The Impact of Roman Expansion and Colonization On Ancient Italy in The Republican Period. From Diffusionism To Networks of Opportunity
The Impact of Roman Expansion and Colonization On Ancient Italy in The Republican Period. From Diffusionism To Networks of Opportunity
The Impact of Roman Expansion and Colonization On Ancient Italy in The Republican Period. From Diffusionism To Networks of Opportunity
Research (NWO)_ as part of the Veni project Colonial rural networks. Dispersed settlement
and colonial expansion in the Roman Republic (c. 4th -1st centuries BC), 2012, Project
Number 275-61-003 P.I. Dr. T.D. Stek, hosted at the Faculty of Archaeology, Leiden
Tesse D. Stek
Faculty of Archaeology
Einsteinweg 2
Email: [email protected]
1
Key words
Abstract
Roman colonization and expansionism in the Republican period, and its impact on ancient
Italy, are intensely debated in current ancient historical and archaeological research.
Traditional, diffusionist views from the late 19th and especially the 20th century have recently
been heavily criticized, and many socio-economic and cultural developments in ancient Italy
(e.g. ‘romanization’) have been disconnected from Roman conquest and expansionism.
Although this development has been extremely important and salutary, in this paper it is
argued that we should be careful not to throw away the baby with the bathwater. Very recent
and ongoing research can be seen as pointing at real Roman impact in various spheres - if in
different ways and places than traditionally assumed. Inverting the causal logic between new
developments in ancient Italy and Roman colonization, it is argued that Roman expansionism
ancient Italy. The privileged status of colonial communities then energized and redrew
existing constellations, thus using, but also impacting on pre-existing configurations. Such a
view stimulates us to rethink the primary incentives behind Roman colonization, and to
2
I Introduction
“In the consulship of Lucius Genucius and Servius Cornelius there was in general a respite from
foreign wars. Colonies were established at Sora and Alba. Six thousand settlers were enrolled for Alba,
in the Aequian country. Sora had belonged to the territory of the Volsci, but the Samnites had got
possession of it; to this place were sent four thousand men.”
L. Genucio Ser. Cornelio consulibus ab externis ferme bellis otium fuit. Soram atque Albam coloniae
deductae. Albam in Aequos sex milia colonorum scripta. Sora agri Volsci fuerat, sed possederant
Samnites; eo quattuor milia hominum missa. (Liv. 10.1.1-2. Translation from the Loeb Classical
Library Ed.)
This quote from Livy’s Ab urbe condita is just one example of a typical, even relatively
detailed, reference found in the literary sources for the establishment of colonists by Rome in
newly conquered territories. In this case the number of colonists is given; in other instances
we just hear that a colony was established, and nothing more (e.g. colonia Aesernia deducta
est, Liv. Per. 16). Concise as these references are, the establishment of thousands of new
settlers in freshly won territory must have been quite an enterprise and experience, for both
the new settlers and the original inhabitants of the area. It sparks curiosity about the impact
that Roman colonization had on the Italian peninsula, its landscape and its peoples, and raises
the question of how colonial and native communities responded to the new situation.
It goes without saying that the potential impact of Roman colonization on ancient
Italian communities depends on the character of the colonies themselves, and on the character
and intensity of the contact between Italic communities and the new colonial ones. These
closely interrelated issues are currently heavily debated by both ancient historians and
archaeologists, and old views are rapidly being challenged or replaced by newly emerging
concepts and models. Many of these new developments have just recently started, and most
are still far from being crystallized or indeed generally accepted. Yet, since they are too
important to be left out from any discussion of the impact of colonization on ancient Italy,
these developing theories and their potential impact on the debate will be considered here,
even if in a necessarily schematic manner. The recent developments in thinking about Roman
colonization and expansionism and its relationship with cultural change in ancient Italy have
3
strong deconstructivist tendencies. Much of the traditionally assumed characteristics of
Roman colonization and the related mechanisms of cultural change have been, rightly,
only appear to diminish the effective impact of Roman colonization, and do not necessarily
undermine the notion of Roman influence in itself and as a whole. It can be argued that,
actually, they have opened the door to less-expected forms and patterns of impact, opening
up interesting and dynamic forms of Roman colonial impact on, and interaction with, the
Italic populations.
Long before the rapid expansion of Rome especially from the fourth century BC
onwards, colonization movements had been an integral part of the behavior of most
communities in ancient Italy and in the wider Mediterranean. Ample literary references are
available for various Greek, Etruscan and Italic migratory movements in the Italian peninsula
(e.g. Aequi: Liv. 4.49.7; Samnites: Liv. 4.37.1; Etruscans: Liv. 5.33.8; Volscians: Liv. 7.27.2;
Umbrians: Strabo 5.1.10; Lucanians: Strabo 6.1.3; cf. Kornemann 1901, 513; Torelli 1981),
not to mention the “sacred spring” myths that probably reflect actual early Italic migrations
too.
sorts, first of Troy and then via Lavinium of Alba Longa—displayed already in the Regal and
Archaic Periods expansionist strategies involving the confiscation of territories and the
foundation of new communities on them. Even in the first years of existence of the city, the
mythical founder Romulus is imagined to have sent out several colonies. Although partly
mythical and often clearly anachronistic, the references to Archaic and early Republican
migrations and expansionism certainly reflect a mobile ancient reality. These movements are
4
than as state-sponsored enterprises (Càssola 1988; Cornell 1995, e.g. 143-150; Bradley 2006;
Chiabà 2006; Chiabà 2011; Termeer 2010, contra e.g. Coarelli 1990), and are part of a
widespread Mediterranean phenomenon (cf. Horden and Purcell 2000, 386-387). In this
period, local populations appear to have been included in the colonies, such as in Antium in
467 BC, where native Volscians were enrolled, as well as Romans, Latins and Hernici (Liv.
3.1.5-7; D. H. 9.59.2).
