Back to
Istituto Romeno’s Publications
Back to Homepage
Quaderni 2004
p. 21
Juridical Status of the Roman
Cities and their Representation in Late Roman Cartography
Adriana
Panaite,
Romeo
Cîrjan,
Romanian
Academy at Rome
The late roman cartographical representations that we
have nowadays at our disposal are few and preserved only in the form of
medieval copies, the only exception being the shield from Doura Europos,
discovered in 1922-1923[1].
The historical sources we are referring to in this paper are Tabula
Peutingeriana, Notitia Dignitatum, Itinerarium Antonini, the Cosmographia of
Ravenna geographer’s, Itinerarium Hierosolymitanum et Burdigalense, Synecdemos,
Corpus Agrimensorum, the schild from Doura Europos and the mosaic from Madaba.
Tabula Peutingeriana[2] represents a medieval copy dated in XII/XIII
centuries, named like this after its discoverer Konrad Peutinger. He finded it
in 1508 in a cathedral, at Worms, and today it is kept at the National Library
in Vienna. The scientists who analysed Tabula considered it as being the result
of a late compilation, based on an official document from the III century. The
latter was derived from Forma Orbis, a world map designed by Agrippa during the
Ist century, in the times of Augustus. Generally, today we accepted
the fact that Tabula Peutingeriana is a schematically representation of the
roman roads, without rendering all of them. This document was connected with cursus publicus[3],
the post service from the empire or with annona
militaris, through which were sent the supplies for the roman army.
Together with this
p. 22
roads
in Tabula Peutingeriana are also included a lot of cities represented or not by
conventional signs, named vignette,
about which we shall speak further.
Itinerarium Antonini[4] is another source, but this one enumerates the roads
of the empire withought using conventional signs; here may be found lists of
roman cities, containing also the distances between them, given in millia pasum, that is roman miles. The
adjective Antonin indicates an
emperor from the II or III century, meaning Caracalla. This fact is confirmed
by the topography of the roads and military bases from Britannia. The hole
compilation could be dated at the end of the III century. Most of the
researchers connect it, on the one hand, with the reorganization of annona militaris by Diocletian in
280-290 and on the other with Caracalla’s journey in the Orient, from 214-215.
Notitia Dignitatum[5] represented an official collection of roman
functionaries set in order according to their importance in the imperial
administration. Besides, in Notitia are
represented the garrisons and the insignia of military commanders. Just like in
Tabula Peutingeriana, for describing
garrisons, are used vignette. The document was elaborated during the first
decade of the Vth century.
Itinerarium
Hyerosolymitanum et Burdigalense[6] is the oldest itinerary to Holly Land and is dated
precisely in 333. We are talking about a journey made by christian pilgrims
from Bordeaux to Jerusalem. This journey was made using the imperial post
service and even if there are not used conventional signs, the source is very
important because it enumerates the post stations, mansiones and mutatines,
through which the pilgrims were passing. It seems that they were using a map or
an itinerary similarly to those of which we are talking in this article.
p. 23
Cosmographia[7] was written between 670-700, by an anonymous
geographer from Ravenna. This source appears in the form of lists of cities and
does not use vignette. The author, most probably Castorius, as it was said,
made a lot of confusions between mansiones
and mutationes. The researches
seem to agree with the fact that this source has completed the informations
gathered from Tabula Peutingeriana and Itinerarium Antonini.
The schild from Doura
Europos[8] is a combination between list of cities and
conventional signs, vignette, belonging to an itinerary around the Black Sea. A
part of this itinerary could be covered by water. Because of the fact that
Danube’s name is mentioned two times, Istros Potamos and Danubis Potamos, it
was supposed that this document had been translated in latin from an original
one written in Greek. It had been dated by its publisher in 260, but recent
researches place it around 200.
Synecdemos[9] represents a travel guide wrote by Hierocles in the
first half of VIth century and it enumerates the cities from every
province from the Eastern Roman Empire. There are not used conventional signs.
All this documents from the Late Roman Empire allows
us to recreate the image of the substructure of the state, as well as that of
the cities and the roads which connected them. As we have seen from this short
presentation, our sources are, generally speaking, compilations realized on the
basis of older documents –official or not– transmitted until today through
medieval copies. This certainly involves addings and modifications which
occurred during this process, and, accordingly puts a lot of problems of
dating. The chronological terms enumerated above are today accepted by the
majority of the scientists, but because of the documents’ complex character,
there is not, however, an unanimity.
The documents which are containing conventional signs
belongs to the category of the so-called itineraria
picta, which were used in the antiquity by travellers[10].
This itineraria picta are a special
type of maps, where there were represented roads, places for rest, for eating
or changing the horses. This places are called mansiones and mutationes[11].
