1 Introduction
In order to explore Umbrian sanctuaries and their material culture in the pre-Roman and Roman periods, it is paramount to situate the sacred spaces of ancient Umbria within their geographical and historical context. Both factors, in fact, contributed to the role that sanctuaries had during the archaic period and how they developed during the Roman period.
This chapter aims first to introduce the region’s geographical boundaries and then to provide a historical context for understanding how the region’s social, political, and economic organization changed throughout time. This account offers a historical foundation for the rest of the chapters that follow. By the end of the chapter, the reader will see the Umbrians as a much less well-defined ethnic group and the region’s conquest by the Romans as a much more complicated process than has been traditionally assumed.
Research carried out in the region over the last two decades has shed light on the material culture of the ancient Umbrians and their historical trajectory from the pre-Roman period to the incorporation of Umbria in the Augustan regio sexta. Despite this scholarly progress, a debate is still ongoing regarding the applicability of the concept of Umbrian identity as a cohesive ethnos. The question of whether a solid Umbrian identity existed is partially related to the fuzzy nature of Umbria’s boundaries as described in ancient sources, which often provide contrasting information about the area occupied by these ancient people. For this reason, this chapter examines ethnic identity, which is an essential factor in drawing exact regional boundaries and in seeing ethnic Umbrian identity reflected in the archaeological record.
In the first section of this chapter, I present ancient authors’ accounts of the Umbrians and their territories to outline the boundaries of the ancient region. I do not introduce the authors chronologically or divide them into Roman or Greek, but rather, I put together authors who offer similar accounts of the region. Although doubts about the exact boundaries of the area remain, it is possible to extrapolate information from ancient sources and draw a general picture of the region. In the pre-Roman period, it reached northward to the Po valley, extended to the south and west, covering the whole of the modern region of Umbria as far as the left bank of the Tiber, and spread eastward to the Adriatic Sea, running from Ravenna to Ancona.
After this geographical overview, I focus on the history of the Umbrian territory during the pre-Roman and Roman periods. Interest in the archaeology of the ancient region of Umbria was sporadic for most of the twentieth century, and no research was carried out on the protohistory of the Umbrians. The fact that ancient Umbria includes three modern regions (Umbria, Marche, and Emilia-Romagna) and that the modern region of Umbria corresponds to three Augustan regions contributed to making the study of this Italic people more complicated, generating overlaps, ambiguity among scholars, and a lack of clarity.
However, in the past three decades, new excavations and studies have rekindled interest in this gens antiquissima, to use a renowned attribution given by Pliny the Elder to the Umbrians.1 Scholars have begun to investigate different aspects of these peoples, from their settlements to their funerary and religious practices. The efforts of scholars such as Bonomi Ponzi, Cenciaioli, and Sisani, together with the field projects carried out by the University of Cambridge, the British School of Rome, and the University of Perugia, have given detail to the continuous occupation of the historic settlements of the Umbrians from the Iron Age to the Roman period or beyond.2
While individual sites and their topographical location will be discussed in the next chapter, in this section of the book I focus on providing an outline of the region’s historical trajectory. After a short overview of earlier periods, I begin with the rise of a what might be called an Umbrian culture at the end of the seventh century BCE and trace it down to the concession of Roman citizenship to all Italic communities at the beginning of the first century BCE. In brief, over this span of seven centuries, Umbria saw proto-urban settlements develop into territorial polities that controlled the hinterlands and that, ultimately, were highly involved in the Roman conquest and colonization.
Although religious places will be treated in greater detail in the following two chapters, this section also includes a short overview of cult places, starting from their first archaeological traces in the sixth century BCE. Sacred spaces represent the “nodal points in the cultic, political, and socio-economic networks of the manifold communities that populated the Italian peninsula” and cannot be excluded from an overview of the history of the Umbrian territory.3 As will be shown, the appearance of cult places in the region is the outcome of the socio-economic transformation that occurred during the archaic period. The second section of this chapter deals with Roman expansion in the region, which we can piece together with the aid of ancient literary authors, epigraphy, and archaeology. Most of the information for this period comes from ancient authors such as Livy. Consequently, it is essential to remember that they couch the details of colonization in terms of their understanding of the late Republican ideology of colonization, also offered by Cicero and Dionysius of Halicarnassus, “in which colonization was seen as an ordered, state-controlled process which played a vital part in the success of the Roman Empire.”4
The end of the fourth century BCE marks the beginning of a long process of Roman interaction in the region. After the foundation of the Roman colony of Narnia, the Roman conquest of Umbria is evident with the establishments of the colonies of Sena Gallica (293 BCE), Ariminum (268 BCE), and Spoletium (241 BCE); in the same year, the Via Amerina was built, connecting northern Lazio with Umbrian centers and with the Etruscan cities of Perugia and Chiusi.
2 The Boundaries of Ancient Umbria
The modern region of Umbria is not identical to the ancient region. Modern Umbria occupies a central location within the Italian peninsula and was created with the unification of Italy in 1861. It includes most of the southern part of ancient Umbria but excludes the strip of land east of the Apennines, which is now included in the region of Marche. Moreover, modern Umbria incorporates the Etruscan cities of Orvieto and Perugia and the Sabine center of Norcia.
Ancient Umbria occupied a much vaster territory. In the words of ancient authors, the Umbrians appear as one of the oldest people on the peninsula, who occupied an extended area of central Italy. In the first century CE, both Pliny the Elder and Dionysius of Halicarnassus show an awareness that pre-Roman Umbria had occupied a vaster area than the sexta regio of Augustan Italy, between the left bank of the Tiber and the Apennines.5 However, as ancient authors make clear, the boundaries of ancient Umbria in the period that preceded the Augustan reorganization of the Italian territory are not easily traceable.6
The Greek authors Herodotus and Dionysius of Halicarnassus report the great extent of the Umbrian territory and its origins.7 According to both authors, the Umbrian territory covered the southeast Po valley and the central Adriatic coast,8 with Herodotus extending it as far north as the Alps.9 Both report that Etruscans expanded into former Umbrian areas, conquering, among others, the cities of Perugia and Cortona.10 This account dovetails with Pliny’s mention of three hundred Umbrian oppida, probably located along the Tiber, fully occupied by Etruscans.11
Additional information on the geographical rivalry between Etruscans and Umbrians is gained from Strabo, who lived in the first century BCE. In book five of his Geography, he maintains that Umbria bordered on the land of the Etruscans and extended from the Apennines to the Adriatic: to the north, it reached Ravenna and Ariminum, whereas its southern border was the river Aesis, the modern Esino.12 He continues his description of the Umbrians by recounting their expansion north of the Apennines, where, together with the Etruscans, they founded colonies in the area of the Po.13 In this area, in addition to Ravenna,14 ancient authors identify the cities of Butrium15 and Mantua16 as Umbrian, while Spina is considered an Umbrian city conquered by the Etruscans.17
Ancient assertions are supported by the archaeological evidence, which offers a substantial chronological anchor for the expansion of the Etruscans into previously Umbrian areas and for Umbrian colonization in the Po valley. Starting from the end of the seventh century BCE, the territories of Arezzo, Cortona, and Perugia show a significant range of Etruscan materials, with influences mainly from the Etruscan cities of Chiusi and Orvieto.18 This data should be considered in the broader context of Etruscan expansion towards the left side of the Tiber up to the offshoot of the Apennines, which led to the shrinking of the western Umbrian boundary.19 It is possible to situate Umbrian and Etruscan expansion into the Po valley during the same century (sixth) since the archaeological data includes a sixth–fifth century BCE facies with clear signs of Italic and Umbrian influence.20
The limits of the region to the east and to the south are much more extensive in the periplos of Pseudo-Skylax (perhaps an Athenian who wrote around 338–335 BCE) and in the periplos of Pseudo-Skymnos (second century BCE).21 The first “circumnavigation” describes the coasts of the Mediterranean and the Black Sea, naming hundreds of towns along with geographical features such as rivers, harbors, and mountains. It begins at Gibraltar, moves along the north shore of the Mediterranean, circles the Black Sea, and returns to its starting point through Asia Minor, the Levant, and the coast of Egypt and North Africa. The unknown author maintains that the Umbrians occupied a long stretch of the Adriatic coast between the Etruscans and the Greek inhabitants of Spina to the north and the Picentes to the south; and Ancona is described as an Umbrian city.22 Pseudo-Skymnos’ periegesis, dedicated to a King Nicomedes of Bithynia, gives a similar report of the extent of the Umbrian area. In this periegetic account of the world written in the second century BCE, Umbria extended almost to Apulia.23
The reason for the uncertainty in ancient descriptions of Umbrian boundaries probably lies in the blurry ethnic boundaries between Umbria and Etruria, which prevented ancient authors from differentiating between their corresponding territories.24 As modern scholarship has demonstrated, the mutability of ethnic boundaries was indeed a characteristic of ancient Italy. In contrast to the view that ethnic boundaries were a social fact to which ethnic groups a priori belonged,25 most archaeologists now embrace the social anthropological model first proposed by the cultural anthropologist Fredrik Barth.26 According to this model, ethnicity is just one of the many social identities—alongside family, social, sexual, political, and other identities—that individuals decided to perform. Understood in this way, it becomes clear that ethnic boundaries need to be considered permeable and not simply defined in relation to allegedly monolithic ethnic groups.27 Movement between communities of different ethnic backgrounds and the absorption of communities into local citizen bodies was frequent for groups and individuals.28
Indeed, cross-cultural contacts and social movement are apparent in the region from the ninth century BCE. In the Iron Age, the links that local elites developed with neighboring regions of Italy demonstrate the fluid nature of ancient Umbria’s topographical and cultural boundaries. The presence of a rich chariot in an Umbrian burial at Todi, in the necropolis “La Loggia,” provides an example. At Todi, strategically located between the inland Apennine area and Etruscan territory, the importance of the community’s princeps is highlighted by the remains (in a possible chamber tomb) of a chariot decorated with embossed sheet bronze. This symbol of social class is typical of the Etruscan world and confirms the close ties between this region and Umbria and the permeability of ethnic boundaries and common customs. In the archaic period, there is additional evidence of the mobility of the aristocracy, as indicated by the presence of Umbrian groups in the Etruscan cities of Perugia and Orvieto. Here, sixth-century BCE tombs contain aristocratic Umbrian names and point to the peaceful coexistence between the two groups, most likely through intermarriage.29
Also, as Mario Torelli has suggested, it is possible that the intertwined deeds and fates of Etruscans and Umbrians were another reason for the vagueness of Umbrian boundaries. According to Torelli, the Etruscan expansion in Umbrian territories beyond the Tiber and into the Po valley caused vagueness, malleability in regional boundaries, and confusion in the accounts of ancient authors.30
A quick scrutiny of the linguistic evidence supports the impression of an overall blurring of edges, rather than a sharply divided region. The Umbrian language, a subfamily of the Osco-Umbrian,31 is known almost entirely from the sacred text of the Iguvine Tablets, the seven bronze tablets found in the town of Iguvium (modern Gubbio) in 1444.32 These tablets, which date to about the second century BCE, have a twofold importance. First, their content is fundamental for our knowledge of Italic religion and cult practice. As will be discussed in further detail in the next chapter, the Iguvine Tablets describe a communal purification ritual at Iguvium and instruct the community to shun their neighbors. Second, the tablets represent the longest text in any non-Latin language of ancient Italy (4000 words).
