Colonies and Processes of Integration in The Roman Republic

01.05.
2021 Colon es and processes of ntegrat on n the Roman Republ c
Mélanges de l'École
française de Rome -
Antiquité
123-2 | 2011 :
Regards croisés - Mélanges
Mélanges
Colonies and processes of

integration in the Roman
Republic
Colonies et processus d’intégration dans la République romaine
S R
p. 527-555
https://doi.org/10.4000/mefra.445
Résumés
English Français
This article aims to examine the evidence for the various roles that Latin and Roman colonies
played in the integration of Italian allies into the Roman state. It discusses the evidence for the
legal status of Italian settlers in colonies and argues that Italian allies were not normally admitted
as official settlers, but often lived in nearby colonies or moved into them after the foundation.
This happened especially in colonies which developed into important commercial centres. Thus
there were various possibilities for contact between colonists and Italians, e.g. trade, marriage,
religious festivals, and political participation. This has important consequences for our image of
the process of the ‘Romanization’ of Italy. Whereas the traditional model, emphasizing spatial
separation between colonists and Italians, is inadequate to explain cultural and linguistic change
in Italy, a model which supposes more widespread contacts between Romans and Italians would
beCebetter
sitesuitable
utilisetodesexplain in which
cookies contexts these
et collecte two groups came personnelles
des informations into contact withvous
each concernant.
other.
Pour plus de précisions, nous vous invitons à consulter notre politique de confidentialité
L’auteur examine les multiples aspects que revêtirent les colonies latines et romaines dans le
(mise
processus d’intégration des alliés italiens à jour
dans l’État le 25Iljuin
romain. étudie2018).
ainsi les caractéristiques du
statut légalEn
despoursuivant
immigrants, en votre navigation,
remarquant vous acceptez
qu’ils n’appartenaient l'utilisation
habituellement pas audes cookies.
groupe
des colons « officiels »; ils s’installaient dans le voisinage d’une colonie ou éventuellement dedans
mais après sa fondation. C’est particulièrement vrai pour celles qui devinrent des centres
importants de commerce. Les opérations commerciales, les mariages, les fêtes religieuses ou des
Fermer
événements politiques constituaient alors autant d’occasions de rencontres, aspect non
négligeable pour notre compréhension du processus de romanisation de l’Italie. Le modèle
https://journals.opened t on.org/mefra/445#text 1/33
01.05.2021 Colon es and processes of ntegrat on n the Roman Republ c
traditionnel de séparation physique entre colons et Italiens n’explique manifestement pas le
changement culturel et linguistique de l’Italie sous la République. Concevoir un environnement
où Romains et Italiens sont plus étroitement en contact nous permettrait assurément mieux
d’expliquer les relations entre ces deux groupes.
Texte intégral
1
Introduction
1 It has long been recognized that colonies founded by the Romans, especially those
with Latin status, played an essential role in the Romanization of Italy under the
Republic. Such colonies are envisaged as outposts located in enemy territory,
surrounded by a mostly hostile local population. The presence of a large group of
settlers representing ‘Roman culture’ is often assumed to have had profound influences
on the area surrounding their settlement. The argument often presented is that the
colonies showed the local inhabitants a more ‘civilized’ way of life, and that this would
have caused the locals to ‘selfRomanize’.2Torelli, for example, states that «Latin
colonies very soon became a vehicle of strong Romanization, establishing in these zones
[...] a socio-economic model. [...] The superiority of the model [...] rendered easy and
consequential the exportation of cultural forms».3
2 On the other hand, many scholars assume that local inhabitants were usually
expelled from their territory, which was then assigned to the colonists.4 This is often
presented as standard practice for all colonies. However, if this had been the case, it
seems unlikely that they would have had much reason for frequent contacts with the
Roman settlers in the colony. This obviously raises the question as to how the colonies
fulfilled their Romanizing role. If there was not much contact between Romans and
local inhabitants, then Romanization would have been slow, both because of the limited
contact between these two groups, and because expulsion would cause resentment
among the local population, limiting the possibilities for self-Romanization. However,
for many colonies there is archaeological evidence that non-Romans were living in the
colonial city or the surrounding territory. If local inhabitants of the colonized area were
not expelled, but were allowed to remain on the land, this would have presented a
clearer explanation for the influence that was exerted by colonies. If non-Romans
maintained daily contact with the Roman settlers in the colony, this would obviously
mean that they experienced stronger influences than if they were expelled to marginal
territory. Furthermore, if relations between Romans and local inhabitants were
friendly, there would have been more reasons to take over elements of «Roman»
culture, leading to self-Romanization.
3 In this article I aim to examine the evidence for the various roles that colonies could
play in the integration of Italian allies into the Roman state, focusing on the presence of
Italian allies in Latin and Roman colonies. Many scholars have argued that Italians
were often present in colonies, but they usually maintain this position exclusively on
the basis of literary evidence (see below, sec. 2). I aim to integrate archaeological,
epigraphic, and onomastic evidence into this debate, in order to see whether this can be
used to strengthen the argument. I will also discuss evidence for the nature of contact
between colonists and Italians, for example trade, marriage, political participation, etc.,
that occurred in a colonial setting. This will show more clearly than previous
scholarship what role the colonies could have played in the integration between
Ce siteand
Romans utilise
their des cookies
Italian allies. et collecte des informations personnelles vous concernant.
(mise à jour le 25 juin 2018).
The legal status of non-roman
En poursuivant votre navigation, vous acceptez l'utilisation des cookies.
inhabitants in colonies
Fermer

4 Before investigating the Romanizing effect of colonies settled by the Romans, we

must consider the legal status of the settlers in such towns. If Italian allies could
become official colonists at the time of the colony’s foundation, then their legal position
would have been very different from a situation in which they were only inhabitants of
the colonies without official political rights.
5 In Latin colonies the settlers received Latin rights. This would mean that they were
not officially Roman citizens, but they are assumed to have profited from certain
privileges in their dealings with Roman citizens, such as commerciu5, conubium, and
(very limited) voting rights. Roman citizens moving to such colonies as official colonists
would lose their Roman citizenship and instead receive Latin rights. People who already
had Latin right, for example because they were from communities in Latium which
possessed this right before 338, or had earlier become settlers in a Latin colony, would
not lose their Latin status if moving to a(nother) Latin colony. Therefore it is usually
assumed that settlers in Latin colonies were both Romans and Latins.6 It is argued that
the sheer number of settlers in Latin colonies – 70,000 male settlers between 338 and
263 – would have been too much for the Roman state to supply; if so many people
emigrated from Rome, the population would have had to be replenished from elsewhere
or have declined. Since there is no evidence for such a decline or a sufficient level of
immigration, non-Romans must have constituted a considerable percentage of settlers.7
6 It is likely that the settlers in Latin colonies were veterans, since these colonies were
often located in areas close to enemy territory, and had the express aim of securing
recent Roman conquests. The veterans were therefore rewarded with a part of the
booty, namely the land conquered during wars. It has been argued that the admittance
of Latins into colonies resulted from the Foedus Cassianum of 493, which granted the
Latins equal parts of any booty that was taken in wars fought together with the
Romans; if booty consisted of land, then the foundation of colonies would be a sensible
way of giving both Romans and Latins a share in this.8 Furthermore, the fact that
moving to a Latin colony would not mean a change in status, and that the number of
colonists was too large to be provided by Romans alone, makes it likely – although this
idea is not supported by any definitive evidence – that Latins were included in Latin
colonies.
7 Just as in the case of Latins, for Italian allies there is no conclusive evidence that they
were included in colonies before the Second Punic War. In colonies founded before 338
non-Romans were often included, for example at Antium in 467, where some of the
local Volsci were admitted: «Volscian colonists were added to fill out the requisite
number.»9 In the colony of Ardea in 442 «none [of the land] would be assigned to any
Roman until all the Rutulian (Ardeatine) applicants had been given their plots».10 Some
scholars assume that Italians, like Latins, could become official colonists in Latin
colonies throughout the Republican period, as a result of treaties which were concluded
with them and allowed them a share in collective booty.11 However, we do not know the
contents of such treaties; only for the Hernici the fact they were included in the Foedus
Cassianum in 486 may support the idea that they were granted a share in collective
booty.
8 However, the nature of the early colonies was fundamentally different from that of
the post-338 colonies, so they cannot be used to explain the later situation.12 If an
Italian settled in a Latin colony, he would receive Latin rights, but at this time the
Romans were reluctant to share such privileges with others.13 Furthermore, Erdkamp
shows that only from the late 3rd century, not earlier, the obligations of the allies laid
down in the formula togatorum, and that only this gave them some right to a share of
the spoils, including participation in colonies. He assumes that some allies were
Ce site utilise des cookies et collecte des informations personnelles vous concernant.
included in the colonies of Placentia and Cremona in 218, since these towns had a very
Pour plus
large de précisions,
number of settlers, nous
12,000vous invitons
in total. If alliesà had
consulter notre
not been politique
included, Romansde
andconfidentialité
Latins alone would not have been(mise able toà furnish
jour leso 25many
juin people.
2018). I think that it is
14
thereforeEn more
poursuivant votre navigation, vous acceptez3l'utilisation
likely that allies were included only the late rd century onwards,
des cookies.
although, again, there is no explicit evidence.
9 The only literary evidence we have for the official inclusion of allies in colonies dates
from the period shortly after the Second Punic Fermer
War. Some evidence suggests that the
Roman state was more relaxed in its attitude towards recruiting new colonists in this
period. In 197 Cosa was permitted by the Roman state to recruit new colonists, and «the
enrolment of a thousand was authorized, with the condition that none be included who
had been an enemy of Rome in the period following the consulship of P. Cornelius and
Tiberius Sempronius [218 BC]».15 It follows that not only Romans, but Latins and even
allies were now acceptable as colonists.16
10 In the case of colonia civium Romanorum, the settlers remained Roman citizens.
This makes it unlikely that Latins or allies were included in such colonies, because this
would mean that they would receive a grant of Roman citizenship, and in general the
Roman state was very reluctant to grant this right to its allies. In 197 an incident
occurred with some colonists for the new Roman colonies:
The people of Ferentinum attempted to secure a new legal prerogative: the

awarding of Roman citizenship to Latins who had merely submitted their names
for membership in a Roman colony. Those who had submitted their names for
Puteoli, Salernum, and Buxentum were enrolled as colonists, and because of this
they comported themselves as Roman citizens. The Senate adjudged that they
were not Roman citizens.17
11 Some scholars use this passage as proof that Latins and allies did not receive
citizenship in Roman colonies at all,18 while think that the Ferentinates (who were
allies) would have been admitted to citizenship once they had been counted in the next
census.19 However, the situation in 197 was not normal; we have seen that in the same
year Italian allies were also admitted into the colony at Cosa. It may be that in this
period, shortly after the Second Punic War, and with a large number of colonies to be
settled or reinforced, the Roman state was unable to supply sufficient Roman citizens to
settle in Roman and Latin colonies, and that therefore people who were not normally
eligible were now admitted.20 As a rule, however, settlers in Roman colonies were only
Roman citizens.
12 From this it is clear that there is not much evidence, literary or otherwise, for the
admission of Latins and allies in colonies as official settlers. However, even if non-Latin
allies were not usually admitted as official colonists, either in Latin or Roman colonies,
this does not mean that they could not have lived in colonial cities or the territory under
their control. A very likely scenario would have been to allow former inhabitants to
remain in the town which had been turned into a colony, without granting them the
same rights that the Roman colonists received. These people were then known as
incolae. This term was also used for people who simply moved to a colony and took up
residence there, which seems to have been a common occurrence (see below).21 Under
the Empire local inhabitants often formed a separate community next to a colony that
possessed Latin or Roman citizenship. In this case the colonists and the original
inhabitants lived alongside each other, in separate communities in the same territory or
even in the same towns, each with their own rights. For example, in Augusta Praetoria
(Aosta), founded in 25 BC, an inscription records the Salassi incol(ae) qui initio se in
colon(ia) con[t](ulerunt), the «Salassan incolae who had moved into the colony at the
beginning»22
13 Furthermore, there is evidence that Italians migrated into Latin colonies and that
there were no restrictions on such migrations: In 199 «delegates also came from Narnia
who stated that their colony was short of its proper number and that some of inferior
status had found their way amongst them, and were giving themselves out to be
colonists».23 These people were clearly not original settlers, but had moved into the
town after its foundation. The protests of the official colonists seem to have been aimed
especially at those who pretended to be colonists, thus blurring the difference between
Ce site
Latin and utilise
non-Latindes cookies et
inhabitants collecte
of the desfact
city; the informations personnelles
that people had moved in wasvous
not a concernant.
problem
Pour plus deperprécisions,
se. In 177 «the Samnites
nous vous and Paeligni
invitons stated that notre
à consulter 4,000 families had gone
politique de confidentialité
from them to Fregellae».24 There is no reference to any action from the Roman state to
limit this type of migration; Rome could only take formal action against its own
citizens.25En poursuivant
This would mean votre navigation,
that allies were free tovous
takeacceptez l'utilisation
up residence anywhere indes cookies.
Italy,
including in colonies. 26
14 The scholarly discussion, however, has until now only taken into account literary
Fermer
evidence, combined with hypotheses based on our knowledge about the military role of

the allies in the Roman Republican army, to reconstruct the likelihood of the admission
of allies into colonies. Other evidence, such as archaeological and linguistic materials, is
well known, mainly from publications on the history of specific towns, but has not been
brought into the general debate about the presence of non-Romans in colonies. I will
therefore review the archaeological, epigraphic, and onomastic evidence for the
presence of allies in the colonies, to see if they can give the assumptions based on the
literary sources more substance.
Methodological problems
15 It is clear that it is very difficult to even establish whether Latins and allies were
present in colonies, and even harder to identify their legal position. There are several
types of evidence, but each presents us with its own problems.
Literary sources
16 Unfortunately literary sources rarely refer to the inclusion of non-Romans in
colonies, apart from the case of Cosa cited above. Sometimes written sources refer to
the presence of Italians in a colony, as in the case of Narnia and Fregellae; in these two
cases it seems that these people had moved in after the foundation of the colony and
not been present since its foundation. The literary sources thus give us a glimpse of
migration patterns in Republican Italy, but are usually not very helpful in establishing
whether non-Romans were admitted as official settlers into colonies.
17 Some Imperial technical and legal sources, such as the Agrimensores and the Digest,
refer to various legal possibilities of including non-Romans in colonies, either as official
settlers or as incolae or accolae. It is clear that in the imperial period the role of non-
citizens in colonial settlements was more strictly regulated by law than in the Republic,
a development that seems to have set in already with 1st-century BC colonial charters
like the Lex Coloniae Genetivae Iuliae Ursonensis (see below, section 7). However, we
cannot use these later sources directly for the situation in the Republic, since there is no
evidence that the position of incolae was strictly regulated in this period.
Epigraphic evidence
18 There are only a few inscriptions that directly mention the presence of people who
were not colonists in colonial towns; the most famous is an inscription mentioning
Samnites inquolae in Aesernia. However, this dates from the 2nd century BC, so that we
cannot be sure that these people had lived here since the foundation of the colony in
263; in any case, they were not official settlers. Further valuable information can be
gathered from the names of the people living in the colonies that are recorded on
inscriptions. Many apparently non-Roman names appear, which may be traced back to
the non-Latin languages of Italy, such as Oscan, Umbrian, and Etruscan. However, this
evidence presents many problems: firstly, it is often not clear whether these people had
been allowed to remain at the moment of the colony’s foundation, or had moved in at a
later date. In Fabrateria Nova, which included many people from the colony Fregellae,
the presence of the gens Helvia, which is also attested in Oscan inscriptions, is well
attested
Ce siteinutilise
the late Republic
des cookiesand
et Imperial
collecteerades(see below, section
informations 4). It may bevous
personnelles that concernant.
these people were among those who had migrated from the Samnite area before 177, as
reported by Livy, and had remained in the colony. However, some non-Romans may
have been present in the colony from (mise à jour le 25
its foundation. juin 2018).
Furthermore, it is often difficult to
establish En
the poursuivant
exact origins ofvotre
many navigation,
names. Some vous acceptez
are directly l'utilisation
attested des cookies.
in inscriptions in
non-Latin languages, or are mentioned in literary sources as names used by non-
Roman peoples. Others can be pinpointed to an approximate region of origin. In this
Fermer
article I use only those names that are directly attested as present in non-Latin areas by

inscriptions in Italic languages recording them,27 or by literary sources. Others,