the Latin War (338 BC), when Rome also formally established her dominance (Cornell
1989b; Cornell 1989a; Cornell 1995, 301-304; Oakley 1997, 342-344). The list of colonies
sent out by Rome from that moment onwards is impressive (see Fig. 1 and 2), with 33
colonies being founded within the little over a century until the Second Punic War. This
period has been described as the “golden age” of colonization by one of the most eminent
scholars of Roman colonization, Edward Togo Salmon (1969, 57), and coincides
chronologically with the Roman conquest and incorporation of the Italian peninsula. After the
incorporation or pacification of the various Italic communities and the warding off foreign
invaders such as Pyrrhus and Hannibal, colonization slows down, and in the second century
BC enters another era with the Gracchan land reforms and veteran settlements of the late
Republic. Attempts at classifying the different colonies that were sent out during the history
of Rome already began in the late Republican period (Crawford 1995; Bispham 2000;
Bispham 2006), but the rigid distinction between priscae latinae coloniae, coloniae latinae,
coloniae maritimae, and coloniae militares famously put forward by Salmon is primarily a
modern systematizing construct (see Fig. 1). A real juridical difference is, in any case, the
distinction between colonies whose citizens had the Latin right, the so-called “Latin
colonies,” and those colonies consisting of people with full Roman citizenship (“citizen
5
colonies”), that were usually smaller in size. The focus of this chapter is on the mid-
In order to appreciate the debate on the potential cultural impact of Roman colonies, it is
important to discuss first the main incentives behind Roman colonization as they have been
recognized in scholarship on the subject. The issue of the motivation behind colonization is
fraught with problems because the relevant written sources are all of much later date, mostly
of the late Republican and early Imperial periods. If the basic information provided on the
chronology and the sites involved can probably be generally accepted (cf. esp. Oakley 1995
and 1997), the information given about the historical motivations is much more likely to have
been biased by concerns of the time that writers such as Livy and Dionysius wrote their
histories. Modern scholars have therefore dismissed the historical accounts on the matter as
anachronistic to varying degrees, especially, of course, for the earlier time periods. In modern
scholarship, three main incentives for sending out colonies are usually recognized: their role
in military strategy, their function as providing land for the poor, and their Romanizing role.
the primary motivations for establishing colonies affects the ways and extent to which the
colonies potentially impacted on local Italic communities. Analogously, it is also useful for
exemplified below, specific academic positions on the rationale behind Roman colonization
define automatically the range of their impact. Certainly, in reality the incentives behind
colonizing movements must have always been pluriform and multi-faceted. Establishing
colonies may have served different goals, which were also experienced and/or emphasized
differently by different groups within society, as well as by later historians (Bradley 2006,
6
171). Also, it should be kept in mind that the original intentions behind establishing a colony
and the actual course of events after it need not be in accord. An important reminder of this
potential discrepancy between Roman plans and harsh historical reality is the story of the
colonies of Buxentum and Sipontum. There, a Roman consul accidentally found out that the
colonies were actually deserted only eight years after their establishment in 194 BC (Liv.
39.23.3-4). That this was not exactly according to the plan is confirmed by the action taken in
colonists. Yet, apart from such considerations, different forms of settlement and interaction
with local inhabitants can be expected according to different rationales behind the colonizing
movement. If military control of an area or route was the main goal, both colonists and their
settlement logic may have behaved differently than in a scenario where landless people came
The close correlation between warfare, conquest, and the foundation of colonies in the
literary descriptions, provided notably by Livy on the wars of conquest in the Italian
peninsula, has suggested that the primary function of the colonies of the mid-Republican
period was strategic. For instance, the placement of the colonies of Fregellae (328 BC),
Interamna Lirenas (312), Luceria (314), Beneventum (268), and Aesernia (263) seem to
follow closely Roman advancement in, and control over, the area during the Samnite Wars (c.
343-290) and the aftermath with Italic groups rising against Rome with Pyrrhus (280-270)
(e.g. Toynbee 1965, 157-160). Also the relationship between the construction of the main
Roman roads, facilitating the movement of armies, goods and ideas between Rome and the
recently conquered areas on the one hand, and the establishment of colonies on the other, has
often been seen as corroborating the link between military strategy and colonization (Salmon
1969; Coarelli 1988; de Cazanove 2005). The image of colonies as strategic strongholds,
placed where they are and in the way they are for military purposes (Cicero’s “bulwarks of
7
empire:” propugnacula imperii; Leg. Agr. 2.23.73, or Livy’s claustra; e.g. Liv. 6.9.4) is
therefore paramount in scholarship on the subject (esp. Salmon 1936, 1955 and 1969;
recently e.g. Broadhead 2007 and Sisani 2007). It is almost universally accepted as a primary
motivation for colonization in the mid-Republican period, and discussion has rather focused
on the extent of the strategic rationale already in the early Republic. However, although
military strategy undoubtedly was an important factor in the mid-Republican period, we shall
see that other incentives may have played a role, and that an exclusive military-strategic
Another incentive for establishing colonies that is regularly and directly transmitted
by the written sources regards land. Sending out colonies in order to resolve socio-economic
and demographic problems in the city of Rome features prominently in the sources for the
early as well as for the late Republican period. The basic idea is that sending out colonists
would help rid the city of poor, landless people. It gave these people the opportunity to
colonization thus relieved the city of the landless poor and strengthened Roman power at the
same time (e.g. Salmon 1955, 65; Brown 1980, 4). The socio-economic function, or effect, of
Roman colonization has been accepted especially for colonies of the second century BC
onwards, when Roman hegemony was already established, and when agrarian discussions
dominated the political agenda. Whether it also was an important consideration in early and
mid-Republican colonization is a moot point. For the early Republican period Livy indicates
that tempering plebeian unrest by land distribution could be a primary motive, but his
assertions have often been rejected as being anachronistic (e.g. Brunt 1971; Càssola 1988;
Erdkamp 2011). References to land distributions, however, seem to come to the fore too
regularly to ignore this factor altogether for the early and mid-Republican periods (Oakley
2005; Bradley 2006; Patterson 2006). It has also been argued that for solving land issues
8
viritane colonization, that is, individual land plots handed out to colonists without a clear
primary settlement of reference, would be more appropriate an instrument (Salmon 1969; for
Lastly, but by no means less important for this chapter, colonies have been regarded
as responsible for the spread of Roman socio-political ideas, technology, language and
culture into the Italic areas (e.g. Reid 1913; Salmon 1982; David 1994; Torelli 1999).
Colonies have been described as “the real instruments of Romanization” of the newly
conquered areas and their inhabitants (Fraccaro 1931; Salmon 1969). Romanization is here
understood as a civilizing process that was in the end beneficial for the affected peoples. It
would have prepared the Italic peoples for their “final destiny” to be integrated in the Roman
empire, as it later has been viewed (Salmon 1982). An early expression of this notion can be
“Small, numerically, as the number of Latin and Roman settlers in these colonies was, their influence
on the regions around them was immense. The local dialects everywhere gave way before Latin, and
the populations were in course of time prepared, by subtle changes of culture and sentiment, to accept
and even to welcome complete absorption into the Roman state.” (Reid 1913, 64)
The supposedly superior character of the Roman colonial socio-political ideas, technology
and culture have conversely been seen as fundamental in explaining the success of Roman
“Romanizing” aspect of colonies has, however, since long been debated. Whereas some
scholars have seen their civilizing role as part and parcel of a conscious imperial strategy
(e.g. Reid, Mommsen), others have viewed it rather as a secondary and essentially
unpremeditated side-effect (notably Salmon in his earlier work). It is interesting to note that
this motivation for Roman colonization is, in contrast to the military considerations and land
distribution, not directly transmitted by the ancient sources (the few references often cited in
regard need special pleading, in any case: cf. below for further discussion).