Otherwise, our knowledge of Umbrian comes from thirty-two shorter inscriptions, which include public inscriptions, sacred dedications, boundary terms, funerary inscriptions, artist signatures, and coin legends. Most are dated from the third to the first century BCE (in the Umbrian alphabet and in the Latin alphabet), with only a handful of inscriptions dated from between the fifth and the fourth century BCE. The distribution of these inscriptions clearly defies any scholarly attempts to map the Umbrian language onto distinct regional variations.33 First, Umbrian inscriptions appear in limited areas of the region described by the ancient sources, as they are concentrated only in the northeastern sector of the modern region of Umbria. Second, Umbrian inscriptions are often found together with Etruscan ones; and, in towns such as Tuder there are more Etruscan inscriptions than Umbrian. Thus, as Enrico Benelli has recently argued,34 it is impossible to define neat linguistic borders between cultures.35 Besides indicating the presence of mixed language use, this evidence further emphasizes the permeability of regional boundaries and the difficulty of drawing clear regional boundaries.
Ultimately, if we piece together these different accounts from ancient authors, it seems likely that, at least until the end of the archaic period, the region of Umbria would have covered central and northern Italy, almost as far as the Alpine region. In the north, this broad area extended up to the Po valley and included the cities of Ravenna, Rimini, Butrium, and Mantua, which were conquered by the Boii and Lingones in the fifth century.36 In the west, it may have included the Etruscan centers of Perugia, Cortona and Chiusi/Camars at least until the end of the seventh century BCE or the beginning of the sixth century BCE.37 Following the course of the Tiber, the southern border would have reached Ocriculum, and then followed the Adriatic coast bordering Picene territory between Camerino and Sentinum. However, in the fourth century BCE, Umbria lost the swath of Adriatic territory north of the river Esinus (the northern area of modern Marche) to the Senones, the last Gallic tribe to arrive in the Italian peninsula.38 Most likely, the mountainous area on the eastern side of the river Nera would have belonged to the Sabines, though it is difficult to pinpoint an exact border between ethnic groups.39
Ancient Umbria becomes a clear geographical unit during the Augustan age as a consequence of the division of the peninsula into fourteen administrative regions: Umbria Ager Gallicus became the sixth region.40 Pliny the Elder (Nat. 3.112–114) records the extent of Umbria and states that its southern border consisted of the Nar and Tiber rivers and that it encompassed the Apennine slopes bordering the Adriatic from Camerinum to Mevaniola and from Aesis to Pisaurum on the coast. In this geographical reorganization of ancient Italy, the Tiber came to define the limit between Etruria (Regio VII) and Umbria (Regio VI).41
2.1 The Existence of an Umbrian Identity: An Ongoing Debate
Considering the contrasting views of the Umbrian boundaries provided by ancient sources, it is not entirely surprising that scholars cannot agree on the ethnic identity of the Umbrians. Indeed, the question remains as to whether it is possible to identify an Umbrian distinctiveness that could have supported the formation of Umbrian ethnicity as described by the literary sources. As noted above in the discussion of the boundaries of the ancient region, the question of ethnicity is a much-debated topic among scholars of ancient Umbria, and of the ancient Mediterranean more broadly. Despite modern research that emphasizes the fluidity of ethnic identity and problematizes the existence of pre-Roman monolithic ethnic groups, archaeologists working in Umbria still resist the impossibility of tracing one Umbrian ethnic group. Although a discussion on scholarly work on ethnicity is beyond the scope of the present work, it is worth noting some of the most dominant approaches to the topic here.
Looming large over this debate is Jonathan Hall’s book Ethnic Identity in Greek Antiquity. Hall examines the construction, meaning, and function of ethnic identity among Greek communities.42 He argues that ethnicity is a contingent phenomenon and considers territoriality and genealogy as essential factors in the definition of ethnic identities. Consequently, he argues that ethnicity is fungible and in continuous flux. Similarly, Sian Jones argues that ethnic identity is situational and subjective yet connected to people’s experiences and social practices.43
These ideas have been expanded in the past decade to include contexts other than mainland Greece. Denise Demetriou, for example, focuses on Greek emporia and trade ports such as Emporion, Gravisca, Naukratis, Pisitiros, and Pireus in order to explain how different ethnic, social, linguistic, and religious groups encountered each other and how each group shaped its identity while interacting with others.44 She concludes that the various populations in these emporia created their identities in relation to themselves and others by utilizing cultural aspects such as law, political institutions, and religion.
Several other approaches to this topic are described in the recent Companion to Ethnicity in the Ancient Mediterranean and in the edited volume Creating Ethnicities and Identities in the Roman World.45 These works cover different time periods and regions and highlight the flexible and functional aspects of ethnic identity, while recognizing the limitations of providing a comprehensive analysis and the need to rely on specific case studies.
Theories on the flexibility and contingency of ethnicity are also extremely popular among scholars who closely investigate identities in ancient Italy. Emma Blake is aware of the difficulties of studying group ethnic identity in archaeology. To shed some light on identity formation in the murky period of the Bronze Age, she applies network analysis and path dependence to the distributions of imports and other distinctive objects.46 She argues that members of an ethnic group interact and communicate through networks that thus can be identified by examining the material traces of communication between sites. In Bronze Age Etruria and in Latium, she identifies the “proto-Etruscan” and the “proto-Latin” groups, whose close interaction determined, according to the author, the rise of their ethnic identities of the later first millennium.
The extensive work by Stephan Bourdin on the peoples of pre-Roman Italy emphasizes the flexibility of pre-Roman ethnic groups, the so-called nomina.47 His arguments, largely based on scrutiny of the mentions of ancient peoples in ancient literary sources, are centered on the opposition between independent political groups, populi, and larger ethnic groups, nomina, which group together the populi (e.g., Rome is a populus of the nomen Latinum). Bourdin holds that if the populus represents a relatively stable group, the ethnic representations, the nomina, are highly mobile. He contends that these manipulations were deliberate and voluntary, and could be attributed to political motives.