however, occur in a much wider region, and cannot be assigned to a specific area of
origin.
19 A further problem with using names as evidence for the composition of the colonist
body is that many inscriptions recording non-Latin names can be dated only to the very
late Republic or Imperial period. By this time the presence of a certain name can hardly
be considered evidence for the period of the foundation of the colony: due to migration,
names with a non-Latin origin had spread throughout Italy, and they are often attested
outside their area of origin. I have therefore tried to focus on inscriptions dated before
the mid-1st century BC. However, the date of many inscriptions is not clear; sometimes
they can only be dated approximately by the shape of the letters or specific aspects of
the grammar or spelling, but this does not allow precise dating.28 Furthermore, when
inscriptions are ascribed to a colonial territory, the exact find spots are not always
known. Even if we know where they were found and when they were set up, it is not
always clear where the colony’s boundaries were located at the moment that the
inscription was set up; it was only in the Augustan period that all communities in Italy
received fixed boundaries.29 So even if we know, for example, that a specific find spot
belonged to the territory of Ariminum in the imperial era, this does not mean that it
had been part of its territory in 268 BC, and therefore we cannot conclude that non-
Romans had been living in the territory at the moment of the foundation. Due to all
these problems, the number of useful inscriptions, which would allow us to say
anything about the inclusion of non-Roman inhabitants at the moment of the
foundation of various colonies is very small.
20 A fundamental problem with using names is connected to the status of the settlers,
discussed above. If Italian allies were admitted as settlers in Latin colonies throughout
the Republic, then the presence of non-Latin names does not necessarily indicate the
survival of the local population, but may also indicate the immigration of Italians from
other areas of Italy; this may have been the case, for example, with Ovius Fregellanus,
who is attested at Ariminum (see below, section 4). In some cases, as we have seen, it is
possible to pinpoint the origins of a particular name to a specific area. If so, then the
presence of such a name in a colony in this area would indicate the presence of actual
local people.
21 In brief, there are five possibilities to explain the presence of non-Roman names in a
colony’s territory: 1) non-Roman allies from other areas were officially included in the
original colonist body; 2) non-Roman allies migrated to the colony after its foundation;
3) non-Roman indigenous inhabitants were allowed to remain in the territory, either as
official colonists or as noncitizen incolae; 4) the colonists who were assigned to the
colony came themselves from non-Latin speaking areas, such as Campania, Etruria,
and Sabinum, and had received Roman citizenship at an earlier date, thus allowing
them to join colonies; 5) the inscriptions in question date from the late Republican or
Imperial era, when many names that originally had a non-Latin origin came to be
adopted all over Italy, and can no longer be associated with a specific area of origin.
Even if, as I have argued, Italian allies were not usually admitted into colonies, the
presence of non-Roman names in the Republic can be used to reconstruct the ethnic
composition of the inhabitants of a colony, as long as we are careful to use only such
names as evidence that can actually be ascribed to non-Roman peoples and the
Republican period.
Toponymic evidence
22PourSome
plus de précisions,
names of townsnous vous invitons
or geographical à consulter
features notre politique
are non-Roman in origin orde
areconfidentialité
(mise ànames,
named after individuals with non-Roman jour le
as25 juincase
in the 2018).
of Ariminum and Luca
(see below). The problems discussed for epigraphic evidence are also valid
En poursuivant votre navigation, vous acceptez l'utilisation des for
cookies.
toponyms: even if a specific location has a non-Roman name, we do not know whether
this is due to the continued presence of local inhabitants in the colony. If they are
named after an individual with a non-Roman Fermer
name, we do not know whether this
person had lived in the colony since its foundation or moved in later. Moreover, the
origin of modern place or field names is not always known, nor whether they have been
handed down continually from antiquity. The name may have changed in the
intervening period and its current name may not be directly related to the pre-Roman
era.
Linguistic evidence
23 Often the presence of non-Roman inhabitants is assumed from the presence of
inscriptions in a non-Roman language. This kind of evidence seems relatively clear: if
there were still speakers of such languages, then it may reasonably be assumed that
non-Roman inhabitants lived here, whether as colonists or incolae. Again, we are faced
with the problem of dating inscriptions; it is not always clear that whether an
inscription should be dated before or after the foundation of a colony. Unfortunately,
there are only a few inscriptions in languages other than Latin that have been found in
colonies, so this body of evidence is limited.
‘Religious’ evidence
24 The presence of non-Roman inhabitants may be deduced from the continued use of
temples dedicated to local gods after the foundation of a colony. For example, the
religious landscape in Paestum did not change very much after the colonial foundation
in 273, and many pre-existing temples remained in use. In many cases, however, the
gods venerated by the indigenous inhabitants were not much different from Roman
gods. There was no strict difference in the gods venerated by the Romans and those
worshipped by the Italian population; the cultures of the Italian peoples and of Rome
itself were influenced by Greek religion, and many Greek gods were popular throughout
Italy, for example Hercules. This god enjoyed particular popularity among the non-
Roman peoples of Italy,30but this does not mean that his presence is automatically
evidence of non-Roman presence. Romans venerated him as well, and therefore Roman
colonists may have taken over pre-existing temples dedicated to Hercules or other gods.
Of course, each people also had local gods who did not enjoy popularity in a wider area,
for example Mefitis in Lucania, and continuity in their cult may indicate the continued
presence of local inhabitants or the migration to colonies of non-Roman people. When
such gods appear outside of their normal area of popularity, as in the case of a
dedication to Mefitis in Cremona (see below), this constitutes important evidence for
migration.
Cultural evidence
25 Archaeological artefacts may show continuity of non-Roman cultural preferences,
which may indicate the presence of non-Roman inhabitants. What I have said above for
religious evidence may also apply to cultural manifestations; it is difficult to draw a
strict line between ‘Roman’ and ‘Italian’ culture. ‘Roman’ and Italian culture alike were
strongly influenced by Greek elements, so that changes in cultural manifestations
occurring in the period of increased Roman dominance may not always be due to
Roman influence, but may be due to contacts with Greeks in southern Italy (see below
for the case of votive statuettes). The appearance of coined money in Samnium, for
example, occurred in the 3rd century, and is sometimes ascribed to the influence of the
Pour plus de
colonies précisions,
settled nous
in the area. vous invitons
31 However, à consulter
already in notre
the 4th century politique
money de confidentialité
from Magna
Graecia and Campania circulated (mise à jour The
in Samnium. le 25 juin
first 2018).coins show various
Samnite
designs, influenced not only by Rome, but also by Campanian and southern des
En poursuivant votre navigation, vous acceptez l'utilisation Italian
cookies.
coinage.32 Therefore it would be unwise to ascribe the first Samnite coinage to direct
influence from Latin colonies.
26 However, Rome did spread through Italy a Fermer
kind of Hellenistic cultural koine, which
was closely related to cultural preferences already present throughout Italy. With the
growing influence of Rome throughout Italy, locally specific cultural manifestation

became less marked, and the cultures of regions in the whole of Italy became more
uniform. Thus changes in cultural manifestations, such as pottery and jewellery, but
also burial practices and the use and design of money, may show the growing influence
of Rome, transmitted through the colonies.33 However, the cultural koine that resulted
from the growing influence of Rome appeared in many areas of Italy only in the 2nd
century BC. In many colonies buildings in typical Hellenistic-Roman style do not
appear immediately after the foundation, but only in the 2nd or early 1st century. This is
also the case with buildings outside of colonize areas, e.g. the monumental rural
sanctuary at Pietrabbondante. Since there does not seem to be much difference between
developments inside and out of colonies, the role of the colonies, therefore, seems to
have been marginal in causing such cultural changes, at least immediately after their
foundation.
Archaeological and geographical evidence

27 The function of colonies as locations for integration is closely connected to the
reconstruction of the colonial landscape. The traditional picture assumes that colonists
and indigenous inhabitants were separated from each other, and therefore could not
have interacted on a daily basis. In some, such as Cosa (see below, section 4), there
indeed seems to have been a spatial separation between colonists and local inhabitants,
but this was not the same in all cases. However, we do not know much about the
settlement pattern in most colonies. It has long been recognized that most colonies
were too small to contain the thousands of colonists sent there according to the literary
sources. It has therefore usually been assumed that the colonists lived in isolated farms
throughout the colonial territory, each tending their own plot of land.
28 However, recent archaeological research has shown that the settlement pattern in
many colonies seems to have been in villages, rather than in isolated farms.34 Pre-
existing villages of local inhabitants that were now located in the colony’s territory may
have continued after the foundation and may have contained both colonists and local
inhabitants (see below on Alba Fucens and Luca). Because not many colonial territories
have been surveyed thoroughly, it is hard to find sufficient evidence for the settlement
patterns in colonies. Ancient centuriation grids may be of use in this case: if we can
reconstruct the extent of the colony’s territory, we may get a clearer view of which areas
were included and which excluded. In some cases, such as Cosa and Ariminum (see
below), there is material evidence, such as grave goods, that suggests that local
inhabitants remained at the edge of the colony’s territory, whereas the colonists took
over the land closest to the town. The few cases where we have evidence suggest that
the settlement pattern was much more complex than is often thought, and that it
offered possibilities for colonists and local inhabitants to live in close proximity.
29 All in all, the evidences of a varying quality and quantity, but a combination of
evidence of various types may offer a reliable indication for the presence of Italians in
the territory of Latin and Roman colonies. Most reliable are literary, epigraphic, and
linguistic evidence, but such direct attestations of non-Roman presence are rare.
Onomastic evidence is useful but should be treated with much care; other types of
evidence should also be carefully analyzed to ascertain its value in each case. It is
therefore necessary to assemble as many different types of evidence as possible, so that
they can reinforce each other.
Latin colonies (mise à jour le 25 juin 2018).
30 En discuss
I will now poursuivant votre
evidence navigation,
for the presence of vous acceptez
Italians l'utilisation
in a number des cookies.
of Latin colonies
founded between 338 and 91 BC. Since the quantity and nature of the evidence varies
widely across different colonies, I will discuss only those that have a relatively large
body of material available.
Fermer

31 The first Latin colony founded after 338 was Cales in 334. The impact of Cales on the
surrounding allied towns seems to have been small; for example, there is only limited
evidence for exchange between Cales and the nearby allied town of Teanum Sidicinum.
The largest cultural influence in Teanum came not from Cales, but from Greek and
Samnite areas.35 The nature of the so-called calenus-pottery produced from the 4th to
2nd century is debated. It cannot be ascertained that all items of pottery in the calenus-
style were actually produced in Cales, although this is usually assumed. Most scholars
argue that the calenus was Roman in style,36 although it also shows Etruscan elements,
which may indicate that the town contained Etruscans who had already been living in
Campania; it also shows parallels with Black Gloss pottery from Teanum.37 Although
trade between Cales and Teanum occurred in many items, Teanum continued to use the
Oscan language until the Social War, and pottery from Cales was in the minority here
compared to items from Magna Graecia and Greece. The influence of Cales on the
surrounding areas was therefore rather small.38
32 Some of the praenomina appearing as makers’ marks on calenus-pottery are Roman,
such as Kaeso,39 while others are non-Roman, e.g. Numerius. Some of the letter forms
and punctuation marks used on the inscriptions are similar to those used in Oscan.40
Several gentilicia appearing in the colony may also have been of non-Roman origin,
such as Aufellius, Trebellius, and Paconius, the latter appearing on calenus pottery.41
Thus, there seem to have been some people of Oscan descent in the colony shortly after
its foundation; however, we have no way of knowing whether they were included as
official colonists.
33 Fregellae was founded in 328. As already mentioned, the survival of non-Roman
families is attested by the fact that after the destruction of the city in 125 a number of
Sabellian gentilicia, such as Helvius and Paccius, are recorded in Fabrateria Nova. This
has sometimes been presented as evidence for the degree of ‘Oscanization’ of Fregellae,
and considered an explanation for the rebellion of 12542 1st-century BC inscriptions still
show more Oscan than Latin names, such as Aufidius, Ovius, Paccius, Salvius, and
Vibius.43
34 It is by no means clear that all these people had been present in the colony since its
foundation. We have already seen that many Samnites and Paeligni migrated to
Fregellae, as recorded by Livy. It may be that many of the Oscan inhabitants attested in
Fregellae had migrated into the colony at a later date, and had not lived there since the
foundation. Coarelli assumes that the centuriation of the colony was 2nd.extended early
in the century BC to accommodate these immigrants.44 Nevertheless, the evidence
shows that Samnite presence in the colony was significant, at least in the 2nd century.
35 In Luceria, founded in 314, the temple of Athena Ilias plays an important role in the
argument for non-Roman presence. It was assumed usually that most inhabitants of the
colony were Latins, because the votive deposit of Belvedere found in this temple was
typical of Etrusco-Latin and Campanian culture. It is composed of veiled heads and
anatomical parts, and it is often maintained that such finds do not occur elsewhere in
southern Daunia and Samnium. This would show that this style of votive was spread
through Italy mostly through the medium of colonies, which influenced the
surrounding areas.45 It is also argued that the votive deposit at Belvedere shows
important common characteristics with that found at the indigenous town of Teanum
Apulum, and this would indicate considerable influence from the colony on its
surroundings.46
36 However, recent scholarship has shown that the supposedly ‘Latin’ style of votive,
though it may have originated in southern Etruria and spread from there to Rome and
Latium, was not spread further through Italy by colonies only. Such votives already
appear in many parts of Italy in the 4th century BC, before much Roman influence could
Pour
haveplus de précisions,
occurred. nous
The presence vousvotives
of such invitons à consulter
at Teanum, notredoes
therefore, politique debeconfidentialité
not have to
(mise
attributed to the influence of Luceria, but àmay
jour le 25
have juin
been 2018).
independently transmitted.47
Furthermore, the Belvedere votre
En poursuivant depositnavigation,
shows Greek vous
elements, such asl'utilisation
acceptez statuettes of draped
des cookies.
females, which are not commonly found in Roman contexts. It also contains many
statuettes of horses, which were important in the economy and the foundation legends
of the Apulian region; in Roman contexts horses Fermer are rare. Some votives have Greek
letters on them, showing they were made by Greek-speaking artisans.48 Thus, the
temple of Athena, which had already been important before 314, may have remained in
use by local inhabitants even after the foundation of the colony.
37 The onomastic evidence is scarce; the Oscan names Magius and Minatius are
attested.49 N(umerius) Granonius N(umerii) f(ilius) [...] domo Luceria IIIIvir is
mentioned at Athens. Apparently this man, with an Oscan praenomen, was magistrate
at Luceria.50 Therefore, some non-Roman people were clearly present in Luceria,
although their number cannot be determined.
38 For Alba Fucens, founded in 303, it has been suggested that the size of the town was
quite large for a colony, since the area within the walls measured 34 hectares. This
might have allowed some room for others than colonists.51 On the other hand, we have
already seen that not all colonists need to have lived in the town itself, but could have
settled on the territory. The temple of Hercules, who was popular throughout Italy,52 is
thought to have fulfilled a role in the integration between colonists and allies: Alba was
an important centre for transhumant sheep rearing, with a tratturo passing through the
town and a cattle market in the centre. This type of animal husbandry was important
for the people in the Apennines surrounding the colony, and Hercules was a god closely
connected to transhumance.
39 Thus the presence of his temple in Alba may have favoured the economic integration
of the Latin colonists and the surrounding peoples.53 However, not all people who used
the Hercules temple necessarily lived in the colony. Alba was certainly an important
market town and attracted many people for economic reasons, which in turn
contributed to the process of integration, but this does not mean that they all lived in
the town, let alone that they were official colonists. Some non-Roman names are known
from the Republican period, namely Atiedius, Herennius, Ovius, Papius, Tettienus, and
Vibius,54but these people may have been later immigrants instead of original colonists.
40 Some interesting evidence exists for the layout of the colonial landscape of Alba.
Several inscriptions from the late 3rd and early 2nd centuries BC record the existence of
vici on the southern shore of the Lacus Fucinus, in the area of the Marsi.55 These
inscriptions record magistrates, namely duumviri and queistores. Some scholars argue
that these vici were settlements of local inhabitants, and that the quaestors were local
magistrates, who had taken Roman titles because of the influence of the Roman colony
nearby.56 Others have suggested that the vici were new settlements, intended to
accommodate Roman settlers, but that they also contained local inhabitants. It may
have been the case that the quaestors were magistrates of the colony Alba, and
therefore that the vici were located inside the colony’s territory.57 If this was the case,
then colonists may have lived in these villages as well, and integration must therefore
not only have taken place in the colonial town itself, but also in the territory. Although
the vici are located outside of the centuriated area, this would suggest that the colony’s
territory extended beyond the centuriation.
41 The late-3rd century dedication to Apollo, a god who also had a temple in Alba, is the
first that we have for the Marsic area,58 and there also appear dedications to Valetudo
and Victoria, gods which are assumed to have been spread from Rome.59 Some of the
names on the inscriptions are similar to those that appear in the town of Alba itself.60
Some names on these inscriptions are considered to have been Marsic, or at least not
Latin, especially the praenomina Paccius, Petro, Salvius, Statius, and Vibius, and the
gentilicia Anaiedios, Magius, Staiedius, and Vettius.61 The name Magius is especially
interesting, since this is thought to have a Campanian origin.62 Was this Magius a man
from Campania who had received Roman citizenship and had afterwards become an
official colonist in Alba?63 There is no evidence to support this idea, but it shows that
the onomastic evidence is more complicated than is sometimes assumed. It also shows
that the colony did have some influence over the surrounding area, whether this was
Pour
partplus decolony’s
of the précisions, nous
territory vouseither
or not; invitons à consulter
the non-Roman notre politique
inhabitants deinconfidentialité
actually lived
the colony’s territory, or the local (mise à jour leadopted
magistrates 25 juinLatin
2018). titles for their own
magistrates. Further research into the colonial territory may clarify
En poursuivant votre navigation, vous acceptez l'utilisation this problem.desIn any
cookies.
case, Alba seems to have attracted many people because of its important economic
functions, including non-Roman citizens.
42 The role of non-Roman inhabitants in Venusia, Fermer
founded in 291, has been the subject
of discussion for a long time. Problems are created by the statement in Dionysius of
Halikarnassus: «20,000 colonists were sent out to one of the cities captured, the one
called Venusia».64 Since this number is too large to have been furnished by Roman
settlers alone, it is often thought that local inhabitants also were admitted in the colony
as official colonists. This would furthermore be supported by the fact that many sites in
the territory disappeared after the foundation, which may point to a change of
settlement from the countryside to the city itself, even if not all colonists lived inside the
city.65
43 Venusia was also, notoriously, the only Latin colony to defect from the Romans in the
Social War. This has been seen as evidence for the fact that either many non-Romans
had been living in the colony from its foundation, or were included in the second
settlement of the colony in 200;66 alternatively, it may be the case that many Italians
had migrated into the colony over time.67 However, there is not a great deal of actual
evidence for the presence of non-Roman inhabitants. After the Social War some
inscriptions show Sabellian or Messapian names in the local elite, such as Crepereius,
Herennius, Ovius, and Statius Raius,68 but in the period before 91 BC there is hardly
any evidence for their presence.
44 A relatively well researched colony is Cosa, founded in 273. Archaeological evidence
suggests that a number of radical changes took place immediately after the conquest
and the foundation of the colony. Most of these point at an active attempt by the
Romans to exclude local inhabitants from the colony, making it likely that in this case
the traditional image of a Latin colony – with expulsion of local population to marginal
areas – is accurate to some degree. The local inhabitants seem to have moved, on their
own accord or by order of the Romans, to marginal areas. This is attested by the fact
that some settlements located mainly to the north and east of the centuriated territory,
e.g. Telamon, Ghiaccioforte, and Poggio Semproniano, remained in use and even
became larger, while new settlements emerged in these areas as well (fig. 1).69
45 The centuriation around Cosa stops on the left bank of the Albegna, suggesting that
colonists were not settled on the other side of the river.70 The Etruscan site of Doganella
was destroyed in the early 3rd century, probably during the conquest by Rome;
however, a new village appeared on the site of the future colony Heba further north,
and this may have been founded by people driven out of Doganella and the colonial
territory of Cosa.71 It seems therefore as if these areas on the margins of the colony’s
territory were settled by local people driven out of the territory that was to be used for
the colony.
Fermer