9
Although these different interpretations of the motivation behind colonization have
clearly divergent implications, scholarship on the subject has often sought to integrate the
different rationales for Roman colonization in one model, creating a hierarchical relationship
between them. In this hierarchical model, the military-strategic function comes first, potential
beneficial effects for the Roman poor come second, and a Romanizing influence is often
regarded as a last, if positive, side-effect of Roman colonization (cf. Pelgrom and Stek 2014).
Even if it was, according to many scholars, unintentional or only a secondary goal, the effect
of Roman colonization on the Italic populations has nonetheless been regarded as massive
and incisive. Of course, the subjugation and fate of the original inhabitants will have
developed differently according to the historical situation. The literary sources report cases of
regularly taken place (cf. below). The scholarly focus has, however, usually been on the
positive, developmental, effects of Roman colonization. The foundation of the new Roman
communities in the midst of the Italic peoples would, indeed, have marked the beginning of
communities. The most commonly accepted developments with which Roman colonization
First, the development of urbanism has been seen as essentially stimulated by the
Roman conquest. The socio-political form of the classical city-state would have spread
through Rome’s colonies all-over the peninsula and further. Second, the related development
of a new socio-economic model based on independent peasant farmers would have similarly
been instigated by the ideal Roman colonial model. Third, new technology and material
10
disseminated by the colonies, such as coinage, defensive constructions and new types of
pottery such as black-gloss wares. Fourth, new religious ideas and models, often encapsulated
in new material mediums, such as anatomical votives and specific monumental temple types,
would have spread from Rome to the colonies, and from there would have influenced the
Italic areas. The notion that these important cultural changes were brought about directly by
confirmations of the character and impact of Roman colonization is in order, in which urban
and rural planning on the one hand, and religious material culture on the other are singled out
The fact that many colonial foundations display regular, gridded town plans has long
attracted the attention of scholars (Castagnoli 1972; Ward-Perkins 1974; Sommella 1988). In
combination with the evidence for the developments in the Imperial period in the
urbanization, the thesis has been developed that Rome was responsible for the planned
urbanism in the conquered areas (e.g. Castagnoli 1972, 121, recently e.g. Sisani 2007 passim;
In Italy for the Republican period, the amazing discoveries, after WWII, at the Latin
colonies of Alba Fucens (founded 303 BC) and Cosa (273), particularly invigorated the
notion that Roman expansionism and urbanism went hand in hand and were logically related.
During the Belgian and American excavations, and somewhat later at Fregellae (328), too,
almost complete town plans were uncovered, as well as impressive remains of political and
sacred buildings (Mertens 1969; Brown 1980; Coarelli and Monti 1998). In many ways, these
town plans and their public architecture seemed to reflect shared values and political ideas,
based on the mother-city of Rome. For instance, the appearance of circular political meeting
11
places or comitia in all three colonies suggested to many scholars that these colonies had
copied the model of Rome not only in their socio-political organization, but also in their
physical layout. Similarly, the central cult buildings present in many colonies were
interpreted as copies of the central cult place at Rome on the Capitol. This happened, for
instance, with the cult place on the highest point of the settlement at Cosa, and with the
remains of temples partly preserved by their incorporation into later churches, at Sora (303)
and Aesernia (263). From these colonial sites, the model would consequently have spread
further into the hinterland (as illustrated below). The idea that the colonies founded by Rome
would reflect the mother-city is old, and has especially been read into the words of Aulus
Gellius (16.13), who, paraphrasing emperor Hadrian, described colonies as “small copies and
images of sorts” of Rome. Older generations of scholars explained this passage primarily in
terms of socio-political values or the constitution (e.g. Mommsen 1912, 421; Beloch 1926,
489), but the archaeological discoveries at the mid-Republican colonies after World War II
seemed to give special significance to the small-replica idea also on the physical level of the
urban lay-out, read as a direct expression of these socio-political values (cf. Pelgrom and Stek
2014; Quinn and Wilson 2013, 2-3 for earlier interpretations of Gellius’ text as indicating a
There were obviously important differences with the city of Rome itself, which was
notoriously irregular in shape, being a so-called “organically evolved settlement.” The equal
division of urban plots in the colonies in particular seemed to reflect a way to solve social
tension within the newly established community. In a way, the new foundations came to be
Aside from the urban plan and its public spaces, the surrounding rural territory would
also have been radically organized with the establishment of a colony. Again especially after
12
World War II, research revealing enormous and incisive land organization programs around
colonial towns started to make an impact on the general perception of Roman colonization
and its effect on the landscape. Aerial photography, visualizing fossilized land division
features in the landscape, was paramount in this development (e.g. Castagnoli 1953-1955;
Bradford 1957; Chevallier 1961; Chouquer, et al. 1987). As in the primary urban settlements,
the neatly divided lands seemed to reflect an entirely new system of socio-political
organization. The neat and ordered subordination of nature that transpired from the man-
made centuration grids made a strong impact on scholars of that generation, and was often
linked with the allegedly firm and resolute Roman mind. John Bradford (1957, 149; cf.
Purcell 1990) for instance speaks of the “absolute self-assurance and great technical
competence” with which the Romans would have superimposed the same formal framework
on landscapes as different as the Po Valley and desert-like Tunisia. The sudden and massive
increase in farm sites of the Republican period recorded in archaeological field survey
projects all over Italy added to this idea of colonists settling the orderly allotted landscape.
