1 The Large Agrarian Inscriptions of Africa, Supports and Documents
The Large Agrarian Inscriptions of Africa (LAIA) from northern and central Tunisia provide a unique opportunity for the study of a great number of topics, particularly, for the administration of imperial estates and the share-cropping system of agriculture.1 We shall not again explain here the system of exploitation that these documents display since it has been discussed in the chapters by Kehoe and Dalla Rosa of this volume (see p. 31 and 59–62). However, since recent finds have now been added to the LAIA and new documents have been identified in the inscriptions already known, it is worth saying a few words about the current state of the dossier in order to have a more precise idea. Eight of the LAIA have been published, namely the inscriptions of Souk el Khmis (from now on, SK), Gasr Mezouar (GM), Aïn Zaga (AZ), Aïn Wassel (AW), Sidi Bou Hamida (SH), Henchir Mettich (HM), Aïn Jammala (AJ) and Lella Drebblia (LD).2 The Henchir Hnich inscription (HH), however, remains unedited as a whole but two preliminary papers have been published3 and its editio princeps will soon see the light too (see fig. 4.1).
Figure 4.1
Distribution of the LAIA, the Jenan ez Zitouna Inscriptions and the Albertini Tablets
Within the LAIA, two subgroups can be identified. The first is formed by HM, AJ, LD, AW and HH that primarily record imperial regulations, or related texts. Dating to Trajan’s reign, HM contains a document related to the lex Manciana, a general regulation for the exploitation of private and imperial estates. Based on the opinion of various scholars, this document presents the inclusion of the lex Manciana within the regulations regarding the estate of Villa Magna Variana, or simply a modification of the lex Manciana for unused lands, called subseciua, or even a list of additions to the lex Manciana.4 AJ and LD, dating to Hadrian’s reign, and AW, dating to the Severan period, contain the sermo procuratorum: a modification for the imperial estates of the regio Thuggensis5 of the lex Hadriana de agris rudibus, which is a general regulation for the exploitation of vacant land and land that had not been cultivated for ten years in imperial estates. Though fragmentary, these three inscriptions contain other documents that precede the sermo procuratorum. On the one hand, AJ and LD contain particularly complex dossiers, consisting of five and four documents respectively, three of which are common to both inscriptions. On the other, AW only includes a dedication to the Severans and a declaration of publication by the imperial procurator preceding the beginning of the sermo. HH closes this subgroup. It contains in essence the first copy of the lex Hadriana de agris rudibus, on which the sermo procuratorum is based.
The second subgroup is formed by SK, AZ, and GM. Dating to Commodus’ reign, they contain petitiones by the coloni or the sharecroppers of imperial estates addressed to the emperor. These petitiones receive favourable answers from the imperial power. Finally, the lost SH inscription is the least known of the LAIA. Only seven fragmentary lines of its text survive.
The creation of some of the mentioned documents can precede by a long time the moment when the inscriptions were set up. For example, the lex Manciana, has almost certainly been enacted before the reign of Trajan.6 Besides, HH has not been dated precisely, even if it seems highly plausible that it was inscribed during the first half of the second century. Either way, the lex Hadriana itself is, of course, to be dated in Hadrian’s reign. Finally, the three inscriptions bearing the sermo procuratorum are not contemporary but this document also dates to Hadrian time,7 though, of course, later than the lex Hadriana, the former being a modification of the latter.
In the context of the work-in-progress edition of HH, this contribution will focus on the comparison between the beginning of the lex Hadriana and the sermo procuratorum. Namely, it will deal with the types of crops sown on the imperial estates following Hadrian’s regulation. It will also provide some clues as to how the imperial administration intervened, in the frame of the two-tier tenancy system,8 at a regional or even local level with regards to these arrangements. For this purpose, it will also make use of the first document of LD.