Moreover, are also represented relief forms and water courses. This maps
p. 24
were
used together with lists of cities or written detailed descriptions of the
region where the journey was made. The difficulties to date them are
determined, on the one hand, by the limitated number of archaeological and
historical sources that could be useful for verifying the given informations,
and, on the other hand, by modifications and addings from the medieval times.
We are talking here about the conventional signs and other graphical
characteristics: vignette and personifications of the great and important
cities, for example Rome, Constantinople, Antiochia and so on. It was said that
they would represented the stations of the post service[12];
according to another hypothesis they would have been the stations for annona militaris[13];
other theories connect these vignette with the simple presentation of cities
who laied along the roads or to the illustration of their juridical status.
The last researchers who have analysed these vignette
are Annalina and Mario Levi; they had published in 1968 Itineraria picta. Contributto
allo studio della Tabula Peutingeriana. In this study, they have made a
detailed research of the conventional signs which appear in Tabula Peutingeriana, taking into
account other contemporary representations, like those enumerated before, or
like the mosaic from Madaba[14]
(a VI century map of the Holly Land), the mosaics from church Santa Maria
Maggiore[15], dated in Vth
century, or the representation from Corpus
Agrimensorum[16], a
collection of works elaborated by the roman land surveyors, dated in IVth
century; concluding the study, they have differentiated 7 categories of
vignette: (A) two towers, with 4 subtypes: A1 two towers connected between them
by a little building, A2 two towers with separated roofs, A3 two attached
towers, A4 two towers attached with another one; (B) temples; (C) Aquae; (D)
buildings with parallel elements; (E) “circle from walls”; (F) big vignette,
personifications; (G) ports, lighthouses. All of the 555 vignette from Tabula Peutingeriana were classificated
in one of these categories; the two researchers excluded the possibility that
there could be a connection between these vignette and the juridical status of
the cities.
Our research starts from the idea, generally accepted
in the scientific literature concerning Tabula Peutingeriana, that the
document, in its present form, represents the result of successive reelaborations,
beginning from the time of Principate, sec. I-III A. D. We believe that the
issues regarding the vignette are far from being exhausted. On the contrary,
they can still offer new and interesting elements regarding the reasons who
determined the elaboration of this complex map.
p.
25
The scientific literature brings into discussion the
eventual reports who could exist between the way in which are designed the
vignette and the juridical status hold by roman cities at a certain
chronological moment. There is no study made on large areas from the Roman
Empire which could allowed us to draw some generally accepted conclusions.
In a larger research we shall attempt to examine this
problem for the whole Roman Empire. During this investigation we have insisted
on two regions which have comparable characteristics from the point of view of
the according of the municipal status. We are taking into account the african
and rheno-danubian regions, where the municipalization process was developing
at the same time, during the I and II centuries A. D.
Using the typology proposed by Annalina and Mario Levi
we have arranged on a normal map the vignette and we have tried to observe how,
in what measure and on what geographical surface and scale, can be established
those criteria and norms appropriate for describing and dating the map.
Referring to African provinces we observe, first of all, that are represented
only 4 from those 7 categories, already mentioned. Are missing only F and G
types. In the case of rheno-danubian provincies are missing E and F categories.
The most part of the vignette are belonging to the A
category, with two towers. Specific for African provinces is the mentioning of
the status of colonia, for 14 from a
total of 21 cities represented on the map. It is very important to notice that,
except Rusuccuru (colonia post 209-210[17])
and probably Tacapae (colonia, IIIrd century?), all the others,
which are illustrated with vignette from category A1, are awareded with the
colonia title not later than beginning of II century A. D. Those colonias are:
Cirta (Caesar / Augustus[18]),
Sitifis (colonia deducta from Nerva[19]),
4 colonies from the time of Trajan: Rusicade, Mileu[20],
Osa (Oea)[21], Leptis
Magna[22].
Thysdrus became also colonia
p. 26
probably
in the times of Caesar[23].
Almost in the same time we have 2 cities from the category A2 which became
colonias: Carthagina (Caesar and Augustus[24])
and Utica (Hadrian[25]).
From A3 category are mentioned Igilgili (colonia from
Augustus[26]), Cuicul
(Nerva or Trajan[27]) and Capsa,
the letter being the only city that receaved the colonial status in the III
century A. D.[28]
A little differently looks the situation in danubian
provinces. First because the names of cities represented by vignette are not
accompanied with juridical status; second, because the cities of roman or latin
right (municipia or coloniae with honorific title), who
correspond to the A category were receiving the municipal status from Flavians
emperors to Severian emperors, excepting Dalmatia. Before this period,
p. 27
vignette
record only coloniae deductae, from
Caesar to julio-claudian dynasty, and these are: Savaria[29],
Sirmium[30],
Emona[31],
colonia Agrippinensis[32]
and Augusta Trevirorum[33].