There was at the time of discovery of these well-ordered urban and rural landscapes already
much discussion about the ultimate origins of the model, mainly known from Greek colonial
and Near Eastern precursors (Castagnoli 1972). But its relationship to Roman colonization
and expansionism in Italy seemed clear. The genuine surprise and enthusiasm about these
findings of the 1950s comes out clearly in Paul MacKendrick’s words: “these planned
communities, with their walls, their neat crisscross of streets, their fora and basilicas and
temples, and their pattern of allotments […] [testified] already to the might and the majesty
Also the relationship between the spread of particular religious models and Roman
see the spread of a specific category of votive terracottas, the so-called Etrusco-Latial-
13
Campanian type, in Italy (Comella 1981). This modern category is defined as a set of
terracotta heads, animal models, statuettes, and notably anatomical votives, i.e. terracotta
models of human body parts such as feet, hands, eyes, genitals and intestines. As can be
readily appreciated from that map, there seems to be a clear correlation between the colonial
foundations of Rome, and the archaeological attestations of this type of votive gifts. As a
result of this correlation, conversely these types of votives—and especially the readily
Roman presence (Torelli 1973), if not in the form of standard colonial foundations such as
colonies of the Latin right, then in the form of viritane or other, less formalized, forms of
colonial settlement (e.g. Coarelli 2000; Sisani 2007). It is not just material culture that is
reflect specific rituals, which in turn betray specific beliefs and traditions. Here, the
Another evocative map (Fig. 4) shows the geographical diffusion of the Etrusco-Italic
temple as indicated by architectonic terracotta decoration (Torelli 1999, 121-131). Also here
a strong correlation is suggested between Roman colonial presence and the appearance of this
type of architecture. Its significance is naturally somewhat different from the more personal
votive gifts, as these temples require considerable investment and were usually placed
centrally in public spaces. As a result, the appearance of these monumental temples has been
makers at a higher administrative level, and with a wider audience in mind. The construction
of “Capitoline” temples, echoing the central cult place and symbol of Rome itself and her
power, has thus come to be seen as a clear expression of allegiance to Rome and Roman
values. Moreover, a link has been established between the adoption of this type of temple and
14
the ideals it supposedly refers to. Indeed, in the words of Mario Torelli (1999, 127), “the
superiority of the [urban] model rendered easy and consequential the exportation of the
cultural forms ingrained in that model. Amongst these cultural forms Etrusco-Italic temple
building took first place.” Not only the Roman-ness of the temple architecture has thus been
and colonization
Over the last two decades, however, important revisions have been put forward. These
revisions and critiques affect various different aspects of the model just sketched. The reason
for their roughly contemporaneous emergence in the first place can be found in more general
shifts in intellectual and academic circles. Since the 1990s, the broader trend has been to
move away from monocausal explanations and to view specific historical developments
against the background of both local and more global trends; and in general to take a close
look at both ancient and modern imperialist and colonialist biases when interpreting our
evidence (Terrenato 2005a). Even if they are genealogically related, the various revisionist
studies that are relevant for the colonization debate can be divided roughly between those
based on new assessments of the actual empirical evidence and those focused on the
significance and meaning of established patterns of material culture. As to the first category,
seminal studies have recently questioned some of the most important pillars on which the
One important development has been the questioning of the character and outlook of
Roman colonial towns in the most important phase of Roman expansion, in the mid-
Republican period. Restudy of some of the type-sites, and especially a keen eye on the
precise chronology, has considerably questioned the notion of neat mini-Rome’s planted ex
15
novo. This revision is particularly visible for Cosa, not coincidentally the site that has been
regarded as the Roman colonial type-site par excellence. The discussed key urban elements
of the town were originally thought to neatly reflect the mother city of Rome and to derive
from the first years of the colony’s foundation in 273 BC.However, many of these elements
have now been re-dated to the period after 197 BC, when the colony was reinforced, or their
existence has been revised entirely (Fentress 2000; Sewell 2010). The similarity to Rome, as
well as to one another, of the colonial political structures of the forum and the comitium has
also been questioned (Mouritsen 2004 with, however, Coarelli 2005). The great variety of
different colonial realities has been the object of detailed study by Edward Bispham (2006),
who pointed out that the “Capitoline kit” was seldom uniform or present at all in mid-
Republican colonies.
Together with critiques of the overly ordered and anachronistically flavoured literary
record transmitted in the Roman sources (Càssola 1988; Crawford 1995; Torelli 1999;
Bispham 2006; Patterson 2006), attention has thus been drawn to the potentially strong effect
Imperial experiences may have been used to fill in the gaps in the knowledge about the actual
situation during the wave of colonization in the fourth and third centuries. In reaction, some
scholars have developed models rather based on archaic and early Republican experiences
(Bradley 2006), working on the important premise that the break between Archaic and
Republican society was perhaps not as clear-cut as it has been portrayed in the literary
sources (Terrenato 2005b). These approaches decidedly move away from an abstract,
monolithic Roman state dictating colonial foundations and imposing cultural change. The
importance of family ties and the cooptation of different groups into factions, crossing
geographical and ethnic borders, in colonial enterprises and expansionism have accordingly
received due attention (e.g. Càssola 1988; Bradley 2006; Terrenato 2014). Clearly, here we
16
move far from the imagined drawing room of the “colonial office” at Rome where the
blueprint for colonies would have been designed, in the vision of Brown (e.g. 1980, 42-44)
Also the developments that colonization would have set in motion or facilitated in the
conquered areas and abutting regions are rapidly being revised by different fields of study.
The role of Rome in urbanization, and especially in the development of planned urbanism in
Italy, for instance, is being questioned by both recent discoveries and systematic analysis of
urbanism in a broader Mediterranean perspective. As to the latter, Sewell (2010 and 2014)
has demonstrated the importance of contemporary Greek and Macedonian models in the
urban layouts of new settlements. Although elements of the new towns may demonstrate
some specifically Roman choices, much of the impressiveness of the planned towns appeared
colonization. At the same time, recent excavations at the old Latin center of Gabii point to the
early local development of planned urbanism, well before the wave of mid-Republican
Roman colonization, demonstrating that such developments could take place locally and over
a longer period of time, without the need for the importation of knowledge from elsewhere
and its consequent and systematic enforcement by the Roman state as part of a colonizing
program (Mogetta 2014). Moreover, it can be asked if in some way urbanization did not
make Roman expansion possible in the first place, rather than that it was brought about by
it.In other words, that urbanization was a requirement for integration rather than an effect of
it (Terrenato 2008).
Also, other trends in settlement, and in the spread and production of specific
categories of material culture, may be read differently in the light of the increased
archaeological knowledge of both colonized and non-colonized areas of ancient Italy. For
instance, the noted increase in small peasant farms in the Republican period seems to be part
17
rather of a larger Hellenistic trend in both colonial and non-colonial areas of Italy and the
wider Mediterranean, which seriously undermines the causal relationship posited between the
Roman conquest and the farm phenomenon with its socio-political and economic
This raises the question of whether other trends that have traditionally been linked to
The issue of land division is complex, because such divisions are notoriously hard to date
precisely, but a case has been made that land divisions may also be connected to other
moments in history, both predating and postdating Roman colonization (Pelgrom 2008; cf.
Terrenato 2008).
