The increasing cultural and linguistic integration of Italy described above was related to changes in identity experienced by the Italians as a whole and by the Italian peoples. On the one hand, ethnic boundaries between the various peoples of Italy became more clearly delineated over time. Some scholars argue that these cultural boundaries had already been defined in the fifth century or earlier.69 Others have argued that the Roman conquest in the fourth and third centuries was instrumental in creating ethnic boundaries between the Italic peoples. As individual Italian towns cooperated in the fight against Rome, they started to identify along ethnic lines, rather than by town, as Tagliamonte also points out.70 It is important to remember that ethnic identities did not necessarily match political or cultural boundaries:71 not all Samnites belonged to the same state, although they shared largely the same culture, with some local differences.

  • 72 Plb. 1, 6, 6. See Serv., Aen., 9, 52. See Bispham 2007, p. 55.
  • 73 Plb. 1, 10-11. In 3, 26, 3 he mentions a treaty between Rome and Carthage dating to the First Puni (...)
  • 74 Val. Max. 2, 7, 4; see D.C., fr. 43, 1-4; Zon. 8, 8-1: ‘a nation of kindred blood’ with the Romans (...)
  • 75 Göhler 1939, p. 32.
  • 76 Plb., 2, 23, 12. See Harris 1971, p. 130-131.
  • 77 Keaveney 1987, p. 28.

37In roughly the same period, the meaning of the term Italia gradually expanded to include the whole of peninsular Italy and by the third century reached all the way up to the Alps, as Smith describes. The term Italia came to be used to identify a specific geographical area. From a Roman point of view, Italy formed a single geographical unit, which should naturally be under Rome’s control. Polybius describes how, after the Pyrrhic War, the Romans ‘now for the first time attacked the rest of Italy not as if it were a foreign country, but as if it rightfully belonged to them’.72 In Polybius’ account of the Mamertine affair in 264, Italy also appears as a unit: if Messina, a city in Sicily just across from Italy, were to be taken by the Carthaginians, it would form a bridgehead for their further progression into Italy.73 The Romans therefore wanted to help the Mamertines, an Oscan group which controlled Messina, because they were “a people from Italy”.74 Thus, the nascent idea that the Mamertines were closely related to the Romans served to unite the peoples of Italy against the external threat of Carthage.75 The Gallic invasion of 225, which, as Polybius emphasizes, was a threat to Italy as the common homeland of all Italians, also served to strengthen the idea of Italy as a unified whole, as did the invasion of Hannibal.76 However, even if Italy was a united whole, Rome was the most important power in Italy, so that “pan-Italianism was Rome’s creation”.77 In other words, the various Italic peoples would never have been united in one geographical unit called Italia, if Rome had not unified them under its hegemony.

  • 78 Roselaar 2019, p. 174-180.
  • 79 App., Mith., 23. See Keaveney 1987, p. 9; Isayev 2017, p. 49-56. On the other hand, Hannibal clear (...)

38It has been argued that the experiences of the Italians in the Mediterranean played an important role in the creation of an ‘Italian’ identity: through their shared experiences, Italians as a whole came to identify themselves with each other and with the geographical unit called Italia, in addition to their continuing ties to their home towns and/or peoples. Important insights into the Italian view of their identity can be gathered from Greek inscriptions regarding Italians, mostly from Delos. Two expressions often appear in these texts, Rhomaioi and Italikoi, in Latin Italici. The use of these terms is revealing with regard to the identity expressed by those who set up these inscriptions. I have discussed the meaning of these terms elsewhere,78 but the fact that it was possible for Italians to use the term Italikos shows that they saw Italy as a united whole. It is clear, then, that the term Italia indicated a united geographical whole from the third century onwards; the term Italikos/Italicus included both Roman citizens and Italians without citizenship. The Italians abroad thus acted as a group, in a way they had not previously done in Italy itself. The Italians’ overseas activities ensured that throughout the Mediterranean, Italians enjoyed a reputation as successful businessmen. These experiences overseas significantly affected the way in which the Italians perceived themselves. They were continuously addressed as a coherent group by Greeks, and used one blanket term to indicate themselves. This indicates that for Greeks and others from outside of Italy, it was difficult to see the difference between those with Roman citizenship and those without. For example, when Mithridates carried out his attack on the Italians and Romans in the East, he did not distinguish between Italians and Romans.79 And why should he, since Italians had gained great wealth from their association with Rome? Remarkably quickly the Italians had developed from conquered and exploited by the Romans to assistants in conquering and exploiting the rest of the Mediterranean.