2 Hadrian Normative in Context
In order to analyse the first point, it is important to take a closer look at the geographical space in which the Hadrianic and the immediately preceding legislation was in use, despite the problems caused by the lack of information. First of all, it is very difficult to delimit the reach of the lex Manciana on the basis of existing documentation. We are certain that, in Trajan’s time, this lex or a modified version of it was in use on the estate of Villa Magna Variana, modern Henchir Mettich. Later, in Hadrian’s time, the lex Manciana is said to have been in use in the saltus Neronianus, next to Aïn Jammala.9 After that, we find no more attestations of this lex. Instead ‘Mancian peasants’ show up in the Severan period, in Jenan ez Zitouna, just 40 km south-east of where the lex Manciana is previously attested.10 Even later, ‘Mancian’ farming lands are mentioned in the Vandal period in an arid southern region, 100 km south of Theveste.11 On the basis of these pieces of evidence, scholars have tentatively deduced that the lex Manciana very likely remained in use in private and imperial estates of North Africa.12
What about the lex Hadriana? The first thing to bear in mind is that, contrary to the lex Manciana, we know precisely which kinds of land the lex Hadriana dealt with, namely vacant land and land that had not been cultivated for ten years. This can be read in lines 2–3 of HH: [Lex H]adriana de agris rudibus [et] iis qui ante [X̅ (decem) ann]os omissi sunt excolendis.13 This is further confirmed by the sermo procuratorum: lege Hadriana (…) de rudibus agris et iis qui per decem annos continuos inculti sunt.14 Even though the formulations are different in the two documents, the sense is the same.
The inscription bearing the lex Hadriana has been found in an undoubtedly rural context, in a hilly landscape 3.5 km west of Mustis. The stone, reused as a counterweight of a late oil mill, originally belongs in this location; there is no indication, nor any reason to believe, that it was moved from another site to the location where it was found. Moreover, a boundary stone has been found less than 100m to the south, corroborating that the site is an imperial estate.15 Hence, this was one of the places where this regulation in fact operated. Secondly, the lex Hadriana was clearly in use in the area where the inscriptions recording the sermo procuratorum have been found. The fact that a modification of the lex, which is precisely what the sermo is, was in use in this region, shows, in my opinion, that it also formed part of the reach of the lex Hadriana. In fact, some references in SK support this idea. In this document, the coloni of the saltus Burunitanus ask to pay only the shares required in the lex Hadriana and the litterae procuratorum, which is another modification of the lex Hadriana de agris rudibus.16 This shows that the coloni could appeal to both texts when pleading for justice. The lex Hadriana was applied in large parts of the tractus Karthaginiensis. In a recent publication, I have postulated that this regulation was conceived for lands found in hilly landscapes, watered enough for the cultivation of cereals grapes and, of course, olives. This also applies to other fiscal districts in Africa.17 On the other hand, the modification of the lex was valid only in specific estates within the aforementioned lands; the sermo procuratorum was in use in the imperial estates of a restricted region close to city of Thugga: the regio Thuggensis. Similarly, the litterae procuratorum mentioned in SK were most likely in use only in the large saltus Burunitanus.18
3 Types of Crops and Intervention of Imperial Administration under the Antonines
The first thing to observe is that under Hadrian a new perspective arose concerning the intervention of the Fiscus in the imperial estates. This is evident already from the name lex Hadriana, as well as the initial rhetorical lines of the sermo procuratorum, celebrating the humanitas of the emperor.19 But this new perspective can also be observed in the substantial features of Hadrian’s legislation. If we take a look at the crops mentioned in the preceding regulation, we find in the document contained in HM a consuetudinary list of crops with shares that have to be given, ending with honey at the beginning of the second side.20 Later in the text, we find the list of crops that are exempted from contributions during some years (HM, face II, l. 20–face III, l. 12). These regulations reflect either the habits of sowing in Villa Magna Variana, or some new grants, but they do not express any explicit intention on behalf of the Fiscus or any other big landowner.
By contrast, the initial lines of Hadrian’s legislation (lex Hadriana and sermo) which mention the crops, directly address the coloni; quisque uolet … exerceat in the former, and Caesar … excoli iubet in the latter.
HH (lex Hadriana) side 1, l. 3–7: [Qua]ecumq[ue parte]s agrorum Caesaris Nostri, aut non[du]ṃ excụ[lt|ae sun]t aut ante X̅ annos desieruṇ[t exco]li, eas | [qu]ịsq(ue) uolet oleis pomisq(ue) cons[erer]ẹ ọmnị | [de]ṇique modo exerceat.
