"Between Rome and a Hard Place: Negotiating identity in early Roman Ariminum and Paestum" -- Maarten Schmaal
Between Rome and a Hard Place
Negotiating identity in early Roman Ariminum and Paestum
by Maarten Schmaal, 2022-05-02
Introduction
Roman expansionism and imperialism has long been a favored topic of analysis by ancient historians and archaeologists alike. The rise of International Relations-influenced scholarship, like that of Arthur Eckstein especially, has succeeded in debunking much of the earlier Roman exceptionalist perspectives, but in the process black-boxed much of the Roman and surrounding states. More recently, Nicola Terrenato has attempted to rectify this problem by taking elite families, not states, as the protagonists of his studies, thus opening Eckstein’s black box and shining much needed light inside without reverting to exceptionalist views. One aspect still missing from these studies, however, is the tension between, and negotiation of, metropolitan Roman and local colonial identities within the areas conquered by the empire. Such intra-imperial relations are essential for our understanding of a none-black-boxed view of Roman imperialism. To answer the question in which ways identity was negotiated in Latin colonies two suitable case studies exist: Ariminum in the north of Italy, and Paestum in the south. These were founded within five years of each other (268 and 273 respectively), have been preserved well enough for such an analysis, and allow for a comparison between a colony on the boundary between Roman and Greek culture (Paestum) and a colony on the boundary between Roman and Celtic/Etruscan culture (Ariminum). This paper will adopt Bucher and Jasper’s view that identity does not have substance but is instead wholly contained within its expressions, thus avoiding many of the methodological issues associated with studying civic identity in the ancient world.
Ariminum
As stated above, Ariminum (modern Rimini) was a Latin colony founded in 268. Literary sources for the colony are scarce, as Livy’s work for this period has not survived. Nonetheless, literary fragments combined with archaeological evidence allow for a reasonable, if limited, reconstruction of Ariminum’s early history. Previously inhabited by Umbrians, Etruscans, and later Gauls, Roman Ariminum was founded as a typical Latin colony by some two to six thousand coloni who were each provided a sizeable allotment of between 13 and 140 iugera of land. Its harbor, as well as its strategic position controlling both maritime and overland trade routes in the region, made it a suitable military outpost though which Rome could integrate freshly conquered northern Italy. This is evidenced by the construction of extensive fortifications immediately after the colony’s foundation, as well as archaeological evidence that shows early trade connections to regions as far away as the Black Sea.
Aside from the fortifications no architectural remains of mid-Republican Ariminum exist. Because of this it is difficult to make sweeping statements about expressions of identity – we simply do not know if Ariminum had a Roman-style forum with Roman-style civic buildings, turning the colony into a classic Gellian “mini-Rome,” or if Etruscan or Gallic architecture dominated. The inscriptions found at Ariminum that can be dated to the colony’s early history offer no relevant information either. However, other kinds of material remains do offer some insight into the issue. Ceramics produced at Ariminum quickly took on distinctly Roman forms and in fact spread from Ariminum to the surrounding parts of northern Italy. Perhaps most importantly, pocola deorum from the later third century have been found in and around Ariminum. These ceramics are pieces of black-glossed pottery inscribed with the name of a Roman deity and are closely connected to Roman cult. They are often found in colonial contexts and seen by many scholars as evidence of Romanization, as they link local communities to Rome through shared Roman religious rituals. These pocola deorum were dedicated by the vici and pagi of Ariminum, which communally took part in rituals like the lustrationes, ritual purifications and performances of the boundaries between center and periphery. Both the coloni and the natives of Ariminum were divided into these vici and pagi and took part in this ritual together. Such ceramic finds show an Ariminum that actively connects itself to Rome, using religion to tie the population to each other as well as to the imperial metropole. The population adopted at least part of the Roman identity through ritual (the lustratio) and administrative elements of Roman civic identity (the vici and pagi). Additionally, Filippo Coarelli argues that it is no coincidence that Ariminum, like many other colonies, was divided into seven vici (like the seven hills of Rome) with names corresponding to vici in and around Rome. This was a deliberate attempt to conflate Ariminum with Rome – another expression of Roman elements in Ariminum’s identity.
