sign in sign up
<<
Home , 43 BC, Ancient Roman technology, Aqua Augusta (Naples), Attica (wife of Agrippa), Augusta Emerita, Gallaecia

THE CONSTRUCTIONS OF MARCUS AGRIPPA IN THE WEST

Geoffrey Mottershead

Submitted in total fulfilment of the requirements of the degree of Doctor of Philosophy

March 2005

School of Art History, Cinema, and The University of Melbourne

Dedicated to

HILARY PATRICIA ANNE

i

ABSTRACT Marcus Agrippa was the chief supporter of Octavian, the heir of Julius , in his rise to prominence as the first Roman . He also played a central role in the Augustan establishment of the new order of Empire, which replaced the late Republic. Agrippa's land and sea victories were crucial for the success of Octavian, but it will be argued that his constructions were important instruments of change in this pivotal historical period. Consequently, all Agrippan works are investigated, whether for war or peace, and whether known from material remains or other evidence. Agrippan constructions in the West ( and the ) are described in detail, and the others are described in more general terms.

Previously, Agrippan constructions have either been included in biographies of Agrippa, and treated generally, or have been studied as particular works with detailed description, but little explanation. Also, constructions in towns with material remains or inscriptions have been extensively studied, but important works outside towns with fewer remains have been largely overlooked. Consequently, previous writers have represented Agrippa as a builder of monuments in towns and there has been little understanding of the nature or purpose of the totality of his works, and no proper account of them.

The comprehensive analysis in this thesis shows that the principal Agrippan construction in the West was the network, radiating from () to the Atlantic, the and the . This constituted the first physical framework of Roman control outside the more settled south of Gaul. Agrippa's planning and part construction of a monumental town at (Mérida), and his probable foundation of Caesaraugusta (Zaragoza) were part and parcel of Roman expansion by colonisation into new parts of the Iberian Peninsula. These major works in Gaul and set a pattern of development for centuries to come and were, therefore, influential over a long period. This was not the case in the East, which was already Hellenised and under Roman hegemony. In the case of , Agrippan works were subsumed in the building programme of Augustus and later works. Consequently, the Agrippan constructions in the West were, ultimately, more important than those elsewhere.

The general review of Agrippa's works contained in this thesis leads, therefore, to conclusions which represent a new viewpoint on Agrippan constructions in the West. He was certainly a builder of monuments in towns in the region, as previously known, but it has been shown here that his constructions in the West were instruments of important regional change in a pivotal historical period. There is also a new and more detailed description of the works in the West. In addition, constructions elsewhere are explained and described generally in a new integrated study of all the works.

ii

This is to certify that:

(i) the thesis comprises only my original work towards the PhD;

(ii) due acknowledgement has been made in the text to all material

used;

(iii) the thesis is less than 100,000 words in length, exclusive of tables, maps, bibliographies and appendices.

GEOFFREY MOTTERSHEAD

iii

PREFACE

As a civil and structural engineer, who later studied Classical Archaeology, ancient structures were already of particular interest to the author. The idea of writing a thesis about the constructions of Agrippa arose from reading a comment about Agrippa in Reinhold's biography. He said: 'If Augustus was the architect of the , Marcus Agrippa was his superintendent of construction'1. Reinhold was referring to Agrippa's support of Octavian, the heir of , in his rise to supreme power in the Roman world as Augustus, the first , and to his continuing help in the Augustan shaping of the new Imperial Order replacing that of the Republic. He had in mind all the actions of Agrippa, including his land and sea victories, his general support, and, also, his important physical constructions. Reinhold's description of Agrippa as 'superintendent of construction' prompted consideration of a study of his actual physical constructions. In this, the constructions would be explained as part and parcel of Agrippa's activities. Consequently, all the constructions would be included, whether for war or peace, and whether they are identified as Agrippan from their materials remains, or from other evidence. The best possible description of the works was to be provided.

It soon became clear that it would not be possible to explain all the Agrippan constructions and to also describe them in detail. A concentration on one particular region was necessary. Agrippan works at Rome were primarily intended to influence the citizens in favour of Octavian, and to introduce the New Order of Augustus. Those in formed no cohesive corpus, and, in the East, the Agrippan works were not important agents of change. The remaining region of Agrippan construction was Gaul and the Iberian Peninsula, where the constructions were instruments of substantial change. It was, therefore, possible to develop hypotheses about their relationship to important historical development. Also, although there were substantial material remains of Agrippan works in the West, it was possible to describe the constructions there in detail in the space available. It was, therefore, decided to focus on the Agrippan constructions in the West. Yet it was not possible to fully account for these without also considering those elsewhere as part of the whole corpus of Agrippan works. These other constructions, were, therefore, to be not only explained, but, also, to be described to the extent that this cast light on those in the West.

1 Reinhold M., Marcus Agrippa, Rome, 1965. iv

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

I am grateful for the help given by Trinidad Nogales Basarrate of the Museo Nacionàl de Arte Romano at Mérida, who generously provided me with a great deal of information and gave me publications of which I was unaware. At Lyon, Armand Desbat kindly took me on a tour of his investigations at the 'Temple of ' site and of other monuments. He also presented me with several publications which brought me up-to-date on archaeological investigations at Lyon. I would like to thank my supervisors, Professor Frank Sear and Professor Ron Ridley for their patient guidance through the many difficulties of research and writing, and for their encouragement throughout the entire period of investigation. Finally, any errors or omissions in the final text are mine rather than those of Vyvyian Ferguson-Sharp who prepared it.

` TABLE OF CONTENTS

Vol. 1 Text PAGE § THE INVESTIGATION 1 § GAUL Figs. A and B 9, 10 Introduction 11 Chapter1: Agrippa's road system 14 " 2: Lugdunum (Lyon) 39 " 3: The Temple of Valetudo at Glanum 62 " 4: (Nîmes) 84 " 5: Other Agrippan works in Gaul 98 Agrippan Works in Gaul : Conclusions 107 § HISPANIA Figs. C and D 109, 110 Introduction 111 Chapter 6: North-West Hispania 114 " 7: Agrippa at Augusta Emerita (Mérida) 128 " 8: The theatre at Augusta Emerita : Agrippan works 137 " 9: Possible Agrippan works at Augusta Emerita 162 Augusta Emerita : Conclusions 180 Chapter 10: Agrippan constructions at urban centres other than Augusta Emerita 182 Agrippan Works in Hispania : Conclusions 202 § OTHER REGIONS 207 Chapter 11: Agrippan works other than in the West 207 § AGRIPPAN CONSTRUCTIONS IN THE WEST : CONCLUSIONS 218 § ABBREVIATIONS 223 § BIBLIOGRAPHY 225 (1) Texts 225 (2) Modern Works 227 (3) Additional Items 246

Vol. 2 Illustrations of the chapters § ILLUSTRATIONS Chapter 1: Figs. 1.1 - 1.12 " 2: " 2.1 - 2.15 " 3: " 3.1 - 3.28 " 4: " 4.1 - 4.6 " 5: " 5.1 - 5.5 " 6: " 6.1 - 6.3 " 7: " 7.1 - 7.5 " 8: " 8.1 - 8.44 " 9: " 9.1 - 9.22 " 10: " 10.1 - 10.9 " 11: " 11.1 - 11.7 § SOURCES OF ILLUSTRATIONS

- 1 -

TTHHEE IINNVVEESSTTIIGGAATTIIOONN

HISTORICAL INTRODUCTION The historical introduction is not fully documented by reference to footnotes since it is intended to provide only a general background for the detailed study of the Agrippan constructions. These are documented by reference to texts and modern works.

Agrippa (Marcus Vipsanius Agrippa) was probably born in 63 B.C.1 and, therefore, in the same year as Octavius (the first Emperor Augustus). Julius Caesar sent both of them to Apollonia on the Adriatic coast of in 46-45 B.C. for education and military training2. Agrippa and the future Augustus formed a close association which was to be maintained until the untimely death of Agrippa in 12 B.C., some quarter of a century before the end of the of Augustus in A.D. 14. The relationship between Agrippa and Octavius was governed by their origins and natural talents. As the heir of Julius Caesar, Octavius was to become Gaius Julius Caesar Octavianus, generally referred to as Octavian. Octavian could advance his position as the heir to Caesar, and because he was from an appropriate social class3. Agrippa, whose background was humble 4, could advance with Octavian by using his talents as a military commander, organiser of practical affairs, and technician.

On the assassination of Caesar in 44 B.C., Octavian, at the age of 18, travelled to Rome and the protracted struggle to take up his inheritance began. The 'Second ' of Antony, Octavian and Lepidus (43 B.C.), the triumph of the Caesarian party at Philippi in 42 B.C., and the subsequent wars of need not be described, since there is no indication of any Agrippan works of this period5. Agrippa became urbanus at Rome in 40 B.C., where he celebrated the

1 , 54.28 dated Agrippa's death to 12 B.C. and Pliny, HN, 7.46, described him as 51 years of age at his death. Also, Reinhold, M., Marcus Agrippa, Rome, 1965, p.1, and Roddaz, J.M., Marcus Agrippa, Rome, 1984, pp.23-25.

2 Reinhold, pp.12-15, Roddaz, Marcus Agrippa, pp.31-36.

3 , Augustus, 1-7; Reinhold, pp.1-11, Roddaz, Marcus Agrippa, pp.17-28.

4 Reinhold, pp.1-11. Roddaz, Marcus Agrippa, pp.17-22.

5 Cary, M., and Scullard, H.H., A , (Third Edition), London, 1975, pp.283-291, for a general account of the period. - 2 -

Ludi Apollinares6. At the Peace of Brundisium in 40 B.C., Antony received control of the East, leaving Octavian Italy, Gaul, and Illyricum, with Lepidus in charge of . Antony's wife, , had died, and Antony took Octavian's sister, Octavia, as his wife, creating a dynastic alliance7. After the elimination of Salvidienus Rufus8, Agrippa was Octavian's right hand man in war.

Shortly after the Peace of Brundisium, Agrippa was sent to Gaul to take control there for Octavian. He won a brilliant victory over the Aquitani and crossed the Rhine, as the first Roman general to do so since Caesar. It is argued here that he planned and built the first form of a strategic road system radiating from Lyon (Lugdunum), to the Atlantic Ocean, the English Channel and the Rhine, and connected to southern Gaul. His Temple of Valetudo at Glanum in southern Gaul is also from this period, as are possible works at (Arelate) and at Fréjus ( Iulii). Agrippa was recalled to Rome after about two years to take up his first consulship 9, and to break the sea power of Sextus , the surviving son of Pompey the Great, who had seized and was threatening the corn supply of Rome with his fleet. Octavian had suffered a severe defeat in a naval action against him10. Agrippa constructed a new port in the Bay of , where he built a fleet and trained it, defeating at Naulochos and Mylae in 36 B.C. Octavian could now guarantee the corn supply of Rome and control the seas round Italy. Agrippa campaigned in Illyria and in 35 and 34 B.C., but there is no evidence of any Agrippan works associated with his actions there11. On his return to Rome, Agrippa, as , embarked on an enormous programme of works in 34 and 33 B.C. to improve the water supply and other infrastructure of the city, which had fallen into disrepair during the civil wars. These constructions greatly improved the living conditions of the people and were an important cause of Octavian becoming more popular than

6 Cassius Dio, 48.20,2 Reinhold, p.22 and Note 6, Roddaz, Marcus Agrippa, p.62.

7 Cary and Scullard, pp.291, 2.

8 Salvidienus Rufus, who had been with Octavius and Agrippa at Apollonia, was Governor of Transalpine Gaul for Octavian, but offered his legions to Antony who divulged this information to Octavian at the Peace of Brundisium, Reinhold, p.24, Note 26.

9 Ehrenberg, V., and Jones, A.H.M., Documents Illustrating the Reigns of Augustus and , Oxford, 1976, p.33, also Reinhold, p.28 and Note 1.

10 Cassius Dio, 48.49.2-3, and Cary and Scullard, pp.292, 3.

11 Reinhold, p.45, Roddaz, Marcus Agrippa, pp.140-142. - 3 -

Antony, and in Octavian's success in persuading the Senate to declare war against , and, therefore, also against Antony12.

As admiral, Agrippa played a major role in securing the victory for Octavian over Antony and Cleopatra at Actium in 31 B.C. He became for the second and third (and last) time in 28 and 27 B.C. respectively13. The part played by Agrippa in the re-organisation of the State in 27 B.C. cannot be gauged from the evidence, but it must be assumed that, as consul, he had some influence14. Agrippa created a new quarter of Rome in the in 27-25 B.C. Buildings there marked the naval victories of Augustus (and Agrippa), and the connection of Augustus to Caesar and the gods. Agrippa also built voting places for the people, thus acknowledging their political rights, and created baths and other facilities for their recreation. These works were intended to symbolise the new constitutional arrangements of 27 B.C. Agrippa's new , the , which served the Campus Martius, was dedicated in 19 B.C.15.

Agrippa withdrew from Rome in 23 B.C. under circumstances related to the succession and the marriage of Julia, the daughter of Augustus, to Marcellus, the son of Octavia. Agrippa's powers in the East and any constructions there are discussed below16. On his return from the East, Agrippa married Julia, the widow of Marcellus17, who gave birth in 20 B.C. to Gaius18, and, later, to Lucius, and Agrippa , although none became the . Agrippa was sent to Gaul in late 20 B.C. to restore order, and left it in the early part of 19 B.C. The only strong indication of his construction in Gaul is a at Lugdunum, built in about 20 B.C., although this cannot be attributed to him positively. Agrippa may also have drawn up a large scale plan of monumental development for the town, including its

12 Cassius Dio, 50.1-6, also below Chapter 11, p.207.

13 Ehrenberg & Jones, p.35.

14 The set speech (incomplete) put into the mouth of Agrippa by Cassius Dio, 52.2-13, together with the longer reply of Maecenas, 52.14-40, provided no reliable information on Agrippa's contribution to the first settlement of 27 B.C.

15 Cassius Dio, 54.11 for the aqueduct and below Chapter 11, Notes 3, 5, 6 and 8-11, pp.208, 9 for the works.

16 See below Chapter 11, Note 20, p.212.

17 Cassius Dio, 54.6.6, also Roddaz, Marcus Agrippa, pp.351-6.

18 Cassius Dio 43.8.5. - 4 - aqueducts, and may have started construction on some works in addition to the praetorium19. Augustus had set in train the construction of an Augusteum at Nîmes (Nemausus) in 26/25 B.C. and Agrippa may have advanced work there in 19 B.C. There is no definite evidence of Agrippan works elsewhere at Nemausus, despite the existence of inscriptions there which might indicate this20. It is argued here that any Agrippan road works in Gaul in 19 B.C. were cosmetic.

The pacification of N.W. Hispania by Augustus in 26-25 B.C. was incomplete and the region was finally subdued by Agrippa in a difficult campaign in 19 B.C., which called for substantial Agrippan military works. There is no evidence of Agrippan civil works in the region. Agrippa provided the theatre at Mérida (Augusta Emerita), founded by Carisius in 25 B.C. This became the capital of the province of , possibly inaugurated by Augustus during his visit to the West in 16-13 B.C. It is argued here that Agrippa was the 'father' of the monumental town with its and aqueducts, and that he started to construct other works in addition to the theatre21. It is also suggested that Agrippa almost certainly founded the first Roman town at Zaragoza (Caesaraugusta), and that he may have established a new naval base at the Punic city of Gades (modern Cádiz) 22. It is possible that Agrippa was responsible for other constructions in the Iberian Peninsula, but there is no definite evidence of these and it is unlikely that they were important.

Agrippa returned to Rome from Spain in the first half of 18 B.C., and received the tribunicia potestas for the first time when Augustus was having his renewed23. He was now almost equal to Augustus. Agrippa may have built the first form of the theatre at Ostia before he left for the East in 17 B.C., where he remained until 13 B.C. Agrippa built the large concert hall, or Odeion, in the Agora of Athens in 16-15 B.C. and, possibly, other works at the city. He also built at , the Roman capital of , certainly after Actium and in 17-13 B.C., and, possibly,

19 See below Chapter 2 for the Agrippan works at Lugdunum.

20 See below Chapter 4 for the Agrippan works at Nemausus.

21 Cassius Dio, 53.25 for the campaigns of Augustus in 26/25 B.C. and 53.26 for the foundation of Augusta Emerita, 54.11 for Agrippa's movement to Spain and his campaign, and 54.23 for the visit of Augusts to the West. Also below, Chapters 6 for the campaign, 7 for Agrippa at Augusta Emerita, 8 for the theatre and 9 for possible Agrippan works at the town.

22 See below Chapter 10, pp.187, 8 for the naval base and pp.191-8 for Caesaraugusta.

23 Cassius Dio, 54.12.4-5. - 5 - also in his earlier visit of 23-21 B.C. Agrippa may have founded colonies at Patras, in the Gulf of Corinth, at Troas, near , and at in the , but the dates of his possible actions there are uncertain and may be as early as the period shortly after Actium. Agrippa campaigned in Pannonia in 13-12 B.C. and died in 12 B.C. while returning to Rome24.

THE SUBJECT OF INVESTIGATION The constructions referred to in the historical introduction included civil works such as , buildings of various kinds, port facilities, and also those for military campaigns. Agrippa built ships with special mechanical devices25, but these are not included in this study. Some of the constructions, and particularly military ones, were built in timber or earth and little or nothing of these has remained. Building in stone has often survived, and sometimes substantially, and there has, therefore, been a previous focus on investigation of these. Yet all Agrippan works for which there is reliable evidence, whether from inscriptions, texts, or other valid sources are to be included here. Furthermore, both the completed entity and the planning from which this resulted are to be investigated. For military constructions, and some civil works, the decision to build, and the construction were virtually simultaneous. Some other works, which were part of an Agrippan town plan, were built later, and, in some cases, after his death. Here, therefore, Agrippa is investigated as the 'father' of general development, the planner of something more specific and the builder of a particular construction. All constructions are to be explained, but only those in the West are to be described in detail.

CRITERIA FOR INCLUSION OF CONSTRUCTIONS The known Agrippan works are of two types. The first is a specific construction which is known to be Agrippan because of an inscription or a text. In the West, only the Theatre at Mérida in Spain and the Temple of Valetudo at Glanum have inscriptions naming Agrippa26. The Agrippan road network in Gaul is identified as

24 See below Chapter 11, p.211-217, for the Agrippan constructions and possible foundations after his return to Italy in 18 B.C. until his death in 12 B.C., also Roddaz, Marcus Agrippa, Chapter 3, 'Prince de l'Orient', pp.419-488 for his activities in the East.

25 Cassius Dio, 49, 12 and , 5.106.439 and 5.118.491, described the ships built by Agrippa to defeat Sextus Pompey.

26 See below Chapters 8, pp.148-150, and 3, p.70, for the inscriptions at the theatre and the temple respectively. - 6 -

Agrippan from a text of Strabo27. The second type of known Agrippan works is identified by Agrippan actions recorded in texts or other reliable evidence, which, necessarily, included construction, or by imputation from specific known works. For example, Agrippa would have built road stations along his roads in Gaul, and have constructed substantial military works in N.W. Spain for his large campaign of 19 B.C.28. This second type of known Agrippan works can be located precisely and described in detail only if material remains are both found and identified as Agrippan. There are, also, constructions which may be Agrippan. Those with material remains may be Agrippan if they are of the Agrippan period and there are indications from other reliable sources. For example, at Mérida, the theatre is Agrippan, there is indicating Agrippan action at the town, and historical indication of Agrippan urban planning29. Some works there may, therefore, be his in addition to the theatre. Texts, coins and the general history of a place or region can indicate possible Agrippan action, such as his possible foundation of Caesaraugusta (Zaragoza)30.

THE OBJECT OF INVESTIGATION

All known or possible Agrippan constructions in the West, as defined in the 'subject of investigation' and in the 'criteria for inclusion of constructions', are to be identified, dated, and explained historically, and particularly as supporting the aims of Octavian and Augustus. Their importance is to be assessed at the time of construction and subsequently. The known works of Agrippa in the West are to be described as fully as possible. The possible Agrippan works in the West are to be investigated like the others there, but their description is to be less comprehensive. There is also to be an assessment of the degree of probability of them being Agrippan works. Agrippan works, other than in the West, whether known, or possible, are to be investigated only to cast further light on those in the West, and particularly, to indicate the specific features which distinguish these. There is, therefore, to be only a general description of works outside the West.

27 , 4.6.11.

28 See below Chapters 1 and 6 respectively for the roads and the campaign.

29 See below Chapters 7(a) and (b) for the history and (c) for the Claudian epigraphy.

30 See below Chapter 10, section C, pp.191-198. - 7 -

METHOD OF INVESTIGATION Formal investigation of the remains of the Agrippan works in the West was the natural province of the local archaeologists, or of authorised bodies from elsewhere. Investigation of the material evidence here was, therefore, to be by personal inspection without physical disturbance of the works, and, wherever possible, with advice from local archaeologists or historians. Visits were made to all the sites in and Spain where there were significant remains of major Agrippan construction or a distinct possibility of Agrippan works. The principal material remains of known Agrippan construction in the West are at the Theatre of Mérida in S.W. Spain. These were inspected in detail and contact was established with local archaeologists. The town, its bridges, and aqueducts with their dams, were examined for possible Agrippan works. The remains of the Agrippan Temple of Valetudo at Glanum, near St. Rémy-de-Provence, were also inspected in detail. At Lyon, the remains of a praetorium, probably of Agrippa, were inspected with the archaeologist in charge of the excavations, together with sites at and near the town. At Nîmes an inspection was made of the sacred area and other parts of the town. The vestiges of the Agrippan works at the Campus Martius at Rome were also examined, together with a possible Agrippan warehouse near the . The published literature on the known Agrippan works, which is mainly restricted to examination of those with surviving remains, was examined in detail, consolidated and subjected to critical analysis. This literature included the biographies of Agrippa by Reinhold and Roddaz, referred to above 31, and a large number of papers and other publications on particular Agrippan works. It was also necessary to examine a wider range of information and comment in order to identify the Agrippan works of both war and peace with few or no material remains. This entailed research of the historical, epigraphic and numismatic record (particularly of the provincial coinage, as distinct from the Imperial32) available in libraries in Australia, Rome, London, Madrid and elsewhere. Particular care was taken to investigate all aspects, including those of engineering, which have not generally been accounted for by the archaeologists and historians who have written nearly all the literature on the Agrippan works.

31 See above Note 1, p1.

32 Burnett, A., Amandry, M., and Ripolles, P.P., Roman Provincial Coinage, Vol. 1, London, 1992, was particularly valuable. - 8 -

PRESENTATION The study constitutes a virtual biography of Agrippa restricted to his planning and construction in the West, and this indicates a chronological treatment. Yet, Agrippa was in Gaul twice and built at some places during both visits. Also, some major works call for treatment in dedicated chapters and others are conveniently investigated with others which may be from a different period. The presentation is, therefore, in accordance with the works to be investigated while maintaining the chronology as far as is practicable. The first five chapters are reserved for constructions in Gaul from 39-37 B.C. and 19 B.C., with some chapters referring to both periods. The general chronology is set out in the historical introduction. These chapters are followed by conclusions on constructions in Gaul. Chapters six to ten inclusive are set aside for constructions in Spain in 19/18 B.C., and are followed by a conclusion. The eleventh, and final, chapter contains information and discussion on the works outside the West. This is followed by a general conclusion on Agrippan constructions in the West in which some reference is made to the earlier conclusions on Gaul and Spain, but which is intended to present general findings. All the descriptions of the constructions and their technical details are contained in the chapters. Illustrations of the constructions are of particular importance. These should not be compromised by accommodation to the text, and it should be possible to look at them while reading the text. These objectives can be achieved most fully by having the text in one volume and the illustrations in another. Four illustrations in the text volume showing the regions of Gaul and Hispania are indicated by letters, while all the others illustrating the chapters are numbered. - 9 -

- 10 -

- 11 -

GGAAUULL

INTRODUCTION The word Gaul is used here to describe the Celtic heartland called Gallia by the Romans. The part of Gaul considered here is Gallia Transalpina, or 'Gaul over the ', as distinct from Gallia Cisalpina or 'Gaul this side of the Alps' when described in relation to Rome. Fig A1 shows one interpretation of this region when Caesar began his conquest of Belgica and Celtica, sometimes referred to as Gallia Comata, or long-haired Gaul. The Caesarian settlement did not impose any new Roman administrative divisions. Fig. B2 shows the division of Gaul in the Empire. The Provincia (with minor changes) was now , and the old Gallia Comata was split into the three provinces of Aquitania (now extending almost to the Loire), Lugdunensis, and Belgica. The first step towards forming these provinces was taken by Augustus during his visit to Gaul in 27 B.C3. There is no evidence of Agrippan construction across the Rhine, although he crossed this river4. Consequently, the area of Agrippan works in Gaul is that bounded by the region of the four , shown on Fig. B. This encompassed the whole of modern France, Belgium and Luxemburg, and parts of The Netherlands, and .

There is no clear indication about the dating of Agrippa's arrival in Gaul following the Peace of Brundisium, which was probably in 40 B.C.5, at which Octavian discovered the treachery of his governor in Gaul, Salvidienus Rufus6. Agrippa had been appointed praetor urbanus at Rome 7 in the first quarter of 40 B.C.8 and would have been eligible to take over a province in

1 Based on Drinkwater, J.F., . The Three Provinces 58B.C.-A.D.260, London, 1983, Map 1.

2 Based on Drinkwater, Map 2, with excision of and some other features.

3 Cassius Dio, 53.22, also below Note 134, p.34.

4 Cassius Dio, 48.49.3.

5 Roddaz, Marcus Agrippa, p.67 and Note 207.

6 Reinhold, Marcus Agrippa, p.24, Note 26, also Note 8, p.2.

7 Cassius Dio, 48.20.2.

8 Reinhold, p.21, Note 3. - 12 -

39 B.C.9. Yet, Octavian needed a new governor for Gaul before that time. He would, therefore, probably have sent Agrippa to Gaul shortly after the Peace of Brundisium. Roddaz suggested that Agrippa left Rome in October 40 B.C.10, and this dating is accepted here. The date of Agrippa's departure from Gaul is also unknown, but it was probably in the early part of 37 B.C.11. Agrippa was, therefore, in Gaul for more than two years. Agrippa was sent to Gaul to restore order there in 20-19 B.C. After he had done this, he travelled to Spain to put down a rebellion there12. He probably arrived in Gaul in late 20 B.C.13, and was almost certainly in Spain before the summer of 19 B.C.14. In this case, he was in Gaul for about six months. Kleiner has stated that Agrippa was in Gaul in 27 B.C., but without providing any evidence for this15, as pointed out by Roddaz, who noted the absence of any text or document16. This hypothesis cannot, therefore, be accepted. Also, the circumstantial evidence indicates otherwise. Augustus was in the West in 27 B.C.17, and Agrippa dedicated the precinct of the Saepta in the Campus Martius at Rome in that year18. It is unlikely that Agrippa undertook a journey to Gaul before Augustus went there, but, even if he did so, there is no indication of any Agrippan action, or of constructions resulting from this.

Agrippa was, therefore, in Gaul twice, with an interval of some 18 years between the two visits. When he was first there, Octavian had only recently acquired the region. Agrippa's task was to consolidate Octavian's position there by putting down disturbances and setting up a new system of control. Little is known of his military

9 Ibid, p.25, Note 27 and Roddaz, Marcus Agrippa, p.67.

10 Roddaz, Marcus Agrippa, pp.66-69 based on Appian 5.65, 274-6; 5.73, 318 and Cassius Dio, 48.32.1.

11 Cassius Dio 48.49.3 interpreted by Reinhold, pp.26, 27, and Roddaz, Marcus Agrippa, p.68

12 Cassius Dio, 54.11.1.

13 Reinhold, p.88 and Note 70 endorsed by Roddaz, Marcus Agrippa, p.383 and Note 3, and p.636.

14 Roddaz, Marcus Agrippa, pp.405 and 638. Agrippa probably got to N.W. Hispania before the summer of 19 B.C. to allow time for his extensive military campaign before the winter.

15 Kleiner, F.S., Gallia' Graeca, Gallia Romana and the introduction of classical sculpture in Gaul', AJA, 77, 1973, pp.379-390, p.384.

16 Roddaz, Marcus Agrippa, p.383, Note 1.

17 Cassius Dio, 53.22.

18 Ibid, 53.23. - 13 - activities, except that he was victorious over the Aquitani in late 38 B.C.19 and that he was recalled to Italy by Octavian just as he had crossed the Rhine into German territory20. It is argued here that the Agrippan road network radiating from Lugdunum to the Atlantic, the English Channel and the Rhine described by Strabo21 was largely completed in its first form by Agrippa between late 40 B.C. and early 37 B.C. The small Temple of Valetudo at Glanum, near St. Rémy-en-Provence, was provided by Agrippa during this period22 and there are some indications of Agrippan construction at Arelate (Arles) and Forum Iulii23. When Agrippa was in Gaul for the second time, in 20-19 B.C., Augustus had already set in hand the process of reorganisation in the old Gallia Comata and Agrippa's task was to put down disturbances and advance the Augustan initiatives in the short period of some six months when he was in the region. There is evidence of substantial Agrippan construction only at Lugdunum24.

The works in Gaul, which can be attributed to Agrippa with a greater or lesser degree of certainty, cannot always be dated readily. In some cases, there are substantial material remains, but, elsewhere, a complete lack of these, and there is no relationship between the extent of survival and the importance of the construction. At some locations, there are Agrippan works from both his visits. The treatment adopted is designed to accommodate all these factors while still providing the best possible description of the remains and explaining and evaluating all of them. Chapter 1 is devoted to the Agrippan road network because this is regarded as his most important. The system radiated from Lugdunum and Chapter 2, describing and explaining all his works there, follows naturally after it. Chapter 3 is set aside for the Temple of Valetudo at Glanum, since this has the most substantial material remains of any Agrippan work in Gaul and is of great architectural interest, although it is a small building. The possible Agrippan works at Nemausus are considered in Chapter 4. All the other Agrippan works in Gaul, whether known to be his or possibly so, are investigated in the last and fifth chapter. This is followed by a conclusion on Agrippan works in Gaul.

19 Appian, 5.92.386.

20 Cassius Dio, 48.49.3.

21 Strabo, 4.6.11.

22 See below Chapter 3, pp.79-80.

23 See below Chapter 5, Section (b), PP.100-106.

24 See below Chapter 2, Section (b), the praetorium, Note 58, p.50. - 14 -

1. AGRIPPA'S ROAD SYSTEM

INTRODUCTION A passage from Strabo referred specifically to Agrippan roads in Gaul. This described a road network by the routes which it followed: …

‘Lugdunum is in the centre of the country – an acropolis, as it were, not only because the rivers meet there, but also because it is near all parts of the country. And it was on this account, also, that Agrippa began at Lugdunum when he cut his roads — that which passes through the Cemmenus Mountains as far as the and Aquitania, and that which leads to the Rhenus, and, a third, that which leads to the ocean (the one that runs by the and the ); and, a fourth, that which leads to Narbonitis and the Massilian seaboard. And there is also, again, in the Poeninus itself (if you leave on the left Lugdunum and the country that lies above it), a bye-road which, after you the Rhodanus or Lake Lemenna, leads into the plains of the ; and thence there is a pass through the over to the country of the and also to that of the ; moreover, the thoroughfares through these countries branch off both ways — both towards the Rhenus and towards the ocean …’1.

The passage from Strabo is the point of departure for all modern research into the Agrippan road system2, since there are no other known texts, inscriptions, or coins which mention it. Furthermore, it is not possible to distinguish Agrippan road material from later construction, since his work has been repaired, upgraded, abandoned and rebuilt over many centuries. There are no dates in Strabo's text, but Agrippa was in Gaul twice. Consequently, Strabo did not say when Agrippa planned his system or state the extent of his construction in 39-37 B.C., or in 19 B.C. Uncertainties in Strabo’s text have resulted in different views about how it should be regarded. Goudineau saw the passage as little more than a list of things which could be done to provide a road network, and suggested that the actual roads, completed

1 Strabo, 4 6.11, as translated by H.L. Jones, in the Loeb Classical Library, The Geography of Strabo 2, Harvard, 1969, pp.289-291.

2 Roddaz, Marcus Agrippa, p.390. - 15 - long after the Agrippan period did not necessarily correspond to the description3. Roddaz thought that the text described a road system planned by Agrippa in 39-37 B.C., but built over a long period4. Drinkwater was more specific, since he considered that the system described by Strabo was envisaged from Octavian's acquisition of Gaul in 40 B.C., and was completed to a high standard before 27 B.C.5. Some writers, including Grenier6 and Chevallier7, have seen Strabo's text as describing first action by Agrippa in 19 B.C., although Chevallier8 has now cast some doubt on this dating. Here, it is argued that the text of Strabo is essentially reliable and that it described a real road network planned by Agrippa and substantially completed by him in 39-37 B.C. by improving the existing roads. This first system was upgraded over many decades and any Agrippan action in 19 B.C. was cosmetic.

It might be argued that Strabo's text is unreliable because of the generally defective understanding of geography, and of cartography in the ancient world9. Strabo’s description of Gaul in his Geography left much to be desired, since all the coastlines faced north, the ran N-S, and all the distances were incorrect10. Woolf suggested that the choice of Lugdunum as the centre of the Agrippan road system, and the general plan of the system itself, resulted partly from the inadequate Roman knowledge of Gallic geography11. This comment was probably based on Strabo’s statement that 'Lugdunum is in the centre of the country’, when it is really in S.E. Gallia Comata. Geographical errors may have led to over-confidence in Roman

3 Goudineau, C. & Rebourg, A., Eds., Les villes augustéennes de Gaule, (Actes du colloque international d', 6-8 Juin, 1985), Autun 1991, Introduction, pp.11, 12.

4 Roddaz, Marcus Agrippa, p.73 and pp.389-392 and Note 29, p.390.

5 Drinkwater, J.F., Roman Gaul, London, 1983, pp.121 and 125.

6 Grenier, A., Manuel d'archéologie gallo-romaine 2, L'archéologie du sol, les routes, Paris, 1934, pp.33-34.

7 Chevallier, R., , London, 1976, p.160. This reference is not used further in the thesis.

8 Chevallier, R., Les voies romaines, Paris, 1997, pp.210 and 211.

9 Dilke, O.A.W., Greek and Roman Maps, Baltimore, 1998, pp.11-72 for an account of geographical concepts and their representation, and pp.43, 44, 47 and pp.62-65 for Strabo.

10 As pointed out by Goudineau, CAH 10, 1996. pp.466, 7.

11 Woolf, G. Becoming Roman, Cambridge, 2000, p.89 and Note 23. - 16 - achievements12, but Strabo's text gave practical information on places reached or traversed without reference to points of the compass or distances. Furthermore, the choice of Lugdunum as the road hub was based on strategic factors13. Also, it is not possible to doubt Strabo's text because there was insufficient information which he could use. There was the map of the world on the Porticus in Rome near the Campus Martius, erected by Agrippa’s sister after his death, and still incomplete in 6 B.C.14. The portico and the map are lost, but Pliny mentioned both, and, also, said that the map was derived from the lost Commentaries of Agrippa15. Roddaz concluded that these were taken into account in making the map16. Agrippa’s Commentaries were probably placed in the Archives at Rome after Agrippa died in 12 B.C.17. Strabo, writing his Geography between 9 and 5 B.C., and revising it in A.D. 18-1918, could have used them19. It is, also, possible that the unknown 'chorographer', or geographer, of Strabo was Agrippa20. The lost Autobiography of Agrippa contained a passage on Agrippa's in the Bay of Naples21, and, therefore, probably described the Agrippan roads in Gaul. The evidence, therefore, indicates that Strabo's account of Agrippa's road network is reliable, even if Strabo, the partly 'armchair geographer'22 had no direct knowledge of it. Furthermore, an Agrippan road network can be expected since he was in Gaul twice and could have built this first essential instrument of control for Octavian or Augustus 23. If Strabo had not mentioned the Agrippan road system it would probably have been imputed.

12 Moynihan, R., ‘Geographical Mythology and Roman Imperial Ideology’, Winkes, R., Ed., The Age of Augustus, Louvain-la-Neuve, 1985, pp.149-162, at p.152, suggested that Augustus believed that he had nearly conquered the world by his penetration into Germany.

13 Drinkwater, J.F., 'Lugdunum : Natural Capital of Gaul?', , 6, 1975, pp.133-140, also see below, p.40.

14 Cassius Dio, 55.8.3, and Roddaz, Marcus Agrippa, pp.291-293 and Notes 345-363.

15 Pliny, 3.17.

16 Roddaz, Marcus Agrippa, pp.573-577 and Notes 32-52.

17 Ibid, p.389 and Note 27.

18 Dilke, p.62.

19 Roddaz, Marcus Agrippa, pp.573-591 and Notes 31-128.

20 Dilke, pp.43, 4 for the 'lost chorographer'.

21 Roddaz, Marcus Agrippa, pp.568-571 and Notes 6-19 referring to Pliny, 7.148, and 26.121, also below Chapter 11, p.211, for the port.

22 Dilke, p.62.

23 See above pp.11, 12, for Agrippa's two visits to Gaul. - 17 -

EXTENT OF AGRIPPA'S ROAD NETWORK Strabo mentioned four Agrippan routes radiating from Lugdunum, which can be identified by reference to Fig. 1.124. The first of these, to the West, reached the Santoni, marked on Fig. 1.1 as the Santones. The second route to the Rhine was poorly described, since it could have reached this river at any point between the territory of the Raurici and the estuary on the . Strabo's route to Ocean went through the territories of the Bellovaci and the Ambiani marked on Fig. 1.1 to reach the English Channel. The fourth route must have gone down the valley of the Rhône. Strabo also referred to a 'bye road', described here as a by-road, after noting the four Agrippan routes, although he did not say that this was part of Agrippa's road network.

Strabo said that the by-road crossed the Rhodanus (the Rhône), or Lake Lemenna (Lake ) into the plains of the Helvetii, going through a pass in the Jura Mountains into the territories of the Sequani and the Lingones. As can be seen from Fig. 1.1 and Fig. 1.225, the Rhône passes through Lake Geneva. Consequently, the road crossing the river or the lake could have come from Lugdunum or from over the Alps via the Great St. Bernard Pass. Strabo also said, ‘And there is also, again in the Poeninus itself (if you leave on the left Lugdunum and the country that lies above it) a bye-road’. Strabo’s mention of Lugdunum and the ‘Poeninus itself’ (the Alps) in the same sentence does not properly define the road location. This was recognised in the Loeb edition by a note on the translation. ‘Strabo’s brevity is again confusing. He suddenly shifts his standpoint from Lugdunum to the Poeninus (the Alps). He has in mind two roads: (1) the road which ran through the Poeninus to the Rhodanus (the Rhône) at the eastern end of Lake Geneva, crossed the river, circled around the lake, crossed again at the other end and then followed the Rhodanus to Lugdunum; and (2) a road that branched off the same at some point north of the lake, into the plains of the Helvetii'26. Jullian27 thought that the passage referred to two roads from Lugdunum to Italy, one over each of the two St. Bernard Passes shown on Fig. 2.2.

24 Based on Brogan, O., Roman Gaul, London, 1953, Fig. 1, p.19.

25 Based on Chevallier, Les voies romaines, Fig. 146, p.234, and Grenier, 2, Figs. 10 and 11, pp.40, 41.

26 Strabo, Geography, translated by H.L. Jones, The Geography of Strabo, 2, Harvard, 1969, Note 2, pp.290-291.

27 Jullian, C., Histoire de la Gaule, 4, Paris, 1929, p.84, Note 7. - 18 -

Grenier discerned only one road from Lugdunum to Italy via Lake Geneva and the Great St. Bernard Pass28, and Roddaz followed this29. None of these interpretations explain Strabo's passage 'If you leave on the left Lugdunum and the country that lies above it'. This phrase seems to indicate that the traveller from Italy has already passed the fork in the road leading to the Little St. Bernard Pass after departing from Augusta Praetoria (), and is about to cross the Great St. Bernard Pass towards Octodurus. In this case, there was one by-road from over the Alps and it crossed the Rhône to the east of Lake Geneva.

It is most unlikely that Agrippa would have built such a road. The territory of the Helvetii between and Lake Geneva was strategically important for Roman security, since it lay between the Alpine tribes (including the Helvetii) and Southern Gaul. It also gave access to the Great St. Bernard Pass and Italy. After the frustration of the Helvetii in their plan to migrate to Western Gaul and their defeat by Caesar, they were obliged to retain their lands30 and Julia Equestris () was established by Caesar31. Colonia Raurica (modern Augst) was founded by L. Munatius Plancus with Lugdunum in 43 B.C.32. The Roman position at Nyon guarded passage over the to Lugdunum and the Alps. That at Augst guarded the Rhine crossing, and, also, blocked the natural route between there and Vesontio via the Belfort Gap, or the pass between the Jura Mountains and the Vosges to the north33. Consequently, the Swiss Plateau was guarded before Agrippa first came to Gaul, although there may have been no continuous road between Nyon and Augst34. Agrippa, therefore, was more likely to provide for security by new road construction reaching a position on the Rhîne below Augst. There is also no reason to think that Agrippa used a road through the Great St. Bernard Pass for his supplies or troop movements. In 39-37 B.C., he recruited most of his forces for action in Gaul

28 Grenier, 2, pp.39-42.

29 Roddaz, Marcus Agrippa, p.390 and Note 28.

30 Caesar, BG, 1.28. 3-4.

31 Wells, C.M., The German Policy of Augustus, Oxford, 1972, pp.35-36, Notes 1 and 2, indicating the scholarship on the foundation, for which there seems to be no primary text.

32 As indicated by CIL, 10.6087, on the tomb of Plancus.

33 The Belfort Gap is marked on Fig. 1.4.

34 As argued by Wells, p.37. Note 63. - 19 - in that territory35, and it is most unlikely that forces would be diverted from Italy. Furthermore, the two St. Bernard Passes could not be used without let or hindrance until Augustus freed them from local control in 25-24 B.C. Even in 19 B.C. it is not certain that the Great St. Bernard Pass could accommodate wagons 36.

Both Jullian37 and Drinkwater38, considered that Agrippa planned and built nothing east of the Jura Mountains. Grenier stated that the by-road was Agrippan39 and Roddaz followed him40, but neither gave any justification for their positions. Chevallier was silent on the matter. Attribution of the by-road to Agrippa was perhaps argued because Strabo mentioned it immediately after the four Agrippan roads, yet this is probably explained by Strabo's account of the clearing of the Alpine roads by Augustus earlier in his book 441. Having described Agrippa's roads, he was reminding the reader of the achievement of Augustus and noting that, as a result of both these actions, it was possible to travel directly from Italy to Gaul, and from there to Ocean and the Rhine. Agrippa did not say that the 'thoroughfares’ were the Agrippan roads, but some writers have assumed this 42.

INVESTIGATION OF THE AGRIPPAN SYSTEM OF FOUR ROADS

Investigation is confined to the roads themselves and limited to identifying their locations without reference to bridges or other works which were part of them. Road stations and other buildings for road use and security built by Agrippa are considered in Chapter 5. Roads at and near Lugdunum are examined in Chapter 2. As noted above, Strabo's text mentioned no dates. Agrippa could have devised his system in 39-37 or 19 B.C. and have started work on any particular road at different times. The

35 Roddaz, Marcus Agrippa, p.70 and Note 217.

36 Strabo, 4.6.6 and 4.67. Hyde, W.W., Roman Alpine Routes, Philadelphia, 1936 (facsimile Ann Arbor, 1983), Wells, p.37 and Chevallier, p.273.

37 Jullian, 4, p.84, Note 7.

38 Drinkwater, Roman Gaul, p.125.

39 Grenièr, 2, p.39.

40 Roddaz, Marcus Agrippa, p.390, Note 28.

41 Strabo, 4.6 and 7.

42 See below Notes 112-116, p.30. - 20 - reasons for his actions in the two periods were also different for particular roads. It is, therefore, necessary to investigate each road separately, and, also, to consider the whole network. A first section is set aside for examination of each of the four roads in which the location is considered in relation to historical and strategic factors. A second section is reserved for investigation of the factors influencing planning and construction of the whole network. It is then possible to draw conclusions from the findings of the two sections.

1. INVESTIGATION OF EACH OF THE FOUR ROADS The location of a first Agrippan road must be deduced rather than stated because of the lack of material evidence of its existence. If a later Roman road followed its trace, there would be changes in alignment over the centuries. If the first trace was abandoned for another, these changes could be substantial. Consequently, the location assessed here is approximate. It can be shown only on a small scale map, and indicated by the places traversed or reached by it. Drinkwater marked the whole network on a small scale map43 and Chevallier described the locations in his text, illustrating only that to the South44. Here, a road location diagram is provided for each of the roads.

The locations of Agrippa's first roads are deduced from the written and the material evidence. The consists of a text describing journeys of the Antonine period and naming stopping places and the distances between them45. There is no information on when the road was built. The Peutinger Table is a painted map of the 12th or 13th century based, by several removes, on a road map of the 4th century. This contains information from the early and late Empire, but it cannot be used to date any of the roads in Gaul46. These written sources indicate the existence of a Roman road later than the Agrippan period, but they do not describe all the Roman roads, and can, therefore, be used only suggest the possible existence of some

43 Drinkwater, Roman Gaul, Map 7, p.238.

44 Chevallier, pp.210, 211 and Fig. 127.

45 Dilke, pp.125-8, Chevallier, pp. 56-59.

46 Miller, K., Die Peutingersche Tafel, , 1962, Levi, A. & M., Itineraria Picta, Rome, 1967, Dilke, p.114 and Chevallier, pp.153-6. - 21 - roads of Agrippa47. The material evidence is from the remains of the Roman roads. Sometimes these can be readily identified from site inspection, but the line of the road can be discerned most easily from the air, by noting changes in relief or vegetation, the land division and the locations of bridges and buildings of various periods. The general chronology of roads in a particular zone can be built up by combining local historical information with the physical evidence48. The written and material evidence of the Roman roads is not always sufficient to deduce the location of the first Agrippan roads, and, particularly, where there are alternative routes. In these cases, it is necessary to consider reasons for Agrippa to adopt one route rather than another.

(a) THE ROAD FROM LUGDUNUM TO THE WEST: Strabo said that the road passed through the Cemmenus Mountains 'as far as the Santoni and Aquitania.’ The Cemmenus Mountains, or the Cévennes, lie to the west, and mainly south, of Lyon. The chief city of the Santoni was at (modern Saintes). The general route can be identified from Fig. 1.1 as going west from Lugdunum over the tributaries of the Loire, skirting the higher part of the Averni (the Auvergne Plateau), and reaching the territory marked 'Santones'. Fig. 1.349 shows the principal known Roman roads in the area. The shortest route was directly from Feurs to Clermont-Ferrand, but the Peutinger Table shows the Roman road going through Vichy, and the Antonine Itinerary indicates no westerly road from Lugdunum. The direct road between Feurs and Clermont-Ferrand, rose to some 1,500 metres, whereas that through Vichy reached only about 500 metres, but the road gradients on the direct route were not a serious problem for military forces with pack animals. The direct road was discerned some 80 years ago by Besnier, and then confirmed by Grenier50. The Peutinger Table would not have noted it if the road was re-routed through Vichy later for easier passage of vehicles. The short route has been identified as that of Agrippa by a recent study in which the historical and

47 Chevallie r, Fig. 121, p.200 and Fig. 122, p.201, provided maps showing, respectively, the roads according to the Peutinger Table and the Antonine Itinerary. These are used here.

48 Chevallier, Chapters 5-7, pp.82-106, and, particularly, Chapter 7, 'Les voies et les données gétopographiques', pp.98-106.

49 Based on Drinkwater, Roman Gaul, Map 8, p.289 and Chevallier, Fig. 121, p.200.

50 Besnier, M, ‘Le point de départ des grandes routes de la Gaule Romaine’, BAC, 1923, pp.73-96, pp, 88, 89, and Grenier, 2, pp.35, 36. - 22 - physical characteristics of the transport zone were taken into account 51. The Agrippan road went from Clermont-Ferrand to Limoges, where there is evidence of it52. It has been identified at Saintes for the first 600 metres after it crossed the River Charente53. There is, therefore, no dispute about the location of the first Agrippan road to the West from Lugdunum to Mediolanum.

The Santoni were allies of Rome, as noted by Caesar54, and as can be seen from the Romanisation of the aristocratic Gaulish family of a man called Epotsorovidus. A son of this family received , taking Caesar’s nomen Julius, and his grandson Caius Julius Rufus, a priest of the Cult of Rome and Augustus at Lugdunum, paid for the there. He also built the surviving triumphal at Mediolanum in A.D. 18/1955 over the existing Agrippan road from Limoges. Archaeological investigations indicate the existence of an agglomeration with a in production by about 40 B.C. The town grid was set out to suit the monumentalisation of the early A.D. and the topography of the town plateau. It had no relation to the line of the Agrippan road which was governed by the crossing of the Charente River56. There was, therefore, no planning connection between the Agrippan road and any monument, except the arch of A.D. 18/19 which was built over it. A road to Mediolanum reached the Charente River with access by this to the Atlantic Ocean, and also brought Roman forces closer to the valley of the Loire to the north. Agrippa's road to the English Channel through the territories of the Bellovaci and the Ambiani and the road to the west provided the bare bones of a strategic road system for controlling N.W. Gaul, from which Agrippa had little to fear.

51 Denimal, P., 'La voie Aquitanique d'Agrippa de lyon à Saintes'. Thèse de l'Universitè de Paris, 4, 1995.

52 Chevallier, p.210, Note 47.

53 Maurin, L., ‘Les villes augustéennes de l'Aquitaine occidentale : , Périgueux, Saintes’, Goudineau, C., & Rebourg, A., Eds., Les Villes augustéennes de Gaule, pp.45-59, Fig. 1, p.48 and p.51.

54 Caesar, BG, 3.11; 7.75.

55 King, A., Roman Gaul, London, 1990, pp.66,67 and Note 3, p.218 referring to CIL 13 1036, also Woolf, Becoming Roman, p.40.

56 Maurin, pp.46-48, 54-56, for the chronology of development and Woolf, p.118, for the town grid. - 23 -

Strabo's text stated that the road went as far as the 'Santoni and Aquitania'. The old Aquitania of Caesar was almost entirely south of the Garonne, shown on Fig. 1.1, whereas the province of Aquitania, created by Augustus in 27 B.C., extended almost as far north as the Loire57. Strabo mentioned both58. Since Mediolanum was in the province of Aquitania, a road reaching the town automatically reached this Aquitania and it is curious that Strabo mentioned the province. He may have been referring to the old Aquitania, which had long been a trouble spot before the conquest of Caesar. The Aquitani were overcome by Crassus acting for Caesar only after a lengthy struggle following a Roman approach from the south via , Carcasonne and 59. The of northern Spain helped the Aquitani60. Caesar himself went to Aquitania in 51/50 B.C. and campaigned there, noting that Crassus ‘had conquered it to a certain extent’61. Agrippa campaigned in Aquitania in 38 B.C. and seems to have won a brilliant victory, but there is no other information from the ancient texts62. It is, therefore, not known whether he approached Aquitania from the south, like Crassus, or from the north through Saintes, or through some other region. The last major campaign in Aquitania seems to have been that of Messala Corvinus in 29/28 B.C.63. It is not certain that the region was entirely quiet after this, but it is unlikely that there was any significant assistance from the Cantabri of northern Spain, after Agrippa’s pacification of Cantabria in 19 B.C.64. Aquitania, therefore, remained a trouble spot for the Romans at least until 28 B.C., and, since Agrippa campaigned there himself he would surely regard it as a strategically important region. Goudineau noted the existence of problems in S.W. Gaul and N.E. Gaul and suggested that Agrippa's roads to the West and to N.E. Gaul built to counter these problems, probably originated from Agrippa’s first visit to Gaul, referring specifically to the old Aquitania and to Strabo's description of the Agrippan roads65. By extending the road beyond Mediolanum to the old Aquitania, Agrippa could have kept his forces in

57 The two Aquitanias are shown on Figs. A and B, pp. 9, 10.

58 Strabo, 4.1.

59 Caesar, BG, 3. 20-27.

60 Ibid, 3.26.

61 Ibid, 4.6.

62 Cassius Dio, 48.49.3, Appian, 5.92.386.

63 Roddaz, Marcus Agrippa, p.70 and Note 219.

64 Cassius Dio, 54.11 and below Chapter 6.

65 Goudineau, CAH 10, 1966, pp.489, 490. - 24 -

Gallia Comata for rapid response to unrest in N.W. Gaul and on the Rhine, and have reduced his forces in southern Gaul. Extension of the road on flatter ground beyond Saintes for an extra distance of some 170 km was a small task in relation to building the road the 600 km from Lyon to Saintes over the Auvergne Plateau.

There is, therefore, a strong indication that Agrippa built his road in 39-37 B.C. extended beyond Mediolanum along the east side of the Gironde to the Garonne near present Bordeaux. Maurin argued that there was a pre-Roman road from Saintes to a long-established trading place at Bordeaux, and that Agrippa, improving this, transferred the Biturges and the Vivisci to the area (indicated on Fig. 1.1) in 39-37 B.C. In fact, Maurin considered that the road to the Bordeaux area passed through Saintes only because the Charente could be crossed there conveniently66. Yet the Garonne could be reached through Limoges and Perigueux. It is also unlikely that Agrippa built a road to transfer people. He more probably made them build the road themselves to serve his strategic advantage. Apart from the indications of Goudineau and Maurin, the received opinion is that the Agrippan road to the West ended at Saintes. Yet the evidence indicates that it extended beyond Saintes to the Garonne.

(b) THE ROAD TO THE RHINE: Strabo neither named the place where the road reached the Rhine, nor the regions through which is passed. Fig. 1.467 shows the course of the Rhine from Augst to its estuary, and the principal physical features which would have influenced Agrippa's road location. It was argued above that Agrippa's road passed west of the Jura Mountains because the invasion routes over the Swiss Plateau and the Belfort Gap had been guarded by the colonies at Augst at Nyon, established before he came to Gaul. A road could be built easily up the valley of the Saône, marked on Fig. 1.1, and most of that of the Moselle. It was not practicable to use the Moselle valley north of , since the river was convoluted and confined by steep cliffs. A road to , Mogontiacum, left the Rhine below this point unguarded. A road to Cologne or to over the Eifel reached the plains north of the Ardennes, the northern margin of which formed a natural barrier against movement to the south

66 Maurin, p.47 and Notes 14-17.

67 Based on Wightman, E.M., ‘Military arrangements, native settlements and related developments in early Roman Gaul’, Helinium, 17, 1977, pp.105-126, Fig. 1, p.109 (part). - 25 - from across the Rhine over the plains, or from the plains themselves. Agrippa's road to Ocean passed through the territories of the Bellovaci and the Ambiani to reach the English Channel, as indicated on Fig. 1.1. An Agrippan road to the Cologne area and a road to the Channel could be connected by a road along the northern margin of the Ardennes to form a triangle of road control. There is evidence of such a W-E road being in partial operation by about 20 B.C68. An Agrippan road to the Cologne area would, therefore, have been the most effective as a counter to invasion from across the Rhine north of Augst. The threat of invasion from across the Rhine, and of insurrection in N.E. Gaul, was a primary concern for Agrippa in 39-37 B.C. and he would, therefore, have built his road to the Rhine at that time.

A road reaching the general area of Cologne ended in the territory of the , who had lived on the east, or right-hand side of the Rhine before the conquest of Gaul, and had co-operated with Caesar in his crossing of the River69. The Ubii moved over the river and occupied the area near and to the south of Cologne, including the territory of the , shown on Fig. 1.1, laid waste by Caesar after his defeat of their leader Ambiorix in 53 B.C.70. Strabo said that the Ubii were transferred across the Rhine to the left by Agrippa at their own request71, but he gave no dates. Texts of indicate that the transfer of the Ubii occurred over a long period72. Agrippa crossed the Rhine in the later part of his visit to Gaul in 39-37 B.C.73, and probably in winter/spring 38/37 B.C.74. Oak piles driven for a wharf at Cologne have been dated to 38 B.C.75, and the dating is reliable 76. Agrippa was probably responsible for building the wharf77. There is no record of Agrippa crossing the Rhine in 20/19 B.C.

68 Wightman, E.M., , London, 1985, p.50, noted the road as a supply route, but it was also a defensive road because of its location.

69 Caesar, BG 4.16.

70 Ibid, 6.43, 44.

71 Strabo, 4.34.

72 Tacitus, Annales 12.27.1 and Germania 28.

73 Cassius Dio, 48.49.3.

74 Reinhold, pp.26, 27 and Note 34 and Roddaz, Marcus Agrippa, p.71.

75 Doppelfeld, O., ‘Das römische Köln. I. Ubier- und Colonia Agrippinensium’, ANRW 2.4, 1975, pp.715-750, p.718.

76 Renfrew, C.; Bahn, P., Archaeology, London, 1991, pp.118-120, for the of dating timber by dendrochronology.

77 As assumed by Doppelfeld, p.719. - 26 -

The evidence, therefore, indicates that Agrippa was active in the Cologne area in 38 B.C., and that the transfer of the Ubii occurred at this time, although probably as a formalisation of an earlier process. Dating of the transfer to 38 B.C. is widely supported78. The relationship between Rome and the Ubii was important from the conquest onwards and the Ara Ubiorum at Cologne, in existence by A.D. 979, was the cult centre for the new province of Germania. Colonia Ara Agrippinensis founded at Cologne in A.D. 50 was a major Roman centre. Gechter provided an analysis of the special relationship between Rome and the Ubii80.

The location of the Oppidum Ubiorum at Cologne does not automatically indicate that the first Agrippan road ended there, since it is not possible to trace the development of Cologne from a transfer of the Ubii in 38 B.C. to the foundation of the colonia 90 years later81, except for the being in use by A.D. 9, as noted above. The earliest Roman occupation of Cologne has been dated to 5 B.C. from the remains of a Roman camp, and no pre-Roman pottery has been found. At Bonn (some 25 kms up the Rhine from Cologne), the pottery indicates a lowland oppidum from 30 B.C. Cologne, on the other hand, was in an open area unsuitable for an oppidum82. Gechter suggested that the nobility of the Ubii had been destroyed before the conquest83. It is possible, therefore, that the Ubii initially settled in various locations, with Bonn amongst the earliest of these, and that the Oppidum Ubiorum at Cologne was created later by the Romans as the Ubian cultural centre. Certainly, the Oppidum Ubiorum was laid out to a grid pattern by Roman surveyors84. Bonn was better sited than Cologne to control movement from across the Rhine into Gaul immediately north of the Ardennes, since it is closer to these uplands. There is, therefore, an archaeological and a strategic case for Agrippa ending his road at Bonn rather than at Cologne, whether Agrippa started to build his road in 39-37 B.C. or in 19 B.C. The 38 B.C. dating of the wharf timbers at

78 Roddaz, Marcus Agrippa, pp.71, 72 and Notes 225-229 and pp.384-386 and Notes 6-16 provided a summary of the literature.

79 La Baume, P., Colonia Agrippinensis, Chicago, 1969, pp.10-11.

80 Gechter, M., ‘Early military installations and Ubian settlements in the Lower Rhine’. Blagg, T. & Millet, M., Eds., The Early Roman Empire in the West, Oxford, 1990, pp.97-107, at p.102.

81 King, p.157; Wilson, J.R.A.

82 Gechter, p.100.

83 Ibid, p.99.

84 Doppelfield, p.718. - 27 -

Cologne is explained by Agrippa's 85. A W-E road reaching Cologne by about 20 B.C., as suggested by Wightman86 is not pertinent to discussion on an Agrippan road of 39-37 B.C. A termination of the road at Bonn was suggested by Jullian some 80 years ago based on his interpretation of the remains of roads ending at both Bonn and Cologne 87. Since that time there has been general agreement that the road ended at Cologne, with the notable exception of Chevallier, who indicated that the road did not go to the Cologne , but to Mainz88. As noted, this termination would have been ineffective as a strategic road. The general belief that Cologne was the destination of the road to the Rhine is probably to be explained by the presence of the colony and the Ara Ubiorum, together with the road going there being marked on the Peutinger Table and the Antonine Itinerary. Yet all these indicators are from the Empire and not from the Agrippan period, and the evidence from that time points strongly to the road finishing at Bonn.

Fig. 1.589 shows a Roman road through Mayen to Andernach, which reached Bonn by going down the Rhine and, also, a branch off the road over the Eifel through Zulpich to Bonn. Jullian favoured the road through Zulpich as the Agrippan road90. Wightman91 and Drinkwater92 also preferred the road over the Eifel, but going to Cologne. Grenier93 adopted the Andernach road and was followed by Roddaz94. All these opinions were based on different interpretations of inadequate information, and there is no detailed study of the Agrippan road in the region corresponding to that of his road to the West95. A road over the Eifel would have had military advantage since it commanded high ground and could be used to

85 Cassius Dio, 48.49.3.

86 See above Note 68, p.25.

87 Jullian, S., p.88 and Note 5.

88 Chevallier, p.210.

89 Based on Wightman, Gallia Belgica , general map (part).

90 Jullian, 5, p.88 and Note 5.

91 Wightman, 'Military arrangements …', Fig. 1, p.109.

92 Drinkwater, Roman Gaul, Map 7, p.238.

93 Grenier, 2, p.37.

94 Roddaz, Marcus Agrippa, p.392 and Note 38, referring to Grenier.

95 The Thesis of Denimal above, Note 51, p.22. - 28 - deploy forces to the west or the east. This route must, therefore, be preferred to that through Mayen.

Wightman has indicated a re-routing of the first Agrippan road at and near Trier resulting from Agrippa's visit to Gaul in 19 B.C., based on the dating of the first Roman at Trier to 18-17 B.C. from dendrochronological investigation. Wightman argued that Agrippa's first road approached Trier from the south on the west of the Moselle in order to avoid the there, which had steep cliffs on its north side. When the bridge was built and the cliffs were cut back, the road was deviated to cross the river96. Her hypothesis is to be accepted. In this case the Agrippan road of 39-37 B.C. was probably re-routed elsewhere in the general region of Trier.

Although there is still controversy and some uncertainty about the route of the first Agrippan road north of Trier, its general location between Lyon and Trier has been established. The Agrippan road, shown on Fig. 1.697, went through Chalon, Dijon, , Toul and Metz, following the valleys of the Saône and the Moselle, except at Dijon, where it was west of the Saône, and, also, where it went over the Langres Plateau. Identification of the route has been based on the evidence of the Peutinger Table over the whole distance, the Antonine Itinerary from Langres to Trier, the remains of Roman roads and the natural routing indicated by the topography98. As noted above, construction of the entire road from Lyon to Bonn would have been a primary concern for Agrippa in 39-37 B.C.

(c) THE ROAD TO THE OCEAN (THE ENGLISH CHANNEL): Fig. 1.6 shows the principal Roman roads between Lugdunum and the English Channel. Strabo's text described the road to Ocean as passing through the territories of the Bellovaci and the Ambiani, shown on Fig. 1.1, whose respective capitals were and . The only road shown on Fig. 1.6 which reached both is that through Chalon, Sens, and Paris. Any road reaching Boulogne from Langres directly would not

96 Wightman, E.M., Roman Trier and the , London, 1970, p.36 and Gallia Belgica, pp.49, 50 and Note 77, p.342.

97 Based on Wightman, 'Military arrangements … ', Fig. 1, p.109, extended to include Lyon.

98 Drinkwater, Roman Gaul, Map 7, p.238; Roddaz, Marcus Agrippa, p.390; Chevallier, p.210 and Notes 58, 59. - 29 - pass through Beauvais. Fig. 1.799, indicates that the route through Paris was indirect. It was easier to reach Beauvais from Sens through Meaux and Senlis, and such a road existed100. Paris was not an important Roman centre even in the Empire101. Thévenot's detailed study published in 1969102, but still authoritative 103, identified a pre-Roman road connecting the of central Gaul to their allies, the and the Bellovaci, and to the English Channel, which passed through Chalon, Sens, Meaux, Senlis, Beauvais and Amiens. Thévenot indicated that the first Agrippan road followed the general line of this road, perhaps upgraded after the conquest104. Such improvement is to be expected, since trade increased between S.E. Britain and Gaul over the short channel crossing at Boulogne after Caesar visited Britain105. The Aedui were the first, and the principal, allies of Rome in Gallia Comata106. It would, therefore have been natural for Agrippa to adopt the road to Ocean controlled by the Aedui, when he came to Gaul in 39-37 B.C. Yet, Thévenot dated the first Agrippan road to 19 B.C., relying partly on Grenier who argued that all the Agrippan roads should be dated from 19 B.C. onwards107, and, partly on the archaeology of , the old capital of the Aedui marked as Mt Beuvray on Fig. 1.6, and of Autun, the new Roman centre to its East. Thévenot thought that Bibracte was abandoned in the period 20-10 B.C. and that Autun was founded at that time with the Agrippan road passing though it 108. It is now known that Bibracte and Autun continued in use together. There is uncertainty about the foundation date of Autun109, and, consequently, no clear indication of the Agrippan road going through Autun in 19 B.C. Also, a road dating there does not

99 Based on Wightman, Gallia Belgica, general map (part).

100 As indicated by Wightman on her general map of Gallia Belgica and also Poux, M., and Robin, S., 'Les origines de Lutèce', Gallia, 57, 2000, pp.181-225, Fig. 22, p.218.