  • 80 Morel 1988, p. 57-58; see David 1994.
  • 81 Roselaar 2019, p. 15-16.

39The concept of the cultural koine is not only visible with regard to the changes that occurred in the magistracies of the Romans and Italians, or in linguistic changes. Strictly cultural developments show remarkably similar trajectories of change. The distribution of cultural artefacts produced in Rome has often been described as a sign of ‘Romanization’.80 It has been argued, for example, that the importance of Rome as a producer of pottery, and the popularity of its products, is shown by the fact that they were imitated in other locations. However, the spread of such pottery should not automatically be seen as a sign of ‘Romanization’; it is equally possible that the popularity of these products caused a rising demand, encouraging local producers profit from this growing market. Since locally-made products were cheaper than imported wares, people may have welcomed a local workshop that produced these items. Importantly, the popularity of these products was not necessarily due to the fact that they were from Rome: products could be interpreted in different ways in different locations, with or without an association with Rome.81

  • 82 Roth 2012.
  • 83 Hingley 2005, p. 111.
  • 84 Hingley 2005, p. 99. See Wallace-Hadrill 2008, p. 10; Versluys 2013, p. 429.

40In fact, people could use ‘Roman’ culture to express a local identity: the arrival of Rome widened the range of cultural choices of expression for the conquered, and thus provided more options to express regional identities.82 Very importantly, cultural choices were not always a conscious response to Rome. Usually such choices were made in response to local circumstances and motivated by the desire to maintain or enhance one’s local social position, without a direct reference to Rome.83 People using such items were not trying to become Roman, but were “retaining the core of their cultural identity, with the addition of certain powerful innovations that assisted them to perform their lives in new ways under the changing political conditions”.84

Conclusions

41As this dossier shows, contacts between Italians were many and varied. There were many occasions for interaction between individuals from different towns and ethnic groups, for example in trade, but also in warfare. This contributed to a high level of mobility throughout the peninsula. At the same time, a growing cultural koine manifested itself on many different levels, from institutions such as magistratures to language change and cultural exchange between different peoples.

  • 85 Fronda 2010.
  • 86 See Roselaar 2019, p. 237-252.

42For a long time, the Italian peoples did not formulate their identities in contrast to Rome; the local and regional balance of power was in most cases more important than the relationship with Rome.85 A gradual feeling of a common Italian identity appeared, especially in the second century. This grew so strong that in the Social War the Italians could organize collective military action and set up an independent state called Italia, with the capital Italica. Despite the political and civic unification of Italy after the Social War, and the great amount of interaction and mobility that occurred between the peoples of Italy, even after the Social War the Italians did not yet share the same culture and language, nor did they all identify with Rome or think of themselves as Romans. This changed during the first century; by the Augustan era, most Italians had been fully accepted into the Roman state and, as equals of the old Roman citizens, continued the exploitation of the provinces for their own gains.86

Haut de page

Bibliographie

Adams 2003 = J.N. Adams, Bilingualism and the Latin language, Cambridge, 2003.

Aprosio 2008 = M. Aprosio, Archeologia dei paesaggi a Brindisi dalla romanizzazione al Medioevo, Bari, 1998, p. 89-90.

Barker – Lloyd – Webley 1978 = G. Barker, J.A. Lloyd, D. Webley, A classical landscape in Molise, in PBSR, 46, 1978, p. 35-51.