Also in regard to settlement forms and urbanism, Jeremia Pelgrom (2008) has argued
that the archaeological evidence for the rural settlement in the colonial territories rather
points at nucleated, clustered settlement than dispersed farms, and has suggested that
colonists lived in dispersed villages and not equally dispersed over the territory: a different
situation than the neatly ordered urban and rural image given by MacKendrick. Similarly, it
has been proposed that epigraphic evidence for village communities such as vici can be
interpreted as colonial villages with a relatively independent status and communal identity
with regard to the primary settlement of the colony, a model that would shift focus from the
Another case of recent revision regards the debate on anatomical votives and their
connection to Roman colonization. As seen above, the connection had been established on
the basis of the geographical and chronological coincidence of the find spots of these
particular votives with Roman colonization in the mid-Republican period. Recently, Fay
Glinister (2006a) has argued that the correlation is partly biased by the higher research
18
intensity in colonial areas, and that the practice of dedicating anatomical votives is
documented in non-colonial areas and contexts pre-dating the Roman conquest. Even more
importantly, she asks what was actually Roman about these votive practices, and to what
extent they were part of specifically Roman rituals or beliefs, or rather part of broader
Hellenistic trends. The factor of the bias in research intensity remains difficult to assess
without much more field research in non-colonized areas: it is hard to detect reliable patterns
with a basically skewed archaeological record. In any case, a recent analysis of all presently
available evidence re-asserts that there is, after all, a positive correlation between the location
and chronology of Roman colonial settlements and the specific type of votives (de Cazanove
2015; cf. also Sisani 2007), especially by way of distinguishing between primary and
secondary centers (i.e. imitations or variations of types prevalent in colonial contexts that
were made and used locally). An important question remains, however, what this correlation
means in practice. Is it indicative of specific, new Roman rituals and beliefs, slowly
penetrating the Italian hinterland as well, or is it rather an effect of higher consumption and
production rates in the colonial centers? With regard to the discussion on votive religion,
Glinister (2006a, 104) has indeed emphasized the role of colonies “as ethnic and religious
melting-pots,” as a result of which “colonies were enabled to act as forums of cultural and
religious interactions” in their own right, rather than seeing them as merely passing on pre-
A comparison may be drawn with black gloss pottery. Although this category of
Hellenistic pottery has been connected to Roman colonization and expansionism in similar
ways as the earlier described trends, it is quite clear that its use in general cannot be seen as
an unequivocal expression of Roman identity or Romanization (see e.g. Roth 2007). Black
glaze ware originally developed from Attic black glazed workshops and was consequently
produced at a huge scale in especially Campania and Latium, but was also produced at
19
innumerable other sites, both colonial and non-colonial (Di Giuseppe 2012). With the
discussion on the anatomical votives and the black gloss ceramics, the problematic
relationship between specific trends in material culture and their specific meaning and
significance for understanding the societies that produced and used it comes clearly to the
fore.
networks of influence?
The automatic connection between several cultural developments and Roman colonization
has thus rightly been questioned in recent years and especially since the 1990s, but in the
meantime responses to these “deconstructive” studies have been produced, too. Many of
these debates still have to be further developed on the basic level of evidence (land division
systems and settlement patterns for instance). In particular the factor of differential research
intensity in colonial and non-colonial areas is still poorly understood, and difficult to account
for in analyses at the present state of research. Apart from the fact that, generally speaking,
more research has simply been devoted to Roman(ised) contexts than Italic counterparts,
skewing our knowledge in favour of Roman (colonial or not) contexts, research projects have
also set out with specific methodologies and expectations that differ from those when
approaching “indigenous” sites and areas. Few research projects, for instance, have set out to
identify centuriation patterns in Samnite, rather than Roman areas (but see La Regina 1999),
or to look for “Capitolia” in, say, Italic hill-forts. There is thus an undeniable risk of
“confirmation bias” in Roman studies. For various aspects of Roman colonization and
expansionism more systematic comparative study is needed in order to eliminate this bias.
Nevertheless, at the present state of the documentation, I think we should not exclude
that there actually exists a positive correlation between many new socio-economic or cultural
20
developments and Roman colonization and expansionism. If in the trends described above
colonial sites indeed perform more noticeably than other sites, it is well worth asking what
the actual causal relationship is between particular developments and colonies. In several
cases, it seems indeed that the causal relation actually may be turned it on its head (cf.
Glinister 2006b on colonies and votive religion; Terrenato 2008 on expansionism and
urbanization; Bradley 2014 on colonies and roads). It is one thing to argue that the pre-
existence of some of these developments actually made integration in the Roman network
possible, rather than that they were a result of it, as we saw above. Yet, such a
characterization of the process may be too passive, especially when considering the whole
spectrum of socio-economic and cultural trends involved, some of which cannot be seen as
necessary preconditions for admission to the Roman clique. Rather, we may see the overall
pattern as the sum result of a series of opportunistic, yet conscious, decisions informed by a
range of practical considerations that differed from case to case. In that sense, Roman
Republican colonization may have been much more like other Mediterranean colonization
movements from prehistory to early modern times, and may have behaved very much
according to that same logic, which is described so well in The Corrupting Sea (Horden and
and Roman colonization, does not mean that “Rome” mattered less in the whole process.
Actually, the notion of Roman agency is crucial for understanding the creation of the overall
pattern. But it does mean that we should let go of mono-functional (i.e. military)
establish colonies was much wider than the later systematized historical tradition has led us
21
to believe (cf. above, with Fig. 1). In fact, glimpses of incentives and enterprises not
commonly associated with Roman colonization can be reconstructed from other information.