101 Woolf, pp.101, 2, and Notes 62, 63.

102 Thévenot, E., 'Les voies romaines de la cité des Eduens', Latomus, 98, 1969.

103 Chevallier, pp.210, 1 and Note 55.

104 Thévenot, pp.102-108.

105 Caesar, BG, 5, 20, 21. There is also archaeological evidence of a decrease in the trade between S.W. Britain and from about that time; Wiseman, A. & P., Julius Caesar The Battle for Gaul, Boston, 1980, p.88.

106 BG, 1.11; 8.54.

107 Grenier, 2, pp.33-34.

108 Thévenot, pp.107-8.

109 Woolf, p.9 and Notes 28, 29; Rebourg, A., 'Les origines d'Autun : l'archéologie et les textes', Les villes augustéennes de Gaule, pp.99-105; Gruel, K. and Vitali, D., 'L'oppidum de Bibracte', Gallia 55, 1998, pp.1-140 and Rebourg, A., L'urbanisme d'Augustudunum (Autun, Saône-et-loire), Gallia 55, 1998, pp.141-255. - 30 - indicate dating elsewhere. Chevallier has suggested a dating of 39-37 B.C. of the whole road from the general archaeology of its formation with typical ditches110.

The route through Chalon, Autun, Sens, Meaux, Senlis, Beauvais and Amiens is preferred by modern writers111, although Drinkwater adopted one through Langres, , Soissons and Amiens112. This is probably explained by his reliance on earlier writers who preferred a road through Langres. Jullian adopted the route through Langres, Reims and Soissons which went through Amiens but avoided Beauvais, relying on the prominent remains of the road. He suggested that Strabo had made a mistake in saying that the road went through Beauvais113. He was supported by Grenier114. Thévenot convincingly rebutted this hypothesis of a 'mistake' by Strabo and contested Jullian's adoption of a well-defined route of the Empire as a first Agrippan road115. The hypothesis of an Agrippan road from Langres arose from Strabo's remarks on the by-road and the thoroughfares by which it was possible to reach from this to the Rhine and the English Channel. A by-road through Besançon and Mirebau, shown on Fig. 1.6, joined Agrippa's road to the Rhine south of Langres, and would, therefore, have connected to a road to the Channel from there. Yet the road from Langres through Soissons is probably post-Agrippan while that through St. Quentin and Arras is probably pre-Agrippan116.

The Agrippan road, therefore, went to Boulogne through Chalon, Sens, Meaux, Senlis, Beauvais and Amiens along an existing commercial road controlled by an ally of Rome. This gave direct access to N.E. Gaul and the short Channel crossing to counter potential unrest in that region and co-operation in this by British tribes. Adoption of the road and any necessary improvement were called for in 39-37 B.C. in

110 Chevallier, p.211.

111 Roddaz, Marcus Agrippa, p.391 and Notes 35, 36, Wightman, Gallia Belgica, p.50 (through Paris between Sens and Beauvais) and Chevallier, pp.210, 211.

112 Drinkwater, Roman Gaul, Map 7, p.238.

113 Jullian, 5.89.

114 Grenier 2, p.37.

115 Thévenot, pp.89-91.

116 See above, p.19, for Strabo's comments on the by-road and the explanation for these, also Chevallier, p.211 and Notes 56, 57 referring principally to Leman, P., 'La voie de Léman à l'Ocean', la branche orientale. État de la question et propositions nouvelles', Caesarodunum, 10, 1975, pp.102-108 for the dating of the two roads from Langres. - 31 - conjunction with the construction of the road to the Rhine. A later road, connecting the road to Ocean and the Rhine117, would seal off the northern plains along the northern margin of the Ardennes.

(d) THE ROAD TO THE SOUTH: Fig. 1.8118 shows Roman roads connecting Lugdunum to the South. Lugdunum and Arelate were both Roman colonies and was almost certainly a colony before Agrippa first came to Gaul119. It is, therefore, almost certain that there was a Roman road from Arelate to Lugdunum by 39 B.C. Drinkwater argued on this basis that Strabo's road to the South was not part of the Agrippan system120. Yet, this could not function without the link, which was a funnel for all the through traffic. Whether Agrippa was obliged to carry out any works on the road link in 39-37 B.C. or 19 B.C. depended on its condition and the rate of build-up of the traffic on the other three Agrippan roads, and nothing is known about these factors.

The road on the left, or east, side of the Rhône has been identified as the 'Agrippan road' of the Empire. Two routes between Lugdunum and Vienna are from the Claudian period when bridges were built connecting Lugdunum on the west bank of the Rhône to the east via the island of Bellecour 121. The first Roman road between Lugdunum and Vienna was on the right or west side, and it crossed the Rhône at Vienna to continue on this side to the south122. The road on the right bank south of Vienna was convoluted and subject to flooding, being confined to a strip of land between the river and high land to the west123. It connected settlements on the river, whereas the 'Agrippan road' on the left bank, meeting the river only at Vienna, and Avennio, was set out to a good line by Roman surveyors. There are no

117 See above Note 68, p.25.

118 Based on Rivet, Fig.38, p.278 and Fig. 42, p.302.

119 Arelate was founded by T. on behalf of Caesar in 46 B.C., Suetonius, Tiberius 4.1. Lugdunum was founded in 43 B.C. by Munatius Plancus, CIL 10 6087. Rivet, pp.305-6, discussed the evidence for a Roman colony at Vienna from which Roman citizens were expelled and for whom the colony at Lugdunum was created (Cassius Dio, 46.50).

120 Drinkwater, Roman Gaul, p.125.

121 Roddaz, Marcus Agrippa, p.372 and Note 41; Chevallier, pp.211-2, also see below Figs. 2.1 and 2.2.

122 Chevallier, p.212, and Note 61.

123 Ibid, p.212, for a description of the road on the right bank. - 32 - surviving Roman road markers on the road east of the Rhône earlier than 3 B.C.124. At Orange (Arausio), the line of the road entering the town from the north through the Triumphal Arch continues along the maximus, indicating that the town grid was set out from the existing road. There is no definite dating for the foundation of the town, but it was, almost certainly, before the second visit of Agrippa to Gaul in 19 B.C.125.

There is, therefore, insufficient evidence to indicate whether Agrippa was responsible for any road construction south of Lugdunum, but it is probably safe to conclude that he did little or nothing in this region. His immediate concern was to provide a strategic network in Gallia Comata, where there were no Roman roads. Furthermore, the colonies, which used the road south of Lugdunum, would have been expected to upgrade it to carry the essentially commercial traffic, which built up because of the road works to the north.

2. INVESTIGATION OF THE AGRIPPAN NETWORK Fig. 1.9126 shows the locations of the Agrippan roads as deduced in section 1 where it was also argued that construction was put in hand in 39-37 B.C., except for the road to the South, where any Agrippan construction cannot be dated. In this section, the object of enquiry is identification of factors which influenced the development of the Agrippan network as a whole. Investigation is divided into two parts. In the first of these, consideration is given to what Agrippa would have sought to achieve. In the second, the practical limitations on Agrippan achievements are examined by reference to technical factors. He could build only a certain amount of road of a particular standard in a specific period of time with the forces available to him. He was, therefore, constrained by elements, some of which he could not control.

124 Rivet, p.79 and Note 45, p.82.

125 The town was mentioned in , 67, Strabo, 4.1.11 and Pliny, 3.36. Cassius Dio, 49.34, said that mutinous soldiers were sent to Gaul after the defeat of Sextus Pompeius, in 36 B.C., and, perhaps, to Orange and Béziers, as suggested by Rivet, pp.150 and 172. Goudineau, CAH 10, 1996, p.477, dated the foundation between 40 B.C. and 28 B.C. Bellet, M.E., Orange Antique. Guides Archéologiques de La France, Paris, 1991, p.14, noted that the earliest dateable evidence of Roman occupation at Orange is from 15 B.C., but the principal Roman monuments there are Augustan or later, and earlier works may have been disturbed when these were built. Rivet, p.79, noted the remains of a structure under the Triumphal Arch dedicated to Tiberius.

126 Based on Drinkwater, Roman Gaul, Map 7, p.238, and his place names, pp.228-231. - 33 -

(a) HISTORICAL AND STRATEGIC FACTORS: The Caesarian policy in Gallia Comata following the conquest was essentially one of ‘laissez-faire’. Provided that tribute was paid, and there were no serious disorders, there would be little Roman interference in Gaulish life and government. Roman interests in Gallia Comata were safeguarded by the legions in encampments, or at Gaulish sites, together with alliances between Rome and local chieftains 127. When Octavian had the West allocated to him at the Treaty of Brundisium in 40 B.C, he did not want to direct substantial resources there while he was consolidating his position in Italy, and in the Roman world generally. On the other hand, he wanted to take definite possession of the territory which had been conquered by his 'father', and was a counter to Antony's control of the East. His policy would have been to introduce some measures of additional control to ensure that the territory remained quiet. The most powerful control measure was effective road communication reaching potential trouble spots for rapid transmission of intelligence about unrest and movement of military forces in response. This would enable the size of the army to be reduced. A road system radiating from Lugdunum to the Atlantic, the English Channel, and the Rhine could be used by forces stationed at Lugdunum or in Gallia Comata, leaving southern Gaul unaffected. The roads, forts and garrisons near or on them would be built by the army. Drinkwater considered that Agrippa built well engineered roads, starting in 39 B.C., and that this programme was completed by 27 B.C.128. He also discerned military changes on Agrippa's arrival with larger forces being replaced by smaller more mobile units using the roads to reach trouble spots from garrison forts on the roads129. It is unlikely that such a large network could have been built to a high standard by 27 B.C. Also, completion of the network by this date was of little use to Agrippa, who was probably asked by Octavian to institute a control system before he left Gaul. Agrippa had to reorganise the military forces and build the roads at the same time, otherwise he would not achieve his objectives of control and recasting the military forces, which went hand in hand. Roddaz argued that Agrippa was sent to Gaul in October 40 B.C.130, and he was probably recalled in early 37 B.C131. It is possible that Agrippa was meant to stay in Gaul longer and was

127 Drinkwater, Roman Gaul, pp.18-20 for a brief assessment of the Caesarian settlement.

128 Ibid, pp.21, 93, 124-126.

129 Ibid, pp.122, 3.

130 Roddaz, Marcus Agrippa, pp.60-69, also above Note 10, p.12.

131 See above Note 11, p.12. - 34 - recalled to deal with Sextus Pompey132 earlier than needed for him to become consul in 37 B.C.133. Certainly, Agrippa was compelled to act on the roads and the forces in a few years, and had no option but to provide a road system of a lower standard than that described by Drinkwater in order to complete his network before he left the region.

Augustus organised the first census in Gaul and set in train the creation of the three provinces of Aquitania, Lugdunensis and Belgica in 27 B.C., and not when he was again in the West in 16-14 B.C.134. There was no need for new roads to be built to serve the capitals of the provinces135, which probably became effective administrative units many years later. Nor is there any reason to think that Agrippa did anything to the roads in 19 B.C. because of the initiative of 27 B.C., even if he had sufficient time to do so (he was in Gaul for only about six months, put down disturbances in N.E. Gaul and was active at Lugdunum136. Drinkwater emphasised the connection between roads and the census, since the latter called for a cadastre with details of boundaries, ownership, etc., and roads provided fixed points in the landscape137. Yet Agrippa's road network formed only a narrow ribbon of land and did not exist in N.W. Gaul. It is, therefore, difficult to discern a strong connection between census and the roads in Gallia Comata as a whole. A census could proceed irrespective of road works. Consequently, a census ordered in 27 B.C. would have had no significant influence on road construction, or have led to Agrippan road action in 19 B.C. Chevallier suggested that Agrippa may have been asked to undertake cadastration in 19 B.C.138, but any such action did not necessarily call for road construction.

132 See above Note 10, p.2, for Sextus Pompey.

133 Ehrenburg and Jones, p.33, for the consulate.

134 Cassius Dio, 53.22, for the ordering of the census and the initial step to create the three provinces in 27 B.C., as supported by Goudineau, CAH 10, 1996, p.487, and Drinkwater, Roman Gaul, p.20. Cassius Dio, 54.23, describing the visit of Augustus to the West in 16-14 B.C. did not indicate establishment of the provinces.

135 The first capital of Aquitania at Saintes (Drinkwater, Roman Gaul, p.96, and Note 21, p.115, Goudineau, CAH 10, 1996, p.488) was surely on a road by 27 B.C., even if Agrippa had not built his road to it in 39-37 B.C. Reims, the first capital of Belgica (Strabo, 4.3.5, Drinkwater, Roman Gaul, p.38, Goudineau, CAH 10, 1996, p.488) was the long-established capital of the . Lugdunum, the first and continuing capital of Lugdunensis was on a Roman road before Agrippa visited Gaul, as already noted.

136 See above Note 14, p.12', Cassius Dio, 54.11, and below Chapter 2.

137 Drinkwater, Roman Gaul, p.125.

138 Chevallier, p.211 and Note 57. - 35 -

It can, therefore, be concluded that the actions of Augustus in 27 B.C. had little or no effect on road planning or construction. Consequently, they would have led to no major Agrippan road works in 19 B.C. The impetus for building a first Roman road network was the acquisition of Gaul by Octavian in 40 B.C. The first form of this was completed by Agrippa in 39-37 B.C. It remained to form the trunk routes of the much larger and higher standard Roman road network of the Empire. The Agrippan roads were, therefore, gradually upgraded over a long period, which started when Agrippa left Gaul in 37 B.C. The Agrippan visit of 19 B.C. was a short event during which little could have been built.

(b) TECHNICAL FACTORS: Agrippa's roads were to reach his desired destinations as directly as possible, be open to traffic all year, and have the capacity to carry his military forces and military intelligence. The existing roads would have been investigated by Agrippa, and he would then have assessed how he could best cobble together an acceptable system from these. Where Agrippa was obliged to build ex-novo the standard which he adopted would have been the minimum to achieve his objectives. i. Locations of the pre-Agrippan Roads: As pointed out by Renardet139, Agrippa’s roads were planned by a single authority to reach specific destinations as directly as possible. Pre-Roman through routes, on the other hand, had evolved over a long period, and were formed in some cases by connecting local roads radiating from local centres. The Roman roads would surely disregard them and by-pass the places on them. Yet this finding must be qualified in the case of the Agrippan roads. Through roads or tracks along the Moselle, Saône and Rhône arose because of the rivers and movement along these. The settlement pattern was therefore of the ‘ribbon’ rather than the ‘radial’ type, and was what Agrippa wanted for his road locations. In the case of the road to the West, both pre-Roman and Agrippan road locations were influenced by the same topography of natural routes through an upland area. As noted above, Agrippa's road to Ocean followed the trace of an existing through route. Also, Renardet had in mind the fundamental difference between pre-Roman and Roman road planning, but Agrippa was

139 Renardet, E., Vie et croyances des gaulois avant la conquête romaine, Paris, 1975, p.100. - 36 - obliged to compromise on road location to some extent to achieve his aims. Furthermore, as pointed out by Jullian140, the Agrippan roads followed the ancient routes of the people dictated by the topography. There is no need to take into account the extensive use of rivers in Gaul referred to by Strabo141, and which can be envisaged from the penetration of these into the interior, as shown on Fig. 1.1. Rivers could not be used along the routes to the West and the English Channel, and, as already noted, roads existed along both sides of the Rhône, which could, in any case, not always be used for transport142.

Although Agrippa could have used the general locations of the existing roads, it was necessary to adjust the actual alignments. Fig. 1.10143 shows a typical pre-Roman road, Fig. 1.11144, a secondary Roman road, and Fig. 1.12145, the 'Agrippan road' of the Empire between Amiens and Beauvais. It was not feasible for Agrippa to aim at alignments like that on Fig. 1.12, because this would have entailed ex novo works which he could not complete. Yet he could not tolerate the sinuous pre-Roman roads over the whole of his network, since this would have greatly increased the total road length. He probably wanted to create alignments like those shown on Fig. 1.11. In some places he could provide this within the existing road formation. Elsewhere he would be obliged to build ex novo. This new work could not be extensive if he was to provide his system quickly, nor could his re-alignments be drastic and frequent. ii Standards of pre -Agrippan Roads : The integrity of the roads under the loading of military traffic is not in doubt since they had been developed over a long period from tracks to carry vehicles and consisted of many layers of consolidated materials146. Caesar had no

140 Jullian, 4. p.85.

141 Strabo, 4.1.2.

142 Ibid, 4.1, 14, noted that it was difficult to sail up the Rhône.

143 Chevallier, Fig. 2, p.27.

144 Ibid, Fig. 102a, p.160.

145 Ibid, Fig. 100, p.159.

146 Renardet, pp.93-99. - 37 - difficulty in using the roads for his conquest147. Also, the Helvetii intended to use wagons in their migration to the west coast of Gaul148. This is not surprising since the cart, or wagon, had been in general use in Gaul for centuries before Caesar's conquest, having appeared in Europe and nearby areas in the 2nd millennium. In the Age, there was widespread use of carts, as is known from the cart burials of the Hallstatt culture149. The site of a cart burial can be seen on Fig. 1.10. The Romans borrowed technology of wagon building from the and the names of the different types of wagons in Gaul, which were well-adapted to the economy and terrain150. Agrippa would not have encountered serious difficulties in using the existing roads throughout the year since there were many pre-Roman bridges151, indicating that the roads would not generally be subject to flooding. Also, frequent river crossings were necessary only on the roads to the West and to the English Channel, since the other two generally followed rivers rather than crossed them, except at Vienna. The pre- Roman roads were probably not suitable for rapid communication by light vehicles and horsemen carrying intelligence, since the road surfaces had not been designed for this purpose. Resurfacing could be done easily since the pre-Roman roads were surfaced with small stones and gravel, which could be harrowed and reinforced by smaller gravel.

It can, therefore, be concluded that Agrippa could have formed a viable strategic road system on the routes described by Strabo, and have substantially completed this while he was in Gaul in 39-37 B.C. He could have done this only by relying principally on the existing roads, which he would have improved, and by adding some minor ex-novo work. Agrippa's first system could only have been built to a modest standard, but nothing further was needed for a strategic network.

147 Chevallier, p.25 and Notes 9-11, for Caesar's use of the roads and general comments on the pre-Roman road works.

148 Caesar, BG, 1.3.

149 Pigott, S., Daniel, G. and McBurney, C., Eds., France Before the Romans, London, 1974, pp.183-5, René, J., Vix et ses trésors, Paris, 1979, pp.88-97 and Fig p.89, Powell, T.G.E., The Celts, London, 1985, Fig. 9, p.30 and Fig. 12, p.35, showing the evolution of carts, and Augouze, F.K. and Büchsenschütz, O., Towns, Villages and Countryside of Celtic Europe, London, 1992, pp.16-18 and 24, for the general development of .

150 Renardet, p.101; Coulon, G., Les gallo-romaines, Paris, 1985, p.25; Chevallier, p.28.

151 Chevallier, Note 10, p.26, provided a list of bridges mentioned by Caesar in Bellum Gallicum. - 38 -

CONCLUSIONS

The evidence indicates strongly that Agrippa created the first form of his road network in 39-37 B.C for strategic reasons, and mainly by using and improving existing roads. This system remained to form the framework of the much larger Roman road system of the Empire, and was upgraded over a long period152. There were no significant road alterations as a result of the initiatives of Augustus in 27 B.C. in creating the three provinces and taking the first census, and any road works by Agrippa in 19 B.C. were cosmetic. There is no case for Agrippa starting his road planning and construction in 19 B.C. Agrippa's road network provided the first framework of Roman control, and places on it were, in some cases, the first locations of Roman influence. Agrippa built his road to the West to reach the trouble spot of the old Aquitania and did not end it at Saintes, as generally understood. Also, his road reached the Rhine at Bonn and not at Cologne, as is usually argued. It is unlikely that Agrippa was responsible for road construction south of Lugdunum.

It is now generally agreed that Agrippa planned and started to build his road system in 39-37 B.C., rather than in 19 B.C., but no consideration seems to have been given to his use of the existing roads to cobble together a first viable network. Yet, this was simply an extension of Julius Caesar's use of the roads, and what should be expected from Agrippa as a Roman general using existing resources to the greatest possible extent. The generally accepted hypothesis of Agrippa starting to build a high standard road system ex novo rests on the powerful modern image of the 'Roman road' built to a high standard, straight, and elevated above the landscape, as seen on Fig. 1.12. Yet, there were many categories of Roman roads153, one of which is shown on Fig. 1.11, and the standard depended on the local needs of the time. The high standard roads of the Empire, as shown on Fig. 1.12, served the needs of that time. The key to understanding the Agrippan road network is to set aside modern ideas of the high standard Roman roads of the Empire and to assess Agrippa's reactions to the problem faced by him.

152 Rivet, p.79 and Note 45, p.82, noted Augustan markers on the road to the South. Roddaz, Marcus Agrippa, p.390 and Note 29, described Claudian markers on the Agrippan roads and Chevallier, p.210 noted 25 markers on the Agrippan road to the Rhine dating from the Claudian period to Constantine 2 (A.D.337-340).

153 Chevallier, pp.32-35, describes the various classes of Roman roads. - 39 -

2. LUGDUNUM (LYON)

It was argued in Chapter 1 that Agrippa built the first form of his road network radiating from Lugdunum in 39-37 B.C. and that he did little, if anything, to it in 19 B.C. The constructions to be investigated in this chapter are his road works of 39-37 B.C. at and near Lugdunum, excluded from discussion in Chapter 1, and all his other works at Lugdunum of 39-37 B.C. and 19 B.C.

1. THE FRAMEWORK OF AGRIPPAN ACTIVITY The general location of Lugdunum was indicated in the chapter on the roads. Fig. 2.11 shows the topography and the courses of the rivers Saône and Rhône in the Roman period. Fig. 2.22 shows a model of the city of Lugdunum in the Empire. Fig. 2.33 indicates the modern city with solid ground and extensive development between the Saône and the Rhône from the foot of the Croix-Rousse, including the former Island of Bellecour. Consequently, the ancient writers referred to the confluence of the Saône and Rhône, as shown on Figs. 2.1 and 2.2, and, the Roman works at river level are largely lost. The main public buildings of Lugdunum were on the Hill of Fourvière and the plateau of La Sarra, with the circus on the Trion below the plateau, and there was extensive development on the Island of Bellecour, which was connected by bridges to both sides of the rivers. The Altar of Rome and Augustus and the amphitheatre were on the Croix-Rousse across the Saône and joined to the town by a bridge. As noted in Chapter 1, the location of Lugdunum made it a key centre of Roman security. Also, the Plateau of La Sarra, with its Hill of Fourvière, could be defended, and it overlooked a crossing of the Saône north of a complicated river confluence. Yet, since rainfall was the only source of water on the plateau, and the ground was permeable4, it was not naturally suitable for large- scale permanent human habitation until and wells were in general use. It is, therefore, not surprising that there is no evidence of permanent native occupation

1 Audin, A., Lyon miroìr de Rome , Paris, 1979, Fig. p.31

2 Photograph of the maquette in the Musée de la Civilisation gallo-romaine Lyon, Burdy, J., Guide des aqueducs romains de Lyon, Lyon, 1999, p.5.

3 Desbat, A., 'Nouvelles recherches à l'emplacement du prétendu Sanctuaire Lyonnais de Cybèle', Gallia, 55, 1998, pp.237-277, Fig. 2, p.239.

4 Burdy, J., Guide des aqueducs romains de Lyon, p.7. - 40 - before Roman colonisation5, but only of military encampments by Roman armies6. There is evidence of Roman cisterns and wells, and four aqueducts served the Roman town7. In fact, Lugdunum became a Roman colony, and the hub of Agrippa's road network, because its strategic location outweighed the water shortage. The fact that there had never been an oppidum on the plateau made the area a neutral zone where native leaders could meet, and, therefore, appropriate for the construction of the Altar of Rome and Augustus 8, although this was not at the town itself.

The Roman colony at Lugdunum was founded by Munatius Plancus in 43 B.C. for Romans who had been expelled from Vienne, and, also, to establish a strategic military centre9, but the foundation text said nothing specific about its location. A text of Strabo has been seen by some to suggest that it was at or near river level, but the general consensus now favours the plateau10. Also, a Roman colony would not have been founded below dominating positions, especially when old encampments on one of these could be used for an urbs quadrata. Italian merchants, expelled from Vienne in 62/61 B.C., may have settled at the confluence of the Rhône and the Saône 11, but their works, now lost, were almost certainly near the river and are disregarded here. There is, therefore, no possibility of an Agrippan first Roman settlement on the plateau. He could only add to what Plancus had done there.

5 Walker, S., Ed., Récentes recherches en archéologie gallo-romaine et paléochrétriene sur Lyon et sa région, BAR-1S, 108, 1981, Oxford, pp.29-54, also Burnouf, J. et al, ‘Lyon avant Lugdunum. Un habitat du premièr Age du Fer à Vaise’, Goudineau, C. & Mandy, B. Eds., Aux Origines de Lyon, pp.11-22.

6 See below Notes 22 and 24, pp.43, 4, for the archaeological information on the camps.

7 See below Note 95, p.57, for the cisterns and p.52, for the aqueducts.

8 Drinkwater, J.F., ‘Lugdunum : ‘Natural Capital’ of Gaul?’, Britannia 6, 1975, pp.133.140.

9 Cassius Dio, 46.50, for the foundation text. CIL 10, 6087, on the tomb of Plancus recorded the foundation (and that of Raurica), also, Goudineau, C., 'Les textes antiques sur la fondation et la topigraphie de Lugdunum', Aux Origines de Lyon, pp.23-36.

10 Strabo, 4.3.2., said that Lugdunum was sited under a hill near the confluence of the rivers. He described the Altar of Rome and Augustus as rising in front of it at the confluence. Goudineau, ‘Les textes antiques …’, p.29, pointed out that the text indicated the town as only near the confluence, whereas the altar was at it, therefore proving two different sites. He also suggested that Strabo described the town as generally below the hill of Fourvière.

11 Cassius Dio, 37, 47-48, mentioned expulsion of settlers from Vienne in 62/61 B.C., but, in his foundation text, 46.50 (referring to 43 B.C.) he gave no indication when settlers at the confluence of the Rhône and the Saône had gone there. Audin, pp.38, 39 and Drinkwater, ‘Lugdunum’, pp.134.5 supported the idea of a settlement in 62/61 B.C., but neither provided any clear evidence. Goudineau, ‘Les textes antiques …', p.24, argued against it on the basis that settlement would not have occurred there before the conquest, and that, if this had happened, a colony would have been created before 43 B.C. - 41 -

Plancus probably formed an urbs quadrata on the plateau. By 39 B.C., Lugdunum had a garrison on the hill and an agglomeration of settlements at various sites. The population was probably numbered in hundreds rather than thousands and no significant construction in permanent materials can be envisaged. In 39-37 B.C. Agrippa was interested in Lugdunum for strategic purposes. It is, therefore, unlikely that he would have been concerned to expand the town, or to start any monumental construction. He would have focussed on the military and road functions.

In 19 B.C. Lugdunum, the hub of Agrippa’s road system for some two decades, must have become a commercial centre. The principal mint of the Empire was established at Lugdunum in about 15 B.C.12. This dating is not to be confused with that of the first issues of the ‘Altar’ series, in 10 B.C.13. The 10 B.C. dating has, in turn, led to the dating of the Altar to Rome and Augustus to 10 B.C. and the dedication by Augustus himself14. Yet, dating to 12B.C. with the dedication by seems to be well established15, and is accepted here. The new Mint and the Altar indicate political development of Lugdunum, reinforcing the previous commercial expansion, and, therefore, also a corresponding programme of monumental development. The need for urban development has been accepted, but this has been dated to 15-10 B.C., following the visit of Augustus to the West16. Yet, it is possible that this was undertaken earlier, since, in 27 B.C., Augustus set in hand the creation of the three provinces, with Lugdunensis as the most important of these, and Lugdunum as its capital. Also, the problem of water may have become serious before 15 B.C. and, in this case, it would have been necessary to consider the construction of aqueducts in addition to expansion on of the town itself.

There is, therefore, reason to think that Agrippa in Gaul in 19 B.C. with his experience in urban expansion and water supply at Rome 17, could have undertaken

12 Burnett et al, p.150.

13 RIC, p.28.

14 Ibid, p.27.

15 Gros, P., ‘L’ Augusteum de Nîmes’, RANarb, 17, 1984, pp.123-134, p.129, and Woolf, Becoming Roman, p.216 and Notes 50 and 51 referring to several studies on the altar.

16 Tranoy, L. and Ayala, G., ‘Les pentes de la Croix-Rousse à Lyon dans l’antiquitie. État des connaissances’, Gallia, 51, 1992, pp.171-189, p.188.

17 See below Chapter 11, pp.207, 8. - 42 - planning, and, possibly, construction for the expansion of Lugdunum, and that he may have been asked to do so by Augustus. Yet, these initiatives could have been taken by Augustus in 16-13 B.C., and there is insufficient evidence to decide who was responsible, either partly or wholly, for the expansion. It can only by said that Agrippa could have acted rather than Augustus, as is generally understood.

2. AGRIPPAN PLANNING AND CONSTRUCTION Investigation in this section is in three parts. The first is concerned with Agrippan roads at and near Lugdunum constructed in 39-37 B.C. Agrippan planning and construction at the urban centre in 39-37 B.C. and 19 B.C. is examined in the second. In a third part, Agrippan planning and construction of aqueducts serving the urban centre is investigated.

(a) AGRIPPAN ROADS: According to Strabo, ‘Lugdunum is in the centre of the country — an acropolis as it were, not only because the rivers meet there, but, also, because it is near all parts of the country. And it was on this account, also, that Agrippa began at Lugdunum when he cut his roads’18. It has already been argued here that Agrippa knew Lugdunum to be nowhere near the ‘centre of the country’ and that he built his roads from there for strategic reasons. The ‘acropolis’ was a disadvantage for a transport node which, ideally, is at the same level as the roads to be connected so that through traffic need not negotiate a hill. The meeting of the rivers refers to the confluence of the Saône and the Rhône. This made Lugdunum a strategic position but not necessarily a major river trading station. Vienne and Chalon-sur-Saône, shown on Fig. 1.6, were both more important than Lugdunum in the pre-Roman era19, although Lugdunum could have been a base for trade up the Rhône to Lake Geneva. It seems unlikely that the pre-Roman river trade had changed significantly by 39 B.C. after foundation in 43 B.C. Even if Lugdunum had become important for river trade, Agrippa would have chosen it as the hub of the roads because it was a Roman colony with a garrison at a strategic position in an existing system of military security connecting Vienne, the Roman positions on the Swiss plateau and Raurica. He would have avoided Vienne, which had expelled Romans. It was also on the east of the Rhône when

18 Strabo, 4.6.11.

19 Cunliffe, B., Greeks, Romans and , London, 1988, pp.49-55, 86, 87. - 43 -

Agrippa's roads to the West, the English Channel and the Rhine were all to the west of the Rhône-Saône system. In short, selection of Lugdunum was almost inevitable unless Agrippa founded a new colony. This would not have been done when Octavian wished to contain potential problems in Gallia Comata.

It has been argued in Chapter 1 that Agrippa formed his initial road network of 39-37 B.C. as far as possible from existing roads. A natural crossing of the Saône at or near Lugdunum, marked on Fig. 2.1, indicates a pre-Roman W-E road, but this would not have passed over the uninhabited plateau. A road must have been made by the Romans before 39-37 B.C. to connect Vienne, Lugdunum and the Roman positions in the Swiss Plateau. This would have crossed the Rhône at Vienne to reach Lugdunum on its west side, since the crossing there was simpler than at Lugdunum. At Lugdunum the road would then have ascended to the garrison on the plateau, descended, and have crossed the Saône to go up the Rhône to Lake Geneva. Agrippa could form his road to the West by striking off from this Roman town in the direction of Feurs20. He probably had to build little, if any, new roads once he was clear of Lugdunum itself since the route was defined by the topography. For his road to the South Agrippa had only to follow, and perhaps upgrade, the Roman road from Lugdunum to Vienne for his first construction, although, as seen on Fig. 2.2, the later form of the road crossed over the river at Lugdunum via the Island of Bellecour 21. The region of Lugdunum, with its plateau, formed a cul-de-sac for S-N land passage 22. Consequently, the main pre-Roman road between Vienne and Chalon would have by-passed Lugdunum, leaving it to the east. Fig. 2.423 shows the position of the rivers. A route leaving the west bank of the Rhône near Givors and going up the valley of the Garon could reach the valley of the Brévenne and then go down this to Anse. Agrippa would, therefore, have used the existing road southward from Chalon as far as Anse, but would have been obliged to cut a new road from this point to reach Lugdunum, some 17 km further south. At Lugdunum, it connected to the existing Roman road to the south and the pre-Roman road to the west.

20 Marked on Fig. 1.3.

21 See above, Chapter 1, Note 121, p.31, and Fig. 1.8.

22 Mandy, B., Sandoz, S. et al, ‘Les fossés du plateau de La Sarra’, Aux Origines de Lyon, pp.37-94, at p.92.

23 Based on Besnier, M.M., 'Le point de départ des grandes routes …', Fig. 2, p.87. - 44 -

All the Agrippan roads reaching Lugdunum would have been brought together most conveniently at the Trion site, below the top of the plateau, marked on Fig. 2.1. The road from Vienne to Lugdunum would have passed through the Trion, as can be seen from the contours on Fig. 2.1, between St. Irénée and the Trion. The road from the north (the combined road to the English Channel and the Rhine) reached the Trion by climbing the contours on the west of the plateau. The road to the west would automatically pass through the Trion. With a junction at the Trion, through traffic did not have to ascend the slope of the plateau, but there was a connection for traffic to the urban centre at the top. It is clear from Fig. 2.2 that the interchange facility at the Trion was still used in the Empire, although other roads provided more direct access to the top of the plateau, or avoided it altogether by passing around it.

(b) AGRIPPAN PLANNING AND CONSTRUCTION AT THE URBAN CENTRE: § Works of the period 39-37 B.C. Agrippa must have built a construction camp at or near the Trion, since he formed his roads from Lugdunum. He must also have provided for his military movements on completion of the roads by building horse changing facilities, stores for animal feed, and perhaps overnight accommodation at the Trion to reinforce facilities on the plateau. Supplies from the south via the Rhône would have been received at river port facilities, and a road connection from these must have been built. The decision to form his strategic road network at Lugdunum increased the military importance of the town and Agrippa almost certainly planned, and built, some new permanent military works on the plateau.

There seems to be no evidence of early Roman buildings at the Trion site. Ditches discovered on the top of the main plateau of La Sarra contain traces of fortifications or encampments, the full extent of which is, as yet, unknown. Fig. 2.524 shows the ditch at the Rue Henry Le chatelier site, two ditches at the Clos du Verbe-Incarné site, and the fourth ditch at the Hôpital Sainte-Croix site at the S.W. side of the hill of Fourvière. Dating of the finds in these ditches indicates transitory use from the Caesarian period, and perhaps earlier. The Verbe-Incarné ditches were probably not used after 60 B.C., but the other two were used as late as about 40 B.C. All ditches contained evidence of military use and the Hôpital Sainte-Croix ditch also had animal

24 Mandy, B., Monin, M., and Krauzz, S., ‘L’hôpital, Sainte-Croix à Lyon un quatrième fossé’, Gallia, 47, 1990, pp. 79-102, Figs. 1, p.80. - 45 - bones of a type which indicated civil as well as military food consumption25. The ditches, therefore, provided evidence of occupation of the plateau shortly after the foundation period, but it is not possible to know whether this resulted from the activities of Agrippa in 39-37 B.C.

Figs. 2.6a and 2.6b26, respectively, show the Verbe-Incarné site located on Fig. 2.5 with nine divisions, and the cross-hatched part of this to a larger scale. Fig. 2.6b indicates a permanent building 30m by 20m in size, of which the first construction shown in bold black lines has been dated to about 40 B.C. There is, therefore, evidence of a new grid superseding that of the ditches and dating from the time of foundation, with a permanent building aligned to it. The grid was probably based on the original Roman road over the plateau, the alignment of which is perpetuated by the present Rue Roger Radisson. It is not possible to say whether the building was built by Agrippa or Plancus27. If it was Agrippan it could have been a first praetorium. Permanent construction dated from 40 to 15 B.C. has been discovered at the higher (western) end of the Rue des Farges site shown on Fig. 2.728, but it is not possible to suggest Agrippan works at this site which was nowhere near the garrison on the top of the plateau. The baths of the Claudian period on the lower (eastern) end are discussed when investigating the aqueducts29. Very early construction at the ‘Sanctuary of Cybele site’ immediately above the level of the theatre30 marked on Fig. 2.7 cannot be related to Agrippa in 39-37 B.C.

There is, therefore, no definite archaeological evidence of any Agrippan works at Lugdunum from 39-37 B.C., but it is possible that the earliest material remains at the Verbe-Incarné site are partly Agrippan. It is also clear that Agrippa must have built his roads, the facilities needed for their construction and operation, and that he almost

25 Ibid, pp.95, 97-102.

26 Desbat, A.; Genin, M. et al, ‘La chronologie des premières trames urbaines à Lyon’, Aux Origines de Lyon, pp.95-118, Fig. 61, p.100.

27 Ibid, pp.101-103 and Figs. 61b and c, p.100, also Mandy, B., ‘Le quartier antique du Verbe-Incarné’, Les Dossiers d’histoire et d’archéologie, 78, 1983, pp.23-26 for further details.

28 Desbat, Genin et al, Fig. 57, 'La chronologie …', Fig. 57, p.96.

29 See below, p.57.

30 See below, p.48, for the phasing of construction. - 46 - certainly built military works on the plateau, as well as facilities for recovering his river borne supplies and the road connection from these.

§ Works of 19 B.C. Fig. 2.831 showing the traditional idea of development on the main plateau in the Augustan period was presented by Desbat and Mandy to indicate what should be questioned in the light of more recent archaeological investigations 32. The long, straight street running N-S along the eastern side of the plateau was first identified as the cardo, with a T-junction at the decumanus at right angles to it. An astronomical calculation indicated that the sun rose on the line of the decumanus on 11 October 43 B.C.33. Audin later discerned the cardo continuing north of the intersection, as seen on Fig. 2.8 and revised the date to 9 October 43 B.C. He also related the annual return of migrating crows to Lyon in October to the augury of foundation34. The location of the street intersection and the foundation date must be questioned in the light of the early grid at the Verbe-Incarné site mentioned above. Also a foundation of Lugdunum earlier in 43 B.C., is indicated by the local coinage and the texts35. Furthermore, the intersection would surely have been on the plateau in a position that could be defended, and where buildings could be on level ground, rather than on the eastern slope of the plateau.

The theatre, shown on Fig. 2.8, built on the plateau slope, has traditionally been regarded as Augustan, with the Odeum immediately to its south, marked on Figs. 2.2 and 2.3, dated later. The first works at the theatre were dated to 16-14 B.C. by Audin, following the investigations of Wuilleumier36, indicating a construction by Augustus, who was in the West at that time. This dating has been questioned in a

31 Desbat, A. and Mandy, B., ‘Le développement de Lyon à l’époque augustéenne : l'apport des fouilles récentes’, Les villes augustéennes de Gaule, pp.79-97, Fig. p.80. This figure is based on Audin, Lyon miroir de Rome, Fig. p.90.

32 Ibid, p.97.

33 Wuilleumier, P., ‘Fouilles de Fourvière à Lyon’, Supplément à Gallia 4, 1951, pp.21-36 for the identification and the calculation.

34 Audin, pp.67-68.

35 Burnett et al, p.150, indicated coinage of Antony struck at Lugdunum in 43 B.C. following coinage of Plancus. Also, Goudineau, C., 'Les textes antiques …', pp.26, 27, noted that the correspondence between and Plancus about the foundation of Lugdunum, Ad fam 10, 22 and 24, was from the spring of 43 B.C.

36 Audin, pp.84-87, Wuilleumier, 'Fouilles de Fourvière …'. - 47 - new study of the archaeology37. Agrippa was in the Iberian Peninsula in 19-18 B.C., and his theatre at Mérida in Spain was dedicated in 16-15 B.C.38. It is, therefore, possible that Agrippa was also responsible for providing the theatre at Lugdunum when he was in Gaul in 19 B.C. Fig. 2.939 shows Mandy’s interpretation of the first phase of the works. According to this, the final cavea diameter of 108.5m was allowed for from the beginning. It would, therefore, have been necessary to complete all the earthworks and most of the foundations and cavea substructures, together with the entrances, and most of the circulation system. Part of the cavea seating and the first form of all the other buildings would have been included. Previous interpretations of the construction phasing postulated an initial cavea diameter of 89m and it is not certain which concept is correct40. Even with the lesser diameter, the first phase was a large structure, and also very much larger than the small Agrippan Temple of Valetudo at Glanum41. The theatre at Lugdunum is, therefore, potentially a major addition to the Agrippan corpus of work in Gaul.

Fig. 2.8 shows an Augustan forum, capitolium, and, possible Imperial palace on the Hill of Fourvière. As can be seen from Fig. 2.3, this site is occupied by the Basilique Notre Dame de Fourvière, and little has remained of the Roman construction, none of which can be dated42. The name Fourvière is a corruption of Forum Vetus, indicating the first forum, but this could have been at the Verbe Incarné site where the early grid has been discerned, or, possibly, in the area of the esplanade of the theatre marked on Fig. 2.8, where there was a building pre-dating the theatre and referred to as the 'praetorium of Plancus’43. The location, and dating, of the early forums are, therefore, uncertain and Agrippan planning or construction of a forum cannot be established. It can be said only that any Agrippan urban planning of 19 B.C. would have made provision for a monumental forum.

37 Mandy, B., Hernandez, E., and Mar, R., 'Plaidoyer pour de nouvelles recherches', Dossiers d'Archèologie, 134, January 1989, pp.30-35, pp.30, 31.

38 See below, Chapter 8, pp.148-150 for the inscription on the theatre at Mérida.

39 Mandy, Hernandez and Mar, unnumbered, Fig. p.34.

40 Professor F.B. Sear has analysed the staging suggested by Mandy and previous interpretations. He concluded that no alternative can be eliminated pending further investigations. The writer acknowledges this information with thanks.

41 See below Chapter 3 for the Temple at Valetudo.

42 Audin, p.89, for the 140 x 75 metres cryptoporticus and some other fragments.

43 Ibid, pp.76-78 and 88. - 48 -

There is, therefore, no indication of any Agrippan construction of 19 B.C. , other than that of the theatre, from the traditional understanding of the Augustan town, as indicated on Fig. 2.8. Yet this emerges from later investigations. The site of the so- called Sanctuary of Cybele is marked C on Fig. 2.1044. The western part is almost at the general level of the top of the plateau, and the site slopes down over some 14 metres to the level at the top of the theatre marked D. Desbat has established three main phases of construction on the Cybele site. The first one, at the lower level, contained private buildings from the early days of the colony, or, perhaps, earlier still. The second phase saw the addition of a large structure extending up the hill to occupy much of the site. This building existed from approximately 20 B.C. until A.D. 10. It was then replaced by a yet larger complex known as the 'Sanctuary of Cybele’. A final phase, dating from approximately A.D. 160 may have included construction of a reservoir for the Gier Aqueduct45. Archaeological investigations continue46. The various phases of construction have been deduced by Desbat from numerous excavations which revealed the process of building and the chronology of the building phases from the datings of finds, mainly ceramic, in the same stratigraphy as the constructions 47. The findings of the phases and the chronology are accepted here as the basis of discussion. The layout of the second phase building is shown on Fig. 2.1148 in solid black, with the ‘Sanctuary of Cybele’ as a background and the curve of the cavea of the theatre indicated to the east. Figs. 2.12a and 2.12b49 illustrate the principal features of the construction. The three figures indicate a large house with an atrium and a peristyle. Construction of the ‘Sanctuary of Cybele’ involved destruction of the second phase building above its floor level, but the foundations were partly undisturbed since the new building was on a different axis and had a different layout.

44 Based on Desbat, A., ‘Nouvelles recherches à l’emplacement du prétendu Sanctuaire Lyonnaise de Cybèle’, Gallia 55, 1998, pp.237-277, Fig. 3, p.240.

45 Ibid, pp.237, 256, 263 for main indications of the phasing.

46 Desbat, A., Rapport sur les fouilles effectuées en 1998, 1999 et 2000 dans l’édifice dit “Sanctuaire de Cybèle”’, 2001, Lyon.

47 Desbat, A., ‘Nouvelles recherches …’, pp.249-263 and Figs. 12-18 and 25-27.

48 Ibid, Fig. 19, p.257.

49 Ibid, Figs. 20 and 21, p.258. - 49 -

The prime position, large size, and lavish facilities of the house, reflected the status of its occupier50. Desbat discovered evidence of tessellatum, hitherto not noted in buildings of this period in Gaul51. The layout was typical of the late Republican house of Italy52, but it was remarkable for its symmetry. This feature is stressed by as an essential element of houses53, but is seldom seen so clearly as here. Such symmetry indicates the praetorium of the typical Roman camp. Desbat compared its layout with that of the praetorium at Oberaden in Germany (near the River ) and there are certainly similarities, including the large atrium. He also mentioned the buildings at la Butte Saint-Antoine and la Plate-Forme at Fréjus interpreted as the residence of the Commander of the Fleet, but the layouts of these are less well understood54. It is possible that the location, large size, facilities and strict symmetry of the building indicate the seat of the local governor. This idea is reinforced by the large atrium.

Desbat considered that the building of the second phase was the praetorium of Agrippa on the basis of its dating, location, size, facilities and general features, although he acknowledged that there is no actual record which can confirm such an attribution55. Desbat relied partly on Roddaz who stated that Agrippa was in Gaul between 20 and 19 or 18 B.C.56. This suggested a lengthy stay. In fact, as stated by Roddaz elsewhere, Agrippa was in Gaul for only about six month57. He had less time to build a praetorium than suggested by Desbat, but this does not weaken his hypothesis since Agrippa may have started to build it and have been called away unexpectedly. It could also be explained as part of possible Agrippan development

50 As prescribed by Vitruvius, 6.5.2.

51 Desbat, ‘Nouvelles recherches …’, p.234.

52 Sear, F., Roman Architecture, London, 1989, pp.32, 33 and 105-108 for a general description of the Roman house of the period and some examples of it at .

53 Vitruvius, , 6.2.1.

54 Desbat, ‘Nouvelles recherches …’, p.256 and Fig. 4, p.260; also Février, P-A., Forum Iulii (Fréjus), Paris, 1963, Fig. 36, p.51, for the layout of the Plate-Forme, and Février ‘Fouilles à la citadelle mérridionale de Forum Iulii (Fréjus, Var) en 1955’, Gallia, 14, 1956, pp.35-53, Fig. 3, p.39, also below Chapter 5, p.105 and Fig. 5.5.

55 Desbat, ‘Nouvelles recherches …’, p.256.

56 Ibid, p.256, Note 9, referring to Roddaz, Marcus Agrippa, p.384.

57 See above Note 14, p.12. - 50 - of Lugdunum in 19 B.C., mentioned above. The building can be regarded as possibly Agrippan58.

As noted above, the next building phase involved virtual destruction of the praetorium above floor level, and the insertion of the large reservoir of the Gier, perhaps built in about A.D. 16059 caused further extensive damage below the floor level. The parts of the praetorium which have survived are, therefore, most of its foundations, and fragments of floors with a large space punched out for the . Desbat suggested that the atrium, which he measured as 12 m by 16 m, was covered by a roof since he found no trace of an impluvium to receive rainwater through the opening in the roof (the compluvium), nor any system to discharge water from the impluvium60. It is difficult to understand how there could have been sufficient light without an opening in the roof, and the absence of an impluvium must be regarded as unusual for a building of this period61. Uncertainties, therefore, remain about the absence of an impluvium and the roofing in the western part of the praetorium. As pointed out by Desbat, the oecus shown on Fig. 2.11 was almost certainly a dining room62. Its 12 x 6m dimension indicating a length twice its width conforms to the precepts of Vitruvius63. An atrium measuring 12m wide and 16m long would agree almost exactly with one laid out to the third Vitruvian method64. The peristyle is unusually long in relation to its width65. The layout of the building, therefore, corresponded in part to Vitruvian requirements. Since these also stipulated the vertical dimensions in relation to the horizontal ones it might be possible to form at least some idea of the elevations of the structure in more detailed studies. All the

58 The criteria for Agrippan attribution are listed above, pp.5-6.

59 See above Note 45, p.48.

60 Desbat, 'Nouvelles recherches …', p.252 and Note 10.

61 Sear, pp.32, 33 and Fig. 2b, p.13, commented on the possible early type of atrium (3rd and 2nd century B.C.) without the impluvium.

62 Desbat, ‘Nouvelles recherches …’, p.252.

63 Vitruvius, De Architectura, 6.3.8.

64 Ibid, 6.3.3. described three methods. The first two were based on the length as the measure. The width was either three-fifths of this or two-thirds. With a length of 16m, the width would be 9.6m or 10.67m. The third method used the width as the base and derived the length as the diagonal of the square formed by the width. With the width of 12m, this would give a length of 17m.

65 Ibid, 6.3.7, prescribed a peristyle lying across the house to be only one-third longer than it is wide. - 51 - materials of construction for the praetorium above floor level were removed before building started on the next phase. Fragments of terrazzo flooring have been found, together with tiles, perhaps under a mosaic, and a section of opus tessellatum, in the balnea section. As can be seen from Fig. 2.12a, the floors were supported on soil built up above natural ground except for the western portico of the peristyle where there was a cryptoporticus with beams above this. The foundations of the walls were carried down into the natural ground. The remaining sub-floor walls and the foundations were in rubble masonry of very high quality using stones and mortar. Thickness varied from 6.60m to 6.80m66.

The locations of the praetorium and the theatre close to each other on the same hillside can be interpreted as an indication that they were planned, and, perhaps, built, together, and possibly by Agrippa. The different orientation of the theatre can be explained by necessary adjustments to suit the shape of the hillside. Nevertheless, it is also possible to argue that the two buildings were not planned or built together, since, as noted above, there is no certain dating of the theatre. As noted above, Agrippa provided the theatre at Mérida and may have provided that at Lugdunum. The conjunction of the two buildings can, therefore, be noted as a further possible indication of Agrippan responsibility for both structures.

It can be concluded from investigations into Agrippan planning and construction at the urban centre that, in 39-37 B.C., Agrippa built something on the plateau, at the Trion site, and at river level. None of these works can be identified as his from the material remains, but such works were needed because he had decided to base his road system on Lugdunum. The town became important because of this decision, and, in 19 B.C., Agrippa may have been responsible for planning and starting construction of a new monumental city, although the praetorium at the 'Temple of Cybele' site is the only building which has so far been identified as his, or probably so. Agrippa would have included a forum and a theatre in such urban planning. The theatre may, therefore, have been planned and perhaps partly built by him, like that at Mérida, but a forum of that period has not yet been identified, and no Agrippan construction of such a building can, therefore, be suggested from present evidence.

66 Desbat, ‘Nouvelles recherches …’, pp.249-256, and Fig. 22, p.259. - 52 -

(c) AGRIPPAN ACTION ON AQUEDUCTS:

This is assessed as part of possible Agrippan urban planning, and also because of a local suggestion of Agrippan aqueduct construction. The local suggestion is considered after an independent examination. As can be seen from Fig. 2.1367 , the four aqueducts of Lugdunum formed a very large system, of which some parts are yet to be found. There is, also, uncertainty about the datings of the various aqueducts. Consequently, investigation here can be neither comprehensive nor authoritative. It is based on the published literature and some local inspection, and is focussed on Agrippan actions.

The following table has been drawn up to indicate the principal features of each of the aqueducts which are to be discussed. All the figures are from Burdy, except those in brackets, which are from Hodge 68. Differences of length result from uncertainties about the course, and difference in capacity from varying calculations based on uncertain evidence about the water channel features.

NAME LENGTH CAPACITY LEVEL OF PART OF TRADITIONAL (KM) (M³ PER DAY) TOWN ENTRY PLATEAU DATING (M) SERVED

Mont d'Or 26 6,000 260 All except 10 B.C. to 30 m A.D. 10?? (28) (10,000)

Yzeron 27 or 40 8,000 268 All except 10 B.C. to 22 m A.D. 10? (25) (13,000)

Brévenne 70 10,000 284 All except Beginning of 6 m 1st Century A.D. (60) (28,000)

Gier 86 15,000 300 All Mid 1st Century A.D. (75) (25,000) to early 2nd Century A.D

67 Bromwich, The Roman Remains of Northern and Eastern France, London, 2003, Fig. 95, p.417.

68 Burdy, 'Guide des aqueducs romains de Lyon, Lyon, 1999, pp.13, 33, 71 and 78, Hodge, A.T., Roman aqueducts and water supply, 2nd Ed., London, 2002, p.347. - 53 -

All four aqueducts had bringing the water across the lower land around the plateau which they served, and there were other siphons elsewhere, together with some cascades69. and viaducts were numerous on the Gier aqueduct and less frequent on the Brévenne. There is less evidence of these on the Yzeron, and no definite indication of tunnels on the Mont d'Or.

The traditional chronology is based on the work of de Montauzan published some 90 years ago 70. Burdy noted that the absolute and relative datings of de Montauzan, had become almost traditional, but that they were not beyond dispute71. Wilson suggested that the chronology remained as elusive as ever, relying on Jeancolas72. Jeancolas considered that the chronology of the construction of the aqueducts of Lyon was very uncertain73. His comments on the particular aqueducts are taken up as these are discussed. Hodge was concerned with description and explanation of aqueducts rather than with the thorny problem of their dating. He only suggested in passing that the Gier aqueduct which, alone, could serve all parts of Lugdunum, was the last to be built74. The traditional chronology is, therefore, doubted in the modern scholarship, but there is no consensus on what should replace it. Here, the object is to assess Agrippan action on the aqueducts by examining the material and historical evidence in a first section, and the aqueduct functions in a second.

(i) The Material and Historical Evidence The Gier aqueduct is traditionally dated from the mid 1st century to the early 2nd century A.D. Inscriptions and (possibly) marking on lead pipes indicate

69 A was built where it was more convenient (or necessary) to avoid the construction of a viaduct with an open channel. Pipes were laid at or near ground level and the water flowed because of the difference in level over the pipe length. Cascades had 'drops' between channels on acceptable gradient to allow steep descents, Hodge, Roman aqueducts, pp.147-161.

70 De Montauzan, G., Les aqueducs antiques de Lyon, Paris, 1909.

71 Burdy, J., ‘Some Directions of Future Research for the Aqueducts of Lugdunum (Lyon)', Hodge, A.T., Ed., Future Currents in Aqueduct Studies, Leeds, 1991, pp.29-44, at p.43.

72 Wilson, R.J.A., ‘Tot aquarum tam multis necessariis molibus … Recent studies on aqueducts and water supply’, JRA, 9, 1996, pp.5-29, p.15 and Note 70.

73 Jeancolas, L., ‘Présentation des aqueducs antiques, de Lyon (problèmes anciens – observations nouvelles)’, Boucher, J., Ed., Journées d’études sur les aqueducs romains, Lyon, 1983, pp.179-205, pp.182-3 and 185.

74 Hodge, Roman aqueducts, p.174. - 54 -

Claudian and Hadrianic work at some places on the aqueduct75. The aqueduct has survived in several places over its length76 and the remains indicate a common design and construction method, including standardisation of dimension77. Fig. 2.1478 shows a typical viaduct construction with opus reticulatum over a core and brick. The same construction appears on the siphon structures supporting the pipes. The tunnels of the Gier are either cut in the rock and unlined, or lined with concrete with some brickwork, but there is no opus reticulatum. This was used in the inspection shafts79. The opus reticulatum, typical of Rome and central Italy, is rare in Gaul, and, therefore, difficult to date. That of the aqueduct is probably of the mid 1st century A.D. 80 Bricks have been noted at Lyon in coursework of the Augustan period, and in of the Tiberian principate81, although Adam stated that bricks in courses in Gaul started as late as the early 2nd century A.D. 82. The material evidence, therefore, indicates that the tunnels, which have no opus reticulatum, may be Augustan, but that everything else with both brick and opus reticulatum in the same structure is later and probably from the Claudian period, or after this. The indications of Claudian connection to Lugdunum and his substantial work on aqueducts at Rome are further evidence for his probable provision of the Gier aqueduct83.

75 Desbat, ‘Nouvelles recherches …’,pp.273, 4 and Note 16, Burdy, Guide des aqueducs romains de Lyon, p,39, Wilson, p.15 and Note 61, Leveau, P., ‘Research on Roman Aqueducts in the Last Ten Years', Future Currents in Aqueduct Studies, pp.149-163, p.150, Burdy, 'Some Directions of Future Research …', p.43, and Jeancolas, p.183.

76 Burdy, Guide des aqueducs romains de Lyon, described the remains. These included 11 tunnels, 10 viaducts and four siphons.

77 Burdy, 'Some Directions of Future Research', pp.41-42.

78 Burdy, Guide des aqueducs romains de Lyon, photograph, p.59.

79 Ibid, pp.16, 23, 28, 37, 43, 60 and 61.

80 Opus reticulatum is first noted at the Theatre of Pompey at Rome dedicated in 55 B.C., Sear, p.76. It was used for parts of the aqueduct of Forum Iulii (Fréjus in S.E. France), which is probably post-Augustan, Wilson, pp.18 and 19. Rivet, Gallia Narbonensis, p.230. Adam, J.P., Roman Building, Bloomington and Indianapolis, 1994, p.132, considered that the opus reticulatum of the Gier was probably from the mid 1st century A.D.

81 Desbat, A., 'Note sur l'appplication des constructions à arases de briques dans la région Lyonnaise', Gallia, pp.49, 1992, pp.45-50.

82 Adam, p.143.

83 Claudius was born at Lugdunum, Suetonius, Claudius 2. At Rome, Claudius built the and the and repaired part of Agrippa's Aqua Virgo. Aicher, P.J., Guide to the Aqueducts of , Wauconda, Illinois, 1995, pp.39-40, pp.42-44. - 55 -

The surviving Gier aqueduct is, therefore, predominantly Claudian. Claudius may have brought out an architectus from Italy to supervise the work in opus reticulatum84, and the standard dimensions and uniform construction methods indicate a military project85. Yet, it is possible that there was an earlier aqueduct on the general Gier route. This is indicated by unexplained remains along another trace not far from the principal remains86, and by the possibility of the tunnels being earlier than the other works, as noted above. These tunnels could have been retained with some repairs, since they were largely cut in rock, while all the other parts were replaced. At Rome, Augustus had to virtually rebuild the entire aqueduct system above ground level not long after the death of Agrippa in 12 B.C., despite Agrippa's enormous aqueduct works of 34-33 B.C.87. It can also be argued that Lugdunum would have had an aqueduct capable of supplying the town centre before the Claudian period. There is, therefore, some material, historical and comparative evidence for an Augustan Gier aqueduct. In this case, Agrippa, in Gaul in 19 B.C., could have been responsible for its planning, and, conceivably, for setting in hand the preliminary works of survey.

The Brévenne aqueduct has several remains over an identified course, but these are less substantial and frequent than those of the Gier88. No opus reticulatum has been found, but there is brick in coursework which has not been observed on the Yzeron or Mont d'Or aqueducts. Consequently, the Brévenne has traditionally been dated later than these. The early 1st century A.D. dating on the table has been disputed by Jeancolas, who indicated a dating from the Trajanic period, or later89, but the remains are probably insufficient to reconstruct the history of the aqueduct, which may have been repaired or renewed. The Yzeron aqueduct has not yet been identified over the whole of its course. No tunnels or viaducts have been found. The only substantial

84 As suggested by Wilson, pp.18, 19 and Jeancolas, p.193.

85 Although Février, P.A., ‘Armée et aqueducs’, Journées d’etudes sur les aqueducs romains, pp.133-140 did not indicate the work.

86 Burdy, 'Some Directions of Future Research …', p.43 and Jeancolas, pp.193-6.

87 The aqueduct works of Agrippa in 34-33 B.C. are noted below in Chapter 11. The comprehensive overhaul of Augustus is known from CIL 6.1244, also Evans, H.B., Water Distribution in Ancient Rome, Ann Arbor, 1994, pp.49, 138.

88 Burdy, Guide des aqueducs romains de Lyon, pp.67-74.

89 Jeancolas, pp.190-193. - 56 - remaining structure, a double siphon90, has been dated to the 2nd century A.D. 91 rather than to the 10 B.C.-1O A.D. dating of the tabulation. There seems to be insufficient material evidence to date the aqueduct as a whole. The Mont d'Or aqueduct trace has been recognised over much of its length. It had three or four bridges and two siphons, but little remains of these92. There seems to have been no driven tunnels, but 'cut and cover' of shallow depth with removable stones covering the channel as substitutes for inspection shafts. Fig. 2.1593 shows the rudimentary design and the irregular placing typical of a hurried construction, also indicated by the avoidance of tunnels. No brick or opus reticulatum has been observed on the Mont d'Or aqueduct, and the work cannot, therefore, be dated from the materials used. Nevertheless, it is inferior to that on the other aqueducts, and indicates a construction earlier than these.

It is possible, therefore, that there was an Augustan Gier aqueduct, and that this was largely replaced by the one which has survived. The earlier aqueduct, perhaps shorter than the later one, could have been planned and partly built in the Agrippan period. There is insufficient material evidence from the Brévenne or Yzeron aqueducts to form a clear idea of the initial works, their repair or replacement. The Mont d'Or aqueduct, also, cannot be dated, but the material remains are congruent with work of the Agrippan period, and indications that its construction was hurried point towards it being an early rather than a late aqueduct.

(ii) The Aqueduct Functions As can be seen from the table on p.52, the Mont d'Or aqueduct could deliver water to a level of 260 m. This was some 30 m below the top of the plateau, but more than 85 m above river level. As can be seen from the 10 m contours on Fig. 2.1, this aqueduct, and the rivers, could supply a large area. The Yzeron aqueduct increased water supply level by only 8 m and did not reach the theatre. The Brévenne aqueduct supply was markedly higher, at 284 m, and could serve the theatre, but only the Gier could supply the praetorium of Agrippa and the top of the plateau. The most satisfactory course of action for water supply would have been to build the Mont d'Or

90 Hodge, Roman aqueducts, Fig. 111 and pp.157, 8, described and illustrated the double siphon function, also Burdy, Guide des aqueducs romains de Lyon, photograph, p.74.

91 Jeancolas, p.183.

92 Burdy, Guide des aqueducs, pp.82-89, Jeancolas, pp.185-187.

93 Hodge, Roman aqueducts, Fig. 48, p.96. - 57 - and the Gier aqueducts together, and the other two later, since the Mont d'Or aqueduct could be built quickly and cheaply, and a simultaneous start on the Gier would have ensured the earliest possible supply to the top of the plateau, and, therefore, to all of it. Such a double action would have imposed the least restraint on urban development because of water shortage, and have increased the status of the town. On the other hand, it was expensive. The construction of the Gier could, therefore, have been deferred until after the Mont d'Or had been built and cisterns and wells had become inadequate to service the higher levels.

Roman towns regularly depended on both local and distant water supplies, and some never had an aqueduct, relying on cisterns and wells, like some earlier towns 94. More than 50 cisterns from 10-30 m³ capacity have been discovered on the top of the plateau and many more must have existed95. The rainfall of Lyon is now 85 cm per year and well distributed over the seasons 96. If this was the same in the Roman period, it would have kept cisterns and wells replenished. Water could also be carried up from the river by the aquarii or water carriers of whom there was no shortage 97. The first public baths, discovered at Lyon at the Rue des Farges site, shown on Fig. 2.7, was at an elevation of 250 m, and could have been fed by the Mont d'Or aqueduct, yet it was not built until the time of Claudius, or perhaps Nero98. This dating indicates that water was used before that period only for domestic and general use. Consumption depended very largely on the ease with which water could be got, with demand increasing sharply once an aqueduct was installed99. An absolute minimum of 25 litres per day per person has been calculated for undeveloped parts of the world today, and 200 litres at Lugdunum when fully developed, and with all the aqueducts100. Uncertainties, therefore, remain about the possible population on the

94 Hodge, Roman aqueducts, pp.48, 49, also Crouch, D.P., Water Management in Ancient Greek Cities, Oxford, 1993, for a general account of the use of rainwater in the Greek and Hellenistic East before the Roman period.

95 Burdy, Guide des aqueducs romains de Lyon, p.7.

96 Pearce, E.A. and Smith, C.G., The World Weather Guide, Oxford, 1997, p.357.

97 Satires 6.332 implied that aquarii were the ‘lowest’ of the slaves and, therefore, that plenty were available.

98 Desbat, A., Les Fouilles de la Rue des Fanges à Lyon,1974-1980, Lyon, 1984, pp.67-85.

99 Hodge, Roman aqueducts, pp.304-306 noted the increase in demand at Pompeii and the influence on the design of houses and creation of gardens.

100 Ibid, p.464, Note 4, using UNESCO figures for the 25 litres and quoting de Montauzan, p.340 ff for the 200 litres. - 58 - top of the plateau without aqueducts, but it was in the hundreds, and perhaps thousands101. It would have been feasible to develop a town centre on the top of the plateau with some permanent housing there.