AJ, side 3, l. 3–8; LD, side 2, l. 12–19; AW side 1, l. 13–17 and side 2, l. 1–2. (sermo procuratorum): Caesar Noster … omnes partes agrorum quae tam oleis aut uineis21 quam frumentis aptae sunt excoli iubet.
This marks a context different from that of the lex Manciana and a brand-new way of attracting the coloni to the imperial estates.22 However, there is another important difference, this time between the lex Hadriana and the sermo. The former, as a general regulation encouraging the installation of coloni on the unused imperial lands of e.g. tractus Karthaginiensis or the whole of Africa Proconsularis, sounds like an invitation (quisque uolet). As such, it highlights the cultivation of olive and fruit trees in a general non-compulsory way, as may be inferred from the ending omni denique modo. The sermo, on the other hand, is considerably more precise concerning the crops (olive trees, vines, and cereals) and orders (iubet) rather than invites their cultivation. It is well known that the sermo procuratorum is a modification of the lex Hadriana.23 Now, the comparison of the former with the first lines of the latter allows us to analyse in what direction this modification went. Whereas the lex offers a certain freedom for the types of crops cultivated and an invitation for the installation of the coloni, the sermo is more precise concerning the crops and commands the land to be sown.
Regarding the crops, Mariette De Vos argued for a direct relation between the apparent absence of the mention of vines in LD and AW versions of the sermo procuratorum and the supposed microclimate of these two spots in ancient times which, in her opinion, would have been unsuitable for cultivating grapevines.24 However, in the case of AW, there is a significant lacuna in this part of the text which made it impossible to know with certainty whether grapevines were mentioned or not. The recent textual reconstruction of the three inscriptions, in fact, suggests the presence of the word uineae, so grapevines in AW. On the other hand, the case of LD is probably an omission by mistake.25
4 Creating Adaptations: The First Document of Lella Drebblia
What can we say of the underlying mechanisms which made modifications of the leges such as the sermo procuratorum possible? Until now, we only knew about the letters exchanged between procurators on the subject of the sermo. The two procuratores of the tractus Karthaginiensis, working under the so-called ‘dual equestrian-freedman procuratorial system’,26 dispatched letters to the procurators of lower rank, in charge of the smaller regiones, ordering the publication of a whole dossier of documents and, principally, of the sermo.27 However, a new edition of LD has brought into light a document written prior to these letters.28 This document seems to be related not to the mere exchange of letters but to the actual creation of the sermo procuratorum:
Transcription (side 1, l. 4–13)
3 missing lines. [---] […] [---] | [....] ++ VM∙BI [.] +++ [.......] | […] +++++ A +++ VR +++ ṾEEP + [.] | [.] +ianum [et] Siluạ[nu] (uacat)m ∙ proc|[ur(atores) A]ụ[g(usti)] Ṇ̂(ostri) adiutores[sq]ụẹ [e]orum | [De]iphob[us]+ Quod ad eas par(te)s | [sal]ṭus Ḷammiani et Domitian[i | quae Thu]sdritano iunctae sunt ạ| [.]Ṇ[---]VṂ Priscuṃ +++Ỵ+Ṇ+| [---adiut]ỌṚẸ+ṾẸ eorum ∙ H ∙ E ∙ Ọ [.]
The document is very fragmentary, and many words could only be read using 3D modelling. Lines 7 to 9 and 12 to 13 of the text, mention the position and names of the procurators and their adiutores. Between these mentions there are three lines containing geographical indications: “those parts of the Lammianus and Domitianus estates that have been added to the Thusdritanus estate”. This precise geographical mention also appears in the sermo procuratorum (see text in bold letters in the Appendix). In this regulation, we can find before this mention, another geographical indication: “those rented parts of the Blandianus and the Vdensis estates”. In fact, each of these indications is mentioned twice in the sermo, and thus appear to be central to this regulation, to the point that they seem to be the very reason for the enactment of the sermo. It is important to stress that, each time, the Blandianus and Vdensis estates are mentioned first, followed by those parts of the Thusdritanus estate added from Lamianus and Domitianus estates.