regards the specific positioning of colonies. Naturally, the sites for Roman colonial
settlements were carefully chosen with various factors of attractiveness in mind. And, no
doubt, military-strategic considerations were in many cases a crucial factor in this choice. But
indeed not even warranted by the written sources. Taking a broader perspective, the general
positioning, and especially some particular and unexpected configurations (cf. below), of
colonial settlement can be better described as tapping into, and appropriating, different
infrastructural networks. In fact, the integration in, and connectedness to, the main
infrastructural network of ancient Italy by land and the Mediterranean world by sea seems to
have been high on the priority list when targeting sites for colonization. This becomes
apparent both from the selection of new sites and in the establishment of colonies in
flourishing, existing centers. The fact that ports were often targeted for colonization is well
known (e.g. Mommsen 1912, 418), but also sites in inland areas, on cross-roads or in areas
In this regard, the correlation between Roman expansionism and access to salt is an
interesting case. Apart from its direct importance for humans and animals alike, before
refrigeration salt was an essential commodity for the conservation of food, and access to it
was very limited in ancient Italy. In an interesting paper, Adalberto Giovannini (1985) has
shown how fourth and early third century BC Roman expansion targeted the limited areas of
Italy where salt was won. This went from the conquest of Veii in 396 BC, yielding access to
the salinae near Ostia, via the otherwise not necessarily profitable Adriatic areas with the via
Valeria and the establishment of Hadria (290-286), to the via Appia and Venusia (291 C)
22
securing access to the salt of Canusium, and finally at Tarentum in 272. Another, partially
related, economic incentive behind Roman expansionism has been recognized in the Roman
integration of the transhumance networks in the central Apennines. Ella Hermon (2001, 175)
has argued that Roman colonization in the Apennines indeed followed “the rhythm of
transhumance.” To that end, main routes and nodes were incorporated, a process which
Other entrepreneurial activities, which also move far from the idealized notion of the
colony as a newly founded city-state on the model of Rome, appear in snippets of written
information provided by Greek writers. In his Enquiry into Plants, Theophrastus (c. 370-288
BC) describes a Roman expedition of 25 ships to Corsica, apparently with the intention to
found a town there (5.8.2; cf. e.g. Torelli 1981, 72-76, but cf. Amigues 1990), probably
referring to his own time or little before. A similar notice comes from Diodorus Siculus
(15.27.4) for Sardinia, who reports that 500 colonists were sent out around 386 BC. The
renewed version of the Carthaginian treaty of 348 BC, which in the new form explicitly
forbids overseas Roman settlements—something that apparently was not deemed necessary
during the first treaty—gives further credibility to these enterprises (Cornell 1995, 325-326).
The precise purpose of such expeditions is not immediately clear to us. Corsica may have
been a source of good pine, as Theophrastus explains in the chapter in the context of which
he tells us about the Roman enterprise. But such overseas activities may perhaps also be
linked with piracy (Torelli 1981, 72-76; Cornell 1989b, 315; Bispham 2012). In any case,
these undertakings are difficult to fit within the traditional paradigm of Roman colonization
and its iconic austere farmer-soldiers, which is probably why they were left out by later,
Roman sources moulding the history of Roman colonization. The Roman interest in these
types of “island opportunities” (Horden and Purcell 2000, 285) suggests that we should
broaden the traditional perspective of incentives for early and mid-Republican Roman
23
expansionism to one that includes rather different types and forms of exploitation and
interaction.
The targeting of pre-Roman cult places for Roman colonization and incorporation
could be understood in a similar way. Rather than solely marking an ideological and
symbolic display of Roman power in the religious realm, economic incentives may have
played a considerable role here, since cult places, urban and rural alike, were often important
economic hubs in regional networks (cf. Stek 2015). Cult sites represented power on the
tangible level, in socio-economic and administrative terms, since these sites were market
places and places of knowledge transfer as well as adequate spots for centralizing
administration, especially in areas where other suitable centres were absent. They also
represented power on account of the religious authority of the associated deities, which
explains the privileged status of such sites also in commercial transactions. For these reasons
they formed an important attraction for Roman expansion. Roman decision-makers should be
accorded a more active role in the integration of pre-Roman cult sites than is allowed usually.
Given all these particular choices, it may not surprise us that the selected sites—“the
colonies” as they appear to us now—in particular stand out in terms of the creation and
adoption of new influences and ideas, as well as in the production and consumption of related
innovative material culture. The special qualities or possibilities of an area or site became
The mechanisms and scenarios outlined above are not readily apparent in the later
written sources that deal explicitly with Roman colonization. But in some cases they may
provide a better historical interpretation for conquest and colonization. Generally, this means
phases and particular regional considerations is more likely to be insightful than creating a
single explanatory model for what appears to have been a variegated series of initiatives with
24
very different backgrounds and incentives at play. Also, it should be emphasized that the
mechanisms and scenarios proposed above are only “atypical” if measured against a very
strict understanding of Roman colonization. Actually, the described behavior is quite normal
for most other kinds of colonization and expansionism in (Mediterranean) history. In fact, the
neat categories of colonies of Fig. 1, and their relative “functions” in Roman history,
opportunity, allows us to explain the integration of colonies within regional networks. This
and coinage systems in colonies. Regional patterning in the adoption of colonial coinage has
been demonstrated for the northern Adriatic area, where from Ariminum to the Vestini the
same heavy weight standard and division of the as in ten, rather than twelve unciae is used,
whereas another, different, regional network can be discerned in the south within which the
colonies of Venusia and Luceria operated (Crawford 1985, 42-51; Bradley 2006, 173-174;
Termeer, forthcoming).
practices is indicative of local populations being integrated into the colony. In particular a
case has been made for Ariminum that this adaptation to local practice may point to the
inclusion of local inhabitants in the colony. But above all, this adaptation indicates eagerness
capturing of opportunities (of all sorts) in the Italian peninsula does not imply fundamental
passiveness or continuity of existing structures either. The privileged status of colonists and
power and exchange, but also established new ones as it realigned others. Therefore, the
25
special position of at least certain colonies in these networks of opportunity explains their
The perspective sketched above has, of course, little to do with the emanation of a formal,
codified Roman culture from the colonies into the barbarian hinterlands, enlightening the
Italians and granting them access to civilization. Indeed, the deconstructive trends in recent
research may perhaps give the impression that the impact of Roman colonization on ancient
Italy in the mid-Republican period was much less profound than previously imagined. Such a
conclusion would be misguided. The different research trends rather show that the lines along
which this impact took place have to be redrawn in different ways. The image of colonies as
prêt-a-porter copies of the mother city, radiating Roman culture, surely needs to be
abandoned. Yet, this does not automatically mean that the impact of the establishment of
colonial communities on local society was minimal. Rather, this impact may have been felt in
different ways and places than the presence of a civilized mini-Rome in their midst would
have had.
Whereas in the traditional “clash of civilizations” model a sharp spatial separation between
newcomers and the original inhabitants has been assumed, new research tends to demonstrate
closer and more direct face-to-face interaction between colonists and the local population.
Partly as a result of the supposed military function of mid-Republican colonies, very limited
inclusion of non-Romans in the colonies has usually been assumed for the mid-Republican
period (e.g. Brunt 1971; Sisani 2007). But recently, Guy Bradley (2006, cf. the overview in
Roselaar 2011) has argued for a more consistent presence of non-Romans in newly
established colonies also in this period. Even if the situation differed from place to place (cf.