In Dalmatia[34]
most of the cities received the colonia status during the period of time from
Augustus to Claudius. Those are: Salona (colonia
founded between 47-27 BC[35]),
Narona (colonia before 27 BC[36]),
Tarsatica (municipium from Augustus[37]),
p. 28
Flanona
(oppidum at Plinius, Naturalis Historiae III, 140, municipium in the time of Tiberius[38]),
Senia (oppidum at Plinius NH, III,
140, probably augustan municipium[39]),
Burno (probably municipium during the
reign of Hadrian cca 118[40]).
There can be noticed a few directions for the
distribution of the vignette on the map; generally speaking, they are located
either along the great highways along the mediterranean coastline (in the
African provinces), or along the big rivers, in the danubian provinces. There
are still several regions where the vignette are very concentrated: one is on
the dalmatian coastline, with an extension in the direction of the middle
curses of Sava and Drava, and the others two in the North Africa: one around
Carthagina and the second on an aria about 800 km quadrates in north Numidia
and east of Mauretania Ceasariensis.
It is still difficult to establish in what manner the
Tabula Peutingeriana was elaborated. The differences between representations
from Africa and those from rheno-danubian provinces make us believe that there
have been used various sources when Tabula
Peutingeriana was draft up.
The analyse of the vignette used to designate cities
from the rheno-danubian provinces, leads to the same conclusion. More
precisely, the compactness of some areas where doesn’t appear more than one
type of vignette, for example: A1 for the provinces of lower Danube, also
Raetia and Germania Superior, A2 for Pannonia Inferior and Superior and Norh of
Dalmatia, determine us to suspect many distinct motives which lie at the
foundation of designing this map.
To suppose that the criterion of drawing these
vignette would be connected, exclusively, to municipal status, would be
exaggerate. First of all, if we take into account only the african provinces,
we notice that the list of the cities with the status of municipium or colonia is
fat away from being complete; not even for the period between Caesar and the
Julio-claudian dynasty the list is not complete[41]. Secondly, it is obvious
p. 29
that
other types of juridical status such as ius
Italicum or ius Latii have no
importance for the graphical representation of the routes (itineraria). For example, Plinius in Naturalis Historiae III, 23, 146[42]
puts under the indistinct name oppida
Claudia 5 fortifications from Noricum: Virunum, Celeia, Teurnia, Aguntum
and Iuvavum. It is generally accepted that this term refers to the latin
municipal status accorded by the emperor Claudius[43].
In Tabula Peutingeriana 2 of those 5 cities are included in A1 category
(Virunum and Celeia) and one in B category (Iuvavum). So it is clear, for this
part of the Roman Empire the fact that another criterion for designing the
vignette was utilized here. Identically, we have no proof for the use of ius Italicum as a criterion for graphical
representations of the cities from the north-balkanic area, specifically for
the liburnian communities[44] and the cities from Traianic Dacia[45].
On the other hand, the almost precise correspondence
between a certain vignette type and the chronology of the municipal status’
accordance in african provinces and Dalmatia make us believe that, at least for
some areas, there have been used official documents belonging to central
administration, where there were kept informations concerning the juridical
status. In this case, we can suppose that, during the elaboration of Tabula
Peutingeriana, at a certain moment there were used also that kind of documents,
kept in the capital of empire, by the a memoria
office[46].
Taking into account that our investigation in not
finished yet, we shall confine only to expose a few working hypothesis. If we
take into account the juridical status concerning the cities from those two
areas that have been analysed we noticed that the sources used for the
elaboration of the map cannot be older than the first half of the III century
A. D[47].
An investigation at the scale of the hole empire, beginning from the
p. 30
relation
between the juridical status and types of vignette used in Tabula Peutingeriana could bring some new perspectives about the
conceptions of roman cartography.
Other articles published in our
periodicals by Romeo Cîrjan:
Notes sur D.
50,15,1,8;9 (Ulp. 1 de cens.) et le droit italique en Dacie
Zur Rechtsstellung
Montanas (Mihajlovgrad, Bulgarien) während der römischen Kaiserzeit
For this material, permission is granted for
electronic copying, distribution in print form for educational purposes and
personal use.
Whether you intend to utilize it in scientific purposes, indicate the
source: either this web address or the Quaderni della Casa Romena 3
(2004) (a cura di Ioan-Aurel Pop e Cristian Luca), Bucarest: Casa Editrice dell’Istituto
Culturale Romeno, 2004
No permission is granted for
commercial use.