Coming back to the first document of LD, how should we understand these geographical specifications between two groups of individuals? The clue is probably in the words Quod ad appearing just before eas partes saltus Lammiani et Domitiani, followed by the procuratores and the adiutores. This is the beginning of a sentence which has a missing verb attinet, pertinet or expectat at the end, but it can also be a sentence built without a verb. In any case, I interpret the entire sentence as follows: “What concerns those parts of the Lamian and Domitian estates, that have been added to the Thusdritan, Priscus and Dyonisus and their adiutores29 (will be (or have been) in charge)”. Furthermore, in my opinion, the text deals with the imperial administrators who have been in the field in order to establish the parts of the land and the rules regarding the shares and exemptions in each part of the different estates. Therefore, if we consider the order in which these geographical mentions appear in the sermo, namely, the Blandianus and Vdensis estates always coming first, and taking into account all the missing text at the beginning of this document, it is very tempting to interpret an analogous sequence for the lines 3 to 7, concerning the rented centuriae of the Blandianus and Vdensis estates, for which … ianus and Silvanus, (line 7) would be the responsible administrators.
This interpretation, of course, remains open30 but the mention of imperial procurators and adiutores twice in the text concerning very specific parts of estates which are also mentioned in the sermo procuratorum is something that certainly merits an explanation. It seems highly probable to me that the text deals here with the inspection of lands for the conception of the rules written down in the sermo procuratorum; more specifically, the assignment by the Fiscus of responsibilities concerning specific estates or parts of the estates. These responsibilities concern the adaptation of the agricultural and economic choices made by the Fiscus in the frame-regulation of the lex Hadriana in order to suit the reality of specific estates. Hence, the first LD document, which is very fragmentary but was most likely inscribed on other inscriptions, is the key to understanding the procedure followed by the Fiscus in order to intervene, in a legislative way, at the lowest level, that is to say, with regards to the crops and the shares of very limited parts of the land which constituted the imperial estates.
If this interpretation is correct, it seems to provide an answer to the question of how the imperial administration operated when adapting the provisions of the lex Hadriana to particular lands, and by what means it managed to reach such a level of detail. On the other hand, the content of this first LD document, dealing with procuratores (in plural) at the regional level, seems to present a contradiction with the traditional view concerning the procuratores regionis in the tractus Karthaginiensis, namely as Jerzy Kolendo assumes, that there was only one procurator for each smaller regio, and that, at least in the tractus Karthaginiensis, there were no procuratores saltus.31
In fact, even if the basis of Kolendo’s theory is very solid, it assumes a system that is perhaps more rigid than it was in reality. He considers, correctly in my opinion, that in the letters of [—]dius Marinus and Doryphorus to Primigenius and of Verridius Bassus and Ianuarius to Martialis in the AJ dossier32 we are dealing with the two couples of procuratores of the tractus Karthaginiensis. Each of these couples send letters to a single procurator of the smaller regio. What does not seem to be right is Kolendo’s statement that there was no other personal administration under the procuratores regionis among the staff of the imperial estates in the tractus Karthaginiensis and that the coloni dealt directly with the conductores.33 This deduction is not based on any solid evidence.
Indeed, members of imperial administration were certainly present on the estates. This can be deduced by the publication of the three copies of the sermo by the imperial staff. For example, in Aïn Wassel, the freedman procurator Patroclus claims that he was the one who erected the ara bearing the sermo. Moreover, the very creation of the sermo procuratorum which needed an accurate inspection of the lands and the yields, proves the presence of imperial staff, and it is difficult to suppose that the Fiscus delegated this inspection to the conductores. Now, the first LD document in fact corroborates this interpretation by mentioning the members of the staff involved. If the activity of the imperial staff in the very saltus of the Bagradas valley begins with Hadrian or before him is difficult to prove, but the second option cannot be discarded considering the application of complex regulations as the older HM regulation in Villa Magna Variana and of the lex Manciana in the saltus Neronianus34
It is too soon to propose a new hierarchical system operating under the procuratores regionis based on the first LD document, not only because it is the only such piece of evidence but also due to its fragmentary state. An exceptional situation is not impossible if we consider the particular richness of the imperial properties in the regio Thuggensis. Furthermore, opinions may differ on the exact interpretation of the details of the text. However, the reading of the crucial words for this interpretation (procuratores, adiutores, and parts of the estates) is undoubtedly correct. Therefore, from now on, it will have to be considered that lower-level staff related to the imperial estates does not end with the procuratores regionis, even in the tractus Karthaginiensis. We do not know if these members, lower in rank, had permanent or only occasional duties on the imperial estates but it seems that procurators, other than procuratores regionis, and their adiutores were operative there.
