The Pagus-Vicus System Revised
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
UvA-DARE (Digital Academic Repository) Sanctuary and society in central-southern Italy (3rd to 1st centuries BC) : a study into cult places and cultural change after the Roman conquest of Italy Stek, T.D. Publication date 2008 Link to publication Citation for published version (APA): Stek, T. D. (2008). Sanctuary and society in central-southern Italy (3rd to 1st centuries BC) : a study into cult places and cultural change after the Roman conquest of Italy. General rights It is not permitted to download or to forward/distribute the text or part of it without the consent of the author(s) and/or copyright holder(s), other than for strictly personal, individual use, unless the work is under an open content license (like Creative Commons). Disclaimer/Complaints regulations If you believe that digital publication of certain material infringes any of your rights or (privacy) interests, please let the Library know, stating your reasons. In case of a legitimate complaint, the Library will make the material inaccessible and/or remove it from the website. Please Ask the Library: https://uba.uva.nl/en/contact, or a letter to: Library of the University of Amsterdam, Secretariat, Singel 425, 1012 WP Amsterdam, The Netherlands. You will be contacted as soon as possible. UvA-DARE is a service provided by the library of the University of Amsterdam (https://dare.uva.nl) Download date:03 Oct 2021 Chapter 6 Roman Sacred landscapes? The Pagus-Vicus System Revised “è proprio sicuro che l’unica chiave di lettura sia quella che vede nel pagus un sistema integrato in cui convivono oppida, vici e santuari? (LETTA 1997b, 313). This cautious question posed in 1997 by Letta, himself one of the most influential advocates of the pagus-vicus system, indicates a growing discomfort with the system. It can be answered now, and it must be negatively. As will be shown in this chapter, there are strong reasons to abandon the traditional scheme. The consequences of the ‘deconstruction’ of the pagus-vicus system are manifold. First, its application, ubiquitous in modern studies, on sanctuaries in virtually all areas of Italy lacking strong urban development, should be abandoned. The expression has been used more often than not for situations lacking actual epigraphical evidence for a vicus or pagus (let alone both!), and here the problem is limited to wrong terminology. This is for example the case for the sanctuary of S. Giovanni in Galdo, which in the past by some authors has been seen as functioning within a pagus-vicus system (cf. Chapter 5). But, second, there are sanctuaries in Central Italy which do yield epigraphical evidence for the involvement of a vicus or a pagus. The implications of the problems with the pagus-vicus system entail much more than mere terminology here, and ultimately have important consequences for ideas on the romanisation, religious and not, of Italy.1 The interpretation of the function and meaning of sanctuaries within the pagus-vicus system relies, by definition, on the acknowledgement of this very system as the most important structure in organising the territory. In Chapter 4, weaknesses in the attempts to interpret sanctuaries exclusively within the pagus-vicus system already have been pointed out. But these weaknesses could be demonstrated ‘internally’; that is without discarding the whole framework of the pagus-vicus system, which basic notion is that several vici were contained by one pagus. It has been shown in Chapter 4 that in many modern studies it is an assumption that such a configuration existed (e.g. Letta’s ‘griglia per l’inquadramento e l’interpretazione dei dati’), whereby a vicus 1 See also STEK forthcoming. Ch. 6. Roman Sacred Landscapes? necessarily implies the presence of a pagus and vice-versa, and this notion persists in very recent scholarship.2 As will be made clear, positive evidence for this hierarchical relation between pagus and vicus is thin, and probably vicus and pagus should rather be seen as autonomous or complementary institutions. This implies that the hierarchical relation between overarching pagus sanctuaries and minor vicus sanctuaries cannot stand up. There is, however, a more fundamental challenge to the interpretation of sanctuaries within a pagus-vicus system. This concerns the origin and status of the institutions of both the pagus and the vicus, apart from one another. Especially the pagus is traditionally considered to be an ancient, typical Italic institution, that later, under Roman dominion, continued to exist. The standard account on the vicus is similar, depending as it is on the traditional interpretation of the pagus. Recently, two different and important studies, that by Tarpin and that by Capogrossi Colognesi, have treated the subject.3 Although their conclusions are not identical (or even compatible), they agree in questioning the traditional conception of the nature and development of both pagus and vicus. If the arguments