Celuzza 2002 for an archaeological argument based on the sizes of the primary settlements of
26
Latin colonies), it seems that cohabitation was at least part of the colonies’ general practice.
communities also tend to show that we should allow for more intricate patterns of
cohabitation both in and outside the primary settlements (Pelgrom 2008; Pelgrom 2012; Stek
Interesting in this regard are the rural communities called vici that probably should be
Epigraphic and archaeological evidence for some of these rural communities show strong
adhesion to Roman cultural and religious models. For instance, in the vicus Supinum near the
colony of Alba Fucens (303 BC), dedications are made to the Roman deity Victoria, which in
models (Stek 2009). Equally, at a substantial village and sanctuary site near the colony of
Ariminum (268 BC) marble statues of Minerva and Fortuna have been found, dating to little
Such evidence suggests that the acceptance and re-elaboration of fashionable Roman models
of the time was not restricted to the urban, primary settlements associated with the colonies,
and that secondary settlements could play an important role in the development and spread of
new cultural models. Especially if one couples these findings with accumulating evidence for
indigenous religious traditions and presence in the colonial urban centers (e.g. Torelli 1999;
Liberatore 2014; Bolder-Boos 2014), a more dynamic and interwoven picture emerges, which
material culture and its meaning have emerged, emphasizing the mutability and multi-
interpretability of objects and symbols. Surely, it is impossible to recognize stable and static
symbols of Roman culture and use them bluntly to map Romanization. However, it should be
27
emphasized that these important observations do not undermine the possibility that, in well-
indeed become associated with Roman imperial success (e.g. Torelli 1999; Stek 2013). For
the interpretation of such cases, careful contextualization is clearly needed, and no inherent
superiority or “Romanness” of material culture or symbols can ever be assumed. But it would
be unwise to throw away the baby with the bathwater in our postcolonial enthusiasm, and
with the inexistence of that situation. A good example is the critical discussion of material
culture and ethnicity. It is surely hard to recognize Roman migrants in the archaeological
record, but at the same time it is rather probable that migrants actually brought sometimes
specific objects, practices, technologies, cuisine, dress et cetera with them to their new
homes.
It should also be emphasized that clear instances of identification and association with
Rome or Roman power come to the fore in several instances. Rather than seeing these as
exclusively state-ordered and immutable connections, these are often better interpreted as
local initiatives in specific historical moments and display a high degree of inventiveness and
creativity (Torelli 1999; Bispham 2006). A good example of the local evocation of Roman
models is the creative copying of Roman topography in colonial contexts (vicus Palatius,
Esquilinus, etc.). Also the colonial sacred landscape, even if locally specific and receptive of
many influences, could include clear references to the symbolic link with the mother city, or
other specifically “colonial” links (cf. below). Much of the “Romanising” elements found in
identity enhancement, and related archaisms or invented traditions—than to see them as the
28
Moreover, it seems clear that the emphasis on the Roman roots or character of
colonial communities is not necessarily stable or related to the period of foundation. Rather,
just as the cultural waves proposed for the “Romanization” of the whole of Italy (Wallace-
Hadrill 2008), the colonial preoccupations with Roman roots could be seen as different waves
in different moments of time, in which the second century BC and the late Republican period
are certainly the most visible ones. Colonists as well as colonial decision makers could thus
enhance their association with Rome and other colonies, as a group or network, when the
historical situation seemed to require so. Importantly, these communal colonial identities
were not even necessarily focused on Rome itself: the network could also reconfigure itself
around Latin, not Roman identity. An inscription on behalf of the poplo Arimenese (the
army/people of Ariminum: CIL I², 40) made in the Latin sanctuary of Diana at Nemi can
probably be interpreted in this sense (Cicala 1995; Bispham 2006). The historical context of
this specific dedication can perhaps be found in the late third century conflicts with the
Gauls. The “highlighting” of specific associations—in this case a Latin one, but in other
cases Roman, local or regional associations—seems in any case to respond to acute historical
situations. Yet, regardless of the contextually and temporally dependent and variegated
character of evocations of Rome’s power in colonial contexts, their existence per se need not
the conscious evocation of ideologies that had become associated with Roman power, also
the opposite should be considered as being part of the same package: enhanced self-
collaboration with local elites or not—did change the Italian social landscape considerably.
The traditional nineteenth century image of slowly dwindling Italic identities over time in
tandem with the rise of Rome is illusory: rather the opposite is true, and it is no coincidence
29
that affirmations of (perceived) Italic identities continue or even increase during the
Republican period (cf. e.g. Giardina 1997; Williams 2001; Bradley 2007). More directly
related to the establishment of colonies, it has even been argued that the positioning of Latin
colonies in frontier areas has strongly determined and indeed “solidified” the ethnic
boundaries of the ancient Italic populations, which were presumably more fluid before
Romanization,” the colonies sent out by Rome definitely made a major impact on the shape
30
Bibliography
Amigues, S. "Une incursion des Romains en Corse d’après Theophraste, H. P. V, 8, 2." REA
92 (1990): 79-83.
Settlement and land-use dynamics in early Italy from the Bronze Age to the
Beloch, K. J. Römische Geschichte bis zum Beginn der punischen Kriege. Berlin, Leipzig: De
Gruyter, 1926.
Bispham, E. "Mimic? A case study in early Roman colonisation." In The Emergence of State
Identities in Italy in the First Millennium BC, edited by E. Herring and K. Lomas,
Bispham, E. "Coloniam Deducere: how Roman was Roman colonization during the Middle
Bispham, E. "Rome and Antium: pirates, polities and identity in the Middle Republic." In
Reprint, 1957.
31
and ancient history, edited by T. D. Stek and J. Pelgrom, 60-72. Rome: Palombi
Editori, 2014.
Bradley, G. J. "Romanization: the end of the peoples of Italy?" In Ancient Italy. Regions
Brown, F. Cosa: the making of a Roman town. Ann Arbor, MI : University of Michigan,
1980.
Brunt, P. A. Italian Manpower 225 BC-A. 14. Oxford: Oxford U. P., 1971.
Castagnoli, F. "I più antichi esempi conservati di divisioni agrarie romane." Bullettino della
Castagnoli, F. Orthogonal Town Planning in Antiquity. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press,
1972.
Celuzza, M. G. "La romanizzazione: etruschi e romani fra 311 e 123 a.C." In Paesaggi
d'Etruria. Valle dell'Albegna, Valle d'Oro, Valle del Chiarone, Valle del Tafone,
(1961): 54-80.
32
Chiabà, M. "Da Σιγνούριον Σιγλιουρία (508 a.C.) a Velitrae (494 a.C.): note sulla
colonizzazione del Lazio fra la caduta della monarchia e la sottoscrizione del foedus
Chiabà, M. Roma e le priscae Latinae coloniae: ricerche sulla colonizzazione del Lazio dalla
Trieste, 2011.
Chouquer, G., M. Clavel-Lévêque, F. Favory, and J.-P. Vallat. Structures agraires en Italie
1987.
