Essay: What made Roman colonies Roman PDF

Preview

Summary

Essay for the Prelims Roman Core module....

Description

What made Roman colonies Roman?

The question of Romanisation is and always has been a rather difficult one. When pondering upon the matter of what really made Roman colonies Roman, one must essentially be faced with the question of how to define ‘Roman’ in the first place. Traditionally, scholars have seen Romanisation as the way in which the Empire brought ‘civilisation’ to the provinces. Thus one may perhaps observe the differences between the sets of values of colonies and towns possessing a lower status in order to observe what really made the former Roman. This approach is strengthened by the fact that the colonies were towns consisting of Roman citizens, mostly veterans, planted in newly conquered territories. In essence, they could be seen as military settlements, intended to subdue the local populations. This is especially prominent in the case of the colonies in Germany. It appears, then, that the Romanness of the colonies might have been defined by their separateness from the local population. This essay will examine whether this hypothesis holds water by taking into consideration the status of Roman citizenship, the physical appearance of the colonies, and their relationship with Rome. It will primarily focus of colonies in Carthage and Germany but also Augusta Emerita, using Athens as a point of contrast to highlight the differences in cultural values.

One of the prime factors for determining what made Roman colonies Roman is the status of the residents in terms of Roman citizenship. Gellius states in his Attic Nights:

But the relationship of the “colonies” is a different one; for they do not come into citizenship from without, now grow from roots of their own, but they are as it were transplanted from the State and have all the laws and institutions of the Roman people. This condition... is thought preferable and superior because of the greatness and majesty of the Roman people... (Gellius, Attic Nights, 16.13)

From this passage we can already observe how colonies were instinctively defined around the status of Roman citizenship. The possession of citizenship by the

residents was not the crucial part of marking the colonies as Roman; rather it was the fact that the inhabitants had possessed citizenship from the very beginning. And indeed in some of the colonies we can observe the lack, or at least sluggishness, of communication between the local population – i.e. the natives of the land that was colonised, and the Roman settlers. For example in the Nijmegen area, only ten per cent of finds constituted of native hand made pottery whilst ninety per cent of them were Belgic or Roman wares. 1 These finds indicate that there must have been some trade links between the two populations, however it is clear that the colonists placed more emphasis on the produce from back home. Therefore, we can say that the Roman colonies were made Roman through the way in which the Roman settlers differentiated themselves from the local populations. If contact did exist, it was very often limited to the male sphere of the society as most of the interaction took place in a military context. We often hear of these native chiefs by their Roman names – this means that they were often granted citizenship by the Julio-Claudian emperors themselves.2 However, this did not make them ‘Roman’ in the same sense as the colonists and the bestowment of citizenship was restricted to a very limited segment of the native society. A somewhat different, but nevertheless enlightening trend can be observed in Athens. It is important to note that it was not a Roman colony even though it was significantly Romanised under the empire. When looking at the record of contributions in this polis, one cannot help but note that all of the ‘big men’ did not originate from Rome but from Attika. Indeed, the reluctance of the Athenian elite to adopt Roman citizenship is rather conspicuous during this time period.3 It is possible to contrast this phenomenon in Athens to the Roman colonies, where citizens, often at the urging of an emperor, undertook the main initiatives. Subsequently, one can suggest that what made the Roman colonies Roman was the involvement of Roman citizens in the development of the city as well as the inhabitants’ distinction from the local population through their long-term possession of Roman citizenship.

Another significant aspect that set the colonies apart from the native populations and hence underscored their Romanness was the physical appearance 1 Bloemers, p75 2 Bloemers,p80-1 3 Alcock, p4

of the cities. The Roman colonies were often considerably larger than local settlements and had carefully laid out street plans. Furthermore, elements of their architecture were in direct relation with and very often extremely similar to famous imperial monuments in Rome. A good example to illustrate his building trend is the colony of Augusta Emerita. At least five Roman temples have been identified in the city, one of them bearing a striking resemblance to the temple of Mars Ultor in Rome. Furthermore the way the Temple of Diana is incorporated into the municipal Forum calls to mind the Forum of Augustus. Significantly, its elaborate form and central location indicate that it must have been part of the original city plan. 4 These constructions are important in constituting the idea of the colony being ‘Roman’. Through a building programme that calls to mind some of the most significant construction projects of the capital, directly related to the imperial family, the colony was able to present itself as a smaller, more distant version of Rome. This is rather important, especially considering that Augusta Emerita was probably meant to demonstrate the wealth of the empire to the newly subdued people of Lusitania.5 The fact that the monumental buildings were incorporated in the original plan of the city as well show how it was supposed to be an impressive and ‘Roman’ city from the beginning. We can thus witness a trend whereby the Romanness of a colony could be defined by perhaps not the occupants of the colony but rather by its distinction from the surrounding settlements. Underscoring relations to Rome in terms of physical buildings was just a part of that. Another aspect that set the Roman colonies apart and defined them as Roman was the setting out of a regular street plan. The Colonia Concordia Iulia in Carthage is outstanding in the regularity of her street plan. It does not take into account the majority of the local topography and imposes a coastal alignment upon the urban landscape in a manner that is almost brutal. 6 This type of an organisation was not uncommon of Roman colonies and thus it could be counted among the main characteristics of what made a Roman colony Roman. The carefully designed urban spaces would clearly be different from the more organically developed local establishments, thus yet again emphasising the idea that what made Roman colonies Roman was the idea that they somehow stood apart from the natives. It is 4 Osland, p47 5 Osland, p46 6 Rakob, p76