The functional analysis indicates that the Mont d'Or aqueduct was built first. The Gier aqueduct was not necessarily built only after all the other routes had been used, as stated by Hodge 102. It is more likely that it was built after the Mont d'Or aqueduct, but not long delayed, since it alone could supply all the plateau. The Brévenne and the Yzeron aqueducts would have been built to supplement the other two.

When the material evidence and functions of the aqueducts are considered together, it can be said only that Agrippa was more probably associated with the Mont d'Or aqueduct than with the others. The case for Agrippa planning and building aqueducts in 19 B.C., as argued above, remains unaltered. He may, therefore have been the 'father' of the aqueducts, instigating investigations into all water sources and the prospective aqueduct routes. The decision on the priorities of the various routes would have been taken after this initial survey. It is, therefore, unlikely that Agrippa was responsible for any aqueduct construction. If investigations into aqueducts had been made before 19 B.C. and a first route had been selected, Agrippa would have ordered that the Mont d'Or aqueduct be built.

(iii) Local Suggestion of Agrippan Aqueduct Construction Desbat suggested possible Agrippan action on the Gier aqueduct only in Annexure 3 to his paper on the supposed Sanctuary of Cybele 103. Desbat observed the imprint in concrete of a pipe serving the praetorium. Since he had discovered no impluvium at the building, he concluded that the pipe brought in water from an aqueduct. With the praetorium construction dated to about 20 B.C., and only the Gier reaching the top of the plateau, he argued that there must have been a Gier aqueduct, and that this was

101 The area of the main plateau is some 600,000m². 85cm of rain falling on this would deposit 510,000 m³ of water in a year, or 510,000,000 litres. This is 1,400,000 litres per day averaged over the year. If all this water were intercepted it would supply 56,000 people at 25 litres per day and 7,000 at 200. An interception of one-tenth would supply between 5,600 and 700 people. The extent of interception would depend on land use. Maximum recovery of water for direct use would res trict agriculture to river level with roofs and paved areas trapping water and leading it to cisterns. Water absorbed could be recovered at least partially from wells.

102 Hodge, Roman aqueducts, p.174 and above Note 74, p.53.

103 Desbat, 'Nouvelles recherches …', pp.273-275, as annexure to his paper pp.237-277. - 59 - probably Agrippan104. Yet it is also possible that the pipe supplied water from one of the many cisterns on the top of the plateau105. The pipe does not, therefore, prove the existence of an aqueduct in the period 20 B.C. to A.D. 10, when the praetorium existed, assuming the absence of an impluvium. If there was an impluvium, the pipe could have come from a cistern to bring in extra water.

Another argument advanced by Desbat for a first (Augustan) Gier aqueduct being built before the Mont d'Or aqueduct is that only the Gier could supply the top of the plateau106. Desbat reinforced his hypothesis of Augustan construction by pointing out that the tunnel shafts were spaced strictly in accordance with the precepts of Vitruvius, and that this strongly indicated an early construction107. There is no doubt that this is the case108. He further argued that the remaining aqueduct is the Augustan one restored, suggesting that the opus reticulatum in the structures was in use in the Republican period, and that the Oolitic limestone used was typical of early works at Lyon. He also referred to the 'Augustan brickwork'109. Yet, as argued here, opus reticulatum was essentially an Italian form in the Republic and that used in the structures is probably of the mid-1st century A.D. 110. The Oolitic limestone could have been used in the Claudian period, unless the source was exhausted. Also, the brickwork in the Gier aqueduct structures was not necessarily Augustan111, and there is no doubt that the above ground structures of the Gier, like those shown on Fig. 2.14, were built with the opus reticulatum and brick (penetrating the whole section of the piers) in the same operation. The evidence, therefore, indicates that the structures existing above ground are from the Claudian period, or later, and are not earlier structures which have been repaired. It is possible that the unexplained

104 Ibid, p.274 and Fig. 32, showing the pipe imprint, also pp.237, 256, 263, for the general chronology of the buildings on the Cybele site.

105 Guide des aqueducs romains de Lyon, p.7, and above Note 95, p.57.

106 Desbat, 'Nouvelles recherches …', p.275.

107 Ibid, p.275, referring to Vitruvius, De Architectura, 8.6.3.

108 The spacing of the tunnel shafts was noted by Burdy, Guide des aqueducs romains de lyon, p.22 and Hodge, Roman aqueducts, p.102, to be in accordance with Vitruvius, and unusual in this respect.

109 Desbat, pp.274, 5 and Note 17.

110 See above Note 80, p.54.

111 See above Notes 81, 82, p.54. - 60 - remains along another trace not far from the existing structures112 indicate a pre-Claudian construction. The structures of this would have been kept in use until the new structures had been completed and could be connected to the tunnels which were to remain, possibly with repairs, indicated by some use of brickwork. The Vitruvian spacing of the tunnel shafts also indicates retention of original tunnels.

Much, therefore, remains to be said about the aqueducts of Lyon, and particularly about the history of them as utilitarian constructions which were repaired and restored over many centuries. On present evidence, the first aqueduct at Lyon was the Mont d'Or, and this is the only one which Agrippa could have started to build if there had already been investigations into alternative routes. Otherwise, he may have been the 'father' of the aqueducts, and, therefore, of the Gier with the others. Any further connection between Agrippa and the Gier aqueduct has not yet been established, but Desbat has pointed the way to a better assessment of this.

CONCLUSIONS Munatius Plancus founded a Roman colony at Lugdunum in 43 B.C. on the top of the main plateau. Agrippa, in 39-37 B.C., selected Lugdunum as the hub of his road system, building about 17 km of new road to connect his common road to the English Channel and the Rhine to it. His road to the Atlantic was based on a pre-Roman road in that direction. Agrippa's road to the south used the existing road to Vienne. Agrippa brought his roads together at the Trion below the top of the plateau. He built a construction camp there, and provided facilities for the operation of the roads as through routes. Agrippa almost certainly built on top of the plateau at the military centre and may have constructed the first permanent buildings at the Verbe-Incarné site, including a first praetorium. He improved the port facilities to handle his supplies brought in by river, and built a road connection to these. In 19 B.C., Agrippa may have been responsible for planning a major expansion of Lugdunum, including water supply by aqueducts. In this case, Agrippa would have been the ‘father’ of all four aqueducts. If plans for aqueducts had been developed by 19 B.C., Agrippa would have ordered the construction of the Mont d'Or aqueduct before that of the others. At the town, Agrippa may have been responsible for planning which would have included a forum and a theatre. No particular building

112 See above Note 86, p.55. - 61 - can be attributed to Agrippa beyond doubt, but the praetorium at the 'Cybele' site was almost certainly his. He may also have provided the theatre at Lugdunum in addition to that at Augusta Emerita.

Agrippa, therefore, did much more at Lugdunum than select it as the hub of his road network and build roads meeting there, as is generally understood. It is probable that Agrippa, rather than Plancus, built the first permanent structure on the plateau at the Verbe-Incarné site. Agrippa’s choice of Lugdunum for his road junction was the principal catalyst for the town becoming an important commercial centre, the site of an Imperial Mint, and the virtual capital of the old Gallia Comata, with the Altar to Rome and Augustus. Plancus founded Lugdunum as a garrison town, but Agrippa was the real ‘father’ of the great city of the Empire, which came into existence despite the problems of water supply. Previously, Agrippa’s contribution to the development of Lugdunum seems to have been under-emphasised. This is explained largely by an imputation that works at the urban centre resulted from the visit of Augustus to the West in 16-13 B.C., and that Agrippa had no part in planning or building at Lugdunum in 19 B.C. The discovery of the praetorium at the 'Temple of Cybele' site with its dating to the period when Agrippa was in Gaul, new uncertainties about the dating of works at the theatre, and new ideas (including those of Desbat) about the early history of Lugdunum, are all catalysts for further enquiry into Agrippa's planning and construction at the town, and for its aqueducts. - 62 -

3. THE TEMPLE OF VALETUDO AT GLANUM

INTRODUCTION Roman Glanum1, located, as shown on Fig. 3.12 was near a slip road on the and on a road over Les Alpilles to the , as seen on Fig. 3.23. Fig. 3.34 shows 'Les Antiques', with the arch on the slip road and Glanum proper to the south. Hodge has suggested that Glanum may actually have been at or near Saint-Rémy-de-Provence or on the Via Domitia, with the presently named Les Antiques and Glanum as suburbs to the south5, but there is no archaeological evidence of this.

There was continuous human occupation at Glanum from the to the late Iron Age, concentrated in the southern part of the site, where there was a cleft in the hillside, marked ‘aven’ on Fig. 3.3, and a spring, probably an early place of worship, marked 2 on Fig. 3.3. Finds of pottery and coins in this area indicate that people living there traded with Massilia from the 6th century B.C.6. Glanum was, therefore, a typical Celtic centre with a sacred spring located near the ancient road from Italy to Spain. It was important both because of its religious significance, and its position7. Influence from the Mediterranean through the port of Massilia, founded by Phocaeans from Minor in about 600 B.C.8 was joined by that brought along the road from north Italy. Glanum of the 2nd century B.C. had Greek/Hellenistic features, including Delian type houses, porticoes, a bouleuterion, temple and other public

1 Hodge, A. T., Ancient Greek France, London, 1998, p.151, suggested that 'Glanon', on which 'Glanum' is based, was a possible Hellenisation of the aboriginal name 'Glanikon’.

2 Gros, P., Hercule à Glanum’, Gallia, 52, 1995, pp.311-333, Fig. 3, p.319.

3 Roth Congès, A., ‘La fortune éphémère de Glanum : du religieux à l’économique’, Gallia, 54, 1997, pp.157-202, Fig. 1, p.161 (part).

4 Ibid, Fig. 6, p.171 (part), with minor additions.

5 Hodge, Ancient Greek France, p.152.

6 PECS, p.356, also Salviat, F., Glanum et les Antiques (Guides Archéologiques de La France, No. 19), Paris, 1990, pp.18-20.

7 Salviat, pp.17, 18 for the importance of the position and Hodge, Ancient Greek France, pp.151-2 for the religious aspect.

8 Ebel, C., Transalpine Gaul, London, 1976, p.10, and Cunliffe, B., The Ancient Celts, Oxford, 1997, pp.48 and 49. - 63 - buildings. The ancient sacred spring was converted into a nymphaeum and gates and ramparts were built9. These architectural influences cannot be traced back directly to Massilia, since virtually nothing remains there from this period10. Two destruction levels at Glanum indicate Roman sackings of the last quarter of the 2nd century B.C., and there is evidence of minor house building during the first half of the 1st century B.C., including occupation of one house by Sulla11. With the fall of Massilia in 49 B.C. and the foundation of Arelate in 46 B.C.12, Glanum became part of the territory of the Arelate13 as an oppidum Latium with the ius Latii14. The major Roman development at Glanum followed the visit of Augustus to the West in 27 B.C.15. Fig. 3.416 shows the layout of the town of the 2nd century B.C., and Fig. 3.517 at the end of the Roman period. The Roman works recast the public sector. In the sacred zone south of the gates, the Roman works, as shown on Fig. 3.5, included the Temple of Valetudo.

Glanum seems to have been abandoned after Germanic invasions in about A.D. 270, and was gradually covered over by alluvium18. The monuments at Les Antiques on higher ground remained visible and received their modern name. In , the buildings of Glanum proper were largely demolished for stone recovery, with the parts useless elsewhere being dumped in wells and other convenient places19. Consequently, at Glanum, the building parts were sorted after demolition, resulting in separation from in situ remains. For the Temple of Valetudo, this dislocation was compounded by the presence of the Temple of Hercules on the other side of the

9 Roth Congès, A., ‘Nouvelles fouilles à Glanum (1982-1990)', JRA, 5, 1992, pp.39-55, pp.40-46; also Goudineau, PECS, p.356 and Salviat, pp.18-22.

10 Roth Congès, 'Nouvelles fouilles …', p.44 and Note 33.

11 Ibid, pp.44-49.

12 Pliny, 3.36, Suetonius, Tiberius 4.1, Rivet, p.197, also below Chapter 5. p.100.

13 Rivet, p.198.

14 Ibid, p.198 and Note 47, p.208, interpreting Pliny 3.37.

15 Roth Congès, 'Nouvelles fouilles …', pp.49-50.

16 Roth Congès, 'La fortune éphémère …', Fig. 9, p.175.

17 Ibid, Fig. 10, p.175.

18 Rivet, p.193, and Notes 55 and 56, p.208; also Goudineau, PECS, p.356.

19 Lequemont, M.F., Lambert, N., Roth Congès, A., ‘Un puit livré de la sculpture’. Les Dossiers d’archéologie, 140, July-August, 1982, pp.34-39. - 64 -

‘Fontaine’ or nymphaeum which contained a convenient basin for the disposal of surplus material. As can be seen from Fig. 3.620, the searchers for stone could throw unwanted pieces into the basin from the north, east, or south confusing the excavator centuries later. The position of the Temple of Valetudo on Fig. 3.6 is that of the existing reconstruction, which, as argued below, is not established as that of the original building.

The dedication of the Temple to Valetudo, the Roman goddess of health and well being, was related religiously to the nearby ancient sacred area with its nymphaeum. The Altar to Glan, shown on Fig. 3.6, was dedicated to the Glanicae, the local form of the triple Celtic goddesses associated with healing springs21. One inscription at the altar marked Marcus Verecundus, veteran of the 21st legion, seeking a safe return after battle from the Glanicae. This legion was created to reinforce the army of the Rhine after the Varian disaster of A.D.922. The construction of the Temple of Valetudo had probably aided syncretism between the pre-Roman and Roman religious observances.

INVESTIGATION OF THE TEMPLE It must be said, at once, that the evidence of the material remains is insufficient for a complete description to be given. In fact, questions remain about the location of the temple. These lacunae and uncertainties result principally from the disturbances and partial removal of late antiquity, noted above. It is possible that future archaeological investigations may turn up new evidence, but investigation here is based on the published literature and personal observation of the remains without any disturbance of these. A first section is set aside for a discussion on reconstruction. This section is followed by one on description. An attempt is made in a third section to explain why the temple was built. Finally, there is a general conclusion. The question of dating is taken up as appropriate in the various sections and summarised in the conclusion.

20 Roth Congès, 'La fortune éphémère …', Fig. 11, p.176, with minor alterations.

21 Green, M., Celtic Goddesses, New York, 1995, pp.106-7.

22 Salviat, p.30. - 65 -

1. RECONSTRUCTION OF THE TEMPLE

(a) EXCAVATION AND RECONSTRUCTION 1951-195523: Henri Rolland discovered the scattered remains of parts of the temple in the basin of the nymphaeum, and in the area north of this, and the street. Most of the pieces were non-regular blocks which could not be used elsewhere. His paper reconstruction had the temple facing the nymphaeum with a dead drop to it, and the west cella wall on the street line, as shown on Fig. 3.724. Rolland’s location and reconstruction of the cella layout depended on in situ material, shown on Fig. 3.7 in solid black, and dotted lines, and on this material being Roman. Rolland located the positions of the four columns by his discernment of Roman reconstruction of the north wall of the Hellenistic basin at its upper levels25, where he found that a narrow arch connecting the two walls of the basin had collapsed26. This arch is seen more clearly on Fig. 3.827, which shows the Temple of Valetudo in its present reconstruction, as on Fig. 3.6. Rolland's presentation of his proposed layout is unconvincing when judged by modern standards, since he provides insufficient textural and photographic information to adequately describe the in situ remains. There is no doubt that he found the in situ remains of some building, but whether these were of a Hellenistic building or a Roman one is open to question. There could be no access to Rolland’s temple from the south or the west, and a side entrance from the east must be regarded as very unconventional for a . Rolland concluded that the entrance was from the north, and he noted a pedimental block, which may have indicated a doorway there28. His solution of a prostyle temple facing south with a door in the back wall is more credible than an amphiprostyle layout with colonnades at both ends29, since

23 Rolland, M. H., ‘Fouilles de Glanum’ (1951-2), Gallia 11, 1953, pp.5-17, pp.13, 14, for discovery of the nymphaeum; Rolland, Gallia 12, 1954, pp.448-452 for clearance of the basin of the nymphaeum, discovery of Hellenistic coins, evidence of Roman repairs and discovery of temple remains; Rolland, ‘Un temple de Valetudo à Glanum’, RA, 46, July-Dec 1955, pp.27-53, for a description of the temple and a reconstruction of it.

24 Rolland, 'Un temple de Valetudo … ', Fig. 5, p.36.

25 Ibid, p.37 and Note 2.

26 Rolland, 'Fouilles de Glanum (1951-2)', p.14, with Fig. 11 showing the springing points of the arch.

27 Salviat, photograph p.31 (part).

28 Rolland, 'Un temple de Valetudo …', p.39, also below Note 92 and Fig. 3.24.

29 Vitruvius, De architectura, 3.2.4. - 66 - only four columns and capitals have been recovered30. Nevertheless, his layout was unusual for a Roman temple, which is conventionally placed on a podium approached by steps from the front.

Rolland stated in his text that there was a space between the columns of one-and-a-third column diameters, based on this relationship at the Temple of Ultor at Rome 31, resulting in a clear spacing of 0.586 metres based on the 0.44 metres column diameter at Glanum. This is rather narrow, even for such a small temple. Also, to transpose the spacing/diameter relationship at a large building with thick columns to a small one with thin columns is questionable. A clear spacing of about two column diameters, or 0.88 metres, is shown on Fig. 3.7, and this is what might be expected. Measurement from the bar scale on Fig. 3.7 indicates that the temple was nearly 5.0 metres wide, but, in the text, it was described as 3.90 metres in breadth32, possibly indicating the interior width. With column spacings of 0.88 metres, the width would be 4.40 metres. Rolland made a partial site reconstruction, shown on Fig. 3.933. This was north and east of the position indicated on Fig. 3.7, but on the same orientation, pending its permanent reconstruction directly over the face of the nymphaeum with the wall of the basin wall repaired. He did not provide the full height of the podium, assessed by him as at least 1.90 metres34, and also set no upper moulding on the podium. Rolland placed one of the pilasters and its capital to form part of the entrance from the pronaos to the cella. This position seems to be appropriate, since both the pilaster and the capital are carved on two sides, and the other two are dressed back for plastering, or to receive a door frame 35.

Rolland’s reconstruction of the temple, therefore, cannot be accepted entirely. Nevertheless, much of the uncertainty resulted from the lower archaeological standards of his day and his inability to concentrate on a small building when he was excavating most of Glanum. It is remarkable that he provided so much information.

30 Rolland, 'Un temple de Valetudo …', pp.41, 42.

31 Ibid, pp.39, 41.

32 Ibid, p.37 and Note 3.

33 Ibid, Fig. 7, p.40.

34 Ibid, p.37.

35 Ibid, p.37, for Rolland’s explanation of this placement of the pilaster, also see below, Note 41, p.68. - 67 -

The fact remains that Rolland was a distinguished archaeologist who also both excavated the temple and described it. His unique testimony is, therefore, to be respected. The most outstanding feature of Roland's reconstruction is its location. The typical Roman temple was approached by steps from a public place. Here it is placed directly against the basin of the nymphaeum. Rolland discovered a small pillar altar inscribed Valetudini which he believed to have stood on the pronaos36. This would have replaced the conventional altar in front of the temple, which could not exist because of the dead drop into the basin of the nymphaeum. Ritual at the pillar altar would have been visible from the sacred spring and from the Altar to Glan and the Glanicae, shown on Fig. 3.6. It is difficult to imagine a position for a temple more suitable for religious syncretism between the Celtic shrine and the temple. Also, it is more likely that a Hellenistic temple would be built in such a position, which respected the local conditions, than a Roman one which would alter them. Agrippa could, therefore, have modelled his temple on the ruins of a Hellenistic building. His action would then have been an act of reparation for Roman destruction.

(b) THE EXISTING RECONSTRUCTION: There seems to be no explanation of the existing reconstruction in the published literature, although doubts have been expressed about its validity37. The two temple locations shown on Figs. 3.6 and 3.7 are clear of each other, but the steps to the present reconstruction occupy part of Rolland’s cella location. The break in the wall on the east of the street shown on Figs. 3.6 and 3.7 coincides with a break in the wall discovered by Rolland38. The southern part of this break marked the point where Rolland’s west wall of his cella, shown in solid black, changed to the dotted lines shown on Fig. 3.7. Rolland discerned the cella platform north of this point, where the present reconstruction would have steps up to the temple. It is not possible to resolve this crucial clash in interpretation from the evidence used here. Rolland did not refer to his discovery of the break in the wall in his proposal for the reconstruction, so that it is not possible to relate the two elements as he understood them, or to know whether they were connected in his mind at all.

36 Ibid, pp.51, 52, also see below Note 48, p.70, and below Fig. 3.14.

37 Salviat, p.31, and Roddaz, Marcus Agrippa, p.397, raised doubts about the reconstruction without giving reasons.

38 Rolland, 'Fouilles de Glanum (1951-1952)', Fig. 1, p.4. - 68 -

The placing of the existing reconstruction is conventionally Roman, since it faces the public road directly, and is approached from this by steps leading up to a podium sitting on a levelled hillside. The conventional W-E orientation agrees with that of the other two Roman temples, marked XXIV and XXV on Fig. 3.5. Agrippa’s temple in this position would be a small prostyle building of the ‘treasury’ type. As can be seen from Figs. 3.6 and 3.8, the building was placed between the line of the street and the cliff face, which was not dressed back. It was not possible to take levels at the site, and the steps have not been rebuilt. Consequently, it was not easy to obtain a clear idea of both the vertical and horizontal geometry of the layout, but there was little room for a pronaos. This was most unusual in a Roman temple, in which the deep pronaos was an important feature derived from the Etruscan period39.

Figs. 3.10, 3.11 and 3.1240 show, respectively, the front, south side, and south-east corner of the reconstruction. This, like Rolland’s preliminary reconstruction, seems to have been placed on a prepared ground without any obvious use of in situ foundations. The column bases are set higher than in Rolland’s site reconstruction since they allow for the addition of the upper moulded part of the podium. This part appears only at the S.W. column, with the other two remaining columns built up from sundry blocks, including new rubble walling. It is not at all clear that the S.W. column is supported by a correct reconstruction of the parts in their original positions. The tallest of the three rebuilt columns is incomplete. No column capitals remain on site. One pilaster and its capital have been placed at the S.E. corner. This position does not seem to be suitable, since, as already noted41, both pieces have the uncarved faces dressed back, suggesting plastering or door frames, which might be expected in an opening between the pronaos and the cella, but not at an exterior corner of the building. The inscription of dedication on a string course originally above the architrave has been placed on blocks where the steps would be. The clear column spacing in the centre is twice the column diameter, and one-and-a-quarter diameters at the sides, as far as can be deduced with the northern column missing. These spacings indicate an adaptation of the eustyle column arrangement of

39 Boëthius, A., Etruscan and Early Roman Architecture, Harmondsworth, 1978, pp.35-48, 130-133 and 156-178.

40 Photographs by the writer.

41 See above Note 35, p.66. - 69 -

Vitruvius, appropriate for a small temple with a restricted length42. The reconstruction agrees with Vitruvian precepts connecting column diameter and building width43.

Examination of the existing reconstruction, therefore, indicates that this resulted from the application of general ideas about Roman temple location and Vitruvian concepts to the arrangement of incomplete remains, but that the result is not entirely convincing.

The evidence examined above is insufficient to form a clear opinion about the relative merits of the two reconstructions. It is also possible that the temple was located in some other position north of the nymphaeum, or even to its east or south, especially since, as seen on Figs. 3.6 and 3.8, the rock face was cut back at these positions. The Sanctuary of Hercules is shown as a Roman construction on Fig. 3.5, but Gros has argued that it may have existed at a Greek religious site on the Heraclean route from Italy to Spain, with Glanum as a centre of transhumance44. This was contested by Roth Congès45, but neither could rely on up-to-date archaeological investigations at the Sanctuary of Hercules. There is, therefore, no reliable information on what buildings may have stood to the south or east of the nymphaeum before Agrippa built his temple. Consequently, the origins of unwanted stone dumped in the basin of the nymphaeum, as noted above, remain uncertain. Rolland discerned the sanctuary of Hercules to the south of the basin, and Agrippa's temple to the north, with no other building in the area His interpretation may be questioned as a result of future investigations.

2. DESCRIPTION OF THE TEMPLE It is not possible to provide a complete description, since not all the remains have been recovered and there is no established location. The order of description is

42 Vitruvius, De architectura, 3.3.6, recommended for the eustyle arrangement a central intercolumnation of three column diameters and side ones of two-and-a-quarter, but this would make the temple too long to fit in the space available if the length was in proper proportion to the width.

43 Ibid, 3.3.7, specified that the column diameter should be the building width divided by 11.5. The column diameter of 0.44 metres and the temple width would be 5.6 metres on this basis. This is the approximate width of the temple reconstruction.

44 Gros, ‘Hercule à Glanum’, pp.318-322.

45 Roth Congès, 'La fortune éphémère …'. - 70 - from the foundation to the acroteria, except for the inscription identifying the temple as Agrippan and dedicated to Valetudo, which is considered first.

(a) INSCRIPTION OF DEDICATION: Rolland found this in the basin of the nymphaeum46. Fig. 3.1347 shows it as now placed. The beginning of the inscription

[VAL]ETUDINI. M. AGRIPPA is confirmed by the inscription VALETUDINI on a small altar shown on Fig. 3.1448 recovered by Rolland 49 from the basin of the nymphaeum. The inscription must have continued with L.F., indicating him as the son of Lucius, and by his consular rank. Agrippa was consul first in 37 B.C., and was probably designated as such as early as 40 B.C. He was consul for the third and last time in 27 B.C.50. In 39-37 B.C. COS DESIG may have appeared on the inscription, and, in 19 B.C., COS III. Rolland suggested completion with COS III because there were two incomplete inscriptions bearing the name Agrippa at Nîmes interpreted to end in this way, and he considered these, like that at Glanum, to have been found at nymphaea associated with healing51. The two inscriptions at Nîmes cannot be dated beyond question to 19 B.C., and the buildings on which they were placed have not been identified52. It is, therefore, not possible to either date the temple or to associate it with the healing process53 because of the inscriptions at Nîmes.

(b) FOUNDATIONS AND BASES : As already noted, some questions remain about the construction of the parts below the level of the column bases and how this is represented by Rolland on paper and in the existing reconstruction. Rolland described the podium as having a minimum height

46 Rolland, 'Un temple de Valetudo …', p.45.

47 Photograph by the writer.

48 Rolland, 'Un temple de Valetudo …', p.51 and Fig. 18.

49 Rolland, Gallia 12, p.450.

50 Ehrenberg & Jones, pp.33 and 35.

51 Rolland, 'Un temple de Valetudo …', p.46 and Notes 1 and 2 referring to CIL 12 3153 and 3154.

52 See below Chapter 4, pp,94-96.

53 See below Note 112, p.80, for an Agrippan medical condition. - 71 - of 1.9 metres, but he did not state where this occurred, or indicate the maximum height. He said nothing about the upper moulding of the podium nor did he provide a drawing of it. Rolland recovered eight parts of the lower moulding, including all four corner pieces, but these were insufficient to complete the temple perimeter54. These lower mouldings can be seen on Figs. 3.10 and 3.11. They are of a well established profile which was in use from an early period, and are quite similar to those at the late 3rd century B.C. temple at Gabii55.

All four bases of the columns were recovered, and three remain on site, as seen on Figs. 3.9 and 3.10. Fig. 3.1556 shows the S.W. base, and the lack of plinths or base plates. There is no evidence of stucco being used on the bases except, perhaps, for a finish to the limestone. It was used in the fluting of the columns. The profile of the base is shown as No. 2 on Fig. 3.1657. The upper torus or convex moulding of the base is of much the same diameter and thickness as the lower one separated from it by the scotia. The almost equal tori are common in late Republican temples, as at the Temple of Vesta at Tibur (Tivoli) from the early 1st century B.C.58, although the bases of the columns in the quadriporticus of Agrippa’s theatre at Mérida dated to 16/15 B.C. are of the earlier type59. Nevertheless, the general trend after the Republic was towards a base in which the lower torus is more prominent, as seen on Fig. 3.1760 showing the base (and capital) of the Temple of Castor at Rome dedicated in A.D. 661. The other bases shown on Fig. 3.16 are No. 1 for the smaller of the two temples near the forum at Glanum, Nos. 3 and 4 for the mausoleum, and No. 5 for the triumphal arch, both buildings at Les Antiques. The chronological order of the bases shown in Fig. 3.16, judged from the size of the upper torus, is 2, followed by 1 with 3, 4 and 5 later, indicating that the Temple of Valetudo was earlier than the forum temple constructed after the visit of Augustus for the West in 27 B.C. The base and the lower part of the column cut out of the one block is also common in

54 Rolland, 'Un temple de Valetudo …', p.37 and Notes 1 and 2.

55 Boëthius, Fig. 46, p.56.

56 Photograph by the writer.

57 Gros, P., 'Les temples gémines de Glanum'. RANarb, 14, 1981, pp.125-172, Fig. 47, p.150.

58 Boëthius, Fig. 154, p.163.

59 See below Fig 8.40.

60 Sear, F.B., Roman Architecture, Fig. 36, p.66 (parts).

61 Ibid, p.67. - 72 -

Republican temples, but it cannot be used as an indication of dating at Glanum, since this has been adopted at the part reconstruction of the smaller of the two forum temples62, with the profile No. 1 of Fig. 3.16. Fig 3.1863 shows the reconstruction.

(c) COLUMNS: The columns, of mean diameter 0.44 metres, are fluted, with 16 grooves in the shape of a meniscus separated by fillets64, as against the 24 and the 20 prescribed by Vitruvius for the Ionic and Doric Orders respectively65. The lesser number is aesthetically appropriate for a small temple, and, also, easier for the mason to provide. It is not possible to know the height of the columns, since there is no recorded complete recovery of any one shaft. Vitruvius specified that the columns of the Ionic Order to be used with the Corinthian Capital66 are to vary in height from eight to ten times the lower column diameter, depending on the column spacing67. Since the column spacings at Agrippa’s temple are unknown, the shaft height, according to this, could vary from 3.70 to 4.40 metres, assuming no column taper. The columns of the smaller of the two temples near the forum temple shown on Fig. 3.18 are barely seven times the lower column diameter in height. It is, therefore, not possible to assess the length of the column shafts at Agrippa's temple, and, consequently, a drawing showing the elevation of the front of the temple cannot be provided. Each side of the pilaster, shown on Fig. 3.12, has four grooves in the shape of a meniscus separated by fillets. Similar pilasters, but with six grooves, are seen at the Maison des located on Figs. 3.4 and 3.5, but this house cannot be dated68. It has been argued here that the pilasters at the temple with their capitals framed the entrance to the cella, as proposed by Rolland69.

62 Varène, P., ‘L’apport de l’ethno-archéologie à la connaissance des techniques antiques de construction : deux examples tirés de la reconstruction partielle d’un temple à Glanum’, JRA, 6, 1993, pp.193-204, for the explanation of the reconstruction.

63 Photograph by the writer.

64 Rolland, 'Un temple de Valetudo …', Fig. 8, p.41 and p.39, Note 6.

65 Vitruvius, De architectura 3.5.14 and 4.3.9.

66 Ibid, 4.1.1.

67 Ibid, 3.3.10.

68 Salviat, pp.50-53.

69 See above Note 35, p.66, and Rolland, 'Un temple de Valetudo …', p.37. - 73 -

(d) CAPITALS: Only one capital remains on the site. This is the pilaster capital shown on Fig. 3.1970. All the four column capitals are in the museum at the Hotel de Sade at Saint-Remy-de-Provence, but it was not possible to identify these or photograph them. Figs. 3.20 and 3.2171 represent the two kinds of column capitals. Fig. 3.20 shows the type with the blossom at the top centre, and Fig. 3.21 that with no blossom, but with tendrils or helices separated by acanthus. Rolland, and Picard concluded that both types came from the same workshop72. This is indicated by the same astragal decorated with bead and reel, no decoration on the abacus, and a common type of acanthus treatment. Rolland noted the generally squat appearance of the capitals73, as did Picard, who attributed this to the thick abaci, and, particularly, to the arrangement of the acanthus. He considered that a strong horizontal emphasis was created by the lower ring of leaves and the one above this turning over quite close to each other74. This can be seen on Fig. 3.20, and to a lesser extent on Fig. 3.21, but not on Fig. 3.19. There is some doubt also about the effect of the abacus, since this is not remarkably thick75. The squat appearance can be assessed further from Fig. 3.2276. This shows the Vitruvian type capital on the left with two others of the late Republic. There is little difference in the thickness of the abaci. All three have the same height, and much the same widths at the astragal and the abacus, yet the Vitruvian capital looks narrower than the other two. This is mainly explained by the three rings of the acanthus 77, which have a stronger vertical emphasis from the more definite vertical connection between three rings. In addition, the larger volutes on the Republican capitals place more emphasis on the top of the bell, and the lower part of this seems to be crushed. If the column capitals of the Temple of Valetudo were shown with the other three, and in the same manner, they would look at least as broad as the

70 Photograph by the writer.

71 Rolland, 'Un temple de Valetudo …', Fig. 10, p.43 and Fig. 12, p.45, respectively.

72 Ibid, p.42 and Picard, G-C., ‘Glanum et les origines de l’art romano-provençal. Première partie : Architecture’, Gallia, 21, 1963, pp.111-124, p.113.

73 Rolland, 'Un temple de Valetudo …', p.42.

74 Picard, p.113.

75 It varies from one-fifth to one-sixth of the total height of the capital.

76 Boëthius, Fig. 148, p.158, referring to Morgan, Vitruvius. The Ten Books of Architecture, Figs. 1, 2 and 4, p.105.

77 Vitruvius, De architectura 4.1.12. - 74 -

Republican models because the acanthus division is similar to these, and, also, because of the more prominent horizontal ‘basket work’. The pilaster capital is higher from astragal to the top of the bell than it is broad at the astragal, whereas all the other five capitals, shown on Figs. 3.20, 3.21 and 3.22, have equal corresponding dimensions. It would, therefore, be recognised as taller than the other three if represented in the same way with them. Nevertheless, it still looks quite broad, and mainly because of the horizontal lines of the ‘basket work’.

The capitals of the Temple of Valetudo are, therefore, not of some outlandish form like the very squat capitals of the Temple of Athena Alea at Tegea of the mid-4th century B.C78. Also, they have at least some general characteristics of those in late Republican Italy and of the Vitruvian model. They can be placed more securely in the history of the development of the Roman Corinthian capital by comparison of them with the capitals of the developed Corinthian Order, represented by the Temple of Castor at Rome, as seen on Fig. 3.17. The capitals at Rome have a height above the astragal some one-third greater than the diameter of the column immediately below the astragal. All the capitals shown on Fig. 3.22, and at Glanum, exceed this diameter in their heights by no more than one-eighth. This is generally in accordance with the Vitruvian precepts79. The developed Corinthian Capital is, therefore, more slender than those at Glanum. The capital at Rome has the three rings of acanthus lacking at Glanum. Other differences are the decorated abacus and plain astragal at Rome, while at Glanum the reverse is the case. At Glanum the blossom is large and over the bell and the abacus. At Rome it is smaller and confined to the abacus, and the volutes are under the abacus which is cut off at an angle at the corners. At Glanum the volutes, as shown on Fig. 3.20, rise up into the abacus space and the abacus is not well defined at the corners. At Rome the volutes and the helices seem to spring naturally from the vegetation, but this is not the case at Glanum. Here the ‘basket work’ is prominent, but it is barely evident at Rome. Apart from these differences the general treatment of the vegetation at the Temple of Castor is represented naturally, in detail, and the modelling is subtle. The vegetation is also more like that of the olive than the acanthus. At Glanum, the rendering of the

78 Lawrence, A.W., Greek Architecture, Yale, 1996, p.144 and Fig. 224.

79 Vitruvius, De architectura, 4.1.11, specified that the height of the capital including the abacus should equal the column diameter at its base. Some taper of the column from bottom to top can be expected. - 75 - acanthus is less natural, with less detail, and the modelling is crude. The capitals at Rome balance nature and symmetry in an elegant execution. At Glanum the work is more ‘primitive’. This is not to deny the power and originality of the execution. Here the drill was used extensively, while at Rome the chisel was the principal tool. At the Temple of Castor the overlapping leaves of the acanthus form smooth cavities shaped like pears, but, at Glanum, these are more like triangles with sharp corners. In fact, there is no evidence in Figs. 3.19, 3.20 and 3.21 of the reshaping and development of the Classical Orders which were a major feature of the developed Corinthian Order80.

The capitals at Glanum, therefore, have little in common with those of the developed Corinthian Order but are like those of the late Republic in Italy in respect of their general proportions and the main feature. This similarity does not extend to the treatment of the acanthus. In the late Republic, as can be seen from Fig. 3.22, there were large shaggy leaves amply turned over at their ends. The turning point was rounded so that the ends of the leaves formed a festoon. The subdivision of the leaves was rather indefinite. At the Glanum capitals the acanthus is turned over much less, and the festoon effect is not seen. Also, the leaves are much more split up. The treatment is stiff, whereas it is florid in the Republic. The critical element in understanding the capitals and their dating is the treatment of the acanthus. This is a specialised subject and it is necessary to rely on the researchers expert in this particular field.

Picard provided the first study on the capitals of the Temple of Valetudo81 and Gros made reference to them in his study of the two temples at the Forum82, but Roth Congès has provided an authoritative account of the capitals of the temple in a paper focussed on the treatment of the acanthus in Provence83. Her treatment was comprehensive, and it is possible here only to indicate the main features of the

80 Sear, Roman Architecture, p.62.

81 Picard, ‘Glanum et les origines …’, Note 72.

82 Gros, 'Les temples gémines …', p.146.

83 Roth Congès, A., L’acanthe dans le décor architectonique protoaugustéen en Provence’, RANarb, 11, 1983, pp.103-134. - 76 - conclusions. Her classifications are shown on Fig. 3.2384, starting at the top, and from left to right, with the traditional typology of the acanthus treatment in the late , the , and the end of the Augustan age. The next lines show, firstly, the interaction between leaves generally, illustrating the space formed by these, secondly, the symmetrical type of the Republic and, thirdly, the asymmetrical type of the Empire. The change between these types is dated by her to the proto-Augustan period. The third line shows her classification, in this period, of the various symmetrical types. Roth Congès placed the capitals of the Temple of Valetudo principally in category C. This is characterised by a combination of rounded and pointed leaves with distinctive depressions like drops at the ends of the rounded ones. Roth Congès subdivided this category C further into two types appearing at the bottom of Fig. 3.23. The type on the right was seen by her to be the closest to the capitals at the Temple of Valetudo. She traced the origin of this back to Asia Minor in the first quarter of the 3rd century B.C. at the capitals of the mausoleum of Belevi, near , continuing at the Agora of , then, in , on a capital of Heliopolis Magna towards 240-230 B.C., and, finally, about 200 B.C. at the Gymnasium of Miletus 85. Roth Congès has, therefore, established a connection between the capitals of the Temple of Valetudo and the region of origin of the founders of Massilia, since this was Phocaea on the coast of Asia Minor. The style spread from Asia Minor to Egypt. Perhaps it extended into and reached Massilia from there if it did not come directly from Asia Minor. She saw some similarities between the treatment of the acanthus at Agrippa’s temple, and that at the Arch of dated 27 B.C., and, also, at the Arch of Aosta, dated 25 B.C.86. The findings of Roth Congès were based on a detailed examination of capitals from many places, and they are accepted here as the best explanation for the capitals at Agrippa’s temple in relation to other Roman capitals. Roth Congès dated the capitals of the Temple of Valetudo to 27 B.C., based on the material evidence, but she was prepared for them to be a decade earlier than this

84 Ibid, Fig. 1, p.105, Fig. 2, p.106, Fig. 15, p.117 and Fig. 17, p.117 corresponding to the four lines and starting at the top.

85 Ibid, p.119, 121, 2 and Note 90.

86 Ibid, p.111, Note 54. - 77 - archaeologically if she could accept the idea of Agrippa building a temple at Glanum in 39-37 B.C.87.

(e) THE STRUCTURE ABOVE THE CAPITALS: Rolland considered that he had found parts of the pediment and the cella cornice. Fig. 3.2488 shows the architrave, an irregular pedimental block, and two parts of the cornices. There is no reason to doubt the attribution of the architrave, which is a Roman version of the triple layered Classical form. All the other parts must be regarded with some suspicion, since the mouldings on these are very like that on parts recovered from the Tuscan Hellenistic temple near the dromos, and located on Fig. 3.489 as XVII. There is no decoration, and there are no modillions. The absence of the second is not surprising since these have been noted in stone for the first time at the third rebuilding in 36 B.C. of the Regia in the at Rome., although they were made in stucco early in the 1st century B.C.90. The fact that modillions appear at the other two temples of Glanum91 indicates that these are later than the Temple of Valetudo. The large pedimental block is also difficult to explain as part of Agrippa’s temple. Rolland noted the sloping underside, and suggested that this indicated a ramp below, forming a possible entrance to his temple concept, but he seemed to be uncertain of his own idea92. His reticence must be supported, since, the very low angle of the roof, at barely 15°, is to be expected only at the broad cella of the Tuscan temple 93. At all other Roman types, the slope would be at least 20°. The column assemblies are quite unlike those of the Tuscan temple, which had plinths, and capitals with a height only half the column diameter. The Tuscan Hellenistic temple near the dromos shown on Fig. 3.4, had mouldings like those on the upper parts recovered by Rolland. It is improbable that remains of this could end up some 150 metres further south in the nymphaeum basin. Some Hellenistic temple or other building with a flatter than normal roof must have stood somewhere near the

87 Ibid, p.111 and Notes 52, 53.

88 Based on Rolland, 'Un temple de Valetudo …', Figs. 6 and 8, pp. 38 and 41 (parts).

89 Roth Congès, 'L'acanthe dans le décor …', p.111, Note 54.

90 Sear, Roman Architecture, pp. 63, 64; and Claridge, A., Rome, Oxford, 1998, pp.105-6.

91 Gros, 'Les temples gémines …', pp.128-143, for his examination of the cornices of the two temples in relation to others in Provence, including the modillions and other decoration.

92 Rolland, 'Un temple de Valetudo …', p.39.

93 Vitruvius, De architectura, 4.7. - 78 - nymphaeum. Gros has suggested a Hellenistic Sanctuary of Hercules94. The Hellenistic type of roof parts, is, perhaps, to be explained by use or imitation of the parts of this sanctuary, or of a temple sited as shown on Fig. 3.7.

(f) THE ROOF AND ITS DECORATION: Rolland made no mention of any part of the roof of the temple, except acroteria, although he recovered other objects from the basin of the nymphaeum, including coins, votive offerings, etc.95. The absence of the tiles can almost certainly be accounted for by their removal for use elsewhere in late antiquity. The acroteria would probably have been cast aside like all the other decorated work. Rolland recovered two acroteria from the basin of the nymphaeum96. That from the pediment angle is shown, as recovered on Fig. 3.2597. The apex acroterium was restored, as shown on Fig. 3.2698. The angle figure, recovered only to a height of 0.65 metres99 represents a palmette above vegetable volutes, with acanthus tendrils below. As complete it was probably like that shown on Fig. 3.18. The female bust on Fig. 3.26 is Gaulish, as can be seen from the dress, the head covering, and, above all, from the torc or torque. This ornament has been associated with human men or goddesses in the late La Tène period100. The face is disfigured, but its carving was probably typical of Entremont 101. This carving style can be seen in the general treatment of the stone on Figs. 3.25 and 3.26. The treatment of the acanthus on Fig. 3.26 is quite like that on the capitals of Agrippa’s temple, and particularly as shown on Fig. 3.19.

The acroteria from Agrippa’s temple seem to be Roman versions of Greek and Hellenistic models as interpreted by the local craftsmen. There is no obvious reason to think from their design or style that they are from a building other than the Temple of Valetudo. One of similar type has been placed on the temple near the

94 Gros, 'Hercule à Glanum', pp.318-322. See also above Note 44, p.69.

95 Rolland, Gallia 12, pp. 450, 451.

96 Ibid, p.450.

97 Rolland, 'Un temple de Valetudo …', Fig. 13, p.47.

98 Photograph from the museum at the Hotel de Sade, Saint Rémy -en-Provence.

99 Rolland, 'Un temple de Valetudo …', p.48, Note 1.

100 Powell, T.G.E., The Celts, London, 1985, pp.69-73, and Figs. 34-46.

101 Salviat, p.105. - 79 - forum, as seen on Fig. 3.18. Yet, Salviat stated, without explanation, that the apex acroterium shown on Fig. 3.26 was pre-Roman, and did not, therefore, belong to what he saw as the ‘Temple of Agrippa’102 . If Salviat dated the apex acroterium as pre-Roman from the Gaulish bust, this must be questioned. There was no obvious religious difficulty in placing an acroterium showing a Gaulish figure on a temple with an inscription dedicated to Valetudo. If the figure was Valetudo in Gaulish guise, this symbolised the religious syncretism in the same way as would a figure representing a Gaulish goddess.

(g) THE CULT FIGURE: Rolland recovered the lower part of the statue of a female figure in the area of the temple cella, and this is shown on Fig. 3.27103. There is no indication of the identity since there is no inscription, but the figure is Roman or Hellenistic, and the long dress is typical of either the Roman Valetudo, or the Greek Hygieia104, the daughter of Asclepius whose cult at Epidaurus was introduced at Rome in the hope of ending a major epidemic there in the 3rd century B.C.105. A connection arose between the Greek goddess and the Roman Valetudo106. Both deities were venerated as bringers of health and were related naturally to the Glanicae of the healing spring. It is possible that the cult statue of Hygieia from a Hellenistic temple was found, and was used in the Temple of Valetudo for practical reasons and as an act of piety and reparation for the Roman destructions.

DESCRIPTION : CONCLUSIONS It has not been possible to determine the precise location of the Temple of Valetudo, but this was not far from the nymphaeum, and probably to the north of it. The temple had four columns supporting a pediment, but uncertainties remain about its ground plan. The Roman temple has been partly recovered from the remains up to the level of the architrave. The acroteria has also been recovered, but questions remain about

102 Ibid, p.109.

103 Rolland, 'Un temple de Valetudo …', Fig. 16, p.52. The remaining part of the statue is 0.57 metres high and the figure was, therefore, of natural size for quite a small woman.

104 Ibid, p,53 and Note 1.

105 Livy, 10, 47.7.

106 Rolland, 'Un temple de Valetudo …', pp.27-35, provided a quite comprehensive account of the cult of Valetudo as recorded in coins, inscriptions and the literature, and of the relationships to Asclepius and Hygieia. - 80 - the roof. The detailed study of the acanthus by Roth Congès indicated that the capitals were dated between 37 and 27 B.C107. In a more recent study, the Temple of Valetudo has been dated to the period 45-30 B.C. in the general chronology of the monuments at Glanum108. This finding is not universally accepted. Salviat, writing in 1999 in the official government guide of Glanum stated that the Temple of Valetudo was built a little after 20 B.C.109. Levau, writing in 1989, assumed a dating of 19 B.C.110. Neither produced any evidence supporting their datings. The dating of the Temple to 45-30 B.C. is based on the most comprehensive and latest evidence, and it is accepted here. The building was, therefore, built by Agrippa during or shortly after his first visit to Gaul.

3. EXPLANATION OF THE TEMPLE Agrippa had been sent to Gaul in late 40 B.C. to take control there on behalf of Octavian. His mission was strategic and there is no obvious reason why he should have built a temple in a small place like Glanum. The dedication to Valetudo, the Roman goddess of wellbeing, indicates a possible medical reason. Agrippa suffered from a serious foot condition in later life, and undertook a radical treatment by immersing his legs in hot vinegar111. He also sought a cure from some ailment at the medical centre of Esclapius at Epidaurus in 16/15 B.C.112. Yet, in 39-37 B.C., Agrippa was not yet 30 and it is unlikely that he built the temple at that time in the hope of a medical remedy. The explanation for the temple must, therefore, be sought from the location of Glanum, and its particular characteristics in the context of Agrippa's aims at that time.

As can be seen from Figs. 3.1 and 3.2, the zone containing Glanum, Arelate, and Tarusco was well placed for mobilisation of forces for Agrippan action in Gallia Comata, since there was direct access up the Rhône valley by land and water, and from the west and east along the Via Domitia. The sea port of Arelate was

107 See above Note 87, p.77.

108 Gross, P., Roth Congès, A., Varène, P., ‘Le centre monumental et gallo-romain’, Les Dossiers d’archeologique’, 140, July-August, 1989, pp.24-33, and plan 26,; also Roth Congès, 'Nouvelles fouilles …', pp.50 and p.51.

109 Salviat, p.30.

110 Leveau, P., ‘L’alimentation en eau’, Les Dossiers d’archéologie, 140, July-August 1989, pp. 62-67, p.62.

111 Pliny 23.58.

112 IG, 4.3.63, recorded his treatment at Epidaurus. - 81 - available for supplies from Italy and elsewhere. There had been a Hellenistic town at Glanum and, though sacked by the Romans, it had been developed for housing113. It was also a religious centre, and, perhaps, a market place. Gros considered that Glanum was a pre-Roman centre of transhumance, with a market for food, fodder and pack animals114. If so, this activity probably continued into the Agrippan period, making Glanum a natural centre for procurement. Glanum was suitable as an Agrippan command post for mobilisation since it would keep forces away from the colony of Arelate and Agrippa could use one of the large houses there as his praetorium.

Agrippa needed substantial military forces for his campaigns and his road works. Roddaz suggested that he brought no troops from Italy. He also noted that the eleven legions of Antony in Gaul had been disbanded, and implied that there could be little if any support from Hispania 115. Agrippa would, therefore, have needed to form a new army, recruiting his officer cadre mainly from southern Gaul. There are strong indications, from the mausoleum of Les Antiques shown on Fig. 3.28116, of a military tradition at Glanum going back to the time of Caesar. This well-preserved monument has an inscription reading ‘Sextus, Lucius, and Marius, sons of Caius of the family of the Iulii honour their grandfather’117. The monument has reliefs of battle scenes on all four faces below the level of the arches. One of these shows a member of the family in battle, as noted on a small inscription at the bottom right corner of the relief. The mausoleum may be from the late 30's to the early 20's B.C., but there is little doubt that the grandfather was involved in the Caesarian wars118. Construction of the triumphal arch in the late Augustan period119 very close to the military mausoleum (as seen on Fig. 3.28) also indicates the wish to mark a military tradition, since it could have been built at Tarusco, where it would have been seen from the as well as from the Via Domitia. There were only four other

113 Roth Congès, 'Nouvelles fouilles …', pp.47-49.

114 Gros, 'Hercule à Glanum', the abstract p.331.

115 Roddaz, Marcus Agrippa, p.71, Note 217.

116 Salviat, photograph, p.57

117 CIL 12.1012. SEX.L.M.IULEI.C.PARENTIBUS.SUEIS.

118 Gros, P., ‘Le Mausolée des Iulii et le status de Glanum’, RA, 1, 1986, pp.65-80, and Salviat, pp.74-88.

119 Salviat, pp.58-65. - 82 - triumphal arches in Gaul120 and the decision to build one of these at a small oppidum latium seems to suggest its military rather than its civil status. As already noted, a inscription of the late Augustan period at the Altar to Glan was placed by a Roman soldier121. In addition, there is some evidence of a military contribution from Glanum indicated by a statute of Hercules and seven inscriptions at the Sanctuary of Hercules excavated by Rolland 122.

There is, therefore, reason to suggest that Agrippa would have formed his first headquarters in Gaul at Glanum where he could prepare for his operations in Gallia Comata. It was essential for him to achieve this mobilisation before he embarked on his activities, since he could not expect to live off the land as Caesar had done in his conquest. This would have caused resentment, and frustrated his wish to control Gallia Comata and keep it quiet while Octavian was concerned elsewhere. Also, Lugdunum, the hub of his road system, was more than 200 kms from Arelate, and at the extreme S.E. edge of Gallia Comata in which Agrippa was to build his roads to the West, the Rhine and the English Channel. Agrippa would have built up substantial forces and supplies in southern Gaul before undertaking his military operations, military re-organisation, and large scale road works in Gallia Comata.

Agrippa's use of Glanum as his mobilisation centre would have stimulated activity there, and the local elite could have advanced themselves by supplying provisions and by contact with the virtual governor of Gaul. Glanum was already a religious centre, but there is no evidence of a Roman temple before 39 B.C. The provision of a Roman temple would have increased the importance of the town, bringing new business, which would continue after Agrippa had left. A temple could function as a treasury, and as a bank, charging a higher than normal rate of interest because of the security of the sacred site and the stone walls 123. There is some indication of a connection between the merchant classes and the Celtic cult of the mother goddesses in Germania in the

120 Ibid, p.58 for triumphal arches at Orange, , Carpentras and Cavaillon.

121 Salviat, p.30 and above Note 22, p.64.

122 Rolland, 'Fouilles de Glanum …', pp.15 and 17 interpreted the statue and the inscriptions, Figs. 12, 13 and 14, as clear proof of a disproportionately large military contribution from Glanum. Roth Congès, 'La fortune éphémère …', pp.188-194 disputed this interpretation.

123 Henig, M., Religion in , London, 1984, pp.48-49. - 83 -

Empire124, which may have applied to Glanum. Construction of a temple would have advanced the cause of Agrippa by marking Roman reparation for the sackings of Glanum and by relating the Roman religion to that of the indigenous soldiers to be recruited. This religious connection would have helped him in Gallia Comata as a whole, since the Glanicae were local variations of the goddesses worshipped throughout that region.

To build the temple at Glanum was, therefore, in the interests of the Roman power and the local elite. It is most unlikely that the Temple of Valetudo was votive, or promised by Agrippa before a military campaign125. This would have been out of keeping with Agrippa’s consistent avoidance of public honours, and of less use as a rallying point for recruitment than an immediate construction. The hypothesis of a 'mobilisation' building explains why it was built at least ten years before other Roman public buildings at Glanum, construction of which resulted from the visit of Augustus to the West in 27 B.C.

CONCLUSIONS The Temple of Valetudo was built by Agrippa early in the period 39-37 B.C. as a 'mobilisation' building intended to advance Agrippa's strategic aims in Gaul. It is possible that it was a partial reconstruction of a Hellenistic temple sacked by the Romans. The building was near the sacred spring of the local Glanicae, but its precise location, layout and structural form have not yet been determined. The temple is of great architectural interest as an early Roman building in southern Gaul, and, particularly, for the study of the Corinthian capital in the region. The design of the capitals of the temple can be traced back to Greece and Asia Minor and the founders of Massilia. The carving of the capitals provides a good example of local interpretation. The religious aspects of the Temple of Valetudo have been mentioned here only as they relate to its location, layout, or the reasons for its construction. Rolland investigated the introduction of the cult of Asclepius into Italy and the connection which was formed between his daughter Hygieia, and the Roman Valetudo. He also made some comments about the cult of Valetudo at Glanum. , the Bona Dea, Demeter, and perhaps Hygieia, Tyche, Cybele and Isis all appear at Glanum with the Glanicae126. Glanum, therefore, offers a rich field for investigation of feminine deities in southern France.

124 Webster, G., The British Celts and their gods under Rome, London, 1986, p.111.

125 Orlin, E.M., Temples, Religions and Politics in the , Leiden, 1997, p.4, for votive temples.

126 Salviat, pp.121-123. - 84 -

4. NEMAUSUS (NÎMES)

The general location of Nîmes is shown on Fig. 4.11 with the course of its aqueduct, which included the viaduct. Fig. 4.22 marks the principal Roman urban constructions identified to date, and the circuit of the walls. Agrippa was generally regarded as the builder of the aqueduct until quite recently, and as responsible for the Maison Carrée until some two decades ago. The prominence of the two sons of Agrippa, Gaius and Lucius, has been seen as evidence of Agrippan activity there, yet, this is in doubt. It is, therefore, necessary to clear the ground for investigation by first examining the evidence of the two buildings and of Gaius and Lucius.

THE AQUEDUCT AND THE MAISON CARRÉE The aqueduct was attributed to Agrippa by Espérandieu in 19263, and this view was generally supported until quite recently. Hodge perpetuated the idea, although only as a passing comment on an engineering problem4. Wilson, focussing on dating, pointed out that the Agrippan attribution was based on an Agrippan Maison Carrée and Agrippa, the builder of aqueducts at Rome, being in Gaul in 19 B.C.5. The Agrippan attribution must now be abandoned6. The reasons are set out concisely in the abridged version in English7. These include: the existence in the aqueduct structure of ceramic fragments which could not be earlier than about A.D. 40, the tunnel for the aqueduct which was driven under the existing town wall (started in 16/15 B.C.), and the conversion into a channel of the stream from La Fontaine between A.D. 20 and 708. Nemausus had ample water resources from La Fontaine and the groundwater under the town and the aqueduct was built for irrigation and

1 Rivet, A.L.F., Gallia Narbonensis, London, 1988, Fig. 18, p.166 (modified).

2 Ibid, Fig. 17, p.164.

3 Espérandieu, E., Le Pont du Gard et l'Aqueduc de Nîmes, Paris, 1926.

4 Hodge, A. T., Roman Aqueducts and Water Supply, 2nd Ed., London, 2002, p.184

5 Wilson, 'Tot aquarum tam multis ...', p.13.

6 Fabre-G., Luc Fiches-J. & Louis Paillet-J., L'Aqueduc de Nîmes et le Pont du Gard Archéologie, géosystème et histoire, Nîmes, 1991, p.14.

7 Fabre-G., Luc Fiches-J. & Louis Paillet-J., 'Interdisciplinary research on the aqueduct of Nîmes and the Pont du Gard', JRA, 4, 1991, pp.63-88.

8 Ibid, p.72. - 85 - extended to Nemausus for its prestige9. Agrippa could not, therefore, have been responsible for any works at Nemausus associated with the aqueduct, as has sometimes been stated10 or implied11. The Maison Carrée, thought for many years to be Agrippan and dated to 16 B.C., was re-dated to A.D. 2-3 in a new study by Amy and Gros published in 1979. In this, the inscription of dedication in bronze letters was interpreted as naming Gaius and Lucius, and the second line of this was dated to A.D. 4-5, or after the deaths of the two. A dating of A.D. 2-3 for the buildings seems to have been accepted in the literature, but the dating of the inscription has been disputed12. Amy and Gros reported the discovery of an earlier building to the west of, and partly under, the Maison Carrée, with finds of pottery and coins indicating construction of the late Republic13. More recent investigations have uncovered quite extensive development in the area which might be dated to the early 1st century B.C.14.

THE PROMINENCE OF GAIUS AND LUCIUS Gaius was patron of Nemausus15 and, as already noted, the Maison Carrée was dedicated to Gaius and Lucius. Both these sons of Agrippa were, therefore, important at the town. Roddaz assumed that this prominence indicated the prominence of Agrippa even though he knew that Agrippa did not build the Maison Carrée, and was not convinced that he built the aqueduct. He also assumed that Agrippa and Augustus were patrons of the town, and that Gaius became patron since his father had been patron16. There is no proof that either Augustus or Agrippa was patron of Nemausus, although this was probably the case. Also, it

9 Ibid, pp.72, 73.

10 Balty, J.C., COL(onia) NEM(ausus). Notes 'd'archéologie et d'histoire augustéennes', RBPhil, 1960, pp.59-73, pp.63-67.

11 Roddaz, Marcus Agrippa, pp.398-401.

12 Amy, R., and Gros, P., 'La Maison Carrée de Nîmes', Gallia, Supplément 38, 1979, for the datings to A.D. 2-3 and A.D. 4-5, and Christol, M. and Goudineau, C., 'Nîmes et les Volques Arécomiques au 1er siècle avant J-C', Gallia, 45, 1987, pp.87-103, p.92 and Note 19 for the dispute about the dating of the inscription.

13 Amy & Gros, pp.197-200.

14 See below Note 33, p.88.

15 CIL 12.3155.

16 Roddaz, Marcus Agrippa, pp.399-401, for his general comments on Agrippa (and Augustus) at Nemausus. - 86 - does not necessarily follow that Gaius received the status of patronus because his father had been patronus, since, as the grandson of Augustus, he could have been the patron, even if his father had not been Agrippa. Roddaz suggested that the dedication of the Maison Carrée to Gaius and Lucius indicated the regard of the town for the family from which it has received benefits17. Yet the Maison Carrée was, perhaps, dedicated to the 'young princes' Gaius and Lucius to demonstrate the greater importance of the temple of the Imperial Cult than the ancient sacred fountain of Nemausus18. There is, therefore, no automatic connection between the patronus of Gaius and the dedication of the Maison Carrée to Gaius and Lucius, and any Agrippan works at Nemausus.

The other imputed connection between Agrippa and Nemausus through Gaius and Lucius arises from a text of Suetonius19. This described Tiberius in the East (in 6 B.C. to A.D. 2) wearing Greek garb and growing daily more despised until the people of Nemausus were encouraged to overthrow his statues and busts. Suetonius also referred to rivalry between Gaius and Tiberius. This text has been interpreted as indicating support at Nemausus for the clan of Agrippa represented by his sons Gaius and Lucius, and the corresponding unpopularity of the clan of represented by her son Tiberius20. The destruction of the images has also been accounted for by the fact that Tiberius was the son of , and the assumption that the latter had granted colonial status to Nemausus in 45/44 B.C. In this case, the people of Nemausus were objecting to the disgrace brought upon the town by the scandalous conduct of the founder's son21. It is argued below that Agrippa may have granted the colonial status to Nemausus in 39-37 B.C. rather than Tiberius Claudius Nero in 45-44 B.C.22. In this case the destruction of the images of Tiberius was a reaction in favour of the clan of Agrippa. Nevertheless, since the case for Agrippa taking this

17 Ibid, p.400.

18 Gros, P., 'Nouveau paysage urbain et cultes dynatiques : remarques sur l'idéologie de la ville augustéenne à partir des centres monumentaux d'Athènes, Thasos, Arles et Nîmes', Goudineau, C. & Rebourg, A., Eds., Les Villes augustéennes de Gaule, pp.121-148, at p.139 and Note 62.

19 Suetonius, Tiberius, 13.

20 Gros, P., 'L'augusteum de Nîmes', RANarb, 17, 1984, pp.123-134, p.134 and Note 90.

21 Christol, M. and Goudineau, C., 'Nîmes et les Volques Arécomiques au 1er siècle avont J-C', p.92 referring to the grant of colonial status to Nemausus by Tiberius Claudius Nero in 45-44 B.C., as argued by them.

22 See below Notes 31-36, p.88, 89. - 87 - action in 39-37 B.C, cannot be proved, the interpretation of the text of Suetonius is problematic.

INVESTIGATION OF AGRIPPA AT NEMAUSUS Agrippa has traditionally been seen to have acted at Nemausus only in 19 B.C. when he was assumed to have set in train the construction of the aqueduct and the Maison Carrée. His Temple of Valetudo at Glanum was dated to 19 B.C. until very recently, but it is now generally dated to 39-37 B.C.23. There is, therefore, reason now to consider Agrippan construction at Nemausus in 39-37 B.C. This is investigated in a first section, followed by a second section where Agrippan construction of 19 B.C. is investigated. Two inscriptions bearing the name of Agrippa from unknown buildings at Nemausus cannot be dated. These are, therefore, examined in a third section.

(1) AGRIPPA AT NEMAUSUS 39-37 B.C. Nemausus was on the southern edge of the high country to the north, and on the ancient W-E route which became the Via Domitia. Settlements on Mont Cavalier and at the sacred fountain of Nemausus, both shown on Fig. 4.2, had developed into a typical agglomeration of the district penetrated by Greek and Hellenistic influence from Massilia before Roman control was established in about 120 B.C.24. The site then probably became a changing station on the Via Domitia25. The triumph of Caesar over Pompey, who had favoured the Massilians in their struggle with the local Volques Arécomiques of Nemausus, must have resulted in substantial independence for Nemausus and other centres of the Volcae26. Caesar's general grant of the Latin right to communities in Gallia Transalpina27 was reflected in the creation of a Latin colony at Nemausus, generally attributed to Tiberius Claudius Nero in 46-45 B.C. This interpretation relies on extrapolation from a text of Suetonius noting his

23 See above Chapter 3, pp.79-80.

24 Py, M., 'Recherches sur Nîmes préromaine – habitats et sépultures', Gallia Supplément 41, 1981, pp.199-210, for an account of development from the Bronze Age to the beginning of the 1st century B.C., also Célie, M., et al, 'Enceintes et développement urbain : Nîmes, antique des origines au Ier S, ap. J-C', JRA, 5, 1994, pp.383-396, pp.385-387.

25 Rivet, p.43.

26 Goudineau, C., 'Le Statut de Nîmes et des Volques Arécomiques', RANarb, 9, 1976, pp.105-114.

27 Sherwin-White, A.N., The Roman Citizenship, Oxford, 1937, p.176, and Brunt, P.A., Italian Manpower, Oxford, 1971, p.239. - 88 - foundation of Roman colonies at Narbo and Arelate at that time28. Yet coins with the legend NEM COL indicating the change of status, have been dated no earlier than about 40 B.C.29, and as late as 20 B.C.30. This evidence points towards Agrippa in Gaul in 39-37 B.C., being responsible for issuing the coins rather than Tiberius Claudius Nero in 46/45 B.C., and the coins themselves neither name nor show any person. In this case, Agrippa may have been responsible for creating the Latin colony of Nemausus rather than Tiberius Claudius Nero.