© ªerban Marin, June 2005,
Bucharest, Romania
Last updated: July 2006
Back to Homepage
Quaderni 2004
Back to
Istituto Romeno’s Publications
[1] F. Cumont, Fragment
de bouclier portant une liste d’étapes, “Syria”, 6, 1925, pp. 1-15; Idem, Fouilles de Doura Europos, Paris, 1926.
[2] E. Desjardins, La
Table de Peutinger, Paris, 1867; Idem, De
Tabula Peutingeriana accedunt fragmenta Agrippae geographica, Bonn, 1876;
F. Philippi, Zur Rekonstruktion der
Weltkarte des Agrippa, Marburg, 1880; K. Miller, Itineraria romana. Röm. Reisewege and der Hand der Tabula Peutingeriana,
Stuttgart, 1916; Idem, Tabula
Peutingeriana. Die Peutingersche Tafel, Stuttgart, 1964; A. and M. Levi, Itineraria Picta. Contributo allo studio
della Tavola Peutingeriana, Roma, 1968; E. Weber, Tabula Peutingeriana. Codex Vindobonensis 324, Graz, 1976; A. and
M. Levi, Map projection and the Peutinger
Table, Coins and History in the Ancient World, Detroit, 1981, pp. 139-148;
L. Bosio, La Tabula Peutingeriana, una
descrizione pittorica del mondo antico, Rimini, 1983; P. Arnaud, L’origine, la date de rédaction et la
diffusion de l’archétype de la Table de Peutinger, “Bulletin de la Societé
Nationale des Antiquaires de France” (further BSNAF), 1988, pp. 302-321, those
are only a few titles from the rich bibliography concerning Tabula
Peutingeriana.
[3] For A. and M. Levi and L. Bosio, see Itineraria Picta, footnote 2.
[4] D. Van Berchem, L’Annone
militaire dans l’Empire romain, Paris, 1937, pp. 166-181; M. Calzolari, Introduzione allo studio della rete stradale
dell’Italia romana. L’Itinerarium Antonini, “Memorie dell’Accademia
Nazionale dei Lincei”, 1. IX, VII, 4, 1966, pp. 369-520; A. L. F. Rivet, The British Section of the Antonine
Itinerary, “Britannia”, 1, 1970, pp. 47-67; G. E. Rickman, Roman Granaries and store buildings,
London, 1971; P. Arnaud, Les itinéraires
de Caracalla et l’Itinéraire antonin, “Comptes rendus de l’Académie des
Inscriptions et Belles-Lettres” (further CRAI), 1973, pp. 123-136; D. Van
Berchem, Les itinéraires de Caracalla et
l’itinéraire Antonin, in Actes du IX
Congrès international d’études sur les frontières romaines,
Mamaia, 1972, Bucharest, 1974, pp. 301-308; N. Reed, Pattern and Purpose in the Antonine Itinerary, “American Journal of
Philology”, 99, 2, 1978, pp. 208-254; O. Cuntz, Itineraria Romana, 2nd edition, I, Leipzig, 1990, pp.
1-85; P. Arnaud, A propos d’un pretendu
itinéraire de Caracalla dans l’Itinéraire d’Antonin: les sources tardives de
l’itinéraire de Rome a Hyerasicaminos, BSNAF, 1992, pp. 374-380; Idem, L’Itinéraire d’Antonin: un témoin de la litérature
itinéraire du Bas-Empire, “Geographica Antiqua”, 2, 1993, pp. 33-49.
[5] O. Seeck, Notitia
Dignitatum accedunt Notitia Urbis Constantinopolitanae et Laterculi
provinciarum, Berlino, 1876, pp. 1-227; J. J. G. Alexander, The illustrated manuscripts of the Notitia
Dignitatum. Aspects of the Notitia Dignitatum. Papers presented to the
conference in Oxford, december, 13-15, 1974, edited by R. Godburn and P.
Bartholmew (BAR, Supplementary Series 15), Oxford, 1976, pp. 11-51; G.
Clemente, La Notitia Dignitatum, in Atti dei Convegni Lincei, 45, Passaggio dal mondo antico al Medioevo, da
Teodosio a San Gregorio Magno, Roma 25-28 maggio 1977, Roma, 1980, pp.
39-51; P. C. Berger, The insignia of the
Notitia Dignitatum, New York–London, 1981.
[6] R. Chevallier, Les
voies romaines, Paris, 1997, p. 59.
[7] Fontes
Historiae Daco-Romanae, II, edited by Al. Elian and N. ª. Tanaºoca,
Bucharest, 1970, p. 579; L. Dillemann, La
Cosmographie du Ravennate, Bruxelles, 1997 (ouvrage edité avec préface et
notes additionnelles par Yves Janvier, Collection Latomus 235).