This view is only partially shared by Rafael Scopacasa, who also acknowledges the importance of local identities as well as shared ethnic identities but argues for a situational use of both ethnic and local identities by ancient peoples.48 He uses epigraphical evidence to demonstrate that people could use different levels of identities (e.g., ethnic identity and local identity) depending on the context.49 The lustratio described in the Iguvine Tablets, written between the third and the first century BCE but reflecting an earlier period, aims to protect the people of Iguvium and curse their nearest neighbors, who also may have defined themselves as Umbrian. This example clearly illustrates the importance of considering ethnic identity as situational: communities belonging to the same ethnos could “pursue very different foreign policies when it suited them.”50
Tesse Stek further reiterates the importance of local identity in his discussion of Italic identities and the Romanization of Italy.51 First, he reiterates the fleetingness of the concept of ethnic identity, which is closely tied to historical circumstances. For example, the ethnic safinim (Samnite), attested by the sixth century in Abruzzo, is used in the second century in Molise, likely as part of the antagonizing strategy against Roman dominion in this period. Thus, Stek suggests setting aside the “search” for ethnic groups in favor of a focus on more local identities and the varieties among them. Drawing from recent archaeological research that shows local variegation in material culture and practice, he shows that in cases such as Samnium and Latium, ethnic identity is characterized by local varieties that stray from a unified political organization. The importance of local civic identities is particularly noticeable in the case of Latium. Here, evidence of shared rituals such as at the sanctuary of Jupiter Latiaris or at the thirteen altars at Lanuvium seems to establish power relationships among different communities rather than a higher level of political organization. Thus, Stek emphasizes the importance of local civic identity and communal organization over ethnicity as a geographical concept.52
The preceding survey offers just a handful of examples of current approaches to ethnicity that are representative of a broader intellectual understanding of ethnic identity as multi-layered, negotiable, and variable. In the case of Umbria, the discussion is not nearly close to an end. As for other peoples of ancient Italy, the narrative of the Umbrian ethnos and its distinctiveness is biased by the perspective of authors writing centuries after the period they describe and of Greeks and Romans who perceived the Italians as divided into ethnic groups.53 Although a few inscriptions dated to the fifth century BCE do mention ethnic groups, much of the controversy related to the identification of an Umbrian ethnic identity is rooted in the fundamentally different views on the extent to which Italian people considered themselves as ethnically distinct.54
Archaeologists who study ancient Umbria have differing opinions about the region’s cultural and ethnic identity before the Roman period. The Italian school, led by scholars such as Simone Sisani, Laura Bomoni Ponzi, Mario Torelli, and Dorica Manconi, use archaeological and linguistic evidence to argue for the coherence of Umbria as a distinct cultural and ethnic identity.55 For example, Sisani prioritizes Greek and Late Republican written sources, as well as the only inscription of the fifth century BCE that mentions “the plain of Umbria,”56 to claim that the Umbrians represented a well-defined ethnic group, unified by the existence of an Umbrian league.57 It is worth noting that this ethnonym is attested from the Sabellic languages only in the South Picene ombriíen and there are no known references to the Umbrians using this term to describe themselves. Manconi supports the idea of an independent Umbrian cultural ethnos, which, she argues, appeared in the late seventh/sixth century BCE. However, she also admits to recognizing “a common culture, almost a central Italic koinè, in which there are common forms and affinities in pottery, tomb typologies, and funerary rituals,”58 almost undermining her previous statement about the existence of a clear Umbrian specificity.
British archaeologists have taken a different approach, emphasizing recent theoretical approaches to the archaeology of ethnic groups and highlighting the situational construction of most cultures. Bradley, for example, does not view Umbria as a unified culture, but rather as a region made up of local communities.59 According to him, the use of the Umbrian collective name was rare until the first century BCE, and local inhabitants of the region preferred to describe themselves in relation to their city. This suggests that in archaic Umbria there was little sentiment of belonging to an Umbrian ethnic group.
In the case of Plestia, located on the eastern side of Umbria, four bronze inscriptions from the fourth century BCE dedicated at the Sanctuary of Cupra read cupras, matres pletinas, sacru esu.60 The Plestini are among the groups mentioned by Pliny in the first century as residing in Umbria.61 The reference to this group in the inscriptions to the sanctuary’s goddess suggests that the local community already had its own identity in the pre-Roman period. The importance of local identity in the region is reinforced in the Iguvine Tablets with the list of the enemies of the city of Iguvium. Bradley rightly points out that the presence, among other nomina, of the naharcer (the inhabitants of Nahars in lowland Umbria) is a strong indicator of the lack of an overarching Umbrian identity group. The feeling of individual group cohesion, which emerges from these two examples of Umbrian epigraphy, seems to have been more important than, and quite separate from, that of belonging to an Umbrian ethnos.
Drawing on studies of identity formation in Greece, Bradley argues that local communities, with their distinctive state identity, grew into a shared ethnic identity through interactions for political and military reasons.62 In particular, progressive Roman expansion was the decisive threat that increased the cohesive forces of Umbrian communities, which were strengthened after the conquest. Bradley notes that the Umbrians are likely to have fought together more frequently in military units of the Roman army after the conquest than before it and that such service may have played an important role in the definition of Umbrian ethnic identity.63 As also noted by Benelli, the army provided by local communities (colonies, civitae sine suffragio and allied communities) to the Roman military was precisely organized into units, and this may have exercised considerable influence in forging a more fixed definition of perceived ethnic groups.64
Simon Stoddart and David Redhouse carry the argument even further.65 In their most recent article, they examine the role of landscape in the construction of ethnicity and attribute a shadowy identity to the Umbrians, in contrast to other central Italian groups whose identities they consider more developed. They, too, support the existence of local identities in the pre-Roman period and argue that these coalesced into a regional identity in response to the advance of Rome. The landscape development of Iguvium, Tuder, Interamna, Ameria, and Spoletium, to different extents, exhibits traits of community bonds and local political power. The overall picture illustrates the absence of a broader sense of ethnicity and the presence of community identity in several of the major pre-Roman settlements of the region. For this reason, the authors have concluded that “local community was the primary focus of identity.”66
Considering these contrasting voices on the nature of Umbrian identity, it seems reasonable to use caution when we examine ancient Umbria as a whole. As scholars have shown, the evidence for a strong Umbrian identity is slender and the sense of Umbrian ethnicity was weaker than the identification with specific states such as Tuder, Plestia, and Iguvium.67 In addition, the absence of a clear concept of Umbrian ethnic identity may likely be responsible for the ambiguity of the boundaries of the region. In the next chapter, I will demonstrate that the study of votive offerings from the region’s sanctuaries can provide further evidence of the presence of local ethnic groups rather than overarching Umbrian ethnos.
2.2 Umbria’s Geography
The region’s inland landscape is characterized by a diverse terrain that includes mountains, valleys, and rivers. The Apennine Mountains form a natural boundary to the north and east, but low passes provided access across them, connecting the western and eastern areas of Umbria. Apart from the Apennines, notable peaks include Monte Subasio and Monte Maggiore, which dominate the hills south of Gubbio; the Martani Mountains, which run along the Umbrian valley; and the Amerini Mountains, which dominate the southwest of the region.
Rivers and valleys have historically played an important role in facilitating communication and transportation throughout the region. The Tiber River runs along the western part, while numerous smaller rivers and streams are found in the modern areas of Romagna and Marche. The largest valley is the Valle Umbra, located in the center of the ancient Augustan region. The northern part Umbria is divided between the Gubbio basin and the lower Chiascio basin, while the southern part is occupied by the Terni valley and the northern Tiber valley covers the west.
The geographic and hydrographic features of the Umbrian region, together with its key position on the north–south and east-west routes of ancient Italy, facilitated the early human occupation of this area and favored contact with the other pre-Roman groups of the peninsula. Additional elements that favored human occupation were the presence of clays (from the limestone uplands and Plio-Pleistocene terraces), ore bodies in areas such as Gualdo Tadino and Monteleone di Spoleto, and the presence of forests that guaranteed wood supply. This diverse territory is suitable for different types of productive activities ranging from agriculture to livestock and pastoralism, depending on the ground’s elevation.68
3 The History of Pre-Roman Umbria
Human occupation of ancient Umbria began in the northern part of the region during the Lower Paleolithic, one million to 300,000 years ago. Human habitation has been detected on the terraces above the Tiber, Chiasco, and Topino rivers, and on Monte Peglia, between Todi and Orvieto. From the late sixth millennium, during the Neolithic period, human occupation is evidenced by more permanent settlements established in the foothills, with a preference for the alluvial fans of the Gubbio valley. In the latter phase of the Neolithic period, evidence is concentrated in the area of Norcia and Terni, in the south.69
The Bronze Age represents the first well-known phase in ancient Umbria. From the seventeenth century BCE to the twelfth century BCE (Middle Bronze Age), the region came to be dominated by the so-called Apennine culture, which was widespread throughout the central-southern peninsula in this period and may have originated in Umbria.70 This phase is characterized by seasonal settlements connected to transhumance, especially in the mountains, where people depended on an economy of pastoralism and large-scale stock-raising. In the lowlands, we find more stable settlements that appear to have supported a more mixed economy.71 The hallmarks of this culture are a distinctive pottery type with incised geometric designs and the deposition of bronze tools and weapons in inhumation burials.