The Fiscus made use of them when adapting general legislative texts, such as the lex Hadriana, to local contexts in order to implement its economic choices in a specific area. These lower officials would thus be involved in the preliminary stages of the conception of regional regulations. These regulations, as we have observed, are more restrictive and thus closer to an order or command, as opposed to the lex which displays more general guidelines and is formulated in inviting rather than compelling terms. Said in New Institutional Economics terms, regional regulations as the sermo procuratorum (and maybe the epistulae procuratorum) seem to restrict the decision management allocated to the coloni in the lex Hadriana for the sake of the profitability of the estates.
Therefore, this paper has firstly shown the flexibility of the imperial regulation on landed estates: how open the normative framework can be in order to encourage the land to be cultivated, and how this can be modified in order to suit the lands distinctive features and, at the same time, address the economic needs of the Fiscus and the empire. Secondly, a hypothesis has been formulated on how the adaptations of frame regulations could have been forged at the ground level, by which certain members of the imperial administration had precise (even if still undetermined) duties on specific estates.
Appendix: sermo procuratorum (Aïn Jammala, Sides 3 and 4; Lella Drebblia, Sides 2, 3 and 4; Aïn Wassel, passim)
Sermo procuratorum Imperatoris Caesaris Traiani Hadriani.
Quia Caesar Noster, pro infatigabili cura sua per quam adsidue pro humanis utilitatibus excubat, omnes partes agrorum quae tam oleis aut uineis quam frumentis aptae sunt excoli iubet.
Idcirco permissu prouidentiae eius potestas fit omnibus etiam eas partes occupandi quae in centuris elocatis saltus Blandiani et Vdensis et in illis partibus sunt quae ex saltu Lamiano et Domitiano iunctae Thusdritano sunt nec a conductoribus exercentur.
Iisque qui occupauerint possidendi ac fruendi heredique suo relinquendi id ius datur quod est lege Hadriana comprehensum de rudibus agris et iis qui per decem annos continuos inculti sunt.
Nec ex Blandiano et Vdensi saltu maiores partes fructuum exigentur a possessoribus quam quartas. Exinde qua cetera omnia per iussa Caesaris Nostri magis augeri quam ullo modo dimminui sinis. Si quis tamen ea loca neglecta a conductoribus occupauerit, quae rigari solent, tertias partes fructuum dabit. De his quoque regionibus quae ex Lamiano et Domitiano saltu iunctae Thusdritano sunt, tantundem dabit.
De oleis quas quisque in scrobibus posuerit aut oleastris inseruerit captorum fructuum nulla decem proximis annis exigetur. Sed nec de pomis septem annis proximis nec alia poma in diuisionem umquam cadent quam quae uenibunt a possessoribus. Quas partes aridas fructuum quisque debebit dare eas proximo quinquennio ei dabit in cuius conductione agrum occupauerit. Post id tempus, rationi Caesaris Nostri (?) e lege relocandi dabit.
Translation
Speech of the procurators of the emperor Caesar Hadrian Augustus.
Because our Caesar in keeping with his tireless care, because of which he is assiduously vigilant for the interest of humankind, orders all parts of the fields that are suited for both olives or vines as well as cereals to be brought under cultivation.
Therefore, by the permission of his providence shall everyone have the authority to occupy even those parts which are in the leased-out centuries of the Blandian and Udensis estates and in those parts which have been added to the Thusdritan estate from the Lamian and the Domitian estates, and are not being worked by the lessees.