The numismatic evidence shows another side of the colony, however. Centrally issued coinage was introduced relatively late to the Roman republic, with Livy’s Periochae in fact putting the introduction of the denarius (or more generally silver coinage) to the same period as the founding of Ariminum. For most of the period before the Pyrrhic, of even First Punic, War, Roman cities and colonies used commodity currencies or adopted local coinage. In Ariminum the latter seems to have been the case. Several locally minted bronze coins dating to the later third century have been found in Ariminum. Interestingly, these Ariminian coins were not Romanized at all, still showing explicitly Gallic heads (evidenced by the torques and hair dress they wear) on the obverse and a variety of maritime symbols on the reverse, like dolphins, ship’s prows, et cetera. It stands to reason that locally minted coins in a colony of Rome that above all wanted to tie itself into the Roman identity would mint coins with Roman heads or symbols, instead of making the conscious decision to leave the face of the conquered to adorn newly minted coins. It therefore follows that Ariminum as a polity left space for local traditions and identity.
The lack of literary sources due to the loss of Livy for this period, as well as the low amount of architectural sources due to contamination from the imperial period and the difficulties of excavating in a modern city, mean that there are significant gaps in our evidence. We do not know what the forum looked like, nor do we know much about the political behavior of the city in its early history. Based on the evidence that is available, however, it is clear that Rome did not (and could not) simply transplant its identity into northern Italy by means of its colony of Ariminum. Instead, Ariminum was a community of its own, with its own acculturated identity which combined elements of the local and the imperial. Ann Glennie describes Ariminum as a “hybridized colony,” combining the Roman elements that the coloni brought with them with preexisting Gallic culture. The evidence supports this assertion: while Ariminum was undoubtedly a Roman satellite and behaved accordingly, the civic identity of the colony was twofold. On the one hand it tied itself into the Roman identity through pottery, religion, and ritual, while on the other hand it explicitly left space for local traditions and identity, as evidenced by the numismatic evidence. The different segments of the population (coloni and locals) were also explicitly merged by instituting vici and pagi to which they all belonged together. The colony thus effectively integrated the area into the Roman empire without having to perform the insurmountable task of displacing the local culture entirely.
Paestum
Paestum too was founded in the wake of conquest. Following the Pyrrhic War Roman influence in Magna Graecia increased enormously, and this influence was solidified by the foundation of colonies in the area. Paestum was not a new foundation: originally founded as Poseidonia by Greek settlers around 600, the city fell under Lucanian control in the fifth century and remained Lucanian until the Roman settlement in 273. Archaeological remains of all types have been found at the site, including, unlike in Ariminum, much architectural evidence. Paestum possesses some of the best preserved Greek temples in the world. This is partly due to the large degree of cultural continuity in the city after the Lucanian conquest: archaeological evidence shows a continuance of production of Greek pottery and Hellenic architecture, as well as religious continuity. The question is if this continuity still existed in the Roman colony, and what, if any, expressions of identity followed from it.
Due to the large amount of material remains not all of them will be treated here. Instead, only the evidence most relevant to Paestum’s identity will be covered. Perhaps most striking is the Roman forum, designed at or immediately after the founding and then gradually expanded and filled in. While detailed analyses of the forum in Ariminum have so far proven impossible, the forum in Paestum is well-studied. Present are typically Roman civic buildings such as a comitium, curia, tabularium, and amphitheater. Several temples to Roman deities have also been found. Several of these structures are much later additions (as is obvious with the buildings related to Augustus, for instance) and it is impossible to be certain if the comitium, curia, and tabularium were early constructions or later additions as well. Nonetheless, the forum as it is seems to conform to Gellius’ model of the colony as a simulacrum of Rome. Mario Torelli agrees that the construction of the forum, of which at least the general layout dates to the early colony, is evidence that the political center of the city was moved from the large Greek agora to the north (which was subsequently abandoned) to a new quintessentially Roman space.
The assignment of the magistracies of the colony support this view. Epigraphic evidence shows that these offices were occupied almost evenly by Romans and Lucanians. For example, ILP 18, 65, 89, 97, 111, 116, 196, 198, 202, and many others connect Oscan-Lucanian names like the Ceppii, Digitii, Egnii, Mineii, and Vennei with the offices of quaestor. Likewise, among others, ILP 81, 90, 139, 144, 157, 163, 176, and 181 mention quaestors with Roman names like the Claudii, Coccei, Flaccei, Ligustii, Plaetorii, Sextilii, and Valerii. This shows not only, like Flaminia Arcuri argues, that Lucanians played a major role in Paestum’s ruling class, but also that these Lucanians were willing to adopt Roman titles and hold offices with a distinctly Roman character. The same sentiment can be found in the ceramics recovered from Paestum. In the early history of the colony most pottery is of the ‘Atelier des Petites Estampilles’-type, which is a typically Roman and Latial style of pottery. Torelli describes the finds as a local imitation of Roman pottery. This again shows at least a cultural shift, if not a shift in identity.