[8] F. Cumont, op.
cit., footnote 1; R. Rebuffat, Le
bouclier de Doura, “Syria”, 63, 1986, pp. 85-105; P. Arnaud, Observations sur l’original du fragment de
carte du pseudo-bouclier de Doura-Europos, “Revue des Études Anciennes”
(further REA), 1-2, 1988, pp. 151-163; Idem, Un deuxième lecture du “bouclier” de Doura-Europos, CRAI, 2,
1989, p. 373-389.
[9] E. Honigmann, Hierocles
Grammaticus: Le Synekdèmos d’Hieroclès et l’opuscule
gèographique de Georges de Chypre, Bruxelles, 1939.
[10] For example: Scriptores
Historiae Augustae, Vita Severi Alexandri, 45; San Ambrogio, Commentarios ad Psalmos CXVIII, V, 2;
see R. Rebuffat, op. cit., footnote
20, p. 91; Flavii Vegetii Renati, Institutorum
rei militaris III, 6; see A. and M. Levi, Itineraria Picta, p.
30, footnote 31.
[11] S. Crogiez, Les
stations du cursus publicus en Calabre: un état de la recherche, in
“Mélanges de l’Ecole française de Rome. Antiquité”, 1, 1990, pp. 389-431; M.
Antonella, Appunti sulle mansiones in
base ai dati archeologici, in Tecnica
stradale romana. Atlante tematico di topografia antica, I, Roma, 1992, pp.
105-113.
[12] A. and M. Levi,
Itineraria Picta, passim.
[13] D. Van Berchem, L’Annone
militaire, passim.
[14] A. Yonah, The
Madaba mosaic map, Jerusalem, 1954.
[15] W. Oakeshott, The
mosaics of Rome, London, 1967.
[16] O. A. W. Dilke,
The Roman Land Surveyors. An
introduction to the Agrimensores, Plymouth, 1971; R. K. Sherk, Roman Geographical Exploration and Military
Maps, in Aufstieg und Niedergang der
Römischen Welt (further ANRW), 2. 1, Berlin–New York, 1974, pp. 532-564; O.
A. W. Dilke, Greek and Roman Maps,
London, 1985, p. 112, p. 210.
[17] A. F.
von Pauly, G. Wissowa (editors), Realencyclopädie
der klassischen Altertumswissenschaft (further RE), 4. 1, Stuttgart, 1900,
s. v. coloniae (E. Kornemann), col.
566, nr. 380; M. Euzennat, L’histoire
municipale de Tigzirt, Rusuccuru colonia et municipium, “Mélanges de
l’Ecole française de Rome”, 67, 1955, p. 142: “Au début du IIIe siècle,
on peut donc affirmer qu’il existe une colonie romaine, sur l’acropole de
Taksebt, et un municipe romain, le port de Tigzirt, qui portent tous les deux
le nom de Rusuccuru”; J.–M. Lassère, Ubique populus. Peuplement et
mouvements de population dans l’Afrique romaine de la chute de Carthage
à la fin de la dynastie des Sévères, 146 a. C.-235 p. C.,
Paris, 1977, p. 244, footnote 104 (colonia under Caracalla); J. P. Laporte, Le
statut municipal de Rusuccuru, in L’Africa romana. Atti del X Convegno di sstudio, Oristano 11-13 dicembre 1992,
Sassari, 1994, pp. 427-435; see also J. Gascou, La politique municipale de Rome en Afrique du Nord. I. De la mort d’Auguste au début du IIIe
siècle. II. Après la
mort de Septime-Sévère, in ANRW, 10. 2, Berlin–New York, 1982, p.
310.
[18] RE 4. 1, 1900, s. v. coloniae (E. Kornemann), col. 532, nr. 118, col. 557, nr. 340;
J.–M. Lassère, op. cit., p.
212; J. Gascou, op. cit., 1982, p.
141.
[19] RE 4. 1, 1900, s. v. coloniae (E. Kornemann), col. 560, nr. 369; J.–M. Lassère, op. cit., pp. 257-259; J. Gascou, op. cit., 1982, pp. 166-167.
[20] Ibidem, pp.
177-178. It is interesting to notice that there is no mention of Chullu, the
third colonia deducta to Cirta. The speciffic evolution of the juridical status
of the three cities would have supposed an identical cartographical
representation of each of them. See J. Gascou, La politique municipale de l’Empire romain
en Afrique Proconsulaire de Trajan à Séptime Sévère, Paris,
1972, pp. 111-115; Y. Le Bohec, De Sila
à Gadiaufala: urbanisation et municipalisation dans la Numidie cirtéenne
méridionale, in L’Afrique dans
l’Occident romain (Ier s. avant J. C.-IVe s. apres J. C.),
in Actes du Colloque organisé par Ecole
française de Rome sous le patronage de l’Institut national d’archéologie et
d’art de Tunis (Rome, 3-5 dec. 1987), Roma, 1990, pp. 296 sqq.