Fig. 1 – The territory of Cosa. Areas to the north and west of the centuriated area show ‘continuità insediativa’
of local inhabitants (from A. Carandini and F. Cambi (eds.), Paesaggi d’Etruria. Valle dell’Albegna, Valle
d’Oro, Valle del Chiarone, Valle del Tafone, Rome, 2002).
46 In the 2nd century the Etruscan presence was still strong in the areas mentioned
above: in Telamon the only language used in inscriptions until the 1st century BC was
Etruscan, and some temple decorations remained Etruscan in style.72 Other decorations
are more Roman in style, but their subject matter, namely the gods Hercules and
Minerva, were popular in the pre-Roman period as well, so they could have appealed to
both old inhabitants and colonists.73 On the other hand, the sanctuary in Telamon
shows a significant decline of rich deposits after the early 3rd century, which would
indicate that the local elite had suffered from the conquest.74 In the sanctuary at
Ghiaccioforte Etruscan-style votive gifts, often consisting of bronze figurines, do not
appear after c. 280, even though this area was apparently still settled by locals. This
may show, again, that the local population had suffered economic setbacks as a result of
their conquest by the Romans.75
47 The evidence for non-Romans in the town of Cosa itself is slim. The colony’s name
was derived from the Etruscan settlement Cusa, which may point at some local
influence.76 Bispham argues that the town’s temple decorations from the 3rd century
are similar to those found at nearby Etruscan sanctuaries. The gods venerated were
Minerva and Hercules, who were popular throughout Italy, while the Capitoline Triad
appeared only later in Cosa.77 (mise à jour le 25 juin 2018).
48 All thisEn poursuivant
points at a spatial votre navigation,
separation vousinhabitants
between local acceptez andl'utilisation des
colonists in cookies.
Cosa.
Whether any contacts between them occurred is unclear; some scholars suggest that the
colonists, especially those of the higher classes, used locals as labourers on their estates,
and that locals therefore must have lived close Fermer
to the colonists’ estates, or that local

labourers were used in building the colony’s city walls.78 However, there is no clear
evidence that the colonists of Cosa consisted of more than one class – this practice has
been attested only for the period after the Second Punic War,79 although it is likely that
it occurred also in earlier periods. If there was an upper class in the colonist population,
their number would have been limited and they cannot have provided work for a large
number of labourers.
49 Paestum was founded in the same year as Cosa, but developments here were very
different. Contrary to the situation in Cosa, the presence of non-Roman inhabitants in
Paestum seems to have been great. The city had been founded as a Greek colony in the
7th century, and had over time attracted many Italian immigrants. It is sometimes
argued that the city was conquered by the Lucanians around 400 BC, but this ‘conquest’
seems to have been more like a gradual process: Greek continued to be spoken, the
bouleuterion and temples were still in use, and art in Greek style was still produced.80
The Oscan immigrants quickly adapted to Greek culture: their tombs were decorated
with Greek-style paintings, although showing also Oscan subjects; inscriptions in the
Oscan language, but using Greek letters were produced, and Greek cults remained in
use by both Greeks and Oscan immigrants.81 This, unfortunately, makes it hard to
identify Oscan presence, but the fact that many Oscans remained in the territory
becomes clear after the foundation of the Latin colony in 273.
50 In the 3rd century some things changed: the number of sites in countryside declined,
pointing perhaps at new settlement patterns for the indigenous population.82 The
bouleuterion was destroyed, maybe around c. 200 BC.83 The town assumed a layout
more like Rome, with a saepta and diribitorium.84 However, the foundation of the
colony did not mark a total break with the past. In general the colonists seem to have
respected existing cults. The sanctuary of Aphrodite at Sancta Venera was redecorated
in the late 3rd or early 2nd century. Other sanctuaries also remained in use, such as the
temple of Athena on the forum, the temples of Apollo, Asclepius, Hercules, and the
Dioscuri, that of Venus Marina, the Heraion at the mouth of the Sele River, and the
rural sanctuary at Capodifiume.85 Thus, although the Greeks as an ethnic group
disappeared relatively quickly, Greek culture seems to have been respected by both
Oscan and Roman immigrants.86
51 The colony’s coins were still Greek in design, even though they now bore the Latin
legend .87 Names attested in the colony are a mixture of Latin, Oscan, and
Etruscan: Oscan names such as Aufidius, Ceppius, Digitius, Gavius, Granius, Helvius,
Mineius, Plaetorius, Saius, Statius, Suitius, Trebius, and Vibius are mixed with Latin
ones, and Etruscan ones such as Numonius, Galonius, and Lautinius.88 These
Etruscans may have been people whose ancestors had moved to Campania from the 7th
century onwards. Oscan was still spoken after 273: an Oscan inscription in Greek script
records [S]tat[i]s [–– (–)?]es ioufei [– ––]a narei anafed brateis datas («Statis...es to
Jupiter...anar erected [in return] for a favour»).89 This makes it likely that Lucanian
inhabitants of Paestum continued to live in the city; some scholars even assume they
were official settlers,90 although there is no evidence for this.
52 In 268 Ariminum was founded. The position of the local inhabitants, the Gallic
Senones, has been the subject of much debate; according to the sources, they were all
executed or expelled, and this is believed by some scholars.91 However, some
archaeological evidence points to the continued presence of Senones; the necropoleis of
Montefeltro, Montefortino, Cagli, Serra San Quirico, and S. Paolina di Filottrano show
Gallic remains.92 The earliest centuriation, located between the Marecchia and Savio
Rivers, allows room for 6,000 colonists’ plots, which would not leave space for original
inhabitants to remain in the centuriated area.93
53
The famous pocola deorum from the early period are Latial in style, both in the shape
Pour plusvases
of the de précisions, nous vouswhich
and in their decoration, invitons
showsà consulter
similarities notre politique
to the atelier de confidentialité
des petites
94
estampilles in Rome. It would seem (mise à jourthat
therefore le 25 juin 2018).
non-Roman inhabitants were not
importantEn in poursuivant
the town itself. votre
On thenavigation,
other hand, the cult of Hercules, worshippeddes
vous acceptez l'utilisation before
cookies.
95
the foundation of the colony, remained important after 268, as attested by the pocola;
however, this could simply have been taken over by the colonists (see above, section 3).
54 Others argue, on the contrary, that Ariminum Fermer
was a multi-ethnic community, with
Romans and Latins, but also Senones, Etruscans, and Umbrians living together.96 One
indication of this may be the fact that in the earliest centuriation of the colony, located
between the Marecchia and Savio Rivers, local toponyms are still attested, showing
some continuity of the local population.97 The name Ovius, on one of the pocola, is not
Roman. However, he or his ancestors may have been colonists in an earlier Latin
colony, instead of local inhabitants of the area around Ariminum. One of the Ovii, for
example, came from Fregellae, and may have moved from there to Ariminum.98
However, this happened not necessarily in 268, but may also have occurred after the
destruction of Fregellae in 125,99 or at any other time. The evidence for the presence of
non-Roman inhabitants is therefore rare, at least for the colony’s early period.
55 For Aesernia, founded in 263, there is a variety of evidence showing the importance
of non-Roman inhabitants. The name of the colony is derived from the Oscan name,
Aisernio.100 Some non-Romans were clearly present in the colony: an Oscan inscription
reads Stenis Kalaviis G(avieis) / anagtiai diíviiai / dunum deded (Stenius Calavius,
son of Gavius, gave this gift to the goddess Angitia).101 Another 3rd-century inscription
mentions a Decitia, a Samnite name.102 The inscription cited above, recording Samnites
inquolae, dates to the 2nd century BC. The names of the magistrates in the inscription,
Pomponius, Percennius, Satrius, and Marius, are non-Roman.103 It is unclear whether
they were old local inhabitants,104 or that these people had moved into Aesernia only in
the 2nd century.105 Inscriptions from the 1st century BC and imperial era also mention
many non-Roman names, e.g. Herius, Maius, Munatius, Numerius, Paccius, Rahius,
Staius, and Vibius.106 On the one hand, most of the architectural features from the 3rd
century temples show similarities to Latin styles, and there is not much evidence for the
production of art in local styles.107 Therefore we cannot conclude that people of Samnite
descent had been living in the colony in the 3rd century.
56 The colony Brundisium was founded in 246 or 244-3. Some scholars argue that the
delay in founding the colony, which occurred twenty years after the confiscation of the
land, was due to resistance from the local Messapian population, who was still living
here.108 The first regular magistrates of the colony were not elected until 230, another
fourteen or so years after its foundation. It has been suggested that the magistrates who
were in power for the first fourteen years of the colony’s existence were nominated by
the pre-Roman senate, consisting of the same elite which had already been in power
before the foundation of the colony. It may be therefore that the indigenous elite were
accepted into the colony, and that the new senate consisted of a mix of Romans and
locals.109 Certainly the local elite continued to play an important role in the colony. For
example, in the Second Punic War a Roman garrison was commanded by a man named
Dasius from Brundisium.110
57 Of the non-Roman names found in Republican inscriptions, many appear in
Brundisium: Accaeus, Arruntius, Audius, Caesellius, Crepereius, Gavius, Gerillanus,
Granius, Munatius, Novius, Numisius, Pacilius, Plaetorius, Pomponius, Rammius,
Sillius, Statius, Tutorius, Vettius, and Vibius.111Many of these names are not actually
Messapian, but can be traced to Oscanspeaking areas. This may indicate that these
people were not originally from the area, but had migrated to Brundisium, either before
or after the foundation of the colony. Especially considering Brundisium’s role as a
major trade port – especially after the foundation of the colony – immigration must
have been considerable.
58 Furthermore, there was apparently not much Roman influence in culture. There was
no immediate change in burial practices; a tomb containing Messapian-style pottery
was found in Mesagne, in the territory of Brundisium, and dated to more than a
generation after the foundation of the colony; it is very similar to tombs found in the
region, but outside of Brundisium’s territory.112 Coins minted by the colony show a
Tarentine heros, indicating influences from Magna Graecia rather than from Rome.
Pour plus deRome
However, précisions,
did havenous
somevous invitons
influence over àthe
consulter notre
surrounding politique
area: de confidentialité
an inscription,
dating from the 2nd century, reading (miseDiovei
à jourMourc[o]
le 25 juin 2018).was found in the
sacr[um]
Messapian town of Muro Maurizio, which shows that
En poursuivant votre navigation, vous acceptez Latin was l'utilisation
now adopted des
by the
cookies.
113
local population. In general we may conclude that a large number of non-Roman
inhabitants was present in Brundisium; in contrast to most other colonies, furthermore,
the evidence suggests that local elites remained Fermer
important. This may suggest that they
were officially included as colonists at the foundation.
59 Placentia and Cremona were founded in 218 and resettled in 190. In the first years of
the colony there seem to have been problems with locals still remaining in the area
nearby: «Deputations from Placentia and Cremona...came to complain of the invasion
and destroying of their country by their neighbours, the Gauls (ab accolis Gallis).»114
These accolae Galli were clearly not living in the territories of the colonies, but in the
areas surrounding them. Certainly after the refoundation of these colonies in 190, it
seems as if local inhabitants only remained in the marginal areas of the territory. The
Celtic Insubres disappear from the archaeological record after the 3rd century; local
manufacture, which flourished in 2nd century, shows elements characteristic of
Etruscan, Latin, and Campanian art of the 3rd-1st centuries.115
60 However, some evidence shows that non-Roman inhabitants may have played a role
in these two colonies, although they were not necessarily locals. A man with an Oscan
praenomen and gentilicium was N. Magius, a praefectus fabrum in 49 BC.116 Another
non-Roman name is Arruntius, of Etruscan origins rather than Celtic.117 This may
indicate that Italian allies were admitted into Latin colonies, at least after the Second
Punic War. An important indication for this is that in Cremona a sanctuary of Mefitis is
attested,118 a goddess mostly venerated in southern Italy, e.g. in the sanctuary at
Rossano di Vaglio. Her presence in Cremona may show that the colonists here came
from southern Italy; these people may have been included in the second foundation in
190 BC, at a time when more Latin colonies became open to Italians.119
61 Aquileia, a Latin colony founded in 181, seems to have been a multi-ethnic
community before and after its colonization. It was an important trade port in the pre-
Roman period, as reflected in many inscriptions by people with Greek or eastern
names.120 The local elite included people with Venetic and Celtic names, such as Mutto
and Tappo, as well as Daza, who may have been Illyrian or from southern Italy.121 An
inscription from Teate Marrucinorum records a Muttilius who says he goes ad avos (‘to
his ancestors’) in Aquileia.122 This may mean that his ancestors had moved from
Aquileia to Teate, and he now returned to his ancestral region. Other non-Roman
names are Aufidius, Raius, Statius, Vettius, and Vibius.123 Non-Roman gods were also
still venerated after 181; Etruscan-style votives have been found dating from the 3rd and
2nd centuries.124 Again, the evidence suggests that some non-Roman people, either of
local descent or from other areas of Italy, were present in Aquileia; whether they were
drafted as official colonists, however, cannot be determined.
62 Luca was founded in 180.125 It may be that the colony was open to allies as well,
especially from Pisae, who had invited the Romans to settle the colony. Some local
inhabitants are attested in the epigraphic record: C. Enastellius in 176 AD may have
been related to the Ligurian Enistale who is attested on a cup from the 3rd century BC.
Although the imperial inscription is very much later than the Republican era, the
coincidence is interesting.126 Many Ligurian settlements show continuity after the
foundation of the colony: Marlia was located in the centuriated territory of Luca, and in
the mid-2nd century the population still used Ligurian burial customs, ceramic
traditions, and clothing habits.127 Several necropoleis in the marginal area around the
colony’s territory, for example those north of the Magra River, also show continuation
of indigenous burial customs. In the more mountainous areas of the Valdinievole and
around Pistoia many settlements continued into the 2nd and 1st centuries BC.128 Several
toponyms show Ligurian influence as well: names ending in –elio, –eglio, or –iglio are
most likely Ligurian in origin.129 Some local inhabitants therefore seem to have
remained, but again we know nothing of their legal status.
63 In the case of Luna, founded in 177, the literary sources record the deportation of the
local inhabitants, the Ligures Apuani, to other areas of Italy.130 However, not all locals
seem to have been expelled. There are many toponyms showing Ligurian influence,
Pour plus deinprécisions,
especially the marginalnous vous invitons
mountainous territory;àin
consulter
the plainsnotre
Romanpolitique de confidentialité
names are more
131
widespread. The territory of the (mise à jour
Apuani wholewere
25 juin 2018).
expelled, and which was not
distributed to the colonists in Luna, was divided between Luna and
En poursuivant votre navigation, vous acceptez l'utilisation Pisae; Pisaedes
wascookies.
a
settlement of Etruscanized Ligurians, who thus lived close to the Roman settlers in
Luna.132 As in the case of Cosa and Ariminum, therefore, the local inhabitants seem to
have been largely marginalized, and there isFermer no evidence for their presence in the
colony itself.
64 In conclusion, we can see that there is quite a lot of variation within the category of
Latin colonies. Some show much evidence for the presence of non-Romans, others
hardly any, while some even reveal evidence for the expulsion of local people at the
moment of the colony’s foundation. This may suggest that non-Romans were not as a
rule included in the official settler body: for the majority of colonies the evidence is
rather scarce, and if it was a general policy of the Roman state to include them we might
expect a bit more evidence of their presence. Furthermore, if they were included as a
rule, it is unlikely that there would not have been so much variation from place to place;
in that case, we would expect a more evenly spread distribution of the amount and the
type of evidence available, rather than the great variation occurring now.
Roman colonies
65 From the survey above, it appears that in many Latin colonies non-Roman
inhabitants were in close contact with the settlers, either as official colonists or incolae
living in the colonial territory. In some Roman citizen colonies similar patterns of
contact between Romans and non-Romans seem to have taken place.
66 Minturnae was one of the first Roman colonies, founded in 296. The only evidence
for the presence of non-Romans comes from names with a non-Roman in origin. Local
families with non-Roman names were Arruntius, Ateidius, Caedicius, Corellius,
Epidius, Helvi(di)us, Hirrius, Lusius, Maius, Minius, Naevius, Numerius, Numisius,
Oppius, Paccius, Pacuvius, Pomponius, Pontius, Rahius, Rammius, Rufrius, Salvius,
Silius, Stahius, Stenius, Trebius, and Vibius.133 Caedicius is attested in various other
towns in the surrounding area, for example Suessa, itself a colony since 314 BC.134
67 The extra-urban sanctuary of Marica, a goddess of the local Aurunci, remained in
use; exvotos and architectural terracottas dating from the 7th century BC to the
Augustan period have been found. The temple was rebuilt or redecorated in the second
century BC, but the palmettes used in this decoration were similar to those of the
archaic temple, attesting to continuity in its use.135 A large number of non-Roman
citizens therefore seems to have lived in Minturnae, although again their legal status is
unknown.
68 In Puteoli, founded in 194, many non-Roman names are attested. The most
important family were the Granii of Oscan descent, who are attested as members of the
town elite and wealthy traders in various sources from the 1st century BC.136 The Lex de
pariete faciundis, dated «90 years after the foundation of the colony» (i.e. 105 BC)
gives as one of the duumviri Numerius Fufidius, son of Numerius; both praenomen and
gentilicium are of Oscan origin. As praedes (guarantors) for the work are mentioned,
among others, Blossius, Tetteius, and Granius.137 Other non-Roman names are
Numerius, Ovius, Pontius, Suettius, and Vibius.138 These are all Oscan names, and
again this may show that non-Romans were still important in the colony. The continued
importance of some local elites suggests that they may have been included in the colony
as official settlers; this was common in other colonies founded after the Second Punic
War.
69 At Pisaurum, founded in 184, an important body of evidence is formed by the
dedications to various gods from the so-called lucus Pisaurensis. It is likely that before
184 some Roman settlement had already taken place, probably as a result of the viritane
distributions which took place in Picenum in 232,139 or as a result of settlements carried
out by the conqueror of the area, M’. Curius Dentatus, after 268. One of the dedicators
inCe
thesite
lucus, Maniades
utilise Curia, was a et
cookies member of the
collecte desgens of Dentatus, personnelles
informations which may showvous
that concernant.
settlement occurred shortly after the conquest.140It has been argued that some of the
gods venerated in the lucus were specifically associated with integration, such as Fides
(who was also venerated in Ariminum). (miseFisiu-Sacio
à jour le was
25 juin 2018). god in Umbria as
an important
Enthis
well,141 and poursuivant
may show avotre navigation,
connection with the vous acceptez
indigenous l'utilisation
inhabitants. Diana,des cookies.
whose
cult is attested both in the lucus Pisaurense and at Ariminum, 142 was an important
‘common’ cult of various peoples in Nemi as well. There may have been a number of
Fermer
different ethnic groups in the colony (colonists as well as locals, and/or colonists from