Agrippa also had something to gain from such an action. Nemausus had 32 places subject to it extending over a wide area31. As such an important centre on the Via Domitia, Nemausus would have been able to provide him with supplies. He could also have drawn recruits for his military operations from the town and the surrounding areas for which it was the centre as a substantial urban site. As can be seen from Fig. 4.332, there is no doubt about the extent of the town of the 3rd century B.C. The development after this period and before the first visit of Agrippa in 39-37 B.C. is less certain, but the area shown hatched on Fig. 4.3 was at least partly built over by this time33. There is no archaeological evidence of a deductio by Tiberius Claudius Nero in 45/44 B.C. and the largest urban expansion seems to have occurred between 100 and 75 B.C.34. There is also no evidence of any urban change in 39-37 B.C., but this should not be expected, since Agrippa was recruiting forces for his operations in Gaul35 and was not discharging veterans, or encouraging other settlement. The general evidence of urban development is, therefore, more in agreement with Agrippa at Nemausus than with Tiberius Claudius Nero.

28 Suetonius Tiberius 4.1, as interpreted by Christol and Goudineau, 'Nîmes et les Volques Arécomiques …', p.92 and Notes 16-18, also Burnett et al, p. 152.

29 Burnett et al, pp.152, 3.

30 Christol and Goudineau, pp.95 and 96 and the lengthy Note 38 described several interpretations of the dating for the first NEM COL coins.

31 Strabo, 4.1.12, and Pliny, 3.37, described the 32 places subject to Nemausus, also Rivet, pp.167-176, and Christol and Goudineau, pp.98, 9.

32 After Célie et al, Fig. 1, p.384.

33 Célie et al, pp.385-389. The analysis refers to Benoit, J. 'Nîmes : Études sur l'urbanis me antique. Problèmes de méthode et resultats', Bulletin de l'Ecole antique de Nîmes, 16 (Nîmes, 1981), pp.69-90.

34 Ibid, pp.388, 9, referred to major agricultural, irrigation and defensive changes in the period 100-75 B.C. and suggested that the Christol-Goudineau hypothesis of action by Tiberius Claudius Nero should be examined in the light of this evidence.

35 Roddaz, Marcus Agrippa, p.71, Note 217, also see above, Chapter 3, p.81. - 89 -

Furthermore, since the town was already well developed, and capable of providing its own needs, Agrippa would have obtained the support of the local elite most effectively by making the town a Latin colony, and, therefore, conferring Roman citizenship on the leading people36.

There is, therefore, a better case for Agrippa creating a colonia Latina at Nemausus in 39-37 B.C. than for Tiberius Claudius Nero doing this in 46-45 B.C. and an argument for Agrippa doing this for his mobilisation. At Glanum, Agrippa could obtain support by building a new temple at a religious site, and there was no possibility of a colonial status, since Glanum was controlled by Arelate37. At Nemausus, the town capable of building its facilities would be made co-operative by the grant of increased status. There is, therefore, little reason to think that Agrippa built anything of significance at Nemausus in 39-37 B.C. Also, there seems to be no evidence of Roman construction at that time. The few public buildings which have been identified indicate a local interpretation of Hellenistic building ideas. This is seen at a large portico which has been excavated immediately S.W. of the 'Temple of Diana'. Construction of this began at the beginning of the 1st century B.C. and continued until 30-20 B.C.38.

(2) AGRIPPA AT NEMAUSUS 19 B.C. Agrippa has traditionally been seen as important at Nemausus because of coins showing him with Augustus. Fig. 4.439 conveniently illustrates the principal features of the 'crocodile' coins of Nemausus. The crocodile has been universally recognised as representing Egypt conquered, and there is no doubt that these coins are post-Actium. The obverse has the heads of Augustus and Agrippa with various and the legends IMP and DIVI.F. On the reverse, a crocodile is chained to a palm, and there is a above. The legend COL NEM is split by the palm40. The status of the colony remained that of a colonia Latina, although the COL NEM replaced the earlier NEM COL. The crocodile coins were struck until A.D. 14 in

36 Sherwin-White, p.177 and Note 2.

37 See above Chapter 3, Notes 13 and 14, p.63.

38 Guillet, E., et al, 'Un monument à portique tardo hellénistique près de la source de La Fontaine à Nîmes (Gard)', Documents d'archéologie Méridionale, 1992, 15, pp.57-89.

39 Seaby, H.A., Roman Coins and Their Values, London, 1954, Figure p.33, (enlarged).

40 RIC, pp.51, 52. - 90 - three main groups41, but the date of the first strikings has not yet been established beyond doubt. The most commonly accepted date is about 27 B.C.42, but 20 B.C.43, and 16-15 B.C.44 have also been suggested. The 'crocodile' coins have been found in abundance over most of the Roman West45. It is, therefore, possible that the coins were designed to function as propaganda in the West, and not to reflect the circumstances of Nemausus.

First issues in 27 B.C. coincided with the presence of Augustus in Gaul and his first census there, together with the initiation of the three provinces of Northern Gaul46. Inscriptions dated 25 B.C. marked an initiative by Augustus at the sacred fountain47. First issues in 16/15 B.C. coincided with the visit of Augustus to Gaul48, and an inscription of 16/15 B.C. marking the start of works on the town walls by him49. Agrippa was in Gaul neither in 27 B.C. nor in 16/15 B.C, and could not, therefore, build anything, or strike coins. Coins first struck in 19 B.C. would indicate striking by Agrippa and current action by him, since Augustus is not known to have been in Gaul at that time. Evidence of a first striking of 19 B.C. rather than in 27 or 16/15 B.C. is, therefore, needed to impute a dominant role for Agrippa from the coins. Yet the weight of the numismatic opinion indicates a first striking in about 27 B.C., and the dating of 20 B.C. is based only on hoard-evidence50. Also, a first striking in 27 B.C. is congruent with the coins themselves, with Augustus and Agrippa shown naturally as the victors in the aftermath of Actium and the operations in Egypt. Any strikings significantly later than this are harder to explain, although this has been attempted51. Furthermore, the IMP on the obverse is perhaps to be

41 Ibid, p.27 and Burnett et al, pp.153-4.

42 Burnett et al, p.153, Roddaz, Marcus Agrippa, pp.595-6, Grant FITA., pp.70-99.

43 RIC, p.27 and Note 5.

44 Christol and Goudineau, pp.99-102.

45 As printed out first by Grant, FITA., pp.70-80.

46 Cassius Dio, 53.22.

47 See below Note 60, p.92.

48 Cassius Dio, 54.23.

49 See below Note 54, p.91.

50 RIC, p.27.

51 Christol and Goudineau, p.102, explained the joint appearance of Augustus and Agrippa on coins first struck in 16/15 B.C. as indicating their joint powers of the tribunicia potestas. - 91 - expected more in about 27 B.C. near the dawning of the Augustan principate than in 16/15 B.C. The 'crocodile' coins are, therefore, to be explained as commemorations of Actium for general distribution in the Roman West. It is possible that there was some settlement of veterans at Nemausus, but there is no automatic indication of Agrippan activity or construction at the town, as is commonly supposed.

The traditional view on Augustan development at Nemausus is that Augustus and Agrippa were responsible for a radical re-organisation of a town which had limited development outside the area of the sacred fountain of Nemausus 52. Roddaz considered that Augustus and Agrippa re-organised Nemausus, although he was reticent about the extent of the changes53. As can be seen from Fig. 4.3, there was substantial pre-Roman urban development south and east of the sacred fountain, and into the zone where the Maison Carrée was built in the first years of the Christian Era. There is no doubt that Augustus initiated works at his Augusteum at the sacred fountain, and, also, at the town walls and gates54, and the Maison Carrée was a Roman initiative. Nevertheless, it is unlikely that Augustus or Agrippa would have initiated or paid for works needed for the general development of a prosperous town. Also, Garmy has indicated the uncertainty about the general urban development in the Augustan period55.

The general location of the sacred fountain of Nemausus is marked on Fig. 4.2. Fig. 4.556 shows the layout of the Roman Augusteum. Fig. 4.657 provides an impression of its remains looking from the east, with the Temple of Diana in the background. These two figures show the 18th century remodelling of the Roman

52 Balty, COL(onia) NEM(ausus), p.62 ff.

53 Roddaz, Marcus Agrippa, p.399.

54 See below Note 60, p.92, for the inscriptions recording the initiative of Augustus at the Augusteum, and CIL 12.3151, for the inscription on the Porta Augusta dated 25 B.C. noting the initiative of Augustus on the town walls and gates.

55 Garmy, P., 'Quelques réflexions sur la romainité augustéenne Nîmoise à la lumière des fouilles recentes', Les Villes augustéennes de Gaule, pp.41-44, also Célie et al, pp.389-396.

56 Gros, P., L'Augusteu' m de Nîmes', RANarb, 17, 1984, pp.123-134, Fig p.126 based on Naumann, R., Der Quellbezirk von Nîmes, Berlin and Leipzig, 1937, Plate 2.

57 Roth-Congès, A., and Gros, P., 'Le Sanctuaire des eaux à Nîmes', Revue Archéologique du Centre de La France, 22, 1983, pp.131-146, Fig. p.137, based on Naumann, R., Der Quellbezirk von Nîmes, Plate 26. - 92 - works58. The theatre, marked on Fig. 4.5, was partly visible before the 18th century remodelling, but new steps up to the Tour Magne obscured it and it has only been partly uncovered since that time59. As can be seen from Fig. 4.6, the main concentration of the remains are at the nymphaeum and the 'Temple of Diana', with little left of the triple portico, and only the foundations of the South Temple.

Two identical inscriptions dated 25 B.C. and indicating dedication to Augustus were found near the sacred fountain, cut to suit the shape of the two exedrae which remain to the south of the basin60. These inscriptions almost certainly indicated the start of the works61, resulting from the visit of Augustus to the West in 27 B.C. The only parts of the complex which can be dated confidently to the Augustan period from the material remains are portions of the nymphaeum and its central platform, excluding the altar itself, which has not survived. This dating is based on dating of mouldings and decoration of the platform and of the bases and capitals of the free-standing columns at its corners, shown on Fig. 4.6. The capitals of these columns have been dated to 10 B.C., or somewhat later. All the other moulded or decorated parts date from about 20-10 B.C. Agrippa, therefore, could have advanced progress on works at the nymphaeum in 19 B.C.62. It is possible that the whole scheme was conceived from the beginning, but there seems to be no information on the dating of the porticoes, since virtually nothing remains of these, although the South Temple on the southern portico is generally regarded as post-Augustan63. Gros argued that the original layout of the 'Temple of Diana', which contains work from many periods, is Augustan64, but this cannot be established beyond doubt, and this dating could be as late as A.D. 14. There is, therefore, no indication that Agrippa may have advanced construction other than at the nymphaeum, which can be dated to the general period of his second visit to Gaul.

58 Rivet, p.168 and Note 22, p.177, for a brief account of the remodelling.

59 Ibid, p.165 and Note 23, p.177, also Notes 69-7.

60 CIL 12, 3148, 9, can be dated to 25 B.C. from known datings of the ninth consulate and the tenth designated consulate of Augustus marked on them.

61 Gros, L'Augusteum, p.129.

62 Roth, Congès and Gros, 'Le sanctuare', pp.132, 138, 140, 142, who provided illustrations of the frieze of the platform, p.139 and the capitals, p.146.

63 Gros, L'Augusteum, p.128 and Notes 48-51.

64 Ibid, p.128 and Notes 44-47. - 93 -

Some kind of pre-Roman altar, dedicated to the deity of the sacred fountain, must have existed at or near the basin, although no trace of such a structure has been discovered. The remaining features from the ancient world are confined to the Roman inscriptions at the two exedrae, parts of the steps there, and the square base near these shown on Fig. 4.5. The masonry of this base has mortared joints indicating Roman work as distinct from local techniques using dry joints. Yet, it is devoid of features showing what stood on it, and it cannot be dated within the Roman period. Grenier suggested that the square base indicated a square Celtic temple of the type seen in parts of Gaul, but it is now thought that there was probably a central altar with statues65 or columns at the corners. In this case, the small base with the altar and the columns was a smaller version of the platform of the nymphaeum with its altar to Rome and Augustus 66. Such a combination would have symbolised the absorption of the cult of Nemausus by the cult of Rome and Augustus, with both the small and the large base as part of the Roman works started in 25 B.C. Another explanation is that the base, the altar and the statues (or columns) were built by Agrippa in 39-37 B.C. when he constructed the Temple of Valetudo at Glanum near the sacred spring there67. An Agrippan base with its altar would have been retained as part of the new Roman works started in 25 B.C., and, perhaps used as a model for the platform of the nymphaeum. The first alternative of both bases being built together provides the simplest explanation of both the square constructions, and is adopted here. Also, it has been argued above that Agrippa acted politically in 39-37 B.C., rather than by works. Construction of the small base and the altar by Agrippa in 19 B.C. can be ruled out since Agrippa would have advanced the work started by Augustus in 25 B.C. rather than build something new.

In the Iberian Peninsula in 19-18 B.C., Agrippa was responsible for providing the theatre at Augusta Emerita68. He could have built a theatre at Nemausus when in Gaul in 19 B.C., introducing a Roman cultural feature at a religious complex. As already noted, there is virtually no exposed material at the theatre and investigations

65 Ibid, p.128 and Note 52 convincingly ruled out the idea of a square Celtic temple, with a square cella and a verandah, as advanced by Grenier, Manuel d'archéologie gallo-romain, Paris, 1960, p.496.

66 Ibid, p.127 for the dedication of the altar of the nymphaeum to Rome and Augustus.

67 See above Chapter 3, pp.79, 80.

68 See below Chapter 8, pp.148-150. - 94 - have not been extensive or sustained. It is known that the orchestra was some 24 m in diameter. There is evidence only of nine rows of seats in four cunei (or divisions) of the cavea (auditorium), and the diameter of the cavea of 38 m, discerned from the remains, may originally have been 85 m69. This latter dimension indicates quite a large theatre of the conventional Roman type and is compatible with the diameter of the orchestra. Yet the theatre could have been of the Gallo-Roman type where there was no standard design, or fixed relationship between the size of the orchestra and the cavea70. The only inscriptions discovered at the theatre are of the 2nd century A.D. 71, perhaps indicating that there was no theatre at the Augusteum until that time. It is not, therefore, possible to suggest that Agrippa built a theatre near the Augusteum. No theatre of the Roman period has yet been discovered in the town.

There is, therefore, some evidence that Agrippa may have advanced work at the nymphaeum of the Augusteum put in hand by Augustus in 26 B.C., but no indication of any other Agrippan works of 19 B.C. Agrippa was in Gaul for only a few months 72. He put down disturbances in Gaul73, and probably built a praetorium at Lyon74. He would, therefore, have had little time to linger at Nemausus, assuming that he passed through there on his way to put down the serious rebellion in N.W. Spain, which was of great political importance to Augustus75. The evidence does not, therefore, indicate any significant Agrippan works in 19 B.C., despite previous assumptions of a major Agrippan role.

(3) THE INSCRIPTIONS BEARING THE NAME OF AGRIPPA As noted above, these were not investigated as works of 39-37 B.C., or 19 B.C. since they cannot be dated. The inscriptions CIL 12 3153 and 4, discovered in the 18th century, have not been assigned to any particular structures by the local

69 Information kindly provide by Professor F. Sear.

70 Bromwich, J., The Roman Remains of Northern and Eastern France, London, 2003, Fig. 20, p.116 and Fig. 42, p.211, indicated the large variations in the relationship between the size of the orchestra and the cavea in the Gallo-.

71 Gros, 'L'Augusteum', pp.130, 131.

72 See above Note 14, p.12.

73 Cassius Dio, 54.11.1.

74 See above Chapter 2, pp.49-50.

75 See below Chapter 6, Notes 3-8, pp.114-5. - 95 - archaeologists. It was not possible for the writer to examine the inscriptions, or to obtain photographs of them from the Musée Archéologique at Nîmes which has them in storage. The incomplete CIL 12 3153: M. AGRIPPA.L.F.C. survives as a single fragment 1.64m long, 0.27m high with a moulding below. The letters are 0.15m high. The inscription was discovered in 1742 in the cellar of a house in the present Rue Thédenat (near the Lycée A. Daudet in the general location of the 'baths' marked on Fig. 4.2 west of the amphitheatre). The incomplete CIL 12 3154: M. AGRIPP survives in two adjacent fragments making up a length of 1.35m with a height of 0.43m and a moulding above. The letters are 0.20m high. CIL 12 3154 was discovered in 1740 in the heaped up debris of the Roman remains to the south of the sacred fountain of Nemausus 76.

CIL 12 3153 can be reconstructed: M(arcus).AGRIPPA.L(ucius).F(ilius).C(os). The final surviving designation could be completed COS III, indicating a date of 19 B.C., following the third Consulate of Agrippa in 27 B.C., or COS DESIG, referring to Agrippa's designation as consul for the first time in 40 B.C.77. Completion of the inscriptions by COS III DAT78 or COS III FECIT79 are, therefore, not necessarily correct. It is conceivable that the M.AGRIPPA was preceded by other letters, as in the case of the Temple of Valetudo at Glanum with its inscription VALETUDINI.M.AGRIPPA80. It is also possible that the inscription does not indicate any action by Agrippa, but was on a structure where Agrippa was named with other members of the Imperial family. In this case, the inscription was almost certainly later than 19 B.C., but probably before the death of Agrippa in 12 B.C. The much less complete CIL 12.3154 may have been on the same building as CIL 12.3153, and, therefore, the same as it, but on a larger scale. On the other hand, it could have been on another building, and, perhaps, of a different date. In either case, the same comments for completing the inscription made for CIL 12.3153 apply.

76 Germier-Durand, E., and F., and Alimer, A., Inscriptions Antiques de Nîmes, Toulouse, 1893, pp.115, No. 63 (CIL 12 .3153), and 117, No. 64 (CIL 12.3154).

77 Ehrenburg & Jones, pp.33, 35.

78 Germier-Durand & Alimer, pp.115, 117.

79 Reinhold, p.91, Note 81.

80 See above Chapter 3, p.70. - 96 -

The discovery of CIL 12.3154 amongst the ruins of the Roman works at the sacred fountain indicates that the building of which the inscription was a part was probably near the place where the inscription was found. CIL 12.3153 was found in a cellar, and had been placed there after removal from some other location. The first recording of this inscription in 1742, or some two years after the discovery of CIL 12.3154, may indicate that CIL 12.3153 was taken from the sacred fountain by a collector. Germier-Durand suggested that both inscriptions may have either come from the same building or from different ones, without indicating a preference for either case81. The house in the present Rue Thédenat, where CIL 12.3153 was discovered, was in the former Rue des Étuves (street of the old steam baths) indicating the remains of the public baths. The ruins of an enormous Roman baths have been found in the area, but cannot be dated. It is known that baths existed at Nemausus in the Tiberian period from the evidence of inscriptions. Since the aqueduct is probably Claudian, these buildings were supplied with water form the sacred fountain82. Baths could, therefore, have been supplied from this source in the Agrippan period and it is possible that CIL 12.3153 came from an Agrippan baths building.

There are so many uncertainties about the inscriptions that it is difficult to form conclusions about the structure or structures to which they were attached. Both were on quite a small building, since the letters do not exceed 20cm in height. Whether they indicate an Agrippan construction or mark him as a member of the Imperial family is unknown. They are almost certainly not from 39-37 B.C.

CONCLUSIONS Agrippa was more probably responsible for Nemausus becoming a colonia Latina in 39-37 B.C. than Tiberius Claudius Nero in 45/44 B.C. It is unlikely that he built anything at Nemausus at that time. If he did so, the only construction which can be related to him is an altar to Nemausus on the square base on the margin of the sacred basin. In 19 B.C., Agrippa may have advanced construction of the nymphaeum of the Augusteum, which had been initiated by Augustus in 26-25 B.C., but there is no

81 Germier-Durand, p.117.

82 Information on the baths is contained in Fabre et al, Le Pont du Gard : Water and the Roman Town, Paris, 1992, p.35, and Fabre et al, L'eau à Nîmes Languedoc, 1994, p.79 and Fig. 39, p.36, showing the locations of the five baths and the numerous wells of Nemausus. - 97 - evidence indicating any other particular work of Agrippa at that time. Also, there is no reason to think that he was responsible for general planning or construction at Nemausus. The two inscriptions bearing the name of Agrippa cannot be dated or related to any structure, and it is possible that they do not indicate construction by him, but were part of something dedicated to the Imperial Cult. The indications of Agrippan construction at Nemausus are, therefore, both uncertain and restricted, pending any reliable interpretation of the two inscriptions referred to in section 3. He can no longer be regarded as an important builder there, as was believed for many years, and until quite recently83. This belief was based on mistaken attribution to Agrippa of the Pont du Gard viaduct and the Maison Carrée, undue imputation of Agrippan activity from the local prominence of his two sons, Gaius and Lucius, and questionable interpretation of the 'crocodile' coins. Also, it is now widely recognised that there is no clear evidence of a general re-organisation of the urban area of the town by Augustus and Agrippa in co-operation, and in which both had a continuing financial interest84. Such widespread commitment would be surprising at a Latin rather than at a Roman colony. Furthermore, Nemausus had the resources to develop the town. Rome would surely have taken initiatives only at works which increased its influence, as at the Augusteum and the Maison Carrée, and, to a lesser extent, at the town walls and gates. Nevertheless, it would have expected the local elite to find as much money as possible to carry forward the works to completion. Also, Agrippa, in Gaul only briefly in 19 B.C., would surely have been little involved in Nemausus, and certainly less than in Lugdunum, where his actions in 39-37 B.C. had been so important for urban development.

83 Roddaz, Marcus Agrippa, pp.399-401.

84 Ibid, p.399, suggested that Augustus and Agrippa were 'sleeping partners' in the re-organisation of the town, therefore implying a continuing financial commitment to work executed by others. - 98 -

5. OTHER AGRIPPAN WORKS IN GAUL

The constructions investigated in this chapter fall into two categories. The first is made up of works which can be imputed to Agrippa from his known activities. These include military works of his known campaigns and structures needed for the operation of his road network, such as road stations. There is no doubt that Agrippa built these campaign and associated road works, but there is little or no physical evidence of them. The second category consists of possible Agrippan works not considered in Chapters 1-4.

(a) WORKS IMPUTED FROM KNOWN AGRIPPAN WORKS , OR ACTIVITIES : Agrippa was directly responsible for the military works of campaigns where he was the general in charge. There is no specific information about Agrippan military operations in Gaul. He won a brilliant victory against the Aquitani in 39/38 B.C. 1, but the location of his operations is unknown, and works have not, therefore, been identified. Agrippa was recalled from across the Rhine2, but nothing is recorded about his operations in the region. Dating of the timbers of a wharf at Cologne to 38 B.C. is the only recorded evidence of his presence3. In late 20 to early 19 B.C., Agrippa was in Gaul putting down disturbances4, but there is no further definite information about these pacifications or about any works for them. The general lack of information in the historical texts and the loss of Agrippa's Commentaries present great difficulties for the archaeologist seeking Agrippan military sites in Gaul. It is unlikely that many remains of these will be discovered, except in N.E. Gaul where there were semi-permanent forts and other defences. Yet, the sum total of Agrippa's military works in Gaul was probably quite large since it resulted from large scale operations. It is not possible to speculate on these works, as is done here in Chapter 6 for the works of Agrippa's pacification of Cantabria in N.W. Spain in 19 B.C.

1 Appian, 5.92.386.

2 Cassius Dio, 48.49.3.

3 See above Chapter 1, Note 75, p.25.

4 Cassius Dio, 54.11. - 99 -

It was argued above that Agrippa used the army to build his road network, and that this construction went hand-in-hand with a re-organisation of the military forces on or near the roads5. Consequently, there was a large scale activity on developing construction camps, other camps, garrisons and forts in a wholesale re-deployment of large forces. These changes must have had a large immediate effect on the areas traversed by the road, and have also led to some permanent influence on development patterns there, and in wider zones. All these constructions were almost certainly in timber or earth, and have, therefore, perished. Even at the Trion site at Lugdunum there are no recorded remains6. Nevertheless, their influence of later development was far reaching. It would be necessary to investigate these constructions separately in order to form more definite opinions about the extent of their influence at particular places.

It can be assumed that any facilities on existing roads used by Agrippa to form his system were inadequate for rapid transmission of intelligence and the movement of military forces to trouble spots. Agrippa, therefore, had to build road stations for changing horses, overnight accommodation (in addition to encampment), stores, workshops for running repairs, etc. Some of these would have been at forts and garrisons. The Peutinger Tables and the Antonine Itinerary show the locations of some of the road stations of the Empire. There was an average distance between them of some 20-30 kms7. While the Agrippan stations may have not always been at these locations, the average distance between them was probably similar, being dictated by the practical aspects of travel. In this case, there would have been between 60 and 90 road stations on the Agrippan network, exclusive of the road south from Lugdunum. There seems to be no archaeological information on road stations in Gaul as early as 39-37 B.C., but there is evidence of construction from about 30 B.C. to A.D. 240 at the of the Great St. Bernard Pass. Here there were not only two large buildings in timber on lower walling of stone, but also a stone temple8. Most of Agrippa's road stations were not so large, but they made up a substantial amount of construction. Furthermore, many of these nodes on the first

5 See above Chapter 1, Noes 128-133, p.33, 4.

6 See above Chapter 2, p.44, for the construction camp on the Trion.

7 Chevallier, Les voies romaines, pp.281-4.

8 Ibid, p.288 and Fig. 185, showing the Mansio. - 100 -

Roman road network must have become the nuclei of later settlement9. Since the Agrippan constructions associated with the Agrippan roads are lost, while at least the routes of the roads remain, the constructions have been largely overlooked. Yet there were so many of them that, together, they had a major influence on the development pattern in large parts of Gallia Comata, whereas the camps, garrisons and forts affected particular places.

(b) WORKS WHICH MAY BE AGRIPPAN: § Arelate: Arelate (Arles) has been noted as a port through which Agrippa brought in supplies in 39-37 B.C.10. The main reason for examining Arelate is, therefore, to assess possible works by Agrippa at its port, although Agrippa could also have been responsible for construction at the town. As can be seen from Fig. 3.1, Arelate was some 100 km N.W. of Massilia, the site of the ancient Greek colony. It was on the Rhône, and connected to the Mediterranean by the Canal of Marius, built in about 100 B.C.11. Massilia controlled the canal and a Greek settlement at Arelate until the conflict between Caesar and Pompey in which Massilia supported Pompey12. Caesar built ships at Arelate for his successful siege of Massilia13. Arelate was founded as a Roman colony by Tiberius Claudius Nero on behalf of Caesar in 46 B.C. at the same time as he founded the colony of Narbo14. Arelate was, therefore, one of the oldest Roman colonies in Gaul, the gateway to the Rhône, and destined to overshadow Massilia.

Fig. 5.115 shows Arelate in the Empire, with the port area west of the Rhône and the town to the east. The first works at the town were on a grid to which the forum and theatre were aligned, but the amphitheatre, built after the forum and the theatre16, was

9 Woolf, Becoming Roman, p.88, noted the great importance of the Roman road network in shaping the settlement pattern of Gaul.

10 See above Chapter 3, p.80.

11 Vella, C., Leveau, P., et al, 'Le Canal de Marius et les dynamiques littorales du Gulfe de Fos', Gallia, 56, 1999, pp.131-136.

12 Rivet, p.190 and Note 2.

13 Caesar, BC, 1.36, stated that twelve ships were built in 30 days.

14 Suetonius, Tiberius, 4.1.

15 Rivet, Fig. 22, p.192.

16 Ibid, p.195 and Note 34, p.207, indicated a possible Flavian dating. - 101 - orientated differently. The (pontoon) bridge, shown on Fig. 5.1, almost certainly did not exist in the Agrippan period17, and there is no evidence of a fixed bridge at this time. In this case, transfer across the Rhône was by boat. The town has been extensively investigated for its general history and development in the Roman period18. Gros has also considered the evidence for an Augustan programme of works there which he related to other Roman works both before and after19.

The forum was built on sloping ground. It was, therefore, necessary to construct a cryptoporticus to provide a level surface for the forum and its columns. Fig. 5.220 shows the general layout of the large structure, 240 m long and 12 m wide. Fig. 5.321 indicates the construction of vaults supported on exterior walls and piers connected by arches. Amy has described the building22. This utilitarian type of work could be dated to 46 B.C. or later in the absence of decoration other than cornices. There is evidence of a sanctuary of the Imperial Cult in the north of the cryptoporticus from the discovery of detached marble fragments. These have been identified as a representation of the clipeus virtutis offered to Augustus in 27 B.C.23 and a bust which may represent either Gaius, son of Agrippa, or the young Octavian24. The second interpretation would indicate a visit to Arelate by Octavian when he was in Gaul in 39 B.C.25 and, also, possible construction of some or all of the cryptoporticus at that time, with the sanctuary added after 27 B.C. A bust depicting Gaius would still not rule out such a construction chronology. The sparse remains of the forum

17 The bridge was sited to provide the most direct route to the amphitheatre from across the river. There seems to be no text mentioning it in the early Empire and the mosaic of it at Ostia in the Piazzale of the Corporations is probably of the 2nd century A.D. (Ward-Perkins, J.B., Roman Imperial Architecture, Yale, 1983, p.143).

18 Rivet, pp.100-196, and Heijmans, M. & Sintes, C., 'L'évolution de la topographie de l'Arles antique. Un état de la question, Gallia, 51, 1992, pp.135-170.

19 Gros, P., 'Un programme augustéen: ' Le centre monumental de la colonie d'Arles', Jdi, 102, 1987, Berlin, pp.339-363.

20 Bromwich, The Roman Remains of Southern France, Fig. 51.

21 Coulon, Les gallo-romains, Paris, 1985, Photograph p.39.

22 Amy, R., 'Les cryptoportiques dans l'architecture romaine', CEFR, 14, 1973, 275 ff.

23 RG 34 and Gros, 'Un programme augustéen … ', p.346, Note 33.

24 Gros, 'Un programme augustéen …', pp.346-50, for the marble fragments and the sanctuary, and Note 41, p.349 for the bust.

25 Appian, 5.75.318, as interpreted by Roddaz, Marcus Agrippa, p.66, Note 203, for evidence of the visit. - 102 - above the cryptoporticus have been dated no earlier than 26 B.C.26. The archaeological evidence is congruent with a cryptoporticus construction of 46 B.C., or later, irrespective of the sanctuary dating. There is, therefore, a possibility of Agrippan works on the cryptoporticus in 39-37 B.C.

Fig. 5.427 shows the principal surviving part of the theatre built on the same grid as the cryptoporticus. This large structure, with a cavea (auditorium) diameter of 102m28 was built on virtually level ground with the cavea supported on substructures. The project was, therefore, much more extensive than that for a theatre built on a hillside, as at Lugdunum or Nemausus. Such a large theatre in stone is not to be expected at Arelate in 39-37 B.C. since, even at Rome, the first stone theatre of Pompey, dedicated in 55 B.C., was not joined by others in stone until some 40 years later29. Also, the remains of the surviving theatre indicate construction predominantly from about 25-10 B.C., with some earlier work, which cannot be dated confidently as early as 39-37 B.C.30. Agrippa could have built a timber theatre at that time with some stone supports which were incorporated in the later work, but this possibility is purely speculative.

Nothing is known for certain about the nature, extent, or dating of works in the town built before or with the forum and the theatre, although Gros discerned from the extent of constructions that these were begun on foundation31. Also, there is little definite information about the location of the walls, as shown on Fig. 5.1. The 'Arch of Constantine' and the Arcus Admirablis, both shown on Fig. 5.1, probably marked the original pomerium, but neither now remain, and the first stone

26 Gros, 'Un programme augustéen …', Fig. 3, showing a cornice from the forum and pp.343-348, for the dating of this in relation to other remains at Arelate.

27 Ibid, Fig. 10, p.351.

28 Rivet, p.194, pointing out the 103m diameter of the theatre at Orange and the 102m diameter of the theatre at Arelate.

29 Cassius Dio, 39.38, for the dedication of the theatre of Pompey at Rome in 55 B.C., Cassius Dio, 54.25, for the dedication of the theatre of 'Balbus Minor' there in 13 B.C.

30 Gros, 'Un programme augustéen', pp.343-348, also Heilmeyer, W.D., Korinthische Normalkapitelle, Studien der Geschichte der römischen Architecturdekoration, Heidelberg, 1970, p.112, and Tafel 7, 2 and 3.

31 Gros, 'Un programme augustéen', p.342. - 103 - construction there cannot be dated, although this has been described as 'Octavianic' by Rivet32.

There is, therefore, an indication from the archaeology of possible Agrippan works of 39-37 B.C. at the cryptoporticus of the forum, and perhaps at a first theatre. Other early works for which Agrippa may have been responsible at the town or for the walls and gates cannot be identified or dated. Nevertheless, it is unlikely that Agrippa built anything in the town, as distinct from at the port, unless it was related to the logistics of his supplies. In 19 B.C. Agrippa could have advanced construction at the existing theatre and the forum, or elsewhere, which had been initiated by Augustus during his visit to the West in 27 B.C., as has been argued for the nymphaeum at Nemausus in Chapter 4. Yet, Agrippa was active in other parts of Gaul during his six months there, as discussed above. There is, therefore, little possibility of Agrippa being responsible for any significant building at the town of Arelate in 19 B.C., even if he visited it and did not go to Hispania on the Via Domitia through Nemausus.

Improvements at or near the port dating from 39-37 B.C. must, therefore, be the focus of investigation of Agrippan works. Agrippa could obtain substantial general supplies from southern Gaul, but much of the specialised military equipment could probably be acquired only from Italy33. Since Agrippa's military forces in Gaul in 39-37 B.C. were substantial, and were largely recruited there34, large quantities of military supplies had, therefore, to be brought in as goods. Fig. 5.1 shows only one wharf, which was on the west bank, but wharves existed on the east bank near the baths, shown on Fig. 5.1, in the Roman period, although the dates of their construction are unknown35. Agrippa's supplies up the valley of the Rhône to Lugdunum and beyond could be taken by river craft, or by road on the east bank, shown on Fig. 5.1. The Rhône could not always be used for upstream traffic 36. As noted already37, the shown on Fig. 5.1 almost certainly did not exist in

32 Rivet, pp.191-3, and Notes 12-21, and Heijman's & Sintes, pp.48, 49.

33 King, Roman Gaul, p.116.

34 Roddaz, Marcus Agrippa, p.70 and Note 217, and above, p.81 and Note 15.

35 Heijmans & Sintes, Fig. 6, p.143 and p.147.

36 Strabo, 4.1.14.

37 See above Note 17, p.101. - 104 - the Agrippan period. Agrippa, therefore, needed a wharf on the east bank for direct trans-shipment on to the road to Lugdunum in order to avoid barging across the river. Such a wharf would have been strictly secured because of the military goods handled there. Agrippa would almost certainly have been obliged to build a new one, even if one already existed. Large shipments brought in by sea had to be safely stored pending further movement in smaller lots. A cryptoporticus within the town walls was an ideal storage place, and, also, needed to develop a level base for the forum. It is, therefore, possible that Agrippa and the town authorities co-operated in building or augmenting the capacity of a cryptoporticus.

It can, therefore, be concluded that Agrippa probably built at the port and at the cryptoporticus in 39-37 B.C., but that he built nothing else at the town at that time, or in 19 B.C.

§ Forum Iulii: Forum Iulii (modern Fréjus) was located not far from the coast of the Mediterranean near the eastern border of Gallia Narbonensis, and some 200 kms east of Arelate. The name Forum Iulii appears first in a letter dated 43 B.C. from Munatius Plancus to Cicero, without description or explanation of the name, indicating it as an established place, but with no reference to a colony38. It probably did not become one until after Actium39. It had a port formed from a natural lagoon, which may have been further developed because of the struggle for mastery of the sea between Octavian and Sextus Pompey40, since it was far from the main base of Pompey in Sicily, and provided shelter at a time when most of the west coast of Italy was without harbours41. The fleet used by Agrippa to defeat Sextus Pompey was built principally at a new artificial port created by Agrippa in the Bay of Naples using Lakes Lucrinus and Avernus42. Ships were also constructed in many parts of

38 Cicero, Ad fam, 10.15.3.

39 Rivet, p.226, suggested foundation in 35 or 27 B.C. based on various texts of Tacitus and . Gascou, J., in 'Quand la Colonie de Fréjus fut elle fondée?', in Latomus 41, 1982, pp.132-142, p.144 suggested the period after Actium, and probably from 31-27 B.C. Gros, 'Un programme augustéen', at p.362, indicated foundation by Octavian in about 31 B.C.

40 See above Note 10, p.2, for Sextus Pompey.

41 Cassius Dio, 48.49.1-2.

42 See below Chapter 11, Note 18, p.211. - 105 -

Italy43, and Forum Iulii was very close to Italy. Agrippa may, therefore, have built vessels at Forum Iulii. Roddaz considered this possibility, but rejected it on the grounds of insufficient archaeological evidence44. Yet ships were constructed on timber slipways, and it was necessary only to have timber moorings and a few sheds, also in timber. Such works would have perished. There is some evidence of remains under buildings of the Augustan period in the port area45, although this does not necessarily indicate shipbuilding. The possibility of Agrippan shipbuilding at Forum Iulii in 39-37 B.C. is, therefore, based entirely on imputation from the general history.

Tacitus said that Italy was guarded by two fleets, one on each seaboard, and based at Misenum and . He also described Forum Iulii as defending the near coast of Gaul, and stated that Octavian had sent warships captured at Actium there strongly manned46. Strabo described Forum Iulii as an Augustan port of size similar to Massilia, and stated that these two places provided the only important harbours on this part of the coast47. It can, therefore, be presumed that a naval station was built at Forum Iulii after Actium. Fig. 5.548 shows Forum Iulii in the Empire with a port area of 20 hectares connected to the coastline by a canal. The sea has now receded. It can be assumed that the ships from Actium were brought into a small harbour from which the large harbour was formed. This harbour was flanked by two port constructions on natural eminences, at the Butte St. Antoine to the west, and La Plate-forme to the north. The first was probably the base of the commander of the fleet, and the second the residence of the governor of the province49. The harbour constructions shown on Fig. 5.5 have been dated to the general period 31-14 B.C. by Février50. Some traces of foundations and a workshop from an earlier period were found under the port

43 Cassius Dio, 48, 49.1-2.

44 Roddaz, Marcus Agrippa, p.74 and Notes 232-4.

45 See below Note 51, p.106.

46 Tacitus, Annales, 4.5.

47 Strabo, 4.1.9-10.

48 Rivet, Fig. 29, p.227.

49 Ibid, p.228 and Notes 18 and 19.

50 Février, P.A., 'Fouilles à la citadelle méridionale de Forum Iulii (Fréjus, Var) en 1955', Gallia 14, 1956, pp.35-53, with summary of dating on p.53; also 'Fouilles à la plate-forme de Forum Iulii', Gallia 20, 1962, Fasicule 1, pp.176-203, p.203. - 106 - works at the Butte St. Antoine 51. Agrippa, as admiral of the fleet at Actium, would surely have made the decision to send captured ships to Forum Iulii. This indicates his prior knowledge of that port, and strengthens the hypothesis of his building ships there in 39-37 B.C. As naval victor and the builder of Portus Iulius, Agrippa would have been consulted on the layout, design and facilities of naval bases, and would, therefore, have been involved in the development of that at Forum Iulii.

Agrippa was, therefore, the 'father' of the naval base at Forum Iulii, and the planner and builder of it to an extent presently unknown, but which may come to light from further investigations. Nevertheless, it is almost certain that Agrippa would have visited the base under construction, especially since it was almost in Italy. The construction of the naval base must have prompted new constructions at the town itself, but there is no indication that Agrippa was responsible for any works at the town from what is presently understood about these 52.

CONCLUSIONS Agrippan works at road stations, forts and garrisons, in association with the construction and operation of his road network, were substantial, and more influential in the development of Gallia Comata than any of his other works, except his roads. Agrippa's military works remain unknown pending possible discovery. Agrippa may have built at Arelate in 39-37 B.C. to handle his supplies, and at Forum Iulii in the same period for shipbuilding. He certainly planned, and, perhaps, supervised the construction of a naval base at Forum Iulii after Actium.

It is possible that Agrippa built elsewhere in Gaul, and that the evidence for this is lost. Yet there is little reason to impute such works since construction of the first form of the Agrippan road network and his other activities would have occupied most of his time in Gaul in 39-37 B.C., and he had less opportunity to build there in 19 B.C. Any constructions, other than those listed in Chapters 1 to 5, were probably at urban centres such as Vienne, Orange, Narbonne, Beziers, Toulouse, etc. Nevertheless, these were almost certainly not major works.

51 Février, Gallia 14, 1956, Fasicule 1, Goudineau, C., (Informations archéologiques), Gallia 33, 1975, p.562 and Goudineau (Informations archéologiques), Gallia, 35, 1997, Fasicule 2, p.498.

52 Rivet, pp.228-230, provided a brief account of Roman works at Fréjus. - 107 -

AGRIPPAN WORKS IN GAUL : CONCLUSIONS

Agrippa's main tasks in Gaul in 39-37 B.C. were to establish order, and to institute a framework of strategic control. The only remaining material evidence of his military actions is at Cologne, where timbers of a wharf dated to 38 B.C., indicate that he crossed the Rhine for unknown operations in Germania. Nevertheless, Agrippa must have been responsible for other military constructions in N.E. Gaul, and, also, in Aquitania, where he conducted a military campaign. These works may yet be found. Agrippa's most important construction in 39-37 B.C. was his road network radiating from Lugdunum to the Atlantic Ocean, the English Channel, the Rhine, and southern Gaul. Agrippa formed this principally from existing roads, since he could not otherwise create an effective system before he left the territory. Agrippa's road construction went hand in hand with a reorganisation of military forces. Larger units were broken down into mobile detachments stationed on or near his road network. This was used to convey intelligence of insurrection and for response by the security forces travelling along it. Agrippa's road network, with its road stations and military installations, formed the framework for the much larger Roman road system and was a major influence on the development of Gallia Comata in the Roman period. The creation of the road network radiating from Lugdunum made this town the strategic centre of control in Gallia Comata, and started the process of its conversion into the virtual capital of that large territory. Agrippa built at Lugdunum to establish his road junction there, and he improved port facilities for his supplies brought in by river. Agrippa probably constructed some buildings at the urbs quadrata established by Munatius Plancus on the plateau of La Sarra when he founded Lugdunum in 43 B.C. Agrippa's construction of the small Temple of Valetudo at Glanum in 39-37 B.C. was, almost certainly, related to his mobilisation of military forces and supplies in a region not far from the port of Arelate and near the Via Domitia. Agrippa may have improved port facilities at Arelate and have built at the cryptoporticus of the forum to store his supplies brought in by sea. Agrippa probably adapted the existing port of Forum Iulii to build ships for the naval contest with Sextus Pompey, and, after Actium, he certainly selected Forum Iulii as the site of a naval station and was concerned with its planning, and, possibly, with its construction. - 108 -

Agrippa was in Gaul from late 20 B.C. to the first quarter of 19 B.C., initially putting down disturbances in the north-east. None of his military constructions have yet been identified positively, but the first at Trier has been dated to the general period, and road works were associated with it. At Lugdunum, Agrippa was almost certainly responsible for the construction of a praetorium at the Cybele site, and, possibly, for setting in hand a major programme of urban expansion, including first planning and building of aqueducts. Agrippa was, perhaps, responsible for the start of works at a new forum yet to be identified, and at the existing theatre where the first works have not yet been dated. The first of the four aqueducts to be built was the Mont d'Or and Agrippa may have been responsible for construction of it if there had already been aqueduct planning by 19 B.C. If there had been no such planning, Agrippa would have been the 'father' of all the aqueducts as a general urban planner. Agrippa has generally been regarded as an important builder at Nemausus in 19 B.C., but this opinion can no longer be supported. Agrippa may have been responsible for advancing works at the Augusteum started by Augustus in 27 B.C., but there is no clear evidence of any other possible Agrippan construction in 19 B.C.

Agrippa, therefore, built in Gaul in 39-37 B.C. rather than in 19 B.C. He was also a builder of strategic works rather than of urban monuments. Furthermore, his road network, the largest and most influential of his constructions, was, essentially, an instrument of Roman expansion into a large territory previously conquered but little organised by Rome. These conclusions represent a new interpretation of Agrippa in Gaul, replacing that in which Agrippa was seen to have been active mainly in 19 B.C., and predominantly at Nemausus. The new interpretation results from a focus on Agrippan constructions, consideration of these as instruments of policy, and, in the case of the Agrippan roads, an engineering analysis of Agrippa's response to an engineering problem.

- 109 -

- 110 -

- 111 -

HHIISSPPAANNIIAA

INTRODUCTION The Romans controlled the whole of the Iberian Peninsula south of the Pyrenees, now Spain and . Here, the peninsula is referred to as 'Hispania', since this word was used by the Romans 1, and it automatically includes both modern states. Fig. C2 shows the main geographical features with modern names. Portugal occupies a strip of land some 170 km wide along the western seaboard from the south to the River Miño.

The Romans acted first in Hispania in 218 B.C. after the 1st Punic War because of the invasion of Italy by from the peninsula and a request from the native population for help against the Carthaginians. These were expelled from Hispania by the Romans in the 2nd Punic War ending in 206 B.C. The Senate created the first provincia, named Hispania, in 218 B.C.3, and the provinciae of the 'Two ' of Hispania Citerior (nearer Spain) and (further Spain) in 197 B.C.4. Under the terms of the constitutional settlement of 27 B.C., Augustus was to take charge of the whole of the peninsula, except for Hispania Ulterior, which was to be under the control of the Senate and the people5. The division of Hispania into three provinces of the Empire with Baetica as the old Hispania Ulterior, which resulted ultimately from this, is shown in Fig. D6. The change may have originated from the visit of Augustus to the West in 16-13 B.C.7. By 27 B.C., there was no serious resistance to Roman rule, except in the North-West. Augustus campaigned in this region in 26-25 B.C., but rebellion continued, and, in 19 B.C., Agrippa was brought

1 Augustus, RG 26, referred to the 'Two Spains'. Pliny used 'Hispania' exclusively, although Strabo, 4.4.19, noted that the Greek based word Iberia, referring originally to the coastal area of the North-East, was sometimes applied to other parts of the peninsula.

2 Richardson, J.S., Hispaniae, Cambridge, 1986, p.12, Fig. 1.

3 Livy, 21.17.1.

4 Ibid, 32.27.6.

5 Cassius Dio, 53.12.

6 Keay, S.J., Roman Spain, London, 1988, Map p.61.

7 Cassius Dio, 54.23, for the visit of Augustus to Hispania, also see below Chapter 6, Notes 72, 73, p.124. - 112 - in to put down the last resistance in the Cantabrian territory8. Roman control in 19 B.C. was based on the coloniae (mainly in the east and the south), relationships with native and Punic towns and road communication. There was ample scope for the extension of Roman influence in the West and in the centre9.

The circumstances of Agrippa's move from Gaul to Hispania are not entirely clear. Cassius Dio said that he was sent to Gaul to put down disturbances there, and , having done so, travelled to Hispania to quell a serious rebellion in the North-West10. It is not known whether Agrippa was programmed to go to Hispania when he left Rome. He probably arrived in Hispania in spring, or early summer, 19 B.C.11. His campaign in Cantabria was difficult, and it almost certainly continued into the winter of that year. Agrippa received renewal of his proconsulare for another five years with the receipt of the tribunicia potestas for the first time in Rome in 18 B.C., and probably in early July12. There is no information on Agrippa’s movements between Hispania and Rome, but if he travelled directly, he probably left the Iberian Peninsula in spring or early summer of 18 B.C., having been there for about a year. Agrippa provided the theatre at Augusta Emerita, marked on Fig. D as Emerita, which was dedicated in 16-15 B.C., and it is argued here that he was responsible for major urban planning there in addition to some other construction. Inscriptions or coins at urban centres, notably, Gades and Carthago Nova, shows that he was active there, and he is seen here to have founded Caesaraugusta (Zaragoza). Roddaz suggested that Agrippa made a tour of Hispania 13. He had time to do this, and it might be expected, since Augustus had campaigned in the North-West in 26 B.C., but had retired ill to in 25 B.C.14, and there is no evidence that he went anywhere else in Hispania. In 19/18 B.C., his son-in-law could review the situation in the peninsula, and act for

8 See below Chapter 6, Notes 3-11, pp.114, 5.

9 Richardson, Hispaniae, for development from 218-82 B.C., Richardson, The Romans in Spain, Oxford, 1996, pp.9-149, for the period from first Roman contact to the end of the Augustan principate, and also Keay, Roman Spain, pp.25-71, and Curchin, L.A., Roman Spain : Conquest and Assimilation, London, 1991, pp.7-54.

10 Cassius Dio, 54.11.

11 Roddaz, Marcus Agrippa, p.638, also Note 14, p.12.

12 Cassius Dio, 54.12.4-5 and Reinhold, p.98 and Note 3.

13 Roddaz, Marcus Agrippa, pp. 405, 6 and Note 154.

14 Cassius Dio, 53.25. - 113 - him in accordance with his overall policy. Agrippa had a geographical survey made in Hispania15, and it is possible that he made some personal contribution to this during a tour of the peninsula.

There was, therefore, a first phase of Agrippan activity in Cantabria. This included a major military campaign for which there were important military constructions. Agrippa may have ordered that other works be built in the region, including road works connecting it to the other parts of the Roman domain. A first chapter is set aside for the pacification and the aftermath of this. Three chapters are needed for Augusta Emerita. In the first of these, the origin of the town is described, together with Agrippa's part in its development. The second chapter is devoted to a description of the theatre, which is by far the largest and best preserved Agrippan building in the West. Possible other Agrippan constructions at the town are investigated in the third chapter. The last chapter on Hispania is set aside for investigation of Agrippan activity at other urban centres. The chapters on Hispania are, therefore:

6. North-West Hispania 7. Agrippa at Augusta Emerita (Mérida) 8. The Theatre at Augusta Emerita : Agrippan Works 9. Possible Agrippan Works at Augusta Emerita 10. Possible Agrippan Constructions at Urban Centres Other Than Augusta Emerita.

There is a short section after Chapter 9 in which conclusions are drawn about Augusta Emerita from Chapters 7, 8 and 9. The concluding section on Hispania after Chapter 10 includes consideration of Agrippan works other than those which are examined in Chapters 6 to 10.

15 Dilke. O.A.W., Greek and Roman Maps, Baltimore, 1998, pp.42, 4 and 7 - 114 -

6. NORTH-WEST HISPANIA

As noted in the Introduction to Hispania, Augustus campaigned in the North-West in 26-25 B.C. to bring this region into the Roman domain1, but this was not achieved until 19 B.C. by Agrippa2. The constructions for this military operation are investigated in a first section. Possible Agrippan works in the aftermath of the campaign are investigated separately in a following section. The findings of these two sections are brought together in a conclusion.

1. THE CAMPAIGN Agrippa was directly responsible for all the constructions of his large scale campaign in N.W. Hispania in 19 B.C. None of these has, as yet, been identified from their material remains. The enquiry in this section is, therefore, directed to describing the Agrippan works from historical texts and the circumstantial evidence to the extent that this is possible.

(a) POLITICS AND TEXTS: The supposed pacification by Augustus in 25 B.C. was surrounded by much publicity. Augustus had closed the Precinct of in 27 B.C.3 to signify peace through victory throughout the Roman world after Actium. He opened it before his campaigns in Hispania4 and closed it in 25 B.C. after them5. This closure also acknowledged military success in Gaul, but Augustus had the title bestowed on him, and a triumph was decreed. He refused the triumph, but accepted the right to wear both his victor’s and a triumphal costume on the first day of the year6. Augustus also included the Cantabrian campaign in the final pages of his autobiography7. He, therefore, intended to portray his campaigns as a major

1 Cassius Dio, 53.25.

2 Ibid, 54.11.

3 Ibid, 51.20.

4 , The Seven Books of History Against the Pagans, 6.21.1.

5 RG 13, Cassius Dio, 53-27, Orosius, 6.21.11.

6 Cassius Dio, 53.26.5.

7 Suetonius, Aug 85. - 115 - achievement which was to be remembered8. Rebellion erupted in the North-West in 24 B.C.9, again in 22 B.C.10, and, finally, in 19 B.C. causing Agrippa to be brought in for a true pacification. Augustus ordered the senate to vote a triumph for Agrippa, but he refused it11, as Augustus almost certainly expected12. acknowledged Agrippa’s victory13, and , writing at the end of the 1st century A.D., said that both Augustus and Agrippa subjugated the North-West in separate campaigns, although he also credited Augustus with complete pacification14. Florus 15 and Orosius16 gave the entire credit of conquering N.W. Hispania to Augustus in his campaigns of 26/25 B.C. Florus wrote in the Hadrianic period, probably from a lost epitome of Livy, a contemporary source, but composed some 30 years after the evidence, and, perhaps, also using the autobiography of Augustus 17. The text of Orosius is from the early A.D., and is based either on that of Florus or a common source18. Neither Florus nor Orosius mentioned any campaigns after those of Augustus in 26/25 B.C. Cassius Dio, writing in the Severan period, provided the only surviving account of Agrippa’s campaign19. Cassius Dio also described those of Augustus in 26/25 B.C. (in a telescoped account of one year)20, the revolt of 24 B.C. which followed almost immediately after21, and the more serious

8 Gruen, E.S., ‘The Imperial Policy of Augustus’, Rauflaub, K., and Toher, M., Eds., Between Republic and Empire, Berkeley, 1990, pp.395-416, at p.401.

9 Cassius Dio, 53.29.

10 Ibid, 54.5.

11 Ibid, 54.11.

12 Reinhold, p.93, suggested that Agrippa wanted to discourage triumphs other than for the princeps. This motive must be accepted in addition to that of prudence.

13 Horace, , 1.12, 26-27.

14 Velleius Paterculus, Compendium of Roman History, 2.90.1 and 2.90.4.

15 Florus, Epitome of Roman History, 2.33.46-60.

16 Orosius, 6.21, 1-11.

17 Syme, R, ‘The Conquest of North-West Spain’, Roman Papers.2, Oxford, 1979, pp.825-854, p.827 and Note 3, and Roddaz, Marcus Agrippa, p.403 and Note 100.

18 Syme, p.827, noted that Florus and Orosius exhibit close parallels in language as well as in matter and structure.

19 Cassius Dio, 54.11.

20 Ibid, 53.25.

21 Ibid, 53.29. - 116 - one of 22 B.C.22. His texts seem to provide a true chronology. Cassius Dio also mentioned a campaign earlier than 23 B.C., but this is disregarded here23. In fact, the recordings of the various campaigns were influenced by the politics. Since the princeps was involved personally writers would want to say what he had done, but they had to be careful about what they wrote24 and could not generally be expected to give a plain account of the limited pacification achieved by the princeps. A true account of the Agrippan actions must, therefore, be sought from a critical reading of surviving texts and from the circumstantial evidence.

The account by Cassius Dio of the Agrippan campaign of 19 B.C.25 is quoted in full … ‘When he had restored these situations to order, he travelled to Spain. In that province it appears that the Cantabri, who had been captured in the recent campaign and sold into slavery, had in every instance killed their masters, returned home and persuaded many of their compatriots to join their uprising. With the help of these they had seized a number of positions and fortified them, and were making plans to attack the Roman garrisons. Agrippa took the field against these rebels, but he also had to overcome some difficulties with his own troops. Not a few of them were well on in years and had been worn out by continuous active service; they feared that the Cantabri would prove a difficult enemy to subdue, and were unwilling to follow Agrippa’s orders. However, partly by remonstrating with them, partly by encouraging them, and partly by giving them fresh hopes, he soon succeeded in winning their obedience. But in spite of this he suffered many reverses in his operations against the Cantabri. Not only had his opponents gained much practical experience through having been enslaved by the Romans, but they had also abandoned any hope that their lives would be spared if they were captured. However, in the end Agrippa prevailed. He lost many of his men, and degraded many more because of the defeats they suffered: for example he gave orders that the entire legion which had been known as the Augustan should be deprived of its name. But he killed almost all of the enemy who were of military age, disarmed the others, and compelled them to come down from their fortresses and live in the plains. Yet he sent no report

22 Ibid, 54.5.

23 Ibid, 51.20. Statilius Taurus campaigned in 29 B.C., but this was described by Cassius Dio as insufficient to disturb the closure of the Precinct of Janus.

24 Richardson, The Romans in Spain, p.134.

25 Cassius Dio, 54.11. - 117 - concerning the Cantabri to the Senate, nor did he accept a triumph, even through one was voted on Augustus’s orders.’

The text indicated that Agrippa penetrated the upland areas and eliminated resistance there, but it is not possible to discern any particular Agrippan manoeuvres, and there are no place names. Cassius Dio omitted these from his account of the earlier campaigns, with one exception26. His reticence in describing the various campaigns may, perhaps, be explained by his role as a general historian. Yet, Cassius Dio described the operations of Agrippa and Octavian against Sextus Pompey in the struggle to control the Mediterranean in some detail, although Octavian failed and Agrippa was successful27. Perhaps he was even-handed about Agrippa and Octavian, but not specific about the campaigns from 26-19 B.C. in case this reflected badly on Augustus as the first princeps of the established state. His general account recorded what was already known about the incomplete pacification of Augustus without disturbing the politically correct by explicit description of military operations28.

(b) THE REGION AND THE MILITARY OPERATIONS: Fig. 6.129 shows the North-West and an enlargement of the territory of the Cantabri. The text of Cassius Dio mentioned no ocall people other than the Cantabri. The had been pacified in the campaign of 22 B.C., but the Cantabri had not been subjugated completely30. Agrippa’s campaign was, therefore, directed only against the Cantabri, and probably only in their territory. The Cantabri were a separate people with their principal town at Iuliobriga31. Fig. 6.2 32 shows the modern centres, with Santander at Portus Victoriae, Aradillos near Aracillum, and Reinòsa some

26 Ibid, 25.7. mentioned Lancia.

27 Ibid, 49.1-11.

28 Reinhold, M. and Swan, P.M. ‘Cassius Dio’s assessment of Augustus’, Between Republic and Empire, pp.155-173, and Gabba, E., ‘The Historians and Augustus’, Millar, F. and Segal, E., Eds., Caesar Augustu: Seven Aspects, Oxford, 1984, pp.61-88, for possible interpretations of the texts of Cassius Dio in relation to Augustus.

29 Based on Diego Santos, F. ‘Die Integration Nord und Nordwestspaniens als römische Provinz in der Reichspolitik des Augustus’, ANRW 2.3, 1975, pp.524-571, Abb. 1, p.527.

30 Cassius Dio, 54.5.

31 Strabo, 3.4.20, and Pliny, 3.21, 26-27. Roddaz, Marcus Agrippa, p.406 and Notes 106-8.

32 Syme, Roman Papers, 2, pp.825-834, Map 3. - 118 -

2,500 metres north of Juliobriga (modern Retortillo)33. There is a pass through Aradillos and Reinòsa down to the valley of the Pisuerga, which provides by far the best route from the coast across the mountains to the south. This route split the territory of the Cantabri in two, and Roman control of the sea provided the opportunity to land troops from Gaul on the coast to meet those advancing from the South.

The importance of the central corridor is seen from the texts of Florus and Orosius describing the campaigns of 26/25 B.C. Both accounts begin with operations against the Cantabri, as distinct from the Astures. Augustus divided his forces, attacking Cantabria into three columns. The central one of these was directed towards Aracillum, modern Aradillos, moving up the valley of the Pisuerga through Vellica. There is no doubt about the identity of Aracillum since Florus and Orosius named this Aracelium and Racilium respectively. For Vellica Florus had Bergida and Orosius Attica, but there is little doubt that both are really Velica, and near modern Velilla 34. There was a siege at Mons Vindius. The location of this is uncertain but it may be in the general area as shown on Fig. 6.135. Nothing is known for certain about the routes of the other two Roman columns except that one was to the west of the central corridor and one to the east36. Both Florus and Orosius said that Aracillum was taken, and described a fight under the walls of Vellica with the survivors fleeing to Mons Vindius. Only Orosius described a siege that starved out the Cantabri from this position37. Orosius said that the Roman fleet was used to bring in troops at a late stage when the Roman forces were exhausted38. Florus mentioned only assistance by the fleet with no mention of troops, and suggested that it was used as part of the initial strategy39.

33 Solana Sainz, J.M., Los Cántabros y la ciudad de Iuliobriga, Santander, 1981, p.145.

34 Florus, 2.33, 49; Orosius, 6.21.4, 5. Syme, pp.835, 6 and Le Roux, P., L’armée romaine et l’organisation des provinces Ibériques d’Auguste à l’invasion de 409, Paris, 1982, p.65 and Note 248 for identification of Vellica, Also, Ramírez Sádaba, J.L., ‘La toponimia de la guerra. Utilizacíon y utilidad’, Almagro -Gorbea, M., Pres., Las Guerras Cántabras, Santander, 1999, pp.173-199, p.184.

35 Ramírez Sadaba, 'La Toponimía …', pp.182 and 185.

36 Santos Yanguas, N., La conquista romana del N.O. de la Péninsule Ibérica’, Latomus, 41, 1982, pp.5-49, pp.18 ff, for a discussion of the alternative routes.

37 Florus, 2.33, 40; Orosius, 6.21.4, 5.

38 Orosius, 6.21.4.

39 Florus, 2.33.49. - 119 -

The texts of Florus and Orosius do not, therefore, provide a clear account of operations in the territory of the Cantabri in 26/25 B.C. Consequently there have been a number of interpretations, including a brief account by Keay40, and more detailed and later suggestions by Ramírez Sádaba and others41. Nevertheless, the texts pointed to two principal conclusions. Firstly, the control of the central corridor was recognised by Augustus as the key to control of the territory. This reinforces the deductions already made from the geography and the topography. Secondly, there was no complete pacification of the territory. Some targets in the central corridor were taken, but, even here, no location north of Aracillum was identified. These two conclusions indicate, firstly, that Agrippa would have recognised the vital importance of the central corridor, and, secondly, that he would have penetrated large upland areas for the first time to achieve pacification. His task does not seem to have been reduced by earlier operations. Agrippa’s problem was ‘an interminable conquest and a tenacious rebellion favoured by the difficulty in controlling the mountains.’42 He was the first Roman general to penetrate into these regions, and to remove all serious resistance there permanently by killing most of the fighting men and bringing the others down into the plains.

Florus had Agrippa with Furnius fighting for Augustus in 26/25 B.C.43. There is no doubt that Antistius was there, but Furnius did not arrive until 22 B.C.44, and Agrippa was in Rome building in the Campus Martius in 26/25 B.C.45. Both Roddaz and Syme noted the error about Agrippa46, but neither connected it to any desire to deceive or to provide a compression of events. Gardthausen suggested that Florus and Orosius deliberately telescoped all the campaigns of 26-19 B.C. into one account47 in an attempt to attribute everything to Augustus. This must be questioned, because, as far as Cantabria is concerned, the two texts describe only the capture of

40 Keay, Roman Spain, p.45.

41 Ramírez Sádaba, 'La Toponimía …', pp.190-193.

42 Le Roux, P., L'armée romaine et l'organisation des provinces …, p.68.

43 Florus, 2.33.51.

44 Cassius Dio, 54.5.

45 Ibid, 53.23 and 53.27 and Chapter 11.

46 Roddaz, Marcus Agrippa, p.403 and Syme, p.835.

47 Gardthausen, V., Augustus und seine Zeit, Leipzig, 1891 reprinted, Aalen, 1964, Teile 2, Band 2, pp.14, 5. - 120 - some targets on the central corridor without indication of all the mountain fortresses being taken. Diego Santos tried to show that Agrippa used the fleet in 19 B.C. rather than Augustus in 26 B.C., but this cannot be proved48. In any case, both Augustus and Agrippa might have used combined land/sea operations.

The texts of Florus and Orosius said nothing about the size of the forces used by Augustus, but it must be assumed that all those in Hispania were available to the princeps. Le Roux49 said that seven legions were stationed in Hispania from 26-19 B.C., and that all were used by Augustus. He also suggested that six were there when Augustus arrived in 26 B.C., and that the seventh returned by sea for the campaign in the territory of the Cantabri, having been in Aquitania under the command of M. Messala Corvinus putting down a revolt there in 28 B.C.50. The deployment of these forces in 26/25 B.C. is unknown. The main problem is to determine whether they were used to attack Cantabria and the territory of the Astures simultaneously or one after the other, with the Astures second. Cassius Dio said that both peoples were attacked at the same time, but he provided only one account for 26 and 25 B.C.51. Florus had the attack on Cantabria in three parts, as already noted52, but there is another passage describing division, also into three parts, for attack against the Astures53. Orosius mentioned only the division against the Cantabri54. Le Roux favoured the simultaneous attacks, suggesting that there were six land operations, each of one legion, with three against the Cantabri, including the one legion brought in by sea, making four legions, and three legions in the territory of the Astures55. Syme disagreed, suggesting sequential attacks56. Santos Yanguas examined the evidence and concluded that there was a wide military front with

48 Diego Santos, Die Integration …, p.539, linked the foundation of Portus Victoriae to its use by Agrippa in 19 B.C. to bring in the fleet, but, as pointed out by Roddaz, Marcus Agrippa, p.408, this is uncertain since there is no definite information on the date of the foundation.