[21] Ch. Tissot, Géographie
comparée de la province romaine d’Afrique, II, Paris, 1888, p. 218 indicate
the award of the colonia title in the time of Septimius Severus; RE 4. 1, 1900,
s. v. coloniae (E. Kornemann), col.
555, nr. 304.
[22] Ch. Tissot, op.
cit., pp. 219-222; RE 4. 1, 1900, s. v. coloniae
(E. Kornemann), col. 555, nr. 303; P. Romanelli, Leptis Magna, Roma, 1925, p. 20; G. Di Vita–Evrard, Municipium Flavium Lepcis Magna,
“Bulletin Archéologique du Comité des Travaux Historiques et Scientifiques”,
nouvelle série B, 17, 1981, p. 198, dates the assign of the colonia right “peu
de temps avant l’année proconsulaire 109-110”; J. Gascou, op. cit., 1982, pp. 170-171; X. Dupuis, La concession du “ius Italicum” à Carthage, Utique et Lepcis
Magna. Mesure d’ensemble ou décisions ponctuelles?, in Splendidissima civitas. Etudes d’histoire romaine en hommage à
François Jacques, Paris, 1997, p. 58, footnote 4.
[23] E. Kornemann (RE 4. 1, 1900, s. v. coloniae, col. 555, nr. 319), dates the
beginnings of the Thysdrus colonia in the second century A. D.; L. Teutsch, Das römischen Städtewesen in Nordafrika in
der Zeit von C. Gracchus bis zum Tode des Kaisers Augustus, Berlin, 1962,
p. 85 (Cf. J.–M. Lassère, op. cit., pp. 158-161); C. Lepelley, Les cités de l’Afrique romaine au Bas-Empire.
II. Notices d’histoire municipale,
Paris, 1981, pp. 318 sqq.
[24] RE 4. 1,
1900, s. v. coloniae (E. Kornemann),
col. 532, nr. 117; J.–M. Lassère, op.
cit., pp. 163-164 and pp. 204-211; S.–E. Tlatli, La Carthage punique.
Etude urbaine. La ville. Ses functions, son rayonnement, Paris, 1978, pp. 83-109; P. Gros, Le prémier urbanisme de la Colonia Julia
Carthago. Mythes et réalités d’une fondation césaro-augustéenne, in L’Afrique dans l’Occident romain (Ier
s. avant J. C.-IVe s. apres J. C.), pp. 551 sqq; A. Beschaouch, Territoire de Carthage et “agri excepti”,
CRAI, 1997, pp. 363-374; X. Dupuis, op.
cit., pp. 61-65.
[25] RE 4. 1, 1900, s. v. coloniae (E. Kornemann), col. 555, nr. 305; P. Romanelli, Storia delle province romane dell’Africa,
Roma, 1959, p. 340; C. Lepelley, op. cit.,
p. 242.
[26] J.–M. Lassère, op. cit., p. 226; C. Lepelley, op.
cit., p. 504.
[27] P. Romanelli,, op. cit., pp. 309-310; M.
Leglay, Taxatio et autonomie municipale d’après une nouvelle inscription
de Cuicul en Algérie, in Akte des IV. Internationalen Kongresses für
Griechische und Lateinische Epigraphik, Wien 17. bis 22. September 1962,
Wien, 1964, p. 226; J. Gascou, op. cit., 1972, pp. 108 sqq; J.–M.
Lassère, op. cit., pp. 259-260; C. Lepelley, op. cit., p.
402.
[28] RE 4. 1, 1900, s. v. coloniae (E. Kornemann), col. 556, nr. 330.
[29] Plinius, NNaturalis Historiae, III, 24,
146 (ed. Teubner, 1870): iam tamen colonia divi Claudi Sabaria et oppido
Sarbantia Iulia habitantur; RE 4. 1, 1900, s. v. coloniae (E.
Kornemann), col. 545, nr. 218 (colonia Claudia); Z. Kádár, L. Balla, Savaria,
1958, pp. 5-6 ; T. P. Buocz, Adatok Savaria topográfiájához (Angaben
zur Topographie von Savaria), “Archaeologiai Értesítõ”, 89, 1962, pp.