different backgrounds), and conciliatory deities are therefore argued to have played an
important role. The cult of Liber was especially widespread in eastern Cisalpina; this
may show the persistence of a local preference for this cult, and thus the continued
presence of local inhabitants.143 Thus the predominance of gods connected to
‘integration’ may show the continued presence of local inhabitants in Pisaurum.
70 Some non-Roman names are present from an early period: Sta(tios) Tetio(s),
mentioned in one of the inscriptions from the lucus, has an Oscan praenomen and
gentilicium.144 Another important indication for the presence of non-Romans in
Pisaurum is an inscription from the 2nd half of the 1st century BC, in Etruscan and
Latin: [L(ucius) Caf]atius L(uci) f(ilius) Ste(llatina) haruspe[x] fulguriator. [C]afates
L(a)r(u) L(a)r(ual) nets´vis trutnvt frontac.145 One of the colonists in Pisaurum may
have been the poet Ennius from southern Italy, who received citizenship though
inclusion in a colony. This may show again the inclusion of Italian allies as official
settlers in colonies in the period shortly after the Second Punic War.146
71 We may conclude that some of the Roman colonies included people of non-Roman
origins. However, in most cases it is not certain that these people had been living here
since the foundation, similar to what we have seen for the Latin colonies. In colonies
founded after the second Punic War they may have been included from the foundation,
but in other cases their presence may be due to immigration.
Table: Overview of different types of evidence and their appearance in the colonies
– – = strong evidence for expulsion of non-Roman inhabitants

– = some evidence for expulsion of non-Roman inhabitants blank: no evidence
+ = some evidence for the presence of non-Roman inhabitants
++ = strong evidence for the presence of non-Roman inhabitants
Motivations for the presence of non-

romans
72 From this overview we can see that there were remarkable variations in the treatment
of the local population when a colony was founded. In some cases, such as Cosa,
Ariminum, and Luna, the Roman state seems to have actively sought to separate
Ce siteand
colonists utilise deseither
locals, cookies et collecte
by deporting des informations
the locals personnelles
altogether, or by having them vous
move concernant.
to the margins of the colonial territory. In other cases, such as Paestum, Brundisium,
Aquileia, Minturnae, and Puteoli, the colony seems to have served as a meeting point
for non-Romans and colonists. This of course raises the question of why such variations
occurred.En poursuivant
At first sight therevotre navigation,
does not seem to bevous acceptez
a marked l'utilisation
development des
through cookies.
time
or according to region. Cosa and Paestum were founded in the same year, but
underwent widely different developments, as did Luna and Aquileia.
Fermer

73 These differences may be explained partially by the Romans’ view of the defeated
population. Some opponents, who the Romans apparently considered more dangerous
than others, were deported from their original place of residence. The best documented
case is Liguria, from where in 187 a large number of people were deported to southern
Italy. Other enemies were, according to the sources, simply slaughtered, like the
Senones and the Gallic tribes in Cisalpina. However, even in such cases some locals still
remained; we have seen that archaeological evidence of Senonic culture was still visible
in the marginal areas around Ariminum, that Boii still lived around Cremona, and that
Ligurians were still present around Luna. However, when the defeated enemy was
considered particularly dangerous, the separation between the colony’s territory and
that of the remaining local population seems to have been more strictly defined: the
local inhabitants were only allowed to stay in marginal areas outside of the land
assigned to the colony. Gauls, Senones, and Ligurians were all enemies who had offered
considerable resistance against Roman occupation, and it may have been felt that it
would have been unsafe if they remained in close contact with the Roman settlers.146
74 In cases where non-Roman presence is attested, this seems to have been mostly
stimulated by economic considerations. Aquileia, for example, was a flourishing trade
community before it was settled as a colony, and already had a mixed population of
Gauls, Veneti, and Etruscans. If all these people had been expelled to marginal areas,
the Romans would have lost valuable trade opportunities, and they preferred to let the
new settlers profit from the trade networks already established by the locals. In the case
of Brundisium, Zonaras states: «Next [the Romans] made an expedition into the
district now called Calabria.... They wished to get possession of Brundisium; for the
place had a fine harbour, and for the traffic with Illyricum and Greece there was an
approach and landing-place of such a character that vessels would sometimes come to
land and put out to sea wafted by the same wind. They captured it, and sent colonists
both to this point and to others as well».147Indeed, Brundisium remained a very
important commercial centre with a mixed population; it would have been unwise to
forego the benefits of trade just to punish the local population.148Economic
considerations therefore seem to have played an important role in the decision by the
Romans as to the fate of the local population; if the economic welfare of the Roman
state was served better by leaving the locals in place, this was usually considered the
better course of action. Furthermore, those colonies that developed into important
trade centres, such as Brundisium, were attractive for immigration, thus leading to a
large presence of non-Roman people in these towns.
75 There does not seem to be much difference between Latin and Roman colonies in this
respect. As I have argued above, Roman colonies are unlikely to have contained non-
Romans as official settlers, but the development of some of these colonies suggests that
they were allowed to remain in the territory or to move into these colonies. In Roman
colonies, as well as in Latin, the evidence for the presence of non-Romans is strongest
in the colonies that developed into important trade centres, especially Brundisium,
Aquileia, Puteoli, and Minturnae. It would make sense that the Romans would not
object to the presence of allies if these people contributed to the economic welfare of the
colonies. Those colonies which did not become flourishing commercial centres did not
attract as many people, and therefore did not develop into the multi-ethnic
communities that some colonies became.
76 This suggests, however, that the non-Roman inhabitants attested in colonies that
were economically important, whether Latin or Roman, only moved in after they had
developed into prosperous centres, because they had been attracted by the commercial
opportunities these towns had to offer. In some cases, such as Brundisium, the town
was already important before its foundation as a colony, and so the local population
Pour
may plus de précisions,
simply have remained nous
when vous
the invitons à consulter
colony was notre
created. Other politique
colonies, de confidentialité
like Puteoli
and Minturnae, only developed into (mise à jour centres
prospering le 25 juin
later2018).
on, and would therefore
not have been attractive from the beginning.
77 Only for a few colonies do we have a reasonable amount of evidence for the presence
of non-Romans. For others there is hardly any evidence, and for others it is likely that
Fermer
locals were expelled from the colonies’ territories. This variety between colonies in the
treatment of non-Romans makes it unlikely that there was an official, set policy of the
Roman state with regard to these people. The state is more likely to have decided on its
policy as each case demanded. Therefore, most non-Romans that are attested in
colonies were not official settlers in these towns, at least not before the 3rd century BC.
Contacts between colonists and non-

romans
78 If we can accept that in some cases non-Romans lived in close proximity to Roman
settlers, then the question remains how these people met each other in their daily lives,
and thus how mutual influence could have occurred. In this section I will make some
suggestions as to how such contacts could have occurred and have influenced cultural
change in Italy. This will show how colonies could have fulfilled their ‘Romanizing’ role.
Some recent work has been done on this issue,149but further research is necessary.
79 A first obvious point of contact between Romans and non-Romans was trade. If
people lived close to each other, it would make sense that they would trade their surplus
products with each other. It is often thought that the fact that allies did not possess the
ius commercii would have formed an obstacle for them to trade with Romans.
However, I have argued elsewhere that this right was far less important in trade
between Romans and non-Romans than is usually assumed.150Therefore it may be
assumed that if Romans lived together with non-citizens, trade occurred on a daily
basis. Cicero, for example, claims that at Agrigentum «great numbers of Roman citizens
[...] live and trade in that town among the Agrigentes in the greatest
harmony».151Clearly Romans had moved to Agrigentum for purposes of trade, and it
seems as if some had settled there permanently. We may assume that this happened
more often; in the case of Ariminum, for example, it may be that some unofficial
migration to the area had already occurred before any official settlement had taken
place.152However, integration through unofficial migration (i.e. not organized by the
state, as in the case of colonization and viritane distribution) likely took place through
different mechanisms than occurred in state-led migration, and therefore deserves
separate treatment.
80 The involvement of Italian elites in the economy of Italy and the Mediterranean is
well established. It is now recognized that many large estates producing for the market
were owned by Italian elites. In Cosa, for example, the presence of people of non-
Roman descent, who formed part of the local elite, is attested by names such as the
Titii, Gavii, and Pacuvii, who owned figlinae (brick factories) and produced wine in the
territory.153It is clear that Italian elites played a very important role in trade outside
Italy, especially in the East, but it is not fully understood how the wealth they acquired
here was used within Italy; further research may shed light on their position in
Mediterranean trade and how this was conducive to their integration in the Roman
state. For example, trade between Roman and Italian elites may have been conducive to
further integration, and, for instance, have led to intermarriage.
81 Marriage between Roman settlers and non-Romans may have taken place in colonies
on a regular basis.154 Marriage between Romans and non-citizens was in principle
limited by the absence of conubium between the two parties; children from such
marriages would not be acknowledged as legitimate heirs of citizens, and therefore
could not inherit. Whereas in the case of trade, the absence of commercium may not
have played a large role in daily business, the absence of conubium seems to have had
more serious consequences. Nevertheless, it may be that some colonists were not
concerned about such limitations, and formed relationships with noncitizens living
Pour plus Further
nearby. de précisions,
study of nous vous
marriage invitons
patterns à consulter
between notreand
non-Romans politique
colonists de
mayconfidentialité
clarify this problem. (mise à jour le 25 juin 2018).
82 For involvement of non-colonist inhabitants invous
En poursuivant votre navigation, the daily politicsl'utilisation
acceptez of colonies we
deshave
cookies.
no Republican evidence. Cicero suggests that incolae did not have much to do with local
politics: «As for the foreigner or the resident alien, it is his duty to attend strictly to his
own concerns, not to pry into other people’s Fermer
business, and under no condition to
meddle in the politics of a country not his own.»155However, in the colonial laws of the
1st century BC, such as the Lex Coloniae Genetivae Iuliae Ursonensis, incolae had some
rights and duties towards the colony they lived in: they were liable for the same local
munera as official colonists, such as taxes, military service, and labour, but also had
many of the same rights as the colonists.156
83 However, they were not always allowed to vote, which would have limited their
participation in local politics. On the other hand, if non-Romans had lived together with
official colonists for a long time, we may assume that various ties of friendship and
family relations had been formed, and this may have given them informal ways of
influencing the political decisions of the local magistrates and senate. In either case
contacts between them and the official colonists would be conducive to integration
between Romans and Italians. Unfortunately, there is no decisive evidence for the
involvement of non-colonists in 1st colonial politics before the century BC. In Pompeii, a
colony of the Sullan era, such involvement is securely attested. There are several
inscriptions in Oscan referring to the elections for the office of IIIIner (= IIIIvir). This
shows that the Oscan inhabitants of Pompeii participated in local politics and were
called upon to vote in the local elections. A man named Herennius, apparently of Oscan
descent, ran for this office, and was promoted by inscriptions in Oscan and Latin.157
84 As for religious contacts, we have already pointed out that in various cases local
temples remained in use after a colony had been founded. We have seen that the temple
at Telamon near Cosa seems to have been occupied by local inhabitants even after the
colony was founded in 273, and the temple here remained Etruscan in style, even when
it was redecorated after 273. It is not clear who commissioned the decorative reliefs –
Etruscans or Romans – but in any case the temple would have been on the border
between territory used by Romans and that used by Etruscans, allowing both groups
access to it.158 Continuity of pre-Roman temples is attested in Luceria and Paestum as
well. These places of worship may have formed another point of contact where colonists
and non-Romans could meet each other. If, for example, the priests of the temple were
part of the colonist body, then all inhabitants would have had to contact them in order
to sacrifice; conversely, non-Romans may have remained on duty as priests, and the
Roman colonists would then have to deal with them.
85 Religious activities also carried with them a large economic circuit of trade in votive
objects, design and building of temples etc., of which we unfortunately have only a very
limited view. It may be that non-Romans played an important role in, for example,
extracting local stone for temple building, producing and trading in votive statuettes,
providing religious services such as divination, et cetera. For example, Cicero mentions
«a man of Ancona, Lucius Clodius, a travelling quack (pharmacopolam circum-
foraneum), who had come by accident at that time to Larinum», who could only stay
there for a short time, «because he had many more market towns (fora) to visit».159This
remark only gives us a small glimpse into what must have been a fairly complex
‘religious economy’; such informal contacts between various towns must have been
quite common, and had some effects on the integration of Italy.160
Conclusion
86 From the above it is clear that the presence of non-Roman citizens varied widely from
colony to colony. Evidence for their presence occurs in many colonies, even if its
interpretation is often problematic. We have seen that for many colonies there is in fact
not a great deal of evidence for the presence of non-Romans – in some cases, such as
Cosa and Ariminum,
Ce site utilise desthe evidence
cookies et even points
collecte at informations
des a spatial separation between Romans
personnelles vous concernant.
and non-Romans, at least at the foundation stages.
87 For others there are some attestations of Italians, but there is no indication that they
were admitted as official settlers, (mise à jour le 25
i.e. colonists. juin
Only in 2018).
a few colonies, such as
En poursuivant
Brundisium, votre
Paestum, Aquileia, navigation,
Puteoli, vous acceptez
and Minturnae l'utilisation
we find early evidence des cookies.
for the
presence of locals from the colonial foundation onwards; however, in the 2 century
nd
BC the Romans were more wiling to admit non-Romans as official colonists, so for
Fermer
colonies founded in this period, their inclusion was most likely common. It is striking