Cicala, V. "Diana ariminense: tracce di religiosità politica." In Pro poplo arimenese. Atti del
convegno internazionale "Rimini antica. Una respublica fra terra e mare". Rimini,
ottobre 1993, edited by A. Calbi and G. C. Susini, 355-65. Faenza: Fratelli Lega,
1995.
archaïques de l'Italie antique au Ve siècle av. J.-C., 135-54. Rome: École française de
Rome, 1990.
Middle Republic: politics, religion, and historiography, c. 400 - 133 BC, edited by C.
Coarelli, F. "Pits and fora: a reply to Henrik Mouritsen." PBSR 73 (2005): 23-30.
Coarelli, F. and P. G. Monti. Fregellae. Le fonti, la storia, il territorio. Volume One. Rome:
Quasar, 1998.
33
Comella, A. M. "Complessi votivi in Italia in epoca medio- e tardo-repubblicana." MÉFRA
93 (1981): 717-803.
Cornell, T. J. "The conquest of Italy." In CAH 7.2 (2nd ed.), edited by F. W. Walbank, 351–
Cornell, T. J. "The recovery of Rome." In CAH 7.2 (2nd ed.), edited by F. W. Walbank, 309-
Cornell, T. J. The Beginnings of Rome: Italy and Rome from the Bronze Age to the Punic
Crawford, M. H. Coinage and Money under the Roman republic: Italy and the
Horace entre Apulie et Lucanie, Satires, II, I, 34." MelCasaVelazquez 35 (2005): 107-
24.
de Cazanove, O. "Per la datazione degli ex voto anatomici d'Italia." In The Impact of Rome
on Cult Places and Religious Practices in Ancient Italy, edited by G. J. Burgers and
34
Fentress, E., editor. Romanization and the City. Supplementary Series 38. Portsmouth, RI:
JRA, 2000.
Glinister, F. "Women, colonisation and cult in hellenistic central Italy." ArchRel 8 (2006b):
89-104.
Hermon, E. Habiter et partager les terres avant les Gracques. Rome: École française de
Rome, 2001.
Horden, P. and N. Purcell. The Corrupting Sea. A study of Mediterranean history. Oxford:
Wiley-Blackwell, 2000.
Liberatore, D. "Il santuario di Ercole ad Alba Fucens: nuovi dati per lo studio delle fasi più
from archaeology and ancient history, edited by T. D. Stek and J. Pelgrom, 309-331.
2014.
Lippolis, E. "Cultura figurativa: la scultura "colta" tra età repubblicana e dinastia antonina."
In Aemilia: La cultura romana in Emilia Romagna dal III secolo a.C. all età
35
costantiniana, edited by M. Marini Calvani, R. Curina and E. Lippolis, 250-78.
Venice, 2000.
Mogetta, M. "From Latin planned urbanism to Roman colonial layouts: the town-planning of
Gabii and its cultural implications." In Papers on Italian Urbanism in the First
Mouritsen, H. "Pits and politics. Interpreting colonial fora in Republican Italy." PBSR 72
(2004): 37-67.
Oakley, S. P. The hill-forts of the Samnites, Archaeological monographs of the British School
1995.
———. A commentary on Livy books VI-X. Volume IV: Book X. Oxford, 2005.
2006.
Pelgrom, J. "Settlement organization and land distribution in Latin colonies before the
Second Punic War." In People, land and politics, edited by L. de Ligt and S. J.
Pelgrom, J., and T. D. Stek. "Roman Colonization under the Republic: historiographical
36
perspectives from archaeology and ancient history, edited by T. D. Stek and J.
Purcell, N. "The creation of provincial landscape. The Roman impact on Cisalpine Gaul." In
The Early Roman Empire in the West, edited by T. Blagg, 7-29. Oxford: Oxbow,
1990.
Reid, J. S. The Municipalities of the Roman Empire. Cambridge: Cambridge U. P., 1913.
Roselaar, S. T. "Colonies and processes of integration in the Roman Republic." MEFRA 123
(2011): 527-555.
Roth, R. Styling Romanisation: pottery and society in central Italy. Cambridge: Cambridge
U. P., 2007.
Salmon, E. T. "Roman colonisation from the Second Punic War to the Gracchi." JRS 26
(1936): 47-67.
Salmon, E. T. "Roman colonisation from the Second Punic War to the Gracchi." Phoenix 9
(1955): 63-75.
Salmon, E. T. Roman Colonization under the Republic. London: Cornell U. P., 1969.
Salmon, E. T. The Making of Roman Italy. Aspects of Greek and Roman life. London: Cornell
U. P., 1982.
Sewell, J. The Formation of Roman Urbanism, 338-200 BC: between contemporary foreign
Sewell, J. "Gellius, Philip II and a proposed end to the 'model-replica' debate." In Roman
37
Sommella, P. Italia antica. L'urbanistica romana. Rome: Jouvence, 1988.
Stek, T. D. Cult places and Cultural Change in Republican Italy. Amsterdam: Amsterdam
U. P., 2009.
Stek, T. D. "Cult, conquest, and 'religious romanization.' The impact of Rome on cult places
and religious practices in Italy." In The Impact of Rome on Cult Places and Religious
Stek, T. D. and J. Pelgrom, editors. Roman Republican Colonization. New perspectives from
Tarpin, M. "Strangers in paradise. Latins (and other non-Romans) in colonial context: a short
from archaeology and ancient history, edited by T. D. Stek and J. Pelgrom, 161-191.
Termeer, M. K. Latin Colonization in Italy before the End of the Second Punic War: colonial
Duckworth, 2005a.
Terrenato, N. "'Start the revolution without me.' Recent debates in Italian classical
38
the neolithic to the early medieval period, edited by P. A. J. Attema, A. Nijboer and
Terrenato, N. "The cultural implications of the Roman conquest." In Roman Europe, edited
Terrenato, N. "Private vis, Public virtus. Family agendas during the early Roman expansion."
history, edited by T. D. Stek and J. Pelgrom, 45-59. Rome: Palombi Editori, 2014.
Torelli, M. "Le stipi votive." In Roma medio repubblicana. Aspetti culturali di Roma e del
Lazio nei secoli IV e III a.C., 138-139. Rome: Assessorato antichità, belle arti e
Torelli, M. Tota Italia. Essays in the cultural formation of Roman Italy. Oxford: Oxford
U. P., 1999.
Toynbee, A. J. Hannibal's Legacy: the Hannibalic War's effects on Roman life. 2 volumes.
Ward-Perkins, J. B. Cities of ancient Greece and Italy: planning in classical antiquity. New
York, 1974.
39