181-187; G. Schrot, Zur Colonia Savaria und ihrer Geschichte,
“Altertum”, 11, 1965, pp. 158-161; L. Barkóczi, A. Mócsy, Die römischen
Inschriften Ungarns, 1. Savaria, Scarbantia und die Limes-Strecke Ad
Flexum–Arrabona, Amsterdam, 1972, p. 13; T. P. Buocz, Colonia Claudia
Savaria. Ein römisches Siedlungszentrum in Pannonien, “Altertum”, 25, 1979,
p. 119-121.
[30] RE 4. 1, 1900, s. v. coloniae (E. Kornemann), col. 546, nr. 223 (colonia Flavia).
[31] RE 4. 1, 1900, s. v. coloniae (E. Kornemann), col. 529, nr. 100 (34 B. C.); RE Suppl.
11, 1968, s. v. Emona, coll. 564-565 (J. Šašel); V.
Šribar, K absolutni kronologiji najdb iz zgodnje Emone (Contribution
à la chronologie absolue des fouilles de l’Emona du Ier
siècle), “Arheološki Vestnik”, 19, 1968, pp. 452-453; L.
Plesnièar–Gec, Urban characteristic of Emona based on new discoveries,
“Archeologia Jugoslavica”, 13, 1972, pp. 45-50; C. M. Wells, Emona and
Carnuntum. Evidence for the start of Roman occupation, in Roman frontier
studies, 1969. Eighth International Congress of Limensforschung, Cardiff,
1974, pp. 185-187; L. Plesnièar–Gec, Aquileia ed Emona, in Aquileia e
l’arco alpino orientale. Atti della VI Settimana di Studi Aquileiesi, 25
aprile-1 maggio 1975, Udine, 1976, pp. 119-132; J. Šašel, Zur
verwaltungstechnischen Zugehörigkeit Emonas, “Acta Archaeologica Academiae
Scientiarum Hungaricae”, 41, 1989, pp. 169-174; L. Plesnièar–Gec, Urbanizem
Emone. The urbanism of Emona, Ljubljana, 1999, pp. 8-10; Z. Mráv, Die
Gründung Emonas und der Bau seiner Stadtmauer. Zur Ergänzung der Inschrift AIJ 170
B=ILJug 304, “Acta Antiqua Academiae Scientiarum Hungaricae”, 41, 2001, pp.
81-98.
[32] RE 4. 1, 19000, s. v. coloniae (E.
Kornemann), col. 543, nr. 196 (51 AD); H. Schmitz, Colonia Claudia Ara
Agrippinensium, Köln, 1956, pp. 53-59; O. Doppelfeld, G. Biegel, J.
Bracker, Das römische Köln, 1. Ubier-Oppidum und Colonia
Agrippinensium, in ANRW, 2. 4, Berlin–New York, 1975, pp. 720-722; U.
Süßenbach, Die Stadtmauer des römischen Köln, Köln, 1981, pp. 12 sqq; H.
Hellenkemper, The Roman defences of Cologne-Colonia Claudia Ara
Agrippinensium, in Roman urban defences in the West. A review of current
research on urban defences in the Roman empire with special reference to the
northern provinces, based on papers presented to the conference on Roman urban
defences held at the Museum of London on 21-23 March 1980, London, 1983, p.
23; W. Eck, Agrippina, die Stadtgründerin Kölns. Eine Frau in der
frühkaiserzeitlichen Politik, 2. Auflage, Köln, 1993, pp. 77-80; R.
Haensch, Von der Eburonen zu den Agrippinensiern. Aspekte der Romanisation
am Rhein, “Kölner Jahrbuch für Vor- und Frühgeschichte” , 32, 1999, pp.
117-120.
[33] RE 4. 1, 1900, s. v. coloniae (E. Kornemann), col. 544, nr. 198; E. M. Wightman, Roman Trier and the Treveri, London,
1970, pp. 39-43; C. M. Ternes, Die römerzeitliche Civitas Treverorum im
Bilde der Nachkriegsforschung, 1. Von der Gründung bis zum Ende des
dritten Jahrhunderts, in ANRW, 2. 4, Berlin, 1975, pp. 334-335; H. Wolff, “Civitas”
und “Colonia Treverorum”, “Historia”, 26, 1977, pp. 204-242.
[34] L. Bossio, L’Istria
nella descrizione della Tabula Peutingeriana, Padova, 1975; Idem, La Dalmazia nella descrizione della Tabula
Peutingeriana, in Aquileia, la
Dalmazia e l’Illirico. Atti della XIV Settimana di Studi Aquileiesi, I,
1985, pp. 40-57.
[35] RE I A-2, 19220, col. 2004, s. v. Salona
(N. Vuliæ); M. Suiæ, O municipalitetu antièke Salone (Sulla
municipalità dell’antica Salona), “Vjesnik za Arheologiju i
Historiju Dalmatinsku”, 60, 1958, pp. 39-42; J. J. Wilkes, Dalmatia,
London, 1969, p. 221.