that the presence of non-Romans is most strongly attested in those colonies that
developed into prospering trade communities, mostly in the 2nd century, which
strengthens the idea that these people moved here only after these towns started to
flourish, rather than had been living here from their foundation.
88 This suggests that allies were not included in colonies as official colonists. If they had
been, we would expect their influence to be much more visible from the moment of the
foundation, instead of only later. The total amount of evidence for the 4th and 3rd
centuries is limited, but at present there is, in my view, not sufficient material to
support the idea that Italian allies were admitted into colonies as official settlers.
Furthermore, the difference in treatment of local inhabitants from colony to colony is
too large to assume that they were normally accepted as official colonists: if in some
cases there is evidence for actual expulsion, it would be unlikely that in general they
were admitted as official colonists.
89 However, even if Italians were not official colonists, they could have lived in close
proximity to the colonists in the colonial landscape, and contacts between them must
have occurred on a much larger scale than the traditional image of expulsion would
allow, for purposes such as trade, marriage, and religious festivals. This would have
important consequences for our image of the process of the ‘Romanization’ of Italy.
Whereas the traditional model, with its emphasis on spatial separation between
colonists and Romans, is inadequate to explain the spread of Roman culture and Latin
language throughout Italy, a model which supposes more widespread contacts between
Romans and Italians would be better suitable to explain in which contexts these two
groups came into contact with each other.
90 In the case of trade it is readily explicable how contacts for this purpose would have
contributed to the spread of Latin as a common language, and, for example, Roman
coinage, weights, and measurement systems. The adoption of other cultural elements,
such as ‘Roman’-style architecture and artwork, is more difficult to reconstruct. Latin
colonies do seem to have been some kind of Roman cultural model, even if it goes too
far to assume that they were all ‘little copies of Rome’.161However, in many colonies
public buildings modelled on those of Rome only appear in the 2nd century BC; in the
same period the imitation of such ‘Latin’ models starts to occur also outside the colonial
territory mostly occurred; for example, monumental temples were built in many Italian
sanctuaries. Many Latin colonies do not seem to have been ‘vehicle[s] of strong
Romanization’ shortly after their foundation.
91 In this article I hope to have shown how various types of evidence can be combined to
shed light onto the role of colonies in the Romanization of Italy. I argue that future
research should focus on the exact ‘contact points’ between Romans and Italians. By
investigating in which contexts Romans and Italians met each other in their daily lives,
we may be able to explain how such contacts may have encouraged Romanization.
Another issue that needs clarification is the role of viritane distributions of land and
unofficial migration in the Romanization of Italy. Traditional scholarship presents
colonization as a state-regulated process, in which movements of Roman and Latin
settlers were determined by the state. However, we get glimpses of unofficial migration,
as in the example of Agrigentum cited above. A related issue is the settlement pattern
that appeared in colonies, viritane land distributions, and other areas where Romans
and indigenous inhabitants may have lived in close proximity. People are likely to
interact mostly with their close neighbours, so if various groups lived close together,
this would have stimulated integration. We have seen that in the case of Alba, recent
archaeological research shows some fascinating possibilities for interaction, but
research on settlement patterns shortly after the Roman conquest has only just begun.
92
In short, this article has only been able to identify some crucial issues that we must
Pour plus ifdeweprécisions,
address nous vousthe
are to fully understand invitons à consulter
processes notre
of integration politique
between Romansde andconfidentialité
(mise à jourofleItaly
Italians and the process of the Romanization 25 juin 2018).
in the Republican era. I have
indicatedEn ways in which we may attempt to solve these issues, but it is clear that des
poursuivant votre navigation, vous acceptez l'utilisation a great
cookies.
amount of work still needs to be undertaken.
Fermer

Bibliographie
Adams, J. N., The regional diversification of Latin, 200 BCAD 600, Cambridge, 2007.
Antonacci Sanpaolo, E., L’archeologia del culto tra Luceria e Tiati: le forme del simbolismo nella
stipe di Belvedere, in E. Antonacci Sanpaolo (ed.), Lucera. Topografia storica, archeologia, arte,
Bari, 1999, p. 29-54.
Aprosio, M., Archeologia dei paesaggi a Brindisi dalla romanizzazione al Medioevo, Bari, 2008.
Ardovino, A. M., L’umiliazione di Flaminio e la fondazione di Cremona, in P. Tozzi (ed.), Storia
di Cremona, Cremona, 2003, p. 84-95.
Arslan, E., I Transpadani, in S. Moscati (ed.), I Celti, Milan, 1991, p. 461-470.
Attolini, I., Heba/La centuriazione di Heba, in: A. Carandini and F. Cambi (eds.), Paesaggi
d’Etruria. Valle dell’Albegna, Valle d’Oro, Valle del Chiarone, Valle del Tafone, Rome, 2002, p.
126-131.
Bandelli, G., 1983. Per una storia delle classe dirigente di Aquileia repubblicana, in Les
«bourgeoisies» municipales italiennes aux e et er siècle av. J.-C., Naples, 1983, p. 175-203.
Bandelli, G., 1988. Ricerche sulla colonizzazione romana della Gallia Cisalpina. Le fase iniziali e
il caso aquileiese, Roma-Trieste.
Bandelli, G., La conquista dell’ager Gallicus e il problema della colonia Aesis, in Aquileia nostra,
76, 2005, p. 13-54.
Bispham, E., Coloniam deducere: how Roman was Roman colonization during the Middle
Republic? in J. P. Wilson and G. J. Bradley (eds.), Greek and Roman colonization: origins,
ideologies and interactions, Swansea, 2006, p. 73-160.
Bispham, E., From Asculum to Actium. The municipalization of Italy from the Social War to
Augustus, Oxford, 2007. Bonomi Ponzi, L., Il santuario di Monte Torre Maggiore, in C. Angelelli
and L. Bonomi Ponzi (eds.), Terni-Interamna Nahars. Nascita e sviluppo di una città alla luce
delle più recenti ricerche archeologiche, Rome, 2006, p. 109-128.
Bradley, G. J., Ancient Umbria: state, culture, and identity in central Italy from the Iron Age to
the Augustan era, Oxford, 2000.
Bradley, G. J., Colonization and identity in republican Italy, in J.-P. Wilson and G. J. Bradley
(eds.), Greek and Roman colonization: origins, ideologies and interactions, Swansea, 2006, p.
161-187.
Bradley, G. J., Romanization. The end of the peoples of Italy?, in G. J. Bradley, E Isayev and C.
Riva (eds.), Ancient Italy. Regions without boundaries, Exeter, 2007, p. 295-322.
Broadhead, W., Migration and hegemony : fixity and mobility in second-century Italy, in L. De
Ligt and S. J. Northwood (eds.), People, land, and politics. Demographic developments and the
transformation of Italy, 300 BC-AD 14, Leiden, 2008, p. 451-470.
Brown, F. E., Cosa. The making of a Roman town, Ann Arbor, 1980.
Brunt, P. A., Italian manpower, 225 B. C.-A. D. 14, Oxford, 1971.
Buonocore, M., Theodor Mommsen e l’epigrafia latina di Aesernia, in H. Solin and F. Di Donato
(eds.), Identità e cultura del Sannio. Storia, epigrafia e archeologia a Venafro a nell’alta Valle
del Volturno, Benevento, 2007, p. 79-120.
Cambi, F., La casa del colono e il paesaggio (III-II secolo a. :C.), in A. Carandini and F. Cambi
(eds.), Paesaggi d’Etruria. Valle dell’Albegna, Valle d’Oro, Valle del Chiarone, Valle del Tafone,
Rome, 2002, p. 137-145.
Campagnoli, P., La bassa valla del Foglia e il territorio di Pisaurum in età romana, Bologna,
1999.
Celuzza, M., La romanizzazione : Etruschi e Romani fra 311 e 123 a.C., in A. Carandini and F.
Cambi (eds.), Paesaggi d’Etruria. Valle dell’Albegna, Valle d’Oro, Valle del Chiarone, Valle del
Tafone, Rome 2002a, p. 103-113.
Celuzza, M., Le prefetture e le colonie. Territori e centuriazioni, in A. Carandini and F. Cambi
Rome, 2002b, p. 113-123.
Ce site R.,
Chevallier, utilise des cookies
La romanisation de laetCeltique
collecte desRome,
du Pô, informations
1983. personnelles vous concernant.
Pour plus de précisions,
Ciampoltrini, nous vous
G., Culture in contatto. invitons
Etruschi, Liguri,àRomani
consulter
nella notre politique
Valle del Serchio fra de
e confidentialité
secolo a.C., in G. Ciampoltrini (ed.), I Liguri della Valle del Serchio tra Etruschi e Romani. Nuovi
(mise
prospettive di valorizzazione, Lucca, 2005, à jour le 25 juin 2018).
p. 15-66.
EnE.poursuivant
Cipriani, M., Greco, F. Longovotre
and A. navigation, vous
Pontrandolfo, The acceptez
Lucanians l'utilisation
in Paestum, des
Paestum, cookies.
1996.
Coarelli, F., La fondazione di Luni. Problemi storici ed archeologici, in Atti del Convegno : studi
Lunensi e prospettive sull’occidente romano, 1985-7, p. 17-36.
Fermer
Coarelli, F., Minturnae, Rome, 1989.

Coarelli, F., La storia e lo scavo, in F. Coarelli and P. G. Monti (eds.), Fregellae I : Le fonti, la
storia, il territorio, Rome, 1998, p. 29-69.
Coarelli, F., Il lucus Pisaurensis e la romanizzazione dell’Ager Gallicus, in C. Bruun (ed.), The
Roman Middle Republic : Politics, religion and historiography c. 400-133 B. C. Rome, 2000, p.
195-205.
Compatangelo, R., Un cadastre de pierre. Le Salento romain. Paysage et structures agraires,
Paris, 1989.
Compatangelo-Soussignan, R., Sur les routes d’Hannibal. Paysages de Campanie et d’Apulie,
Paris, 1999.
Cooley, A. E., The survival of Oscan in Roman Pompeii, in A. E. Cooley (ed.), Becoming Roman,
writing Latin? Literacy and epigraphy in the Roman West, Portsmouth RI, 2002, p. 77-86.
Cornell, T. J., The beginnings of Rome. Italy and Rome from the Bronze Age to the Punic Wars
(c. 1000-264 BC), London-New York, 1995.
Coşkun, A., Großzügige Praxis der Bürgerrechtsvergabe in Rome? Zwischen Mythos und
Wirklichkeit, Mainz-Stuttgart, 2008.
Coşkun, A., Bürgerrechtsentzug oder Fremdenausweisung? Studien zu den Rechten von
Latinern und weiteren Fremden sowie zum Bürgerrechtswechsel in der Römischen Republik (5.
bis frühes 1. Jh. v. Chr.), Stuttgart, 2009.
Crawford, M. H., Italy and Rome, in JRS, 71, 1981, p. 153-160.
DOI : 10.2307/299504
Crawford, M. H., Coinage and money under the Roman Republic. Italy and the Mediterranean
economy, London, 1985.
Crawford, M. H., From Poseidonia to Paestum via the Lucanians, in J.-P. Wilson and G. J.
Bradley (eds.), Greek and Roman colonization : origins, ideologies and interactions, Swansea,
2006, p. 59-72.
Crawford, M. H., The Mamertini, Alfius and Festus, in J. Dubouloz and S. Pittia (eds.), La Sicile
de Cicéron, Lectures des Verrines, Franche-Comté, 2007, p. 273-279.
Cresci Marrone, G. and G. Mennella, Pisaurum I : le iscrizioni della colonia, Pisa, 1984.
Dall’Aglio, P. L. and I. Di Cocco, Pesaro romana : archeologia e urbanistica, Bologna, 2004.
Dally, O., Canosa, località San Leucio. Untersuchungen zu Akkulturationsprozessen vom 6. bis
zum 2. Jh. v. Chr. Am Beispiel eines daunischen Heiligtums, Heidelberg, 2002.
De Benedittis, G., M. Matteini Chiari and C. Terzani, Molise : repertorio delle iscrizioni Latini :
Aesernia, s.l., 1999.
De Cazanove, O., I destinatari dell’iscrizione di Tiriolo e la questione del campo d’applicazione
del senatoconsulto de Bacchanalibus, in Athenaeum, 88, 2000a, p. 59-69.
De Cazanove, O., Some thoughts on the ‘religious romanisation’ of Italy before the Social War,
in E. Bispham and C. Smith (eds.), Religion in archaic and republican Rome and Italy. Evidence
and experience, Edinburgh, 2000b, p. 71-76.
Diebner, S., Aesernia-Venafrum. Untersuchungen zu den römischen Steindenkmälern zweier
Landstädte Mittelitaliens, Rome, 1979.
Erdkamp, P. P. M., Soldiers, Roman citizens, and Latin colonists in mid-republican Italy, in
BICS, forthcoming.
Fentress, E, Introduction: Cosa and the idea of the city, in E. Fentress (ed.), Romanization and
the city. Creation, transformations and failures, Portsmouth (RI), 2000, p. 9-24.
Fentress, E. and F. Jacques, Saturnia, la centuriazione, in A. Carandini and F. Cambi (eds.),
Paesaggi d’Etruria. Valle dell’Albegna, Valle d’Oro, Valle del Chiarone, Valle del Tafone, Rome,
2002, p. 124-126.
Franchi de Bellis, A., I pocola riminesi, in A. Calbi and G. Susini (eds.), Pro poplo arimenese,
Faenza, 1995, p. 367-391.
Gabba, E., 1958. L’elogio di Brindisi, in Athenaeum 36, 1958, p. 90-105.
Gagliardi, L., Mobilità e integrazione delle persone nei centri cittadini romani. Aspetti giuridichi
I: la classificazione degli incolae, Milan, 2006.
Ce siteH.,
Galsterer, utilise des cookies
Herrschaft et collecte
und Verwaltung des informations
im republikanischen Italien. personnelles
Die Beziehungen vous
Roms concernant.
zu den italischen Gemeinden vom Latinerfreuden 338 v. Chr. bis zum Bundesgenossenkrieg 91
Pour plusMunich,
v. Chr., de précisions,
1976. nous vous invitons à consulter notre politique de confidentialité
(mise
Galsterer, H., Coloni, Galli ed autoctoni. à jourdella
Le vicende le 25 juindi2018).
colonia Rimini ai suoi albori, in F.
Lenzi (ed.),En poursuivant votre navigation, vous acceptez
Rimini e l’Adriatico nell’età delle guerre puniche, Bologna, l'utilisation
2006, p. 11-17. des cookies.
Gambaro, L., L’insediamento di Filattiera-Sorano nel quadro delle conoscenze topografiche
sulla Lunigiana romana, in E. Giannichedda (ed.), Filattiera-Sorano: l’insediamento di età
Fermer
romana e tardoantica. Scavi 1986-1995, Florence, 1998, p. 238-242.

