Quick viewing(Text Mode)

The Emperor and the Plough (Re)Founding the City and Extending the Empire

The Emperor and the Plough (Re)Founding the City and Extending the Empire

BABESCH 94 (2019), 147-160. doi: 10.2143/BAB.94.0.3286783

The emperor and the plough (re)founding the city and extending the empire

Saskia Stevens

Summary

This contribution focuses on the Roman urban foundation ritual, the sulcus primigenius, and its related boundary, the pomerium. Rather than studying actual city foundations, such as the city of itself and later Roman colonies, it addresses the metaphorical use of the sulcus primigenius and the pomerium in various media. By looking at inscriptions, bas-reliefs and coins, the paper argues that the image of the city founder and the plough was used in the imperial period to signpost a close connection to Rome, announce periods of political transformation or renewal, and advertise an extension of Rome’s spheres of influence.*

The image of a priestly figure with a plough (fig. 1): from orbis, the circle drawn by the plough.2 The a depiction that is instantly understood as the ploughing ritual, in known as the sulcus Roman urban foundation ritual, first and fore- primigenius, got a wider application and signifi- most, the mythical foundation of Rome. Even cance: a proper Roman city was founded in the though the priest in this image is not depicted same way as, according to tradition, capite velato, as one would expect, the garlands had once founded Rome. According to several adorning the cattle’s horns indicate that the scene ancient authors, the sulcus primigenius had its ori- depicts a ritual and not a plain agricultural activ- gin in Etruscan culture shrouding the phenome- ity. The urban foundation ritual has been described non in obscurity, turning it into something that by various authors, such as Cato, Varro, and belonged to a distant past.3 Despite its supposed later : on a day favoured by the auspices, antiquarianism, however, the sulcus primigenius Romulus drew a plough, pulled by an ox and a kept its importance until well into the imperial cow, around the intended limits of Rome.1 Varro, period. A similar observation can be made for the in the 1st century BCE, furthermore mentioned pomerium, in current literature generally defined that other cities in Latium were found according as Rome’s religious or ritual boundary and con- to this ritual; these cities were hence called urbes, nected to the sulcus primigenius.4

Fig. 1. Relief from depicting the sulcus primigenius. Width 0,98 m., height 0,44 m., depth 0,09 m. Photo author, courtesy Museo Archeologico di Aquileia; inventory number 1171.

147 From the early imperial period onwards, the important symbolic limit as he was not allowed image of a founder with a plough seems to have to cross the pomerium until the day of his triumph gained significance and started to appear as a at the risk of losing his right to publicly celebrate theme in various media, such as coinage and his victory in the city.10 In fact, crossing the pomer- reliefs. While some of the images can be related ium in arms must have been one of the perks for to actual (re)foundations of Roman cities and the celebrating triumphant general.11 In this con- colonies, others clearly had a symbolic signifi- text, the pomerium seems to have marked the cance only.5 The aim of this paper is to demon- boundary between the civic and civilized world strate how the ploughing theme, the sulcus primi- inside the city limits, and the military one out- and the related pomerium, developed over side.12 From epigraphic evidence and literary time from purely religious and ritual phenomena descriptions we furthermore know that the pome- related to the foundation of Rome, to strong rium could be extended if a general met certain political and symbolic tools used in a broader criteria concerning the extension of Rome’s context in the imperial period. By contextualising realm.13 As such, the extended pomerium flagged a number of foundation scenes from various Rome’s military power and superior position, media, I argue that in the imperial period the advertising its successes on a local level. pomerium and sulcus primigenius were renewed or Considering these regulations related to the reintroduced in Rome particularly at times of pomerium, it seems that it was of rather limited political transformation or renewal, as a way of relevance to most people, with the exception of marking a new start by simultaneously referring certain priests, magistrates and army command- to Rome’s mythical past. Wrapped in a visually ers. As a boundary, the pomerium was also a familiar theme, they locally advertised an exten- rather passive feature in contrast to the sulcus sion of Rome’s power or the advent of a new primigenius, which represented action; the sulcus political regime. primigenius was a ritual performed at the founda- tion of a Roman city marking its very start. The THE SULCUS PRIMIGENIUS AND THE POMERIUM use of the plough enhanced the idea of beginning as the ploughshare breached virgin soil, reorgan- Before we look at the development in significance ised it and made it suitable for human habita- of the sulcus primigenius and the pomerium, it is tion.14 Once the foundation had taken place, the important to establish their respective roles in the only visible trace the ephemeral ritual left behind Roman urban foundation ritual. Overall, the in the landscape was the city wall. The pomerium ancient sources tend to agree on the performance only became visible, to some extent, when people of the sulcus primigenius, which happened - with such as triumphant generals, and auspi- some variations - as described at the beginning of cating magistrates, played their parts in rituals 6 this paper. The sulcus primigenius left no visible related to the pomerial boundary. Additionally, traces besides the furrow that appeared during the every February the annual lustration ritual, the ceremony, marking the location of the later city amburbium, conjured up the sulcus primigenius wall. The concept of the sulcus primigenius seems when the people of Rome circumambulated the rather straightforward; the pomerium, however, is boundaries of the city in a procession that another matter. strongly resembled the urban foundation ritual: a What do we know about the pomerium and its procession moving in a counter clockwise motion visibility in the landscape? Varro mentioned that along the outer limit of the city’s boundary.15 This the pomerium was the urbis principium, the begin- recurring ritual not only reconfirmed the bound- nings of a city, the first feature that initiated a 7 aries of the city, but also evoked memories of the city’s existence. The pomerium marked the limits city’s original foundation and at the same time of the urban auspices and as such was of rele- created a sense of communal belonging.16 vance to the collegium of augurs and the magis- Besides analysing the written sources, both 8 trates involved. In this role, the pomerium must ancient writers and modern scholars alike have have been a boundary in three dimensions: not studied the pomerium etymologically to better only a limit on the ground but also a vertical grasp its significance. According to the ancient dividing line reaching up to the sky where the etymologists, the word pomerium was a contrac- flight of the birds was to be observed.9 Until the tion of the words pro or post and murum: a feature reign of , the pomerium bounded the in front of, or behind the city wall.17 From what tribunicia potestas and for a victorious general aspir- point of view the pomerium was ‘in front of’ or ing to triumph on his return to Rome, it was an ‘behind’ the wall is difficult to reconstruct, which