To those who have occupied them that right of possession and enjoyment and bequest to one’s heir is given, which is included in the law of Hadrian concerning vacant lands and those which have not been cultivated for 10 consecutive years.
Nor will any possessor from the Blandian and Udensis estates be requested more than one-fourth share of the crops after that, insofar as you allow everything else (the cultivated land?) to be increased rather than decreased in any way in accordance with the orders of our Caesar. If nevertheless anyone will have occupied those places neglected by the lessees, but which are customarily irrigated, he will give one-third shares of his crops. Also, from those regions which have been added to the Thusdritan estate from the Lamian and the Domitian estate, he will give [the same amount].
From the olives which each person will have placed in holes or will have grafted onto wild olives, no share of the collected crops will be exacted during the next 10 years; nor will the share of the fruits exacted during the next 7 years, nor will any fruit fall into the division other than those that will be put up for sale by the possessors. Whatever dry shares of crops each person will be obliged to give, he will give them for the next 5 years to that person in the course of whose lease he will have occupied the field, after that time [he will give them] to the account of our Caesar [-?-] in accordance with the law of reletting.
The literature on this topic is extremely large, dating back to the period of the first discoveries and into the 21st century. The most important contributions are: Th. Mommsen, ‘Decret des Commodus für den saltus Burunitanus’, Hermes (1880), 386–411 and ‘Nachtrag zu dem Decret des Commodus’, ibid., 478–480; N.D. Fustel de Coulanges, Recherches sur quelques problèmes d’histoire (Paris 1885), A. Schulten, ‘Die lex Manciana, eine afrikanische Domänenordnung’, Abhandlungen der königlichen Gesellschaft der Wissenschaften zu Göttingen, Phil. hist. Klasse, Neue Folge, 2.3 (1897), 3–51; J. Carcopino, ‘L’inscription d’Aïn-el-Djemala. Contribution à l’histoire des saltus africains et du colonat partiaire’, Mélanges d’Archéologie et d’Histoire 26 (1906), 365–481; A. Schulten ‘Die ‘Lex Hadriana de rudibus agris’ nach einer neuen Inschrift’, Klio 7 (1907), 188–212; M. Rostovtzeff, Studien zur Geschichte des römischen Kolonates, (Leipzig and Berlin 1910); C. Courtois, L. Leschi, C. Perrat, Ch. Saumagne, Tablettes Albertini. Actes privés de l’époque vandale (fin du Ve siècle) (Paris 1952); J. Kolendo, ‘La hiérarchie des procurateurs dans l’inscription d’Aïn-el-Djemala (CIL 8.25943)’, Revue des Études Anciennes 46 (1968), 319–329; D. Flach, ‘Inschriftenuntersuchungen zum römischen Kolonat in Nordafrika’, Chiron 8 (1978), 441–492; Id., ‘Die Pachtbedingungen der Kolonen und die Verwaltung der kaiserlichen Güter in Nordafrika’, ANRW, 2.10.2 (1982), 427–473; D.P. Kehoe, The Economics of Agriculture on Roman Imperial Estates in North Africa (Göttingen 1988); J. Kolendo, Le colonat en Afrique sous le Haut-Empire (Besançon 1991); L. De Ligt, ‘Studies in legal and agrarian history I: the inscription from Henchir-Mettich and the Lex Manciana’, Ancient Society 29 (1998), 219–229.
CIL 8.10570; 14428; 14451; 26416; 23977; 25902; 25943 and AE 2001, 2083 respectively.
H. González Bordas and A. Chérif, ‘Les grandes inscriptions agraires d’Afrique: nouvelles réflexions, nouvelle découverte’, Séance du 26 octobre 2018 de l’Académie des Inscriptions et Belles-Lettres (2018), 1423–1453; A. Chérif and H. González Bordas, ‘Henchir Hnich (région du Krib, Tunisie): la découverte de la première copie de la lex Hadriana de agris rudibus et de trois inscriptions funéraires inédites’, Epigrafia e società. Atti del congresso internazionale L’Africa Romana XXI, 6–9 décembre 2018, Tunis (Faenza 2020), 205–222.