Gambaro, L., La Liguria costiera tra III e I secolo a.C. Una lettura archeologica della
romanizzazione, Mantova, 1999.
Gargola, D. J., Lands, laws, and gods. Magistrates and ceremony in the regulation of public
lands in Republican Rome, Chapel Hill, 1995.
Giorgetti, D., Elementi per una geografia storica del Cesenate in epoca romana, in G. Susini
(ed.), Storia di Cesena I: l’evo antico, Rimini, 1982, p. 129-148.
Glinister, F., Sacred rubbish, in E. Bispham and C. Smith (eds.), Religion in archaic and
Republican Rome and Italy. Evidence and experience, Edinburgh. 2000, p. 54-70.
Glinister, F., Veiled and unveiled: uncovering Roman influence in Hellenistic Italy, in M. Gleba
and H. Becker (eds.), Votives, places and rituals in Etruscan religion. Studies in honor of Jean
MacIntosh Turfa, Leiden-Boston, 2009, p. 193-215.
Grassi, M. T., I Celti in Italia, Milan, 1991.
Grelle, F. and A. Giardina, Canosa romana, Rome, 1993.
Guazzalini, U., Aspetti meno noti della fondazione di Cremona, in: G. Pontiroli (ed.), Cremona
romana, Cremona, 1985, p. 3-48.
Guzzo, P. G., Documentazioni ed ipotesi archeologiche per la più antica romanizzazione di Bari,
Brindisi, Taranto, in J. Mertens and R. Lambrechts (eds.), Comunità indigene e problemi della
romanizzazione nell’Italia centro-meridionale ( e- e sec. av. C.), 1991, Brussels-Rome, p. 77-
88.
Haas, O., Messapische Studien: Inschriften mit Kommentar, Skizze einer Laut- und
Formenlehre, Heidelberg, 1962.
Harvey, P. B., Religion and memory at Pisaurum, in C. E. Schultz and P. B. Harvey (eds.),
Religion in republican Italy, Cambridge, 2006, p. 117-136.
Herring, E., Identity crises in SE Italy in the 4th c. B. C.: Greek and native perceptions of the
threat to their cultural identities, in R. Roth and J. Keller (eds.), Roman by integration:
dimensions of group identity in material culture and text, Portsmouth (RI), 2007, p. 11-25.
Humbert, M., Municipium et civitas sine suffragio. L’organisation de la conquête jusqu’à la
guerre sociale, Rome, 1978.
Isayev, E., Inside ancient Lucania: dialogues in history and archaeology, London, 2007.
Jehne, M. and R. Pfeilschrifter (eds.), Herrschaft ohne Integration? Rom und Italien in
republikanischer Zeit, Frankfurt am Main, 2006.
Keay, S. and N. Terrenato (eds.), Italy and the West. Comparative issues in romanization,
Oxford, 2001.
Kremer, D., Ius Latinum: le concept de droit latin sous la République et l’Empire, Paris, 2006.
Kruta, V., Les Sénons de l’Adriatique au e siècle avant J. C. État de la question, in F. Lenzi
(ed.), Rimini e l’Adriatico nell’età delle guerre puniche, Bologna, 2006, p. 275-281.
Laffi, U., Adtributio e contributio. Problemi del sistema politico-amministrativa dello stato
romano, Pisa, 1966.
Lamboley, J.-L., Recherches sur les Messapiens e- e siècle avant J.-C., Rome, 1996.
La Regina, A., Contributo dell’archeologia alla storia sociale, territori sabellici e sannitici, in
DArch 4-5, 1970-1971, p. 441-549.
Laudizi, G., Osservazioni sulla tradizione letteraria, in M. Lombardo and C. Marangio (eds.), Il
territorio Brundisino dall’età Messapica all’età romana, Galatina, 1998, p. 27-40.
Letta, C. and S. D’Amato, Epigrafia della regione dei Marsi, Milan, 1975.
Livi, V., Religious locales in the territory of Minturnae: aspects of Romanization, in C. E. Schultz
and P. B. Harvey (eds.), Religion in republican Italy, Cambridge, 2006, p. 90-116.
Marangio, C., Osservazione sul processo di romanizzazione del centro Messapico di Muro
Maurizio, in M. Lombardo and C. Marangio (eds.), Il territorio Brundisino dall’età Messapica
all’età romana, Galatina, 1998, p. 119-136.
Marchi, M. L. and G. Sabbatini, Venusia (Forma Italiae), Florence 1996.
Marcucetti, L., La terra delle strade antiche. La centuriazione romana nella piana Apuo-
Versiliese, Viareggio, 1995.
Marini Calvani, M., Piacenza in età romana, in F. Càssola and C. Pietri (eds.), La città nell’Italia
settentrionale nous
in età romana. vous invitons
Morfologie, strutture àe consulter notre
funzionamento dei politique
centri urbani de delleconfidentialité
Regiones X e XI, Trieste-Rome, 1985, p. 261-294.
Maselli Scotti, F., A. Giovanninivotre
En poursuivant and P.navigation,
Ventura, Aquileia.
vous A crossroads
acceptezofl'utilisation
men and ideas, in :cookies.
des P.
Noelke (ed.), Romanisation und Resistenz in Plastik, Architektur und Inschriften der Provinzen
des Imperium Romanum. Neue Funde und Forschungen, Mainz am Rhein, 2003, p. 651-667.
Fermer
Mello, M., Paestum romana. Ricerche storiche, Rome, 1974.
Mello, M. and G. Voza, Le iscrizioni latine di Paestum, Naples, 1968.
Morel, J.-P., La romanisation du Samnium et de la Lucanie aux e et e siècles av. J.-C.
d’après l’artisanat et le commerce, in J. Mertens and R. Lambrechts (eds.), Comunità indigene e
problemi della romanizzazione nell’Italia centro-meridionale ( e- e sec. av. C.), Brussels-
Rome, 1991, p. 125-144.
Oebel, L., C. Flaminius und die Anfänge der römischen Kolonisation im Ager Gallicus, Frankfurt
am Main, 1993.
Ortalli, J., Ur-Ariminum, in F. Lenzi (ed.), Rimini e l’Adriatico nell’età delle guerre puniche,
Bologna, 2006, p. 285-309.
Paci, G., Il Piceno tra III e II sec. a. C., in E. Percossi Serenelli (ed.), Potentia. Quando poi scese il
silenzio... Rito e società in una colonia romana del Piceno fra repubblica e tardo Impero, Milan,
2001, p. 20-23.
Panciera, S., Inscriptiones Latinae liberae rei publicae, in S. Panciera (ed.), Epigrafia. Actes du
colloque international d’épigraphie latine en mémoire de Attilio Degrassi, Rome, 1992, p. 241-
491.
Parlangeli, O., Studi messapici, Milan, 1960.
Patterson, J., The relationship of the Italian ruling classes with Rome: friendship, family
relations and their consequences, in M. Jehne and R. Pfeilschifter (eds.), Herrschaft ohne
Integration? Rom und Italien in republikanischer Zeit, Frankfurt am Main, 2006, p. 139-153.
Pedley, J. G., Paestum. Greeks and Romans in southern Italy, London, 1990.
Pelgrom, J., Settlement organization and land distribution in Latin colonies before the Second
Punic War, in L. De Ligt and S. J. Northwood (eds.), People, land, and politics. Demographic
developments and the transformation of Italy, 300 BC-AD 14, Leiden, 2008, p. 333-372.
Piper, D., Latins and the Roman citizenship in Roman colonies : Livy 34,42,5-6; revisited, in
Historia, 36, 1987, p. 38-50.
Rawson, E., Fregellae : fall and survival, in F. Coarelli and P. G. Monti (eds.), Fregellae I : Le
fonti, la storia, il territorio, Rome, 1998, p. 71-76.
Regoli, E., Il paesaggio delle ville (II secolo a.C. – metà I a. C.), in A. Carandini and F. Cambi
Rome, 2002, p. 145-154.
Renda, G., Il territorio di Caiatia, in G. Cera, S. Quilici Gigli and G. Renda (eds.), Carta
archeologica e ricerche in Campania, I, Rome, 2004, p. 237-423.
Rich, J., Treaties, allies and the Roman conquest of Italy, in P. De Souza and J. France (eds.),
War and peace in ancient and medieval history, Cambridge, 2008, p. 51-75.
Rix, H., Sabellische Texte, Heidelberg, 2002.
Roselaar, S. T., Public land in the Roman Republic : a social and economic history of ager
publicus in Italy, 396-89 BC, Oxford, 2010.
Roselaar, S. T., The concept of commercium in the Roman Republic, forthcoming a.
Roselaar, S. T. (ed.), Integration and identity in the Roman Republic : proceedings of a
conference held at Manchester, 1-3 July 2010, forthcoming b.
Sabbatini, G., Ager Venusinus I : Mezzana del Cantore (Forma Italiae), Florence, 2001.
Salmon, E. T., Roman colonization under the Republic, London, 1969.
Sartori, F., Problemi di storia costituzionale italiota, Rome, 1953.
Sherwin-White, A. N., The Roman citizenship, Oxford, 1973.
Silvestrini, M., Le ‘gentes’ di Brindisi romana, in M. Lombardo and C. Marangio (eds.), Il
territorio Brundisino dall’età Messapica all’età romana, Galatina, 1998, p. 81-103.
Sisani, S., Fenomenologia della conquista. La romanizzazione dell’Umbria tra il sec. a.C. e la
guerra sociale, Rome, 2007.
Smith, R. E., Latins and the Roman citizenship in Roman colonies : Livy 34,42,5-6, in Journal of
Roman Studies, 44, 1954, p. 18-20.
Sofroniew, A., Considering cultural exchange : A social history of votives from Central Italy
from the 4th to the 1st centuries BC, Oxford D.Phil. thesis, forthcoming.
Stek, T., Cult places and cultural change in Republican Italy. A contextual approach to religious
aspects of rural society after the Roman conquest, Amsterdam, 2009.
Pour plus
DOI de précisions, nous vous invitons à consulter notre politique de confidentialité
: 10.26530/OAPEN_401765
Suolahti, J., The junior officers of the (mise à jourin le
Roman army the25 juin 2018).
Republican period: a study on social
structure, Helsinki, 1955.
Tarpin, M., Vici et pagi dans l’occident Romain, Rome, 2002.
Termeer, M. K., Early colonies in Latium (c. 534-338 BC). A reconsideration of current images
Fermer
and the archaeological evidence, I n BABesch, 85, 2010, p. 43-58.
Torelli, M., Paestum romana, in Poseidonia-Paestum, Taranto, 1987, p. 33-115.
Torelli, M., Aspetti della colonizzazione romana più antica, DdA, 6, 3, 1988, p. 65-72.
Torelli, M., Studies in the Romanization of Italy, Edmonton, 1995.
Torelli, M., Tota Italia: essays in the cultural formation of Roman Italy, Oxford, 1999.
Van Wonterghem, F., Il culto di Ercole fra i popoli oscosabellici, in C. Bonnet and C. Jourdain-
Annequin (eds.), Héraclès. D’une rive à l’autre de la Méditerranée. Bilan et perspectives,
Brussels-Rome, 1992, p. 319-351.
Vine, B., Studies in archaic Latin inscriptions, Innsbruck, 1993.
Wightman, E. M. and J. W. Hayes, Settlement patterns and society, in J. W. Hayes and I. P.
Martini (eds.), Archaeological survey in the Lower Liri Valley, central Italy, Oxford, 1995, p. 34-
40.
Wiseman, T. P., New men in the Roman senate, 139 B.C.A.D. 14, Oxford, 1971.
Yntema, D., Material culture and plural identity in early Roman southern Italy, in T. Derks and
N. Roymans (eds.), Ethnic constructs in antiquity. The role of power and tradition, Amsterdam,
2009, p. 144-166.
Notes
1 I would like to thank Tim Cornell (Manchester), Tesse Stek (Leiden), the audience at the OIKOS
‘work in progress’ session in Leiden, December 2009, and the anonymous . reviewer for MEFRA
for their advice on earlier drafts of this paper.
2 Especially Salmon 1969, p. 54; Torelli 1995, p. 9-12; 1999, p. 3, 127
3 Torelli 1999, p. 122; see p. 173-5; 186-7
4 E.g. Salmon 1969, p. 18-25; Brown 1980; Gargola 1995, p. 71-101.
5 Although having commercium may not have been as important in dealing with Romans as it is
usually assumed to have been, see Roselaar forthcoming a.
6 Sherwin-White 1973, p. 27; Bandelli 2005, p. 19.
7 Cornell 1995, p. 367-8; Bradley 2000, p. 135.
8 DH 6.95.2, 8.69.2; Liv. 2.22.5-7. See Cornell 1995, p. 367.
9 Liv. 3.1.5-8. See DH 7.14.4, 9.59.1-2. See Salmon 1969, p. 44-5; Humbert 1978, p. 157; Bradley
2006, p. 167.
10 Liv. 4.11.3-4.
11 Crawford 1981, p. 157; Cornell 1995, p. 367-8; Torelli 1999, p. 3-4; see p. 32 and 1988, p. 70 for
the view that at least the elites of the allied communities were taken up in Latin colonies; cf.
Bradley 2006, p. 172-6. Many scholars assume the presence of local inhabitants of colonies, but
they unfortunately do not discuss the legal position of these people: Galsterer 1976, p. 49-53;
Humbert 1978, p. 77-8; Bispham 2006, p. 91-2, 103. However, Rich 2008 has recently suggested
that not all towns in Italy had treaties with Rome, and that our evidence for their existence is
actually very limited.
12 I believe that the nature of the so-called priscae Latinae coloniae was fundamentally different
from that of later colonies, in that they were founded by the Latin League and Rome together,
even if Rome was dominant. Furthermore, I will discuss colonies founded before the Sullan era
only, since again, the nature of 1st-century veteran settlements was very different from that of the
colonies in the previous period. See for pre-338 colonies Torelli 1988, p. 67-9; 1999, p. 15-31;
Termeer 2010.
13 Coşkun 2008.
14 Erdkamp forthcoming. Brunt 1971, p. 29 assumes that of the 4,000 colonists that on average
were settled in Latin colonies, 3,000 were Roman citizens.
15 Liv. 33.24.8-9.
16 Coarelli 1989, p. 36; Celuzza 2002a, p. 112.
17 Liv. 34.42.5-6: Novum ius eo anno a Ferentinatibus temptatum, ut Latini qui in coloniam
Romanam nomina dedissent cives Romani essent: Puteolos Salernumque et Buxentum adscripti
Ce site
coloni utilisedederant,
qui nomina des cookies
et, cumet
obcollecte des informations
id se pro civibus personnelles
Romanis ferrent, vous
senatus iudicavit non concernant.
esse eos cives Romanos.
18 Salmon 1969, p. 24; Piper 1987.
19 Smith 1954; Erdkamp forthcoming.
20 Roselaar 2010, p. 150-2.
21 D.50.16.239.2 (Pomponius) states «nor are those who stay in a town the only people who are
Fermer
incolae, but also those who hold land within the territory of any town in such a way that they
establish themselves there as if in a fixed abode». See Comm. Bern. in Lucan. 4.397: «Incolae are

those who came to a colony which had already been settled» (Incolae qui ad coloniam paratam
veniunt). For a comprehensive discussion of the definition and rights of incolae and accolae see
Laffi 1966; Gagliardi 2006.
22 ILS 6753.
23 Liv. 32.2.6-7: Et Narniensium legatis querentibus ad numerum sibi colonos non esse et
immixtos quosdam non sui generis pro colonis se gerere.
24 Liv. 41.8.8.
25 Cos¸kun 2009, p. 186-93.
26 Erdkamp forthcoming. See Broadhead 2008, p. 459-62 for a different view.
27 The most recent collection of inscriptions in Sabellian languages is Rix 2002.
28 See e.g. Franchi De Bellis 1995, p. 371; Adams 2007, p. 39-113.
29 See Roselaar 2010, p. 33-6.
30 Van Wonterghem 1992.
31 Renda 2004, p. 405-6.
32 Crawford 1985, p. 26-8.
33 Bradley 2007, p. 298-9.
34 Pelgrom 2008.
35 Morel 1991, p. 128-31.
36 Compatangelo-Soussignan 1999, p. 30-2; Bispham 2006, p. 87-8.
37 Morel 1991, p. 132; Vine 1993, p. 138.
38 Morel 1991, p. 136-9.
39 ILLRP 1207 = CIL 12.405 = 10.8054.1; ILLRP 1217 = CIL 12.416.
40 Numerius: ILLRP 1208 = CIL 12.404h. Numerius is attested in many non-Latin inscriptions,
e.g. Rix Um 38, tCm5 (Abella). See Vine 1993, 137, 143-6.
41 Aufellius: CIL 10.4641. The A(u)fellii are known from Oscan inscriptions from Pompeii (Ve
30b, Rix Po 43). Paconius: CIL 10.4654 = ILS 5779. See Suolahti 1955, p. 378; Wiseman 1971,
nos. 185, 494; Compatangelo-Soussignan 1999, p. 11, 52. Paccius, Paconius, and Pacuvius,
derived from the Oscan praenomen Pakis, are widely distributed, e.g. in Castel di Sangro (Ve 142,
Rix Sa 18), Aeclanum (Ve 163, Rix Hi 1), Antinum (Ve 223, Rix VM 3), Castellamare near Pescara
(Ve 174, Rix Fr 7), Corfinium (Rix Pg 59), Sulmo (Ve 210a, Rix Pg 34), Tocca di Casauria (Rix MV
3), Pietrabbondante (Ve 153, Rix Sa 5), Capua (Rix Cp 1, 26, 31-2, 34), Pompeii (Ve 72e, Rix Po
87), Cumae (Rix Cm 4, Pocc. 133), Lucania (Rix Lu 55-6); as a general Samnite name in Liv.
10.38.6. See Morel 1991, p. 132; Crawford 2007, p. 274.
42 Helvius: CIL 10.5585 = ILS 6288. Helvii are attested in Oscan in Capua (Ve 4, 82-3, 88B, Rix
Cp 27-8, 34), Catanzaro (Pocc. 201), unknown Samnite area (Ve 178-9, Rix ZO 2-3), and
Corfinium (Ve 215g, k; Rix Pg 37, 41). Paccius: CIL 10.5622. Trebellius: M. Trebellius Fregellanus
was commander of a contingent of soldiers from Fregellae in 169, see Liv. 43.21.2-3. See also CIL
10.5581, 5593, 5627. The name Trebellius is not directly attested in Oscan inscriptions, but the
name Trebius is very common, see Ve 15 (Rix Po 7) from Pompeii, where Trebiis is used as a
family name derived from the praenomen Trebis. Other attestations of this name occur in
Lucania (Ve 191, Rix Lu 19), Fratte di Salerno (Rix Ps 8), Pietrabbondante (Ve 150, Rix Sa 7),
Fagifulae (Rix Sa 59), Aquilonia (Rix Sa 33-4, 36, 43, Pocc. 56), Capua (Rix Cp 24), Pompeii
(Pocc. 108, Rix Po 15; Ve 26, Rix Po 37), Tricarico (Pocc 146, Rix tLu 1), and the Ager Teuranus,
see De Cazanove 2000a, p. 63. Liv. 23.1.1-3 mentions Statius Trebius, a noble of Compsa; cf.
Trebatius, an allied leader in the Social War, Ap. BC 1.52. See Coarelli 1998, p. 39-40; Rawson
1998, p. 73-8.
43 Aufidius Fregellanus: CIL 10.6.12818. Gavius: CIL 10.5611. Gavius is attested in Oscan in
Aesernia (Rix Sa 22), Aquilonia (Rix Sa 33), Fagifulae (Rix Sa 44), Ampsanctus (Rix Hi 10),
Melito (Rix tHi1), Capua (Rix Cp 36), Punta Campanella (Rix Cm 2), Histonium (Ve 168, Rix Fr
1), Schiavi d’Abruzzo (Rix Sa 2, Pocc. 34), Aeclanum (Ve 163, Rix Hi 1); and Cumae (Ve 111, Rix
Cm 19). Ovius: ILLRP 947 = CIL 12.2131-2; 10.5621. Salvius: CIL 10.5614. In Oscan: Capua (Rix
Cp 3), Cumae (Rix Cm 18), Herculaneum (Rix Cm 39). Vibius: CIL 10.5629-30. Aufidius is also
attested in Corfinium (Rix Pg 44), Rossano di Vaglio (Lu 8). Ovii are attested in Oscan in Pompeii
(Ve
Ce18,site
26, 53, Rix Po
utilise 14, cookies
des 37, tPo 3), et
andcollecte
Samniumdes(Ve 178, Rix ZO 2), Cmpersonnelles
informations 35 (Nuceria), Cmvous
38-9 concernant.
(Herculaneum), Cm 47 (Vesuvius). Vibii are known from Oscan inscriptions from Pompeii (Ve 11,
Pour
20,plus
71, Rixde
Poprécisions, nous
3, 11, 91), Capua vousRix
(Ve 86-7, invitons
Cp 31-2),àCorfinium
consulter(Ve notre politique
211-12, 215p-q, Rix Pg de
1, 14,confidentialité
51-2), Vasto (Histonium) (Ve 168, Rix Fr 1), Messana (Ve 197c-d, in Greek), Tuder? (Rix Um 35-
7), the Vestini area (Rix MV 12), Mevania (Rix Um26), Tuder (Rix Um 35-7), Cumae (Rix Cm 32),
and Larinum En(Cic.
poursuivant votre
Clu. 8.25). See navigation,
Wightman and Hayesvous acceptez l'utilisation des cookies.
p. 41-2.
44 Coarelli 1998, p. 110.
45 Torelli 1988, p. 71; 1999, p. 92, 96, 121-2; Grelle and Giardina 1993, p. 24.
Fermer
46 Antonacci Sanpaolo 1999.