148 is another complicating factor in understanding stitute, at least the act of crossing the pomerium in its exact meaning.18 Modern scholars have also arms was part of the celebration, if we are to attempted to discover the origins of the word, believe Varro.26 which resulted in an irresolvable debate and the How now to reconstruct the complex relation- evidence for either position, that is located ‘in ship between the pomerium and the sulcus primi- front of’ or ‘behind’ the wall, seems to be circum- genius? In my view, the pomerium and sulcus stantial.19 In a 2014 article, Simone Sisani addressed this ambiguity and argued that if the pomerium is primigenius ought to be seen as separate bounda- understood as a phenomenon unrelated to the ries with different functions. Nevertheless, a close city wall and the sulcus primigenius, the obscurity connection with the city wall should be main- can be better understood: the city wall should be tained.27 Gianluca De Sanctis’ exploration of the seen as a structure to keep the enemy out, and its relationship between the pomerium, the sulcus point of view is therefore from the outside; the primigenius and the city wall in a 2007 article, pomerium as a boundary, containing and safe- offers a convincing interpretation.28 In the past, guarding the legal and religious integrity of the the pomerium and sulcus primigenius have been city, should be seen from the inside and is there- 20 incorrectly used as interchangeable concepts and fore located on the inside of the city wall. De Sanctis focusses in his article on disentangling Another point of discussion resulting from the ancient sources’ ambiguity is whether the pome- the two phenomena. He investigates their respec- rium was a line or a zone.21 Not only modern tive relationships to the city wall by critically 29 scholars still struggle with the pomerial phenom- revisiting the primary sources. In his article, De enon; the confusion and discrepancy we find in Sanctis suggests a plausible new reading for the the ancient sources suggests that the Romans also following passage of Plutarch: found it hard to fully grasp its significance and manifestation in the city.22 By historically contex- The founder himself drove a deep furrow և֬քۚնևն 30 tualising the ancient sources that mention the URXQGWKHERXQGDULHV pomerium, Sisani offers a solution for these dis- \crepancies. He argues that particularly in the 'H 6DQFWLV WUDQVODWHV և֬քۚնևն DV ¶ERXQGDU period between and Augustus, when many military colonies were founded, the pomerium stones’ rather than simply ‘boundaries’, analo- seems to have made a comeback. These colonies gous to the Latin word terminus, which can also 31 were supposedly founded according to the mean both boundary and boundary stone. In Romulean foundation ritual, tying them to Rome. his reading the founder ploughed the sulcus According to Sisani, only Rome had a pomerium primigenius by following a line that was demar- as he suggests the phenomenon was ‘l’espressione cated by boundary stones: ‘Il fondatore [...] stesso topografica del concetto di ’, a power li conduceva tracciando un solco profondo lungo 23 which the magistrates only held in the Urbs. le pietre di confine...’32 A reconstruction of the When colonies were founded, the sulcus primige- foundation ritual of a city would be as follows: nius only demarcated the line of the city wall. the pomerium is demarcated as a line around the From the late Republican period onwards, ancient intended city’s territory with boundary markers authors subsequently projected these colonial foundation rituals back onto Rome to describe its at regular distances. On the day approved by the original foundations, in which the sulcus primige- auspices, the city founder ploughs with a team of nius merged with the pomerium, hence automati- cattle the first furrow, the sulcus primigenius, fol- cally creating a close connection between the city lowing the line of the pomerium. After the plough- wall and the pomerium.24 However, even though ing ritual the pomerial line is no longer visible there are not many references to the existence of except for the location of the intended gates a pomerium outside Rome, Varro did mention where the plough is lifted. The furrow and the pomerium stones standing around the town of ploughed up soil represent the line of the future Aricia: Cippi pomeri stant et circum Ariciam et cir- fortification wall and the ditch. As the pomerium cum Romam (LL. 5.143). Aricia, a town south of was an uninterrupted line, in contrast to the sul- Rome along the Via Appia was the starting point for an alternative triumph, the so-called triumph cus primigenius or later the city wall with its gates, in monte Albano. This type of triumph was it kept its importance on certain occasions: taking awarded to generals when the senate refused a the auspicia urbana, limiting tribunician power at regular one in Rome.25 Even though these tri- least until Augustus, and during triumphal cer- umphs were regarded as a less prestigious sub- emonies.33

149 (RE)TRACING THE POMERIUM

Based on the frequency with which the ancient writers mentioned the pomerium and the sulcus primigenius, they apparently were to some extent current phenomena and considered worth men- tioning. We should bear in mind, however, that a ritual such as the sulcus primigenius, supposedly first performed by Romulus in the eighth century BCE and continued to well into the imperial period, in time developed and changed in sig- nificance. Even if the sulcus primigenius’ visual interpretation remained the same on reliefs and coins, the possibility of reinterpretations of the ritual should not be disregarded.34 De Sanctis’ reconstruction of the pomerium would obviously imply that the line of the pomerium coincided with the city wall. The pomerium was, however, by no means as static as the city wall, because it could be enlarged, restored and given more visi- bility.35 As such, a reference to the pomerium and the foundation ritual could imply additional mes- sages, which are discussed in the following sec- tions: an extension of the , an Fig. 2. Cippus with inscription from Capua (CIL ideological connection to Rome and the arrival of 10.3825). Width: 0,67 m., height: 1,42 m. Photo a new political era. author, Courtesy Museo Archeologico Nazionale di Napoli; inventory number: 3956. Extension of Empire places or building of special significance of the Evidence, particularly from the imperial period, respective rulers, which seems to suggest a pro- shows that the pomerium could be extended if motional function as well. For example, Rome’s territory had been enlarged. According to cippi were found near the Praetoria, the Gellius, the pomerium could be extended by the place where was proclaimed emperor person who increased the domain of the Roman by the , and a Hadrianic cippus people, while Seneca added it should be an exten- was discovered near the Saepta Julia, the voting sion of the ager Italicus and not that of a province. hall which Hadrian rebuilt or restored.40 The , however, stated that merely an extension pomerial markers in Rome that belonged to the of the imperium sufficed to extend the pomerium extensions were preserved, because they were and also a reference in the Historia Augusta used to signify and advertise an extension of the regarding Aurelian’s extension produces rather Roman sphere of influence.41 As such, the pome- general criteria.36 A fragmentarily preserved tab- rium had an additional function besides demar- let of the Lex de Imperio Vespasiani dated to 69-70 cating the inaugurated city: visualising Rome’s CE does unfortunately not solve the issue, stating military power and propagating an enlargement that the pomerium could be extended ‘if he [sc. of the empire on a local level.42 ] deems it to be in the interest of the In theory, the extension of the pomerium would state’, using Claudius’ right to extend the pomer- also have involved ploughing the boundary. We ium as a precedent.37 Despite the ambiguity have no idea if this actually happened; a mere among the literary sources regarding the exact procession in a counter clockwise motion headed rules for a pomerial extension, there is epigraphic by the ‘founder’, reminiscent of the earlier men- evidence that the pomerium was extended at least tioned amburbium, may have sufficed. Besides twice.38 A series of pomerial markers from the newly plotted pomeria, the sulcus primigenius also reigns of Claudius, Vespasian and Titus, and kept recurring in the imagery of Rome. The act of Hadrian attests several extensions and a restora- ploughing marked a beginning - or a new begin- tion of the pomerium by the latter respectively.39 ning. As Ika Willis puts it, the plough was used Some of these markers were found in situ near as an instrument of spacing that reorganized the