Benelli 1994 = E. Benelli, Le iscrizioni bilingui etrusco-latine, Florence, 1994.

Benelli 2001 = E. Benelli, The Romanization of Italy through the epigraphic record, in S. Keay, N. Terrenato (ed.), Italy and the West. Comparative issues in romanization, Oxford, 2001, p. 7-16.

Bispham 2007 = E. Bispham, From Asculum to Actium. The municipalization of Italy from the Social War to Augustus, Oxford, 2007.

Bonfante – Bonfante 2002 = G. Bonfante, L. Bonfante, The Etruscan language: an introduction, Manchester, 2002.

Bourdin 2012 = St. Bourdin, Les peuples de l’Italie préromaine : identités, territoires et relations inter-ethniques en Italie centrale et septentrionale (VIIIe-Ier s. av. J.-C.), Rome, 2012.

Bradley 2000 = G.J. Bradley, Ancient Umbria. State, culture, and identity in central Italy from the Iron Age to the Augustan Era, Oxford, 2000.

Brunt 1965 = P.A. Brunt, Italian aims at the time of the Social War, in JRS, 55, 1965, p. 90-109.

Buchet 2015 = E. Buchet, Literary topoi and the integration of Latium, in S.T. Roselaar (ed.), Processes of cultural change and integration in the Roman world, Leiden, 2015, p. 278-287.

Campanile – Letta 1979 = E. Campanile, C. Letta, Studi sulle magistrature indigene e municipali in area italica, Pisa, 1979.

Cébeillac-Gervasoni 1978 = M. Cébeillac-Gervasoni, Problématique de la promotion politique pour les notables des cités du Latium à la fin de la République, in Ktèma, 3, 1978, p. 227-242.

Coarelli 1977 = F. Coarelli, Public building in Rome between the Second Punic War and Sulla, in PBSR 45, 1977, p. 1-23.

Coarelli 1981 = F. Coarelli, Il Vallo di Diano in età romana. I dati dell’archeologia, in B. D’Agostini (ed.), Storia del Vallo di Diano I, Salerno 1981, p. 217-249.

Coarelli 1996 = F. Coarelli, Revixit ars. Arte e ideologia a Roma. Dai modelli ellenistici alla tradizione repubblicana, Rome, 1996.

Coarelli 1998 = F. Coarelli, La storia e lo scavo, in F. Coarelli, P.G. Monti (eds.), Fregellae : Le fonti, la storia, il territorio, Rome, 1998, p. 29-70.

Cornell 2004 = T.J. Cornell, Deconstructing the Samnite Wars: an essay in historiography, in H. Jones (ed.), Samnium: Settlement and cultural change: Proceedings of the third E. Togo Salmon conference on Roman studies, Oxford, 2004, p. 115-131.

Crawford – Coleman 1996 = M.H. Crawford, R. Coleman, Lex Osca tabulae Bantinae, in M.H. Crawford (ed.), Roman statutes I, London, 1996, p. 271-292.

Crimaco 2002 = L. Crimaco, Il territorio di Sinuessa tra storia ed archeologia, in Bollettino sezione Campania ANISN, 23, 2002, p. 83-122.

David 1994 = J.-M. David, La romanisation de l’Italie, Paris, 1994.

Dench 1995 = E. Dench, From barbarians to new men. Greek, Roman and modern perceptions of peoples of the Central Apennines, Oxford, 1995.

DeRose Evans 2013 = J. DeRose Evans (ed.), A companion to the archaeology of the Roman Republic, Malden, 2013

De Simone – Marchesini, 2002 = C. De Simone, S. Marchesini, Monumenta Linguae Messapicae, Wiesbaden, 2002.

Dupraz 2007 = E. Dupraz, Les Vestins, du nord-osque au latin, Rouen-Le Havre, 2007.

Erdkamp 2008 = P. Erdkamp, Mobility and migration in Italy in the second century BC, in L. de Ligt, S. Northwood (ed.), People, land, and politics. Demographic developments and the transformation of Italy 300 BC – AD 14, Leiden-Boston, 2008, p. 417-449.