With the sub-Apennine phase (second half of the eleventh century BCE–tenth century BCE), corresponding to the Late Bronze Age, important changes happened in the region partly due to contacts with the Terramare, the Proto-Villanovan cultures, and the intensification of trade with the Aegean-Mycenean world and that of central Europe.72 Although cremation funerary rites (at Gubbio, Spoleto, and Terni) suggest an egalitarian society, the intensification and specialization of agriculture, the increased demographic scale, including polyfocal settlements in areas such as Gubbio, and the presence of metal hoards (e.g., at Gualdo Tadino and Terni) indicate wealth accumulation (or at least conspicuous disposal) and, therefore, suggest social stratification.73
The region underwent further political, economic, and cultural changes at the beginning of the Iron Age (tenth to eighth century BCE). Previous settlements were abandoned, and metal hoards ceased to be deposited. Settlements concentrated along the Apennine areas or around large basins and valleys, forming more consistent nucleation of populations in places that endured, such as Todi, Terni, Gubbio, Ameria, the massif of Monte Torre Maggiore and the Colfiorito plateau.74 The latter, which has been investigated in depth, provides important information on settlement organization and burial practices during this phase.75 Here, communities appear to be organized in villages consisting of huts located at a regular distance (500 meters) from one another, with a ditch on the eastern side. The necropolis, similar to the one excavated in Terni,76 is characterized by inhumation, with rectangular graves covered with limestone slabs and marked on the ground by a circle of stones. Grave goods found in the tombs are very simple, local products: an impasto vase and clothing-related objects such as fibulae, and razors, none of which suggest social stratification.77 Overall, during this first phase of the Iron Age, the Umbrian territory shows a general uniformity, closely related to the contemporary Villanovan and Latial cultures.78
3.1 Sixth–Fourth Century BCE
The sixth century BCE was marked by an expanded trade in imported luxury objects. Umbria saw the emergence both of nucleated communities and of more diffuse groups occupying fortified upland settlements. Both types of settlements show a division between social classes and the establishment of an aristocratic caste. Some scholars have taken such organization as concrete evidence of an independent cultural identity among the Umbrians.79 If, during the previous phase, communities had begun to settle in more permanent locations, it is starting in this next phase that Umbrian people established settlements at sites that would later be occupied by the cities of archaic times, both in the sub-mountain areas and in the mountains. In the mountainous territories, the occupation of the territories is based on a series of fortified hill settlements, the so-called castella, which in some cases take the place of the previous Iron Age villages.80 Among these fortified settlements on higher ground we can mention Colle Mori at Gualdo Tadino,81 Monte Orve in the middle of the Colfiorito plateau, Monte Torre Maggiore at Terni, Colle San Rufino at Assisi, Monteleone at Spoleto, Bevagna, Gubbio, Matelica, Fabriano, and Pitino.82
These settlements are located at heights ranging from 500 to 1000 meters and usually overlook communication routes.83 They comprise areas measuring about 120–150 square kilometers defended by a ditch (4–5 meters wide) and a bank of earth or dry-laid stone walls up to 4 meters high around the highest point in the landscape.84 The area occupied by the hillforts is divided into several hut villages, each organized to distinguish the living areas from production areas. The presence of streets between villages and common areas such as pastures, sacred areas,85 and fortifications has led scholars to hypothesize that villages, although divided into separate units, would have been able to cooperate for their maintenance and protection.86
Although a detailed study on Umbrian hillforts is lacking,87 surveys and excavations conducted in the ’80s and ’90s on some of the Umbrian hillforts, such as at Colfiorito and Gualdo Tadino, have revealed that they were organized hierarchically, with minor hillforts gravitating around a more complex central site.88 The position and richness of the cemeteries associated with the hillfort on Monte Orve, at the center of the Colfiorito Plateau, strongly suggest that it was the most important hillfort in the area and that it controlled the smaller peaks of Monte di Franca and Monte Trella, located elsewhere on the plateau. Another important settlement of this type is at Gualdo Tadino, Colle Mori. Here, a nucleated settlement developed on the hillside of a spur overlooking an upland plain and was surrounded by a fortified circuit. As in the case of Monte Orve, the richness of the cemetery of San Facondino (600 m to the west) has led to the hypothesis that this was the central node of the settlement system made up of some other ten hillforts in the area, which controlled the main roads coming from Perusia and Iguvium, and the trans-Apennine routes leading to the Adriatic coast.89
The hierarchical organization of Umbrian hillforts finds a parallel in the aristocratic political and social organization of the communities of the sixth and fifth centuries. Within individual communities, archaeological evidence shows the emergence of clear differentiation among social classes, a phenomenon that in Latial and Etruscan areas emerged in the Orientalizing period, if not before.90 The presence of an aristocratic elite is clear from the necropoleis that, during this phase, appear in or near a broader spectrum of sites. The necropoleis at Otricoli, Amelia, Todi, Spoleto, Bevagna, Foligno, Nocera, and Gubbio add to the earlier necropoleis of Terni and Colfiorito, which continue to be frequented during this period. Aristocratic burials are signaled by tumuli or stone-circle tombs and, most importantly, by grave goods. These are prestige goods produced locally or obtained through importation mainly from South Etruria, Picenum, the Faliscan territory,91 and Greece.92 Women were often buried with spindle whorls, rocchetti (small, spool-shaped terracotta objects thought to have been used in weaving or as stamping devices), and fibulae. Male burials contained iron weapons indicating the ranks of individual warriors. For example, at Terni, a lance or javelin alone signified a soldier of lower rank; a sword, a lance, and two javelins, someone of higher rank.93 At the necropoleis of Le Logge and San Raffaele at Todi, the typological analysis of the aristocratic burials’ grave goods from the sixth/fifth century BCE suggest the presence of hierarchical communities, centered around leading warrior aristocratic figures, who likely benefitted from the favorable position of this center and from controlling commercial routes.94 The increasing complexity of Umbrian communities is also manifested by the use of coinage, adopted at Tuder and Iguvium, initially employing a Chiusine Etruscan weight standard of about 200 g.95 At an earlier date, aes rude or bronze fragments, widely accepted as representing portable wealth, were employed, suggesting a progressive formalization of wealth into an accepted political symbol of the community.
Towards the end of the fifth century BCE, the archaic socio-institutional organization drastically changed, and a process of urban re-organization put an end to the hegemony of the aristocratic class of the previous centuries. A change in the settlement patterns can be observed at the well-excavated Colle Mori, where buildings had tiled roofs and stone foundations and were articulated in several rooms.96 In addition, the presence of a cippus with an inscription mentioning the name of the civic community/touta (tarina) suggests that starting from these centuries, settlements began to re-define their limits, perhaps in connection with a new foundation of the cities themselves.
The rise of a new class that replaced the aristocratic society of the previous centuries is further evidence of the transformation of some archaic centers into centralized cities. This shift is clearly illustrated by the necropoleis of S. Stefano and Peschiera at Tuder, closer to their urban centers than the archaic necropoleis of Le Logge and San Raffaele.97 Here, grave goods related to the curing of the body, such as unguentaria, represent the new urban society. In the Apennine area of Umbria, the centers along communication routes present similar evidence of urban development. The necropolis Vittorina at Iguvium shows the presence of a wealthy class represented by a particular grave good: an Attic crater with red figures laid at the feet of the deceased. This evidence may indicate the existence of a lex sumptuaria that eliminated funerary ostentation and aimed to represent the city in a more egalitarian way.
We should not assume that developments were homogeneous throughout the region. In the necropolis of Colfiorito, located some distance from major roads, evidence from the necropolis reveals that the aristocratic class continued to dominate until the end of the third century BCE. The grave goods from this necropolis show inequality among individuals and the presence of a wealthy class that continued to express itself through weapons and sumptuous banquet vessels. A similar situation appears to hold true at Hispellum in the Umbrian valley, where the necropolis’ grave goods demonstrate the prominent role of the warrior until the second century BCE. Although this evidence indicates that these centers had a different social trajectory compared to the more urban cities already mentioned, the lack of systematic investigations in most Apennine and southern Umbrian areas represents an obstacle to any precise reconstruction of the socio-institutional and demographic developments.