150 Fig. 3. Detail: inscription from Capua (CIL 10.3825). Photo author. surface of the earth.43 It was an instrument of unlikely that the sulcus primigenius referred to in mark-making. Stemming from Roman agricultural the inscriptions demarcated the line of future for- tradition, as referred to by for example , it tifications since they were already present.49 also served its purpose in an urbanised society.44 Instead, the stones announced the new beginning of the town under Roman control, bringing across The Rome connection a strong political message. At the same time there is a reference towards the past, to Rome’s long his- The sulcus primigenius theme was used to empha- tory and tradition, placing Capua’s re-foundation size a connection with Rome and its historical in that same tradition, bearing Rome’s hallmark. past. Near Capua, for example, six cippi were found The marble relief from Aquileia conveys a sim- attesting the town’s new foundation by Octavian ilar message (fig. 1). The relief has been dated to some time between 36 and 27 BCE.45 The inscrip- the first century CE, and shows a conditor urging tions read (figs 2-3): on a ceremonial team of cattle with garlands between their horns, drawing a plough followed By command of the [this stone by a crowd of men in toga.50 The relief probably is placed] where the plough was drawn.46 once adorned a public building, where the image of the town’s foundation according to Rome’s The reference to the sulcus primigenius is evident, principles would have been most visible, show- but what was the function of these markers in ing off its political and legal status.51 Giovanni Capua? None of the cippi was found in situ, how- Battista Brusin suggested the relief was part of a ever, and of the six inscriptions that were discov- frieze that once embellished a gate or arch, Mon- ered, only two can be located today: one in the ica Verzár suggested the basilica as a possible National Archaeological Museum of Naples and location of display and Simon Price argued that one in Marcianise, a town 9 km to the southeast the relief once decorated an altar.52 In Brusin’s of Santa Maria Capua Vetere, the modern town reconstruction the image would have had a on the site of ancient Capua, where the inscrip- higher visibility, but considering the figures’ total tion has been incorporated in the facade of a height, maximum 25 cm., they are relatively small palazzo.47 It is therefore impossible to determine compared to other reliefs on public monuments, the relation between the cippi and the city wall of for example, in Rome.53 The Aquileia relief would Capua. The stones do imply, however, that Capua not have been visible at great heights, which was (re)founded by the same ploughing ritual could make Price’s interpretation more likely.54 associated with Romulus when he founded Rome Along the Via Salaria in Rome a relief was dis- and that it established a close link between the covered in 1997 in a (semi-)private context also founder and its city and finally, that it would depicting the ploughing theme. The relief was have indicated the extent of the city’s inaugu- found in a funerary setting and shows a sella rated territory.48 As the town of Capua existed curulis and a capsa, a box for scrolls, in the lower before it was turned into a Roman colony, it is section and a foundation scene in a smaller bas-

151 Fig. 4. Fragment of a funerary relief found along the Via Salaria. Width 1,17 m., height 0,84 m., depth 0,40 m Photo author, courtesy of the Museo Nazionale Romano - Terme di Diocleziano; inventory number 394442. relief in the upper section (fig. 4).55 The founder is ritual: the ‘un-founding’ of a city. The cities of shown capite velato driving a team of cattle for- and Corinth, both sacked by the Romans ward. He is accompanied by at least two onlook- in 146 BCE, were un-founded and subsequently re- ers, possibly more, but as the relief has not been founded; they are fitting examples. Corinth’s fortifi- completely preserved, this cannot be ascertained. cation wall was removed, as such undoing the city’s To his left, two togate men, who are slightly foundation.56 In Carthage, the demolition of the city smaller and therefore possibly standing at a dis- was of a more symbolic and ritual nature: the annul- tance, are looking towards what looks like a city ment of the sulcus primigenius. The ritual nature of gate, providing a topographical context for the this act is highlighted in ’ description in ceremony or giving a preview of what was to be his Saturnalia, which mentions some sort of for- built after the ceremony. Based on stylistic grounds, mula that is uttered during the ceremony.57 The the relief has been dated to the second century CE city was, as it were, obliterated from the landscape and the sella curulis refers to a senior magistrate and became part of the countryside again through with imperium, who may have wanted to record ploughing; at least this is what the Roman probably his involvement in the foundation of a city in the thought happened, as Ray Laurence argued.58 The provinces on his tomb monument. undoing of the sulcus primigenius must have been a The use of the sulcus primigenius as a symbol for firm statement: you are Rome’s enemy and we take urban change or renewal also becomes evident away your Roman city-ness. In the Digest we find when we look at the opposite of the foundation a further reference to this destructive measure:

152 If the usufruct is left by way of legacy to a civitas political statement by founding these colonies at and the site of the civitas is afterward turned roughly the same time, as he not only provided over to the plough, it ceases to be a civitas, as land for his veterans, but also for civilians and happened to Carthage. Accordingly it ceases to simultaneously relieved the demographic pres- have the usufruct on the grounds, as it were, of sure on Rome.64 He converted those cities, which death.59 formerly had had a feud with Rome, into Roman centres, and emphasised that he was responsible re-founded both Corinth and Carthage for it. It was the beginning of a new relationship one century after their destruction, a fact that can with these cities and this act was supported by hardly be considered a coincidence.60 The sym- direct references to the traditional Roman founda- bolic significance of these two cities being among tion ceremony, the sulcus primigenius. The act con- Caesar’s colonies was also noticed by Plutarch.61 nected the new colonies to Rome: it gave them The foundation of Carthage in particular can be Roman roots. In addition, the sulcus primigenius seen as an attempt to illustrate Rome’s dominance was important for the legal and political status of over one of its longstanding enemies: it not only a city and it was therefore mentioned in documents oversaw its destruction, but also its resurrection. such as Urso’s foundation charter and Capua’s Augustus later consolidated Caesar’s attempt cippi (figs 2-3).65 when he founded the Colonia Iulia Karthago: a city, remarkably enough, with no city Winds of political change walls at all!62 When Caesar refounded Carthage and Corinth, Besides references to the ploughing theme in inscrip- he also founded colonies at Capua in and tions and on reliefs, the theme also appeared on Urso in Spain at about the same time. Like coinage. This imagery not only signified actual foun- Corinth and Carthage, these towns had been cen- dations of new colonies, but could also announce a tres of resistance against Rome: Capua had been regime change, in which the new ruler sought to punished in 211 BCE, after siding with Hannibal announce new beginnings. The obverse generally and Rome took away its political infrastructure displays a portrait of the founder and the reverse a and institutions; Urso had had pro-Pompey sym- figure behind a plough with cattle (figs 4-6). The sul- pathies. Even though Capua lost its political cus primigenius theme was especially popular on rights and its territory became ager publicus, the Augustan and Tiberian coins, when we find rela- town itself was not destroyed.63 Caesar made a tively many examples, and it was used at least

Fig. 5. Augustan denarius, dated to 32-29 BCE, depicting laureate on the obverse and Augustus, veiled and laureate, behind the plough, holding a whip, on the reverse (RIC 1.272). Photo courtesy of De Nederlandsche Bank.