Fraschetti 1981 = A. Fraschetti, Le vicende storiche, in B. D’Agostini (ed.), Storia del Vallo di Diano I, Salerno, 1981, p. 201-215.

Fronda 2010 = M.P. Fronda, Between Rome and Carthage: Southern Italy during the Second Punic War, Cambridge, 2010.

Gabba 1977 = E. Gabba, Considerazioni sulla decadenza della piccola proprietà contadina nell’Italia centro-meridionale del II sec. a C., in Ktèma, 2, 1977, p. 269-284 .

Garnsey 1980 = P. Garnsey, Non-slave labour in the Roman world, in P. Garnsey (ed.), Non-slave labour in the Graeco-Roman world, Cambridge, 1980, p. 34-47.

Göhler 1939 = J. Göhler, Römische Politik im bundesgenössischen Italien. Von der Gründung des Italischen Bundes bis zur Gracchenzeit, Würzburg, 1939.

Gruen 1992 = E.S. Gruen, Culture and national identity in republican Rome, Ithaca, 1992.

Guidobaldi – Pesando 1989 = M.P. Guidobaldi, F. Pesando, La colonia civium Romanorum, in F. Coarelli (ed.), Minturnae, Rome, 1989, p. 35-66.

Harris 1971 = W.V. Harris, Rome in Etruria and Umbria, Oxford, 1971.

Hingley 2005 = R. Hingley, Globalizing Roman culture. Unity, diversity and Empire, London-New York, 2005.

Hopkins 1978 = K. Hopkins, Conquerors and slaves, Cambridge, 1978.

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

Imag. Ital. = M.H. Crawford et al., Imagines italicae. A Corpus of italic Inscriptions, 3 vol., London, 2011.

Isayev 2017 = E. Isayev, Migration, mobility and place in ancient Italy, Cambridge, 2017.

Kaimio 1975 = J. Kaimio, The ousting of Etruscan by Latin in Etruria, in Studies in the Romanization of Etruria, Rome, 1975, p. 85-245.

Keaveney 1987 = A. Keaveney, Rome and the unification of Italy, London-Sydney, 1987.

Langslow 2012 = D. Langslow, Integration, identity, and language shift: strengths and weaknesses of the ‘linguistic’ evidence, in Roselaar 2012, p. 289-309.

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

Morel 1988 = J.-P. Morel, Artisanat et colonisation dans l’Italie romaine aux IVe et IIIe siècles av. J.-C., in DdA 6.3, 1988, p. 49-63.

Morley 1996 = N.D.G. Morley, Metropolis and hinterland. The city of Rome and the Italian economy 200 B.C. – A.D. 200, Cambridge, 1996.

Mouritsen 1998 = H. Mouritsen, Italian unification. A study in ancient and modern historiography, London, 1988.

Nonnis – Sisani 2012 = D. Nonnis, S. Sisani, Manufatti iscritti e vita dei santuari : l’Italia centrale tra media e tarda repubblica, in G. Baratta, S.M. Marengo (eds.), Instrumenta inscripta III. Manufatti iscritti e vita dei santuari in età romana, Macerata, 2012, p. 41-91.

Porzio Gernia 1970 = M.T. Porzio Gernia, Aspetti dell’influsso latino sul lessico e sulla sintassi osca, in Archivio glottologico italiano, 55, 1970, p. 94-144.

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

Roselaar 2012 = S.T. Roselaar (ed.), Processes of integration and identity formation in the Roman Republic, Leiden-Boston, 2012.

Roselaar 2017 = S.T. Roselaar, Pride and prejudice in Cicero’s speeches, in A. Gavrielatos (ed.), Self-presentation and identity in the Roman world, Newcastle upon Tyne, 2017, p. 37-53.

Roselaar 2019 = S.T. Roselaar, Italy’s economic revolution: Economic relations and the integration of Republican Italy, Oxford, 2019.