3.2 Sacred Spaces
Although it is unlikely that religious activity did not exist before the sixth century BCE, it is only toward the end of this century that sacred places become visible in the archaeological record. As Bradley’s survey of Umbrian cult places has shown,98 except for a small number of sacred places, most archaic Umbrian cult places have only been identified during ground explorations through the presence of ex-votos representing armed figures or simple male and female bronze figurines or human body parts, common also among the Venetic people and the Etruscans.99 This is due not only to a general lack of excavation and the damaged stratigraphy of the few sites that have been excavated,100 but also to the nature itself of early cult places, which consisted often only of a pit, a temporary wooden structure, an altar, an enclosure wall, and perhaps a natural landmark such as a spring, a lake, or a cave.101 As Turfa specifies with regard to the Etruscans, a single one of these features was enough for people to make a dedication.102
As will be shown in the next chapter, Umbrian communities of the archaic period relied on some cult sites located, in a custom typical of Italic religion, in a prominent location of the landscape, either in strategic places or those of natural significance, from mountain peaks to caves and hills, or in the proximity of settlement sites.103
Notwithstanding the different locations, a common characteristic of these early shrines was their votive deposits. The most significant part of the votive material is composed of bronze (rarely lead) miniature figures of animals, men, women, and body parts, all usually under 10 cm. As mentioned in the previous chapter, the Umbrian production of votive bronzes has been amply studied by Colonna, who classified the Umbro-Sabellian bronzes into types and established that they were the product of workshops active either in southern or northern Umbria between the sixth and the fifth century BCE.104 The next two chapters will show that this vast material has the potential to illuminate not only the ritual practices of the archaic inhabitants of the region but also the function of cult places.
4 Late Fourth–Early First Century BCE: The Roman Conquest of Umbria
The information passed down by Republican and imperial authors such as Livy, Polybius, Appian, Diodorus, and Cassius Dio allows us to partially reconstruct the history of Umbria during the Middle Republican period. However, one must take into consideration that these accounts are very selective and therefore problematic for several reasons. First, as these authors write about events well before their own day, they describe the expansionist enterprise of the Romans in terms of their understanding of the late Republican ideology of colonization. In this period, in fact, colonization was seen as “an ordered, state-controlled process which played a vital part in the success of the Roman empire,” an idea also disseminated by Cicero.105 Second, as they write under the influence of their own time and agendas they inevitably alter the narrative. In addition to this, even when they seem to draw on official records, their reliability can hardly be proved. As Bradley wisely advises, it is therefore essential to take into account the possible distortion and selective information provided by the ancient sources when we attempt to reconstruct the Roman conquest of the region.106
4.1 Fourth and Third Centuries BCE
The beginning of the fourth century BCE represents the first close involvement of Umbria in the expansionist dynamics of Rome. From the onset of this century, the Romans began to expand for the first time in areas adjacent to the region. Aiming at the control of the Tiber valley after the defeat of Falerii, in 391 BCE Rome attacked first Volsinii and then its allies, the Sappinates, a shadowy group mentioned by Livy that Sisani locates in Umbria.107 Although the interpretation of Livy’s passage is open to debate, the information at our disposal regarding the interactions between Romans and Umbrians becomes clearer by the end of the century. In 310 BCE, as a result of a war between Rome and the Etruscans and Umbrians, a brother of the consul Q. Fabius Maximus Rullianus led an expedition to Umbrian Camerinum on the Adriatic side of the Apennines, with the purpose of signing a treaty of societate amitiaque.108 In 308 BCE,109 the consul P. Decius Mus suppressed an Umbrian rebellion near Mevania. The initial resistance of the Umbrians was quickly subdued by the Romans; Umbrians capitulated within two days, and the Ocriculani were accepted in amicitiam.110
In the years following the battle of Mevania, Roman military activity in the region confirmed Umbria’s role as a crucial node in Rome’s progressive expansion toward the inland of Etruria and its northern extremities. In 300 BCE, the Romans besieged the Umbrian oppidum of Nequinum, located at a crucial position that allowed them to reach the Adriatic coast through the Apennines.111 After the treachery of two townsman, in 299 BCE112 the Romans established the colony of Narnia and achieved the twofold aim of preventing an Umbrian invasion (Livy specifies that the colony was sent as an outpost contra Umbros)113 and securing the route towards the north, threatened by the Gauls.114
As a reaction to the inevitability of Roman dominance over central Italy, shortly after their defeat at Nequinum, the Umbrians joined forces with the Etruscans, the Samnites (who were fighting the third Samnite War against the Romans), and the Gauls.115 In 295 BCE, after alternating victories and defeats, the Roman army subdued the unified enemy force at Sentinum, at the border between Umbria and Picenum (in the modern region of Le Marche) and occupied the Gallic territory between the rivers Esinus and Rubicon.116
Roman expansion in Umbria seems to have been completed in the central years of the third century BCE. The Umbrian centers of Fulginiae and Plestia were incorporated into the Roman state and given civitas sine suffragio;117 the praefectura of Interamna Nahars,118 the colonies of Sena Gallica, Ariminum, and Spoletium, and the market town Forum Flaminii were founded.119 The triumph over the Sassinates, who occupied the northern border of the region, is recorded in 266 BCE, and the final capitulation of the Umbrians in 268–265 BCE.120 Until the first century BCE, when they opposed the Romans during the Social War, the Umbrians remained generally allied with them and provided support and troops.
From the middle of the third century, important roads were built to connect Umbrian centers with other conquered areas.121 In 241 BCE, the construction of the Via Amerina, which led from Falerii to Ameria, connected Umbrian centers with northern Latium and to the Etruscan cities of Perugia and Clusium.122 Most importantly, the Via Flaminia, opened in 220 BCE, became a fundamental route across central Italy.123 This road crossed the Apennines from Rome to Ariminum on the Adriatic coast and granted the Romans access to the Po valley. Furthermore, the new road passed through the colonies that had been founded in Umbria just a few decades before and thus strengthened Roman control over these territories.124
Treaties represented another way Rome controlled those communities in the region that were not given Roman citizenship (civitates sine suffragio) or colonized.125 As already mentioned, Camerinum and Ocriculum stipulated treaties with Rome. To these treaties, Cicero adds a foedus between Iguvium and Rome, which was likely stipulated sometime after 292 BCE.126 Although ancient sources mention only these three foedera, we can add other Umbrian towns to the list of allies of Rome. It is likely that the inhabitants of Tuder, Ameria, Mevania, and Asisium, who were not Roman citizens until the Social War (Tuder and Ameria)127 and who had preserved their local magistracies until 90 BCE (Mevania and Asisium), had been of allied status.128 In addition to these centers, Polybius mentions a contingent of Umbrians among the allied armies that aided Rome against the Gauls in 225 BCE.129 These brief mentions, combined with the epigraphic data from administratively independent centers during the late Republican period, leave open the possibility that other Umbrian communities had treaties with Rome.130
It is not clear what the status of allied communities entailed. Based on Cicero’s discussion of Roman treaties, scholars have suggested that some treaties were aequii and some iniquii. However, as Ernst Badian points out, the unequal treaty, where the second party was required to acknowledge and respect the greatness of the Roman people, is unlikely to have been official.131 Notwithstanding the possible distinctions between individual treaties, the epigraphic and literary evidence suggests that these peoples remained independent, with the obligation to raise and pay troops for Rome and to follow Roman foreign policy.132 The number of men levied by each community was fixed in a list kept in Rome and called the formula togatorum.133
4.2 Second and First Centuries BCE
The ancient sources at our disposal for the period between the second century BCE and the Social War are not particularly comprehensive, for Umbria is mentioned only in a few sporadic instances. In 199 BCE a commission of triumviri, following a demand from Narnia, was established to increase the number of inhabitants in the colony.134 The latest colonial settlements are Pisaurum in 184 BCE and Forum Sempronii in 133–130 BCE, founded after the implementation of the lex Sempronia agraria.135 Cicero and other authors mention an Umbrian presence among Marius’ troops at the end of the second century BCE.136 In some instances, beneficiaries of Marius, such as the Camertine cohorts, M. Annius Appius of Iguvium, the Latin colonist, and T. Matrinus of Spoletium, received individual grants of Roman citizenship.
In 91 BCE, Umbrian and Etruscan aristocrats opposed Livius Drusus’ proposal to give Roman citizenship to the socii italicii.137 This program, which included distribution of land to poorer citizens and Roman citizenship for all the Latins and Italian allies, threatened the local Umbrian aristocrats, who feared losing their lands.138 Following a request of the consul, a contingent of Umbrians and Etruscans came to Rome, where they may have played a part in Drusus’ murder.139 The failed scheme to offer Roman citizenship to the Italics triggered the outbreak of the Social War.140 In 91 BCE and the first part of 90 BCE, neither Umbrians nor Etruscans joined the Italic forces against Rome. However, in 90 BCE, some unidentified Umbrian communities participated in the rebellion a few months before the lex Iulia was established.141 This law, which marked the end of the bellum italicum for most Italic communities, allowed the inclusion of all Roman allies within the citizen body and the grant of municipal status to their cities.142 The municipal ruling class could now openly participate in the Roman political process and lead their communities in support of or in opposition to decision-making in Rome.