However, there is evidence that tells a different story as well, or at least that significantly nuances the narrative of steady Romanization and adoption of Roman identity in Paestum that one might be tempted to construct based on the above. For instance, the coinage issued in Paestum is virtually unchanged by the foundation of the Roman colony. Pre-Roman coinage from Paestum typically has an image of Poseidon on the obverse and a trident, dolphin, or bull on the reverse (figure 4). Coins minted after the foundation of the Roman colony mostly show the same scenes (figure 5), even if other deities are somewhat more common in this period. There are some changes, like the shift from showing a standing Poseidon to showing only his head en profil, but the deity itself is unchanged. This implies some degree of continuity between Greek-Lucanian and Roman Paestum. As with Ariminum, the design of coinage is a conscious and deliberate process and if Paestum wanted to rid itself of its Greek-Lucanian past it would certainly have chosen different designs.
This continuity is also visible in the colony’s sanctuaries. Unlike the agora, the older Greek temples were preserved and kept in use. Additionally, the newer Roman sanctuaries were built in locations where the temenos of the Greek temples would not be broken or disturbed, thus implying a degree of respect for these older temples shown by the new occupants of Paestum. Torelli posits that the old temples were absorbed into the new Roman sacred landscape of the city center, which he affectionately describes as a ‘little Aventine,’ mirroring the landscape of the Aventine hill in Rome. While it may indeed have been the case that the Roman coloni appropriated the Greek temples for their own purposes, the respect shown for these temples and their temenos nonetheless implies that the coloni were not trying to assert their Roman identity by removing Greek culture root and stem – they were content with a lighter touch and a degree of acculturation.
Looking at the remains of burial grounds, meanwhile, reveals an interesting dichotomy. All the evidence presented so far shows a respect for and acculturation with the Greek element in Paestum. Coins were minted with Greek deities on them, and Greek sanctuaries were respected and preserved. On the other hand, it seems that the Lucanian elite, even if it was allowed to take part in magistracies, was to some degree forcibly Romanized. For instance, Angela Pontrandolfo has shown that colonial burial chambers were in many cases placed on top of older Lucanian tombs. This rendered the extravagantly painted tombs, a symbol of the Lucanian elite, inaccessible, erasing part of identity of this elite by blocking access to one of its most important expressions. It seems unlikely that this was anything but a conscious effort by the Romans to supplant part of the Lucanian identity with a Roman, or at least Romano-Greek, colonial identity. The Greek identity, meanwhile, was given no such treatment in Paestum.
The evidence from Paestum shows complex interactions between three major identity groups. Greek, Lucanian, and colonial Roman identities existed alongside each other, but they were not equal. The forum and colonial sanctuaries show a population expressing its Roman identity in a manner similar to Gellius’ “mini-Romes” – identity was asserted by copying the city of Rome on a smaller scale. Simultaneously, coinage and the treatment of preexisting temples in Paestum show a continued expression of and respect for Greek identity. This identity was, to a degree, incorporated in the new Romanocentric colonial identity of Paestum through the appropriation and repurposing of the Greek temples. Finally, the Lucanian identity received mixed treatment. On the one hand, part of the identity was erased, as Lucanian tombs were supplanted and made inaccessible by Roman burial chambers. On the other, the Lucanian elite was a major part of the ruling class of Paestum and provided many of its magistrates. It seems most likely that, recognizing the power of the Lucanians, the Roman colonists attempted to assimilate the Lucanians to some degree. Finding out if this was indeed the case, and if so how successful it was, would require further, more extensive, research into Roman-Lucanian relations. Either way, Paestum was indeed a melting pot and exhibited complex identity interactions in its architecture, coinage, burial culture, epigraphy, and other material remains.
Conclusion
Ariminum and Paestum exemplify that Roman colonization did not simply consist of the wholesale transplantation of Romans and Roman culture and identity into ‘foreign’ areas. While this is by no means a novel statement, it is nonetheless worth making since it acknowledges the complexity of interactions between various identities and cultures in colonial scenarios.