Roth 2012 = R.E. Roth, Regionalism: towards a new perspective of cultural change in central Italy, c. 350-100 BC, in Roselaar 2012, p. 17-34.

Salmon 1967 = E.T. Salmon, Samnium and the Samnites, Cambridge, 1967.

Salmon 1982 = E.T. Salmon, The making of Roman Italy, London, 1982.

Sisani 2008 = S. Sisani, Romanizzazione e latinizzazione: linee dei fenomeni di acculturazione linguistica in area etrusco-italica, in J. Uroz, J.M. Noguera, F. Coarelli (ed.), Iberia e Italia. Modelos romanos de integración territorial, Murcia, 2008, p. 101-126.

ST = H. Rix, Sabellische Texte. Die texte des Oskischen, Umbrischen und Südpikenischen, Heidelberg, 2002.

Stek 2013 = T.D. Stek, Material culture, Italic identities and the Romanization of Italy, in DeRose Evans 2013, p. 337-353.

Terrenato 2012 = N. Terrenato, The enigma of ‘Catonian’ villas: the De agri cultura in the context of second-century BC Italian architecture, in J.A. Becker, N. Terrenato (eds.), Roman Republican villas. Architecture, context, and ideology, Ann Arbor, 2012, p. 69-93.

TLE = M. Pallottino, M. Pandolfini Angeletti, Thesaurus linguae Etruscae, Rome, 1978-1991.

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

Toynbee 1965 = A.J. Toynbee, Hannibal’s legacy. 2. The Hannibalic War’s effects on Roman life, London, 1965.

Verboven 2021 = K. Verboven, Information governance in Roman finance, in C. Rosillo-López, M. García Morcillo (eds.), Managing information in the Roman economy, Cham, 2021, p. 283-315.

Versluys 2013 = M.J. Versluys, Material culture and identity in the late Roman Republic (c. 200-c. 20), in DeRose Evans 2013, p. 429-439.

Wallace-Hadrill 1999 = A. Wallace-Hadrill, The Roman revolution and material culture, in F. Millar (ed.), La révolution romaine après Ronald Syme, Vandoeuvres-Geneva, 1999, p. 283-313.

Wallace-Hadrill 2008 = A. Wallace-Hadrill, Rome’s cultural revolution, Cambridge-New York, 2008.

Haut de page

Notes

1 Verboven 2021.

2 Liv., 10, 1, 7-9 on Alba Fucens.

3 Liv. 39.23.3-4.

4 Roselaar 2019, p. 93-118.

5 Liv., 9, 16, 6.

6 App., B.C., 1, 38.

7 Liv., 4, 47, 6-7.

8 Liv., 9, 26, 4.

9 Cato, Contra Thermum (Festus 350L). See Serv., Aen., 8, 638.

10 Liv., 9, 13, 7.

11 Already by the late second century Roman and Sabine together could be opposed to Greek, as Lucilius 881-91M does: “You preferred to be called a Greek, Albucius, rather than a Roman and Sabine”.

12 D.H., 2, 49, 1-5.

13 Gruen 1992, p. 83.

14 Roselaar 2010, p. 155-165.

15 Terrenato 2012.

16 Roselaar 2010, p. 302-303.

17 Plaut., Bacch., 11-13. See also Capt., 880-90; Hor., Sat., 1, 7.

18 Dench 1995, p. 76. See Wallace-Hadrill 1999, p. 308.

19 Roselaar 2019, p. 192-196.

20 Cornell 2004.

21 Roselaar 2019, p. 240-241.

22 Bispham 2007, p. 446.

23 Buchet 2015.

24 Roselaar 2019, p. 113.

25 Isayev 2017, p. 38.

26 For Minturnae, see Guidobaldi – Pesando 1989, p. 38; Crimaco 2002, p. 89-90. For Fregellae, see Coarelli 1998, p. 60-65.