Flach, op.cit. (n. 1), 441–492, particularly, 443. Kehoe op.cit. (n. 1), 38. de Ligt, op.cit. (n. 1), particularly, 228 and 239.
For a new and comprehensive evaluation of these three inscriptions, see H. González Bordas, ‘Un nouveau regard sur le dossier des grandes inscriptions agraires d’Afrique contenant le sermo procuratorum’, Cahiers du Centre Gustave Glotz 28 (2017), 213–229.
On this point, see, primarily, D.P. Kehoe, ‘Private and imperial management of Roman estates in North Africa’, Law and History Review 2.2 (1984), 241–263.
Its first lines praise the humanitas of Hadrian in present tense. See Appendix.
For this system see Kehoe 1988, op.cit. (n. 1), and in this volume Dalla Rosa’s chapter, p. 59-62.
AJ, side 2, l. 8–9. See González Bordas 2017, op.cit. (n. 5), 216, and ‘Géographie domaniale à l’ouest de la pertica de Carthage. Autour d’hypothèses récentes (et anciennes) sur le saltus Neronianus’, in S. Aounallah (ed). La pertica des carthaginois, de la constitution au démembrement (Ier-IIIe siècle p.C), (Tunis forthcoming).
A. Merlin, Inscriptions latines de la Tunisie, Paris (1944) (number 628).
Courtois et al. op.cit. (n. 1).
On this point, see discussion and references in Flach op.cit. (n. 1), 455–456.
Chérif and González Bordas op.cit. (n. 1).
AJ, side III, l. 18–20; LD, side III, l. 10–14; AW, side II, l. 15–18, following Gonzalez Bordas op.cit. (n. 1), 214–217.
See A. Chérif, Y. Peña Cervantes, H. González Bordas, E. Zarco Martinez, F. Teichner, F. Haddad, M. Bustamante, R. Smari, Fl. J. Hermann, D.U. Kiesow and J.J. Marmol Marco, ‘Archéologie des domaines impériaux. Recherches à Henchir Hnich (région du Krib, Tunisie), site de découverte de la lex Hadriana de agris rudibus’, Mélanges de l’École française de Rome—Section Antiquité 133.2 (2021), 457–486.
SK, side 3, l. 24–26: n(on) amplius praestare nos quam ex lege Hadriana et ex litter<i>s proc(uratorum) tuor(um) debemus. Contrary to the opinion of Jerzy Kolendo, op.cit. (n. 1), 52, who thought that the lex Hadriana mentioned in this passage is different from the lex Hadriana de agris rudibus.
H. González Bordas, ‘Alcune considerazioni sulla portata della lex Hadriana de agris rudibus’, in C. Soraci (ed.), Fiscalità ed epigrafia nel mondo romano, Atti del convegno internazionale (Catania, 28–29 Giugno 2019) (Rome 2020), 61–75. See also in this volume, Dalla Rosa’s chapter, p. 52.
So as the document related to the lex Manciana in HM operated only in the fundus Villae Magnae Varianae, even though it is not sure that this is an adaptation of that lex (see above).
J.M. Cortés Copete, ‘Eudaimonía de los súbdItos, Felicitas Augusti. Adriano, primer agente económico del Imperio’, in H. González Bordas and A. Alvar Ezquerra (eds.), Gestión y trabajo en las propiedades imperiales durante el reinado de Adriano: cinco casos de estudio (Alcalá de Henares 2021), 129–130.
Side 1, line 25 onwards: tritici ex a|[r]ea{m} partem tertiam, hordei ex area{m} | [pa]rtem tertiam, fab(a)e ex area{m} partem qu|[ar]tam, uin<i> de lac<u> partem tertiam, ol[e]|[i co]acti partem tertiam, mellis in alue|[is] mellari<i>s sextarios singulos qui supra | quinque alueos | habebit in tempore qu[o uin]|demia mellaria fu[it fuerit]. Following Kehoe 1988 op.cit. (n. 1), 29–30.
The wording aut uineis is missing in LD version of the sermo.
See, in this volume, Dalla Rosa’s chapter.