153 Fig. 6. Vespasianic coin, dated to 77-78 CE, depicting the emperor and a team of cattle (RIC 2.944). Photo The British Museum, inventory number: R.10432. until the reign of emperor Gordian III in the late with the country being at war with France, there third century CE.66 The image of a veiled figure was no money to spare. However, money was behind a team of cattle would generally have suf- made available for reviving old ceremonies and, ficed to communicate a new city foundation.67 more importantly, for restoring St. Paul’s Cathe- Some coin issues, however, contain more details, dral. The rebuilding of the monument repre- for example, a rare Augustan aureus dated to 13 sented the past, but simultaneously set the tone BCE which shows the emperor on the obverse for what the future could hold.71 In a similar way, together with a lituus and simpulum, attributes of emperors used the sulcus primigenius to refer back the , and Augustus as a veiled to Rome’s mythical past and to mark the begin- priest ploughing in front of a city wall and a gate ning of a new era. If the sulcus primigenius was on the reverse.68 The coin may be linked to Augus- actually performed on these occasions as a sort of tus’ conquest of the Alpine regions and counter clockwise procession, the opposite of the Noricum in 15 BCE and the city wall depicted sun’s rotation, one could even argue that the cer- could figuratively refer to the foundation of Roman emony symbolised a motion back in time, to ear- control in these rather undeveloped areas. Simone lier glory days.72 Octavian, for example, chose the Sisani, on the other hand, connected this coin to sulcus theme for one of his coin issues after the important events that took place in Rome between Battle of Actium when he ‘renewed’ the Roman 13 and 8 BCE, such as the city’s reorganisation into Republic (fig. 5).73 A Vespasianic coin shows the fourteen regions, the restoration of several of the emperor on the obverse and yoked cattle on the city gates, the performance of the census and a reverse, possibly referring to his ‘new Rome’ after possible pomerial extension.69 Nero’s destructive reign and the tumultuous Coins displaying the sulcus primigenius theme struggle for power after his death (fig. 6).74 were issued from Rome’s mints particularly at According to , the emperor even per- times when one could metaphorically think of a sonally took part in the restoration of the temple re-foundation of Rome, after a regime change or of Optimus Maximus on the Capitoline, when the city had been renovated after destruc- carried off debris and made an effort to restore tion by fire, for example. At such moments the three thousand bronze tablets containing govern- drive to restore the urban environment to what it mental documents that perished along with the had been (or to a better version of it) must have temple, in an attempt to also revive the adminis- been immense, not only for the inhabitants but trative function of the building.75 Even more also for the ruler. Kevin Lynch demonstrated this unambiguous is a series of coins issued by Com- for the rebuilding of London after the big fire of modus in the year 192 CE when the emperor 1666.70 The major part of the City lay in ashes and declared himself the new founder of Rome, not

154 in the guise of Romulus but as Hercules Romanus Finally, the sulcus primigenius theme was not Conditor, and re-founded the city as Colonia Lucia only used to advertise positive qualities of a ruler. Antoniniana Commodiana (fig. 7).76 This happened In his Second Philippic, used the sulcus primi- in 191 CE after a large fire had destroyed many genius as an instrument to reveal Mark Antony’s monuments in the centre of Rome and it is not lack of leadership and to, obviously, mock him: unlikely that the emperor used this disaster as a springboard to his ‘new’ foundation of Rome as But you, euphoric and audacious, disregarding the ‘Immortal, Fortunate Colony of the Civilised all the respect due to the auspices, deducted World’. noted that at the time a Casilinum as a colony, where one had been golden statue was erected in honour of Commo- previously deducted a few years before; in dus representing the emperor with a bull and a order to erect your standard there, and to mark cow, which was undoubtedly a representation of out the line of the new colony with a plough. the sulcus primigenius ritual.77 Olivier Hekster fur- And with that plough you almost grazed the ther noted that referring to the new Rome as the gate of Capua, so as to diminish the territory ‘colony of the civilised world’, and not just a of that flourishing colony.81 colony, Commodus wanted to take the signifi- cance of the city even further: Rome was the cen- Cicero’s phrasing aratrum circumduceres82 is very tre of the empire and he had made that happen.78 similar to the Capuan inscription mentioned ear- If we return to the abovementioned Lex de Impe- lier and his comments should be interpreted as a rio Vespasiani for a moment, it is notable to read that way of ridiculing Mark Antony - which is one of an extension of the pomerium was allowed if it were the main purposes of his Philippics after all - ‘in the interest of the state.’79 How the state actually rather than a reference to his inability to found a benefited from a pomerial extension the text does city.83 In addition, it emphasises Antony’s unlaw- not clarify. Peter Brunt dated the document to ful behaviour as it was not allowed to found a December 69 CE and connected it to the moment new colony at Casilinum because one existed upon which Vespasian was first recognized as the there already, founded by Julius Caesar.84 new ruler of Rome.80 As such, the document can be related to the beginning of Vespasian’s reign. CONCLUSION Legally recording and allowing the extension of the pomerium would not only entail staging the exten- After having disentangled the pomerium and the sion with the related pomp, but also signalled a sulcus primigenius, this paper has shed a new light new start from a political point of view. on the significance and symbolic use of the sulcus

Fig. 7. Coin dated to 192 CE showing Commodus in the guise of Hercules Romanus Conditor, the founder of a new Rome (RIC 3.247). Photo Münzkabinett Wien, http://www.ikmk.at/object?id=ID65519.