of these scholars are correct, this will influence the interpretation of the administration and pattern of settlement substantially. As will be made clear, both vicus and pagus can probably be understood as Roman, rather than Italic institutions. As a matter of fact, they may ultimately provide insight into the commonly underplayed impact of Roman religion in the Italian countryside. In Chapter 7, it is shown how these new theses would affect the interpretation of Italic sanctuaries and, in the end, the ‘romanisation’ of Italy; but first the debate on pagi and vici is briefly discussed in the present chapter. The Pagus: “die uritalische Siedlungsform”? It has been noted earlier that according to Salmon, writing in 1967, the pagus would represent an “immemorial Italic institution”.4 This notion is part of a long tradition; going back further, Ernst Kornemann described the pagus already in 1905 as “die uritalische Siedlungsform”.5 This idea is usual in most of modern scholarship on pre- Roman Italy, where pagi have been recognised from the ca. seventh to the fifth century BC in the central Italian areas.6 Moreover, this system would have persisted as a ‘substrate’ for the municipal system.7 In this way, a paradigm has been formed which basically discerns continuity from a pre-Roman pagus to a Romano-Italic pagus. Capogrossi Colognesi has shown that the origins of this paradigm can already be found in the work of Adolf Schulten and can be placed in a specific historiographic tradition in Germany at the end of the 19th century, which for politico-ideological 2 LETTA 1992, 110, cf. Charter 4. See e.g. Bispham 2007, who states on p. 195 that “the model [scil. pagus-vicus system] has held up well”. 3 TARPIN 2002; CAPOGROSSI COLOGNESI 2002. Cf. also RUSSO 2003. 4 SALMON 1967, 79. 5 KORNEMANN 1905, 83. 6 E.g. TORELLI 1970-1971. Cf. Chapter 4. 7 See discussion in Chapter 4. 134 Ch. 6. Roman Sacred Landscapes? reasons did not leave room for the structural existence of the village in Italy.8 Since it is clear that the pagus played a role in Roman administration in the empire (there are, for example, pagi attested in various provinces, such as Roman Africa),9 a model of diachronical evolution from a pre-Roman structure to a Roman one was conceived.10 The evidence for such an early date of origin and consequent evolution is poor. In the first place, we are naturally dealing with a Latin term, and therefore basically with Roman terminology, as has been carefully acknowledged by some scholars.11 Yet this has not prevented modern scholarship from applying this Roman term to pre-Roman Italic society, implicating that the Roman term translates or reflects a pre-Roman entity.12 Actually, the ancient authors never describe the allies or independent peoples of Italy as living in pagi.13 Other arguments in favour of the pre-Roman character of the pagus have been put forth, the validity of which will be discussed here. Arguably, the presumed age-old pre-Roman origin of the pagus has been constructed along three main ‘threads’: the early pagi of the archaic Urbs, the changing status of Capua in the Republic, and the conceivably ‘traditional’ names of some pagi. ROME It is for the city of Rome itself that the literary tradition points indeed to a very ancient date of origin.14 Dionysius of Halicarnassus attributes the institution of the pagus in 8 SCHULTEN 1894, 656-671; KORNEMANN 1905, 78-84; CAPOGROSSI COLOGNESI 2002, esp. 117-122. 9 For which, see TEUTSCH 1962; MAURIN 1995. 10 Exceptions are RUDOLPH 1935, 50-51 and FREDERIKSEN 1976, 344; the latter distinguishes two parallel types of pagi: “And while in some cases it is clear that these pagi of the Roman census were the old tribal pagi taken over and transformed into part of the new system, in other cases it seems certain that the pagi were new institutions.” Frederiksen, moreover, concludes that during the late Republic pagi were “grouped together to form new municipia or were joined to old ones, or were created afresh wherever they did not exist”. He thinks that this process was already under way in the late second century BC, but was only systematised under Augustus in his procedures for census taking (p. 352). 11 E.g. SCHULTEN 1894, 634 on the different application of the Roman term of pagus on various pre- existing situations: “Damit ist nicht gesagt dass nicht etwa pagus ein einer grösseren Gruppe von Italikern gemeinsames Wort und ein gemeinsames Landtheilungselement sein könne. So lange aber das Wort in keiner der anderen italischen Sprachen nachgewiesen ist, kennen wir den pagus nur als den römischen Flurbezirk”. LAFFI 1974, 336 cautiously says: “ampie zone dell’Italia centro- meridionale ... si presentavano strutturate secondo un sistema di insediamenti che aveva nel pagus, o meglio in quello che i Romani chiameranno pagus, la sua fondamentale unità territoriale e amministrativa,” but propagates all the same the view that the pagus-vicus system is basically a pre- Roman feature, parallel to the Roman municipal system.