Kehoe 1988, op.cit. (n. 1), 63 has proposed that the sermo is an adaptation of the lex Hadriana for the estates where the lex Manciana was in use. Carcopino 1906, op.cit. (n. 1), 466 considered the sermo procuratorum right away as an adaptation of the lex Manciana.
M. De Vos, ‘The rural landscape of Thugga: farms, presses, mills, and transport’, in A. Bowman and A. Wilson (eds.), The Roman Agricultural Economy. Organization, Investment, and Production (Oxford 2013), 143–218, see 172.
See González Bordas op.cit. (n. 5), 217 and 220–221.
On H.-G. Pflaum’s discovery of this system, see M. Christol, ‘«Pseudo-collégialité» et administration des domaines africains’, Cahiers du Centre Gustave Glotz 29 (2018), 57–71. See also G. Boulvert, Esclaves et affranchis impériaux sous le Haut-Empire romain. Rôle politique et administratif (Naples 1970), 109–112, 270–272 and 303–304 and P.R.C. Weaver, Familia Caesaris. A Social Study of the Emperor’s Freedmen and Slaves (Cambridge 1972), 264–265. H.-G. Pflaum noticed first this system, he called it “collégialité inégale”.
Letter of … dius Marinus and Doryphorus to Primigenius (LD, side 1, l. 14–21; AJ, side 1, l. 3–8): [---dius Marinus et Doryphorus Priṃigenio suo salutem. Exemplum epistulae scrip|tae nobis a Tutilio Pudente egregio uiro ut notum haberes et id quod subiectum est celeberrimis locis propone. Letter of Verridius Bassus and Ianuarius to Martialis (AJ, side 1, l. 8-?): Verridius | Bassus et Ianuarius Martiali suo salut[em]. | Si qui agri cessant et rudes sunt [siue sil]|uestres aut palustres in eo sal[tu agri | sunt u]olentes lege Manci[ana eos agros | excolere ne prohibeas] … Analogous to these is the letter is to be found at the beginning of HM (side 1, l. 4–6). It concerns the publication of the document related to the lex Manciana: data a Licinio [Ma]ximo et Feliciore Aug(usti) lib(erto) proc(uratoribus) ad exemplu[m] [leg]is Man[c]ian(a)e.
See first H. González Bordas and J. France, ‘A new edition of the imperial regulation from the Lella Drebblia site near Dougga (AE 2001, 2083)’, Journal of Roman Archaeology 30 (2017), 411–414 and an update in González Bordas and Chérif op.cit. (n. 3), 1427–1428.
We have to assume that between adiutores- and -ue the stonecutter forgot to write one letter; if not, the restitution could be adiutoresue eorum: “or their adiutores”.
See also González Bordas and Chérif 2018, op.cit. (n. 3), 1426–1429. A different interpretation has been proposed by Christol 2018, op.cit, (n. 26), 66–68 but in my opinionthis is misleading, since he only takes into account the names and functions of the members of the imperial administration, omitting the geographical indications.
Although scholars as, for example, Boulvert 1970, op.cit. (n. 26), 291–293 and n. 182, have not followed Kolendo’s opinion. In fact, for G. Boulvert the procuratores saltus in the tractus Karthaginiensis begin to exist precisely under Hadrian. Procuratores saltus are otherwise known in the regio Hipponensis et Thevestina, but these are probably cases of homonymy between saltus, regio, diocesis. Some examples are Inscriptions Latines d’Algerie 1.3992; CIL 8.5351. In the regio Hadrumetina, even if homonymy cases also exist (CIL 8.11341), the freedman procurator mentioned in the inscription of the saltus Massipianus (CIL 8.587), ordering the coloni to restore buildings and to build arcs, can in fact be a procurator saltus. After J. Kolendo, Flach op.cit. (n. 1), 456–468 formulated a different interpretation of the hierarchy of the procurators in the tractus Karthaginiensis coming back to some Rostovtzeff ideas. His view seems to me very difficult to accept since he considers that equestrian procurators can be in charge for the smaller regiones.
See note 27.
Kolendo op.cit. (n. 1), 328–329.
See supra in this chapter.