27 Plb. 10, 1, 9. See Aprosio 2008, p. 89-90.

28 CIL I2 3201; see Humbert 1978, p. 346.

29 ILLRP 776 = CIL I2 779 = XII.5388.

30 Cébeillac-Gervasoni 1978, p. 241-242.

31 Imag. Ital. CUMAE 8 = ST Cm 14.

32 Imag. Ital. TEANUM SIDICINUM 25; see Imag. Ital., p. 2, 4.

33 Plb. 34, 10, 10 (Str., 4, 6, 12).

34 Morley 1996, p. 53; Erdkamp 2008, p. 438-441.

35 Toynbee 1965, 2, p. 9-14; Gabba 1977, p. 275-279; Hopkins 1978, p. 11-13.

36 Coarelli 1977.

37 Erdkamp 2008, p. 428-429.

38 Inscr. Aq. 1, 69: lanifica circlatrixs.

39 See Isayev 2017; Roselaar 2019, p. 36-40.

40 Cato, Agr., 1, 1, 3, 136, 144-5. See Garnsey 1980; Erdkamp 2008, p. 425-430.

41 Cato, Agr., 14, 136.

42 Suet., Vesp., 1, 4.

43 Erdkamp 2008, p. 423-424; Roselaar 2010, p. 173-179.

44 Barker – Lloyd – Webley 1978, p. 48-49.

45 Varr., R., 2, 9, 6. See also Varr., R., 2, 1, 16 (Apulia-Samnium); 2, 1, 17; 2, 2, 9; Hor., Epod., 2, 27-8 (Lucania-Apulia).

46 Harris 1971, p. 172.

47 Letta – D’Amato 1975; De Simone – Marchesini, 2002; Imag. Ital.

48 Imag. Ital. ATINA LUCANA 1 = ST Lu 2. See Fraschetti 1981, p. 205.

49 Kaimio 1975, p. 218-221; Benelli 1994; Bonfante – Bonfante 2002; Sisani 2008, p. 115-116.

50 TLE 541.

51 Sisani 2008, p. 112-113.

52 Bradley 2000, p. 205-214; Benelli 2001, p. 8-9; Sisani 2008, p. 103-104.

53 E.g. ST Um 37. See Harris 1971, p. 169-187; Coarelli 1996, p. 249; Nonnis – Sisani 2012, p. 56-60.

54 Salmon 1982, p. 21; Keaveney 1987, p. 23. For language change see Langslow 2012; for the Vestini see Dupraz 2007.

55 Porzio Gernia 1970, p. 98-100. In tabula Bantina l. 2, q appears as an abbreviation of quaestor, showing that even the Latin habit of abbreviating terms was adopted. Another inscription from Bantia records a tr(ibunus) pl(ebis) (Torelli 1995, p. 133). A keenzstur at Pietrabbondante appears in Imag. Ital. TERVENTUM 8 = ST Sa 4; a Marsian cetur in Imag. Ital. ANTINUM 1 = ST VM 3. There are a senate, praetors, aediles, and quaestors at Falerii (CIE 8036-41), aediles and quaestors at Pompeii (Imag. Ital. POMPEI 8-9, 13, 24 = ST Po 1, 3, 5-6), a senate, quaestors, and legates at Abella (Imag. Ital. ABELLA 1 = ST Cm 1), quaestors, a censor and a senate at Rossano di Vaglio (Imag. Ital. POTENTIA 1, 3, 9-10 = ST Lu 5-8, 10), aediles in Alfedena (Imag. Ital. ATINA 1 = ST Sa 14), and quaestors in the Frentani area (Imag. Ital. HISTONIUM 1 = ST Fr 1). In the tabulae Iguvinae a kvestur appears (TI Va l. 23, Vb l. 2), but only with cultic functions.

56 Adams 2003, p. 115.

57 Crawford – Coleman 1996, p. 274-276; see Bispham 2007, p. 142-151; Wallace-Hadrill 2008, p. 94-95.

58 Bradley 2000, p. 206; Bispham 2007, p. 145.

59 Campanile – Letta 1979, p. 38; Dench 1995, p. 159.

60 Imag. Ital. TERVENTUM 8 = ST Sa 4.

61 E.g. Imag. Ital. ATINA LUCANA 1 = ST Lu 2 refers to a building set up [sena]teis tanginod (de senatus sententia). This is a sign of “romanizzazione delle istituzioni amministrative” (Fraschetti 1981, p. 205), but does not mean that ‘Romanization’ in any other sense took place.