[36] RE 16. 2, 19335, 1751, s. v. Narona (M.
Fluss); J. J. Wilkes, op. cit., p. 248; N. Cambi, Antièka Narona.
Urbanistièka topografija i kulturni profil grada (Ancient Narona. Its urban
topography and cultural features), in Dolina rijeke Neretve od
prethistorije do ranog srednjeg vijeka. Znanstveni skup Metkoviæ 4-7. X. 1977,
Split, 1980, p. 151.
[37] M. Fluss in RE IV A-2, 1932, col. 2410, s. v. Tarsatica; A. Degrassi, Le inscrizioni di Tarsatica. Origine e sito del
municipio romano, in Scritti vari di
antichità, II, Roma, 1962, pp. 936-940; J. J. Wilkes, op. cit., pp. 487 sqq; L. Bossio, op. cit., pp. 85-86; N. Novak, Prilog prouèavanju
municipaliteta antièke Tarsatike (A
contribution to the study of the municipality of the ancient Tarsatica), in
Umjetnost na istoènoj obali Jadrana u kontekstu europske tradicije. Zbornik
radova sa znanstvenog skupa održanog u Opatiji u svibnju 1992 (Kunst an
der östlichen Adriaküste im Kontext europäischer Tradition. Akten des wissenschaftlichen
Treffens in Opatija im Mai 1992), Rijeka, 1993, pp. 53-56.
[38] A. Degrassi, Fianona–il
sito della città antica e recenti scoperte, in Scritti vari di antichità, II, pp. 895-901; J. J. Wilkes, op. cit., pp. 487 sqq.
[39] RE 2 A-2, 1923, col. 1460, s. v. Senia (M. Fluss); J. J. Wilkes,
op. cit., pp. 487 sqq.
[40] RE III. 1, 1897, coll. 1068-1070, s. v. Burnum (C. Patsch); J. J. Wilkes, op. cit., p. 295.
[41] T. R. S. Broughton, The Territory of Carthage, “Revue des Etudes Latines”, 47bis,
1969, p. 267; H. G. Pflaum, La romanisation de l’ancien territoire de
la Carthage punique à la lumière des découvertes épigraphiques
récentes, “Antiquités Africaines”, 4, 1970, pp. 75-117; J.–M.
Lassère, op. cit., 1971,
pp. 211-248; J.
Gascou, Note sur l’ évolution du statut
juridique de Tanger entre 38 avant J. C. et le règne de Claude, “Antiquités Africaines”, 8, 1974,
pp. 67-71; A. Beschaouch, Territoire de
Carthage et agri excepti, CRAI, 1997, pp. 363-374.
[42] ed. Teubner, 1870: oppida eorum Virunum, Celeia, Teurnia, Aguntum, Iuaum, omnia Claudia,
Flavium Solvense.
[43] G. Alföldy, Noricum,
London–Boston, 1974, p. 84; A. Chastagnol, À
propos du droit latin provincial, in La
Gaule romaine et le droit latin. Recherches sur l’histoire administrative et
sur la romanisation des habitants, Lyon, 1995, pp. 97-99; R. Wedenig, Epigraphische Quellen zur städtischen
Administration in Noricum, Klagenfurt, 1997, pp. 14-17.
[44] Plinius, Naturalis
Historiae, III, 21, 139
(ed. Teubner, 1870): Ius Italicum habent
eo conventu Alutae, Flanates a quibus sinus nominatur, Lopsi, Varvarini,
inmunesque Asseriates, et ex insulis Fertinates, Curictae; Cf. G. Alföldy, Municipes Tibériens et Claudiens en Liburnie,
“Epigraphica”, 23, 1961 [1962], pp. 53-65; J. J. Wilkes, op. cit., pp. 487-492.
[45]D. 50, 15, 1, 8-9 (Ulp. 1 de censibus): In Dacia quoque Zernensium colonia a diuo
Traiano deducta iuris Italici est. Zarmizegetusa quoque eiusdem iuris est: item
Napocensis colonia et Apulensis et Patauissensium uicus, qui a diuo Seuero ius
coloniae impetrauit.
[46] O. Hirschfeld, Die
kaiserlichen Verwaltungsbeamten bis auf Diokletian, Berlin, 1905, pp.
334-338; A. Pascal, L’origine, la date de
rédaction et la diffusion de l’archétype de la Table de Peutinger, BSNAF,
1988, pp. 302-320; J.–P. Coriat, Le
prince législateur. La technique législative des Sévères et les méthodes
de création du droit impérial à la fin du Principat, Roma, 1997, p.
255.
[47] A. Pascal, op.
cit., pp. 302-320.