The concession of Roman citizenship virtually concluded the process of conquest and incorporation of Umbria into the Roman state. The loss of formal autonomy for the Umbrian centers marked the beginning of a new chapter in the history of this region.
5 Conclusions
Thus far, I have delineated the trajectory of ancient Umbrian history up to the Social War of the early first century BCE. Archaic Umbria appears to have been open to a range of cultural influences from Italy and the wider Mediterranean world. As shown above, the attitudes toward death and burial and symbols of power and wealth linked Umbrian cultural practices with other regions of the Italian peninsula, such as Samnium, Etruria, and Latium. Starting in the seventh century BCE, material evidence from the cemeteries of the region (mainly Interamna, Spoletium, Plestia, and Iguvium) shows that the aristocratic class differentiated itself from the rest of society by means of prestigious goods, some of which were imported from the eastern Mediterranean through Greek traders frequenting the Adriatic coast. Other goods reached this social class through the other major routes that crossed the region, such as the routes from Etruria to Picenum, and the route along the Tiber valley from Volsinii and southern Etruria to Perusia and central Umbria.
In addition to this, the presence of upland hillforts and their organization demonstrates ties with the later Italic urbanization processes in regions such as Samnium and (contemporary) settlements outside Italy in Britain and Gaul.143 Lastly, the presence of cult places within pre-Roman Umbrian communities and their connection to the territory find parallels in contemporary developments in Greece, northern Italy, and Etruria.
Unlike inland areas such as Plestia and southern areas such as Terni, the areas more closely connected to the Etruscan centers that were situated along communication routes underwent important urban and socio-economic transformation from the end of the fifth century BCE and particularly in the fourth century. The evidence from several pre-Roman centers shows that a new social class took the place of the archaic aristocracy, and urban development became more consistent than in the previous centuries. This new oligarchy, whose presence is visible from the region’s necropoleis, found in the new urban structure the social base for its power and the means to control wide territories. Characteristic of the end of the society of the principes is the absence of grave goods related to war and the adoption of other modes of self-representation such as strigils and imports of pottery from Etruria and the ager Faliscus as well as intense urban and suburban building activity. Recent excavations at Gualdo Tadino have shown how these new settlements were organized: dwellings had dry-laid stone foundations and wooden supports, with flat and curved roof tiles. With respect to cult places, the presence of architectural terracottas and revetment slabs in the fourth century at the suburban sanctuaries of Pantanelli at Amelia and of Monte Santo at Todi is indicative of Etruscan influence. It is perhaps due to the gradual Roman expansion in Central Italy, and to a lesser extent to the Gallic presence in northern Italy, that during this period some Umbrian centers, such as Ocriculum, Ameria, Spoletium, and Bettona, organized themselves with stone-built city walls and gates that surround their main religious sites.
The last four centuries of the first millennium represent a watershed in the history of the region. Following the expansion of Rome, new cities were founded, some centers gained Roman citizenship but without the right to vote, and some others developed foedera with the Urbs. Strategic roads were built to strengthen and connect the conquered territories: the Via Amerina, connected northern Lazio with the Umbria and the Etruscan cities of Perugia and Chiusi, and the Via Flaminia crossed the whole Umbria up to the Marche and the Adriatic (Rimini).
Many scholars consider this period (third and second century BCE) crucial to the political and socio-cultural transformation of Umbria. Above all, they have rushed to the conclusion that most of the changes of this period are linked to the imposition of Roman customs. The list of changes imputable to Rome is long, but a few deserve special note.
The construction of the roads Amerina and Flaminia has been regarded as the main factor that facilitated the adoption of Roman ways. These roads are considered a powerful tool for the spread and the assimilation of Roman models and the subsequent deconstruction of the original local cultural substrate. According to this view, the arrival of Latin and Roman people to the newly founded colonies enhanced the process of acculturation.144
The army represents another factor that scholars see as contributing to the alleged “acculturation” process. According to some, since the recruiting systems of Republican Rome required the Italic allies to contribute soldiers to Rome, the participation of Umbrians in the Roman military facilitated the process of integration in the Roman world.145
Assumptions about the other types of material evidence also loom large in the scholarship on Umbria during the Roman period. Black gloss pottery and votive deposits provide examples. In the region, the growth of Roman political influence is paralleled by an increase in imports of black gloss pottery (such as the petites estampilles) from Latium and the ager Faliscus, which have been interpreted as a sign of Roman dominance.146 Finally, as noted in the first chapter, the presence of the anatomical votives has been considered as conclusive evidence of this process. Sisani, who considers the changes that happened during the years of Roman conquest as a wholesale consequence of a planned strategy,147 interprets the diffusion of anatomical votives in the region as “un indicatore non equivoco di presenze coloniali.”148
These views are clearly based upon an outdated view of Roman expansion as a unilateral and purely hegemonic phenomenon for the conquest and control of Italy. They have been notoriously put forth by Mommsen, who in his work Römische Geschichte wrote that “their [the Romans’] object was the subjugation of Italy, which was enveloped more closely from year to year in a network of Roman fortresses and roads.”149 This consensus has been subject to dispute on a number of levels. It does not consider the complex interchange of cultural ideas between individual Romans and locals that took place during the last centuries of the Republic.150
Indeed, when we take a closer look at the archaeological and literary evidence, we get the impression that the process of Roman expansion into this region had a lesser impact on the local population and was a more complicated process than has been traditionally assumed.
One of these pieces of evidence comes from the epigraphical record that mentions Umbrian political institutions. Two identically named members of the Babrius family are mentioned in two inscriptions from Assisium, one written in the Umbrian language and Latin script,151 and the other in the Latin language and script.152 Both inscriptions recall two offices held by Nero Babrius, first the maro and then the uthor. Both offices were probably already used by Umbrian communities by the sixth BCE; the maronate pertained to the construction of buildings and public monuments,153 while the uthor was a public magistrate who was given a special role during the sacrifices in honor of Puemun-Vesuna.154
Nero’s retention of local offices and his use of two languages and scripts to record his achievements are significant for two reasons. First, the former shows that members of the Umbrian elite retained strong political functions in the region during the second century BCE. Second, the latter suggests that the use of languages and scripts in inscriptions is the result of a conscience decision made by the elites. Local magistrates had diverse languages and scripts at their disposal that they could deploy in their civic inscriptions. It is reasonable to imagine that this choice was linked to political behaviors that would have a measurable effect on eventual outcomes.
The recent suggestion by Terrenato that the role of elite agendas ought to be considered seems to be particularly suitable for the case just presented. He encourages consideration of the political scene of the Italians, the existence of factions, and even actual political parties that appropriate the Roman imperial machinery to benefit a specific factional group rather than a political abstraction such as “the Roman empire.”155 It is reasonable to suppose that the decision to have their local magistracies represented in the Latin language, Latin script, or Umbrian language underlies the possibility of gaining some sort of public benefit in response to changing local balances of power and evolving political discourse. Such advantages could be, for example, maintenance of social order, dominance over the local community, and control over tribal formation and composition. The existence of a variety of options open to the Umbrian elite during the period of Roman expansion helps to account for the emergence of diverse of identities found in these inscriptions. this phenomenon aligns with Terrenato’s concept of “brokerage,” which denotes the intermediation between the burgeoning capital and the Italian communities.: “the adoption of Roman political formulas can mask persistence of local power structures and long standing alliances between aristocratic clans” that “managed to survive and thrive after the Roman conquest and are now using Latin political terminology to legitimize further their dominant position.”156
The active role of local people and some sort of factionalism between them and the Romans is also evident from Livy’s account of the establishment of the colony of Nahars. In passage 10.10.1, Livy narrates that this city was taken by the Romans thanks to the treachery of two townsmen who made a tunnel and came by this secret passage to the Roman outposts. Interestingly, Bradley notes that this action may be an example of the help offered to the Romans by local elites, who may have had an interest in aiding the Romans. As in the case of the political action of Nero, it is possible to interpret the action of the two townsmen within the frame of elite factionalism and bonds with the Romans, as noted by Terrenato. Nero, through his diplomatic choices, and the townsfolk, by aiding the Romans, could have engaged in reciprocal actions to maintain the privileges of their traditional structures, such as Nero’s leadership and the townsfolk’s autonomy. The presence of individual agendas underscores the complexity of the consequences of Roman expansion in the region.