62 Brunt 1965, p. 100; Campanile – Letta 1979, p. 41.

63 Salmon 1967, p. 88; Mouritsen 1998, p. 77.

64 Liv., 23, 35, 13 ; 24, 19, 2 ; 26, 6, 13; TB l.12; Imag. Ital. BOVIANUM 20 = ST Sa 19; Imag. Ital. NOLA 2 = ST Cm 7.

65 Imag. Ital. VELITRAE 1 = ST VM 2.

66 Cic., Fam., 15, 15, 1. See Campanile – Letta 1979, p. 42; on the municipalization of Italy see Bispham 2007.

67 D.H., 8, 11, 1; 8, 13, 1; Liv., 8, 3, 9.

68 Imag. Ital. TEANUM SIDICINUM 2 (= ST Si 3); TREBULA BALLIENSIS 1; HISTONIUM 4.

69 Bourdin 2012, p. 550-551.

70 Cornell 2004; Dench 1995, p. 202-212; Isayev 2017, p. 89-92.

71 Stek 2013, p. 348-350.

72 Plb. 1, 6, 6. See Serv., Aen., 9, 52. See Bispham 2007, p. 55.

73 Plb. 1, 10-11. In 3, 26, 3 he mentions a treaty between Rome and Carthage dating to the First Punic War, as reported by Philinus (FrGH 174 F1), in which the Carthaginians were obliged to stay out of “the whole of Italy”. See App., Hann., 7, 59; Liv., 23, 33, 4; 27, 51, 13; 30, 20. Whether the Carthaginian threat was actually real at this time is questionable; perhaps this episode reflects Roman propaganda more than the actual threat posed by Carthage.

74 Val. Max. 2, 7, 4; see D.C., fr. 43, 1-4; Zon. 8, 8-1: ‘a nation of kindred blood’ with the Romans.

75 Göhler 1939, p. 32.

76 Plb., 2, 23, 12. See Harris 1971, p. 130-131.

77 Keaveney 1987, p. 28.

78 Roselaar 2019, p. 174-180.

79 App., Mith., 23. See Keaveney 1987, p. 9; Isayev 2017, p. 49-56. On the other hand, Hannibal clearly distinguished between Italians and Romans, as he freed Italian prisoners of war in order to gain their allegiance, but did not free the Romans, see Plb., 3, 77, 3-7, 3, 85.

80 Morel 1988, p. 57-58; see David 1994.

81 Roselaar 2019, p. 15-16.

82 Roth 2012.

83 Hingley 2005, p. 111.

84 Hingley 2005, p. 99. See Wallace-Hadrill 2008, p. 10; Versluys 2013, p. 429.

85 Fronda 2010.

86 See Roselaar 2019, p. 237-252.

Haut de page

Pour citer cet article

Référence papier

Saskia T. Roselaar, « Concluding thoughts », Mélanges de l'École française de Rome - Antiquité, 133-2 | 2021, 381-394.

Référence électronique

Saskia T. Roselaar, « Concluding thoughts », Mélanges de l'École française de Rome - Antiquité [En ligne], 133-2 | 2021, mis en ligne le 31 décembre 2021, consulté le 25 mai 2022. URL : http://journals.openedition.org/mefra/12224 ; DOI : https://doi.org/10.4000/mefra.12224

Haut de page

Auteur

Saskia T. Roselaar

saskiaroselaar@gmail.com

Articles du même auteur

Haut de page

Droits d’auteur

© École française de Rome

Haut de page
  • Logo École française de Rome
  • OpenEdition Journals
Rechercher dans OpenEdition Search

Vous allez être redirigé vers OpenEdition Search