155 3 primigenius and the pomerium, particularly in the Var. LL 5.143; Liv. 1.44.4; Cic. Div. 2.35.75. See also Van der Meer 2011, 82-89. imperial period when these themes were popular 4 For example, Le Gall 1970; Beard/North/Price 1998.2, 93; and significant. Even after the pomerium had been Cibotto 2006, 28; Goodman 2007, 42; Carlà 2015; Sisani 2016. traced by the plough and subsequently built over 5 For the spread of the ploughing theme in the provinces, by the city wall, it kept its importance as an see Howgego 2005, who introduces a variety of themes that can be found on provincial coinage. By referring to a urban boundary, for example to demarcate the (mythical) past on coins, for example, he argues that a limit of the auspicia urbana, bound certain magis- common identity can be constructed by simultaneously tracies and indicate the realm outside which the anchoring a place in the present. Also Sisani 2014, 382-383. victorious general had to stay until his day of tri- 6 See also: Cic. Div. 1.17.33: …et ita sulco ducto loca murorum designabant, aratrum suspendentes circa loca portarum. (And umph. The pomerium and the sulcus primigenius this is how after having drawn the furrow they deter- were clearly two separate phenomena that both mined the location of the walls, lifting the plough at the փֈ չ֭ ۛ׭րռցۛפ  .had their own development over the centuries. locations of gates); Plut. Rom סցևպօ տն׏ ևנցվց ֯ւպրױ ց չվնցփփ׵ցևնվ ևֶցזStarting out as two consecutive actions associated ֯ۚշնրպ סսպց֖ۛնցևפwith the foundation ceremony of Rome, during ֙քփևքփցׯۛպքս֬ցևպօչվ֒րպվۚۚնۛփվփ׵ֆվց պքփցۛրֶցև؆ցۛֈր؆ցցփۚ׎ջփֈֆվÃև֓օչ֭ۛ׭րնօאփօ֊זևպ պքնօցփۚ׎ջփցևնօփ׮տֽց֘ցպֈչպվֆվչնվۚփց׎նօև֭֓ۚցא the imperial period the pomerium had developed ֶۚ from a ritual boundary that enclosed the inaugu- չ֬֊պֆսնվ և֓ չ·֕ۛփۛ֬ۚۛպվց և؆ց ֕ցնոտն׎֌ց տն׏ $QGZKHUHWKH\SODQQHGDJDWHWKH\PDGHDQ rated urban territory and preceded the city wall տնսնք؆ց into a symbolic limit that visualised the growth open space taking the plough share out and lifting the plough across. And this is the reason why they regard the of the Roman Empire and advertised the out- whole wall as sacred, except of the gates; but if they con- standing military leadership and superiority of sidered the gates sacred, it would not be possible, without the ruler on a local level. The article then further religious scruples, to admit or send out things that are argued that while the pomerium seems to have necessary and not clean.); Plut. Quaest. Rom. 27. 7 been used for political and administrative public- Var. LL 5.143: ...eiusque auspicia urbana finiuntur. (...and here [sc. at the pomerium] were the limits of the urban aus- ity purposes on empire-level, the sulcus primige- pices.); Gel. 13.14.1: pomerium est locus intra agrum effatum... nius was mainly exploited for political advertise- qui facit finem urbani auspicii. (The pomerium is an area ments on a city-level, firmly connecting the within the inaugurated zone... that marks the limit of the ‘founder’ to the city. A re-foundation of Rome urban auspices.). For an extensive discussion and analysis of the ancient sources, see Sisani 2014, 357-365, with a was particularly reflected in coinage. It would helpful table on p. 363. seem that at set times, often after some catastro- 8 On the urban auspices see Beard/North/Price 1998, 22; phe, major urban renewal projects or forceful Drogula 2015, 53-54. regime changes had struck the city, the sulcus 9 Linderski 1986, 2278-2279. 10 primigenius was a popular theme and made its On the pomerium as the limit of the tribunicia potestas: Dio 51.19.6; Liv. 45.35.4; Dio 39.65.1; 55.8.1-2; cf. Gargola 1995, appearance in visual media announcing a new 27; Bastien 2007, 201-202; Drogula 2007, 420; 442-445; Hjort start of the city and advertising its regime’s Lange 2015, 133-134. involvement. On coins in particular, the founders 11 For a discussion of the role of the pomerium during the purposely sought a connection with the first triumph, see Stevens 2017, 43-51. 12 Related to this distinction, the idea has been put forward ploughman, Romulus, consolidating their con- that imperium militiae was exercised outside the pomerium, nection with Rome’s past. At the same time and while imperium domi was the highest civil power inside the with the same ritual, they revived the current pomerium. Gel. NA 15.275; Magdelain 1977, 11-12; Rüpke city, announced great times to come and demar- 1990, 41; Richardson 1991, 3; Drogula 2007, 420-422; Sisani cated space, place and time. 2014, 371. 13 On the rules for obtaining a triumph and the development of these criteria, see Lundgreen 2014; also Carlà 2015, 607- NOTES 614. 14 Willis 2011, 21-23. * This article builds on ideas that are touched upon in my 15 Beard/North/Price 1998.1, 178. Besides this annually re- 2017 book. I am grateful for the constructive criticism turning procession, there were also more ad hoc lustrations and comments of the anonymous reviewers and Olivier of the city’s boundary. For example, Pliny Nat. 10.35, about Hekster, who read an earlier version of this paper. Trans- a lustration that took place in 43 CE after a horned owl - a lations of Greek and Latin sources are based on the Loeb very inauspicious bird - had entered the temple of Jupiter Classical Library series, unless noted otherwise. Optimus Maximus on the . For a descrip- 1 Cato Or. 1.4; Varro LL 5.143; Liv. 1.44.4-5; Plut. Rom. 11.2; tion, see also Lucanus Phars. 1.593. also, Diod. Sic. 8.6.1. 16 Gowing 2005, 14-15. 2 One of the towns explicitly mentioned by Varro, besides 17 Varro, writing in the early first century BCE, is the oldest Rome, is Aricia, a town 25 km. to the southeast of Rome. A known source that discussed the pomerium. As seen earlier reason for this could be the in Monte Albano, he suggested the etymology: qui quod erat post murum, post- which started here. For a full discussion of these implica- moerium dictum (because the circle was post murum, ‘back tions see Stevens 2017, 47-48. See also Hjort Lange 2014. of the wall’, was called a postmoerium) and located the