A close consideration of the military conflicts between the Romans and the Umbrians also prompts caution when assessing the effects of the Roman expansion. As we have seen, ancient sources account for a series of important wars against the Umbrians, starting at the end of the fourth century. Scholars have traditionally assumed that these wars were part of a long-term vision of Roman imperialist policy. However, recent scholarship has questioned the nature of the wars waged by Rome in the fourth and third centuries BCE and argued that they were haphazard conflicts of short duration rather than strategically planned enterprises.157 In this respect, the Samnite Wars represent a case in point. Tim Cornell has closely and critically analyzed the accounts of these wars written by early imperial authors and has demonstrated that the Samnite Wars consisted of a series of unrelated clashes rather than a long military operation.158 Bradley’s exploration of Cornell’s claims about Roman imperialism emphasizes the importance of the unpredictability of Roman behavior and, consequently, the unlikelihood of a master plan behind Roman expansion.159
The conflicts between the Umbrians and the Romans seem to follow a pattern similar to the one just described. Livy describes the conflicts against the Umbrian communities of Ocriculum and Nahars as lasting only a couple of days. There is no reason to doubt Livy’s information as he, famous for using every opportunity to add rhetorical elaboration and sensational and romantic coloring, would not have missed an opportunity to aggrandize at length these Roman campaigns in Umbria. In addition to this, the conflict with Nahars ended with the favorable terms of amicitia, one of the many foedera that Rome negotiated with local communities. These dynamics seem to suggest that the Roman expansion in the region developed through a series of skirmishes where the Romans most likely followed short-term political and perhaps even personal goals. As the cases of Asisium and Nahars illustrate, not only the Romans but also the local population engaged in such political and personal agendas.
Among scholars studying Umbria, Bradley is the only one who argues that many of the social and urban changes of the Roman period are caused not only by external factors (i.e., Rome) but also by internal ones. However, his call for equal attention to local factors alongside Romanization in the region’s history has not gained widespread acceptance among scholars.160
In the next chapter, I will examine the development of the sanctuaries of the region and their votive objects from the archaic period up to the end of the Roman expansion process (first century BCE). It will become clear that these objects not only problematize the simplistic views of unilateral cultural exchange but also illuminate the dynamics of acquisition and maintenance of local traditions at play during this period.
Plin. Nat. 3.14.112.
Particularly active in this respect are the Faculty of Classical Archaeology of Perugia and the Department of Classical Studies at Cambridge. Two excavations, at ancient Tuder and at Urvinum Hortense, are being carried out by a team led by Professor Gianluca Grassigli from the University of Perugia. As mentioned above, the Gubbio Project has conducted excavations at Monte Ansciano and Monte Ingino, in the ancient Umbrian town of Iuguvium.
Stek and Burgers 2015, 1.
Bradley 2006, 69.
Plin. Nat. 3.50: Umbrorum gens antiquissima Italia existimatur, ut quos Ombrios a Graecis putent dictos quod in inundatione terrarum imbribus superfuissent. (“The Umbrians are believed to be the most ancient people of Italy; According to belief, the Greeks dubbed them “Ombrii” due to their endurance through the tempest after the land was engulfed by floods.”) Dion. Hal. Ant. Rom. 1.19.1:
The uncertainty of ancient sources about ethnic boundaries is not limited to Umbrians and Etruscans but encompasses the whole Italian peninsula. Ancient authors often apply the same ethnicity to different communities at different points in their narratives. For specific examples, see Farney and Bradley 2017, 109.
For an extensive review of the Umbrians in the ancient Greek literature, see Maddoli 2009.
Dion. Hal. Ant. Rom. 1.19.1:
Hdt. 4.49.2:
Dion. Hal. Ant. Rom. 1.20.4
Plin. Nat. 3.113: trecenta eorum oppida Tusci debellasse reperiuntur. (“We find that 300 of their towns [Umbrian] were conquered by the Etruscans.”)
Strab. 5.2.1:
Strab. 5.1.10:
Nonetheless considered Sabine by Pliny: Plin. Nat. 3.15.115: Ravenna Sabinorum oppidum.
Plin. Nat. 3.15.115: nec procul a mari Umbrorum Butrium.
Serv. Aen. 10.201.
Iust. 20.1.11.
Aigner Foresti 1991, 14.
For an ample discussion of the middle valley of the Tiber and the Etruscan boundaries, see Patterson and Coarelli 2008, 15–45.
Colonna, 1974. The presence of the Umbrians in the Po valley has been recently examined by Sassatelli and Macellari 2002; Sisani 2014, 86.
Marcotte 1986.
Scyl. 16M:
Skymn. 366:
A list of all the primary sources mentioning the territory of the Umbrians and their translation (into Italian) can be found in Sisani 2009, 19–41; Sisani 2014. For a recent discussion on the western boundaries of Umbria with Etruria see Patterson and Coarelli 2008, 15–87.
For a discussion of this topic, see Bradley 2000b and Scopacasa 2017. For a review of some of the most recent archaeological to the ethnicity, see Knappett 2014.
Barth 1989; cf. Eriksen 1992 and Jones 1996, 76–79.
See below for further discussion of this topic.
For some examples of crossing ethnic barriers and state boundaries in central and southern Italy, see Fulminante 2012, 89–108. An excellent excursus on mobility in pre-Roman Italy is in Bourdin 2012, 515–785.
See Benelli 2017 for a discussion on the archaeological evidence shared among central Italic cultural groups.
Torelli 2010, 219–230.
The most complete editions of the Sabellic texts are Rix 2002 and Crawford 2011. The standard grammar of the Sabellic languages remains Buck (1928), supplemented by works on aspects of the grammar such as Meiser 1986 and Dupraz 2012.
For the most recent examination of this text, see Weiss 2010.
Pallottino 1940; Sisani 2009, 180–184.
Benelli 2017, 89–103.
On the use of archaeological data to map ancient Italic peoples, see Bradley 2000, 111–113.
For the Gallic invasion of the Italian peninsula, see Zecchini 2009. Cf. Liv. 5.35.2: “Then, over the Poenine Pass, came the Boii and Lingones, who finding everything taken up between the Po and the Alps, crossed the Po on rafts, and drove out not only the Etruscans, but also the Umbrians from their lands; nevertheless, they kept on the further side of the Apennines.”
A skeptical position regarding the “umbricità” of these northern Etruscan cities is held by Sisani (2008, esp. 69). According to him, the literary traditions that mention these centers of northern internal Etruria as Umbrian reflect the presence of foreign elements within the social structure of the Etruscan archaic communities.
Liv. 5.35.2. “Then the Senones, the latest to come, had their holdings from the river Utens all the way to the Aesi.”
The most recent discussion on the borders of the ancient region of Sabina is in the article by Gary D. Farney and Giulia Masci in Bradley 2017, 543–558.
A full account of the literary sources for the Roman period (from the expansion of Rome in Umbrian territory to the formation of the regio sexta) is in Sisani 2007, 299–367.
This limit was just an administrative one since the awareness of earlier group identities did not cease to exist. The previously Etruscan center of Vettona, satellite of Perusia and now in the Regio VI, retained the title of praetor Etruriae. See Koch 1954.
Hall 1997.
Jones 1997.
Demetriou 2012.
McInerney 2015, Gardner et al. 2013.
Blake 2014.
Bourdin (2012) examines minutely the ancient application of terms such as populus and nomen and whether it had any political content and how the reality of settlement and organization of the territory related to questions of identity.
Scopacasa 2017.
Scopacasa 2017, 117.
Scopacasa 2017, 118. An interesting development of this concept is in Farney 2007. The results of Farney’s research on Roman political culture suggest that aristocratic families manipulated their identity for political or social goals. For this reason, according to the author, the praenomina of aristocrats are more important than nomina because they reflect their choice to self-identify themselves with an ethnic membership or descent.
Stek 2013.
This concept has been recently emphasized by Benelli (2017). He notes the discrepancy between cultural boundaries and ethnic boundaries in central Italy during the pre-Roman period and suggests that the ethnic identity as people of one region was weaker than local identities, which he sees reflected in distinctive material culture.
Dench 1995.
Excellent discussions about this evidence and related bibliography are in Suano and Scopacasa 2013 and Scopacasa 2017. For a good review of recent research on ethnogenesis in central Italy (mainly Etruria and Latium Vetus) see Fulminante 2012. Her analysis is particularly innovative as it brings different types of evidence in a relational model to the study of ethnicity both horizontally and vertically. She suggests the use of a combination of material culture, ancient authors, and faunal or vegetal remains in order to explore how ethnic identity is defined. In agreement with previous scholarship, she argues that, for Latium Vetus, the definition and characterization of identity happens in proto-history (tenth–seventh century BCE) and identifies several indicators in the material culture that illustrate how ethnic identity can be investigated.
In her synthesis of the historical processes of the region during the seventh century, Bonomi Ponzi (1991, 70) argues that “the presence of the Umbrians in historical sources is clearly attested.” Torelli pinpoints the existence of an Umbrian ethnic distinction already in the sixth century and even postulates the existence of a maritime emporium at Rimini: Torelli 2010, 29.
This inscription is carved on a bronze bracelet dedicated in a shrine in the Pescara valley that mentions “in the territory of the Umbri” or “in the plain of the Umbri”: ombriíen akren.
Sisani 2009; Sisani 2012.
Manconi 2017, 606.
Bradley 1997; 2000.