49 Le Roux., p.61.

50 Ibid, p.64 and Note 242.

51 Cassius Dio, 53.23.

52 Florus, 2.33.48.

53 Ibid, 2.33.56.

54 Orosius, 6.21.4.

55 Le Roux, p.64.

56 Syme, p.843. - 121 - various points of attack, in some cases simultaneous, and in others sequential57. If the opinion of the military historian Le Roux is accepted, only one legion was directed against the central corridor initially, although another three could have joined it later for the major assault on Aracillum or perhaps on other targets.

Not all the legions remained in the North-West after 25 B.C, some being used for civil works, as at Augusta Emerita58, but, by 19 B.C., most had returned to Cantabria. Roddaz suggested that Agrippa used at least six legions in 19 B.C.59. Le Roux was silent on this, but he probably assumed that Agrippa used all that were available. The text of Cassius Dio, quoted above in full, indicated that Agrippa succeeded only after losing many men, and suffering many reverses, and that he did not release his veterans. The evidence, therefore, indicates that Agrippa used seven legions in Cantabria — a much larger force than that of Augustus there.

(c) AGRIPPA'S MILITARY STRATEGY AND CONSTRUCTIONS: Agrippa’s task was to relieve the Roman garrisons, and eliminate resistance in Cantabria. He must have secured the central corridor and used this as a base for his mountain operations. Agrippa almost certainly used the command of the sea to bring in supplies60. There were two main construction zones. The first was along the central corridor, or not far from it. There is no information on what had been built along the corridor before Agrippa arrived, but it must be assumed that there were encampments and fortifications. As can be seen from Fig. 6.361 all subsequent military positions in Cantabria were along the corridor. Agrippan constructions would be indistinguishable from others of the period, and overlaid by later works. It can be said only that Agrippa probably built a substantial logistic system, including roads and, perhaps, port facilities. The second zone of construction was in the mountains where the Cantabri would have fortified elevated positions. Agrippa had to seek these out and take them, moving his forces as

57 Santos Yanguas, N., La conquesta romana …', pp.17-22.

58 See below Chapter 7, Notes 40-42, p.133.

59 Roddaz, Marcus Agrippa, p.407 and Note 111.

60 Strabo 4.18, said that the Romans had great difficulty in getting supplies from Aquitania by road. Syme, p.831, related this to the Augustan campaigns, but the text indicated a general comment, applying to any military operation.

61 Le Roux, Fig. 2. - 122 - required. Traces of his overnight camps cannot be expected62, and there would be little, if any, need to build roads or bridges, since movement would be on foot and by pack animals in such terrain. Traces of construction can be anticipated at mountain fortresses where there was sustained resistance. Here, camps could have existed for weeks or months. If there was a siege, there would be constructions for this. Camps and siege works would not be disturbed, since the upland areas were depopulated by Agrippa.

The Agrippan constructions at upland fortresses were probably substantial. Florus mentioned a siege at Mons Medullius (in Asturia) in the Augustan campaign for which the Romans built a continuous earthwork some 15 km long63. Agrippa must have undertaken such sieges in Cantabria, since, if Augustus attacked one upland position at ‘Mons Vindius’, he had to do this at several to stamp out resistance. Siege camps must be distinguished from marching camps since a siege could last for a long time64. They could therefore leave permanent impressions on the landscape. Siege works would be even more intrusive. These generally included a continuous barrier intended to isolate the target (the countervallation), and, in some cases, one outside this (the circumvallation), to frustrate relief from the outside. Sometimes ramps were built up to the fortress to support assault towers and artillery. In some cases, ‘the arm’ (bracchium) connected other eminences built for assault65. Roman sieges such as those at and Masada have been described in the texts of Caesar and , and archaeological investigations prompted by these have made important discoveries66. In the case of the Cantabrian wars the texts are not explicit and the campaigns are not well known. Nevertheless, archaeological investigations at sites within an area approximately 20 kms from Reinòsa have uncovered Roman fortifications and camps, but have not identified specific evidence of any siege works, as distinct from Roman camps which may have

62 Le Bohec, Y., The Imperial , London, 1989, p.131 for the generally limited evidence of temporary camps ( aestiva).

63 Florus, 2.33.30.

64 Goldsworthy, A.K. The Roman army at War 100 B.C.-A.D.200, Oxford, 1996, p.111-113, described the marching camp, and included siege camps in this classification, but this must be questioned since the purpose of the latter was essentially different from that of the former.

65 Le Bohec, pp.136-137, for a general description of siege tactics and the construction of these.

66 Baumgartner, F.J. From Spear to Flintlock , New York, 1991, pp.37 and 38, for the siege of Alesìa in Gaul by Caesar. Gabrièl, R.A. and Metz, K.J., From Sumer to Rome The Military Capabilities of Ancient Armies, New York, 1981, pp.38, 39, for the siege of Masada in Judaéa under and . Also, Hurvitz, G., ‘The Roman Siege of Masada’, Shatzman, I., Ed., The Story of Masada : Discoveries from the Excavations, Provo (Utah), 1997, pp.109-130. - 123 - been associated with these67. The remains have been dated to the Augustan period, but not to any particular campaign of that era68. There seems to be no published archaeological information on military works in other parts of Cantabria. Consequently, much remains to be discovered about Roman military sites in that large territory.

The only archaeological evidence in the N-S corridor from the Agrippan period seems to be from Iuliobriga (Retortillo), some 2,500 metres south of Reinòsa, where a large Roman town has been partly excavated. No remains of military construction have been discovered, but there is material evidence of civic development after the pacification of Agrippa, although not necessarily in 19-18 B.C. It is also possible that there was a military base there before 18 B.C.69. There is, therefore, no specific evidence of Agrippan military construction, or of Agrippa founding a Roman town, although Roddaz suggested this using the evidence of Solana Sainz70. It is more probable that Agrippan pacification created the conditions for a new town, or the extension of an old one.

(d) THE CAMPAIGN : CONCLUSIONS: The campaign of Agrippa in Cantabria in 19 B.C. called for extensive military constructions. Those in the central corridor were for logistics, including roads, probably with port facilities, and for fortification and encampment. These remained to form part of the long-standing military installations shown on Fig. 6.3, and can probably never be identified. Those in the mountains were for the destruction of upland fortresses. They included siege works in addition to Roman camps. The siege works may yet be found, although it may be difficult to attribute these to Agrippa from the archaeological evidence. Nevertheless, most of such constructions must have been his, since no other Roman general conducted extensive operations in the mountains of Cantabria. There is, therefore, a potential to discover extensive Agrippan military work of great interest to the military historian, and, also, the need to recognise the attribution to him rather than to Augustus, or others.

67 Labrador, E.P., ‘Los castros Cántabros y los campamentos romanos de Toranzo y de Iguna. Prospecciones y sondeos (1996-1997), Almagro-Gorbea, M., Pres., Las Guerras Cántabras, pp.203-276.

68 Ibid, pp.259-265.

69 Solana Sainz, Los cantabros y la cuidad … , pp.143 and 150, 151.

70 Roddaz, ‘Agrippa et la péninsule Ibérique’, Ceresa Gastaldo, A., Pres., Il bimillenario di Agrippa, , 1990, pp.57-81, p.66 and Notes 39, 40 referring to Solana, Sainz, pp.143 and 151. - 124 -

2. THE AFTERMATH OF THE CAMPAIGN It is assumed here that the campaign of Agrippa in 19 B.C. effectively pacified N.W. Hispania 71. As noted in the Introduction to Hispania, the 'Two Spains' existed before Agrippa's campaign, and the evidence indicates that the change to the three provinces began only after Agrippa's campaign, and, probably, as a result of the visit of Augustus to the West in 16-13 B.C.72. There has been a suggestion of an intermediate phase between the ‘two Spains’ and the three divisions of the Empire following the discovery of the Tessera Paemeiobrigensis mentioning a Provincia Transduriana. This tessera may refer to a province bounded on the south by the River , extending somewhat further east than Clunia, and then defined by a line going N.N.W. to reach the coast near Santander. The tessera has been dated to February 15 B.C. Some questions remain about the authenticity and interpretation of the Tessera Paemeiobrigensis73. If there was a new arrangement in 15 B.C., this indicates that Agrippa left the 'Two Spains' in place. Also, the pacification of Cantabria was important politically because of the stress placed on it by Augustus, as noted earlier in this chapter, but there were few consequences for development in N.W. Hispania as a whole, with and Asturia already pacified. Agrippa would, therefore, almost certainly have left the two legates in charge of the 'Two Spains' to carry on as before.

Roddaz argued that the three centres of Bracara Augusta, Lucus Augusti and Asturica Augusta, shown on Figs. 6.3 and D, were founded as a result of the pacification of Cantabria, and possibly by Agrippa. He based this partly on his belief that the territory was reorganised at that time, and partly on the relationship discerned by him between the three centres and three built in the general period74. The three altars mentioned by Roddaz are the Arae Sestianae. Their

71 Diego Santos, Die Integration …, pp.539-542, suggested campaigns in Asturia in 16-14 B.C., and in Gallaecia in 16-14 B.C., but Le Roux, pp.6-8, and Note 266, Syme, p.391 and Santos Yanguas, pp.10-16, denied this hypothesis.

72 Alföldy, CAH 10, 1996, p.45, dated the start of the definite forms of the three provinces to 13 B.C. Le Roux, pp.24, 75, suggested that the change was set in train by Augustus in 16-13 B.C. Richardson, The Romans in Spain, p.136, noted the possibility of change at this period.

73 Costabile, F. and Licandro, O., Tessera Paemeiobrigensis, Rome, 2000, for the putative province. Richardson, J.S., 'The New Augustan Edicts from North West Spain', JRA, 15, 2002, pp.411-415, raised important questions about the authenticity of the tessera, which were not mentioned by Costabile and Licandro. He suggested that these uncertainties should be resolved before a realistic interpretation could be arrived at.

74 Roddaz, 'Agrippa et la péninsule Ibérique', pp.65, 66 and Note 38. - 125 - position is unknown, but they were certainly together at one place on the coast, and far from the three urban centres75. Their purpose was to demonstrate Roman extension to ocean76 and to mark ‘places previously unknown’77. The date of the altars has not yet been established, but they seem to have been installed between 23 and 15 B.C.78. Le Roux introduced another difficulty by dating the altars to 19 B.C. ‘if they can be attributed to L. Sestius Quirnalis’79. There is, therefore, no definite information on Agrippan responsibility for building the altars, and no connection between them and the urban centres other than the figure three and, consequently, no indication of Agrippan foundation of the three urban centres of which there is no definite information about their early history. Henderson suggested that all were prominent in the region only for their conventus status in the Empire, being neither municipia nor coloniae80. Galsterer considered that they were founded as a consequence of the wars between 26 and 19 B.C., but he gave no evidence supporting this81. As can be seen from Fig. 6.3, the military installations of the Empire, in the region were principally in Cantabria, although there was a camp near Asturica Augusta. This is probably to be explained by the town being a centre for the extraction of and silver. There is no reason to think of any of these three centres as military foundations82. Inscriptions at Bracara Augusta and

75 Pliny, 4.111 had them on the N.E. coast of Gallaecia. Pomp onius Mela, Chronographia 3.13 located them at Noega on the coast of Asturia, shown on Fig. 6.1. Le Roux, p.75 and Note 317, listed other interpretations.

76 Le Roux, pp.76-7 and Note 328, compared the altars to the triple trophy at Saint Bertrand de Comminges in the Alps symbolising the religious triad protecting Rome, as well as the Roman domination of the Alpine passes. RG 26 referred to the provinces of the Gauls, the Spains and Germany bounded by ocean from Gades to the mouth of the being ‘reduced to a state of peace.’ The Arae Sestianae might have been installed to mark the extension to ocean.

77 Pomponius, Mela, Chorographia, 3.13, 'inlustrantque terras ante ignobiles'.

78 L. Sestius Quinalis was consul suffect in 23 B.C., and probably legate of the west from 19 B.C., or, perhaps, somewhat later, Syme, p.829. Yet he was mentioned on the Tessera Paemeiobrigensis, dated to 15 B.C., Costabile and Licandro, p.21. De Alarcão, J., Roman Portugal, Warminster, 1988, Vol. 1, p.15, dated the altars to 22 B.C., but gave no justification for this .

79 Le Roux, p.76.

80 Henderson, M.J., Review of Étienne Le culte Impérial dans la péninsule Ibérique d’Auguste à Dioclétien. JRS, 49, 1959, p.169.

81 Galsterer, H., Untersuchungen zum römischen Stadtewesen auf der iberischen Halbinsel, Berlin, 1971, p.30.

82 Le Roux, pp.76, 77. - 126 -

Lucus Augusti, dated to 3-2 B.C., mentioned all the sons of Agrippa83, but this indicates the Imperial Cult rather than Agrippan activity. It must be concluded that there is no evidence of Agrippan initiatives at any of the three later conventus centres. These were probably small native centres in 19 B.C. and only Asturica Augusta ever became important 84.

Strabo described the region as 'a wretched place to live in'85, and it was too cold for extensive agriculture, being suitable for running sheep and other non-intensive settlement. The only obvious attractions, other than the mineral deposits of Asturia, were the routes over the mountains, potential port sites, and navigation control around the treacherous coast of N.W. Hispania86. There was no need to defend the region, but legions stationed there were conveniently placed to quit Hispania for Gaul, and were not near settled areas. In short, there was no need for large towns, except, possibly, at Asturica Augusta as a mining centre. Agrippa may have ordered road works to be carried out in N.W. Hispania to improve communications, but these constructions would be executed by the two legates of the 'Two Spains'. Fig. D shows the Camino de la Plata of the Empire, connecting Asturica Augusta to Augusta Emerita. This was an extension and an upgrading of a road first built in 140 B.C. between the headwaters of the and the Tagus to seal off Lusitania from the east87. It is possible that Agrippa improved this road, together with others connecting N.W. Hispania, to parts further south, but there is no evidence of such action.

THE AFTERMATH OF THE CAMPAIGN : CONCLUSIONS There is no evidence that Agrippa made any alteration to the administration of the 'Two Spains' or formed new Roman urban entities at Bracara Augusta, Lucus Augusti or Asturica Augusta Agrippa may have ordered his legates to improve roads in the region or to improve connections to other zones before he left Hispania. Otherwise, the only works were those needed for security.

83 Ibid, p.76 and Note 325.

84 Pliny 3.28, described it as an urbs magnifica.

85 Strabo, 3.12.

86 A 34-metre tall lighthouse modelled on the Pharos at Alexandria was built in the Empire at La Corona, not far from Brigantium, marked on Fig. 6.3, Keay, p.131.

87 Keay, Roman Spain, pp.43, 44. - 127 -

NORTH-WEST HISPANIA : CONCLUSIONS

Agrippa built important military works for his pacification of Cantabria. Those on or near the central N-S corridor, which became part of the military installations of the Empire, will probably never be identified, or attributed to him because they became part of the military installations of the Empire. Some Agrippan military constructions in the mountains may have already been found in archaeological investigations in the Reinosa area, although these have not been attributed either to Agrippa or to others. These investigations have not discovered constructions for the siege of upland fortresses, and other zones are yet to be investigated. While military works in the Cantabrian mountains may not be attributable to Agrippa from the archaeological evidence, all such remains are potentially Agrippan because of his much greater penetration into these regions than that of any other Roman general. These military constructions of Agrippa have been overlooked in studies of Agrippa, since the material evidence of them is in a largely uninhabited region, and there are no specific texts which have induced a search for them. Also, the focus of archaeological investigations in the mountainous areas has been the Roman military campaigns rather than on constructions for these being Agrippan. Nevertheless, they are of great potential importance not only as substantial Agrippan works, but also as military constructions. It is most unlikely that Agrippa altered administrative arrangements in N.W. Hispania. He would have been concerned to ensure security before he left the region, and he may have started a process in which Roman access to the region led to the creation of ports and improved navigation. There is no evidence that Agrippa founded any new towns, or built for civil purposes, but he may have encouraged some development at Asturica Augusta for production of gold and silver. Any Agrippan orders for road works in the region, or for road works to connect this to other parts, would have been executed by the two legates, and such constructions can, therefore, be related only distantly to Agrippa. - 128 -

7. AGRIPPA AT AUGUSTA EMERITA1 (MÉRIDA)

As explained in the Introduction to Hispania, the object of investigation in this chapter is to set the scene for the investigation of the Agrippan theatre in Chapter 8, and of possible Agrippan works in Chapter 9.

There are three sections: (a) Urban development before 19-18 B.C., (b) Agrippan urban development 19-18 B.C., and (c) Posthumous epigraphic evidence of Agrippa at Augusta Emerita.

(a) URBAN DEVELOPMENT BEFORE 19-18 BC: Augusta Emerita is marked on Fig. D, p.110, as Emerita. Cassius Dio described the actions of Titus Carisius in the campaign of Augustus in N.W. Hispania in 25 BC2 and followed this with a description of the foundation of Augusta Emerita … 'When this campaign had been ended, Augustus discharged the older age groups in his army and enabled them to build a city in Lusitania which was named Augusta Emerita. For the troops which were still of an age to continue active service, he arranged for a number of spectacles to be held within the military camps, and these were organised by Tiberius and Marcellus who were the for the year.’…3. Carisius issued the first coins of the town as legate on behalf of Augustus, and these have been dated to 25-23 B.C4. Canto5 postulated a Caesarian camp at the town. This suggestion was dismissed by Trillmich6, but Richardson was not prepared to rule it out completely, concluding that the major foundation was in 26/25 B.C., and noting that the name

1 The names Emerita Augusta or Emerita are commonly used in the scholarship in addition to Augusta Emerita. This last name is adopted here because it appears regularly on the provincial coinage (Burnett et al, pp.70-73).

2 Cassius Dio, 53, 25.9.

3 Ibid, 53, 26.1.

4 RIC, pp.41-42.

5 Canto, A.M., 'Las tres fundaciones de Augusta Emerita', Trillmich, W. & Zanker, P., Eds., Stadtbild und Ideologie, Munich, 1990, pp.289-298.

6 Trillmich, W., 'Colonia Augusta Emerita die Haupstadt von Lusitanien', Trillmich, W. & Zanker, P., Eds., Stadtbild und Ideologie, pp.299-318, at p.299. - 129 -

Emerita, echoing the Latin word emeritus for a veteran, confirmed Dio's account7. There was a natural crossing of the Guadiana River at Augusta Emerita, and the Roman foundation was almost certainly not completely ex novo8.

The foundation text of Cassius Dio implied that discharged veterans built the town. Yet, a general historian, writing in the 3rd A.D. 9 probably had little, if any, local knowledge about first constructions. Cassius Dio probably assumed veteran construction from the name Augusta Emerita. , writing in the 1st century A.D. 10, was much closer to the date of foundation, and he was also writing specifically about the veteran settlement and land use11. In this passage Frontinus stated that most of those first discharged were placed at the extreme limits of a large territory, with very few elsewhere. Remaining areas were set aside for second and third placements of veterans. According to this passage, the first veterans were not placed to develop the urban centre, but to occupy and work the land on the perimeter of a large territory, and, probably, to form a first line of defence in an area not yet under complete Roman control. Le Roux, noting the passage, observed that a large reserve of land on which veterans could be settled over a long period relieved pressure on the resumption of land for this purpose in Italy and elsewhere12. Frontinus, therefore, described something which might be expected from the well known difficulties of finding land for veteran settlement13. The territory of

7 Richardson, The Romans in Spain, p.138.

8 See below Note 22, p.130, also Edmondson, J.C., 'Romanisation and Urban Development in Lusitania', Blagg, T. & Millet, M., Eds., The Early Roman Empire in the West, Oxford, 1990, pp.151-179, at p.165.

9 Cassius Dio probably wrote his Roman History in the general period A.D.211-229, Cassius Dio, The Roman History. The reign of Augustus, Scott Kilvert, I., Harmondsworth, 1987, p.19.

10 Sextus Iulius Frontinus was praetor urbanus in A.D. 70, Tac. Hist 4.39 and was succeeded as by in A.D.103-4 (presumably on his death), CIL 8.7066.

11 Frontinus, De controversiis agrorum, Die Schriften der römischen Feldmesser, Lachmann, pp.51-2, and Thulin, p.44.

'Scio in Lusitania, finibus Emeritensium, non exiguum per mediam coloniae perticam ire flumen Anam, circa quod agri sunt adsignati qua usque tunc solum utile visum est. Propter magnitudinem enim agrorum veteranos circa extremum fere finem velut terminus disposuit, paucissimos circa coloniam et circa flumen Anam. Reliquum ita remanserat, ut postea repleretur. Nihilo minus et secunda et tertia postea facta est adsignatio, nec tamen agrorum modus divisione vinci potuit, sed superfuit inadsignatus.' …

12 Le Roux, p.71 and Notes 292 and 293 referring to RG 16 listing expenditures for purchasing lots for veteran settlement.

13 Cassius Dio, 51.4. - 130 -

Augusta Emerita was remarkably large 14. Mackie concluded that it extended some 70 kms from the urban centre15. In this case, veterans first settled at the perimeter, could not have contributed to the construction of the urban centre, as has been acknowledged by Roddaz16.

There is no definite information about civilian immigration in the foundation period17, and, therefore, no reason to think that civilians could have made a substantial contribution to first works at the urban centre. The foundation text mentioning Marcellus and Tiberius as 'aediles for the year' and the presence of at least part of the army at or near the town indicates urban development by the serving army. Also, the coins struck by Carisius from 25-23 B.C.18 indicate that Carisius probably made Emerita his headquarters in Hispania Ulterior. The army could, therefore, have made a start on urban building. Yet, the continuing rebellion in N.W. Hispania referred to above 19, which broke out in 24 B.C. and continued until 19 B.C., must have called substantial forces away. There is no evidence of skilled civilian craftsmen at the town in this period. It can, therefore, be concluded that the serving army could have built only the first elements of the town, and without monumental buildings.

Fig. 7.120 shows Augusta Emerita close to Metellinum, which had been founded in the early 1st century B.C.21. It might be asked why it was necessary to found Augusta Emerita. Richardson notes its position on a natural route from Baetica to the north with an easy crossing of the Guadiana 22. Part of the Camino de la Plata, shown

14 Richardson, The Romans in Spain, p.140 and Note 39.

15 Mackie, N., Local Administration in Roman Spain, A.D. 14-212, BAR IS 172, 1983, Oxford, p.39, Note 26.

16 Roddaz, 'Agrippa et la péninsule Ibérique …', p.72 and Note 66.

17 Le Roux, p.71 and Note 294, and p.72 for evidence of immigration.

18 RIC, pp.41, 42.

19 See above Chapter 6, Notes 9, 10 and 11, p.115.

20 CAH 10, 1996, Map p.480 (part).

21 Keay, Roman Spain, p.43.

22 Richardson, The Romans in Spain, p.138. An island exists at Mérida and the river is narrower than elsewhere. It can be presumed that some kind of island existed in the pre-Roman period. - 131 - on Fig. D, had been built to contain the in the Sertorian wars23 and Augusta Emerita lay on an extension of this road with a crossing of the Guadiana 24. Also, there was ample room for a city on fairly level ground, surrounded by hills which could be tapped for water supplied by aqueducts. Metellinum, on a crag overlooking the river, was not a suitable site for a large city. The new site, with no natural defences, could be ringed by walls25. In short, the new site was ideal for development of a city in a position suitable for expansion into the West, but not too distant from Baetica.

The first works at the new foundation were those needed to define a large space for a city and to defend it by a protective barrier. Fig.7.226 shows that the walls enclosed some 60 hectares. The line of the walls was determined on foundation, and the area inside was developed to a predetermined grid, as first advanced by Richmond some 70 years ago 27. This was contested for many years by proponents of an urbs quadrata with city limits defined by the ends of the (on the line of the bridge) and, along the cardo maximus, by the ‘Arch of ’ and another gate at a similar distance from the decumanus maximus to the south. The ‘Arch of Trajan’ is now associated with the provincial forum28. The original defensive barrier followed the natural topography, and evolved from an earth embankment 29. Construction was progressive from 25 B.C., but the date of the various stages of the work remains uncertain30. The final form of the city perimeter was a circuit of rubble stone walls with monumental gates and towers faced in , or cut stone. Fig. 7.3a31 shows an idealised perspective view of the main gate near the Guadiana Bridge. It is

23 Keay, Roman Spain, p.49

24 See below Chapter 9, pp.164-167, for crossings of the Guadiana.

25 Richardson, The Romans in Spain, pp.137-9, for general comments on the site of the new foundation.

26 Based on Tabula Imperii Romani. Hoja, J-29 : Lisboa, Uníon Académica Internacional, Madrid, 1995.

27 Richmond, I.A. 'The first years of Augusta Emerita' The Archaeological Journal, 87, 1930, pp.96-116, pp.101-2.

28 See below Chapter 9, Notes 127-130, p.177, 8.

29 Álvarez Martínez, J.M. et al, Mérida, Léon, 1997, pp.18, 19.

30 Hernández Ramírez, J., Augusta Emerita. Estuctura urbana, Badajoz, 1998, pp.23-60.

31 Ibid, Fig. 6, p.36. - 132 - congruent with the general shape of foundations which have remained. The original line of the walls lay between the theatre and the amphitheatre32.

Fig. 7.3b33 shows the reverse of a coin dated 25-23 B.C. struck by P. Carisius, indicating a circular city wall with the legend EMERITA (or IMERITA) inscribed above a gate. The gate has two arched entrances and two towers, and the line work suggests coursed stonework. The idealised depiction of the gate on Fig. 3a was probably based on the coin. The remains of the foundation of the gate cannot be dated34. There is, therefore, no archaeological information indicating that the coin depicts a gate built in 25-23 B.C. when the coins were struck. The gate and the circuit of walls appeared only on three out of at least 33 coin types of Carisius. Also, only these three types had the legend EMERITA35. There is, therefore, a close numismatic connection between the Emerita, signifying the settlement of veterans and the gate. Since, as noted above, nearly all the first veterans were settled well away from the urban centre, the depiction of the gate probably signified the territory of Augusta Emerita, rather than a town gate. Similar depictions of a circuit of walls and a gate appearing quite frequently on coins of Augustus and Tiberius36 also indicate that the gate was a symbol of the town. Furthermore, monumental stone walls and gates were needed only for a monumental town. It can, therefore, be concluded that the depiction of the monumental town gate and walls on the coins of Carisius does not indicate such developed construction in 25-23 B.C.

Apart from the first form of the city walls, there seems to be no other urban construction, which can be dated archaeologically to the foundation period. The earliest known of the town are from the Tiberian period37 and the civic organisation before 19 B.C. was, therefore, probably quite elementary. No substantial stone buildings for civic administration, such as a or a /local senate house, can therefore be expected at that time. Also, the text of Frontinus referred to

32 See below Chapter 9, Note 7, p.162.

33 RIC, p.41 and Plate 1, Coin 9b.

34 Álvarez Martínez et al, Mérida, pp.18, 19.

35 RIC, pp.41.42 and Note 9, p.41.

36 Burnett et al, pp.70, 71 and 73.

37 Curchin, L.A., The Local Magistrates of Roman Spain, Toronto, 1990, p.173. - 133 - above describing the first veteran settlement on the boundary of the territory confirms this analysis. The coins provide no evidence of any change in status between 25 and 19 B.C. which may have indicated physical expansion38.

In conclusion, urban development before 19-18 B.C. included a first defensive barrier around a large urban space laid out to a grid. Modest initial constructions were concentrated at the intersection of the principal streets, with a small praetorium, barracks, stores and transport centre. The forum would have been an open space with a small temple at one end, shops, and few, if any, buildings for civic administration. Water was got from the river by cistern storage, with rainwater tanks and wells at the higher levels. If a first crossing of the Guadiana River had not existed in 25 B.C., this would have been provided by constructing fords, with timber bridging over the permanent water channel. There was no monumental construction in stone.

(b) AGRIPPAN URBAN DEVELOPMENT IN 19-18 B.C.: The pacification of Cantabria in 19 B.C. brought a new stability to Western Hispania, and a new opportunity for further expansion towards the Atlantic. Large numbers of soldiers could be released for civil works, since Agrippa had used six or seven legions in his Cantabrian campaign39, and there is no reason to believe that legions were sent outside Hispania at this time40. Even after veteran settlement41, and stationing of units for local policing and for other works, substantial forces were available for construction at Augusta Emerita, as the new centre from which expansion into the west could be started. Agrippa could have brought in skilled stonemasons or other craftsmen for monumental construction. Uncertainties remain about the date of the creation of the new province of Lusitania, although this may have resulted from the visit of Augustus to the West in 16-13 B.C.42. Nevertheless, Agrippa, in Hispania in

38 Burnett et al assigned no definite date to the first appearance of the legend AUGUSTA EMERTIA on the coins replacing the EMERITA on the three types of the coinage of Carisius (Note 35).

39 See above Chapter 6, Note 59, p.121.

40 Richardson, The Romans in Spain, p.137, suggested that reduction of military forces in Hispania were gradual, since three legions were still there on the death of Augustus, as noted by Strabo, 3.3.8 and Tacitus Ann 4.5.2.

41 The numbers of veterans settled in 19 B.C. is unknown. Le Roux, p.73, pointed out that retirement depended mainly on the length of service rather than the ending of campaigns.

42 Richardson, The Romans in Spain, p.136 and Notes 26-29, for a discussion on the creation of the new provinces. - 134 -

19/18 B.C., was able to start the conversion of a small town into a city to be an important symbol of the presence of Rome in the most western part of Europe43 and which was to become a prime example of a provincial capital44. There is, therefore, an indication that Agrippa, in 19/18 B.C., could have drawn up a master plan for a city with monumental facilities (including his theatre). A stone bridge over the Guadiana was needed as an approach to a monumental town built in stone, and aqueducts were needed for gravity water supply. Such a large scale town plan could be completed only in decades, but Agrippa could start construction on works other than his theatre before he left Hispania.

(c) POSTHUMOUS EPIGRAPHIC EVIDENCE OF AGRIPPA AT AUGUSTA EMERITA: There seems to be no contemporary epigraphic evidence of Agrippan activity in 19-18 B.C. Even the inscription on the theatre is dated 16/15 B.C. after Agrippa left Hispania, and Agrippa does not appear on any of the coinage of Augusta Emerita. Yet there is important posthumous evidence of Agrippa. Fig. 7.445 shows a headless statue of Agrippa46 recovered from the municipal forum47. It was found in the Portico of Augustus dated to the Imperial period48. The statue can be dated to the 1st century A.D. 49, and is probably Claudian50. Agrippa appeared as a civic figure with the togate statues of civic leaders. Yet he is shown as a soldier, as can be seen from the military stance, the chalmys (worn generally by soldiers), and the calceus patricius on his feet51. It is most unlikely that his statue marked his pacification of the North-West over sixty years previously, especially since it was in the municipal

43 Ibid, p.141.

44 Mierse, W.E., 'Augustan building programs in the Western Province', Raaflaub, K. & Toher, M., Eds., 'Between Republic and Empire', pp. 308-333, pp.308-311.

45 Museo Nacional de Arte Romano, Madrid (English), 2000, photograph p.42.

46 The statue is certainly of Agrippa, since the inscription M. Agrippa appears on the plinth carved from the same block.

47 Trillmich, W., 'Ein historisches Relief in Mérida mit Darstellung des M. Agrippa beim Opfer', MM27, 1986, pp.279-304, p.280, Note 8.

48 See below Chapter 9, Note 80, pp.172.

49 The statue is signed by Gaius Aulus, as are the other togate figures of this period found nearby. Museo Nacional de Arte Romano, p.43.

50 Trillmich, 'Ein historisches Relief …', pp.298-9.

51 Roddaz, Marcus Agrippa, p.417. - 135 - and not the provincial forum52. It referred to something done by Agrippa for the city using the army. The statue, therefore, probably indicates a large programme of urban works using military forces started in 19-18 B.C.

Agrippa also appears, but as a civic figure, on a relief showing a sacrifice. This was found in fragments in the civic forum near his statue. Trillmich provided a detailed account of the discovery of the fragments, a reconstruction of the relief, explanation of its dating to the Claudian period, and his interpretation of its possible significance53. Fig. 7.554 shows the central scene of sacrifice, with Agrippa to the right. This is a civic event, as can be seen from the with their fasces55 which appear on another fragment. There is little doubt that the sacrificing priest is Agrippa. The head is similar to other portraits of him, and Trillmich provided supporting details 56. Trillmich discerned the corona civica under the priest’s veil and suggested that Agrippa received this in the Claudian era57. This seems to be very likely58. As pointed out by Trillmich, many questions remain unanswered about the sacrifice, its function, the recipient, etc., but he suggested that the relief showed Agrippa as the founder, or, more probably, the planner, or 'euergetes'59, of the new capital of Lusitania, with Carisius as the deductor who introduced the first settlers. Trillmich also implied that Agrippa changed Emerita to Augusta Emerita60. There seems to be no clear evidence about the date of this change from the coins 61, and there is no information about any civic organisation at Augusta Emerita in this period62. The suggestion of the constitutional change made by

52 See below Chapter 9, pp.176-8, for discussion on the provincial forum as distinct from the municipal forum.

53 Trillmich, 'Ein historische Relief …'. His Claudian dating, pp.298-9, is based on the stylistic details of the whole relief, including the presentation of animal and vegetable components.

54 Museo Nacional de Arte Romano, photographs, p.44.

55 Trillmich 'Ein historisches Relief…', p.300 and Note 51.

56 Ibid, pp.300-1, and Note 53.

57 Ibid, p.301.

58 The corona civica, originally a purely military decoration, became an Imperial emblem. In 27 B.C. the senate granted to Augustus the right to hang the corona civica on his door, Cassius Dio, 53, 16.4. The honour was an Imperial prerogative under Augustus and Agrippa with a corona civica could be presented as such only after his death.

59 Veyne, P., Bread and Circuses, London, 1990, pp.10-11 discussed the significance of 'Euergetes' in the ancient world.

60 Trillmich 'Ein historisches Relief …', pp.302-4.

61 See above Note 38, p.133.

62 See above Note 37, p.132. - 136 -

Trillmich can, therefore, be neither accepted nor denied. Trillmich suggested that the 'Mérida of Agrippa' was completed in the Claudian period, and that this explained the relief63. This seems to be a logical deduction.

A more recent paper64 accepted Agrippa as the sacrificing figure65, but indicated that the relief was part of an altar, perhaps a local version of the in Rome 66. An altar appeared on Tiberian coins of Augusta Emerita67 and no Claudian coins of Augusta Emerita have been discovered. If the relief was built with an altar of the Tiberian period, it could be dated A.D. 14-37, and if added to the altar in the Claudian period, it could be from A.D. 41-54. Consequently, a Claudian relief could be from four to forty years later than one of the Tiberian period. The interpretation of the relief by Trillmich can be accepted pending proof that it is earlier than the Claudian period, or that it formed part of an altar. There has been no suggestion that the statue of Agrippa is earlier than the Claudian period.

CONCLUSIONS There is an indication from section (a) that Carisius, in 25 B.C., selected the site of Augusta Emerita for the development of a large town, but that he did not build anything monumental in the large urban space that he had defined, or develop permanent bridges or aqueducts. As deduced from section (b), the conditions of 19/18 B.C. were appropriate for Agrippa to plan and start to build a monumental town with stone bridges and aqueducts. There is, also, material evidence of monumental work from the Agrippan theatre. The Claudian epigraphy considered in section (c), indicates a long term master plan by Agrippa for urban development. The combination of the evidence indicates strongly that Agrippa was the 'father' and part builder of the monumental city with its urban buildings, bridges and aqueducts, as Carisius was the founder of the town, creator of the large space set aside for it, and the builder of the first modest structures there.

63 Trillmich, 'Ein historisches Relief …', p.303.

64 Nogales Basarrate, T., 'Un altar en el foro de Augusta Emerita', Nogales Basarrate, T., Co-ord., Actas de la 3 reunion sobre escultura romana en Hispania, Madrid, 2000, pp.25-46.

65 Ibid, p.27.

66 Ibid, pp.33, 4, 93.

67 Burnett et al, pp.72-3. - 137 -

8. THE THEATRE AT AUGUSTA EMERITA : AGRIPPAN WORKS

INTRODUCTION Inscriptions on the theatre show that it was provided by Agrippa, and dedicated in 16-15 B.C. The object of investigation in this chapter is to identify, describe and discuss this first theatre. Alterations, and some additions, were made to this during the centuries of the Roman Empire, although other parts remained relatively untouched. It is, therefore, necessary to investigate the theatre of the late Empire which remained to be excavated and examined by the archaeologists in order to identify the Agrippan works. It is not necessary to describe the post-Agrippan constructions in detail.

The first major investigation of the theatre was started in 1910 by José Ramón Mélida. At that time the only visible remains were parts of the upper level of the auditorium. The other buried parts had partially collapsed and some material had been lost. Mélida exposed the auditorium and most of the other parts of the theatre. He also started some reconstruction. His work was carried on by several other archaeologists, including Maximiliano Macias and José Menéndez Pidal. The restored theatre is now the most complete in Spain. The bibliography relating to excavations and is extensive. It will be referred to in some detail when discussing the parts of the theatre, but a few sources provide a general account of the principal events1. Not all the excavations, recordings, interpretations and rebuildings were carried out to the standard expected today. Consequently, there is some permanent loss of information and of material. Also, the archaeologists in charge at various times during the long process of restoration reconstructed in accordance with their own ideas, resulting in various types of rebuilding. In one particular part, an earlier reconstruction was replaced by another. Excavation, examination of the remains and restoration were focussed on the theatre of the late Empire, with no specific attempt to identify, examine or describe the first works of Agrippa. Where

1 Mélida, J.R., 'The Roman theatre of Mérida', Art and Archaeology, 25. 1928, pp.30-35, Wiseman, F.J., Roman Spain, London, 1956, pp.87-90, Álvarez Sáenz de Buruaga, J., 'Observaciones sobre el teatro romano de Merida', Álvarez Martínez, J.M., Ed., El teatro en la Hispania Actas del Simposio, Badajoz, 1982, pp.302-311, at pp.305-07, and Nogales Bassarate, T., Espectáculos en Augusta Emerita, Monografias Emerilenses.5, Badajoz, 2000, p.26 and Note 36. - 138 - these remained unaltered they could be seen and were accounted for. This was not possible where the Agrippan construction was obscured by later work or had been replaced. A complete reconstruction of the Agrippan theatre cannot, therefore, be looked for, but sufficient original material remains for most of it to be described.

Fig. 8.12 shows the theatre in its present state, as seen from the east. The parts visible above ground level before excavation were the seven sections of the top level of the auditorium called the 'siete sillas', or 'seven thrones'. Two of these are now joined by a restored staircase. All the other parts of the theatre have now been uncovered and restored to some extent. The restoration is most complete in the lower part of the auditorium, or cavea, at the semi-circular orchestra, the stage wall, or proscaenium, immediately behind this, and the behind the stage where the columnatio of two storeys has been almost entirely rebuilt. The stage itself, the pulpitum, originally built in timber on masonry has been filled in. There is virtually no reconstruction of the stage buildings, the postscaenium, behind the scaenae frons. The large peristyle, or quadriporticus, behind the stage buildings has been rebuilt to any significant extent only at the eastern portico, but the partial roofing, seen on the frontispiece, is modern. Fig. 8.23 shows the plan of the theatre as excavated. The Agrippan theatre was built symmetrically and the basilica on the east side adjoining the cavea is post Agrippan. Fig. 8.34 shows the western half of the cavea and the orchestra. The passage running under the edges or ends of the seating of the cavea is the aditus maximus, or principal entrance. The lintel visible at the exit of this into the cavea bears an inscription naming Agrippa and dated to 16-15 B.C. A similar inscription exists on the lintel at the aditus maximus of the east side of the cavea. Fig. 8.45 provides a better scale view of the orchestra and the stage facilities than that shown on the frontispiece. Fig. 8.56 shows part of the quadriporticus viewed from the N.W, with the partly restored and roofed eastern portico. The exedra in the north

2 Nogales Basarrate, T., Espectáculos en Augusta Emerita, Lámina 3, p.119.

3 Based on Duran Cabello, R.M., Estudo arquiteconica del teatro y del amfitoetro de Augusta Emerita : nuevas bases arqueologicas para la historia de la ciudad. Tesis doctoral, Universidad Autonoma de Madrid 1995 (unpublished), Pláno 6.

4 Photograph by the writer.

5 Álvarez Martínez, J.M. et al, Mérida, Leon, 1997, Fig. 16, pp.20, 21.

6 Ibid, Fig. 19, p.23. - 139 - wall of the quadriporticus shown on Fig.8.2 can be seen in the mid-foreground of Fig. 8.5.

The double storey columnatio of the scaenae frons, and some other parts of the stage works, together with the orchestra, shown on Fig. 8.4, were built in marble. The cavea, together with its entrances, and the quadriporticus, were constructed in local stone, and in opus quadratum, or squared, coursed masonry. The post-Agrippan basilica, marked on Fig. 8.2 contained brick7. Marble cladding was added in the early 2nd century A.D. to a platform cut in the first step of the cavea visible on Fig. 8.38, and also to the exedra in the north wall of the quadriporticus in the post-Agrippan period9. As can be seen from Fig. 8.4, marble cladding and marble mouldings have been added to the opus quadratum and masonry in modern reconstructions of the podium of the scaenae frons and the front wall of the stage. There is, therefore, clear evidence of substantial construction of at least two phases at the stage works, but only cosmetic changes elsewhere.

Marble construction at Augusta Emerita belongs to the Marmorbegeisterung, or 'enthusiasm for marble', period later than the Augustan principate10. Utilitarian buildings, such as bridges, were built in local stone throughout the Roman period, but new buildings in the town were built with external surfaces of marble. In existing buildings, flat surfaces could be covered with marble cladding and marble mouldings could be attached. Columns in local stone had to be replaced by new ones in marble. The marble columnatio at the scaenae frons has been dated as early as the last few years of the 1st century B.C., although the type of capitals is acknowledged as not fully developed until the Flavian period11. A local dating of the capitals to the 1st or 2nd century A.D., based on study of the capitals at Mérida12 must be preferred. A long-held view that the scaenae frons is Hadrianic, based

7 See below Note 66, p.149.

8 Trillmich, W., 'Un sacrarium de culto imperial en el teatro de Mérida', Anas 2-3, 1989-90, pp.87-102.

9 See below Notes 153, 154, p.160.

10 Pfanner, M., 'Modelle römischer Stadtentwicklung am Beispiel Hispaniens und der westlichen Provinzen', Stadtbild und Ideologie, pp.59-116, at pp.100-102, for a general account of the Marmorbegeisterung, also Trillmich, W., 'Colonia Augusta Emerita, die Haupstadt von Lusitanien', Stadtbild und Ideologie, pp.299-319, at 309-310.

11 Von Hesberg, H., 'Augusteische Bauornamentik: Die neuen Grundmuster der Haupstadt und ihre Umsetzung in lokale Prototypen', Stadtbild und Ideologie, pp.353-367, at pp.359-362 and tafels 37, 38, 39 and 40.

12 Barrera, Antón J.L., de la, Los capiteles romanos de Mérida, Monografias Emeritenses 2, Badajoz, 1984, Standard Corinthian capitals, Nos. 28-37, pp.36, 37. - 140 - on the belief that fire had destroyed the scaena, and that it was replaced at that time is almost certainly not correct13. The dating of the marble works will probably be established from study of the iconography with the architecture14, but there is no doubt that it is well after the Agrippan period.

The columnatio of the scaenae frons is, therefore, post-Agrippan. The podium is partly so, as is the stage wall. The cavea, the aditus maximus and the lintels with the inscription of dedication in local stone can be regarded as Agrippan, with the qualification that an Agrippan cavea may have been extended in local stone. It can be assumed that the modern marble surface of the orchestra replaces original marble added to a first Agrippan orchestra in local stone. The quadriporticus, in local stone, can be regarded as part of Agrippa's theatre of 16-15 B.C. It should be noted that the presence of local stone, masonry and marble at the reconstructed podium of the scaenae frons and at the stage wall does not necessarily indicate Agrippan work being clad in marble, since the material under the marble can be dated only prior to the marble period and, perhaps, to more than one part of this. In fact, the only major parts of the theatre which cannot be Agrippan are the columnatio of the scaenae frons, the basilica shown on Fig. 8.3, and other minor works in marble.

The investigation of the Agrippan works is, therefore, the investigation of the whole theatre complex. Particular attention is to be paid to the transition zones where the constructions of 16-15 B.C. were altered or extended. All the Agrippan works are to be described in detail, but the later ones need to be investigated only to the extent that this casts light on the first constructions. The order of investigation is:

(1) The Auditorium (the cavea), its entrances and circulation system (2) The Inscriptions (at the entrances to the cavea) (3) The Orchestra (4) The Stage Constructions (the stage, the scaenae frons and the stage buildings) (5) The quadriporticus.

13 CIL 2.478 was reconstructed by Hübner in 1869 from 11 fragments discovered in various parts of the town, and not congruent according to Nogales Basarrate, T., Espectáculos en Augusta Emerita, p.30 and Notes 66 and 67.

14 Nogales Basarrate, Espectáculos en Augusta Emerita, p.27 and Notes 43, 44. - 141 -

(1) THE AUDITORIUM

(a) GENERAL DESCRIPTION: Fig. 8.2 shows the plan of the cavea. Figs. 8.6, 8.7, 8.8 and 8.915 show the various levels, starting from the lowest. Fig. 8.6 is especially valuable since it correctly shows one entrance on the east and one on the west into the annular passage or crypta serving the ima cavea by six openings in its upper steps. The earlier plans16 showed the two entrances split to serve both the crypta and the praecinctio running around the top of the ima cavea. Fig. 8.6 also seems to be the first plan to show the small dead- ended excavation into the masonry near the steps leading up on the west side from the base of the aditus maximus. This was abandoned before it penetrated into the aditus maximus, as that on the east side had done 17. Both the crypta and the praecinctio are shown on Fig. 8.1018.

The six cunei of the ima cavea were separated by the seven staircases. Access to the bottom of the ima cavea was through the aditus maximi. The crypta, entered from east and west, had six vomitoria emerging between the 13th and 19th seats in the middle of the cunei. As shown on Fig. 8.7, there were also five entrances from the outside on the lines of the staircases, and a further two from the praecinctio. Fig. 8.10 shows the crypta and the praecinctio in cross section, and the longitudinal section of the entry from the outside along the main axis. The media cavea is separated from the ima cavea by a 2.20 metres high podium wall. Another podium wall 3.09 metres high separates the media from the summa cavea. Both these levels are served by six common entrances shown on Figs. 8.8 and 8.9. These contain stairways. The first flight ascends from ground level to the media cavea with a landing at the top. A second flight ascends from this landing in the opposite direction to a second landing near the outside wall. From this landing a third flight above the first ascends to the summa cavea.

15 Based on Duran Cabello, Plános, 2, 3, 4 and 5 respectively.

16 Boschung, D., 'Die Präsenz des Kaiserhauses im öffentlichen Bereich', Stadtbild und Ideologie, pp.391-400, Abb.79, p.493. and Menéndez-Pidal Álvarez, J., 'Algunas notas sobre la restauracíon y atencíon prestadas a los monumentos emeritenses', Augusta Emérita Actas del simposio internacional commemorativo del bimilenario de Mérida, Madrid, 1976, pp.206-11, Fig. 1, (part), p.206.

17 See below Note 66, p.149.

18 Based on Menéndez-Pídal Álvarez, 'Algunas notas …', Fig. 2, p.207. - 142 -

As can be seen from Fig. 8.10, the two upper levels were supported above 'natural' ground level, on substructures, while the ima cavea was built on the slope of the hill, with the crypta formed in an excavated trench and the aditus maximi above the 'natural' surface. This surface resulted from earthworks intended to scoop out a hollow for the cavea from a natural hillside, as indicated on Fig. 8.1119, reducing construction20, and providing a sheltered space with good acoustics. Fig. 8.10 shows that a first cavea corresponding to the present ima cavea would have had access from the crypta and the cavea perimeter. When the upper levels were built; openings through them preserved entry from the top. A crypta is a feature of early theatres in Spain. One exists at the theatre of Metellinum on the Guadiana some 35 kms away, dated to the last quarter of the 1st century B.C.21. There is, therefore, a general indication that the crypta was built as part of the original theatre. Its construction provided access to the middle and lower parts of the present ima cavea and also formed a base for the upper rows of the seating and the praecinctio, which gave access to these.

As can be seen from Fig. 8.1, the external walling of the media cavea has largely survived, while that of the summa cavea is lost, together with most of the staircases and their vaults giving access to the two upper levels. Nothing has survived above the seating of the summa cavea except traces of supports for a portico tentatively shown on Fig. 8.10 and holes, possibly for holding poles to tension an awning or vela22. Vitruvius said that the top of the cavea of a Roman theatre should be at the same height as that of the scaenae frons for acoustic reasons 23. This is not seen at all surviving Roman theatres24, but the level of the top of the cavea was generally not markedly different from that of the top of the scaenae frons, as seen on Fig. 8.1225. A

19 Duran Cabello, Pláno 1.

20 As pointed out by Vitruvius De architectura, 5.3.3.

21 Amo, M. del, 'El teatro romano de Medellin', Álvarez Martínez, J.M., Ed., El teatro en la Hispania, Actas del simposio, Badajoz, 1982, pp.316-36.

22 The holes are shown on Fig. 8.2.

23 Vitruvius, De architectura, 5.6.4.

24 Where a roof covered the stage the acoustics were altered. At Orange the roof over the stage was higher than the cavea which, itself, was higher than the scaenae frons. Bellet, Orange Antique, pp.33-35.

25 Photograph by the writer. - 143 - first cavea, built only up to the top of the ima cavea, would have called for a scaenae frons of the same height, and built in local stone.

Álvarez Martínez has estimated the capacity of the theatre in its final form as 6,000, based on an inscription E.X.D. on one of the steps of the ima cavea interpreted as ' decem decreto (decurionum)', or room for ten equites by order of the decurions 26. Mélida, using the same inscription, assessed a total seating capacity of 5,383 with the 23 rows of the ima cavea at 2,302, the five rows of the media cavea at 1,090, the five rows of the summa cavea at 1,330 and others in the orchestra and tribunalia27. The calculations, based on the inscription E.X.D., can be only approximate, since the results depend on the assumed space needed for each person, but they indicate that construction above the ima cavea to the perimeter would approximately double the seating capacity. The inscription gives no indication of a date, nor does it say how many rows of seats were allotted to equites, as is known at Gades28.

(b) THE ADITUS MAXIMI: The layouts of the two aditus maximi of the Agrippan theatre were like that shown on the western side on Fig. 8.6. The entrance from the outer wall of the cavea on the eastern side, formed in the late Empire, was constructed in the same style as the old work. When the theatre was excavated some of the aditus maximi had collapsed or had been removed, but the existing reconstructions provide a generally reliable indication of the first works. Fig. 8.1329 shows the entrance to the western aditus maximus from outside the theatre, and Fig. 8.1430, the view from the aditus maximus on the east side looking outwards towards the basilica to the north, marked on Fig. 8.6. Figures 8.13 and 8.14 indicate construction in opus quadratum over a core of concrete (opus caementicium). There are some variations in the surface treatment of the stonework, but within a common masonry type. In the

26 Álvarez Martinez et al, Mérida, p.24.

27 Mélida, J. R. 'El teatro romano de Mérida' in Revista de Archivos, Bibliotecas y Museos, 19-32, Madrid, Jan-June 1915, pp.1-39, at pp.14-15.

28 Cicero, Ad Fam, 10.32, described the (wooden) theatre of Balbus Minor, as having 14 rows for equites in 43 B.C.

29 Álvarez Martínez et al, Mérida, Fig. 18, p.22.

30 Photograph by the writer. - 144 - eastern , concrete acts with stonework in a modern reconstruction, as seen on Fig. 8.1531. Further details of the aditus maximi can be found in Duran Cabello 32.

(c) THE CRYPTA: This is shown in plan on Fig. 8.6 and in cross-section on Fig. 8.10. Figs. 8.16, 8.17 and 8.1833 show, respectively, the reconstructed entrance on the west of the theatre, a view from the entrance looking along the straight part of the vault and the view near the exit to the cavea. In the first straight part from the entrance, the floor slopes downward, but the vault above is horizontal at two levels. Fig. 8.17 shows the construction where these two levels meet34. At this point, and in some of the vaulting, concrete was used. Otherwise, the opus quadratum of the crypta is like that of the aditus maximi, indicating construction as part of the first theatre, as at the early theatre of Metellinum35.

(d) THE ENTRANCES TO THE MEDIA CAVEA A ND THE SUMMA CAVEA: The six entrances between the 'siete sillas', or seven thrones mentioned above, had collapsed before excavations were begun in 1910 and there is no remaining material from the vaults to indicate whether they were built in stone or brick. Fig. 8.1936 shows a reconstructed entrance. The vault of brick under the summa cavea is modern, and meant to be seen as such since, in Roman work, bricks radiated from the centre of the arch circle, whereas on Fig. 8.19 only alternate ones do so37. Space has been left for stone voussoirs as facing on both sides of the vault. The use of brick is not mentioned in any of the old records seen by the writer, nor does there seem to be any explanation of its use in the modern reconstruction. Duran Cabello stated that brick or tile vaults covered the staircases serving both of the two upper levels38 and

31 Photograph by the writer.

32 Duran Cabello, pp.228-235.

33 All three photographs are by the writer.

34 Duran Cabello, p.231 and Note 13 described the 'decenda de cava' type of construction used for access to cellars, and seen here.

35 Ibid, pp.166-8, for further information on the crypta. Also see above Note 21, p.142.

36 Photograph by the writer.

37 Brodribb, G., Roman Brick and Tile, Gloucester, 1987, p.43-47, also Adam, J.P., Roman Building, Bloomington and Indianapolis, 1994, pp.145-157 and pp.158-195.

38 Duran Cabello, p.552. - 145 - that bricks or tiles were used to level up the springing points for a stone arch39. By this she meant that the springing layer sloping down towards the exterior of the theatre, as seen on Fig. 8.19, was levelled by bricks or tiles. This comment must be questioned since the entrances to the praecinctio above the ima cavea are on a slope and are entirely in stone. She also referred to discovery of ceramic material in the entrance in the 19th century and she mentioned recovery of Roman ceramic material at two places during reconstruction in 198940. The evidence provided by Duran Cabello for the existence of brick vaults is convincing, and a structural reason to use brick can be suggested. The thickness of the vaults determined the distance from the underside of the arch crown to the top of the structure. The thinner the vault, the lower the surface above. Use of thinner vaults therefore allowed a lower construction for the whole of the summa cavea, since the seating of this passed over the vaults, as can be seen from Figs. 8.8, 8.9 and 8.10. Even a small decrease in arch thickness would result in substantially less use of material. It was easier to order bricks to be made to suit thinner vaults than to quarry stone and to cut this to the required size and shape.

The presence of bricks at the amphitheatre indicates construction there much later than 16-15 B.C., and no earlier than the Claudian period41. Brickwork at the aqueducts is also generally regarded as post-Augustan42. There is, therefore, a strong indication that the summa cavea was built in the Claudian period or later because of a probable use of bricks in vaults supporting the seating of this top level. Bricks in these vaults have no bearing on the dating of the media cavea. This is the case because the media cavea was reached by steps and there was no need to provide vaults over these until the summa cavea was built.

(e) THE ENTRANCES TO THE PRAECINCTIO ABOVE THE IMA CAVEA: These slope down from the outside, as seen on Fig. 8.10. Fig. 8.2043 shows the entrance to one of these from outside the auditorium. The original Roman work on the left side can be contrasted with the modern reconstruction on the right. There is

39 Ibid, p.69.

40 Ibid, pp.69, 115 and 125.

41 Nogales Basarrate, Espectáculos en Augusta Emerita, p.36.

42 See below Chapter 9, Note 65, p.170.

43 Photograph by the writer. - 146 - no discernable difference between the opus quadratum of the passages and that of the construction of 16-15 B.C. at the aditus maximi and the crypta. Yet, at the crypta, the floor slopes down, with the vault built horizontally at two levels, as seen on Fig. 8.17. At the passages, the vault and the floor both slope down continuously. There is, therefore, an indication of a design later than 16-15 B.C. at the passages, but opus quadratum built to suit the older work. The podium wall of the praecinctio pierced by the passages is built in opus quadratum, which differs from that of 16-15 B.C. since there are courses of varying heights and some stones are placed on the edge. The material evidence, therefore, indicates that the entrances to the praecinctio above the ima cavea are probably post-Agrippan.

(f) THE EXTERIOR WALL OF THE CAVEA: The line of this wall was laid out from the beginning to allow for the whole extent of the final cavea seating, but it was built for Agrippa's theatre only to encompass the crypta and the present ima cavea. Fig. 8.2144 shows the west side of the theatre with the arched entrance to the crypta. The opus quadratum of the Agrippan construction has survived only near the corner of the building and the facing is largely lost elsewhere. Wherever it remains above the ima cavea it is rusticated rather than being dressed flat or almost so, as in most of the work of 16-15 B.C. It is also distinguished by large variations in the depth of the courses, the size of blocks, and by stones laid on edge as well as on the flat. Fig. 8.2245 shows typical treatment. The rusticated stonework of the wall above the ima cavea cannot be dated from other opus quadratum at Augusta Emerita, since, apart from that of the aditus maximi, no other can be dated from an inscription except that of the podium around the arena of the amphitheatre. This dates from 8/7 B.C.46 and it is dressed flat. Fig. 8.2347 shows one of the entrances to the amphitheatre, the outer wall of which was completed later than the Claudian period48. Other rusticated opus quadratum appears at the San Lázaro aqueduct, which is almost certainly post Augustan49. Heavy rustication

44 Photograph by the writer.

45 Duran Cabello, Lámina 41.

46 See below Chapter 9, Note 4, p.162.

47 Álvarez Martínez et al, Merida, Fig. 23, p.27.

48 See below Chapter 9, Note 8, p.163.

49 See below Chapter 9, Note 65, p.170. - 147 - was used on some Claudian works at Rome and Ostia, including the Porta Maggiore, the viaducts of the Aqua Nova and the Aqua Claudia, the replacement of part of Agrippa’s Aqua Virgo, and at some works at Ostia 50. Duran Cabello constructed a categorisation of the various rustications of the wall and dated the upper levels to the Claudian period or, perhaps, a little later51. Jímenez Martin also saw similarities between the stonework of the outer wall and that of Claudian works at Rome 52. Some reservations must be expressed about dating opus quadratum by comparison between its treatment at buildings from different places. It is also possible that rustication was used as an easy surfacing to apply on a large, high wall. Consequently, the exterior walls above the ima cavea can be seen as post-Agrippan because of the probable post-Agrippan dating of the six entrances in it, as discussed above, rather than from the rustication.

(g) THE AUDITORIUM : CONCLUSIONS The evidence considered above indicates that the cavea of Agrippa's theatre was completed up to a level above the crypta to include 23 rows of seats of the present ima cavea, although the theatre was set out to allow for additional seating, within the original perimeter. The summa cavea is Claudian or later from the evidence of brick in the vaulting of the staircases. The media cavea cannot be dated from the vaulting, but a post-Agrippan date is indicated by the design of the six passages to the praecinctio above the ima cavea, and by the opus quadratum of the praecinctio. Also, the addition of the present media cavea and the summa cavea to the ima cavea of 23 rows would double the seating capacity, and such an increase should be expected between 16-15 B.C. and the late Empire.

Duran Cabello undertook a lengthy study of the theatre based on the units of measurement used in its construction, the materials and the methods of building. She used the units of construction to form conclusions about the dating of the various parts. Of the 47 reference points where she conducted detailed examination, over 30 were at the cavea. The units of construction which she identified were the pes italicus and monumentalis, the palmipes, or 1.25 pes, the cubitus, or 1.5 pes and the

50 Sear, Roman Architecture, p.93, 94. Ward-Perkins, Roman Imperial Architecture, p.52 and Note 11, p.470.

51 Duran Cabello, pp.244-25, identified four finishes and examined the positions of the contact surfaces between the blocks. The types of rustication are illustrated on her Pláno No. 13.

52 Jíménez Martín, A., 'Los acueductos de Mérida', Augusta Emerita Actas del simposio internacional commemorative del bimilenario de Mérida, Madrid, 1976, p.111 ff. - 148 - bipedalis or 2.0 pes53. Duran Cabello noted that the pes was used for the aditus maximi and the crypta but not for the upper two levels. She concluded from this that the two were built at different times54, and this can be agreed. She also noted broken brick and tiles in the concrete core of the upper two levels but not in that of the ima cavea, and saw this as evidence of a two-stage construction55. This deduction can be questioned since it could have been caused by major demolition in some building programme of the later epoch. Duran Cabello concluded that the Agrippan cavea was built up to the exits of the crypta, or the first 13 rows, but she showed the ima cavea completed up to the 19th row in her plan showing this phase56. There is, therefore, some inconsistency in her conclusions. It is difficult to understand why the seating was not extended up to 23 rows to make use of the space over the vaulting of the crypta, since this would have added a large number of additional seats at little extra cost. The crypta could also form a base for construction of the praecinctio, as seen on Fig. 8.10. In fact, there was no need to build the crypta if there were no seats above it since there was access from the perimeter, and, as argued above, the crypta was built as part of the first theatre.

The evidence, therefore, indicates that the cavea of Agrippa's theatre extended up to the top of the present ima cavea, and included the praecinctio above this. Access to the seating was from the praecinctio and the crypta, and, perhaps, also from the orchestra. The external wall of the cavea was laid out to accommodate future provision of the two upper levels, which would double the original seating capacity. It is not possible to date the constructions of the media cavea or the summa cavea, except that the latter was no earlier than the Claudian period. It is also not known whether the two upper levels were built at the same time or one after the other.

(2) THE INSCRIPTIONS Fig. 8.2457 shows the inscription on the lintel above the western aditus maximus. The same inscription appears on the corresponding lintel on the western side. The

53 Duran Cabello, Pláno 10, Vol. 1, pp.73-216, and appendice estadisticco, pp.1-21 and pp.170-172.

54 Ibid, pp.263 and 278.

55 Ibid, pp. 264 and 268.

56 Ibid, pp.565-567 and Plános 11, 1 and 2.

57 Nogales Basarrate, T., Espectáculas en Augusta Emerita, lámina 5. - 149 - inscription58 M:.AGRIPPA·.L·.F·Cos· III· TRIB· POT· III, must be dated to 16-15 B.C. since Agrippa first received the tribunicia potestas in 18 B.C., and probably on 1 July59. Consequently, he had held this power for two years by 1 July 16 B.C., and for more than three years after the same date in 15 B.C. As pointed out by Trillmich60, the nominative case of Agrippa indicates the theatre as his. Roddaz suggested that the theatre was built for the diffusion of dynastic ideas, and that the absence of dedit or fecit indicates this 61. Cooley noted that, by 16-15 B.C., Agrippa was in the East. She argued that the decision to specify the year of Agrippa’s tribunician power was not necessary if the town sought to recognise his generosity as a donor and that it implied a commemorative purpose, and, perhaps, the promotion of the town as the capital of a new province of Lusitania 62. As noted above 63, there is some uncertainty about the dating of the inauguration of the province of Lusitania and Cooley's comment is interesting in this context.

Another inscription can be reconstructed from the holes left by bronze letters in a granite block above the entrance to the eastern aditus maximus from the basilica, shown on Fig. 8.6. Fig. 8.2564 shows the block, with some of the holes, and Fig. 8.26 the reconstruction M·AGRIPPA·.L·F·.COS·TERT· TRIB·POTEST·TERT· 65. As can be seen from Fig. 8.6, there was no basilica on the west side, and the new entrance on the east side, was built to replace the original one blocked by the basilica which has been dated to the late Empire66. The letters of bronze preserved in the Museum at Mérida match both the holes which remain in the stone and the inscription as reconstructed67. There is no evidence of any similar inscription on the west side in

58 CIL 2.474.

59 Cassius Dio, 54.12.4-5, and Reinhold, p.93, Note 3.

60 Trillmich, 'Colonia Augusta Emerita …', Stadtbild und Ideologie, p.304

61 Roddaz, Marcus Agrippa, p.417 and Roddaz, 'Agrippa et la péninsule Ibérique', p.73.

62 Cooley, A., 'A new date for Agrippa’s theatre at Ostia', PBSR, 67, 1999, pp.173-182, at p.179 referring to Roddaz, 'Agrippa et la péninsule Ibérique', pp.71-7.