156 pomerium behind the wall. Var. LL 5.143. (295L), on 36 Gel. 13.14.3: Habebat autem ius proferendi pomerii, qui popu- the other hand, offered another origin of the word and lum Romanum agro de hostibus capto auxerat. (He who had proposed: Dictum autem pomerium, quasi promurium, id est increased the domain of the , by land taken proximum muro (But it was called pomerium, as it were in from the enemy, had the right to extend the pomerium); front of the wall, that is very close to the wall). Other sug- Sen. Brev. Vit. 10.13.8: […]Sullam ultimum Romanorum pro- gestions include circum or circa muros (Liv. 1.44.4; Suet. fr. tulisse pomerium, quod numquam provinciali, sed Italico agro 313 (Roth); Corp. Glossat. Lat. V, 321) and proximus muri adquisito proferre moris apud antiquos fuit. ([…] that Sulla (Corp. Glossat. Lat. V, 474). was the last of the Romans who extended the pomerium, 18 Cf. De Sanctis 2007, 513. Cibotto (2006, 29) and Sisani which in old times it was customary to extend after the (2016, 73) suggest that the point of view should be from acquisition of Italian, but never of provincial, territory); Tac. outside the city and therefore locate the pomerium, coming Ann. 12.23.2: et pomerium urbis auxit Caesar, more prisco, quo from post and murum (*pos + moiriom), inside the city walls. iis qui protulere imperium etiam terminos urbis propagare datur See also Prosdocimi 1969, 7-14. Laurence (1994, 80) on the (The emperor likewise widened the sacred precincts of the other hand suggested that post murum should be seen from capital, in conformity with the ancient usage, according to the inside of the wall, which would place the pomerium which, those who had enlarged the empire were permitted outside the city walls. also to extend the boundaries of Rome); HA Aurel. 21.10: 19 Antaya (1980, 187) suggested that the word pomerium origi- Pomerio autem neminem principum licet addere nisi eum, qui nates in the Indo-european root *smer, which means to allo- agri barbarici aliqua parte Romanam rem p(ublicam) locupleta- cate or to measure out. In this sense the pomerium (*-smer- verit (For no emperor is allowed to extend the pomerium, ium) would be a boundary measured out from a certain unless he increased the Roman territory by some portion point, not necessarily being the city wall, in which *po would of foreign land). be a prefix. See also Sisani 2016, 66-67; 76. Milani (1987, 7-8) 37 Lex de Imperio Vespasiani (CIL 6.930): atque ei fines pomerii noted that from a semantic point of view both post-murium proferre, promovere, cum ex re publica censebit esse, liceat, ita and pro-murium are valid origins of the word pomerium, ut licuit Ti. Claudio Caesari Aug(usto) Germanico, (And that whereas Cibotto (2006, 29) favours a post-murium origin. he shall have the right, just as Tiberius Claudius Caesar 20 For the discussion see Sisani 2014, especially 379; also Augustus Germanicus had, to extend and advance the Sisani 2016, 73. boundaries of the pomerium whenever he deems it to be in 21 In Varro, as cited above, we find references to a line the interest of the state). whereas Livy and Gellius refer to a locus. Varro LL 5.143; 38 Literary sources refer to pomerial extensions by Sulla, Caesar, Liv. 1.44.4; Gel. 13.14.1. See also Cibotto 2006, 28-29. In an Augustus, Nero (Dio 43.5; Tac. Ann. 12.23.4; Sen. Brev. 13.8). For attempt to explain the divergent interpretations of the discussions of these possible extensions see Boatwright 1986; ancient authors, Oliver (1932, 146) suggested that some- Lyasse 2005, 173-175; 178-179; Carlà 2015, 608; 614-616; 629. how, in time, the pomerium must have developed from a 39 Claudius: CIL 6.31537a-d; 37022-4; 40853: ..auctis populi linear concept to a zone, unfortunately without any fur- Romani / finibus pomerium / ampliavit terminavitq(ue); Vespa- ther explanation. Sisani 2014, 370-372. sian and Titus: CIL 6.31538a-c; 40854: …auctis p(opuli) 22 Antaya 1980, 185. R(omani) finibus / pomerium ampliaverunt / terminaveruntque. 23 Sisani 2014, 384. Hadrian: CIL 6.31539a-c; 6.40855: …terminos pomerii / resti- 24 Sisani 2014, 379-381; 388-390. tuendos curavit. 25 Hjort Lange 2014 on the triumph in Monte Albano; Stevens 40 Stevens 2017, 57-59. 2017, 47-48. Sisani (2014, 384-385) provides a different inter- 41 For another political function of the pomerium see Orlin pretation for Varro’s reference. 2008, 231-253, in which Orlin argues that Octavian’s decree 26 Cf. Hjort Lange 2014, 67. from 28 BCE prohibiting Egyptian rites inside the pomer- 27 Cf. Sisani 2014, 370. ium was not a sign of hostility towards foreign religions, 28 De Sanctis 2007; also Sisani (2014) makes a clear distinction but rather a way of clearly demarcating the boundary between the pomerium and the sulcus primigenius in an between Roman and non-Roman. extensive study; see also Sisani 2016, 65-73. 42 For a detailed discussion of Claudius’ pomerial extension 29 E.g. Le Gall 1970, 59; Panciera 1999, 9; Carafa 2000, 272; and the related symbolism, see Mignone 2016. Simonelli 2001,160; Cibotto 2006, 28-30. 43 Willis 2011, 23; also Carlà 2015, 603. .օ ֭ۚց ֯ۛ֒ոպվ 44 Verg. Georg. 1.43-46; 50-53; 60-63סևװտվֆևֶօ նבչ·փ ע  .Plut. Rom 30 .օև֬քۚնֆվ 45 Chioffi 2008, 19-20זնցևփזրնտնշնսպ״պքվպրն׭ց֌ցնۛ 31 Oxford Latin Dictionary s.v. terminus. Cf. CIL 6.31538a-c; 6.40855. 46 CIL 10.3825: Iussu imperatoris Caesaris qua aratrum ductum est. 32 De Sanctis 2007, 509-511. 47 Chioffi 2008, 18-19. Two cippi were allegedly found in mod- 33 Var. LL 5.143; Gel. 13.14.1. Sisani (2014, 368) notes that this ern Capua near Vico di S. Germano and near Piazza S. Tom- particular function made it necessary to demarcate the maso d’Aquino; the cippus in the Naples Museum is thought pomerium with cippi. to have been discovered in Santa Maria Capua Vetere near 34 For changing significances in rituals see Lynch 1972, 31-32. the ‘Case Del Balzo’, but is unfortunately untraceable. See also Lyasse 2005, 172; 186; Mignone 2016, 438-439; 48 See also Eckstein 1979, 87-88; Sisani 2014, 380. Orlin 2016, 120-121. 49 App. Hann. 36. 35 Hadrian put up new pomerial markers in 121 CE (CIL 50 Based on a stylistic analysis Brusin (1931, 472-475) dated 6.31539a-c; 6.40855), because the ones erected by Vespasian the frieze to the first century CE. More recently: Di Filippo and Titus disappeared from view due to the raising of the Balestrazzi 2005, 94-106; Verzár 2009, 203. street level in the area. There, a Hadrianic 51 It could refer to Aquileia becoming the capital of Augus- marker was discovered directly above a Vespasianic one, tus’ X region Venetia et Histria. bearing the same number in the sequence, 158. For the 52 Brusin 1931, 474-475; Verzár 2009, 203; Beard/North/Price discovery of the markers, see Romanelli 1933, 240-246. For 1998.2, 244. a discussion of Hadrian’s restoration of the pomerium, see 53 By way of comparison: the reliefs on the Column of Stevens 2017, 35-37. measure 91 cm. in height, the reliefs on the inside of the