quite interesting, though, that we do witness coexistence between the local and central Italian building techniques in the Carthaginian colony. 7 This indicates that the physical distinction was not necessarily taken to an extreme. Thus, it would appear that it was the visual image of the colonies just as much as the less immediately tangible status of citizenship that made the Roman colonies Roman.

Yet one might argue that the visual representation in towns that were not colonies also acquired a much more Roman feel, for example, many of the eastern Greek poleis had Roman elements incorporated into their architecture. This is especially prominent when it comes to the agoras. The upper agora at Ephesos was transformed by generous donors of Roman origin. Among the new buildings constructed was a basilica dedicated to Artemis, Augustus, Tiberius, and the demos of Ephesos by Caius Sextilius Pollio, his wife, and their children. One could possibly infer that the position of the structure calls to mind the Forum at Rome. 8 It is interesting then, that a town that was not actually a Roman colony also acquired physical traits recalling the image of the imperial structures of the capital. One would have to doubt then, whether the physical context truly was as significant to defining the Roman colonies as Roman as the previous paragraph would suggest. It also makes one wonder about the role of citizenship, as there were quite a few Romans active in Ephesos at the time. However, it would appear that the current status of citizenship as not as important to defining a colony as Roman as the status of citizenship at the time of its founding. Augustus says about the men serving in the legions under him in his Res Gestae: Considerably more than 300,000 of these I have settled in colonies or sent back to their towns... and to all of them I allotted pieces of land or else gave money...” (Res Gestae Divi Augusti, 3)

Thus as the colonies were usually settlements of either current military personnel, as in the case of Germany, or veterans, as in the case of Colonia Concordia Iulia, one could say that the colonies were essentially defined as Roman through their origins rather than any current socio-political standing of the residents or physical state of 7 Rakob, p82 8 Walker, p70

being. This idea also brings one back to the concept of Romanness being defined through the differentiation of self from other – the Roman colonies were situated in locations discordant with the native settlements. 9 They were typically set on new land, as in the case of Augusta Emerita, and therefore clearly delineated as a separate entity from the native population of the province and their settlements.

10

One could assert, then, that what made the Roman colonies Roman was in large part their origin as opposed to their physical appearance and status of inhabitants, even though the role of the latter two cannot wholly be discredited.

In conclusion, there is no easy answer to the question, even thought it may seem straightforward at the first glance, of what made Roman colonies Roman. Romanness is most prominently expressed, one would have to argue, in delineating differences between the characteristics of colonies and native settlements. Initially, one might consider the status of Roman citizenship and ties the town had with its founder. It is indeed true that ancient writers found the intrinsic quality of the citizenship in the colonies to be one of their defining attributes and thus it must be seen as a factor marking out the colonies as Roman to a certain extent. Another aspect, the physical appearance of the colonies that recalls imperial monuments in Rome, also appears as a tempting argument. It is weakened, however, when one realises that towns that were not colonies, such as Ephesos, also had increasingly Romanising architectural features and many Roman citizens actively involved in the polis’ business. Subsequently, one must return to the idea of the inherent Roman citizenship as the defining feature of what made the Roman colonies Roman. The significance of the colony being built on previously unused land was that it clearly marked the new town as a separate entity from the native settlements. Therefore, we can say that the physical structure of the colonies defined them as Roman to only a small extent, whilst the more important features marking their Romanness were the socio political status of the settlers as well as their clear differentiation from the local population.

9 Bloemers, p84 10 Osland, p46

Bibliography Gellius, Attic Nights 16. 13.8-9 Augustus, Res Gestae (ed. A Cooley, Cambridge, 2009) S. Alcock ‘The Problem of Romanization, the power of Athens’ in M. C. Hoff and S. I. Rotroff (eds) The Romanization of Athens (Oxford, 1997) S. Walker, ‘Athens under Augustus’ in M.C. Hoff and S. I. Rotroff (eds) The Romanization of Athens (Oxford, 1997) F. Rakob ‘The Making of Augustan Carthage’ in Romanization and the City: creation, transformations and failures (Proceedings of a Conference held at the American Academy at Rome) E. W. B. Fentress, ed., JRA Supplement, 38 (Rhode Island 2000) D. Osland, The Early Roman Cities of Lusitania (Oxford, 2006) J. H. F. Bloemers, ‘Lower Germany: plura consilio quam vi, proto-urban settlement development and integration of native society’, in Blagg and Millett, eds, The Early Roman Empire in the West (1990)...