63 See above pp. 133 and Note 42.

64 Photograph by the writer.

65 Richmond, Fig. 4, p.116.

66 Duran Cabello, pp.281-4, describes the basilica and brickwork in it.

67 Nogales Basarrate, T. , 'Bronces romanos en Augusta Emerita', 'Los bronces romanos en Espãna, Madrid, 1990, pp.103-115, pp.104-5. - 150 - the same position over the unblocked entrance there, although it has been suggested that this existed68. Richmond considered that the inscriptions with bronze letters over the entrances to both aditus maximi were the original ones and that those on the lintels were provided only after the basilica was built on the east side. He based this on the 'curious position of the lintels'69. This last comment must be questioned since similar lintels with inscriptions appear at other theatres, notably at 70. Also, the lintels and the inscriptions are characteristic of the Augustan period, both because of the mouldings and the style of the lettering. Trillmich suggested that the two lintels were originally part of a scaenae frons of Agrippa, and that when this was rebuilt they were removed and replaced where they now are out of respect for the memory of Agrippa71. An Agrippan columnatio of the scaenae frons in local stone would certainly have been replaced by a marble one, and the hypothesis of Trillmich is to be supported. There is also some archaeological evidence that the stone lintels were not placed on the aditus maximi in 16-15 B.C.72. An inscription, which may bear the name of Agrippa, has been discovered near the theatre73.

(3) THE ORCHESTRA Figs. 8.4 and 8.12 show new marble and new brick placed over the orchestra to provide access to an important area with no wear and tear on original surfaces74. This has obscured the Roman work and damaged some of it75. Fig. 8.2776 shows part of the orchestra as excavated. Blue and white marble was found over a semi-circular area with a diameter of 17 metres. Around the rim of the orchestra there were three broad and shallow marble steps on which were placed the marble seats, or bisella, for

68 Nogales Basarrate, Espectáculas en Augusta Emerita, p.26.

69 Richmond, pp.115-6.

70 Ward Perkins, Roman Imperial Architecture, Fig. 246, p.376.

71 Trillmich, 'Colonia Augusta Emerita', p.310 and Note 84.

72 Duran Cabello, p.274.

73 Garciá Iglesias, L., Epigrafia romano de Augusta Emerita, Madrid, 1973, Note 45.

74 Menéndez Pidal, J., 'Algunas notas …', Augusta Emerita, 1976, p. 210.

75 Duran Cabello, p.81.

76 Mélida, J.R., 'El teatro romano de Mérida', Revista de Archivos Bibliotecas y museos, 19.32, Jan-June, 1915, pp.1-39. Photograph between pp.8 and 9. - 151 - magistrates77. Fig. 8.2878 shows a plan published in 1956 indicating a paper reconstruction. Although Agrippa’s orchestra was not identified from the excavations, which did not penetrate below the late Roman works79, Fig. 8.2 probably indicates it as accurately as possible from the evidence.

As seen from Fig. 8.2, the main axis of the theatre and the quadriporticus passed through the centre point of the semi-circle from which the cavea was laid out. It is not immediately clear that this centre point was used to lay out the scaena, but the writer believes that this was the case. Unlike the Greek theatre, the Roman form included the cavea, the orchestra and the scaena in one architectural plan forming an artificial entity isolated from the outside world. All the dimensions of length, breadth and height worked together to transmit the action on the stage to the auditorium. The orchestra provided the only focus for co-ordination. Fig. 8.2980 shows the layout of the Roman theatre according to Vitruvius81. Comparison with Fig. 8.2 shows important differences. On Fig. 8.2, the line separating the stage from the orchestra does not bisect the circle of the orchestra82, but passes through the aditus maximi. This means that if the scaenae frons remains on the line A-B, as indicated on Fig. 8.29, the stage will be shallower than intended. The length of the stage is not twice the diameter of the orchestra83 but nearly three times as long. This calls for a wider spacing of the entrance to the guest chambers than provided for by the points L and M84. The two staircases of the cavea on either side of that on the main axis are not aligned at 30° and 60° respectively from this 85 but are 27° and 53°. Also the seating of upper levels extends into the stage area beyond the projection of line CD. Vitruvius said that his precepts should be modified to suit each theatre86 and no

77 Ibid, p.10.

78 Wis eman, F.J., Roman Spain, London, 1956, Plan p.89.

79 Duran Cabello, pp.279-80.

80 Vitruvius The Ten Books on Architecture, Morgan, M. H., New York, 1960, Fig. P.147.

81 Vitruvius, De architectura, 5.6.1.

82 Ibid, 5.6.6.

83 Ibid, 5.6.3.

84 Ibid, 5.6.3.

85 Ibid, 5.6.3.

86 Ibid, 5.6.7. - 152 - known Roman theatre complies completely with these. At Augusta Emerita, the precepts, as set out in de architectura, could not be used. In particular, the scaenae frons and its two side doors could not be located from points in the circle since the circumference of this did not reach them, although it was still possible to set out the staircases of the cavea. It has been suggested that this resulted in the Vitruvian precepts being retained for the cavea but dropped for the scaena at some theatres87. This may be the case, but a version of the Vitruvian method, including both elements, would have been looked for. Also, Vitruvius based his ideas on existing buildings88 and De architectura was published in the early rather than in the later part of the Augustan principate89. Adaptations of his rules should be expected to keep pace with developments in theatre design.

Sear has proposed a design method which might have been used for theatres like that at Augusta Emerita90 and has illustrated it for this particular building. As seen on Fig. 8.3091, the circle and triangles of Vitruvius are retained, but used to lay out principal features by projections both in and outside the circle. The line of the scaenae frons is tangential to the circle, and the side doors are set out from projections beyond A and B. For the scaena there is a perfect match between the design and the actual positions. The positions of the cunei determined by the design do not agree with the actual ones, as can be seen from Fig. 8.30. Sear argued that these had to be adjusted to give cunei of equal size 92. This can be seen from examination of Fig. 8.29 which shows that the cunei next to the aditus maximi would, otherwise, have a smaller seating capacity than the others. Sear’s design allowed for a deep, long stage. He considered that it was used for other theatres, including those at Corinth, and , and possibly at Augusta Praetoria, or Aosta93. Sear

87 Small, D.B., 'Studies in Roman Theater Design', AJA, 87, 1983, pp.55-68.

88 Böethius, A., Etruscan and Early Roman Architecture, p.34.

89 The work was dedicated to Augustus, and cannot, therefore, be before 27 B.C. A dating of 24 B.C. or thereabouts has been suggested by McKay, A., Vitruvius Architect and Engineer, London, 1978, p.16, and 25-22 B.C. by Ward-Perkins’ Roman Imperial Architecture, p.42.

90 Sear, F.B., 'Vitruvius and Roman Theater Design', AJA, 94, 1990, pp.249-258, Fig. 6.

91 Ibid, Fig. 6, p.254.

92 Ibid, p.255, section 5.

93 Ibid, p.255 and Notes 37-40 referring to literature on these theatres. - 153 - also showed how the design can be adapted for four or five cunei94. The Agrippan theatre could, therefore, have been laid out from the beginning with the podium of the scaenae frons and its doorways in the same location, as discovered on excavation. It is not necessary to think of the cavea as built in the beginning and the existing podium later, as might be inferred from considering only the standard Vitruvian design.

(4) THE STAGE CONSTRUCTIONS

(a) THE STAGE WALL AND THE STAGE: The stage wall seen on Fig. 8.4 is a reconstruction, based on the excavations of Mélida95, formed almost entirely from modern local stone, with surviving original marble pieces added. Duran Cabello consulted records of Macias in addition to those of Mélida to note that the wall, as excavated, was in local stone covered in marble 96. The design of stage walls with alternating curved and rectangular niches seems to have been brought into common use in the Augustan period97, but it is also seen in later works, as at the Severan wall in the second phase of the Agrippan theatre at Ostia 98. The wall, as excavated, can, therefore, not be dated from its design, and the material is from both before and during the marble period. Duran Cabello thought that 'something might have existed' at the front of the stage in 16-15 B.C.99, but this comment can be regarded as somewhat pessimistic as a description of Agrippa's theatre, and seems to be based on an idea of it rather than on the archaeology.

The original Roman stage with boards is now filled in. Fig. 8.28 shows 12 slots in masonry behind the stage wall to receive posts supporting the aulaeum, which was lowered at the start of the performance100. Pits are not necessarily earlier than the continuous trench or fossa into which the curtain was lowered, since both systems

94 Ibid, pp.255-257.

95 Mélida, 'El teatro romano…', p.16.

96 Duran Cabello, p.51, refers to Macías, L.M., Mérida monumental y artística, , 2nd Ed., 1929, p.82.

97 Courtois, C., Le bâtiment de scène des théâtres d’Italie et de Sicile, Providence and Louvain-la-Neuve, 1989, p.185.

98 Ibid, Fig. 72, p.111.

99 Duran Cabello, p.566.

100 Mélida, 'El teatro romano…', p.19, Note 27. - 154 - were developed in the Augustan period101. The pits cannot, therefore, be used to date the stage. Mélida provided a good description of the dimensions of the stage, which are generally congruent with those shown on Fig. 8.2102. He also described a trench or fossa at the rear of the stage running along the front of the scaenae frons used for stage effects, as were the two rectangular compartments near it which contained brickwork103. The substantial use of the space below the stage, the hyposcaenium, was an Augustan innovation104 and this, with the brickwork, indicates post-Agrippan development. The six smaller rectangles in the mid stage indicate structural support for the boards and are almost certainly from 16-15 B.C.

(b) THE SCAENAE FRONS: The scaenae frons podium, shown on Fig. 8.4, is a reconstruction of the late 1960's, replacing a reconstruction of 1925105 of the late Roman works. The two-storey marble columnatio, noted above as post-Agrippan, was rebuilt largely from modern material. The podium has been built up from detached pieces on in situ foundations, now covered over by the filled in stage and the reconstructed buildings. The material in the restored podium over these foundations is local stone, both original and new, in various sizes, together with some brick, and attached original marble fragments. Some parts of the podium have been rebuilt entirely in modern opus quadratum. Figs. 8.31, 8.32 and 8.33106 show, respectively, the lower, middle and upper parts of the podium in various places along its length. The surface of the wall was entirely covered by marble when excavated. Fig. 8.34107 shows one interpretation of the process by which the lower part of the podium, originally faced in opus quadratum, was covered by marble108.

101 Courtois, p.185, for development, and pp.188-9, 197-9 for various systems and literature on these.

102 Mélida, 'El teatro romano…', pp.17, 18.

103 Ibid, p.19, and Duran Cabello, p.52.

104 Courtois, p.185.

105 Duran Cabello, p.181, noted that the first reconstruction of 1925 by Goméz Millan, Mélida and Macias was virtually dismantled by the 1960's reconstruction of Menéndez Pidal.

106 All three photographs by the writer.

107 After Pfanner, Abb.32, p.101.

108 The part of the podium, below the existing level of the stage (now filled in), cannot now be inspected. - 155 -

The reasons for the mixed reconstruction of the podium, including bricks, are not explained in any literature seen by the writer. Mélida stated that the podium was built from 'courses of granite' and mampostería with cladding of marble109. The 'courses of granite' must be opus quadratum. Mampostería probably implied something made up from various elements in various arrangements110. Mélida referred to bricks, ladrillo, only in his description of stage compartments111. Duran Cabello noted that Mélida referred consistently to masonry in several accounts of his excavations while Lantier mentioned bricks. She referred also to old photographs (unspecified) which indicated brick112. The composition of the wall under the marble, as excavated, is, therefore, uncertain and Duran Cabello's discovery of mixed units used in building the reconstructed wall only indicates the rebuilding113. A first podium wall in local stone would have been faced in regular course work of opus quadratum, since it was visible to the audience. Also, a podium built from the beginning with a marble surface would have had marble applied directly to a concrete core. There is, therefore, no doubt that there was a podium faced in opus quadratum. The details of the transition from this to the podium clad in marble, discovered on excavation, are uncertain. The evidence of the 'masonry' indicates that the podium was altered when the marble was added. Whether the marble was applied to a first podium of 16-15 B.C. or of some later date, or on an altered stone podium is open to question.

The scaenae frons wall, as excavated, was indented, with the valvae regiae enclosed in a curved niche, and the hospitalia in shallow, rectangular niches. Courtois considered such a form with niches to be unusual in the Augustan period, and suggested that it may originally have been rectangular114, although she mentioned the existence of niches at Augustan theatres, generally115, in Spain, at Belo and Acinipo

109 Mélida, 'El teatro romano…', p.18. He distinguished between the reddish marble of the plinth, the white of the mouldings and the streaked material of the veneers on the wall.

110 As argued by Duran Cabello, p.182.

111 Mélida 'El teatro romano…', p. 19.

112 Duran Cabello, p.183, referred to several reports of Mélida and to Lantier, R., 'Le théâtre romain de Mérida' CRAI, Paris, 1915, p.172.

113 Duran Cabello, Appendice estadistico.

114 Courtois, p.184 and Note 288.

115 Ibid, pp.192, 3. - 156 -

(Ronda), at Fréjus in Gaul, and at Augusta Praetoria in the Alps116. Duran Cabello noted this comment, but could neither agree with it nor deny it because of the 'exorbitant reconstruction' 117, and her reservations seem to be justified. There is, therefore, a possibility that an Agrippan podium wall in opus quadratum, or a later one, was changed to provide niches by addition of 'masonry' and the marble cladding was added to the resulting mix of construction as part of the same process.

It has not, therefore, been possible to form a clear idea of the podium of the scaenae frons of Agrippa's theatre from the archaeological evidence. It follows from this that there is no clear archaeological evidence of the columnatio which it may have supported, and which had to be removed to be rebuilt in marble. Duran Cabello suggested that there was only a 'germ' of an Agrippan scaenae frons118, and also proposed that this might have been built in timber119. These comments are congruent with her idea of the rudimentary Agrippan proscaenium120. Yet the archaeological evidence of the podium of the scaenae frons indicates the addition of marble to a wall of local stone, and the wall could have been Agrippan. The discussion on the podium is advanced further below by considering the standard of theatre that would have been provided by Agrippa.

It is not possible to indicate the date or nature of the first scaenae frons from the iconography. Mélida reported the discovery of marble fragments indicating that there had been statues of Gaius and Lucius, the sons of Agrippa121. The use of marble indicates a date after 16-15 B.C., as for inscriptions mentioning Gaius and Lucius dated to 5 B.C. to A.D. 1 at the theatre of Carthago Nova122. There are also indications of a statue of Agrippa123. Duran Cabello referred to statues of Claudius and his family and suggested that the first podium was built to display these, although

116 Ibid, pp.183, 4.

117 Duran Cabello, p.520.

118 Ibid, p.566.

119 Ibid, p.276.

120 Ibid, p.366 and Note 99 above.

121 Mélida, 'El teatro romano…', pp.25-26.

122 See below Chapter 10, Note 64, p.190.

123 Gros, P., 'Théâtre et culte Imperial en Gaule Narbonnaise et dans la péninsule Ibérique', Stadtbild und Ideologie, pp.381-390, pp.386-7 and Note 43. - 157 - she dated the columnatio to the Flavian period124. There is no doubt that there was substantial Claudian iconography125, but this does not necessarily indicate a first podium of that principate. An earlier podium and columnatio could have contained statues of Augustus and other figures now lost.

(c) STAGE BUILDINGS BEHIND THE SCAENAE FRONS: Fig. 8.35126 shows the scaenae frons and the works behind this, when first excavated by Mélida. The arrangement is indicated on Fig. 8.2. The four free-standing columns, and those engaged in the walls of the building on the same line, as shown on Fig. 8.2, supported the southern part of the roof of the southern portico of the quadriporticus. It can be assumed that there was a solid wall behind the scaenae frons of the Agrippan theatre to isolate the auditorium, but there is no clear archaeological information that this wall and the southern supports of the portico were connected. Nevertheless, it would be surprising if this was not the case, since building there would have provided the choragia and the postscaenia of the Agrippan theatre. The only reconstruction behind the scaenae frons is a partial building of the wall behind the scaenae frons in random stonework of modern design, as seen on Fig. 8.4. All the material uncovered behind the scaenae frons was in local stone 127.

(d) THE STAGE CONSTRUCTIONS : CONCLUSIONS: There is insufficient archaeological information to show what Agrippa built for the stage itself, the scaenae frons, and the facilities behind this. It is certain only that, for the stage and the scaenae frons, there was construction in local stone, modified to look like marble, and that this construction may have been Agrippan. It must be admitted that the archaeological evidence does not rule out rudimentary stage works constructed in timber, as suggested by Duran Cabello 128. Yet, the stage facilities, and particularly the scaenae frons, were the focus of audience attention and any economies in theatre construction would have been achieved by lower standards elsewhere, and, probably, by

124 Duran Cabello, pp.276, 7.

125 Trillmich, W., 'Novedades en torno al programma iconográfico del teatro romano de Mérida', Trinidad Nogales Basarrate, Co-ord., Actas de la I reunion sobre escultura romana en Hispania, Madrid, 1993, pp.113-125, pp.115.

126 Mélida, 'El teatro romano…', photograph between pp.20 and 21.

127 Ibid, p.22.

128 See above Notes 118, 119 and 120, p.156. - 158 - building a smaller quadriporticus. Furthermore, Agrippa would have built a high standard theatre where there were inscriptions which may have related its dedication to the inauguration of the province of Lusitania129, and this would have had a high standard scaena. Roddaz described the theatre at Mérida as an early example of a building intended to advertise the dynasty of Augustus130 and Gros noted the theatre in the Iberian Peninsula as an instrument of dynastic propaganda131, while also citing the theatre of Balbus Minor at Gades as a building intended to project his power132. Augustus, in 16-15 B.C., would have seen the theatre as an instrument for extending and consolidating his authority. A developed scaena was needed to present the scaenici, and the scaenae frons was an important feature of this presentation. Also, a scaenae frons was a billboard for the propaganda of statues and inscriptions. Consequently, it is almost certain that Agrippa would have provided a scaenae frons with the centre double doors decorated like those of the Royal palace and with side doors leading to guest chambers, as prescribed by Vitruvius133. All the circumstantial evidence indicates, therefore, that Agrippa built his theatre in stone throughout, except for the stage boards, and to a uniformly high standard.

(5) THE QUADRIPORTICUS Fig. 8.2 shows the plan of the quadriporticus, and Fig. 8.36134 the elevation of its southern portico looking from the north towards the stage buildings. The portico was attached to the stage buildings by a single pitched roof over the choragia and with a projecting pediment supported on four columns. The other three porticoes were double-pitched, with central columns, at double the spacing of the front ones, and a back wall. At the centre of the north portico, the front columns were double-spaced to emphasise the exedra. The space enclosed by the porticos had canals, walkways and plantings. The quadriporticus design followed the precepts of Vitruvius for such

129 See above Note 62, p.149.

130 Roddaz, 'Agrippa et la péninsule Ibérique', pp.72, 73.

131 Gros P., 'Théâtre et culte Impérial en Gaule Narbonnaise et dans la péninsule Iberíque', Stadtbild und Ideologie, pp.381-390, at p.383.

132 Ibid, pp.382-3, also see below Chapter 10, Note 13, p.63.

133 Vitruvius, De architectura, 5.6.8.

134 Álvarez Martínez, J.M., et al. Conjunto arqueológico de Mérida : patriomonio de la humanidad, Mérida, 1994, Fig. P.256. - 159 - works 'behind the scaena'135. The width of the double porticos, their height and the external Doric and inside Ionic columns was also in accordance with Vitruvius136.

Fig. 8.37137, dated from the 1950s, showed the south-east corner with the eastern portico in the foreground. This portico has now been partly reconstructed, with everything modern above the column capitals, and only partly roofed, as shown on Fig. 8.38138. The three porticos standing free of the stage buildings had the same types of bases, column shafts and capitals, except for the special double columns at the front of the portico framing the exedra. Figs. 8.39 and 8.40139 show, respectively, the Doric and Ionic bases, some constructed in modern materials to resemble the originals. Fig. 8.41140 shows original Ionic and reconstructed Doric capitals. The unfluted columns in local stone and stucco, rebuilt partly in brick, had the lower part cut from the same block as the base, as at the Temple of Valetudo at Glanum dated 39-37 B.C141. The Doric material has some resemblance to the Hellenised Doric of the Temple of Hercules at Cori dated to about 100 B.C.142. The Ionic bases have 'equal diameter tori', as seen at the Temple of Vesta at Tibur (Tivoli) dated to the early 1st century B.C. and at the Temple of Valetudo143. The general features of the colonnades are, therefore, to be expected in16/15 B.C. or earlier, rather than later. The special double columns flanking the exedra are set at an angle to project beyond the others, as seen on Fig. 8.2 and have bases and capitals of the Ionic order, judging by the remains, as seen on Fig. 8.5. Fig. 8.2 shows a labrum, or small basin, with a fountain. The back wall of the three free-standing porticoes has survived in opus quadratum only partially at the west portico144. Elsewhere there is some walling in opus africanum, which cannot be dated145.

135 Vitruvius, De architectura, 5.9.1 and 5.

136 Ibid, 5.9.2.

137 Wiseman. Photograph between pp.85 and 86.

138 Photograph by the writer.

139 Both photographs by the writer.

140 Photograph by the writer.

141 See Fig. 3.15.

142 Sear, Roman Architecture, p.23 and Fig. 1, p.22.

143 Böethius, Fig. 154, p.163 and above Chapter 3, Fig. 3.15, for the Temple of Valetudo.

144 Duran Cabello, pp.70-71, for a description of the walls.

145 Opus africanum is formed from long vertical and horizontal stones enclosing a masonry matrix as a development of clay in a timber framework. Adam, pp. 20 and 21. - 160 -

Fig. 8.42146 shows one of the capitals of the four columns supporting the pediment of the south portico behind the stage buildings. This capital, with its stucco, has been dated to 20-10 B.C.147 and also to the general Augustan period148. The decoration is more elaborate than that on the other capitals of the quadriporticus. This elaboration is probably to be explained by the capital being part of the stage buildings of 16-15 B.C. In this case, the capitals of Agrippa's scaenae frons would probably have been decorated in a similar manner.

Fig. 8.43149 shows the exedra in the north portico described in detail by Boschung150. Some of the stone work flanking the entrances is late Roman, or later still151. Fig. 8.44152 shows the mid-section of the back wall of the exedra. The combination of stones and bricks is repeated on all the surfaces of the walls and there are several phases of construction and decoration, with paintings over stucco and marble 153. The final finish of the floor was in opus sectile using white marble154. The material remains indicate a first exedra with space for one statue, probably of Augustus, replaced by a larger one with space for several, as shown on Fig. 8.2. Parts of statues from the early Empire, including that of Augustus, have been recovered155.

THE QUADRIPORTICUS : CONCLUSIONS The physical characteristics of the quadriporticus indicate that it was all built either with the Agrippan works of 16-15 B.C. or not long after these. This is to be expected since Agrippa would have included a peristyle in his plan, both for its practical use and because Vitruvius specified it as a part of the Roman theatre. The southern portico of the

146 Von Hesberg, 'Augustische Bauornamentik …', Stadtbild und Ideologie, Tafel 35 G-H.

147 Ibid, p.347.

148 Barrera Antón, de la, p.63.

149 Álvarez Martínez et al, Mérida, Fig. 21, p.25.

150 Boschung D., 'Die Präsenz des Kaiserhauses im öffentlichen Bereich', Stadtbild und Ideologie, pp.391-400, at pp.393-394.

151 Barrera Antón, de la, Los capiteles romanos …, Capital No. 101, pp.62 and 63 and Lámina, 101, described a capital similar to that carved on the left of the entrance, which he dated to the 4th century A.D.

152 Photograph by the writer.

153 Duran Cabello, p.276.

154 Ibid, p.213.

155 Boschung, 'Die Präsenz des kaiserhauses …', pp.395-399 and Duran Cabello, pp.213-6. - 161 - quadriporticus served as a choragia and would, therefore, have been built with the scaena. The other three free-standing porticoes were perhaps built a little later. There is no indication of a smaller first quadriporticus extended after the Agrippan period.

THE AGRIPPAN THEATRE : CONCLUSIONS

The Agrippan theatre planned by him in 19-18 B.C. was intended to provide all the features of the Roman theatre and the 'colonnades and walks behind the scaena' specified by Vitruvius. The cavea was built up to the top of the present ima cavea, but provision was made to double the original seating capacity without any increase in the size of the ground plan. The upper levels could be built without disturbing the first cavea, and they had their own circulation system. The scaenae frons was built to approximately the height of the present ima cavea, with a single-storey columnatio, and was penetrated by three openings into the stage buildings behind. The quadriporticus could meet the requirements of the theatre built to the full seating capacity. All the works were constructed in local stone, with decoration in stucco. The theatre of the late Empire was, therefore, essentially the theatre planned by Agrippa in respect of its ground plan and function. The principal changes were the increased seating in the cavea, with the corresponding increase in the height of the scaena frons, and the addition or substitution of marble in the orchestra and the stage facilities. Agrippa's theatre was remarkable for its size, since the 86.63m diameter of the cavea was exceeded only by three other theatres in Hispania, all of which were later156. It was also distinguished by its exceptionally good circulation system, including the crypta.

Agrippa's theatre was an important instrument of propaganda for Augustus and his new order at the new monumental city which was to be the spearhead for Roman expansion into western Hispania. Its undoubted attribution to Agrippa indicates the strong possibility that Agrippa was responsible for the construction of other important public works for the town as part of his overall urban plan for a monumental city.

156 Professor Sear advised the following diameters: Caesaraugusta, 104-106m (Tiberian); Carthago Nova, 100m (5 B.C.-A.D.1) and Clunia, 96m (Tiberian). - 162 -

9. POSSIBLE AGRIPPAN WORKS AT AUGUSTA EMERITA

The theatre is the only construction at Augusta Emerita which can be attributed to Agrippa beyond doubt. The object of investigation in this chapter is to identify other possible Agrippan works, and to assess the degree of probability that these were his, whether by their planning within his overall programme or by construction.

THE AMPHITHEATRE The amphitheatre, as seen from Fig. 9.11 was close to Agrippa's theatre, on the same hillside, and on the same orientation, deviating from the general town grid by some 11°2. Fig. 9.23 shows both buildings inside the town walls and, with the circus outside, forming the entertainment zone. Two identical inscriptions on the tribunalia of the amphitheatre bear the name Augustus and can be dated to 8-7 B.C.4. There is, therefore, apparently clear archaeological evidence that Agrippa planned the theatre and the amphitheatre together, but that he built only the first, with Augustus building the second. In fact, the archaeology is more complicated. Brickwork in the podium wall at the top of the ima cavea of the amphitheatre is post-Augustan5 and a tomb of Claudian date has been discovered in the area of the media cavea6. This indicates that the first form of the amphitheatre had only the ima cavea. It is also known that the line of the original town walls passed at about the mid-point between the perimeter of the theatre of Agrippa and the limit of the ima cavea of the amphitheatre7. Consequently, the first form of the amphitheatre was clear of the original walls and outside them, with the theatre inside them. Access to the amphitheatre from the town would have been through a gate in the walls. The completed amphitheatre was built

1 Based on Duran Cabello, Pláno 1 (part).

2 Hernández Ramírez, Augusta Emerita. Estuctura Urbana, p.79.

3 Based on Pfanner, Abb. 31, p.99.

4 Trillmich, 'Colonia Augusta Emerita …', p.305, Note 47, and Tafel 23, F and G. The dating of 8/7 B.C. can be deduced from the 16th year of the tribunicia potestas of Augustus, marked on the inscriptions, first taken up in 23 B.C.

5 Nogales Basarrate, Espectáculos en Augusta Emerita, pp.36.7 for the brickwork in the media cavea; also Pfanner, Abb.34, a, c and d, p.104.

6 Nogales Basarrate, Espectáculos en Augusta Emerita, p.36.

7 Duran Cabello, p.574 and Plan 20. - 163 - against existing town walls on their final alignment, which passed round the building, and the amphitheatre was distorted slightly to fit inside the walls8. The town walls were, therefore, moved at some time before the completion of the amphitheatre, which, in its final form, was larger than had been anticipated.

The archaeology indicates that Agrippa could have built his theatre inside the original town walls without thinking about an amphitheatre, and that this was fitted into the theatre scheme later. Yet it is much more likely that Agrippa planed both the amphitheatre and the theatre. An amphitheatre and theatre close together on the same hillside, as shown on Fig. 9.2, could be built more cheaply by taking advantage of the natural slope. The theatre was well protected from the prevailing wind9 and the undesirable southern exposure10. The circus was built only some 500 metres from the amphitheatre, and all three entertainment buildings were eventually connected to each other by an opening in the wall, as seen on Fig. 9.3a11. The entertainment zone was convenient for spectators from outside the city and from within it, and the topography offered no other position which was so favourable. The dating of the first works at the circus is uncertain, but it was probably in the Augustan period12. Agrippan planning for Augusta Emerita would surely have included the zoning for the entertainment sector. The particular circumstances at Augusta Emerita, therefore, encouraged an earlier planning for the amphitheatre than indicated by Vitruvius 13, and an earlier construction than in the West where the amphitheatre was generally built many decades after the theatre14. The dating of the first works at the amphitheatre to 8-7 B.C., so shortly after the theatre dedication, confirms the joint planning. Agrippa must, therefore, have surveyed the area to ensure that both buildings could be constructed close to each other, and was also responsible for determining the principal dimensions and position of the amphitheatre. It is unlikely that he altered

8 Nogales Basarrate, Espectáculos en Augusta Emerita, p.36.

9 Álvarez Martínez et al, Mérida, p.23.

10 Vitruvius, De architectura, 5.3.2.

11 Nogales Basarrate, Espectáculos en Augusta Emerita, lámina 2a, p.118.

12 Ibid, pp.42-47, and láminas 18, 19 and 20 for plans and illustrations of the circus.

13 Vitruvius De architectura , 5.3.1 placed the theatre directly after the forum and did not mention the amphitheatre.

14 As at Arelate, Lugdunum and Nemausus, in Gaul and Italica and Caesaraugusta, Carthago Nova, and Gades in Spain. - 164 - the line of the walls. Fig. 9.3b15 shows the amphitheatre viewed from the S-E, along its major axis, with the theatre to the left. The fossa arenaria can be seen in the arena, and some structures for gladiators and animals have survived. The podium around the arena was clad in marble and there were paintings on its parapet, some of which are in the museum at Mérida. The ima cavea has survived, together with most of the brick podium wall of the media cavea, but little remains above this level, except some of the entrances16.

The amphitheatre and the theatre have survived substantially because they were large buildings near the town perimeter and little influenced by later development. Other buildings of the Augustan period in the town were either covered over or altered in the Roman period, or later, and the possible works of Agrippa there must be sought from the evidence of centuries. The bridges and the aqueducts were large structures little affected by later works and can be readily distinguished. These are, therefore, investigated before constructions in the town although they were probably scheduled for construction after these. The bridges and the aqueducts are of great interest to the civil and hydraulic engineer, but their construction cannot be attributed positively to Agrippa. Consequently, no attempt is made to provide a detailed description of them and the emphasis is placed on their datings in order to establish their possible connection to Agrippa.

THE BRIDGES Fig. 9.2 shows the locations of the two bridges of Augusta Emerita. That over the Guadiana was the only link over a substantial river between Augusta Emerita and the developed Roman South. The much smaller bridge over the Albarregas crossed a much less important local river and was not critical for the security of the town. The principal discussion is, therefore, about the bridge over the Guadiana.

Figs. 9.417and 9.518 respectively show the part of the existing bridge nearest to the town, and looking from it, and an aerial view looking towards the town from the

15 Álvarez Martínez et al, Mérida, Fig. 22, p.26.

16 Ibid, pp.27-30; also Nogales Basarrate, pp.34-41. Duran Cabello examined the amphitheatre with the theatre in her doctoral thesis referred to above.

17 Álvarez Martínez et al, Mérida, Fig. 65, p.61.

18 Nogales Basarrate, Espectáculos en Augusta Emerita, lámina 21B, p.136. - 165 - opposite bank. Fig 9.619 shows part of the bridge in the middle of its length, and further towards this opposite bank. The existing bridge has 60 spans with the addition of a solid portion over the island shown on Fig. 9.520. At 792 metres long, it is the longest surviving Roman bridge, and twice as long as any other in Hispania21. The original Roman structure was extensively restored in the late 5th century A.D., and further reconstructions date from the 16th and 17th centuries22. Variations in the existing work and the settlement problems are evident from Fig. 9.6. Fig. 9.723 shows the original bridge according to Álvarez Martínez24, with an island in the shape of a protected cut-water joined to each bank by bridges with arches. The cut-water survived until the 18th century, when it was finally destroyed by the river. Five arches had to be built in order to connect the two sides of the river25. As seen on Fig. 9.5, a smaller solid section of the bridge remains, with a ramp down to the river level. Álvarez Martínez considered that the whole of the Guadiana bridge was completed as one project26 and that construction was not spread over three phases, as argued by Cassado, and taken up by O'Connor27. The interpretation of Álvarez Martínez, provides the only satisfactory explanation for the existing remains, and is accepted here.

The Guadiana bridge is generally dated to the foundation period28, because the line of the bridge is virtually the same as that of the decumanus maximus, and it has been assumed that the town was laid out to suit the position of the crossing dictated by an island in the river29, since there are no obvious topographical features on the

19 O'Connor, C., Roman Bridges, Cambridge, 1993, Fig. 79, p.106.

20 Álvarez Martínez et al, Mérida, pp.61, 2.

21 O'Connor, pp.106, 188, 189.

22 Álvarez Martínez et al, Mérida, p.62.

23 Nogales Basarrate, Espectáculos en Augusta Emerita, lamina 21A, p.136.

24 Álvarez Martínez, J.M., El Puente romano de Mérida. Monografiás Emertienses, 1, Badajoz, 1983.

25 Álvarez Martínez et al, Mérida, p.62.

26 Ibid, p.61.

27 O’Connor, pp.105-106, based on Cassado, C.F., Historia del Puente en Espãna, Madrid, 1971.

28 Richmond, p.114, Álvarez Martinez et al, Mèrida, p.61, Trillmich, 'Colonia Augusta Emerita', p.302, Pfanner, p.90, and Nogales Basarrate, Espectáculos en Augusta Emerita, p.21.

29 Trillmich, 'Colonia Augusta Emerita', pp.302-3. - 166 - land to fix the town grid. Nevertheless, it is not possible to date the remaining Roman bridge to the foundation period from its material remains, since it is a utilitarian structure built in opus quadratum30. The crucial question is, therefore, whether the remaining Roman bridge was built on foundation, or whether it replaced an earlier one on the same alignment. If a crossing did not exist in 25 B.C., when the city was founded, it was necessary to provide one quickly. The army of Carisius could build a timber bridge with driven piles over the main channel, and fords over the other parts in weeks or months. The construction of such a long permanent stone bridge over the entire river was the task of many years, and there were insufficient skilled workmen to carry out the work. Stone bridges were not generally built at new settlements until the town had been well established31. Furthermore, a stone bridge was needed at Augusta Emerita only as an approach to the new monumental town, which was the 'eloquent symbol of the Roman conquest of the West' 32. It is, therefore, most unlikely that the Guadiana Bridge in stone is from the foundation of 25 B.C., and almost certain that it was included in Agrippa's major urban development plan of 19/18 B.C. The stone bridge on the line of the decumanus maximus can be explained by the engineering principle of substitution in which an existing construction is replaced by a new one in the same position after it has been closed to traffic. The Roman engineers would have built new timber bridging on a new line. On completion of this, the old timber bridging would have been dismantled, to be replaced by stone construction. Parts of the existing bridge length could have been replaced progressively over many years, with phasing to suit seasonal flooding.

The evidence indicates, therefore, that the stone bridge over the Guadiana, generally dated to the foundation was, almost certainly, a part of Agrippa's master plan. It is most unlikely that Agrippa started work on its construction since his priority was at the town. The shorter bridge over the Albarregas33, shown on Fig. 9.834, of similar

30 Pfanner, p.103 and Abb.34, p.104, made no distinction between the typology of the bridge and the other works built in opus quadratum.

31 O’Connor, p.132. Also, the bridge at Colonia Patricia (Córdoba) was built in stone many decades after the foundation. Knapp, R.C., Roman Córdoba, Berkeley, 1983, pp.10 and 65.

32 Trillmich, 'Colonia Augusta Emerita', p.303.

33 Álvarez Martínez et al, Mérida, p.63 noted that the Albarregas bridge was 145 m long.

34 Ibid, Fig. 6a, p.63. - 167 - design and construction, would have been built first in timber (if the narrow river was not forded), to be replaced in stone as part of Agrippa's plan for the monumental town.

THE AQUEDUCTS Water was available from the rivers, cisterns and wells and there was, therefore, no need for an aqueduct for a small town35. The coins of Carisius struck between 25 and 23 B.C. had no legends or symbols suggesting supply of water. The next issue under Augustus dated no later than 2 B.C.36 included figures described by Burnett as the head of 'a river goddess spitting water', and Silenus 'in front of an amphora pouring', but these were not seen by him as indicating aqueduct construction37, or by Grant 38. No later coins before striking ceased in the Tiberian period contained any indication of works for water supply39. There is, therefore, no clear numismatic indication of aqueduct works, but a development plan for a large town drawn up by Agrippa would have included aqueducts and three aqueducts served the fully developed town, as shown on Fig. 9.2, and on Fig. 7.2. The Cornalvo aqueduct came in from the east while the Los Milagros and San Lázaro aqueducts had to be carried over the valley of the Albarregas on high viaducts.

The Cornalvo aqueduct is the only one which has generally been regarded as Augustan40. The dam of the Cornalvo was on the Albarregas, 15 kms North-West of the city, but the channel was 25 kms long. This joined the town wall near the theatre, where a branch penetrated the wall to serve it and the amphitheatre, but not necessarily when these were built, and continued, supported on the outside of the wall, until it went through this near the Casa del Mitreo and its castellum aquae not far from the walls 41 at an elevation of 250 m42. Its channel width of 1.7 metres was

35 Grewe, K., 'Augusta Emerita/Mérida – eine Stadt römischer Technikgeschichte', Ant W 24.3, 1993, pp.244-255, p.246.

36 Burnett, et al, p.70.

37 Ibid, p.69.

38 Grant, FITA, p.221.

39 Burnett et al, pp.70-73.

40 Wilson, R.J.A., 'Tot aquarum tam multis necessariis molibus …'. p.14.

41 Álvarez Martínez et al, Mérida, pp.65, 66 and 68, as shown on Fig, 7.2.

42 Hernández Rámirez, Augusta Emerita. Estuctura Urbana, lámina 4. - 168 - the largest of the three aqueducts43 and there is no evidence in this of post-Augustan construction, since surviving parts are in stone or concrete. An inscription bearing the words , found in the Alcazaba near the Guadiana bridge 44, has been related to the Cornalvo aqueduct by several writers45. Fig. 9.946 shows the marble tablet with the holes made to take the bronze letters, and the reconstruction of the inscription. Fig. 9.10a47 shows part of the dam, and 9.10b48 its cross-section. The design was a sophisticated solution to the problem of horizontal pressures, since the slope of the embankment on both faces gave stability when the reservoir was full or empty. The intake tower, with inlets at different levels, could still be used as the reservoir silted up, and this was also an advanced feature. The dam is generally seen as Hadrianic49, but an Augustan aqueduct channel could have been supplied by an earlier dam, or by springs, as at the San Lázaro aqueduct. The later dam does not, therefore, rule out the Augustan aqueduct.

The Cornalvo aqueduct was identified by Richmond some 70 years ago as the main one, with the other two as supplementary, since it could supply most of the town and had the largest channel50. The castellum of the Cornalvo, at an elevation of about 250m51, could supply the whole town. That of the San Lázaro was somewhat lower, but the water from it could reach the town centre52. The Los Milagros aqueduct could serve only the N.W. town sector and the river area, since its castellum was at an elevation of only 220m53. The Los Milagros and the San Lázaro aqueducts had to be

43 Álvarez Martínez et al, Mérida, p.67.

44 Canto, A.M., 'Sobre la cronología augustea del acueducto de 'Los Milagros' de Mérida', Homenaje a Saénz de Buruaga, Madrid, 1982, pp.157-176, p.162.

45 Álvarez Martínez et al, Mérida, p.65; Pfanner, p.90 and tafel 7b; Grewe, p.247 and abb 8 and Wilson, p.14.

46 Nogales Basarrate, T., 'Bronces romanos en Augusta Emerita' in Los bronces romanos en Espãna, Madrid, 1990, pp.103-115, Fig. 61, p.196.

47 Álvarez Martínez et al, Mérida, Fig. 69, p.55.

48 Hodge, Roman Aqueducts, Fig. 40a, p.83.

49 Smith, N., A History of Dams, London, 1971, pp.43-44, saw it as Hadrianic, and Hodge, Roman Aqueducts, p.89, agreed.

50 Richmond, p.109.

51 See above Note 42, p.167.

52 Its position is unknown but it was near the Casade Anfietro, Álvarez Martínez et al, Mérida, pp.67 and 68.

53 Hernández Ramírez, Augusta Emerita. Estuctura urbana, lamina 3. - 169 - carried over the valley of the Albarregas on long, high viaducts. Fig. 9.1154 shows the viaduct of the Los Milagros, which was some 825m long and 25m high55. The Cornalvo aqueduct avoided the valley and there were no viaducts. Its channel, of about 25 km, was longer than those of the Los Milagros and the San Lázaro aqueducts (nine and five kilometres long respectively), but both had cuttings and structures56 and the channel of the Cornvalvo was simpler and cheaper to build than the others per unit length. When the two viaducts are taken into account, the Cornalvo route was the cheapest to build, and could be completed most quickly. Richmond was, therefore, justified in saying that the Cornalvo was the first aqueduct. Hodge suggested that the Los Milagros was built before the Cornalvo, noting, rightly, that its dam is earlier and its route shorter57, but costs and usefulness were the decisive factors which determined the choice of the Cornalvo route as the first to be used.

The Cornalvo served nearly all the domestic and cisterns that have been discovered58, while the other aqueducts served other facilities. The San Lázaro served the amphitheatre and the theatre59 in addition to the Cornalvo, as noted above 60. A possible baths building existed in the municipal forum, as shown on Fig. 9.14, near the Portico of Augustus61. It has been suggested that this baths building was supplied with water by the San Lázaro aqueduct62, but there is insufficient information about the baths building to discover its dating63, or to know which aqueduct served it. Another baths outside the walls, and near the amphitheatre,

54 Photograph by the writer.

55 Álvarez Martínez et al, Mérida, p.70.

56 Ibid, pp.64-71, in various passages.

57 Hodge, Roman Aqueducts …, p.89.

58 Grewe, p.246.

59 Trillmich, W., et al, Hispania Antigua : Denkmäler der Römerzeit, Mainz, 1993, pp.291-2.

60 See above, p.167.

61 Álvarez Martínez et al, Mérida, pp.49, 50, for the Portico of Augustus.

62 Hernández Ramírez et al, 'Un ejemplo de la ingeniería hidráulica romana : el conducto de Rabo de Buey-San Lázaro (Mérida)', Actas del 8Congreso Internacional de Ingenzeía Gráfíca, Jaén, 1996, p.417.

63 Álvarez Martínez et al, Mérida, p.20, for the baths building. - 170 - is from the Empire64, and would have been served by the nearby San Lázaro. There is, therefore no indication of the dating of the Cornalvo aqueduct from the reticulation in the town, other than it providing domestic needs, pointing towards an early construction.

It must, therefore, be concluded that no dating can be assigned to the construction of the Cornalvo aqueduct, except that it was in the Augustan era, and earlier than that of other aqueducts. Agrippan action on the aqueducts is indicated by his overall planning for a large city which needed these. If there had been no previous investigation of aqueducts, Agrippa was, therefore, the 'father' of all three. If, as is more probable, there had been assessment of water sources and aqueduct routes, Agrippa could have ordered the building of the Cornalvo 65 as the most useful aqueduct.

THE TOWN INFRASTRUCTURE The water reticulation system has already been described. The streets can be seen only at a few points66, but the drains under them have largely survived to indicate the town grid. Fig. 9.1267 shows the drainage system. This was integrated, with each

64 Ibid, p.68.

65 The dating of the Los Milagros aqueduct is generally based on the viaduct over the valley of the Albarregas shown on Fig. 9.11. Nearly all the arches are brick, and brick coursework alternates with opus quadratum in the piers. Wilson, p.14, pointed out that such extensive use of brick cannot be expected in Hispania in the Augustan period. The complete absence of this in Agrippa’s part of the theatre and the Augustan ima cavea of the amphitheatre confirms this opinion. The structural design of the viaduct suggests a post-Augustan date. Tall piers supporting the top arcade of arches were built as single units from bottom to top. The lower arcades of arches braced the piers against buckling. This advanced design is generally dated well after the Augustan period, and is to be compared with earlier designs where one bridge is built on top of another, although the Pont-du-Gard aqueduct, probably built in the Claudian period, is of this earlier type. The aqueducts at Cherchel in Algeria and at Fréjus, with the same advanced design as the Los Milagros viaduct, are probably Hadrianic. Smith, p.47 and Hodge, p.142 respectively. Cassado, C.F., Acuductos romanos en Espãna, Madrid, 1972, and Garbrecht, G., et al, Wasserversorgung in antiken Röm, 1987, p.162, saw the viaduct as Hadrianic. Grewe, p.254, considered it to be Trajanic. Only Canto, 'Sobre la cronologia augusta del aceducto …', argued in detail for an Augustan date. His case relied on material evidence of the remains, coins and interpretation of local history. Canto cited brick construction of the Augustan age in regions outside Hispania. It is not certain that this can be translated to Augusta Emerita, Wilson, p.14. His numismatic evidence was not conclusive. Also, the historical interpretation was circumstantial. Canto argued for an Augustan construction with Trajanic restoration in the small section over the river. Trillmich, et al, p.291, accepted this without elaboration. Álvarez Martínez et al, Mérida, p.71, considered that the Los Milagros aqueduct was probably Augustan, but stated no reasons, and, p.67, saw the San Lázaro as Augustan, on the basis that it supplemented the Cornalvo. The viaduct of the San Lázaro had brick in the piers and in most of the arches, indicating that this construction is post-Augustan, like that at the viaduct of the Los Milagros.

66 Hernández Ramírez, pp.103-122.

67 Ibid, lámina 4, pp.66 and 67. - 171 - channel laid to falls related to the others, and, therefore, pre-planned, either entirely or in sections. Drains 3V, 8V and 13V, the 'mother drains' which picked up the water of the three natural catchments draining to the vaguadas or valleys, were built first, and the others added as they were needed for city development68. Drains 6V, 7V and 8V discharged into the Guadiana through a massive wall some 375m long upstream of the Guadiana Bridge. Drains 2V and 3V served the areas of the theatre and amphitheatre, and 3V was one of the 'mother drains'. The dating of these two drains in relation to the known datings of the two buildings has not been established. It has been suggested that the drainage system shown on Fig. 9.12 was started with the streets before the pomerium was established69, but it was, surely, necessary to determine the size of the town and lay out its grid before building the drains and streets.

Typical construction is shown on Fig. 9.1370. The drains must have been built by 'cut and cover', with the ground excavated to a depth of some 3 metres, the drain installed and backfilled, and the surface above made good. If a street ran over the projected drain, this would have been closed, dug up and rebuilt. The channel was marked on Fig. 9.13 as made from 'opus testaceum', generally understood to indicate brick faced concrete, but described in the text as 'a mortar floor with crushed bricks'71. Opus testaceum is post-Augustan72, whereas the mortar may be earlier. The 'opus incertum' (generally post-Augustan) marking applied to the main drain was described in the text as 'built from stones smoothed on the exterior'73 which could be earlier. Carefully cut and laid opus quadratum like that at Agrippa’s theatre appears at the outfalls of 6V, 7V and 8V74. Also, the inlets from the streets and building were made up of tiles in common use from the foundation period, and the lack of single form drainpipes suggests work before the Empire75. The construction could,

68 Ibid, p.73.

69 Ibid, p.71.

70 Ibid, Fig. 17a, p.68, with minor alterations.

71 Ibid, p.10.

72 See above Note 5, p.162, referring to the opus testaceum at the amphitheatre.

73 Hernández Ramírez, p.10.

74 Ibid, Figs. 26, 27 and 28, p.91.

75 Brodribb, G., Roman Brick and Tile, London, 1987, pp.84-88. - 172 - therefore, have been Agrippan. Hernández Ramírez noted that the construction methods and materials were uniform throughout the system, and suggested that this indicated a relatively short construction period76. Yet, if the first works presented no maintenance problems, the same construction could have been used over a long period, as in many utilitarian works. The construction method is, therefore, compatible with first Agrippan works expanded as the town was built.

A drainage system capable of discharging waste water from aqueducts, as shown on Fig. 9.13, was a key element of Agrippa's plan for the monumental city. The construction of it, to a pre-conceived design, had to be kept ahead of new works on streets and buildings. Construction on the drains was, therefore, almost certainly begun with, if not before, that on the theatre. The drainage system is easily overlooked because it is not seen. Yet its total length was about 23 kms, and the work to build each metre of it was substantial. In fact, it was probably the largest construction at the town, or outside it, on which Agrippa started construction.

THE MUNICIPAL FORUM Fig. 9.1477 shows the general features of the municipal forum as interpreted by Pfanner, extending nearly 200 metres along the decumanus maximus, and slightly less along the cardo maximus78. The Portico of Augustus 79, built in marble, belongs to the 'Marmorbegeisterung' or 'enthusiasm for marble' of the post-Augustan period80. The statue of Agrippa and the relief of him sacrificing were found here81. As already noted, the possible baths building shown on Fig. 9.14 cannot be dated and might have been served by the Cornalvo or the San Lázaro aqueducts82. The first forum was close to the intersection of the main streets. Only the 'Temple of Diana' has survived in recognisable form in

76 Hernández Ramírez, pp.101-2.

77 After Pfanner, Abb.31, p.99 magnified.

78 Hernández Ramírez, lámina 1, p.15, indicated a similar size.

79 Álvarez Martínez et al, Mérida, p.50 and Fig. 54 for a general description of the portico.

80 Pfanner, p.102, for a general description of the marble' period', also see above Chapter 8, Notes 10-14, pp.139, 140.

81 See above Chapter 7, Notes 45-63, pp.134-6.

82 See above Notes 61-63, pp.169, 170. - 173 - this area. It has been suggested that a basilica stood opposite the temple, with a curia/local senate house in some unknown position83, but forums of the Augustan period in Hispania probably had no regular form, and, perhaps, few administrative buildings 84. Also, Vitruvius prescribed for the forum only that its breadth was to be two-thirds of its length and that the basilica was to be near the forum and in the warmest possible quarter in winter85. At some towns the basilica did not form part of the forum86. There seems to have been no substantial civic organisation at Augusta Emerita until the Tiberian principate87, and, consequently, doubt about the previous need for substantial administrative buildings. In 19 B.C., therefore, the forum was probably little more than a space for commerce and buildings for this, with a small temple. If, as argued here, Agrippa developed Augusta Emerita by using the serving army, the immediate need was for a praetorium which could serve as a project office. Agrippa would have recognised the need for an impressive new temple as the focus of the town forum, but he may have built little else there which was to remain once the army had completed its work. The 'Temple of Diana', therefore, emerges as the only possible work of Agrippa in the municipal forum to be investigated here.

THE 'TEMPLE OF DIANA' The 'Temple of Diana'88 is shown on Fig. 9.1589 as seen from the forum space which it faced. Trillmich90 described this modern reconstruction as 'extraordinarily unfortunate' and Álavarez Martínez, confining his criticism to the pediment, saw this as 'unfortunately to no great effect' 91. Fig. 9.1692 shows positions of columns

83 Álvarez Martínez et al, Mérida, p.20; also Álvarez Martínez, 'El foro de Augusta Emerita', Homenaje a Sáenz de Buruaga, Badajoz, 1982, pp.53-68, 145-152.

84 Pfanner, pp.91 and 92 and Abb. 26, and Keay, Roman Spain, illustration, p.53, and text, p.118, for investigations into forums in Spain.

85 Vitruvius, De architectura, 5.1, 2 and 4 in particular.

86 Ward-Perkins, Roman Imperial architecture, pp.182-3.

87 Curchin, The Local Magistrates of Roman Spain, p.173.

88 The dedication to Diana is fictitious.

89 Álavarez Martínez et al, Mérida, Fig. 58, p.53.

90 Trillmich, 'Colonia Augusta Emerita', p.305.

91 Álvarez Martínez et al, Mérida, p.53.

92 Pfanner, Abb. 27 (part), p.94. - 174 - immediately in front of the cella unlike those shown on Fig. 9.15, and an extension in front of the sheer podium face seen on Fig. 9.15. Trillmich has shown that this extension existed, with a rostrum and flight of at each side93. Of the 32 columns, 18 stood before reconstruction, built into the 16th century Casa de Los Milagros. This explains the preservation of some parts, the destruction of others, and steps cut into the front of the podium, traces of which remain. The layout was hexastyle peripteral with 11 columns on the sides. Traces of a portico with a cryptoporticus around three sides of the temple have been discovered, with a pond between it and the temple 94. All the surviving parts of the temple were built in granite with stucco moulding and other decoration, but some capitals were not covered with stucco. No marble structural work has been recovered. It can, therefore, be assumed that the whole building dates from before the post-Augustan 'marble period'. There seems to be no evidence either for or against the podium in front of the main façade being built later than the main temple.

Álavarez Martínez, writing in 1976, suggested that the temple was built between the late Augustan period and that of the other Julio-Claudian . He emphasised that this dating was tentative 95. He has now revised this dating to the last years of the Augustan principate96. Trillmich referred to the 1976 dating of Álavarez Martínez without comment, but he also saw the 'Temple of Diana' as 'the principal temple of the foundation, and of the old fashioned type'97. The 'Temple of Diana' was used for the Imperial Cult, as seen from objects found there, or nearby98, but it does not follow from this that the temple was built for the cult and dedicated to it, as has been suggested99, and that it should, therefore, to be dated no earlier than the beginning of the Christian era. It could have been built earlier with some other dedication and have been adapted for the Imperial Cult, perhaps with the podium extension added for

93 Trillmich, 'Colonia Augusta Emerita', pp.307-9 and Notes 67-76.

94 Álvarez Martínez, 'El templo de Diana' in Augusta Emerita (Actas del simposio internacional…bimilenario de Mérida), pp.44-53, Fig. 2, and Álvarez Martínez et al, Mérida, p.54 for traces of the cryptoporticus.

95 Ibid, p.50.

96 Álvarez Martínez et al, Mérida, p.54,

97 Trillmich, 'Colonia Augusta Emerita', p.305 and Note 49.

98 They include an inscription, CIL 2 2167, mentioning a flamen Augusti, the statue of an emperor, possibly Claudius, and the figure of the genius senatus, Álavarez Martínez, 'El templo de Diana' p.51 and Notes 29-36, with láminas 22 A and B.

99 Álvarez Martínez et al, Mérida, p.54, Hernández Ramírez, p.181, and Barrera Antón, J.L. de la, Los capiteles romanos de Mérida, p.78. - 175 - this purpose, although this cannot be proved, since the cella has been lost, with the altar100. Trillmich discovered some traces of iron gratings dividing the temple into three parts101, but the geometry of the temple is quite unlike that of the Tuscan Temple of Vitruvius with its broad triple cella102. The 'Temple of Diana' is quite a large building103. It was not needed at the small town developed before 19 B.C., nor were the resources to build it available in 25 B.C. Yet some place for religious observances must have existed, and almost certainly as the focus of the first forum. There is, therefore, reason to consider the 'Temple of Diana' as a rebuild of the first temple, and part of Agrippa's town plan.

The podium of the 'Temple of Diana', built in opus quadratum to a high standard, as seen on Fig. 9.17104 cannot be dated from its base or cornices. Fig. 9.18105 shows one of the column bases of the 'equal tori' type, with the base and part of the column shaft formed from one block. Similar bases, and use of the one block, are seen at the quadriporticus of Agrippa’s theatre at Augusta Emerita dated to 16-15 B.C. and at the Temple of Valetudo built in 39-37 B.C.106. The capitals of the 'Temple of Diana' are predominantly decorated in stucco, but all were formed from three blocks of the local stone. Fig. 9.19a107 shows the plain form which has been dated to the late Augustan-Tiberian period108. The decorated form shown on Fig. 9.19b109 has been dated to the second half of the 1st century A.D.110. It is difficult to understand how a dating to the late Augustan-Tiberian period can be imputed from the crude carving of the stone shown on Fig. 9.19a. This

100 Álvarez Martínez et al, p. 54.

101 Trillmich, 'Colonia Augusta Emerita', p.307.

102 Vitruvius, De architectura, 4.7.

103 The size of the temple with the extension is 41 by 22 metres.

104 Álvarez Martínez, 'El tempho de Diana', láminas 18 A and B.

105 Photograph by the writer.

106 Figs. 8.39 and 8.40, for the quadriporticus, and Fig. 3.15, for the Temple of Valetudo.

107 Barrera Antón, J.L., de la, Los capiteles romanos …, lámina 1.

108 Ibid. p.27.

109 Ibid, lámina 20a. This is one out of 11 illustrations 20a-20k showing various capitals with stucco.

110 Ibid, p.33. - 176 - construction seems rather to indicate an earlier form111, or a military construction112, and, perhaps, evidence of Agrippa's use of the army in 19-18 B.C.113. It is possible that the dating of the undecorated capital to the Augustan-Tiberian period resulted from the assumption that the temple was built for the Imperial Cult114. The 'Temple of Diana', together with those at Barcelona and Ébora, is peripteral and there are no other Roman temples of this type in Spain115. Mierse has discussed all three temples, but he casts no clear light on the dating of the 'Temple of Diana'116. Investigation of the material remains, therefore, indicates that the building is more likely to be from the Agrippan period than the late principate of Augustus.

When all the evidence is taken into account, the temple is explained most easily as a new building planned by Agrippa to replace the first forum temple, since this was inappropriate for a monumental city. Rebuilding on the old site kept the connection to the foundation. Retention of the original local material by avoidance of marble addition in the Empire also indicates respect for the foundation temple. The temple would have been dedicated to Rome and Augustus, like the Augusteum at Nemausus. Agrippa would almost certainly have wanted the foundation temple to be rebuilt with or before his theatre. The fact that there is no inscription on the temple naming Agrippa and dating the dedication prevents its positive attribution to him. It must, therefore, remain as a possible Agrippan work pending any further discovery.

THE PROVINCIAL FORUM AND THE 'ARCH OF TRAJAN' The provincial forum117 indicated on Fig. 9.2 has been little excavated, since the area is heavily built up. There is, therefore, virtually no reliable information about its extent, or the purpose of buildings there. Fig. 9.20118 shows the interpretation of Pfanner,

111 Ibid, p.71 and Note 15 for the observation that the form was antiquated.

112 Mierse, 'Augustan Building Programs …..', p.316 and Note 38.

113 As argued above, Chapter 7, Notes 51, 52, pp.134, 5.

114 Barrera, Antón J.L., de la, p.69.

115 Álvarez Martínez et al, Merida, p.54.

116 Mierse, 'Augustan Building Programs', pp.308-333,

117 See above Chapter 7, Notes 27, 28, p.131, for the discussion on the urbs quadrata, the Arch of Trajan and the provincial forum.

118 Pfanner, Abb. 31, p.99 enlarged. - 177 - which is accepted by Mierse119, although Hernández Ramírez considered that the temple was closer to the 'Arch of Trajan' 120. Steps have been discovered leading from the arch to a building to its west121, the ground plan of which has not yet been determined. Its podium was built in granite faced concrete, and clad with slabs of marble. The superstructure was marble, with columns of 1.5 metre diameter, indicating a large building. It may have been tetrastyle122. The marble superstructure with the marble over the granite base indicates a two-stage construction, as at the scaenae frons of Agrippa's theatre where the podium could be clad with marble, but the columnatio had to be replaced. A tetrastyle temple is depicted on the reverses of some Tiberian coins, together with the legend Aeternitati Augustae123. The partly excavated temple and that shown on the coins may be one and the same124. Tarraco. had sought permission from Tiberius in A.D. 15 to erect a temple there following the consecration of Augustus as divus in A.D. 14, although the building was still under construction in the middle of the 1st century A.D., and was probably completed by the early years of the principate of Vespasian (A.D. 69-79), if not before. The completion date of the temple at Augusta Emerita, dedicated to the same cult, is unknown, but it may have been at about the mid point of the 1st century A.D. based on the evidence of inscriptions 125. Mierse mentioned the drawings of Laborde, which are the only evidence of a purported large building at the provincial forum, interpreted variously as a 'Temple of ', an 'Imperial basilica' or an 'early Christian basilica'126. There is, therefore, little information about the provincial forum other than a general indication of a large temple and of two phase construction. These two phases are seen at the 'Arch of Trajan'. Fig. 9.21a127 shows the arch from a position looking towards the forum and Fig. 9.21b128 the plan. As

119 Mierse, W.E., Temples and Towns in Roman Iberia, Berkeley, 1999, Fig. 26, p.65.

120 Hernández Ramírez, lámina 1.

121 Álvarez Martínez et al, Mérida, p.20.

122 Ibid, p.20, and Trillmich, p.307 and Note 30.

123 Burnett, et al, pp.72, Coin 29 and p.73, Cons 47 and 48.

124 As suggested by Álvarez Martínez et al, Mérida, p.20. Hernández Ramírez, p.185, disagreed.

125 Fishwick, D., The Imperial Cult in the Latin West, Vol. 1, Leidèn, 1987. pp.150-158, discussed divus Augustus at Tarraco, and the provincial cults of Tarraconensis and Lusitania.

126 Mierse, Temples and Towns in Roman Iberia, pp.66, 68, and Fig. 27.

127 Álvarez Martínez et al, Mérida, Fig. 55, p.51.

128 Based on Pfanner, Abb. 33, p.102. - 178 - noted above, there were steps in the forum behind the central archway, and the sides were wide enough for wheeled traffic, indicating that the Arch was an entrance to the forum. Fig. 9.22129 shows the method of applying marble cladding to the opus quadratum, as at the podium of the scaenae frons of Agrippa's theatre130.

There are, therefore, some difficulties in forming conclusions about Agrippa's actions for the provincial forum. The two-stage construction at the forum and for the 'Arch of Trajan' are seen at Agrippa's theatre. Yet, unlike the theatre, there are no indications of dating from inscriptions. Also it is not possible to assess the dating of the 'Arch of Trajan' from its material remains, as could be done for the Temple of Diana. It is, therefore, possible to suggest Agrippa's actions only from the circumstantial evidence. This indicates that Agrippa would have built the theatre and the temple before the provincial forum, which was needed only when the provincial administration had been developed. Consequently, he probably earmarked the zone for this and planned it general features.

It is not possible from present evidence to indicate other works of Agrippa in the town. It has been argued here that the monumental walls and gates were built to suit the monumental town of the capital of Lusitania, despite the depiction of a stone gateway on the coins of Carisius 131. Agrippa would have included the monumental stone gates and walls in his planning of 19/18 B.C., together with the stone bridges approaching the town. Yet, they were probably built after the theatre or other first works in the town, and not by Agrippa. He would have built first streets and drains needed for his first buildings and, perhaps, road works at and near the town.

POSSIBLE AGRIPPAN WORKS : CONCLUSIONS Agrippa did not build the amphitheatre, but he made provision for it when he planned and started construction on his theatre dedicated in16/15 B.C. He was, therefore, responsible for determining its position, orientation, and also its size in order to work out the space allotted to it. Agrippa planned the town drainage system, and started to build it before or with his first buildings, including his theatre. At the municipal

129 Based on Ibid, Abb. 33, p.102 and Tafel 8e.

130 See Figs. 8.30-32.

131 See above Chapter 7, Notes 33-36, p.132. - 179 - forum, Agrippa planned, and probably started, construction on the 'Temple of Diana', and he may have built a praetorium there. Agrippa probably took no action on the provincial forum other than to set land aside for it and, perhaps, to decide on its main features. Agrippa would have planned other works and started construction on some of these, including streets and roads, but it is not possible to identify these from present information. Agrippa was responsible for the new stone bridges being built over the Guadiana and Albarregas rivers, but he was almost certainly not in Hispania when construction was started on them. Agrippa's relationship to the aqueducts is unclear. If he initiated investigation for these, he was the 'father' of all the aqueducts, but had little, if any connection, to their construction. If aqueduct investigation had been undertaken before 19/18 B.C., Agrippa probably ordered construction of the Cornalvo aqueduct already selected as the first to be built.

- 180 -

AUGUSTA EMERITA : CONCLUSIONS

Augusta Emerita was founded by Carisius, as Emerita, in 25 B.C. following the 'pacification' of N.W. Hispania by Augustus. The site was suitable for building a large town with aqueducts at a major river crossing, and was, perhaps, intended to be a capital of a future province of Lusitania. Initial urban development by the serving army was interrupted, and finally stopped, by withdrawal of forces to N.W. Hispania, where rebellion continued. By 19 B.C., Emerita was a small town in a large urban space without aqueducts or stone bridges over the rivers. After Agrippa finally pacified N.W. Hispania in 19 B.C., he produced a master plan for a monumental town, with aqueducts and stone bridges. The serving army, released from conflict in N.W. Hispania, was used for its construction, and skilled artisans were also brought in. His master plan was not fully executed for decades and the actual construction may not always have conformed to it. Agrippa built the theatre and he planned the amphitheatre, and possibly the circus, to form the entertainment zone. He built the first part of the drainage system, which he planned for the whole town. Agrippa almost certainly started work on the 'Temple of Diana' at the municipal forum. He also made provision for the two stone bridges being built, but it is unlikely that he started construction on these. If Agrippa was the first to investigate aqueducts as the general planner of the new Augusta Emerita, he was the 'father' of all three. He may also have ordered work to be started on the Cornalvo aqueduct, if, as is likely, this had already been selected as the first to be built.