In both colonies Roman and local identity coexisted, as evidenced by coinage, architecture, ceramics, and more. In Ariminum the negotiation towards a new colonial identity that melded all of these complexities into a coherent whole seems to have been mostly peaceful and cooperative. There is no evidence of the suppression of one identity over another – instead, the new Roman ‘rulers’ provided space for Celtic expressions of identity (for example in coinage), while gently nudging the local population towards Rome by including them in Roman ritual and material culture. In Paestum the situation was more complicated. Greek identity seems to have been favored over Lucanian identity, which shows some signs of having been partly suppressed. Greek identity was given more space and was generally respected. Romans made an effort to incorporate Greek identity into their own colonial Roman identity. There is also clear evidence of a somewhat forceful takeover of the political space by Romans, as evidenced by the new Roman forum and the abandonment of the Greek agora, while explicitly religious spaces like sanctuaries were treated more gently and melded with Roman religious space over time. Like in Ariminum, coinage was left virtually untouched by the Romans, who continued to mint Greek-style coins.
In general, it seems that Roman coloni were more than willing to acculturate with local identities. This was relatively easy in the case of new foundations in areas with little in the way of preexisting elites, like Ariminum. Meanwhile, colonies in existing settlements with strong, entrenched elites like in Paestum required more force in order to enable acculturation between Romans and locals, and to prevent wholesale assimilation of the coloni into the local population. In either case, no attempt was made to entirely uproot local identities. It was clearly important to Rome to establish and entrench significant elements of Roman identity into the Latin colonies, but that did not mean that the colony had be just Roman. It could comfortably be an amalgamation of Roman and local identities – a unique identity in and of itself, tied to both Rome and the local population.
Bibliography
Arcuri, Flaminia. “In margine ad alcune epigrafi romane di Paestum.” Bollettino Storico di Salerno e
Principato di Citra 4, no. 1 (1986): 5-15.
Bradley, Guy Jolyon, John-Paul Wilson, and Edward Bispham, eds. Greek and Roman colonization:
Origins, ideologies and interactions. Swansea: Classical Press of Wales, 2006.
Bucher, Bernd, and Ursula Jasper, “Revisiting ‘identity’ in International Relations: From identity as
substance to identifications in action,” European Journal of International Relations 23, no. 2
(2017): 391-415.
Cerchiai, Luca, Lorena Jannelli, and Fausto Longo, eds. The Greek cities of Magna Graecia and Sicily.
Los Angeles: Getty Publications, 2004.
Coarelli, Filippo. “Vici di Ariminum.” Caesarodunum 30 (1995): 175-80.
Crawford, Michael H. Roman republican coinage, vol 1. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press,
1974.
Eckstein, Arthur M. Mediterranean anarchy, interstate war, and the rise of Rome. Berkeley:
University of California Press, 2006.
Giorgi, Andrea de, ed. Cosa and the colonial landscape of republican Italy (Third and second centuries
BCE). Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press, 2019.
Krauss, Friedrich. Paestum, die Griechischen Tempel. Berlin: Mann, 1976.
Marzullo, Antonio. Paestum. Rome: E.N.I.T., 1933.
Mello, Mario and G. Voza, Le inscrizioni latine di Paestum, voll. 2. Naples: 1969.
Mello, Mario. Paestum Romana: Ricerche storiche. Rome, 1974.
Morel, Jean Paul. “Artisanat et colonization dans l’Italie romaine aux IVe et IIIe siècles av. J.-C.”
DialArch 6 (1988): 49-63.
Morel, Jean Paul. “Etudes de céramique campanienne, I: L'atelier des petites estampilles.” Mélanges
de l'école française de Rome 81, no. 1 (1969): 59-117.
Napoli, Mario. Paestum. Novara: Istituto Geografico De Agostini, 1970.
Ortalli, Jacopo. “Tra storia e archaeologica: Quali coloni ad “Ariminum”?” Archeologica Classica 58
(January 2007): 353-69.
Stek, T.D. Cult places and cultural change in republican Italy: A contextual approach to religious
aspects of rural society after the Roman conquest. Amsterdam: Amsterdam University Press, 2009.
Terrenato, Nicola. The early Roman expansion into Italy: Elite negotiation and family agendas.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2019.
Theodorescu, Dinu, Emanuele Greco, and Fausto Longo. Paestum: Scavi, studi, ricerche, bilancio di
un decennio 1988-1998. Pandemos: Fondazione Paestum, 2000.
Torelli, Mario. Tota Italia: Essays in the cultural formation of Roman Italy. Oxford: Clarendon Press,
1999.
Tsetskhladze, Gocha R., Alexandru Avram, and James Hargrave, eds. The Danubian lands between
the Black, Aegean and Adriatic seas (7th century BC – 10th century AD). Oxford: Archaeopress Publishing, 2015.
Wonder, John W. “What happened to the Greeks in Lucanian-occupied Paestum? Multiculturalism in
southern Italy.” Phoenix 56, no. 1/2 (2002): 40-55.
Comments
Post a Comment