157 Arch of Titus 200 cm., and the frieze on outside of the Arch the Porta Carmentalis (after 12 BCE), the Flumentana (after of Constantine 102 cm. 12 BCE) and the Caelimontana (10 BCE). 54 Another inscription from Aquileia, which records the actual 70 Lynch 1972, 3-9. foundation of the colony by L. Manlius Acidinus, Gaius 71 Lynch 1972, 8. Flaminius and Publius Cornelius Scipio Nasica may have 72 See Stevens 2017, 56-57 for the possible performance of the propagated a similar political message: CIL 5.873: L(ucius) sulcus primigenius on the occasion of pomerial extensions. Manlius L(uci) f(ilius) / Acidinus triu(m)vir / Aquileiae coloniae 73 RIC 12 272, dated to 29-27 BCE. See also Sisani 2014, 390- / deducundae. (Lucius Manlius, son of Lucius, triumvir [in 391. I want to thank Paul Beliën, curator of the National charge of] the foundation of the colony of Aquileia). Numismatic Collection at De Nederlandsche Bank at Amster- 55 Di Gennaro 2006, 249-50; Friggeri/Magnani Cianetti 2014, dam for his help with the coins. 131. 74 RIC 2.943-945; 951-952. I want to thank Liesbeth Claes for 56 Rykwert 1976, 70-71; Stevens 1988, 39-40; Purcell 1995, 137; bringing this coin type to my attention. 140. Walbank (1997, 95-96) on Corinth says that the city 75 Suet. Vesp. 8.5; also Tac. Hist. 4.53. For the restoration of the was not destroyed to such an extent as the literary sources temple of Jupiter Optimus Maximus and the Etruscan ori- have suggested. The north stoa and a colonnaded hall were gin of the rituals involved, see Van der Meer 2011, 97-99; badly damaged; the archaic temple and the water supply for the symbolic value see also Levick 1999, 125-126. were left intact. Remarkable was the phenomenon that 76 Lobüscher/Seibert 2002, 583; Sisani 2014, 391; RIC 247; 629; ևֶցտն׏װӿփۚۚփչվնցֶցոփ׵ցևֵցևպ՗׾ۚռցնmany inscriptions had been smashed into tiny pieces, 'LR պչնӿփۚۚփչվնց֒ևֵցևպַۚ֬քնց֯ց׆ևն׵ևնۛנwhich, according to Walbank, reflects the political purpose և֓ֆևքնև ֆսնվۛքպփֆ֬ևնւպցևֶցչ֭זof the sacking rather than an act of destruction. ֯֋ռ։׎ջպևփӿփۚۚփչվնց֓տնրպ տփֈۚ֬ցռօבևֈ֊׊ տփր֌ց׎նց և׊օ փװMacr. Sat. 3.9.7-8. ՗׾ۚռց ֕սնցնև֌ց պ 57  ց ֯շփֈրպևփזևռց ֮նֈևփ׵ չփտպװտն׏ ո֓ք ֘ۛփվտփց ն Laurence 1996, 115. 58 +HDFWXDOO\RUGHUHGWKDW5RPHLWVHOIVKRXOG նֆպցۚנMod. Dig. 7.4.21 (first half of the third century CE): si usus ֯ۛ֌ց 59 fructus civitati legetur et aratrum in ea inducatur, civitas esse be called Commodiana, the legions Commodian, and the desinit, ut passa est carthago, ideoque quasi morte desinit habere day on which these measures were voted Commodiana... usum fructum (English translation: Watson 1998). Other ref- Rome he styled the ‘Immortal, fortunate colony of the erences to the contrary ritual of founding a city to mark its civilised world’; for he wished it to be regarded as a set- destruction: Prop. 3.9.41; Hor. Carm. 1.16.21; Sen. Cl. 1.26.4; tlement of his own). տն׏֕ցչքվ֒օևպնׯևؔ֊քֈֆփ׵օ֊վր׎֌ցրվևք؆ցServ. A. 4.212. 77 'LR $QGIRUKLP օսռրպ׎նօ֯ո֬ցպևփסPurcell 1995, 139. ۚպև֒ևպևն׭քփֈտն׏շփ 60 61 Plut. Caes. 57. a gold statue was erected of a thousand pounds’ weight, 62 Rakob 2000, 75. The lack of city walls surely underlined representing him together with a bull and a cow). the character of the new relationship with Carthage. 78 Hekster 2002, 95-96. 63 Frederiksen 1984, 264; Lomas 2003, 289. Liv. 26.16; 31.29; 79 CIL 6.930: utique ei fines pomerii proferre promovere, cum ex re Cic. Agr. 2.87-88 said in one of his speeches delivered in publica censebit esse, liceat ita, uti licuit Ti. Claudio Caesari the late 60’s BCE on agrarian law that there were ‘but three Aug(usto) Germanico. cities in the whole earth, Carthage, Corinth, and Capua, 80 Brunt 1977, 95. which could aspire to the power and name of the imperial 81 Cic. Phil. 2.102: tu autem insolentia elatus omni auspiciorum city’. Not that surprising then that Julius Caesar re- iure turbato Casilinum coloniam deduxisti, quo erat paucis founded these cities: Capua in 59 BCE, Corinth and annis ante deducta, ut vexillum tolleres, ut aratrum circumduc- Carthage in 46-44 BCE. eres; cuius quidem vomere portam Capuae paene perstrinxisti, 64 Suet. Iul. 42.1; Gardner 2009, 64. ut florentis coloniae territorium minueretur. 82 65 Lex ursonensis 73 (CIL 2.5439). A similar phrasing also occurs in the legal charter from 66 E.g. SNG France 3, 1208-1209; see Sisani 2014, note 117 for Urso (Lex. Urs. 73): Ne quis intra fines oppidi colon(iae)ve qua an extensive overview of relevant coin types. aratro circumductum erit... 83 67 Cf. Lobüscher/Seibert 2002, 583: ‘Die Darstellung des ritus Ramsey 2003, 159-160; cf. Huzar 1978, 99; Eckstein 1979, 89-90. 84 Etruscus (sc. Sulcus primigenius) bot die Möglichkeit, den Caes. B. Civ. 1.14.4; Ramsey 2003, 308-309. komplexen administrativen, rechtlichen und sozialen Vor- gang einer Koloniegründung allgemeinverständlich zu BIBLIOGRAPHY fassen und abzubilden. Gerade die Abstraktheit der Dar- stellung vereinfachte das Verständnis auch für Personen- Antaya, R. 1980, The Etymology of Pomerium, AJPh 101.2, gruppen, die keinen Anteil an der Tagespolitik nahmen.’ 184-189. 68 RIC 1.402. Other examples are RIC 1.272, depicting Octa- Bastien, J.-L 2007, Le triumph romain et son utilisation politique vian as a city founder of Nicopolis in Epiros in 30-29 BCE; à Rome aux trois derniers siècles de la République, Rome. RPC 1.4749 is a Neronian coin with a city foundation scene Beard, M./J. North/S. Price 1998, Religions of Rome 1-2, Cam- on the reverse with four vexillae in the background; RPC bridge. 1658.4 has Tiberius and Drusus Caesar on the obverse, and Boatwright, M.T. 1986, The Pomerial Extension of Augustus, two ploughing pontiffs on the reverse; RIC 2.568, a Tra- Historia 35, 13-27. janic coin depicting the emperor with laurel wreath and Brunt, P. 1977, Lex de Imperio Vespasiani, JRS 67, 95-116. aegis on obverse and ploughing scene on reverse. Brusin, G. 1931, Aquileia. Bassorilievo col tracciato del ‘sul- 69 Sisani 2014, 390-391. The coin (RIC I.402) has been dated cus primigenius’, NSA 7, 472-475. to 13 BCE, the year which Sisani sees as the starting point Carafa, P. 2000, Il solco primigenio e le mura, in A. Carandi- of many of the events that were concluded in 8 BCE. ni/R. Cappelli (eds), , Romolo, Remo e la fondazione According to Dio (55.6.6) and Tacitus (Ann. 12.23), Augus- della città, Milan, 272-277. tus also extended the pomerium in that year. See also Carlà, F. 2015, Pomerium, fines and ager Romanus. Under- Coarelli 1988, 54-59; Stevens 2016, 294. Augustus restored standing Rome’s “First Boundary”, Latomus 74.3, 599-630.