These conclusions represent a new viewpoint on Agrippa at Augusta Emerita. Previously, urban development in 25 B.C. was thought to have proceeded rapidly because veterans were settled there. Yet, the early development was by the serving army, and it ceased not long after foundation. The stone bridge over the Guadiana River was thought to have been built on foundation, since the decumanus maximus and it were on the same alignment, and this was seen to indicate a rapid urban development. Yet, the conjunction of the alignments can be explained by the replacement of a first timber bridge by a stone bridge planned by Agrippa, and built after he left Hispania. The fact that Agrippa built his theatre, dedicated in 16-15 B.C., was an indication that monumental development (including a theatre) had not started in 25 B.C., but this pointer was overlooked. The conclusions of this study are supported, to some degree, by recent scholarship. Roddaz indicated that Agrippa - 181 - had done something at the town, other than build his theatre1. He also discerned, but did not define, a yet larger Agrippan role at the town2. Trillmich examined the posthumous epigraphy and saw Agrippa as 'planner and euegetes'. He also suggested that 'the Mérida of Agrippa was ready first under Claudius'3. He did this without reference to any evidence other than the posthumous epigraphy. The conclusions arrived at here are, therefore, extensions of those of Roddaz and Trillmich after a more thorough analysis than was possible for Roddaz or intended by Trillmich. They also result from a new focus on all the activities of Agrippa at the town, replacing previous separate studies of particular aspects related to him. There is, in addition, a new engineering analysis augmenting previous archaeological and historical assessments.

1 Roddaz, Marcus Agrippa, pp.417, 8.

2 Roddaz, 'Agrippa et la péninsule Ibérique', p.72.

3 Trillmich, 'Ein historisches Relief …', pp.302-3. - 182 -

10. AGRIPPAN CONSTRUCTIONS AT URBAN CENTRES OTHER THAN AUGUSTA EMERITA

Coins or inscriptions showing Agrippa or bearing his name have been found at Gades, Carthago Nova, Caesaraugusta and Ulia Fidentia. The first three towns are marked on Fig. D. Ulia Fidentia was a small town some 40 km south of Córdoba, which is marked on Fig. D. An inscription found at Emporiae has also been seen as Agrippan by some scholars. Emporiae is marked as Ampurias on Fig. C on the N.E. coast north of Barcelona. There seems to have been no previous identification of Agrippan constructions from these coins or inscriptions, or from other material remains at any of these places. The object of investigation in this chapter is to describe the coins, or inscriptions, suggest the Agrippan activities from which these resulted, and assess possible Agrippan planning or works associated with these activities.

(a) GADES (CÁDIZ): The evidence of Agrippan activity is from the local coinage on which he is both named and depicted. He appears in these ways nowhere else in Hispania on contemporary coinage except at Carthago Nova 1. Furthermore, at Gades, he is described, both as patronus, and as parens. The latter description is seen on no other Agrippan coinage of the West. Both terms appear with municipium, indicating some initiative at and support for the civic entity.

Gades, or Gadir, (modern Cádiz) seems to be the earliest Phoenician settlement in Iberia, traditionally founded by colonists from Tyre around 1100 B.C., but, perhaps, really in the 8th century, according to archaeological studies2. The settlement was intended to trade in south-west Spain on the Atlantic seaboard3, and at more distant places, including Britain. Strabo gave an account of the settlement 4. Investigations,

1 See below Note 56, p.189.

2 Escacena, J.L. ‘Gadir’, Olmo Lete del G. & Semmler, M.E.A., Eds., Los fenicos en la peninsula Iberica, Vol. 1, Barcelo na, 1986, pp.39-52, at p.39.

3 Keay, Roman Spain, p.12.

4 Strabo, 3.5.3. and 3.5.5. - 183 - both below and above present sea level, have revealed the topography and some of the first developments5. Fig. 10.16 shows one interpretation of these, which extended to the island of Antipolis and to parts of the mainland 7. There was almost certainly a mainland port where ocean-going ships could meet river traffic, and, therefore, probably sited near the mouth of the Guadalete River8. The Phoenician city became an ally of Rome, as a foederata in 206 B.C.9 Strabo described the Phoenician city centred on Erytheia as ‘very small indeed’ and said that 'Balbus of Gades' built a new one near it to form a twin city, (didyme) together with a new harbour city ‘on the opposite coast on the mainland’10. The new city of Balbus was on Kotinousa near the old Phoenician necropolis. Figs. 10.2a and 10.2b11 show changes since the Roman period. Fig. 10.2a, showing the existing coast in full lines and that of the Roman period dotted, indicates both erosion and deposition at the Phoenician town, and that of Balbus near it. Fig. 10.2b shows a general retreat of the sea when related to Fig. 10.1. Fig. 10.2a shows the location of the Roman theatre which was part of the new town. Nothing is known for certain about the position of the new harbour city. Cicero, in a letter dated 46 B.C.12, noted that 'Balbus of Gades' was building at the town. It is also known that Balbus had built a theatre (probably in wood) by 43 B.C.13. Balbus had, therefore, started his new city on Kotinousa in the 1st century B.C., and was still active in 13 B.C. since his theatre in Rome was probably dedicated in that year14. Nothing seems to be known about the date of construction of the harbour city of Balbus, but it was probably started at much the same time as the city of the didyme.

5 Ramírez Delgado, J.R., Los primitivos nucleos de asentamiento en la ciudad de Cádiz, Cádiz, 1982, pp.95-130.

6 Based on Escacena, 'Gadir', Fig. 1, p.41.

7 Fear, A.T., Rome and Baetica, Oxford, 1996, p.232.

8 Curchin, L.A., Roman Spain : Conquest and Assimilation, p.134.

9 Livy, 28.37.10.

10 Strabo, 3.5.3.

11 Esteban Gonzá lez, J.M., Vicente, A.M., Blanco Jiménez, F.J., 'Breve historia y criterios de intervencion en el área urbana del teatro romano de Cadiz’, Ramallo Asensio, S.F. & Santiuse de Pablos, F., Co -ords., Teatros romanos de Hispania, Murcia, 1992, pp.141-156, Fig. 1A and 1B, p.143.

12 Cicero, Ad Att, 12.2.

13 Cicero, Ad Fam, 10.32.

14 Cassius Dio, 54.25. - 184 -

The archaeological information on Roman Gades is sparse because of the siltation and erosion, and the extensive development since the Roman period. Partial remains of the theatre have been dated to the late Republican/Augustan period and attributed to Balbus 15. Information on other Roman works is confined mainly to the area of the twin city16. Coins struck at an unknown date in the Augustan principate show a tetrastyle temple 17, but this may represent the famous Temple of Heracles18 as a symbol of Gades rather than an actual building19. There is, therefore, no indication of any constructions by Agrippa. Little seems to be known about Roman remains from other parts of Gades.

'Balbus of Gades', the builder of the new town, the harbour city and the theatre, is more accurately described as Balbus minor to distinguish him from his uncle, Balbus major, since both were Lucius Cornelius Balbus. Balbus major, a native of Gades, received Roman citizenship in 72 B.C., became the first foreign-born consul, and was Caesar’s banker and agent. The nephew, a native of Gades and also a Roman citizen, received a pontificate and consular rank (in 19 B.C.)20. Balbus minor is, therefore, a striking example of a local person becoming influential, both at his place of birth and at Rome. He, had the resources and the ambition to build new urban works at a long-established commercial centre. Agrippa would have built there only for some project wanted by Rome, such as naval facilities, or a new settlement of Romans in S.W. Hispania.

As noted above, the city had become allied to Rome in 206 B.C. Caesar set up laws at Gades in 60 B.C.21 and granted Roman citizenship to the people of Gades in 49 B.C.22. The letter from Pollio to Cicero dated 43 B.C.23, describing the theatre of Balbus, mentioned quattuorviri (elected by the comitia), who presided over a senatus,

15 Corzo Sánchez, R., ‘El teatro romano de Cádiz ‘Teatros romanos …’, pp.133-140, at 34.

16 Ramírez Delgado, J.R., 'Los primitvos nucleos …' , p.113-130 and references, pp.172-207.

17 Burnett et al, pp.81, 82.

18 Strabo, 3.5.3, Pliny 2.100.

19 Fear, pp.234-7 for the significance of the coin depiction and information on the temple.

20 Keay, Roman Spain, pp.52, 54, 73 and 84, Richardson, The Romans in Spain, pp.103, 119 and 126, and Ehrenberg & Jones, p.36, for the information about the Balbi.

21 Cicero, Pro Balbo, 43.

22 Cassius Dio, 41.24.10.

23 Cicero Ad fam, 10.32 and above Note 13, p.183. - 185 - and noted that the first fourteen rows of seats in the theatre were reserved for the equites. Pollio also complained that the elections were unorthodox. The civic status of Gades has been much discussed because Pliny described it not as a municipium but as a township of Roman citizens called Augustani, living in the city of Julia Gaditana, or an oppidum civium romanorum24. Fear concluded that Gades was a municipium by 43 B.C., with a 'reasonable political veneer'25. Brunt thought that Caesar's grant of citizenship in 49 B.C. made Gades a municipium26. Sherwin-White, considered that Gades did not possess the full organisation of municipium, although it might have been classified as such until its constitution was altered under Augustus27. Grant suggested that this change occurred under Agrippa in 19 B.C., with the coins of Agrippa indicating this28. Rodríguez Neila also supported the idea of a change to an unorthodox municipium by Agrippa in 19 B.C. He based this on an analysis of the evolution of the civic organisation from the Phoenician magistrates, the suffetes, to the quattuorviri of 43 B.C., the duoviri, who existed first in the Augustan period, and the subsequent oscillation between quattuorviri and duoviri. He considered that the change to the duoviri in the Augustan period brought the constitution of Gades into the same form as the other orthodox municipia29. The evidence, therefore, indicates that there was a municipium of some kind by 19/18 B.C. Curchin has suggested that Augustus may have set up a colonia and a municipium corresponding to the two parts of the twin city, based on the evidence of a single coin marked COL(onia) A(ugusta) GAD(itana)30. This coin seems to be spurious, and there appears to be no other support for the concept31. Strabo referred to Gades as a polis of the Gaditanians 32. Also, Curchin made no reference to any colonia in his book on the magistrates of Roman Spain, nor does there seem to be any other indication of a colonia or more than one

24 Pliny, 4.119.

25 Fear, pp.109, 110.

26 Brunt, P.A., Italian Manpower 225 B.C. – A.D.14, Oxford, 1971, pp.584-588 and p.602.

27 Sherwin-White, The Roman Citizenship, Oxford, 1937, pp.87, 141, 171.

28 Grant, FITA, P.171.

29 Rodríguez Neila, J.F., El municipio romano de Gades, Cádiz, 1980, pp.46-77, 81-84 and 95.

30 Curchin, Roman Spain. Conquest and Assimilation, p.120 and Note 24, p.205.

31 Galsterer, p.17, and Note 6 referred to the coin containing the colonia and described it as spurious, as did Burnett et al, p.80, and Fear, pp.66.7, Notes 16 and 19.

32 Strabo, 3.2.1. - 186 - municipium at Gades, despite its large geographical extent 33. It can be concluded, therefore, that Agrippa found a municipium of some kind and altered it to a conventional form, but that he did not add another municipium or create a colonia.

The coins showing or mentioning Agrippa are exclusively high value copper or bronze dupondii or sestertii of large size. The obverses have the head of Agrippa, bare or with rostral crown, or his figure, or the head of Hercules in lion skin with club across the neck. There are no legends with Hercules. AGRIPPA or MUNICIPI PARENS appear with Agrippa. The reverses all show an aplustre, carved stern of a ship with ornaments, with legends of M. AGRIPPA COS III, MUNICIPI PARENS or MUNICIPI (PATRONUS) PARENS34 Fig. 10.335 shows coins 77, 81 and 83, which are the best preserved, twice real size. The legend COS III on the coins showing Agrippa sets the earliest dating of these to 27 B.C., but there is no obvious reason to date them earlier than 19 B.C. when Agrippa arrived in Hispania, although Burnett et al dated the coins from 27 to 12 B.C., when Agrippa died, while also indicating that a first striking in 19 B.C. was an 'attractive idea'36. Coins of the same size, metal, and high denominations, struck at Gades, marked the pontificate of Balbus minor (dated to 19 B.C.) by the legend PONT BALBUS, and instruments of sacrifice on the reverse37. The coins showing the pontificate of Balbus minor cannot be earlier than 19 B.C. when he received this office. Burnett et al have refuted the idea that the coins of Agrippa and Balbus were posthumous 38. There is, therefore, little or no doubt that the coins of Agrippa were first struck in 19/18 B.C.39 at much the same time as those of Balbus.

33 Curchin, L.A., The Local Magistrates of Roman Spain, Toronto, 1990, pp.146-7, mentioned only one municipium with one set of quattuorviri or duoviri, and no colonia. Mackie, N., Local administration in Roman Spain, 14-212, BAR-IS 172, Oxford, 1983, said nothing about a colonia.

34 Burnett et al, pp.81, 2. The coins are numbered 77 to 84.

35 Ibid, Vol. 1, Part 2 (illustrations).

36 Ibid, p.81.

37 Ibid, p.82, coins 85-87.

38 Ibid, pp.80 and 81 examined the evidence of Guadián (Archivo Español de Arqueologia 34, 1961, p.24) for this, and dismissed it on the grounds of insufficient proof and improbability.

39 Grant, FITA, pp.171, 2. Roddaz, Marcus Agrippa, p.604. - 187 -

It can be concluded that the Agrippan coins marked a change to the constitution of the municipium from an orthodox form to a more standard version acceptable in 19-18 B.C. This conclusion was arrived at by Burnett et al40, by Roddaz41, and by Grant 42, although Grant combined this observation with his hypothesis of foundation issues43. Galsterer objected both to Gant's hypothesis of foundation issues and to its application at Gades44. Galsterer's objection cannot be supported, and Grant's hypothesis is not evaluated here. The coins of Balbus were struck in the same period as those of Agrippa.

Other indications on the coins are connected to the sea. Agrippa is shown either bare headed, or with the rostral (naval) crown, and there is an aplustre, or naval device, on the reverses of all his coins. Hübner interpreted the PARENS and PATRONUS with the aplustre as showing the creation by Agrippa of a naval station at Gades45. Reinhold noted this, but was not convinced46. Naval bases existed at Misenum and at Ravenna after Portus Julius was abandoned47, and there seems to be no proof of any others. Rodriguez Neila referred to a possible naval detachment from Misenum to Gades48, but he gave no evidence to support this. , a native of Gades, writing in the principate of , mentioned Portus Gaditanum, without reference to a naval facility49. There is, therefore, no actual evidence of a Roman naval base or a less important naval facility at Gades. Yet there is a good case for thinking that Agrippa would have established a naval presence at Gades. It was on the Atlantic seaboard and, therefore, well placed for Roman naval expansion into

40 Burnett et al, p.81

41 Roddaz, Marcus Agrippa, pp.603-611 and Note 52.

42 FITA, pp.171, 2.

43 Ibid, pp.290-4, for the general hypothesis of foundation issues, also pp.131, 139 and 459 for its application to Gades.

44 Galsterer, p.18 and Note 10 suggested that the legend PARENS PATRONUS, indicated a stronger version of PATRONUS. Yet PARENS appears on its own on some of the coins.

45 RE, 7.1.15, p.457.

46 Reinhold, p.94 note 100, p.609, Note 48.

47 Ibid, pp.32, 74, also see above Chapter 5, pp.105-6, for the naval base at Forum Iulii, and below Chapter 11, p.211, for Portus Iulius.

48 Rodriguez Neila, El Municipio, p.95 and p.97 note 25.

49 Pomponius Mela, De Chorographia 3.4. - 188 -

western Hispania, corresponding to that over land from Augusta Emerita. Also, Roman control over N.W. Hispania was a catalyst for increased Roman maritime activity in that region, including improvement of navigational control50. Agrippa, as the victor in Cantabria and the developer of Augusta Emerita, would have seen the potential use of Gades for these purposes.

It can be concluded that the coins showing Agrippa marked his change of the constitution of the municipium to a conventional form, and, almost certainly, his action on a naval facility which he planned, but perhaps did not build. It is most unlikely that Agrippa built anything for Gades itself. The coins mentioning Balbus Minor may have indicated some works by him at his native town in addition to noting his pontificate. The two issues would have symbolised the co-operation of Rome and the town.

(b) CARTHAGO NOVA (CARTAGENA): The evidence of Agrippan involvement is from an inscription and the coinage. Figs. 10.4a and 10.4b51 respectively show an inscription (part) in the correct orientation, and as it was found turned through 90° in the wall of the Castillo de la Concepcion52.

The decipherable letters of the remaining part are:

M A G L F COS PATRON Koch has reconstructed the inscription as

M(arco) AG(rippae) L'(ucii) F(ilio) CO(n)S(uli) [III quinq(uennali)] PATRON[o coloni].

50 See above Chapter 6, Note 86, p.126, for the lighthouse at La Corona on the N.W. coast of Spain.

51 Koch, M., ‘M. Agrippa und Neukarthago’, Chiron, 9.1979, pp.205-214, Tafel 5 and Tafel 6.1.

52 Ibid, p.206. - 189 - using three better preserved inscriptions naming Tiberius Claudius Nero, P. Silius , and King Iuba the 2nd of Mauritania, as patrons of the town53. The reconstruction of Koch is as reliable as can be expected, and probably correct. The imputed COS III indicates that the inscription is dated after 27 B.C. and, as in the case of the coins at Gades, there is no reason to assume that it is earlier than 19 B.C. when Agrippa was in Hispania 54, although Koch suggested that the inscription could date from 19 to12 B.C.55.

Agrippa is named on a coin type of Carthago Nova as quinquennalis who has delegated this office to a local praefectus. This type is not shown here since the depiction is obscure. There is no mention of him being a patronus. Augustus is presented on the coinage as holding the same delegated office as Agrippa56. Carthago Nova, together with Ilici and Lepida, seems to be the only mint in Hispania where the coins were struck by duoviri quinquennales57, or the magistrates responsible for arranging the local census every five years, and revising the roll of the local senate at the same time58. Both Agrippa and Augustus, therefore, held high office at Carthago Nova, but took no active part in its discharge. Roddaz discerned in this the origin of a dynastic cult, and suggested that this fitted in perfectly with the Iberian tradition of regard for the victorious conqueror, in this case in Cantabria and by Augustus and Agrippa59. Quinquennales had existed at Carthago Nova since the middle of the 1st century B.C.60. The numismatic evidence of Agrippa and Augustus, therefore, indicated a connection to a well-established local practice congruent with the comment made by Roddaz.

53 Ibid, pp.208, 211, 212.

54 As argued by Roddaz, Marcus Agrippa, p.414 and Note 150.

55 Koch, p.213 and Note 54.

56 Burnett et al, p.94, coins 162, 3 for Augustus and coin 164, for Agrippa. Roddaz, Marcus Agrippa, p.605 and notes 56-60 described some other similar coins showing Agrippa.

57 Burnett et al, p.91.

58 Curchin, The Local Magistrates of Roman Spain, p.30.

59 Roddaz, Marcus Agrippa, p.415 and note 153.

60 Burnett et al, p.93. - 190 -

Carthago Nova, founded for on a previous Iberian site by Hasdrubal in 226 B.C. was captured by Scipio in 209 B.C.61 at much the same time as Gades became an ally of Rome. The foundation of the colonia of Iulia Victrix cannot be dated accurately, but it was certainly before 27 B.C.62. Development after capture was rapid because of the Roman exploitation of the rich mineral deposits in the district, and the rise of local industries. Nevertheless, the Republican town was an agglomerate, and a structured layout with an orthogonal street pattern did not develop until the last years of the 1st century B.C. The major urban building was, therefore, after the Agrippan period, but details of the development are, as yet, not well understood since little excavation has been possible in the modern town63. The theatre has been partly excavated. This was almost certainly dedicated to Gaius, the first son of Agrippa and Julia, as indicated by inscriptions, one of which can be dated between 5 B.C. and A.D. 164. The general architecture of the building as excavated is congruent with a start on construction in this period65. Consequently, it is surprising to find a suggestion that Agrippa, in 19/18 B.C. agreed to finance the building, and for Gaius to continue this after his death66. No justification was offered for this suggestion, and it was followed by reference to an active construction role by King Iuba in Mauritania, and his close connections to Carthago Nova67, where, as noted above68, he was patron of the city. The birth of Gaius in 20 B.C.69 was important for Agrippa, who may have marked it by some particular action. Nevertheless, it seems unlikely that this took

61 Livy, 26.42.1.

62 Galsterer, p.29 and Note 129, Brunt, p.592, also Richardson, The Romans in Spain, p.120, noting the establishment of coloniae by Caesar in about 45 B.C.

63 Ramallo Asensio, S.F., San Martín Moro, P.A. and Valdéras, E.R., Ramallo Asensio, S.F. & Santiuste de Pablos, F., Co-ords., ‘Teatro romano de Cartagena. Una aproximación preliminar’, Teatros romanos de Hispania, pp.51-92, p.90, pp.88-90 and Note 105, p.87, referring to Ramallo Asensio , La ciudad romano de Carthago Nova : la documentacíon arqueológica. Murcia, 1989, pp.28-37. Also Jiménez Salvador, J.L., ‘Teatro y desarrollo monumental urbano in Hispania’, Teatros romanos de Hispania, pp.224-238, p.233-4..

64 Ramallo Asensio et al, pp.82, 83.

65 Ibid, p.81.

66 Ibid, p.90.

67 Ibid, p.91.

68 See above Note 53, p.189.

69 Cassius Dio, 54.8.5. - 191 - the form indicated by Ramallo Asensio. Consequently, there is no evidence that the theatre was planned by Agrippa, or that he had any part in its construction.

In conclusion, the Agrippan inscription and coins indicate that he was patronus and held local office. The inscription has been seen as a good example of the relationship between the Imperial family and Spanish cities in this period70, and the coins of Augustus and Agrippa were probably an early form of the Imperial cult 71. There is no indication of Agrippan planning or constructions from these pieces of evidence, nor should this be expected at a town, which, like Gades, was able to build its own urban facilities. Unlike Gades, there is no indication of any municipal or other initiative of Agrippa. Also, there seems to be no posthumous evidence of Agrippa equivalent to the iconography at Augusta Emerita72 or the coinage at Caesaraugusta73.

(c) CAESARAUGUSTA (ZARAGOZA): Coins struck at Caesaraugusta in the principate of Gaius (Caligula), A.D. 37-41, show and name Agrippa. These coins indicate that Agrippa was an important figure at the town half a century after his death and, therefore, that he had done something there in 19-18 B.C., since he was not in Hispania after this period74. Agrippa was not previously shown on the coins of Caesaraugusta75 and there seems to be no other contemporary material evidence of Agrippa at Caesaraugusta in 19-18 B.C. corresponding to the inscriptions at Agrippa's theatre at Augusta Emerita76. Consequently, there is no justification for such a detailed investigation of Agrippan works at Caesaraugusta, as at Augusta Emerita. Nevertheless, there is other evidence indicating Agrippan activity at Caesaraugusta in 19-18 B.C. which should be examined closely. This evidence of 19-18 B.C. is investigated in a first section, and the posthumous coinage in a second.

70 Alföldy, CAH 10, 1996, p.451 and note 2.

71 Roddaz, Marcus Agrippa, pp.414, 5 and Note 59.

72 See above Chapter 7, Notes 45-67, pp.134-6.

73 See below Notes 108-118, pp.196-7.

74 There is no evidence of such a visit of Agrippa in any biography of Agrippa, seen by the writer.

75 Burnett et al, pp.117-125.

76 See above Chapter 8, Notes 57-73, pp.148-150. - 192 -

(i) The Evidence from 19/18 B.C. Pliny described Caesaraugusta as a colony immune from taxes on the site of a town called Salduba77. Construction for a Roman town was not, therefore, completely ex novo, but there was a Roman foundation. The name Caesaraugusta shows that the colonia was established by, or on behalf of, Augustus in or after 27 B.C., but the crucial question here is whether Agrippa, in Hispania in 19/18 B.C., founded the first urban entity. If this is the case, he selected the site, and was responsible for determining the principal features of the town. Agrippa would not have built monumental works at Caesaraugusta in 19/18 B.C. when he was doing this at Augusta Emerita, where a small town had already been developed78.

There is no indisputable evidence of the date of the first Roman town at Caesaraugusta. Cassius Dio did not record a foundation, although he noted that of Augusta Emerita in 25 B.C.79. This silence indicates no foundation at that time, although this has been suggested80 at the same symposium where a dating of 19-14 B.C. was supported81. Le Roux has, more recently, indicated a foundation of 14 B.C.82 and Roddaz one of 19-18 B.C.83. It is unlikely that there was a foundation between the departure from Hispania of Augustus in 25 B.C. and the arrival of Agrippa in 19 B.C. Consequently, the most probable foundation date is either 19-18 B.C. or 16-13 B.C. when Augustus was in the West84, or, possibly, later still. It will be argued here that the first town was almost certainly established by Agrippa in 19-18 B.C. It will also be argued that it was not founded for the settlement of veteran, as is commonly supposed85.

77 Pliny, 3.24.

78 See above Chapter 7, pp.128-133, for urban development at Augusta Emerita before 19/18 B.C.

79 Cassius Dio, 53.26.

80 Beltrán Martínez, A., 'Caesaraugusta', symposium de ciudades augusteas, bimilenario de Zaragoza, 1976, pp.219-261, at pp.224-226, as noted by Le Roux, p.73, Note 302, and Roddaz, 'Agrippa et la péninsule Ibérique', p.67, Note 46.

81 Arce, J., 'Caesaraugusta', Symposium de ciudades …., 1976, pp.115-126, at pp.118-119, as noted by Le Roux, p.73, Note 302 and Roddaz, 'Agrippa et la péninsule Ibérique', pp.67, Note 46.

82 Le Roux, p.73.

83 Roddaz, 'Agrippa et la péninsule Ibérique', pp.67-68.

84 Cassius Dio, 54.23.7.

85 Grant, FITA, p.217 and Note 10, Galsterer, p.27, Roddaz 'Agrippa et la péninsule Ibérique', pp.69-70. - 193 -

The coinage provides the best evidence of the early town, but it must be treated with caution because there was local coinage and also putative Imperial strikings, with the numismatic interpretation split between the two 86. There are also problems in understanding the local coinage87. According to Burnett et al, the issue of Q. Lutatius and M. Fabius is ‘generally agreed to be the earliest’, because of its stylistic similarity to the gold and silver Imperial coinage attributed to Caesaraugusta, and struck in 19/18 B.C.88. Here, Burnett et al referred to Imperial issues marking the return of the Parthian Standards in 20 B.C.89, and attributed to ‘uncertain Spanish mints 1 and 2, (Colonia Caesaraugusta and Colonia Patricia [Córdoba])’ by Mattingly following Laffranchi. Attempts to weaken this hypothesis have been based on discovery at Nîmes of an obverse die from a gold coin of Colonia Patricia, but the attribution to Spain has not been overturned (or confirmed). The general understanding is that the Imperial coins were struck at Caesaraugusta in 19/18 B.C.90. Curchin dated Q. Lutatius and M. Fabius as II viri to ‘Ca. 23-13 B.C.’91. There are, therefore, uncertainties about the date of the first Roman coinage of Caesaraugusta, but 19/18 B.C. is the most likely. The first coins of Augustus, as listed by Burnett et al92, named Caesaraugusta and not Colonia Caesaraugusta, and bore the traditional foundation symbol of the priest ploughing with oxen to define the pomerium, although this appeared on a number of later coins. There were no military symbols or numbers. The first military symbol, a (standard or flag), appeared on the third Augustan issue, not dated by Burnett et al, but placed immediately before the issue dated 8-1 B.C.93 which was supported by Curchin’s general dating of the II viri on the coins94. The legionary number 4, 6 and 10 were noted first by Burnett et al on the sixth issue. This can be dated to the general period 4-2 B.C. by

86 Burnett et al, pp.117-127, for the local strikings, RIC, Vol. 1. 1984, pp.25, 26, 43-45, for the Imperial.

87 Burnett et al, p.117.

88 Ibid, p.117.

89 Cassius Dio, 54-8.

90 RIC, pp.25-26, and pp.43-45.

91 Curchin, The Local Magistrates of Roman Spain, p.188.

92 Burnett et al, p.119, the coins of Q. Lutatius and M. Fabius, Nos. 304-5.

93 Ibid, p.120, coin 311.

94 Curchin, The Local Magistrates …, p.188. - 194 - the appearance of Gaius and Lucius with Augustus between them, and the dates of the Il viri95 on it. The colonia was indicated later on the eighth issue. Burnett et al dated this after 4-3 B.C. and before A.D. 10-12, or after the depictions of Gaius and Lucius, and before the issue showing Augustus and Tiberius96. Curchin dated the II viri on the coin showing the colonia to ‘perhaps Ca. A.D. 4’97.

The coins, therefore, as interpreted by Burnett et al, indicate a foundation in 19/18 B.C. for civilian settlement, with the military settlement and the colonia progressively later. No substantial veteran settlement at Caesaraugusta can be expected after the pacification of Cantabria in 19 B.C., since a large area had been set aside for this in the province of Augusta Emerita98. Also, the military historian Le Roux considered that there would have been insufficient veterans to form a town settlement at that time99. The arguments of Roddaz for soldier settlement at Caesaraugusta after the pacification based on a mutiny hypothesis are questionable100. Le Roux argued for a civilian settlement in 14 B.C. on the basis of the visit of Augustus to the West101. The text of Cassius Dio describing the visit of Augustus to the West noted the introduction of Roman settlers in 14 B.C., but it did not clearly indicate the creation of new colonies rather than the settlement of new colonists at existing ones102. The findings from the coins are, therefore, generally supported by the military and historical evidence.

Strikings of Imperial coins marking the return of the Parthian Standards at the new town of Caesaraugusta indicated that Celsa, some 50 kms further down the Ebro from Caesaraugusta, founded by Caesar, and renamed by Lepidus, was to be

95 Burnett et al, p.120, coin 319 and Curchin, The Local Magistrates …, pp.188, 9.

96 Ibid, p.121, coin 325.

97 Curchin, The Local Magistrates …, p.189.

98 See above Chapter 7, Note 11, p.129, for the text of Frontinus describing settlement of veterans in a large area of Augusta Emerita set aside for successive retirements.

99 Le Roux, p.73.

100 Roddaz, 'Agrippa et la péninsule Ibérique', pp.67, 68, suggested that Agrippa really came to Cantabria to suppress a mutiny rather than to pacify the area. The text of Cassius Dio, 54.11, did not indicate this.

101 Le Roux, p.73.

102 Cassius Dio, 54.23.7 stated that Augustus established colonies of Roman settlers in many cities in Gaul and Spain. - 195 - overshadowed. Celsa103, unlike Caesaraugusta, and as seen from Fig. D, never became a conventus centre of the Empire. A decision to eclipse Celsa is probably to be explained by the position of Caesaraugusta further up the Ebro for river trading and with better access to land routes in the interior, and, also, by the undesirable association of Celsa with Lepidus. The coins marking the return of the Parthian Standards were valuable propaganda for Augustus 104 and Agrippa almost certainly had some part in their production. Furthermore, he needed precious metal coinage to pay his legions after the campaign in Cantabria. There is, therefore, a strong indication that Agrippa went to Caesaraugusta and set up a new Roman town which would eclipse Celsa.

Augusta Emerita, founded in 25 B.C., was converted into a monumental town in accordance with a master plan drawn up by Agrippa in 19-18 B.C., and the serving army was used for building the initial works. At Caesaraugusta there is no numismatic evidence of military works at the early town since, as noted above, the legionary numbers 4, 6 and 10 do not appear on the coins until later, and perhaps in 4-2 B.C.105. This is congruent with units of the serving army being retained at Augusta Emerita until substantial progress had been made there and then being transferred to Caesaraugusta. The archaeological evidence at Caesaraugusta indicates that the first works at the town were built in the Augustan period, with a first phase of monumental construction in the principates of Tiberius and Claudius106. It is not known whether the first works were Agrippan, dated to 19-18 B.C., or whether they resulted from the visit of Augustus in 16-13 B.C.

The contemporary evidence, therefore, indicates a probable foundation of Caesaraugusta by Agrippa in 19-18 B.C. If the Imperial coinage was struck elsewhere, the case for Agrippan foundation is weakened to some extent. The fact that Agrippa was not named or shown on the contemporary coinage does not indicate his lack of connection to the town, since only the princeps featured regularly on

103 Galsterer, pp.24 and 25 and notes 81-81 for the early history of the Victrix Iulia Lepida.

104 Cassius Dio, 54.8, recorded the diplomatic victory of Augustus in recovery of the Standards from Phraates (lost by Crassus at Carrhae, 53 B.C.; Decidus Saxa, 40 B.C., and Antony, 36 B.C.).

105 See above Note 95, p.194.

106 See below Note 121, p.198. - 196 - coinage. Carisius was named on the coins of Augusta Emerita from 25-23 B.C. because he was the legate in charge of the part of Hispania acting on behalf of the princeps. Agrippa, in Hispania in 19/18B.C., had no territorial attachment to Caesaraugusta, and there was no need for him to feature on the coins. Agrippan coins at Gades and Carthago Nova have already been explained by local factors. Roddaz107 suggested that there was a change from 25 B.C. to 19/18 B.C., with the princeps increasingly claiming the credit for all important actions. He argued that Carisius could, therefore, claim to have acted at Augusta Emerita, but that Agrippa could not do so at Caesaraugusta. This argument is to be supported.

(ii) Posthumous Evidence Fig. 10.5a108 shows one of the coins struck at Caesaraugusta in the principate of Caligula (Gaius)109. Agrippa has the rostral crown (generally unclear) with the legend M AGRIPPA. L.F COS III on the obverse. The reverse has the legend C.C.A. indicating the Colonia Caesaraugusta, and TITULLO ET MONTANO II VIR with the foundation symbol of the priest ploughing, as seen on many others struck at Caesaraugusta at various periods. Another coin is the same, but with SCIPIONE replacing TITULLO 110. Both coins were dated A.D. 38, 39 by Burnett et al111. They are hybrid coins since, on the obverse, they are virtually the same as the very large Imperial issues of the so-called ‘Agrippan’ asses circulated throughout the Roman world. Fig. 10.5b112, enlarged to the same degree as 10.5a, shows the Agrippan asses. On the reverse, the ‘Agrippan’ asses have a depiction of Neptune, with trident and dolphin between the S and C, which indicated issue by authority of the Senate. The coins struck at Caesaraugusta by the city were imitations of the Imperial ones113. ‘Agrippan’ asses were struck under Caligula, and possibly also under Tiberius and Claudius, at Rome, and probably elsewhere. They indicated Agrippa,

107 Roddaz, 'Agrippa et la péninsule Ibérique', pp.78-81.

108 Burnett et al, Vol. 1, Part 2, Plate 27 coin 386. The representation here is twice the actual size.

109 Ibid, p.127 coin 386.

110 Ibid, p.126 and coin 38l.

111 Ibid, p.119.

112 RIC, plate 14, coin 58.

113 Burnett et al, p.49. - 197 - the grandfather of Caligula, or Gaius, as the naval victor of Actium and Sicily114. The coins struck at Caesaraugusta seem to be the only ones modelled on the ‘Agrippan’ asses which have been discovered from a western provincial mint 115. This indicates that the city, prompted, by the issue of the ‘Agrippan’ asses, sought to connect itself to Agrippa. Coins were also struck showing divus Augustus and Agrippina Major and (parents of Caligula) in addition to Caligula116. These coins are the only ones from a local mint in the West associated with the propaganda of Gaius and Claudius117. The propaganda of Gaius was designed to trace his rule back to Augustus 118, but through Iula rather than Agrippa, whose origin was humble. There seems to be no known relationship between the colonia and Caligula, Agrippina Major, or Germanicus and the connecting link between Caesaraugusta and the coin issues was, therefore, Agrippa, who left Hispania in 18 B.C., and is not known to have returned. Consequently, there is a clear indication that Agrippa did something so important for the town at that time that he was remembered some sixty years later.

The combination of the contemporary and the posthumous evidence shows that Agrippa almost certainly founded the future colonia of Caesaraugusta in 19/18 B.C. for general settlement and as the principal Roman centre in the region. Roddaz argued that the posthumous evidence alone was sufficient to prove the Agrippan action119, but this is to be questioned. The town would naturally claim any Agrippan connection to the town when the Agrippan asses were so prominent. It does not necessarily follow that the posthumous coins recollected a foundation by Agrippa rather than some other action. Perhaps Agrippa had provided the first bridge over the Ebro, or made the site a transport node by building road works. The essential

114 RIC., p.112 (obverse legend 4) listed ‘Agrippan’ asses under Caligula and the mint of Rome, while noting other possible datings and mints, pp.105 and 115. Roddaz, Marcus Agrippa, pp.606-11, summarised the extensive bibliography on the ‘Agrippan’ asses.

115 Roddaz, Marcus Agrippa, p.609.

116 Burnett et al, pp.125-127, various coins.

117 Trillmich, W., ‘Familienpropaganda der Kaiser Caligula und Claudius’ Deutsches Archäologisches Institut. AMUGS, 8, 1978, pp.1-179, and tafels 1-16, pp.99, 100. Also, Trillmich, W., 'Zur Münzprägung des Caligula von Caesaraugusta', MM 14, 1973, pp.151- 173.

118 Burnett et al, pp.50, 51.

119 Roddaz, 'Agrippa et la péninsule Ibérique', p.68 and Note 50. - 198 - evidence of Agrippan foundation, as set out in (1), was contemporary and the posthumous coins reinforce this rather than demonstrate it on their own.

Agrippa, as founder, would have selected the site of the existing town of Salduba and have defined the pomerium, together with the town layout. No doubt he established some kind of urbs quadrata with defensive barriers. Nevertheless, his early works cannot be distinguished from others of the Augustan period. Fig. 10.6120 shows the principal known Roman remains in the town. The bridge over the Ebro is lost, and probably underneath the existing structure. The forum buildings along the cardo are Tiberian/Claudian, as is the theatre. The Augustan forum was near the intersections of the principal streets, and the walls and drains were set out in the Augustan period121.

(d) ULIA FIDENTIA : The small town, some 40 km south of Colonia Patricia (Córdoba), is the only one in Baetica which did not defect from Caesar to Pompey122. This explains its name. There is an inscription M . AGRIPPAE . PATRONO123, together with a statue of Agrippa with those of other members of the Imperial family, and also a dedication to 124. Ulia Fidentia, founded by Caesar125, was of little importance and, is not included by Galsterer in his description of the towns of Baetica. It did not strike any coins 126. The epigraphy indicates the long established relationship to the dynasty of Augustus, and there is no evidence of, or reason to expect any Agrippan activity there.

120 Beltrán Lloris, M., 'El valle medio del Ebro y su monumentalización en época republicana y augustea (Antecedentes Lepida — Celsa y Caesaraugusta)', Stadtbild und Ideologie, pp.179-206, Fig. p.198, with some alterations.

121 Ibid, pp. 1967, also Beltrán Lloris, M., ‘El teatro de Caesaraugusta estado actual de conocimiento’, Teatros romanos de Hispania, pp.93-118, at pp.97-100, and Perez Casas, JA, ‘La excavacíon del Foro de Caesaraugusta’, Pancio, J. & Perez Casas, J.A., Eds., La Plaza de la Seo, Zaragoza, Zaragoza, 1989, pp.81-156..

122 Cassius Dio, 43.31.4.

123 CIL., 2.1527.

124 Roddaz, Marcus Agrippa, p.415 and note 152 referring to Etienne, le Culte, p.394.

125 Fear, p.116, and M.I. Henderson, ‘Julius Caesar and Latium in Spain’, JRS 32 (1942) 1-13.

126 Burnett, p.58, did not include Ulia Fidentia in the nine local mints of Baetica. - 199 -

(e) EMPORIAE: Fig. 10.7127 shows the general location of Emporiae on the N.E. coast of Hispania, and the Roman town on the plateau overlooking the later of the two Greek colonies. These originated from a Phocaean trading post of the 6th century B.C. The Roman town replaced a Roman garrison, and was built in the last few years of the 2nd century B.C.128. A colonia Latina was possibly founded there in 113 B.C.129, but a municipium of this time was, perhaps, given a more definite form in the Augustan period130. Fig. 10.8131 shows the original forum with the capitolium and cryptoporticus on the north side, and the shops on the south, the extension of this in the Augustan period, and further development in the Empire. The basilica, porticus and possible curia, shown on Fig. 10.8, are Augustan, but there is no clear indication of their dating within this period132. The Augustan forum is, therefore, a potential site of Agrippan constructions of 19-18 B.C. possibly associated with an Agrippan change to the constitution of the existing municipium, as at Gades133.

Fig. 10.9134 shows a photograph of the marble fragments of what may be one inscription (No. 24) found at the Forum of Emporiae and, below it, the reconstruction as proposed by Fabre et al135: M(arco)[AGRIP]PAE PAT[RO]NO

Fabre et al acknowledged that this interpretation replaced other versions with one or three lines136, but they preferred it at least partly because Agrippa was seen by them

127 Keay, S.J., 'Processes in the Development of the Coastal Communities of Hispania Citerior in the Republican Period', Blagg, T. & Millet, M., Eds., The Early Roman Empire in the West, pp.120-150, Fig. 10.6, p.131 (with addition of the general location).

128 Ibid, pp.130, 131.

129 Keay, 'Processes in the Development …', p.130 and Note 60.

130 Fabre, G, Mayer, M., Rodà, I., Inscriptions romaines de Catalogne, 3 Gérone, Paris, 1991, p.18 and Note 15.

131 Based on Pfanner, Abb. 26, p.92.

132 Ibid, p.19.

133 See above p.188.

134 Fabre et al, Plate 14.

135 Ibid, p,58.

136 Ibid, pp.58, 59. - 200 - as an important figure at Emporiae137. Fabre et al, therefore, accepted a dating of 19-18 B.C. for the inscription, while acknowledging that it marked the first use of marble rather than local stone in the epigraphy of this part of Spain138. At Augusta Emerita, the general use of marble was post-Augustan139, and Pfanner identified the Augustan forum at Emporiae with the pre-marble period140. From examination of the photograph, there seems to be little evidence of the P before AE, and the spacings of the reconstruction are different in the two lines. Also, Roddaz did not include the inscription in his list of those of Agrippa in Spain141 even though it was officially noted in 1900142. It would be necessary to inspect the fragments to form a more definite conclusion, but the inscription may not refer to Agrippa. Even if it did so, it could have mentioned him in some context other than planning or construction. Consequently, neither activity can be imputed to him from it, and there is no other indication of these actions.

CONCLUSIONS The most important evidence of Agrippan activity at urban centres, other than Augusta Emerita, from the surviving inscriptions and coins, is from Caesaraugusta where he almost certainly founded the first Roman town in 19/18 B.C. Agrippa, as founder, would have selected the town site, laid out the pattern of the principal urban facilities, including the bridge over the Ebro, and probably have started initial works. Agrippa altered the constitution of the municipium of Gades and may also have established a new Roman naval station there. For a naval station, Agrippa would also have selected a site and acted as at Caesaraugusta. There is no indication of any constructions by him at Carthago Nova, Ulia Fidentia or Emporiae, nor should these be expected.

It is not possible to extrapolate from these conclusions in order to assess Agrippa's activity at urban centres in the peninsula as a whole. This is the case because the

137 Ibid, p.18.

138 Ibid, p.59.

139 See above Chapter 8, Note 10, p.139.

140 Pfanner, pp.90-91.

141 Roddaz, Marcus Agrippa, map after p.623.

142 Fabre et al, p.58. - 201 - survival of inscriptions is random. It is less likely that coin issues have been completely lost, but it is not possible to impute Agrippan action at urban centres generally from the surviving coins, even though there were so many issues of these143, since, as noted above, Agrippa would have appeared rarely on the coins, and not always even when he had been prominent, as at Caesaraugusta. The possibility of Agrippan action at urban centres other than Augusta Emerita, Caesaraugusta and Gades is discussed in the section which follows.

143 Richardson, The Romans in Spain, p.145, noted the large number of coins struck in Hispania in this period. - 202 -

AGRIPPAN WORKS IN HISPANIA : CONCLUSIONS

INTRODUCTION It was possible to draw conclusions about Agrippan works in Gaul directly from the findings of Chapters 1-5, since the constructions were explained by Agrippa's roles during his two visits there and were congruent with the time available to him there. It is not so clear that the works identified in Chapters 6-10 formed the corpus of his works in Hispania. Firstly, Agrippa probably had a freer hand to act in Hispania in 19-18 B.C. than in Gaul in 19 B.C., since Augustus, in Hispania in 26-25 B.C., is not known to have initiated plans for general development of the peninsula, as is recorded for his actions in Gaul in 27 B.C. Secondly, apart from the pacification works in Cantabria, all the others examined above were in a few urban centres in a large region with several developed centres. It is, therefore, necessary to consider possible works of Agrippa not investigated in Chapters 6-10 before drawing conclusions.

It has been argued here that Agrippa probably founded Caesaraugusta in 19/18 B.C., and Augusta Emerita was certainly founded, on behalf of Augustus, by Carisius in 25 B.C. Several other coloniae can be regarded, with a greater or lesser degree of certainty, as founded or created in the Augustan principate. In fact, the urbanisation of the peninsula under Augustus was so extensive that the Julio-Claudian emperors did not extend colonial or municipal status other than to a few centres1. Nevertheless, the dates of the foundations within the Augustan period are uncertain2. Keay stated that Barcino was founded as a colonia between 15 and 13 B.C.3. It has also been seen as founded in the late Republican or Augustan period4. These indications are insufficient to suggest that Agrippa was responsible for its foundation. Augustus was in the West in 16-13 B.C. It is not clear from the text of Cassius Dio

1 Alföldy, CAH 10, 1996, pp.449-458, also, Richardson, The Romans in Spain, Chapters 1, 2 and 3 and Chapter 4 up to p.149.

2 Brunt, Italian Manpower, pp.590-593 and Alföldy, CAH 10, 1996, p.457.

3 Keay, 'Processes in the Development of the Coastal Communities of Hispania Citerior …', Blagg, T. and Millet, M., Eds., The Early Roman Empire in the West, pp.120130 at p.138 and Note 97.

4 Mierse, Temples and Towns in Roman Iberia, p.78, and Notes 90-93. - 203 - whether he established new colonies or made new settlements at existing colonies5, but there was ample time for new coloniae to be established during the principate of Augustus. The possibility of Agrippa founding colonies other than Caesaraugusta cannot be dismissed entirely, but it is less likely than Augustus doing so in 16-13 B.C., or later.

Agrippa planned and started construction of a major town at August Emerita, and probably as the future capital of Lusitania, but the possibility of his building something at Cordoba and Tarraco, as the respective chief centres of Baetica and Taraconensis, can almost certainly be ruled out. Agrippa was patron of Cordoba6, but this does not necessarily indicate that he built anything there, and it is not possible to identify works of the Agrippan period7. The town was probably sufficiently developed by 19/18 B.C. to function as a regional capital, since it was rebuilt shortly after its virtual destruction by Caesar in 45 B.C.8. At Tarraco there were substantial urban works by 19 B.C., although the nature and extent of these is unknown since the Augustan town in the lower part of modern remains unexcavated, except for a basilica of the Vitruvian type. The vestiges of the theatre may be late Augustan9. There is, therefore, no knowledge of any works of the Agrippan period at Tarraco, or at Cordoba, and little reason to expect these because they became provincial capitals. Augusta Emerita was to be a 'palpable symbol of the presence of Rome in the most westerly part of the Empire'10, since there was only a small town in 19 B.C., and major works were needed.

Possible Agrippan constructions at Carthago Nova, Iulia Fidentia and Emporiae were not indicated from investigation in Chapter 10. These conclusions were to be expected. Rome assumed responsibility for founding and starting development at its

5 Cassius Dio, 54.23.7, also see above Chapter 10, Note 102, p.194.

6 Mierse, Temples' and Towns …', p.238 and Note 126. This possibility was based on a questionable inscription of the 18th century, noted in Masdeu, J.F., History critica de España, Madrid, 1784, pp.396-7 by Knapp, Roman Córdoba, 1983, p.30.

7 Ventura, A., León, P., and Marquez, C., 'Roman Córdoba in the Light of Recent Archaeological Research', Keay, S.J., Ed., The Archaeology of Early Roman Baetica, Portsmouth, Rhode Island, 1998, pp.86-107, and particularly pp.91-95 and p.106.

8 Ibid, p.92.

9 Keay, Roman Spain, pp.118-121 provided information on Tarraco; also Keay, 'Processes in the Development of the Coastal Communities of Hispania Citerior, pp.127, 8 and 137.

10 Richardson, The Romans in Spain, p.141. - 204 - coloniae for settlement of veterans or others. Elsewhere, the local elite were expected to take the lead in development. In some cases, the charter of the town stipulated labour on works by the inhabitants11. The example of local urban initiatives at Gades by Balbus Minor has already been noted here and, at Saguntum, a large forum was paid for by a local person12. Agrippa's role was to encourage development rather than to participate in it. He would have honoured a particular town by becoming its patron or by accepting some local office to be discharged locally, as at Cathago Nova. Such action would have increased the status of the town and fostered its building programme. There is, therefore, little reason to suspect Agrippan construction at towns other than coloniae or those which were to attain this status.

There was no need for Agrippa to plan and built an extensive road network in Hispania like that in Gallia Comata, since there was no external threat. Also, roads had been improved or built over a long period in the south and the east, and there was no immediate need for major works in the west or in the centre. Agrippa may have extended the Caminio de la Plata, shown on Fig. D, to connect Asturica Augusta to Augusta Emerita, or have improved the road to Asturica Augusta to Caesaraugusta, but there is no evidence for his participation in these works13. It is more likely that Augustus was responsible for road works in Hispania14.

As noted in the introduction to Hispania, Cassius Dio, describing Agrippa's visit to Gaul and Hispania in late 20 B.C.15, did not indicate whether he was to go only to Gaul, and was called away unexpectedly from Gaul to the rebellion in N.W. Hispania, or was to visit both regions. It is, therefore, not possible to know if Agrippa stayed on in Hispania after his pacification only to execute some particular works while he

11 Ibid, p.143, for a general analysis of the Augustan policy of urbanisation and Roddaz, Marcus Agrippa, p.410, for the provisions of the Charter of Urso in Baetica.

12 See above Chapter 10 for Agrippa at Gades and Beltráán Lloris F., Epigrafia Latina de Saguntum y su territorum, (, 1980, No. 64), for Saguntum, as noted by Richardson, The Romans in Spain, p.144, Note 53..

13 Curchin, L.A., The Romanisation of Central Spain, London, 2004, p.110, noted from 8-7 B.C. between Asturica Augusta and Caesaraugusta.

14 Keay, Roman Spain, p.49 and Note 3 referring to Roldan, J., Iter ab Emerita ad Asturicam. El camino del la plata, , 1971, for the Camino de la Plata, and Chevallier, Les voies romaines, pp262-267, for general information on roads in the peninsula.

15 Cassius Dio, 54.11, also above Notes 10 and 11, p.112. - 205 - was there, or if he had some larger predetermined role. Nevertheless, it is likely that the princeps, in the region in 16-14 B.C. and later, was responsible for large scale planning in the peninsula. Roddaz has seen Agrippa, in Hispania in 19-18 B.C., as the alter ego of Augustus16, but it is doubtful that he could act as freely as when he was in the East, as discussed below.

Much, therefore, remains uncertain about the extent of Agrippa's role in Hispania in 19-18 B.C., but the evidence indicates that his primary roles were the pacification of Cantabria and advancement of Roman expansion into the West, through development of Augusta Emerita and, to a lesser extent, into the centre through the foundation of Caesaraugusta. These activities, with other indications, have been investigated in Chapters 6-10. It is, therefore, appropriate to draw conclusions about Agrippa in Hispania from the findings of these chapters, pending further discoveries..

CONCLUSIONS Agrippa constructed substantial military works for his campaign in Cantabria, some of which may yet be found and attributed to him. These are of great potential interest for the military archaeologist and historian. Agrippa made no alteration to the administration of N.W. Hispania after his pacification of Cantabria. He probably ordered improvement of roads in the region and those connecting it to other parts of the country, but the execution of such works would have been the responsibility of the legates of the 'Two Spains'. There is no reason to think that Agrippa established any urban centres or planned any urban works in the region. Agrippa, in 19-18 B.C., provided the theatre of Augusta Emerita, dedicated in 16-15 B.C., and planned development of a monumental town, probably as the future capital of the province of Lusitania, at the small town founded by Carisius in 25 B.C. His urban planning embraced works at the town, new stone bridges, and aqueducts, but it is unlikely that he built the bridges or any substantial part of the aqueducts. He started construction of the early town works, including the town drainage system and probably the 'Temple of Diana', in addition to his theatre, but his planning was not fully implemented until decades after his death, and, possibly, in the Claudian period. Agrippa almost certainly founded the future Roman town at Caesaraugusta, selecting the site, and establishing the main physical features of the town. There is no evidence

16 Roddaz, 'Agrippa et la péninsule Ibérique', pp.65-8, and 72-81. - 206 - for Agrippa's foundation of any other colonia, but he may have established a new Roman naval station at the old Punic city of Gades, where he changed the constitution of the existing municipium. Agrippa's activities at urban centres other than coloniae were, almost certainly, limited to his patronage and encouragement of construction by the local elite. There is no evidence of Agrippan road works in Hispania generally, although he may have ordered road works in N.W. Hispania and those connecting Asturica Augusta to Augusta Emerita and Caesaraugusta.

These conclusions represent a new interpretation of Agrippa in Hispania in which his planning and constructions were principally instruments of Roman conquest in Cantabria, and of expansion of Roman influence into western and central Hispania centred on Augusta Emerita and Caesaraugusta respectively. There seem to have been no previous investigations into Agrippa's military constructions in Cantabria, and little enquiry into Agrippa's possible foundation of the first Roman town at Caesaraugusta. Furthermore, previous studies of Agrippa at Augusta Emerita have been directed largely to the archaeological investigation of his theatre there, with little enquiry into Agrippan planning for the town, its bridges and aqueducts and the possibility of his building other monuments. There has, also, been little or no bringing together of archaeological investigations and posthumous evidence of Agrippan activity. In fact, the previous information and comment on Agrippa in Hispania was incomplete and uncoordinated. This resulted from the lack of a study either of Agrippa in the peninsula or of his planning and constructions there, and a consequent lack of focus on investigation of various aspects. - 207 -

OOTTHHEERR RREEGGIIOONNSS

11. AGRIPPAN WORKS OTHER THAN IN THE WEST

The objects of enquiry in this chapter are to complete the catalogue of Agrippan constructions in the Roman world, and to cast further light on those in the West by comparison with the others. The description of these other works is brief, with footnotes referring to more detailed information. The historical information and comment on them is also not detailed, and is intended to explain the functions of the works being described so that these functions can be compared with the functions of those in the West.

ROME AND ITALY In 34/33 B.C., Agrippa, consul in 37 B.C., was prepared to take up the much lower position of Aedile to carry out works on the infrastructure of Rome He built a new aqueduct, the Aqua Iulia, which he joined to the existing Aqua Tepula, repaired the others, and greatly increased the quantity and points of water distribution in the city. Agrippa also upgraded the drains and streets and repaired buildings 1. This enormous programme of works greatly improved living conditions at Rome for the general population and was an important factor in influencing public opinion in favour of Octavian and against Antony, who was in the East and doing nothing for the city. It was reinforced by Antony's rejection of his legal Roman wife, Octavia, by his marriage to Cleopatra, and the provisions of his will read out to the Senate by Octavian that he be buried in Alexandria beside her. In 32 B.C., Octavian persuaded the Senate to declare war against Cleopatra and, effectively, against Antony. At the in 31 B.C. where Agrippa was admiral, Antony and Cleopatra were

1 Strabo, 5.3.8, Pliny, 36.121, Frontinus, De Aqueductu 1, 9-10, Cassius Dio 49.43. Shipley, F.W., Agrippa's Building Activities in Rome, St Louis, 1933, pp.19-34, Van Deman, E.R., The Building of the Roman Aqueducts, Washington, 1934, pp.1-29, 147-163, Ashby, T., The Aqueducts of Ancient Rome, Oxford, 1935, pp.160-165, Evans, H.B., 'Agrippa's Water Plan', AJA 86, 1962, pp.401-411, Evans, H.B., Water Distribution in Ancient Rome, Ann Arbor, 1994, pp.17, 95-103 and Aicher, P.J., Guide to the Aqueducts of Ancient Rome, Wauconda, 1995, pp.38, 39, also Reinhold, pp.45-52, and Roddaz, Marcus Agrippa, pp.145-153. - 208 - defeated, making Octavian master of the Roman world 2, and ensuring that the centre of Roman power remained at Rome rather than going to Alexandria.

In 28-24 B.C., Agrippa's built a new quarter in the Campus Martius. The Aqua Virgo, constructed by Agrippa to serve his development, was not dedicated until 19-18 B.C.3. Fig 11.14 shows the Campus Martius in the Augustan period. The Capitolium overlooks the Forum Romanum to the east. The Agrippan structures were the Pantheon, the Basilica of Neptune, his Baths, the Saepta (begun by Lepidus), and the Diribitorium. The last mentioned was completed by Augustus after the death of Agrippa5. Agrippa's Pantheon was replaced by the larger remaining building with the rotunda, which dates from the period of , although the inscription on its portico names the builder as Agrippa. The Pantheon of Agrippa, a traditional temple with columns, occupied the space of the porch and a small part of the rotunda of the present building. The Basilica of Neptune consisted of a portico commemorating the naval victories of Sicily and Actium, decorated with a fresco showing the exploits of the Argonauts. The first form of the Baths of Agrippa, a laconium, built in 25 B.C., was expanded into the Agrippae in 19-18 B.C., when the Aqua Virgo was commissioned. This was probably the first of the thermae at Rome. The Saepta, planned by Caesar and partly built by Lepidus, consisted of an enormous space with porticoes abutting the Diribitorium. The large artificial lake, the stagnum, received the waters of the Aqua Virgo and was the focus of a large garden in which Agrippa placed numerous statues to form an extensive park for recreation. It is not certain that Agrippa built the Euripus, which connected the Stagnum to the , or whether the Aqua Virgo reached the west bank of the Tiber over the Agrippan bridge. Little is known about the bridge or the Agrippan on the west river bank marked on Fig. 11.1. There are few remains of the Agrippan works at the Campus Martius, and the information on these is mainly from texts, inscriptions and

2 Cassius Dio, 50, 1-6, for the events which led to the declaration of war and their significance, also Cary & Scullard, pp.295-6. Cassius Dio, 50.11-34, for the Battle of Actium, and Gurval, R.A., Actium & Augustus, Ann Arbor, 1995, for an interpretation of the importance of Actium.

3 Cassius Dio, 54.11, Frontinus, De Aqueductu, 1.10, Van Deman, pp.167-8, Ashby, pp.167-183, Shipley, pp.31-34, Evans, Water Distribution, pp.105-109, and Aicher, pp.68, 9.

4 Based on Tortorici, E., 'L'attivita edilizia di Agrippa a ', Ceresa Gastaldo, A., Pres., Il bimillenario di Agrippa, Genoa, 1990, pp.19-55, Plan 12, p.51 (after Coarelli, 1974)

5 Cassius Dio, 55.8. - 209 - the Marble Plan of Rome discovered at the Temple of Peace6. The Campus Agrippae and the Porticus Vipsania, shown on Fig. 11.1 to the east of the , were developed after the death of Agrippa7. The only other possible public work of Agrippa at Rome seems to be the warehouse near the Forum Romanum8.

The Basilica of Neptune and the Pantheon indicated, respectively, the achievements of and the justifications for the rule of Augustus, since the former showed the victories and the latter his connection to Caesar, being consecrated to Mars, Venus Genetrix (the ancestor of Caesar), Caesar and all the gods. Agrippa had wanted to place a statue of Augustus in it and name the building after Augustus, but the princeps declined both tributes9. Completion of the Saepta and start of work on the Diribitorium symbolised support for the political rights of the populace, since the first was the meeting place for the Comitia Tributa, attended by all citizens, where votes were cast and the second was the place where the votes were counted. The hot baths, the large lake and ornamental gardens, with their works of art, formed a sort of villa for the people where they could enjoy facilities previously not available to them. Agrippa, of humble origin, favoured a greater participation by the people in culture10. The Agrippan works at the Campus Martius, therefore, projected a double message. The new order rested on conquest and a dynastic connection to the gods, but the rights of the people were to be respected and the benefits of the new peace were to be available to all. Agrippa, embracing the new order and providing these benefits, was a champion of the people. Yet neither the Saepta nor the Diribitorium were used for their original purposes once the new order had been firmly established11.

6 The principal texts are Strabo, 5.3.8, and 13.1.19, Pliny, 36.102, and Cassius Dio, 53.27 and 54.29, also Shipley, pp.37-72, Roddaz, Marcus Agrippa, pp.252-277, Tortorici, 'L'attavita idealizia di Agrippa a Roma', Lloyd, R.B., 'The Aqua Virgo, Euripus and ', AJA, 83, 1979, pp.193-204, and Evans, Water Distribution in Ancient Rome, p.105.

7 Cassius Dio, 55.8.

8 The Horrea Agrippina (warehouses), perhaps built by Agrippa, were on the N.W. slope of the Palatine Hill. Bauer, H., described the buildings in Archaeologica Classica, 30, 1978, pp.31-146.

9 Cassius Dio, 53.23.

10 Shipley, pp.37-43 and Roddaz, Marcus Agrippa, pp.256-260, for the Saepta and the diribitorium. Roddaz, Marcus Agrippa, pp.244-290, for a general description of the political and cultural aspects pf Agrippa's development. Pliny, 35.26, for the oratio of Agrippa advocating cultural diffusion, also Roddaz, Marcus Agrippa, pp.245-6.

11 Zanker, P., The Power of Images in the Age of Augustus, Ann Arbor, 1988, pp.139-142, for a general discussion of the Agrippan works at the Campus Martius as part of the Augustan reshaping of Rome. - 210 -

Octavian planned construction at Rome before Actium in his rivalry with Antony. The announcement of his decision to build his Mausoleum at Rome when Antony intended to be buried in Alexandria was a master stroke of Octavian's propaganda. Most of these works were not completed before Actium12. After Actium, Augustus embarked on an enormous programme of works, completing important projects started by Caesar, and building new ones. There was, also, a comprehensive restoration of buildings which had fallen into disrepair. The public monuments of Rome were virtually recast during the principate of Augustus. On completion, a new style of Roman architecture had been established, built to a higher standard than before, and faced in marble instead of the local stone. The principal Augustan works were at the centre of the city. Augustus completed the Forum of Caesar. At the Forum Romanum, he finished the Basilica Julia, begun by Caesar, and re-built the Curia Julia restored by Caesar. Augustus also built a temple to the deified Caesar, the Arch of Augustus, the Temple of Castor and Pollux, and the Temple of Concord. Augustus created his own forum with a temple dedicated to Mars Ultor. He completed the Theatre of Marcellus in the Campus Martius, and the Ara Pacis, and rebuilt or restored more than 80 temples in the city13.

In 34-33 B.C., therefore, Agrippa improved the whole of the city infrastructure by building utilitarian works, which induced the population to favour Octavian. After Actium, Agrippan building was restricted to one part of the city where it could be easily identified as symbolising the beginning of the new order. Agrippan constructions ceased in 18 B.C., whereas those of Augustus continued until the end of the principate in A.D. 14, and recast the principal monuments of the city to represent the centre of the Roman world, with himself as princeps14. The building programmes of Agrippa and Augustus at Rome reflected their respective roles at the centre of political power. Agrippa was allowed to help Octavian to win over the

12 The works of Octavian included the Temple of on the Palatine Hill vowed by him at the Battle of Naulochus in 36 B.C., but not completed until 28 B.C, Claridge, A., Rome, Oxford, 1988, p.131, and his Mausoleum in the Campus Martius, also completed in 28 B.C., Claridge, pp.181-4.

13 RG 19-21 and Suetonius, Aug 28.3. There is a substantial modern scholarship on the Augustan works at Rome. Sear, Roman Architecture, Chapter 3, provided an overall summary, including reference to the building plans and construction of Caesar with information on the principal constructions. Favro, D., The Urban Image of Augustan Rome, Cambridge, 1996, examined the Augustan remodelling of Rome from the aspect of town planning.

14 Favro, p.19. - 211 - people, but not to take part in building the principal monuments for the political and religious activities of the new state. This was reserved for the princeps.