47 De Cazanove 2000b, p. 75-6; Glinister 2009; Stek 2009, p. 27; Sofroniew forthcoming.
48 Sofroniew forthcoming.
49 Magius: a 3rd-century inscription reads Gentiles / Magiei / Sancto. Deiveti / fecere, see
Suolahti 1955, p. 377, 395; Dally 2000, p. 238-40. Trebius: CIL 9.936 (70s BC). In Oscan
inscriptions Magius is attested in Aeclanum (Rix Hi 1, Hi 4). Minatius: Dally 2000, 238. It was
used in Oscan mostly as a praenomen; e.g. in Teanum Apulum (Rix Fr 11) and on the Vesuvius
(Rix Cm 47). As a gentilicium, see Casinum? (Rix Ps 9), Venafrum (Rix Si 2), Capua (Rix Cp 19,
25). Minatius Magius from Aeclanum was a leader of his town during the Social War, Vell. 2.16.
50 ILLRP 502 = CIL 12.791 = 3.6541. Another Numerius is attested on ILLRP 623 = CIL 12.1710 =
9.800.
51 Celuzza 2002a, p. 105.
52 Van Wonterghem 1992.
53 Torelli 1999, p. 38-9; Bispham 2006, p. 106-8. See also Stek 2009, p. 55-8.
54 Herennius: ILLRP 88 = CIL 12.1814 = 9.3906 = ILS 4022. Herennius appears in Oscan in
Pietrabbondante (Rix Sa 9, Sa 35) and Nola (Rix Cm 6). The Herennii were also the patrons of
Marius, see Plu. Mar. 5.4-5. Atiedius, Papius, and Tettienus: ILLRP 227 = CIL 12.1817 = 9.3910;
Tettienus also in ILLRP 228 = CIL 12.1818 = 9.3911. Atiedius also on CIL 12.389 = 9.3847 =
ILLRP 283. Atiedius is best known from the Tabulae Iguvinae. G. Papius Mutilus was one of the
allied leaders in the Social War, see Ap. BC 1.40-2, and Rix nPg 2-6b (coins dating to the Social
War, minted in the Paelignian area). It is also attested in Schiavi d’Abruzzo (Rix Sa 2),
Campochiaro (Rix tSa24-5), and Cumae (Rix Cm 14). Tettienus may be related to the Oscan
Titius, known from Pratola Peligna (Ve 215v, Rix Pg 45), Badia Morronese (Rix Pg 16), and
Anagnia (Rix He 3). Ovius: Supinum (Ve 224a-b, Rix VM 4). Vibius (as a praenomen): ILLRP
190 = CIL 12.386.
55 CIL 9.3813 = CIL 12.391 = Ve 228; CIL 9.3849 = 12.388 = ILLRP 286; CIL 9.3856; ILLRP 303
= AE 1953, 218. See Letta and D’Amato 1975, nos. 91ter, 111, 128, 129, 131.
56 Letta and D’Amato 1975, p. 195-6.
57 Stek 2009, p. 167, 169 n. 311. However, many of the magistrates’ names are non-Roman, which
makes this thesis only possible if many non-Romans had been included in the colony as official
settlers.
58 Letta and D’Amato 1975, no. 129bis. However, they assume (p. 208-14) that his veneration
was not spread by Rome, but pre-dated the Roman conquest of the Marsic area.
59 CIL 9.3813 = CIL 12.391 = Ve 228; CIL 9.3849 = 12.388 = ILLRP 286; ILLRP 285 = CIL 12.387
= CIL 9.3848; ILLRP 266 = CIL 12.390 = 9.3812. See Letta and D’Amato 1975, 204; Stek 2009,
163-5. Petro is attested on Ve 224a-b (Supinum). Statius is attested in Pietrabbondante (Rix Sa
13), Abella (Rix Cm 3), Cum AE (Rix Cm 14), Nola (Rix Cm 48, and Lucania (Rix Lu 55).
Anaiedius and Staiedius are not directly attested in Oscan inscriptions, but are probably not Latin
in origin.
60 Stek 2009, p. 162.
61 See notes 55 and 59; also CIL 9.3847 = ILLRP 115. See Letta and D’Amato 1975, p. 200,
although Stek 2009, p. 162 points out that the ‘non-Latin’ nature is not certain for all these
names.
62 Letta and D’Amato 1975, p. 200.
63 Stek 2009, p. 161.
64 DH 17/18.5.1-2.
65 Marchi and Sabbatini 1996, p. 111-15; Torelli 1999, p. 94-6; Sabbatini 2001, p. 69-71.
Compatangelo 1989, p. 49 thinks that only the local nobility was incorporated and that the
‘Samnitized’ local poor were excluded; however, it is unlikely that the local nobility consisted of
so many people.
66 Liv. 31.49.6.
67 Grelle and Giardina 1993, p. 59-63.
68 Crepereius: Cic. Verr. 1.30. See Suolahti 1955, p. 357. Wiseman 1971, p. 227 argues that the
name was originally Sabine. Herennius: Eutr. 5.3. Ovius: ILLRP 690 = CIL 12.1700 = 9.438.
Statius Raius: ILLRP 692 = CIL 12.1701 = 9.448. Raius is also attested in Oscan inscriptions, e.g.
inCe site(Rix
Cumae utilise des
Cm 14). Seecookies etGiardina
Grelle and collecte desp. informations
1993, 55. personnelles vous concernant.
Pour plus de2000,
69 Fentress précisions,
p. 12-13. nous vous invitons à consulter notre politique de confidentialité
(mise
70 Celuzza 2002a, p. 112; Celuzza 2002b, à jourAttolini
p. 121-3; le 25 2002,
juin 2018).
p. 128; Cambi 2002, p. 139;
Bradley 2006, p. 172.
71 Attolini 2002, p. 128; Celuzza, 2002a, p. 112-13; Cambi, 2002, p, 141.
72 Fentress and Jacques 2002, p. 124.
Fermer
73 Celuzza 2002a, p. 109-12; Bispham 2006, p. 102-3.

74 Celuzza 2002a, p. 109. In other areas of Italy votive deposits continued into the 1st century BC,
and the connection between the timing of the decline in Telamon and the Roman conquest is
close enough to assume that the Roman intervention influenced the economy of the temple. See
Glinister 2000.
75 Celuzza 2002a, p. 105.
76 Torelli 1988, p. 72; 1999, p. 41. On the other hand, there is not always a clear relation between
the use of a non-Latin name for a colony and the presence of local inhabitants in it. Other colonial
towns also kept their earlier names, such as Aesernia.
77 Bispham 2006, p. 97-102. Celuzza 2002a, p. 111 argues that votive statuettes in the ‘Latin’ style
appear in the sanctuary at San Sisto. However, we have seen above that the ‘Latin’ style was not
in fact spread by Rome; moreover, the origin of this type of votive seems to have been in southern
Etruria, so that its presence in Cosa may have nothing to do with Rome.
78 Celuzza 2002a, p. 109, 120-2; Erdkamp forthcoming.
79 In the colonies of Thurii Copia (194), Vibo Valentia (192), Bononia (189), and Aquileia (181)
equites received larger allotments than pedites, see Liv. 34.53.1-2, 35.40.5-6, 37.57.7-8, 40.34.2.
80 Herring 2007, p. 12.
81 Pedley 1990, p. 97-108, 125-6, 138-40; Cipriani et al. 1996, p. 67-76; Herring 2007, p. 11-12.
82 Isayev 2007, p. 115-17, 122.
83 Torelli 1999, p. 17; Crawford 2006, p. 65.
84 Torelli 1987, p. 52-9.
85 Torelli 1987, p. 47, 62-3, 71-2; 1988, p. 71; 1999, p. 52, 61; Crawford 2006, p. 65-6.
86 Torelli 1987, p. 40-1; 93-7; 1999, p. 4, 76; Crawford 2006, p. 64-5.
87 Rix nLu 2. See Sartori 1953, p. 102-4; Crawford 2006, p. 64. However, Cipriani et al. 1996, p.
61-2 argue that these coins should be dated to the late fourth and early third centuries, before the
foundation of the colony.
88 Many of these names are attested on coins, see Mello 1974, p. 110-25. For inscriptions, see
Ceppius: Mello and Voza 1968, nos. 196, 202; CIL 10.479, 491. In Oscan, from Melito (Rix tHi 1).
Digitius was tribunus militum in 170 BC, Liv. 43.11.1; see also CIL 10.483; Suolahti 1955, p. 359;
Mello and Voza 1968, nos. 97, 99, 114. It is probably related to the Oscan name Dekius, e.g. from
Aufidena (Rix Sa 18), Saepinum (Rix Sa 59). Galonius: Mello and Voza 1968, no. 154. Granius:
Mello and Voza 1968, no. 121. Numerius: Mello and Voza 1968, nos. 80 and 119. Numonius:
Mello and Voza 1968, nos. 71, 180. The Numonii are also attested on 3rd-century graffiti on
pottery from Paestum, see Torelli 1999, p. 17. Mineius: Mello and Voza 1968, nos. 81-5. It may be
related to Oscan Minis, from Teanum Sidicinum (Rix Si 4, 9, 12), Capua (Rix Cp 25, 28), Pompeii
(Rix Po 8). Statius: Mello and Voza 1968, no.139; Cippus Abellanus l.1; Rix Lu 14, Pocc. 152.
Suitius: Mello and Voza 1968, no. 80. It is most likely related to Suettius, attested in Corfinium
(Rix Pg 56). Trebius: Compatangelo-Soussignan 1999, 9. Vibius: Mello and Voza 1968, nos. 140,
142.
89 Rix Lu 14, Pocc. 152. See Cipriani et al. 1996, p. 60.
90 Sartori 1953, p. 102-4; Torelli 1999, p. 8.
91 Liv. Per. 12.1; Polyb. 2.19.9-12, 2.21.7-9; DH 19.13.1; Strab. 5.1.10; Oros. 3.22.13; Ap. Gall. 11,
Samn. 6.1. The expulsion of the Senones is accepted by many scholars: Grassi 1991, p. 27-8;
Oebel 1993, p. 22-4; Kruta 2006, p. 278-81; Sisani 2007, p. 192-7.
92 Galsterer 1976, p. 53; Campagnoli 1999, p. 30.
93 Galsterer 2006, p. 14. The actual number of settlers is not attested, but 6,000 is also attested
for Alba.
94 CIL 12.2885-99. See Franchi De Bellis 1995, p. 369-71; Ortalli, 2006, p. 288-9, 297; Stek
2009, p. 138.
95 Franchi De Bellis 1995, p. 387: many bronze statuettes of Hercules have been found in the
area.
96 Oebel 1993, p. 55-9.
97 Giorgetti 1982, p. 132.
98 A 1st-century inscription records an Ovius Fregellanus; ILLRP 947 = CIL 12.2132. See Franchi
De Bellis 1995, p. 377; Bispham 2006, p. 91, 135-6 n. 103.
99 Chevallier 1983, p. 188. nous vous invitons à consulter notre politique de confidentialité
100 As attested on coins, e.g. Rix nSa(mise
5. See àBuonocore
jour le 25 juin
2007, p. 2018).
84. However, Cosa was also
En poursuivant votre navigation, vous acceptez
derived from an Etruscan word, but did not have much continuity l'utilisation
of previous settlement. des cookies.
101 Rix Sa 22, Ve 140.
102 Diebner 1979, Is 70.
Fermer