158 Chioffi, L. 2008, Capua. Immagini di storia, istituzioni e vita Lundgreen, C. 2014, Rules for Obtaining a Triumph: the ius sociale, Rome. triumphandi once more, in C. Hjort Lange/F.J. Vervaet Cibotto, F. 2006, Res sanctae. giuridica e signifi- (eds), The Roman Republican Triumph Beyond the Spectacle, cato religioso della demarcazione tra interno ed esterno Rome, 17-32. delle cinte murarie, Agri Centuriati 2, 25-44. Lyasse, E. 2005, Auctis finibus populi Romani? Les raisons Coarelli, F. 1988, Il Foro Boario. Dalle origini alla fine della de l’extension du pomerium sous le principat, Gerion 23, repubblica, Rome. 169-187. Di Filippo Balestrazzi, E. 2005, Il rilievo storico, AAAd 61, Lynch, K. 1972, What time is this place?, Cambridge/London. 93-123. Magdelain, A. 1977, L’inauguration de l’Urbs et l’Imperium, Di Gennaro, F. 2006, Rilievo con sella curulis ornata con fregio MEFRA 89.1, 11-29. a bassorilievo, in: M.A. Tomei (ed.), Roma. Memorie dal Mignone, L.M. 2016, Rome’s Pomerium and the Aventine sottosuolo. Ritrovamenti archeologici 1980-2006, Milan, 249- Hill: from auguraculum to imperium sine fine, Historia 250. 65.4, 427-449. De Sanctis, G. 2007, Solco, muro, pomerio, MEFRA 119.2, Milani, C. 1987, Il “confine”: note linguistiche, in M. Sordi 501-526. (ed.), Il confine nel mondo classico, Milan. Drogula, F. 2007, Imperium, Potestas, and the Pomerium in Oliver, J.H. 1932, The Augustan Pomerium, MAAR 10, the , Historia 56.4, 419-452. 145-182. Drogula, F. 2015, Commanders and Command in the Roman Orlin, E. 2008, Octavian and Egyptian Cults: redrawing Republic and Early Empire, Chapel Hill. the Boundaries of Romanness, AJP 129.2, 231-253. Eckstein, A.M. 1979, The Foundation Day of Roman “Colo- Orlin, E. 2016, Augustan Reconstruction and Roman Mem- niae”, California Studies in Classical Antiquity 12, 85-97. ory, in K. Galinsky (ed.), Memory in and Frederiksen, M.W. 1984, Campania (edited with additions Early Christianity, Oxford, 115-144. by Nicholas Purcell), London. Panciera, S. 1999, Dove finisce la città, in S. Quilici Gigli Friggeri, R./M. Magnani Cianetti (eds) 2014, Terme di Dio- (ed.) La forma della città e del territorio. Esperienze meto- cleziano. Il chiostro piccolo della certosa di Santa Maria degli dologiche e risultati a confronto, Rome, 9-15. Angeli, Milan. Prosdocimi, A. 1969, Studi Iguvini, Atti e Memorie dell’Acca- Gardner, J.F. 2009, The Dictator, in M. Griffin (ed.), A com- demia Toscana di Scienze e Lettere ‘La Colombaria’ 34, 3-124. panion to Julius Caesar, Malden MA, 57-71. Purcell, N. 1995, On the Sacking of Carthage and Corinth, Gargola, D.J. 1995, Land, Laws and Gods. Magistrates & Cere- in D. Innes/H. Hine/C. Pelling (eds), Ethics and Rhetoric. mony in the Regulation of Public Lands in Republican Classical Essays for Donald Russell on the Seventy-Fifth Rome, Chapel Hill/London. Birthday, Oxford, 133-148. Rakob, F. 2000, The making of Augustan Carthage, in E. Fen- Goodman, P. 2007, The Roman City and its Periphery. From tress (ed.), and the City. Creation, Transfor- Rome to Gaul, London/New York. mations, and Failures, Portsmouth, 73-82. Gowing, A. 2005, Empire and Memory. The Representation of Ramsey, J.T. 2003, Philippics I-II by Cicero, Cambridge/New the Roman Republic in Imperial Culture, Cambridge. York. Hekster, O.J. 2002, Commodus. An Emperor at the Crossroads, Richardson, J.S. 1991, Imperium Romanum: Empire and the Amsterdam. Language of Power, JRS 81, 1-9. Hjort Lange, C. 2014, The Triumph outside the City: Voice Romanelli, P. 1933, Roma. Via della Torretta - Cippi del pome- of Protest in the Middle Republic, in C. Hjort Lange/ rio, NSA, 240-246. F.J. Vervaet (eds), The Roman Republican Triumph Beyond Rüpke, J. 1990, Domi Militiae. Die religiöse Konstruktion des the Spectacle, Rome, 67-81. Krieges in Rom, Stuttgart. Hjort Lange, C. 2015, Augustus’ Triumphal and Triumph- Rykwert, J. 1976, The Idea of a Town. The Anthropology of Urban like Returns, in I. Östenberg/S. Malmberg/J. Bjørnebye Form in Rome, Italy and the Ancient World, Cambridge. (eds), The Moving City. Processions, passages and prome- Simonelli, A. 2001, Considerazioni sull’origine, la natura nades in ancient Rome, London, 133-143. e l’evoluzione del Pomerium, Aevum 75.1, 119-162. Howgego, C. 2005, Coinage and Identity in the Roman Prov- Sisani, S. 2014, Qua aratrum ductum est. La colonizzazione inces - Introduction, in C. Howgego/V. Heuchert/A. Bur- romana come chiave interpretativa della Roma delle nett (eds), Coinage and Identity in the Roman Provinces, origini, in T. Stek/J. Pelgrom (eds), Roman Republican Oxford, 1-17. Colonization. New Perspectives from Archaeology and Huzar, E.G. 1978, Mark Antony, a biography, Minneapolis. , Rome, 357-404. Laurence, R. 1994, Emperors, nature and the city: Rome’s Sisani, S. 2016, Il concetto di pomerium. Valenza giuridico- ritual landscape, Accordia 4, 79-87. sacrale e realtà topografica dei fines Urbis, in V. Gaspa- Laurence, R. 1996, The Destruction of Place in the Roman rini (ed.), Vestigia. Miscellanea di studi storico-religiosi in Imagination, in J.B. Wilkins (ed.), Approaches to the Study onore di Filippo Coarelli nel suo 80° anniversario, Stuttgart, of Ritual. Italy and the Ancient Mediterranean, London, 111- 65-80. 121. Stevens, S. 2016, Candentia Moenia. The symbolism of Roman Le Gall, J. 1970, Rites de fondation, in: G.A. Mansuelli/R. city walls, in R. Frederiksen/S. Müth/P. Schneider/M. Zangheri (eds), Studi sulla città antica. Atti del Convegno di Schnelle (eds), Focus on Fortification: New research on for- studi sulla città etrusca e italica preromana, , tifications in the Ancient Mediterranean and the Near East, 59-65. Oxford, 288-299. Levick, B. 1999, Vespasian, London/New York. Stevens, S. 2017, City Boundaries and Urban Development in Linderski, J. 1986, The Augural Law, ANRW 16.3, 2146-2312. , Leuven/Paris/Bristol CT. Lobüscher, T./J. Seibert 2002, Trajan als Städtegründer. Ein Stevens, S.T. 1988, A Legend of the Destruction of Carthage, bislang unbekanntes Medaillon, AKorrBl 32.4, 579-585. CPh 83.1, 39-41. Lomas, K. 2003, Capua, Oxford Classical Dictionary, Oxford, Van der Meer, L.B. 2011, Etrusco Ritu. Case studies in Etruscan 289. ritual behaviour, Louvain/Walpole, MA.

159 Verzár, M. 2009, La scultura, in F. Ghedini/M. Bueno/M. Novello (eds), Moenibus et portu celeberrima. Aquileia: storia di una città, Rome, 199-204. Walbank, M.E.H. 1997, The Foundation and Planning of Early Roman Corinth, JRA 10, 95-130. Willis, I. 2011, Now and Rome. and Vergil as Theorists of Politics and Space, New York and London.

SASKIA STEVENS ANCIENT HISTORY AND CLASSICAL CIVILIZATION DEPARTMENT OF HISTORY AND ART HISTORY UTRECHT UNIVERSITY DRIFT 6, 2.14 NL-3512 BS UTRECHT [email protected]

160

Top View