In the West it was not practicable for Augustus to be so dominant in construction, nor was this so necessary politically. Before Actium, Agrippa probably acted independently in building his road network in Gaul to advance the interests of Octavian. After Actium, Augustus took the major initiatives in Gaul at Nemausus, Arelate and Glanum, with Agrippa possibly acting independently only at Lugdunum. It is not known whether Agrippa acted independently at Augusta Emerita and Caesaraugusta, or was largely guided by Augustus. At both these coloniae, Agrippan actions were acknowledged after his death rather than in 19-18 B.C., and even the inscriptions on the theatre at Augusta Emerita may have been intended to record the inauguration of the province of Lusitania rather than the fact that Agrippa built it 15. The evidence from Gaul and Hispania indicates, therefore, that, after Actium and the establishment of the new order, Augustus, as the princeps, was to be seen as the principal actor for the state, by the publicity about constructions, if not always by the actual division of works between the princeps and Agrippa.

Agrippa formed Portus Iulius in the Bay of Naples to build a new fleet and train it for the fight against Sextus Pompey16. Fig. 11.217 shows the harbour dredged out of the natural lagoon of Lake Lucrinus, with a canal cut to reach Lake and tunnels connecting the two lakes and, also, to , where supplies were brought in. The Via Herculeana, along the shoreline, was cut to allow the fleet to sail out into the open sea for training, and to return to a harbour safe from the ships of Sextus Pompey. Portus Iulius was abandoned not long afterwards when a naval base was built at Misenum, marked on Fig. 11.2. Since that time bradyseism (the natural slow rise and fall of the land) and volcanic eruptions have altered the topography and raised sea levels so that the Agrippan works, other than the tunnels in stable rock, can presently be realised only partially and with great difficulty18. Portus Iulius was,

15 Cooley, PBSR, 67, 1999, pp.173-183, pp.178, 9, also see above Chapter 8, Note 62, p.149.

16 See above Notes 10 and 11, p.2, for the sea battles with Sextus Pompey.

17 Based on Roddaz, Marcus Agrippa, Carte 2, p.96, who had it from Castagnoli (Campi Flegrei).

18 References to Portus Julius in the ancient texts include Strabo, 5.5-6, Cassius Dio, 48.50-51, 49.2, Velleius Paterculus¸2.78.1-2, 79, Pliny, 36.125 and , Ecologues, 2.161, 162. Roddaz, Marcus Agrippa, pp.95-117, provided a modern account of the harbour, with references to more detailed information. - 212 - perhaps, the most unusual work of Agrippa, and one in which he best demonstrated his genius for organisation of materials and human forces. It also provides a good example of construction built specifically for war. Agrippa built the first form of the theatre at Ostia, and probably in 18-17 B.C., as suggested recently19.

THE EAST The circumstances of Agrippa's first visit to the East from 23-21 B.C., his mission, and powers remain uncertain20, but there is no doubt that he was, for all intents and purposes, equal to the princeps during his second visit from 17-13 B.C.21. Substantial works might, therefore, be expected from the second and longer visit as co-regent. The Odeion in the Agora of Athens seems to be the only building in the East clearly identified as his which has survived sufficiently to be reconstructed on paper using foundations, fragments and texts referring to the period22. Fig. 11.323 shows the location of the Odeion, and Fig. 11.424 a perspective section through the building. Fig. 11.525 shows the Agora in relation to the Market of Caesar and Augustus and the Library of Hadrian. The Odeion, built in 16-15 B.C, has many interesting design and architectural features which cannot be discussed here, including a large roof span and the combination of Greek and Roman features26.

19 Cooley, PBSR 67, 1999, pp.178-9, also see above Chapter 8, Note 62, p.149.

20 Cassius Dio, 53.27, stated that Augustus arranged the marriage of his daughter, Julia, to her cousin, Marcellus (the son of Octavia), and seems to have regarded Marcellus as his heir. Yet, when Augustus fell ill in 23 B.C. and was thought to be dying, he handed his signet ring to Agrippa. On his recovery, Augustus made no clear statement about his successor. Cassius Dio, 53.30-32, considered that Agrippa was sent out of Rome to avoid friction with Marcellus. Reasons for Agrippa's departure are argued by Roddaz, Marcus Agrippa, pp.307-324. Lacey, W.K., Augustus and the principate, Leeds, 1996, Chapter 5, pp.117-131, advanced the hypothesis of an Agrippan provincia in the East.

21 Agrippa was now the son-in-law of Augustus and his wife Julia had borne Gaius and Lucius. Also, Agrippa had received the tribunicia potestas in 18 B.C., Cassius Dio, 54.12.4-5.

22 Thompson, H.A., 'The Odeion in the Athenian Agora', Hesperia, 19, 1950, pp.31-141, and Plates 16-8, and Thompson, H.A., and Wycherley, R.E., 'The Agora of Athens', Agora , 14, 1972, 5, pp.111-4.

23 Thompson and Wycherley, The Agora of Athens, Plate 8.

24 Ibid, Plate 60a.

25 Thompson, H.A., 'The Impact of Roman Architects and Architecture on Athens : 170 B.C.-A.D. 170' , Macready, S. & Thompson, F.A., Eds., Roman Architecture in the Greek World, London, 1987, pp.1-17, Fig. 1, p.5, with some alterations.

26 Rawson, E., 'Architecture & Sculpture - The Activities of the Cossutii, PBSR, 43, 1974, pp.36-41, Sear, Roman Architecture, pp.235-7, and Izenour, G.C., Roofed Theaters of , Yale, 1992, pp.84-89. - 213 -

The Market of Caesar and Augustus, marked on Fig. 11.5, built in the Classical style 27, fitted in with previous development. On the other hand, the Odeion, a large structure of advanced design placed centrally in the Agora surrounded by older and smaller buildings, constituted a major planning and architectural intrusion. Furthermore, this radical change was accentuated by the erection, at much the same time, of the Classical Temple of Ares, which had been transported stone by stone from the Attic countryside. An inscription describing Gaius, the son of Agrippa, as the 'New Ares' may have come from this temple or be related to it in some way. In this case, the planning intrusion also marked a political change in which the Agora became a civic rather than a commercial centre, and the temple became a building of the Augustan dynasty28. Agrippa was, therefore, the agent of political change as co-regent. He also demonstrated the political use of public construction at Athens, as Augustus did at Rome29.

Agrippa could not act in the West as at Athens, since there was no western, political or cultural equivalent of it, and he was never co-regent there30. Also, if the Odeion, with the Temple of Ares symbolised Roman hegemony in the Hellenised East, its nearest Agrippan equivalent in the West, the theatre at Augusta Emerita, brought the Mediterranean culture into a zone of Roman expansion31. The functions of the two buildings were, therefore, quite different.

There seems to be no other evidence of Agrippan urban construction in the East, except at Antioch, marked on Fig. 11.632. Founded in 300 B.C. as a Hellenistic city by Seleucus I and taken over by Pompey the Great in 64 B.C., it has remained important through the Roman Empire, the Byzantine period, the Muslim conquest, the Ottoman Empire and present rule by Syria. It was developed by Caesar, Augustus, Herod, Tiberius and later Roman Emperors as well as local rulers, but the

27 Sear, Roman Architecture, p.234, and Thompson, 'The Impact of Roman Architects …', pp.5-6 for description of the market.

28 Sear, Roman Architecture, pp.235-6 and Thompson, 'The Impact of Roman Architects …', pp.6-7, who referred to the inscription honouring Gaius, IG 2 3250.

29 Roddaz, Marcus Agrippa, p.439 and Note 16, also IG 3.575.

30 He did not receive the Tribunicia Potestas until he arrived in Rome after leaving Spain. Cassius Dio, 54.12, 4-5.

31 See above Chapter 8, p.161, conclusions for the cultural and political importance of the theatre.

32 Based on Cary and Scullard, Map pp.348, 9 (part). - 214 -

Roman works have been largely covered over or destroyed33. The early Roman works are now buried under some 10 metres of ground and the only evidence of them is from isolated excavations or texts, notably those of the 6th century historian J. Malalas who mentioned many monuments and urban features over an area of some four square kilometres. Few of these have been discovered during excavations 34. This is to be accounted for by the difficulties of discovery, rather than by an assumption that Malalas provided false information, although it is possible that his descriptions were not entirely accurate. Fig. 11.735 shows the general layout of Antioch and the principal features of the Roman period.

Malalas stated that Agrippa, with Augustus at Antioch after Actium, 'was delighted with the situation of the city of Antioch and provided a public baths building outside the city near the mountain, finding a spring there. He called this the Agrippianon after himself; it is now known as the Ampelion bath. He also built a group of dwellings and a bath, calling this the neighbourhood of Agrippitai'36. Malalas also stated that Agrippa, during his visit to Antioch in 17-13 B.C., 'cleared the old Hippodrome of rubble, which had accumulated as a result of the previous earthquakes'37. The theatre and the Hippodrome are located on Fig. 11.7 at 14 and 2 respectively, but little has been uncovered at either building and Agrippan work cannot be identified. Agrippa's new quarter (Aggripitai) has been interpreted from Malalas as occupying an area of some 700 by 800 metres to the north of the city outside the wall of Tiberius and east of the road to Beroea, near the 'Eastern' gate38. It is unclear that this specific interpretation is supported by the text of Malalas, or by archaeological excavations. Yegül, investigating the numerous baths of Antioch, has suggested locations for all ten baths mentioned by Malalas. He placed Agrippa's

33 Downey, G., A History of Antioch in Syria from Seleucus to the Arab Conquest, Princeton, 1961, Lassus, J., 'La ville d'Antioche à l'époque romaine d'apres l'archéologie', ANRW 2.8, 1977, pp.54-102, and Kondoleon, C., Ed., Antioch : The Lost City, Princeton, 2001.

34 Antioch : The Lost City, pp.5-8, for an account of the excavation history, which was begun in 1932, and is remarkable for the mosaics which were discovered.

35 Antioch : The Lost City, general map based on Downey, 1961, Fig. 11, after Wilber.

36 The Chronicle of John Malalas, 9.14.

37 Ibid, 9.21.

38 Lassus, Plan B, p.57. - 215 - baths (the Agrippianon), serving his new quarter, to the east of this and the other Agrippan baths inside the wall of Justinian, east of 11, 12 on Fig. 11.739.

There is, therefore, a strong indication from the text of Malalas that Agrippa was responsible for substantial constructions at Antioch, although it is possible that Malalas may have confused Agrippan works with those of others40, and there is, as yet, no archaeological proof of his works. Also, Agrippa built at Antioch shortly after Actium and during his second visit to the East, rather than during his first visit, when he had his headquarters at Mytilene on the Island of Lesbos41, and may not have gone to Antioch. The dating by Malalas of the hippodrome works t 17-13 B.C., is supported by the record of an earthquake on nearby Cyprus in 15 B.C.42. It is difficult to draw comparisons between the ill-defined Agrippan works and his constructions at towns in the West. Antioch was very large. Even the Punic centres at Gades and Carthago Nova were much smaller than it. Agrippa's supposed 700 by 800 metres new quarter at Antioch would have swallowed the whole of Augusta Emerita43, and an Agrippan naval base at Gades44 would have been small in relation to it. Furthermore, Antioch was an established Hellenistic city.

The known Agrippan urban works in the East were, therefore, at Athens and at Antioch , the Roman provincial capital of Syria, which included Asia Minor. If Agrippa built at other established towns, his constructions were probably minor. This assessment is baaed on the well-established urban development in the East, and the Roman concern with urban administration, rather than with construction, as noted in the following paragraphs on colonies.

Agrippa may have founded colonies at Beirut in the Lebanon, at Patras in western Greece and at Alexandria Troas near the Hellespont in , all marked on

39 Yegül, F., 'Baths and in Roman Antioch', Kondoleon, K., Ed., Antioch : The Lost Ancient City, pp.146-151, p.148 and Fig. 1, p.147.

40 Downey, pp.169-171, indicated that Pompey, Caesar, Antony and Augustus (at Antioch in 31-30 B.C. and 20 B.C.) all probably built something there, together with Herod of Judaea.

41 Cassius Dio, 53.32.1.

42 Cassius Dio, 54.23.7.

43 Fig. 7.2 indicates the size of Mèrida.

44 See above Chapter 10, pp.187, 8. - 216 -

Fig. 11.6. Strabo stated that Agrippa settled two legions at Berytos but did not date this45. There is an inscription of Berytos bearing the name of Agrippa, but this is undated and it does not prove a foundation by him46. Veterans from Actium were settled at the town before 27 B.C.47. Yet, the colony was named after Caesar48. Lauffray suggested a foundation before 15 B.C., with Agrippa only bringing in new veterans 49, and Roddaz a foundation of 15 B.C. following previous veteran settlements50, but neither could form a definite assessment. There seems to be no evidence of any Agrippan constructions at Beirut51. In the case of Patras, there is no mention of Agrippa in any of the records and he is connected to the colony only by his presence at Actium and Strabo's record of veteran settlement after the battle there52. It is possible that he founded the colonia Augusta Aroe Patrensis there in 15 B.C., but such a suggestion is entirely speculative53. It is known that the colony at Alexandria Troas was founded between 27 and 12 B.C., and that Agrippa campaigned in the Bosphorus in 13 B.C.54. This conjunction indicates only the possibility of its foundation by Agrippa.

Agrippan responsibility for founding any of the three colonies is, therefore, unproven, although there is better evidence for his action at Beirut than elsewhere because of the inscription. In the East, the principal reasons for creating colonies after Actium were to give land to veterans of the triumviral period, to create centres of surveillance, and to stimulate economic activity under ordered conditions 55. These aims overshadowed

45 Strabo, 16.2.19.

46 CIL 3.156, had the wording I.O.M.PRO.SAL(U)TE AGRIP(P)AE 'to Jupiter Optimus Maximus for the well-being of Agrippa'.

47 CIL 3.1416.

48 Pliny, 5.78, noted the name Colonia Iulia Felix Berytos.

49 Lauffray, J., 'Beyrouth : Archéologie et Histoire, époques greco-romaines I. Période hellénistique et Haut-Empire romain', ANRW, 2.8, 1977, pp.135-163, p.147.

50 Roddaz, Marcus Agrippa, p.433.

51 The volumes of Berytos : Archaeological Studies, published by the American University of Beirut do not indicate any such works.

52 Strabo, 8.7.5.

53 As noted by Roddaz, Marcus Agrippa, pp.431-2.

54 Ibid, p.432 and Note 72.

55 Ibid, p.431 and also pp.4237-431, for the Augustan reforms after Actium of abuses in the control of cities in the East, where local elites had taken possession of public assets. - 217 - the wish to attract civilian immigrants from Italy. In any case, there was little possibility of coloniae introducing any radical change to well-established patterns of culture and ethnicity in the Hellenistic East. In the West there had been no such developments, except in southern Gaul and in parts of Hispania. Also, these had been advanced largely by Rome following Greek and Punic influences. It was possible in these regions to form colonies for veterans and immigration of Italian and other settlers, and to introduce further Roman urban models continuing on from the older coloniae. There was, therefore, a fundamental difference between an Agrippan foundation of Caesaraugusta and any Agrippan foundation in the East.

CONCLUSIONS All the constructions of Agrippa were intended to advance the interests of Octavian and Augustus. The distinguishing and additional feature of those in the West is that they were, also, instruments of Roman expansion into new regions, and, at the same time, spread the Mediterranean culture there. This effect resulted from the co-incidence between the struggle for pre-eminence in the Roman world, Octavian's possession of the West, and the greater opportunities for Roman expansion there than in the Eat. In Gallia Comata, Agrippa's road network was both the first physical framework of formal Roman control and the conduit for the further spreading of Mediterranean influences. In Hispania, Agrippa's development of Augusta Emerita, and his foundation of Caesaraugusta, formed bases for the extension of Roman and Mediterranean influences into regions where these were not widespread. These changes were far reaching because they established the pattern for the development of centuries. There was no possibility of Agrippan works elsewhere resulting in such regional change since, at Rome, the Agrippan works affected only the city, and, in the Hellenised East, the fundamental features of physical and cultural development already existed. - 218 -

AGRIPPAN CONSTRUCTIONS IN THE WEST : CONCLUSIONS

The Agrippan works in the West, and, indeed, the whole body of them in the Roman world, did not result in any major innovations in engineering or architecture. The local technical aspects of his works are discussed in the individual chapters. Also, conclusions are drawn about Agrippan constructions in Gaul and in Hispania at the ends of Chapter 5 (pp.107.8) and Chapter 10 (pp.202-206, and about those elsewhere at the end of Chapter 11 (p.217). These conclusions are not repeated here, since the intention is to summarise the findings of the whole study.

The successful transition from the Roman Republic to the Roman Empire determined the history of the West for centuries. Agrippa's support of Octavian and Augustus in war and peace was crucial for completing the transition, and the body of Agrippan construction was an essential part of this support. All the Agrippan works were, therefore, important instruments of change in war and peace during a pivotal period of history. The Agrippan constructions in the West also served to extend the influence of Rome and the Mediterranean culture into large new regions. Consequently, they set a pattern for the development of centuries. Agrippa's constructions in the East were not so influential, since the region was already Hellenised and under Roman control. At Rome, the Agrippan works affected only the city. The Agrippan constructions in the West were, therefore, more important than those elsewhere.

These conclusions represent a new interpretation of Agrippan constructions in which they are regarded as material objects, instruments of policy in an historical process, and as catalysts of further change. In previous investigations there was no focus on all three of these aspects. This resulted from the constructions either being included with other actions of Agrippa in biographies, or being subjects of particular investigation. In the first, the description was only general, and, in the second, there was little explanation. Great attention was paid to works at Rome and in other towns where there were substantial material remains, or other evidence. Yet there has been little speculation about possible Agrippan works in town for which there is no direct epigraphic or literary evidences. Also, important constructions in the country - 219 - , and those for military operations, were largely overlooked. Consequently, Agrippa was represented principally as a builder of monuments in towns, and the larger aspects of his works were little understood. Finally, apart from engineering investigations of the Agrippan aqueducts at Rome, studies of his other works have generally been by historians or archaeologists, although some of his large constructions can be explained adequately only by engineering analysis. The difference between previous investigations and those here are demonstrated by examples drawn from various chapters.

Agrippa's road network in Gaul was previously investigated with a focus on the later high standard Roman roads, with little reference to Agrippa's strategic aims in 39-37 B.C., or the practical engineering aspects of his achieving these during his first visit to Gaul. Consequently, he was not recognised as the mastermind conceiving the whole system, and building the first low standard form of it, as concluded on p.38. Instead, he was seen as being involved in initial works on part of a high standard system, although this would have been useless for his purposes. Agrippa has traditionally been associated with Lugdunum only because he began to build his roads there. Nevertheless, there is now evidence which indicates that Agrippa was involved in planning and construction in the town and for the aqueducts, as noted in Chapter 2 and summarised pp.60-61. There has been no previous attempt to explain why Agrippa built the Temple of Valetudo at Glanum, yet it is possible, by considering Agrippa's strategic aims in 39-37 B.C., as shown in pp.80-83 of Chapter 3, to put forward a hypothesis that it was a mobilisation building. There is also a new archaeological treatment of the temple in the chapter. Agrippa has generally been regarded as an important planner and builder at Nemausus, but investigation in Chapter 4, as summarised pp.96,97, indicates that this was not the case when new archaeological evidence is considered. A new analysis of the local coinage, pp.89-90, supports the new viewpoint. In Chapter 5, pp.98-100, consideration is given to Agrippan constructions in Gaul, which have left no material remains and which have previously been ignored, and, particularly, the stations on his road network which influenced later development. In the same chapter, pp.100-104, possible Agrippan constructions at Arelate are proposed for the first time, taking into account Agrippa's need to handle and store his supplies imported there in 39-37 B.C. Previously, Agrippa has not been considered as a planner or builder at Forum Iulii. Yet the texts and the archaeology indicate that he planned, and perhaps built, a naval - 220 - base there after Actium (pp.104-106). In Gaul, therefore, Agrippa was much more active in Gallia Comata than was previously thought. This new interpretation emerges from the new emphasis on the Agrippan road network, as does the new idea that Agrippan activity in 39-37 B.C. was more important than that in 19 B.C., as previously thought.

In Hispania there are similar reasons for new interpretations. Since there are no known material remains of Agrippan military works of 19 B.C. in Cantabria, there was no study of them, despite their importance. Yet, it has been possible in Chapter 6 to form some idea of these substantial constructions from texts, the topography and the military factors. Although it has been recognised that Agrippa built the theatre at Augusta Emerita, scholars have formed no clear idea of what else he did there. Also, it was generally believed that the monumental town with its bridges was built shortly after foundation in 25 B.C. These interpretations resulted from an uncritical acceptance of the foundation text indicating construction by veterans, and a dating of the bridges to the foundation. Agrippan responsibility for planning and part construction of the monumental town is demonstrated by reference to a more specific text describing veteran settlement (pp.129-130), analysis of urban development in 19-18 B.C. (pp.133-134), and interpretation of Claudian epigraphy (pp.134-136). A new engineering study of the bridges, pp.164-165, indicates that these were built well after foundation. There is also a new study of the Agrippan theatre in Chapter 8, showing that it was built to a high standard in stone, although it has sometimes been seen as constructed partly of timber. The 'Temple of Diana' previously thought to be late Augustan is re-dated to the Agrippan period, by a new analysis, pp.173-176. Agrippa has not previously been regarded as a planner or builder of aqueducts at Augusta Emerita, but this possibility is explored in Chapter 9, pp.167-170. Caesaraugusta is generally thought to have been founded for veteran settlement, and probably by Augustus in 16-13 B.C. Investigation in Chapter 10, pp.191-198, indicates that it was almost certainly founded by Agrippa in 19-18 B.C. for general settlement. This interpretation is based on study of the town coinage and consideration of Roman expansion up the Ebro Valley, resulting in the eclipse of Celsa. Agrippa's recasting of the constitution of Gades is already generally recognised. In Chapter 10, pp.187-188, it is argued that Agrippa may have built a new naval base there for naval access to the Atlantic, corresponding to the land access provided by Augusta Emerita. In Hispania, therefore, Agrippa planned and built - 221 - more extensively than previously considered. Nevertheless, there seems to be no evidence of widespread Agrippan reorganisation in Hispania as a whole, whether by founding coloniae or building roads, as has sometimes been suggested (pp.205-6).

In conclusion, the totality of Agrippan constructions has never previously been studied, as distinct from his other activities. This has been the case for his constructions in the West, and, also, for his general activities in the West, as distinct form his constructions there. Consequently, neither the constructions in their totality nor in the West have been fully investigated. Yet, both are of great interest, not only as bodies of work but, also, and more importantly, as instruments of policy in a pivotal historical period. In addition, those in the West were associated with Roman expansion and cultural change, and formed patterns for future development. This thesis has attempted to fill the gap in the scholarship, with specific reference to the Agrippan constructions in the West.

- 222 -

- 223 -

LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS

These are in accordance with and limited to the abbreviations of periodicals, series, books, etc., as listed and described by the American Journal of Archaeology, except for those marked *.

Agora: The Athenian Agora. Results of Excavations Conducted by the American School of Classical Studies at Athens. AJA: American Journal of Archaeology. The Journal of the Archaeological Institute of America. AMUGS: Antike Münzen und geschnittene Steine. ANRW: H. Temporini, ed: Aufstieg und Niedergang der römischen Welt (Berlin 1972- ) Ant W: Antike Welt. Zeitschrift für Archäologie und Kulturgeschichte. BAC: Bulletin Archéologique du Comité des travaux historiques et scientifiques. BAR-IS: British Archaeological Reports. International Series. Britannia: Britannia. A Journal of Romano-British and Kindred Studies. CAH: The Cambridge . CEFR: Collection de l'École française. Chiron: Chiron. Mitteilungen der Kommission für alte Geschicte und Epigraphik des Deutschen Archäologischen Instituts. CIL: Corpus inscriptionum latinarum. CRAI: Comptes rendus des séances de l'Académie des inscriptions et belle-lettres [Paris]. FITA: * Grant, M. From Imperium to . Cambridge, 1969. Gallia: Gallia. Fouilles et monuments archéologiques en France métropolitaine. Helinium: Helinium. Revue consacrée à l'archéologique des Pays-Bas de la Belgique et du Grand Duché de Luxembourg. Hesperia: Hesperia. Journal of the American School of Classical Studies at Athens. IG: Inscriptiones graecae. J di: Jahrbuch des Deutschen Archäologischen Instituts. JRA: Journal of Roman Archaeology. JRS: Journal of Roman Studies. - 224 -

Latomus: Latomus. Revue d'études latines. LTUR: * Lexicon Topographicum Urbis Romae. ed., Steinby, E.M. MM: Madrider Mitteilungen. PBSR: * Papers of the British School at Rome. PECS: R. Stillwell et al. eds. Princeton Encyclopedia of Classical Sites. (Princeton, 1976). RA: Revue archéologique. RANarb: Revue archéologique de Narbonnaise. RBPhil: Revue belge de philologie et d'histoire. RE: Pauly-Wissowa.. Real-Encyclopädie der klassischen Altertumswissenschaft. RIC: The Roman Imperial Coinage. (London, 1923- ). - 225 -

BIBLIOGRAPHY

(1) Texts Appian. Appian's Roman History. White, H., Vol. 4, Harvard and London, 1968. Augustus. Res gestae divi augusti. Brunt, P.A. and Moore, J.N. Oxford, 1968.

Loeb Caesar. (Bellum Gallicum). " (Bellum Civile).

Cassius Dio. Roman History. Cary, E., Vol. 5, London and Harvard, 1967. " " The Roman History. The Reign of Augustus, Scott-Kilvert, I., Harmondsworth, 1987. Cicero. Letters to Atticus. Ed., Shackleton Bailey, D.R., Vol. 5, Cambridge, 1966. " Epistulae ad familiares. Ed. Shackleton Bailey, D.R., Vol. 2, Cambridge, 1977. " Pro Caelio - De provinciis consularibus - Pro Balbo, Gardiner, R., London and Harvard, 1965. " Ehrenberg, V. & Jones, AH.N., Documents illustrating the reigns of Augustus and Tiberius, Oxford, 1976.

Fabre, G., Mayer, M. & Roda, J., Inscriptions romaines de Catalogue 3, Gerone, Paris, 1991. Florus. Epitome of Roman History. Forster, E.S., London and New York, 1929. Frontinus. De aqueductu urbis romae. Ed. Rodgers, R.H., Cambridge, 2004. " " De controversiis agrorum. Die Schriften der römischen Feldmesser. Blume, F., Lachmann, K. and Rudorff, A., Berlin, 1848 (reprinted Hildersheim, 1961), Part 1 of Veteres, Berlin, 1948-1952, Ed. Lachmann, K., Berlin, 1848-1852, and Corpus agrimensorum romanorun, Thulin, C., Stuttgart, 1971.

Horace. Satires and Epistles. Persius. Rudd, N., Harmondsworth, 1987.

Juvenal. The Sixteen Satires, Green, P., Harmondsworth, 1974. - 226 -

Livy. Histoire Romaine. Collection des Universités de France), Paris, (1965- ).

Malalas. The Chronicle of John Malalas. Jeffreys, E. & M., and Scott, R., Melbourne, 1986.

Orosius. The Seven Books of History Against the Pagans. Deferarri, R.J. Washington D.C., 1964. Pliny. . Rackham, H., et al London and Harvard (1963- ).

Pomponius Mela. De Chorographia Libri Tres, Ed. Ramstrand, G., Götenborg, 1971. Suetonius. . Graves, R., Grant, M., Harmondsworth, 1989. Strabo. The Geography. Jones, H.L. Vol. 2. Harvard, 1969.

Tacitus. The of Imperial Rome. Grant, M., Harmondsworth, 2nd Ed., 1971. The Histories. Wellesley, K., Harmondsworth, 2nd Ed., 1975. " Agricola, Germany, Birley, A.R., Oxford, 1999.

Velleius Paterculus. The Caesarian and Augustan Narrative 2.41-93. Ed., Woodman, P.J. Cambridge, 1983. Virgil. The Ecologues, Georgics and Aeneid of Virgil, Day Lewis, C., Oxford, 1977. Vitruvius. The Ten Books of Architecture, Morgan, M.H., New York, 1961.

- 227 -

(2) Modern Works

A Adam, J.P. Roman Building, Bloomington and Indianapolis, 1994.

Aicher, P.J. Guide to the Aqueducts of Ancient Rome, Wauconda, 1995.

Alföldy, G. 'Spain', CAH 10, 1996, pp.163-166 and pp.449-458.

Almagro-Gorbea, M. Pres. Las Guerras Cántabras, Santander, 1999.

Álvarez Martínez, J.M. 'El Templo de Diana', Augusta Emerita (Actas del Simposio Internacional commemorativo del bimilenario de Mérida), Madrid, 1976, pp.44-53. " " 'El foro de Augusta Emerita', Homenaje a Sáenz de Buruaga, Madrid, 1982, pp.53-68.

Álavrez Martínez, J.M., Ed., El teatro en la Hispania romana Actas del simposio, Badajoz, 1982.

Álvarez Martínez, J.M. 'El Puente romano de Mérida. Monografias Emeritenses I, Madrid, 1983.

Álvarez Martínez, J.M. et al. Conjunto arquelógica de Mérida: patrimonio de la humanidad, Mérida 1994, " " Mérida, Leon, 1997.

Álvarez Sáenz de Buruaga, J. 'Observaciones sobre el teatro romano de Mérida, Álvarez Martínez, J.M., Ed., El teatro en la Hispania romana, pp.302-311.

Amo, M. del. 'El teatro romano de Medellin', Álvarez Martínez, J.M., Ed., El teatro en la Hispania romana, pp.317-336.

Amy, R. 'Les cryptoportiques dans l'architecture romaine', CEFR, 14, 1973, 275 ff.

Amy, R. and Gros, P. 'La Maison Carrée de Nîmes', Gallia, Supplément 38, 1979. - 228 -

Arce, J., 'Caesaraugusta' Symposium de ciudades augusteas, bimilenario de Zaragoza, 1976, pp.115-126.

Ashby, T. The Aqueducts of Ancient Rome, Oxford, 1935.

Audin, A. Lyon miroir de Rome, Paris, 1979.

Auguze, F.K. and Büchsenschütz, O. Towns, Villages and Countryside of Celtic Europe, London, 1992.

Augusta Emerita Actas del simposio internacional commemorativo del bimilenario de Mérida, Madrid, 1976.

B Balty, J.C. COL(onia) NEM(ausus). 'Notes d'archéologie et d'histoire augustéennes', RBPhil, 1960, pp.59-73. " " 'Basilique et curie du forum de Glanum', Latomus 21, 1962, pp.278-319.

Barrera, Antón, J.L. de la. Los capiteles romanos de Mérida, Monografias Emeritenses, 2, Badajoz, 1984

Bauer, H. 'Horrea Agrippiana', Bauer, H., Archeologica Classica, 30, 1978. pp.31-146.

Baumgartner, F.J. From Spear to Flintlock, New York, 1991.

Bellet, M.E. Orange antique, Guides archéologiques de La France, Paris, 1991.

Beltrán, Lloris, M. 'El valle medio del Ebro y su monumentalizacion en época republica y augusta', Trillmich, W. & Zanker, P., Eds., Stadtbild und Ideologie, pp.179-206. " " 'El teatro de Caesaraugusta. Estado actual de conocimiento', Ramallo Asensio, S.F. & Santiuste de Pablos, F., Co-ords., Teatros romanos de Hispania, pp.93-118.

Beltrán, Martínez, A., 'Caesaraugusta', symposium de cuidades augusteas, bimilenario de Zaragoza, 1976, 00.219-261. - 229 -

Benoit, J. 'Nîmes: Études sur l'urbanisme antique. Problèmes de méthode et resultats', Bulletin de l'École Antique de Nîmes 16, 1981, pp.69-90.

Besnier, M.M. 'Le point de départ des grandes routes de la Gaule romaine',BAC, 1923, pp.23-96.

Blagg, T. & Millet, M. Eds. The Early Roman Empire in the West, Oxford, 1990.

Boëthius, A. Etruscan and Early Roman Architecture, Harmondsworth, 1978.

Boschung, D. 'Die Präsenz des Kaiserhauses im öffentlichen Bereich', Trillmich, W. & Zanker, P., Eds., Stadtbild und Ideologie, pp.391-400.

Boucher, J., Ed., Journées d'études sur les aqueducs romains, Paris, 1983.

Brodribb, G. Roman Brick and Tile, Gloucester, 1987.

Brogan, O. Roman Gaul, London, 1953.

Bromwich, J. The Roman Remains of Southern France, London, 1993. " " The Roman Remains of Northern and Eastern France, London, 2003.

Brunt, P.A. Italian Manpower 235B.C-A.D.14, Oxford, 1971.

Burdy, J. 'Some directions of future research for the aqueducts of Lugdunum (Lyon)', Hodge, A.T., Ed., Future Currents in Aqueduct Studies, Leeds, 1991. " " Guide des aqueducs romains de Lyon, Lyon, 1999.

Burnett, A., Amandry, M., Ripollès, P.P. Roman Provincial Coinage, Vol. 1, London, 1992.

Burnouf, J. et al. 'Lyon avant Lugdunum. Un habitat du Premièr Age du Fer à Vaise', Goudineau, C. & Mandy, B., Eds., Aux Origines de Lyon, pp.11-22.

C

Canto, A.M. 'Sobre la cronológia augustea del acueducto de 'Los Milagros' de Mérida', Homenaje a Saénz de Buruaga, Madrid, 1982, pp.157-176. - 230 -

" " 'Las tres fundacíones de Augusta Emerita', Goudineau, C. & Zanker, P., Eds, Stadtbild und Ideologîe, pp.289-298.

Cary, M. and Scullard, H.H. A History of Rome (3rd ed.), London, 1975.

Cassado, C.F. Historia del Puente en España, Madrid, 1971.

" " Aceductos romanos en España, Madrid, 1972.

Célie, M. et al. 'Enceintes et développement urbain. Nîmes antique des origines au 1er S.ap JC', JRA, 5, 1994, pp.383-396.

Ceresa Gastaldo A., Pres., Il bimillenario di Agrippa, Genoa, 1990.

Chevallier, R. Roman Roads, London, 1976. " " Les voies romaines, Paris, 1997.

Christol, M. and Goudineau, C. 'Nîmes et les Volques Arécomiques au 1er siècle avant J-C', Gallia, 45, 1987, pp.87-103.

Claridge, A. Rome, Oxford, 1998.

Cooley, A. 'A new date for Agrippa's theatre at Ostia', PBSR 67, 1999, pp.173-182.

Corzo Sánchez, R. 'El teatro romano de Cádiz', Ramallo Asensio, S.F. & Santiuse de Pablos, Co-ords., Teatros romanos de Hispania, pp.133-140.

Costabile, F. and Licandro, O. Tessera Paemeiobrigensis, Rome, 2000.

Coulon, G. Les gallo-romaines, Paris, 1985.

Courtois, C. Le bâtiment de scène des théâtres d'Italie et de Sicile, Providence and Louvain-la-Neuve, 1989.

Crouch, D.P. Water Management in Ancient Greek Cities, Oxford, 1993.

Cunliffe, B. Greeks, Romans and Barbarians, London, 1988. " " The Ancient Celts, Oxford, 1997. - 231 -

Curchin, L.A. Roman Spain Conquest and Assimilation, London 1981. " " The Local Magistrates of Roman Spain, Toronto, 1990. " " The Romanisation of Central Spain, London, 2004.

D De Alarcão, J. Roman Portugal, Vol. 1, Warminster, 1988.

De Montauzan, G. Les aqueducs antiques de Lyon, Paris, 1909.

Denimal, P. La voie Aquitanique d'Agrippa, de Lyon à Saintes, Thèse, Université de Paris, 4, 1995.

Desbat, A. Les fouilles de la Rue des Farges à Lyon 1974-80, Lyon, 1984. " " 'Note sur l'apparition des constructions à arases de briques dans la region Lyonnaise', Gallia, 49, 1992, pp.45-50. " " 'Nouvelles recherches à l'emplacement du prétendu Sanctuare Lyonnais de Cybèle', Gallia, 55, 1998, pp.237-277. " " Rapport sur les fouilles effectuées en 1998, 1999 and 2000 dans l'edifice dit Sanctuarie de Cybèle, Lyon, 2001.

Desbat, A., Genin, M., et al, 'La chronologie des premières trames urbaines de Lyon', Goudineau, C. & Mandy, B., Eds., Aux Origines de Lyon, pp.95-118.

Desbat, A. and Mandy, B. 'Le développement de Lyon à l'époque augustéenne: apport des fouilles récentes', Goudineau, C. & Rebourg, A., Eds., Les villes augustéennes de Gaule, pp.79-97.

Diego, Santos, F. 'Die Integration Nord-und Nord-West Spaniens als römische Provinz in der Reichspolitik des Augustus', ANRW 2.3, 1975, pp.524-571.

Dilke, O.A.W. Greek and Roman Maps, Baltimore, 1998.

Doppelfeld, O. 'Das römische Köln I. Ubier – Oppidum und Colonia Agrippinensium', ANRW 2.4, 1975, pp. 716-781.

Downey, G. A History of Antioch in Syria from Seleucus to the Arab Conquest, Princeton, 1961. - 232 -

Drinkwater, J.F. 'Lugdunum: Natural Capital of Gaul?', Britannia 6, 1975, pp.133-140. " " Roman Gaul. The Three Provinces 58B.C.-A.D.260, London, 1983.

Duran Cabello, R.M. Estudio arquitectonico del Teatro y Anfiteatro de Augusta Emerita: nuevas bases arqueológicas para la historia de la ciudad, Testis Doctoral, Universidad Autonoma de Madrid (unpublished), 1995.

E Ebel, C. Transalpine Gaul, London, 1976.

Edmondson, J.C. 'Romanisation and Urban Development in Lusitania', Blagg & Millet, Eds., The Early Roman Empire in the West, pp.151-178.

Escacena, J.L. 'Gadir'. Olmo Lete del G. & Semmier, M.E.A., Eds., Los fenicos en la peninsula Iberica, Vol. 1, Barcelona, 1986, pp.39-52.

Espérandieu, E. Le Pont du Gard et l'aqueduc de Nîmes, Paris, 1926.

Esteban Gonzalez, J.M., Vicente, A.M., Blanco Jímenez, F.J., 'Breve historia y criterios de intervención en el area urbana del teatro romano de Cádiz', Ramallo Asensio, S.F., Santiuste de Pablos, F., Co-ords., Teatros romanos de Hispania, pp.141-156.

Evans, H.B. 'Agrippa's Water Plan', AJA, 86, 1982, pp.401-411. " " Water Distribution in Ancient Rome, Ann Arbor, 1994.

F Fabre, G., Luc-Fiches, J. and Louis Paillet, J. L'aqueduc de Nîmes et le Pont du Gard, archéologie, géosystème et histoire, Nîmes, 1991. " " 'Interdisciplinary research on the aqueduct of Nîmes and the Pont du Gard', JRA, 4, 1991, pp.63-88.

Fabre, G., Luc-Fiches, J., Leveau, P. & Louis Paillet, J., The Pont du Gard. Water and the Roman Town, Paris, 1992. - 233 -

Fabre, G., Luc-Fiches, J. and Pey, J. L'eau à Nîmes, Languedoc, 1994.

Favro, D. The urban image of Augustan Rome, Cambridge, 1996.

Fear, A.T. Rome and Baetica, Oxford, 1996.

Février, P.A. 'Fouilles à la citadelle méridionale de Forum Iulii (Fréjus, Var) en 1955', Gallia 14, 1956, pp.35-53. " " 'Fouilles à la plate-forme de Forum Iulii', Gallia 20, 1962, pp.176-203. " " 'Armée et aqueducs', Boucher, J., Ed., Journal d'Étude sur les aqueducs romains, Paris, 1983, pp.133-140. " " Forum Iulii (Fréjus), Paris, 1963.

Fishwick, D. The Imperial Cult in the Latin West, Vol. 1, Leiden, 1987.

Forbes, R.J. Studies in , Vol. 2, Leiden, 1965.

G Gabba, E. 'The Historians and Augustus', Miller, F. & Segal, E., Eds., Caesar Augustus, Seven Aspects, pp.61-88.

Gabriel, R.A. and Metz, K.J. From Sumer to Rome. The Military Capabilities of Ancient Armies, New York, 1981.

Galsterer, H. Untersuchungen zum römischen Stadtewesen auf der iberischen Halbinsel, Berlin, 1971.

Garciá Eglesias, L. Epigrafía romana de Augusta Emerita, Madrid, 1973.

Garmy, P. 'Quelques reflexions sur la romainité augustéenne Nîmoise à la lumière des fouilles récentes', Goudineau, C. & Rebourg, A. Eds., Les villes augustéennes de Gaule, pp.41-44.

Gardthausen, V. Augustus und seine Zeit, Leipzig, 1890, reprinted, Aalen, 1964, Teile 2, Band 2.

Gascou, J. 'Quand la Colonie de Fréjus fut-elle fondée?', Latomus, 41, 1982, pp.132-142. - 234 -

Gechter, M. 'Early Roman Military Installations and Ubian Settlements in the Lower Rhine', Blagg, T. & Millet, M., Eds., The Early Roman Empire in the West, pp.97-102.

Germier-Durand, E. and F. and Alimer, A. Inscriptions Antiques de Nîmes, Toulouse, 1893.

Goldsworthy, A.K. The Roman Army at War 100 B.C.-A.D.200, Oxford, 1996.

Goudineau, C. Gallia, 33, 1975, (Informations Archéologiques), p.562. " " 'Le Statut de Nîmes et des Volques Arécomiques', RANarb, 9, 1976, pp.105-114. " " Gallia, 35, 1977 (Informations Archéologiques), p.498.

Goudineau, C. & Mandy, B., Eds., Aux Origines de Lyon, Lyon, 1989.

Goudineau, C., 'Les textes antiques sur la fondation et topographie de Lugdunum', Goudineau, C. & Mandy, B., Eds., Aux Origines de Lyon, pp.23-36.

Goudineau, C. & Rebourg, A., Eds., Les Villes augustéennes de Gaule, (Actes du Colloque international d'Autun 6.7 et 8 Juin, 1985), Autun, 1991.

Goudineau, C. 'Gaul', CAH 10, 1996, pp.464-499.

Grant, M. From Imperium to Auctoritas (FITA), Cambridge, 1969.

Gras, P. 'La voie romaine de Chalon à Langres. Est-elle une voie d'Agrippa?' Annales de Bourgogne, 30, 1958, Fasicule 2.

Green, M. Symbol and Image in Celtic Religious Art, London, 1989. " " Celtic Goddesses, New York, 1995.

Grenier, A. Manuel d'archéologie gallo-romaine 2. L'archéologie du sol, les routes, Paris, 1934.

" " Manuel d'archéologie gallo-romaine, Paris, 1960.

Grewe, K. Augusta Emerita/Merida, eine Stadt römischer, Ant W, 24.3, 1993, pp.244-255.

- 235 -

Gros, P. 'Les temples gémines de Glanum', RANarb, 14, 1981, pp.125-172. " " 'L'augusteum de Nîmes', RANarb, 17, 1984, pp.123-134. " " 'Le Mausolée des Iulii et le statut de Glanum', RA, 1, 1986, pp.65-80. " " 'Un programme augustéen: le centre monumental de la colonie d'Arles', Jdi, 102, 1987, pp.339-363. " " 'Théâtre et Culte Imperial en Gaule Narbonnaise et dans la péninsule Ibérique, Trillmich, W. & Zanker, P., Eds., Stadtbild und Ideologie, pp.381-390. " " 'Nouveau paysage urbain et cultes dynastiques: remarques sur l'idéologie de la ville ausustéenne à partir des centres monumentaux d'Athènes, Thasos, Arles et Nîmes', Goudineau, C. & Rebourg, A., Eds., Les villes augustéennes de Gaule, pp.121-148. " " 'Hercule à Glaunum', Gallia, 52, 1995, pp.311-331.

Gros, P., Roth Congès, A., Varene, P. Le centre monumental et gallo-romain', Les Dossiers d'archéologie', 140, July-August, 1989, pp.24-33.

Gruel, K. and Vitali, D. L'oppidum Bibracte', Gallia, 55, 1998, p.1-140.

Gruen, E.S. 'The Imperial Policy of Augustus', Raaflaub, K. & Toher, M., Eds., Between Republic and Empire, pp.395-416.

Guillet et al. 'Un monument à portique tardo hellénistique près de la source de La Fontaine à Nîmes (Gard), Documents d''archéologie Méridionale, 1992, 15, pp.56-89.

Gurval, R.A. Actium and Augustus, Ann Arbor, 1993.

H Heilmeyer, W.D. Korinthische Normalkapitelle, Studien zur Geschichte der römischen Architekturdekoration, Heidelberg, 1970.

Heijmans, M. and Sintes, C. 'L'evolution de la topographie de l'Arles antique, Un état de la question', Gallia, 51, 1992, pp.135-170.

Henderson, M.J. 'Julius Caesar and Latium in Spain', JRS, 32, 1942, pp.1-13. " " Review of Etienne, Le culte Impérial dans la péninsule Ibérique d'Auguste à Dioclétien, JRS, 49 (1959), p.169. - 236 -

Henig, M. Religion in Roman Britain, London, 1984.

Hernández Ramírez, J. Augusta Emerita. Estructura Urbana, Badajoz, 1998.

Hernández Ramírez, J. et al. 'Un ejemplo de la ingenieria hidráulica romano: el conducto de Rabo de Buey-San Lázaro (Mérida), Actas del 8 Congreso internacional de Ingenzería Gráfico, Jaén, 1996, p.417, ff.

Hodge, A.T., Ed., Future Currents in Aqueduct Studies, Leeds, 1991. " " Ancient Greek France, London, 1998. " " Roman Aqueducts and Water Supply, 2nd Edition, London, 2002.

Homenaje a Saenz de Buruaga, Madrid, 1982.

Hurvitz, G., 'The Roman Siege of Masada', Shatzman, I., Ed., The Story of Masada : Discoveries from the Excavations, Provo, Utah, 1997.

Hyde, W.W. Roman Alpine Routes, Philadelphia, 1935, (Facsimile, Ann Arbor, 1983).

I Izenour, G.C. Roofed Theaters of Classical Antiquity, Yale, 1992.

J Jeancolas, L. 'Présentation des aqueducs antiques de Lyon (problèmes anciens- observations nouvelles)', Boucher, J., Ed., Journées d'études sur les aqueducs romains, pp.179-205.

Jiménez, Martín, A. 'Los acueductos de Mérida', Augusta Emerita, (Actas del simposio internacional), Madrid, 1976.

Jiménez Salvador, J.L. 'Teatro y desarrollo monumental urbano en Hispania', Ramallo Asensio, S.F. & Santiuse de Pablos, F., Co-ords., Teatros romanos de Hispania, pp.224-238.

Jullian, C. Histoire de la Gaule, 4, Paris, 1929.

- 237 -

K Keay, S.J. Roman Spain, London, 1988. " " 'Processes in the Development of the Coastal Communities of Hispania Citerior in the Republican Period', Blagg, T. & Millet, M., Eds., The Early Roman Empire in the West, pp.120-150. " " Ed., The Archaeology of Early Roman Baetica, Portsmouth, Rhode Island, 1998.

King, A. Roman Gaul and Germany, London, 1990.

Kleiner, F.S. 'Gallia Graeca, Gallia Romana, and the Introduction of Classical Sculpture in Gaul', AJA, 77, 1973, pp.379-390.

Knapp, R.G. Roman Córdoba, Berkeley, 1983.

Koch, M. 'M. Agrippa und Neukarthago', Chiron, 9, 1979, pp.205-214.

Kondoleon, K., Ed., Antioch : The Lost City, Princeton, 2001.

L La Baume, P. Colonia Agrippinensis, Chicago, 1969.

Labrador, E.P. 'Los castros Cántabros y los campamentos romanos de Toranzo y de Iguña. Prospecciones y sondeos (1996-7), Almagro-Gorbea, Pres., Las Guerras Cántabras, pp.201-276.

Lacey, W.K. Augustus and the Principate. The Evolution of the System, Leeds, 1996.

Lantier, R. 'Le théâtre romain de Mérida', CRAI, 1915, pp.166 ff.

Lassus, J. La ville d'Antioche à l'époque romaine d'après l'archéologie', ANRW, 2, 8, 1977, pp.54-102.

Lauffray,J. 'Archéologie et histoire, époques gréco-romaines. I Période hellénistique et Haut-Empire romaine', ANRW, 2, 8, 1977, pp.135-163.

Lawrence, A.W. Greek Architecture, Yale, 1996.

Le Bohec, Y. The Imperial Roman Army, London, 1989. - 238 -

Leman, P. 'La voie de Leman à l'ocean: la branche orientale. État de la question et propositions nouvelles', Caesarodunum, 10, 1975, pp.102-108.

Lequemont, M.F., Lambert, N., Roth Congès, A., 'Un puit livré de la sculpture', Les Dossiers d'archéologie, 140, July-August, 1982, pp.34-39.

Le Roux, P L'armée romaine et l'organisation des provinces Ibériques d'Auguste à l'invasion de 409, Paris, 1982.

Leveau, P. 'Research on Roman Aqueducts in the last ten years', Hodge, A.T., Ed., Future Currents in Aqueduct Studies, pp.149-163. " " 'L'alimentation en eau', Les Dossiers d'archéologie, 140, July-Aug., 1989, pp.62-67.

Levi, A. and M. Itineraria Picta, Rome, 1967.

Lloyd, R.B. 'The Aqua Virgo, Euripus and Pons Agrippae', AJA, 83, 1979, pp.193-204.

M Macías, L.M. Mérida monumental y artística, 2nd ed., Barcelona, 1929.

Mackie, N. 'Local Administration in Roman Spain', A.D.14-212, BAR-1S, 172, Oxford, 1983.

McKay, A. Vitruvius, Architect and Engineer, London, 1978.

Macready, S. & Thompson, F.H., Eds., Roman Architecture in the Greek World, London, 1987.

Mandy, B. 'Le quartier antique du Verbe-Incarné. Les Dossiers d'histoire et d'archéologie, 78, 1983, pp.23-26.

Mandy, B., Hernandez, E. & Mar, R., 'Plaidoyer pour de nouvelles recherches', Les Dossiers d'archéologie, 134, January 1989, pp.30-33.

Mandy, B., Sandoz, S., et al, Les fossés du plateau de La Sarra', Goudineau, C. & Mandy, B., Eds., Aux Origines de Lyon, pp.37-94.

Mandy, B., Monim, M. & Krauz, S., L'hôpital Sainte-Croix à Lyon: un quatrième fossé', Gallia, 47, 1990, pp.79-102. - 239 -

Maurin, L. 'Les villes augustéennes de l'Aquitaine occidentale: Bordeaux, Périgueux, Saintes', Goudineau, C. & Rebourg, A., Eds., Les villes augustéennes de Gaule, pp.45-60.

Mélida, J.R. 'El teatro romano de Mérida', Revista de archivos, bibliotecas y museos, 19.32, Jan-June 1915, pp.1-39. " " 'The Roman Theatre of Mérida,' Art & Archaeology, 25, 1928, pp.30-35.

Ménendez-Pidal Álvarez, J. 'Algunas notas sobre la restauracíon y atencíon prestadas a los monumentos emeritensens', Augusta Emertia, (Actas del simposio international), pp.206-211.

Mierse, W.E. 'Augustan Building Programs in the Western Provinces', Raaflaub, K. & Toher, M., Eds., Between Republic and Empire, pp.308-333. " " Temples and Towns in Roman Iberia, Berkeley, 1999.

Miller, F. & Segal, E., Eds., Caesar Augustus Seven Aspects, Oxford, 1984.

Miller, K. Die Peutingersche Tafel, Stuttgart, 1962.

Moynihan, R. 'Geographical Mythology and Roman Imperial Ideology', Winkes, R., Ed., The Age of Augustus, pp.149-162.

Museo Nacional de Arte Romano, Madrid, 2000 (English).

N Naumann, R. Der Quellbezirk von Nîmes, Berlin and Leipzig, 1937.

Nogales Basarrate, T. 'Bronces romanos en Augusta Emerita', Los bronces romanos en Espagna, Madrid, 1990, pp.103-115. " " 'Un altar en el foro de Augusta Emerita', Nogales Basarrate, T., Co-ord., Actas de la 3 reuníon sobre escultura romana en Hispania, Madrid, 2000, pp.25-46. " " Espectáculos en Augusta Emerita, Monografîas Emeritenses 5, Badajoz, 2000.

O O'Connor, C. Roman Bridges, Cambridge, 1993. - 240 -

Olmo Lete del G. & Semmler, M.E.A., Eds., Los Fenicos en la peninsula Iberica, Barcelona, 1986.

Orlin, M. Temples, Religions and Politics in the Roman Republic, Leiden, 1997.

P Panicio, J. & Perez Casas, J.A., Eds., La Plaza de la Seo Zaragoza, Zaragoza, 1989.

Pauly-Wissowa., Real-Encyclopädie der klassische Altertumswissenschaft (RE).

Pearce, E. and Smith, C.G. The World Weather Guide, Oxford, 1997.

Perez Casas, J.A. 'La excavacíon del Foro de Caesaraugusta', Pancio, J. & Perez Casas, J.A., Eds., La Plaza de la Seo Zaragoza. Zaragoza, 1989, pp.81-156.

Pfanner, M. 'Modelle römischer Stadtentwicklung am Beispiel Hispaniens und der westlichen Provinzen', Trillmich, W. & Zanker, P., Eds., Stadtbild und Ideologie, pp.59-116.

Picard, G.C. 'Glanum et les origines de l'art romano-provençal Première partie : Architecture', Gallia, 21, 1963, pp.111-124.

Pigott, S., Daniel, G. & McBurney, C., Eds., France Before the Romans, London, 1974.

Poux, M. and Robin, S. 'Les origines de Lutèce', Gallia, 57, 2000, pp.181-223.

Powell, T.G.E. The Celts, London, 1985.

Py, M. 'Recherches sur Nîmes préromaine — habitats et sépultures', Gallia, Supplément 41, 1981, pp.199-210.

R Raaflaub, K. & Toher, M., Eds., Between Republic and Empire, Berkeley, 1990.

Ramallo Asensio, S.F. & Santiuste de Pablos, .F., Co-ords., Teatros romanos de Hispania, Murcia, 1992. - 241 -

Ramallo Asensio, S.F., San Martín Moro, P.A. & Valdéras, E.R.. 'Teatro romano de Cartagena. Una approximacíon preliminar', Ramallo Asensio, S.F. & Santiuste de Pablos, .F., Co-ords., Teatros romanos de Hispania, pp.51-92.

Ramírez, Delgado, J.R, Los primitivos nucleas de asentamiento en la ciudad de Cádiz, Cádiz,1982.

Ramírez Sádaba, J.L. 'La toponima de la guerra. Utilizacíon y utilidad', Almagro-Gorbea, M., Pres., Las guerras Cántabras, pp.173-199.

Rawson, E. 'Architecture and Sculpture — the Activities of the Cosutii', PBSR, 43, 1974, pp.36-46.

Rebourg, A. 'Les origins d'Autun : L'archéologie et les textes', Goudineau, C. & Rebourg, A., Eds., Les villes augustéennes, pp. 99-105.

Rebourg, A. 'L'urbanisme d'Augustodunum (Autun, Saône-et-Loire), Gallia, 55, 1998, pp.141-255.

Reinhold, M. Marcus Agrippa, Rome, 1965.

Reinhold, M. and Swan, P.M. 'Cassius Dio's assessment of Augustus', Raaflaub, K. & Toher, M., Eds., Between Republic and Empire, pp.155-173.

Renardet, E. Vie et croyances des gaulois avant la conquête romaine, Paris, 1975.

René, J. Vix et ses trésors, Paris, 1979.

Renfrew, C., Bahn, P., Archaeology, London, 1991.

Richardson, J.S. Hispaniae, Cambridge, 1986. " " The Romans in Spain, Oxford, 1996. " " 'The New Augustan Edicts from North West Spain', JRA, 15, 2002, pp.411-5.

Richardson, L., Jr., Ed., A new topographical dictionary of Ancient Rome, Baltimore, 1992.

Richmond, I.A. 'The First years of Emerita Augusta', The Archaeological Journal, 87, 1930, pp.96-116.

Rivet, A.L.F. Gallia Narbonensis, London, 1988. - 242 -

Roddaz, J.M. Marcus Agrippa, Rome, 1984. " " 'Agrippa et la péninsule Ibérique', Ceresa-Gastaldo, A., Pres., Il bimillenario di Agrippa, Genoa, 1990 pp.57-81.

Rodríguez Neila, J.F. El municipio romano de Gades, Cádiz, 1980.

Rolland, M.H. 'Fouilles de Glanum (1951-52)', Gallia, 11, 1953, pp.5-17. " " Gallia, 12, 1954, pp.448-452. " " 'Un temple de Valetudo à Glanum', RA, 46, July-Dec. 1955, pp.27-53.

Roth-Congès, A. L'acanthe dans le décor architectonique protoaugustéen en Provence', RANarb, 11, 1983, pp.103-134. " " 'Fouilles et recherches récentes sur le forum à Glanum', Los foros romanos de las provincias occidentales, Madrid, 1987, pp.191-201. " " 'Nouvelles fouilles à Glanum (1982-199)', JRA, 5, 1992, pp.38-55. " " 'La fortune éphémère de Glanum: du religieux à l'économique', Gallia, 54, 1997, pp.157-202.

Roth-Congès, A. and Gros, P. 'Le Sanctuaire des eaux à Nîmes', Revue Archéologique du Centre de La France, 22, 1983, pp.131-146.

S Salviat, F. Glanum et Les Antiques, (Guides Archéologiques de La France, No.19), Paris, 1990.

Santos Yanguas, N. 'La conquista romana del N.O. de la péninsula Ibérica', Latomus, 41, 1982, pp.5-49.

Seaby, H.A., Roman Coins and Their Values, London, 1954.

Sear, F.B. Roman Architecture, London, 1989. " " 'Vitruvius and Roman Theater Design', AJA, 94 (1990), pp.249-258.

Shatzman, I., Ed., The Story of Masada. Discoveries from the Excavations, Provo, Utah, 1997.

Sherwin White, A.N., The Roman Citizenship, Oxford, 1937.

Shipley, F.W. Agrippa's Building Activities at Rome, St. Louis, 1933. - 243 -

Small, D.B. 'Studies in Roman Theater Design', AJA, 87 (1983), pp.55-68.

Smith, N. A History of Dams, London, 1971.

Solana Sainz, J.M. Los Cántabros y la Ciudad de Iuliobriga, Santander, 1981.

Steinby, E.M., Ed., Lexicon Topograhicum Urbis Romae (LTUR), Rome, 1993-2000.

Stillwell, R., Ed., Princeton Encyclopedia of Classical Sites, (PECS), Princeton, 1976.

Sutherland, C.H.V. The Roman Imperial Coinage, (RIC), Vol. 1, London, 1984.

Syme, R. 'The Conquest of North-West Spain', Roman Papers, 2, 1979, pp.825-834.

T Tabula Imperii Romani, Madrid, 1995.

Thévenot, E. 'Les voies romaines de la cité des Éduens', Latomus, 98, 1969, pp.31-141.

Thompson, H.A. 'The Odeion in the Athenian Agora', Hesperia, 19, 1950, pp.31-141. " " 'The Impact of Roman Architects and Architecture on Athens', 170 B.C.-A.D.170, Macready, S. & Thompson, F.H., Eds., Roman Architecture in the Greek World, pp.1-7.

Thompson, H.A. and Wycherley, R.E. 'The Agora of Athens', Agora, 14, 1972, 5, pp.111-114.

Tortorici, E. 'L'attivita edilizia di Agrippa a Roma', Ceresa Gastaldo, A., Pres., Il bimillenario di Agrippa, Genoa, 1990, pp.19-55.

Tranoy, L. and Ayala, G. 'Les pentes de la Croix-Rousse à Lyon dan l'antiquité. État des connaissances', Gallia, 51, 1992, pp.171-189.

Trillmich, W. 'Zur Münzprägung des Caligula von Caesaraugusta', MM 14, 1973, pp.151-173. " " 'Familienpropaganda der Kaiser Caligula und Claudius', Deutsches Archäologisches Institut, AMUGS, 8, 1978, pp.1-179. - 244 -

" " 'Ein historisches Relief in Mérida mit Darstellung des M. Agrippa beim Opfer', MM, 27, 1986, pp.279-304 and Tafels 39-49. " " Un sacrarium de culto imperial en el teatro de Mérida, Anas, 2-3, 1989-90, pp.87-102. " " 'Colonia Augusta Emerita, die Haupstadt von Lusitanien', Trillmich, W. & Zanker, P., Eds., Stadtbild und Ideologie, pp.299-318. " " 'Novedades en torno al programma iconográfico del teatro romano de Mérida. Trinidad Nogales Basarrate, Co-ord., Actas de la I Reunion sobre escultura romano en Hispania, Madrid, 1993, pp.113-125.

Trillmich, W. & Zanker, P., Eds., Stadtbild und Ideologie, Munich, 1990.

Trillmich, W. et al. Hispania Antigua: Denkmäler der Römerzeit, Mainz, 1993.

V Van Deman, E.R., The Building of the Roman Aqueducts, Washington, 1934.

Varène, P. 'L'apport de l'ethno-archéologie à la connaissance des techniques antiques de construction: deux examples tirés de la reconstruction partielle d'un temple à Glanum', JRA, 6, 1993, pp.193-204.

Vella, C., Leveau, P., et al. 'Le canal de Marius et les dynamiques littorales du Golfe de Fos', Gallia, 56, 1999, pp.131-136.

Ventura, A, León, P. and Marquez, C. 'Roman Córdoba in the Light of Recent Archaeological Research', Keay, S.J., Ed., The Archaeology of Early Roman Baetica, pp.86-107.

Veyne, P. Bread and Circuses, London, 1990.

Von Hesberg, H. 'Augusteische Bauornamentik: Die neuen Grundmuster der Haupstadt und ihre Umsetzung in lokale Prototypen', Trillmich, W. & Zanker, P., Eds., Stadtbild und Ideologie, pp.353-366.

W Walker, S., Ed., Récentes recherches en archéologie gallo-romaine et paléochrétienne sur Lyon et sa region. BAR-15, 108, 1981. - 245 -

Ward-Perkins, J.B. Roman Imperial Architecture, Yale, 1983.

Webster, G. The British Celts and Their Gods Under Rome, London, 1986.

Wells, C.M. The German Policy of Augustus, Oxford, 1972. " " The Roman Empire, London, 1992.

Wightman, E.M. Roman Trier and the Treveri, London, 1970. " " 'Military arrangements, native settlements and related developments in early Roman Gaul', Helinium, 17, 1977, pp.105-126. " " Gallia Belgica, London, 1985.

Wilson, R.J.A. 'Tot aquarum tam multis necessariis molibus. Recent studies on aqueducts and water supply', JRA, 9, 1996, PP.5-29.

Wilson, R.J.A. & Crighton, J.P., 'Introduction … Recent research on Roman Germany', JRA, 32, 1999, pp.9-35.

Winkes, R., Ed., The Age of Augustus, Louvain-la-Neuve, 1985.

Winter, A.N. Greek Architectural Terracottas, Oxford, 1993.

Wiseman, F.J. Roman Spain, London, 1956.

Wiseman, A. & P. Julius Caesar. The Battle for Gaul, Boston, 1980.

Woolf, G. Becoming Roman, Cambridge, 2000.

Wuilleumier, P. 'Fouilles de Fourvière à Lyon', Gallia, Supplément 4, 1951, pp.21-36.

Y Yegul, F. 'Baths and Bathing in Roman Antioch', Kondoleon, K., Ed., Antioch: The Lost City, pp.146-151.

Z Zanker, P. The Power of Images in the Age of Augustus, Ann Arbor, 1988.

- 246 -

(3) Additional Items

C Campbell, J.B. 'The writings of the Roman land surveyors: Introduction, text, translation and commentary', JRS, Monograph, 2000.

D Dilke, O.A.W. The Roman Land Surveyors, 1971.

Dueck, D. Strabo of Amasía: A Greek man of letters in Augustan Rome, 2000.

L Lindsay, H. 'Syme's Anatolica and the date of Strabo's Geography, Klio 79 (1997), pp.484-507.

M

Mann, J.C. Legionary recruitment and veteran settlement during the principate, 1983.

Millar, F. A Study of Cassius Dio, Oxford, 1964.

T Tierney, J.J. 'The Map of Agrippa', Proceedings of the Irish Academy, 75 (1963) (Sect. C), pp.151-166.

Minerva Access is the Institutional Repository of The University of Melbourne

Author/s: Mottershead, Geoffrey

Title: The constructions of Marcus Agrippa in the West

Date: 2005-05

Citation: Mottershead, G. (2005). The constructions of Marcus Agrippa in the West. PhD thesis, School of Art History, Cinema, Classics and Archaeology, University of Melbourne.

Publication Status: Unpublished

Persistent Link: http://hdl.handle.net/11343/38789

File Description: The constructions of Marcus Agrippa in the West

Terms and Conditions: Terms and Conditions: Copyright in works deposited in Minerva Access is retained by the copyright owner. The work may not be altered without permission from the copyright owner. Readers may only download, print and save electronic copies of whole works for their own personal non-commercial use. Any use that exceeds these limits requires permission from the copyright owner. Attribution is essential when quoting or paraphrasing from these works.