103 CIL I2.3201;see La Regina 1970-1. Percennius is related to the Oscan praenomen Perkens,
attested at the Vesuvius, Rix Cm 47, and in the Ager Teuranus, see De Cazanove 2000a, 63.
Pomponius is attested in Mogliano (Rix MC 2), Capestrano (Rix AQ 2), Cumae (Rix Cm 15),
Rossano di Vaglio (Rix Lu 5), Velia (Rix tLu 15). Satrius is known from Bantia (CIL 12.1693).
104 Humbert 1978, p. 346.
105 Galsterer 1976, p. 54.
106 Herius: Buonocore 2007, p. 94. In Oscan, see Rix Ap 6 (Belmonte), Cm 14 (Cumae). The
Samnite Herius in the Second Punic War: Zon. 8.11; Liv. 23.43.9. Herius Asinius, leader of the
Marrucini in the Social war: Liv. Per. 73; Vell. 2.16; Ap. BC 1.40; Eutr. 5.3. Maius: Diebner 1979,
no. 66. It is also attested in Barrea (Rix Sa 37), Abella (Rix Cm 1), Aquinum (Rix Sa 58), and Vibo
Valentia (Rix tLu 8). Munatius: CIL 9.2603, 2663. Numerius: CIL 9.2744. Paccius: Diebner
1979, no. 57. Rahius: CIL 9.2667; AE 1999, 551. Staius: CIL 9.2669. In Oscan it is known from
Pietrabbondante (Rix Sa 3, Sa 10-12, 21), Vastogirardi (Rix Sa 26), Santa Croce di Sannio (Rix Hi
7), and Nola (Rix Cm 48). Vibius: Buonocore 2007, 89; CIL 9.2672; AE 1993, 561. See De
Benedittis, Matteini Chiari and Terzani 1999, nos. 1, 3, 4.
107 Diebner 1979, p. 23, 46.
108 Laudizi 1998, p. 34.
109 Gabba 1958, p. 100-1; Aprosio 2008, p. 91.
110 Liv. 21.48.8-9; see also Pol. 3.69.1. Some assume he was a citizen, e.g. Guzzo 1991, 82;
Lamboley 1996, p. 488; Bradley 2006, p. 174. On the other hand, Suolahti 1955, 200, 321
assumes he was not a citizen, and indeed it was not necessary for him to be a citizen in order to
command a garrison of allies; see Galsterer 1976, 58. Even if he was not a citizen, he must have
been an important individual in Brundisium. The name (or title) Dasius and variants are widely
attested in the Messapian area, e.g. on inscriptions in Messapian, see Haas 1962, B.1.19 from
Uzentum; B.2.03 from Vaste; B.2.04 from Carovigno; B.4.35 from Gnathia; B.4.95 from Ceglie
Messapica; B.4.101 from Lupiae. A Dasius is attested in the 2nd Punic War as a member of the
local elite at Arpi, Liv. 24.45.1-9; Ap. Hann. 31. Another Dasius was a leading noble in Salapia,
Liv. 26.38.6-14. See Silvestrini 1998, p. 92-8; Aprosio 2008, p. 91-2.
111 Accaeus: CIL 9.63. In Oscan, see Sulmo (Rix Pg 36), Corfinium (Rix Pg 50). Arruntius: CIL
9.77-9; AE 1978, 235. In Oscan: Pompeii (Rix Po 58), Tricarico (Rix tLu 1). Audius: AE 1968, 169.
In Oscan: Pompeii (Rix Po 8). Caesellius: CIL 9.87, 6096-6103. In Oscan: Capua (Rix Cp 25).
Gavius: AE 1983, 275. Gerillanus: CIL 9.49-50, 122, 6123; AE 1964, 139; 1978, 178, 207, 250;
1980, 255, 301, 309. Granius: CIL 9.125. Munatius: CIL 9.6127; AE 1978, 159; 1980, 294.
Novius: CIL 9.152. It may be related to the Oscan praenomen Novis, from e.g. Pietrabbondante
(Rix Sa 7). Numisius: CIL 9.6129. It may be related to the Oscan praenomen Niumsis, attested in
Teanum Sidicinum (Rix Si 1112), Capua (Rix Cp 26), Pompeii (Rix Po 2, tPo 7-11), Nola (Rix Cm
6), Cum AE (Rix Cm 9, 14). Pacilius: CIL 9.159-61, 6099, 6131; AE 1966, 87; 1982, 210.
Plaetorius: CIL 9.165. It is derived from the Messapian name Plator, attested in e.g. Ceglie
Messapico (Parlangeli 7.18, 7.22). Pomponius: CIL 9.56, 169-71; AE 1964, 132; 1965, 113; 1978,
154. Rammius: Liv. 42.17.2-3: ‘Rammius was the chief person in Brundisium, and he used to
entertain the Roman generals and distinguished ambassadors from foreign nations, especially
those who represented monarchy.’ See Yntema 2009, p. 159 for a possible emendation to
(H/E)Rennius. Sillius: CIL 9.189. In Oscan, see Pompeii (Rix tPo 4), Cumae (Rix Cm 18-19),
Tegianum (Rix Lu 41). Statius: CIL 9.191. Tutorius: CIL 9.199-200. It is probably derived from
the Messapian Totor or Teutor, as attested in e.g. Carovigno (Parlangeli 1960, nos. 5.25-26),
Brundisium (6.21), and Ceglie Messapico (7.110, 7.216). Vettius: CIL 9.42, ILS 2826, AE 1980,
319. For Oscan attestations see: Navelli (Rix MV 5 = ILLRP 147 = CIL 12.394 = 9.3414). T. Vettius
Scato was leader of the Paeligni in the Social War: Cic. Phil. 12.27; Lael. 7.24. Vibius: CIL 9.202-
4. See Silvestrini 1998, p. 92-8.
112 Lamboley 1996, p. 486; Compatangelo 1989, p. 49; Crawford 2006, p. 65; Yntema 2009.
113 Marangio 1998, p. 129-31.
114 Liv. 28.11.10-11. See Gualazzini 1985, p. 17, 38, 41.
115 Marini Calvani 1985, p. 268.
116 Plut. Pomp. 6.3.2; Cic. Att. 9.7; Caes. BC 1.24.4, 1.26.2. See Suolahti 1955, p. 370.
117 CIL 11.341, 6709.13. See Chevallier 1983, p. 183.
118 Tac. Hist. 3.33.
CeArdovino
119 site utilise des
2003, p. cookies
94-5. et collecte des informations personnelles vous concernant.
120plus
Pour Chevallier 1983, p. 184-6,nous
de précisions, 295. vous invitons à consulter notre politique de confidentialité
121 Mutto: CIL 5.1412, 8473; ILLRP 572 = CIL 12.2191 = 5.1890. See Wiseman 1971, no. 437;
Bandelli 1983, p. 200. Other attested variants are Muttenus and Mutilius (Sup. It. 93). Tappo:
ILLRP 436En poursuivant
= CIL votre
12.814 = 5.862 = ILS navigation,
906; ILLRP 540vous
= CILacceptez l'utilisation
12.2199 = 5.861; desILS
CIL 12.2205; cookies.
908. See Wiseman 1971, no. 34; Bandelli 1983, p. 183; Torelli 1999, p. 3; Maselli Scotti,
Giovannini and Ventura 2003, p. 651. Daza: Chevallier 1983, p. 184.
122 Panciera 1981, p. 120-1. Fermer

123 Aufidius: Bandelli 1983, no. 21. Raius: CIL 5.973. Statius: Bandelli 1983, p. 23. Vettius:
Bandelli 1988, p. 12-14. Vibius: ILLRP 306 = CIL 12.2822, ILLRP 199 = CIL 12.2193 = 5.792, CIL
5.1016, Bispham 2007, no. Q72, Bandelli 1983, no. 2. Bandelli 2005, p. 19 also mentions the
names Liburnius and Obulcius, but the non-Latin nature of these names is not clear.
124 Maselli Scotti, Giovannini and Ventura 2003, p. 655-7. However, they argue on p. 661-5 that
Gallic influence was not great, and that many ‘Celtic’ elements in the figurative arts should be
ascribed to artistic preferences of the 1st century BC.
125 There is some confusion about the status of Luna and Luca. The most likely solution is that
Luca was indeed a Latin colony; see Coarelli 1985-7, p. 27-8; Roselaar 2010, p. 325.
126 Ciampoltrini 2005, p. 48-9, 54-9.
127 Gambaro 1999, p. 118-20.
128 Gambaro 1999, p. 115-16.
129 Ciampoltrini 2005, p. 48-9, 54-9, 64.
130 Liv. 39.2, 40.16-17, 41.12, 14, 18-19; 42.8.22, 28.
131 Marcucetti 1995, p. 204-7; Gambaro 1998, p. 239-41.
132 Marcucetti 1995, p. 21.
133 See for all these names CIL 12.2678-706 = ILLRP 728-42. For Arruntius see also CIL
6.12447, 10.6023. Caedicius: CIL 10.6017, 6025a; Suolahti 1955, 349; Wiseman 1971, no. 76. For
Oscan attestations: Cumae (Rix Cm 15), Lucania (Rix Lu 56). Corellius: ILS 6294 = CIL 10.6018.
In Oscan: Aquilonia (Rix Sa 33). Epidius: AE 1904, 186. In Oscan: Teanum Sidicinum (Rix Si 18),
Pompeii (Rix Po 15), Stabiae Rix tCm 3). Hirrius: CIL 10.6037-8. It is probably related to Herius.
Lusius: CIL 12.2907. In Oscan: Serramonacesca (Rix MV 8-9). Maius: Cippus Abellanus l. 1, 3-4.
Minius: 10.6045. Numerius: ILS 6294 = CIL 10.6018. Numisius: CIL 10.6014. Pacuvius: CIL
10.5378. Pontius: CIL 10.8252. In Oscan: Pompeii (Rix Po 1, 7), Saticula (Rix Cm 28), Sulmo (Rix
Pg 5), Secinaro (Rix Pg 26); see Liv. 9.4.2; Vell. 2.27.1; Ap. BC 1.40. Rufrius: Cumae (Rix Cm 14).
Sta(h)ius: CIL 10.5372, 6017. Stenius: CIL 10.6050. In Oscan: Campania (Ve 134, Rix Cm 34),
Aesernia (Ve 140, Rix Sa 22); Messana (Ve 197a, Rix Me 5 (in Greek), Fagifulae (Rix Sa 44),
Cumae (Ve 134, Rix Cm 34), Rossano di Vaglio (Pocc 164, Rix Lu 15); Festus 150 L. Trebius:
10.6051. See Coarelli 1989, 75-7; Guidobaldi and Pesando 1989, 68-73. See Crawford 2007, p.
273.
134 Cato fr. 83; Gell. NA 3.7; Front. Strat. 1.5.15, 4.5.10.
135 Livi 2006, p. 105-13; on p. 112-13 she argues that the heads found in the votive deposit are
both veiled and unveiled, possibly reflecting the participation of different groups of worshippers
in the cult; however, the distinction between veiled and unveiled heads does not seem to have
been determined by the ethnicity of the worshipper; see Glinister 2009.
136 Caes. BAfr. 71; Cic. Verr. 2.5.154; Plu. Sull. 37.3, Mar. 35.8, 37.2, 40.1; Ap. BC 1.60-2; VM
9.3.8. For other Granii see CIL 10.1783, 2187, 2484-9, 2607, 2651. See Suolahti 1955, p. 363;
Wiseman 1971, no. 197.
137 ILLRP 518 = CIL 12.698 = 10.1781. Numerius is also attested in ILLRP 231 = CIL 12.1618 =
10.1589 and ILLRP 561 = CIL 12.1620 = 10.1573. In Oscan Blossius is attested in Capua (Rix Cp
24).
138 Numerius: ILLRP 111 (Panciera 1992) = ILLRP 561 = CIL 12.1619-20, 10.1573; AE 1988, 294.
Vibius Ovius: ILLRP 112 (Panciera addition) = CIL 10.1595. Pontius: ILLRP 231 = CIL 12.1618 =
10.1589. Suettius: AE 1974, 256.
139 This is argued especially by Coarelli 2000, p. 196-204, who argues that many of the gods
venerated had strong associations with the plebeians, and would therefore have been popular
with the settlers of 232, since this viritane distribution had been carried out against the wishes of
the senate. In either case, a date for the settlement at the end of the 3rd century would fit the
dedications, which are dated to the late 3rd and early 2nd century. See Dall’Aglio and Di Cocco
2004, p. 28.
140 Campagnoli 1999, p. 32. Contra: Harvey 2006, p. 128.
141 As attested in the Tabulae Iguvinae, where ukriper Fisiu is mentioned several times, a.o. Ia,
11-12. This most likely means something like ‘Fides of the state’.
142 Ariminum: CIL 6.133.
143
CeCresci
site Marrone
utilise and
desMennella
cookies1984, p. 48, 53, des
et collecte 95-6,informations
108, 123, 149-50. personnelles vous concernant.
144plus
Pour Harveyde2006, p. 126. Some,
précisions, nouse.g.vous
Cresciinvitons
Marrone and Mennella 1984,
à consulter p. 119,
notre Bandelli 2005,
politique dep.confidentialité
25, and Harvey 2006, p. 122 have argued that one of the dedications, by a man named Popaio,
may indicate a person from an ethnic (mise à jourother
background le 25than
juin 2018).
Roman, because the final S is
missing, which is thought to have been common in Etruria and other areas outside Rome.
However, Adams 2007, p. 104 argues that this characteristic occurred in Rome already at an early
age, and is not decisive; it is present, for example, in the Scipionic elogia (CIL 12.6, 8).
145 ILLRP 791 = CIL 12.2127 = 11.6363. See Cresci Marrone and Mennella 1984, p. 280-4.
Fermer
146 See Roselaar 2010, p. 53-4 on the treatment of the Cisalpine Gauls.

147 Zon. 8.7.
148 Pol. 10.1.9. See Aprosio 2008, p. 89-90.
149 See e.g. Keay and Terrenato (eds.), 2001; Jehne and Pfeilschifter (eds.), 2006; Roselaar (ed.),
forthcoming b.
150 Roselaar forthcoming a; see Cos¸kun 2009, p. 39-46.
151 Cic. Verr. 2.4.93.
152 Ortalli 2006, p. 287.
153 Regoli 2002, p. 148.
154 Arslan 1991, p. 461 for Ariminum; in general Patterson 2006.
155 Cic. Off. 1.34.125.
156 Lex Col. Gen. ch. 95: allowed to serve as witnesses in lawsuits; 103: liable for military service;
126: allowed to be present at public spectacles. Lex municipii Malacitani 53: Allowed to vote, if
they were Latins. Regulations for munera became very strict under the Empire, see Dig. 50.1.
Incolae were supposed to perform munera in their place of settlement, e.g. Dig. 50.1.29, 37;
50.4.6.5. See Kremer 2006 for political participation in the Imperial period.
157 Rix Po 39-40 (Ve 29-30); CIL 4.48. See Cooley 2002, p. 82.
158 Torelli 1999, p. 145.
159 Cic. Clu. 14.40.
160 See Bonomi Ponzi 2006, p. 115-28 on the production of exvotos and terracottas in the
sanctuary of Monte Torre Maggiore (Umbria).
161 Bispham 2006.
Table des illustrations

Fig. 1 – The territory of Cosa. Areas to the north and west of the
centuriated area show ‘continuità insediativa’ of local inhabitants (from
Légende A. Carandini and F. Cambi (eds.), Paesaggi d’Etruria. Valle
dell’Albegna, Valle d’Oro, Valle del Chiarone, Valle del Tafone, Rome,
2002).
Table: Overview of different types of evidence and their
Titre
appearance in the colonies
– – = strong evidence for expulsion of non-Roman inhabitants– = some
Légende evidence for expulsion of non-Roman inhabitants blank: no evidence+ =
some evidence for the presence of non-Roman inhabitants++ = strong
evidence for the presence of non-Roman inhabitants
Pour citer cet article

Référence papier
Saskia Roselaar, « Colonies and processes of integration in the Roman Republic », Mélanges de
l'École française de Rome - Antiquité, 123-2 | 2011, 527-555.
Référence électronique
Saskia Roselaar, « Colonies and processes of integration in the Roman Republic », Mélanges de
l'École française de Rome - Antiquité [En ligne], 123-2 | 2011, mis en ligne le 19 février 2013,
consulté le 01 mai 2021. URL : http://journals.openedition.org/mefra/445 ; DOI :
https://doi.org/10.4000/mefra.445
Cet article est cité par

Ce site utiliseLorenzo.
Gagliardi, des cookies
(2015)et collecte des
Fondazione informations
di colonie romane edpersonnelles
espropriazioni vous
di concernant.
Pour plusterre
de précisions,
a danno degli nous vous
indigeni. invitons
Mélanges à consulter
de l'École notre
française politique
de Rome. de confidentialité
Antiquité.
DOI: 10.4000/mefra.2869 (mise à jour le 25 juin 2018).
Scopacasa, Rafael. (2015) MOULDING CULTURAL CHANGE: A CONTEXTUAL
APPROACH TO ANATOMICAL VOTIVE TERRACOTTAS IN CENTRAL ITALY,
FOURTH–SECOND CENTURIES BC. Papers of the British School at Rome, 83.
Fermer
DOI: 10.1017/S0068246215000021

Roselaar, Saskia T.. (2015) Italian allies and access to ager Romanus in the
Roman Republic. Mélanges de l'École française de Rome. Antiquité. DOI:
10.4000/mefra.3055
Auteur
Saskia Roselaar
University of Nottingham, Department of Classics, United Kingdom, saskiaroselaar@gmail.com.
Droits d’auteur
© École française de Rome
Fermer

Colonies and Processes of Integration in The Roman Republic

Transféré par

Informations du document

Titre original

Copyright

Formats disponibles

Partager ce document

Partager ou intégrer le document

Options de partage

Avez-vous trouvé ce document utile ?

Ce contenu est-il inapproprié ?

Droits d'auteur :

Formats disponibles

Colonies and Processes of Integration in The Roman Republic

Transféré par

Droits d'auteur :

Formats disponibles

01.05.

2021 Colon es and processes of ntegrat on n the Roman Republ c

Colonies and processes of

https://journals.opened t on.org/mefra/445#text 2/33

4 Before investigating the Romanizing effect of colonies settled by the Romans, we

The people of Ferentinum attempted to secure a new legal prerogative: the

https://journals.opened t on.org/mefra/445#text 4/33

https://journals.opened t on.org/mefra/445#text 5/33

inscriptions in Italic languages recording them,27 or by literary sources. Others,

growing influence of Rome throughout Italy, locally specific cultural manifestation

Archaeological and geographical evidence

https://journals.opened t on.org/mefra/445#text 8/33

https://journals.opened t on.org/mefra/445#text 11/33

https://journals.opened t on.org/mefra/445#text 12/33

https://journals.opened t on.org/mefra/445#text 16/33

– – = strong evidence for expulsion of non-Roman inhabitants

Motivations for the presence of non-

https://journals.opened t on.org/mefra/445#text 17/33

Contacts between colonists and non-

https://journals.opened t on.org/mefra/445#text 20/33

https://journals.opened t on.org/mefra/445#text 21/33

https://journals.opened t on.org/mefra/445#text 22/33

https://journals.opened t on.org/mefra/445#text 23/33

https://journals.opened t on.org/mefra/445#text 26/33

https://journals.opened t on.org/mefra/445#text 27/33

https://journals.opened t on.org/mefra/445#text 28/33

https://journals.opened t on.org/mefra/445#text 29/33

https://journals.opened t on.org/mefra/445#text 30/33

https://journals.opened t on.org/mefra/445#text 31/33

Table des illustrations

Pour citer cet article

Cet article est cité par

https://journals.opened t on.org/mefra/445#text 32/33

https://journals.opened t on.org/mefra/445#text 33/33

Vous aimerez peut-être aussi