“I am sacred to Cupra, mother of the Plestini.” On this inscription, see Ciotti 1964; Bradley 2000a, 288; Crawford 2011, 115–118.
Plin. Nat. 3.14.114.
Petra Amann (2011, 296) shares Bradley’s conclusions about the blurry nature of pre-Roman Umbrian identity: “… existieren derzeit keine echten Indizien dafür, dass neben einem eher lockeren Gefühl der ethnischen Gemeinsamkeit eine Art von dauerhaftem Staatenbund zwischen den einzelnen umbrischen Gemeinden existiert hätte. … Zweifellos bestand spätestens ab dem 4. Jh.v.Chr. die Notwendigkeit eines gemeinsamen militärischen Vorgehens, die einzelnen umbrischen Gemeinden schlossen sich temporär zu Verteidigungszwechen zusammen, blieben aber politisch autonom und verfügen über keine gemeinsame politische Organisation mit Zentralorganen.”
Similarly, Stek (2013, 349) argues that, in Latium, Latin speakers could “identify with each other in the face of external threat.”
Benelli 2017, 100.
Stoddart and Redhouse 2014.
Stoddart and Redhouse 2014, 117.
If anything, the South Picene inscription, ombriíen akren, “on Umbrian land,” shows that at least one tribe in this region considered themselves members of an Umbrian ethnos.
For a more extensive description of the region’s geography, see Bonomi-Ponzi 1991, Colivicchi and Zaccagnino 2008, and Ammann 2011.
Grifoni Cremonesi 1987.
Bonomi Ponzi 1991, 52.
The fullest examination of the so-called Apennine culture was done by Salvatore Puglisi, who, in 1959, published his work on the Apennine Bronze Agestill, the principal statement of the “pastoralist” hypothesis. However, data from the excavation at Luni sul Mignone in northern Latium, which led to the discovery of imposing house foundations cut into the soft volcanic tufo, suggested that “the Apennine culture had a mixed economy with agriculture and stock-breeding as basic components … pastoral nomadism cannot therefore be looked upon as the primary characteristic feature of the Apennine culture”: Östenberg, 1967, 260.
On the sub-Apennine phase, see Peroni 1959.
Fulminante 2013, 5.
For an overview of settlements in these mountainous areas, see Bonomi Ponzi 1982.
Bonomi Ponzi 1988.
See the most recently detailed publication on this necropolis, Leonelli 2003.
The pottery from the funerary ensembles was made from coarse clay and took simple forms. It was wheel-made in local workshops throughout the region and fired in kilns. The typologies show similarities with the Etruscan-Latin areas and with southern Italy. With regard to the metal objects, the presence of fibulae from the area of Bologna points at the contacts, through the Tiber valley, with the Po valley.
Bonomi Ponzi 1991, 61.
The traditional interpretation is that during this period a few major cultural groups appeared and their boundaries, even though blurred, roughly corresponded to the geographical location of pre-Roman people known in historical times and from literary sources. For example, in central Italy, archaeologists have identified distinctive material cultures such as the Villanovan culture, which is characterized by cremation funerary rites in pits and is found primarily in areas west of the Tiber, including modern-day northern Latium and Tuscany. Meanwhile, the rest of the region, along with northern Abruzzo, is thought to have been part of a central Italian “koine” or common cultural group, which practiced inhumation burial in large rectangular pits with stone circles; see Manconi 2017.
The previous settlements on the plains were abandoned due to the insecurity of their position. Plestia is a well-studied example of an Iron Age village that, in the sixth century, relocated to a hillfort: Bonomi Ponzi 1985, 214–216.
This is the only settlement that has been the object of a systematic excavation.
Bonomi Ponzi 1991, 62; Manconi 2017, 609.
For a discussion of the function of hillfort settlements in this region, see Bradley 2000, 53–55.
These structures have only been dated through association with surface pottery and related cemeteries.
See Chapter 6 for a discussion of the connection between hilltop centers and sacred spaces.
Bonomi Ponzi 1985 and 1991.
Unlike, for instance, the Samnium region, where the Venafro Project of the Freie Universität di Berlino (Excellence Cluster TOPOI) investigated the settlement dynamics of the region. The results of this investigation merged into the book “Die Höhenbefestigungen Samniums: Eine landschafts- und siedlungsarchäologische Analyse” by Alexander Hoer.
Bonomi Ponzi 1985.
Bonomi Ponzi 1992, Bonomi Ponzi 2010.
See Bradley 2015 for a discussion of the emergence of a stable elite class in these areas.
Among some examples we can mention are the embossed bronze laminated shields from Veii found in Colfiorito, Sant’Anatolia di Narco, Pitino di San Severino, Fabriano, Verrucchio, and Capena; and the plates and Faliscan pottery, imported and imitated in Todi, Febbrecce, Tavere di Serravalle, and Pitino di San Severino: Bonomi Ponzi 1991, 70.
When Orvieto/Volsinii took over the position of fulcrum of trade between Umbria and Etruria, imported Greek pottery begins to appear in funerary contexts: Bradley 2000, 97; Bonomi Ponzi 1991, 58.
Bonomi Ponzi, 1988.
Tascio 1988, 16–17.
Catalli 1989, 140–152.
Sisani 2009, 55–70.
Torelli 2010, 30; Sisani 2006, 164; Tascio 1989, 13–17.
Bradley 1997.
As Malone and Stoddart (1994, 142–143) clarify, in the absence of structural remains, religious sites can be distinguished by “the repetitive act of making distinctive offerings of bronze figurines on simply prepared and demarcated surfaces” and by the fact that these figurines “show clear signs of expressive gesture and action.” In general, on Etruscan religion, see Grummond and Simon (2006, with previous bibliography); on Venetic religion, see Maioli and Mastrocinque 1992.
Due to the presence of scavi clandestini (unofficial excavations).
Amann 2011, 373. See also Chapter 6 for an overview of the topography and architecture of Umbrian sanctuaries.
De Grummond 2006, 92.
On the location of Italic cult places, see Bradley and Glinister 2013, 173–191.
The presence of these types beyond the Alps and the Po valley, where the Amelia, Foligno, Nocera Umbra, Esquiline, Fiesole, and Marzabotto types and bronze sheet figurines have been found, has led Colonna to hypothesize the presence of Umbrian peoples in these areas, perhaps “spinti a cercarsi una nuova patria a seguito delle invasion galliche, secondo il modello additato da Livio per i Reti,” Colonna 1974, 19.
Bradley 2006, 163. Cic. Agr. 2.73.
Bradley 2006, 164.
Liv. 5.31. 5. The location of this group is uncertain. Livy locates the tribus Sapinia on the northern part of Umbria, not far from the Gauls; Liv. 31. 2.6. Pliny mentiones the Sappinates among the Umbrian groups that do not exist anymore in the region during his time; Plin. Nat. 3.14.114. This evidence is enough for Sisani to locate them in Umbria “probabilment non lontano dal Tevere e dal confine volsiniese,” likely in the Ameria or in the Tuder areas: Sisani 2006, 30. It is still Livy who recounts another encounter between Romans and Umbrians without specifying the date but writing in Umbria Gallis hostibus adiunctis, … gerebant bellum (Liv. 9.19.3). According to Sisani, this information relates to a Gallic invasion, which, from the North, passed through Umbria to confront the Romans. However, this is pure speculation as it is based only on one, unreliable passage by Livy.
Liv. 9.36.7.
Liv. 9.41. 8–10.
The friendship with Ocriculum represented an important step in the Roman advance towards north. This center, in fact, occupied a strategic location overlooking the Tiber valley and controlled one of its ports.
Liv. 10. 9.8–9.
Liv. 10.10.1.
Liv. 10.10.5.
Liv. 10.10.6–12.
Liv. 10.18.2.
Liv. 10. 24–31. The participation of the Umbrians in this battle remains dubious. Livy notes that Etruscans and Umbrians were absent from the battle; Polybius concurs with this, although at 30.5 he reports that some of his sources included both peoples at Sentinum. The Fasti Triumphales list the triumph of Fabius Maximus Rulianus at Sentinum over Gauls, Samnites, and Etruscans, leaving aside the Umbrians. Stephen Oakley is skeptical of the participation of the Umbrians in this battle. He argues that if the Umbrians were involved in it, the Roman sources would not have marginalized their presence, but, conversely, they would have enhanced the danger faced by the Romans. Sisani opts for a more cautious reading of the sources and concludes that Umbrians participated only marginally in the battle. Sisani 2009, 46; Oakley 2005, 289.
Communities granted this status shared the private privileges and obligations of Roman citizenship (commercium, connubium, and militia) but without the possibility of voting in political elections. The exact dynamics of these types of agreement are elusive. The main problem in determining the details of these agreements is that ancient authors apply this category to communities that had different statuses in relation to Rome. Centers such as Capua could retain their magistrates and local administration, which continued to function independently after the change of status. However, in the case of Anagnia, the concession of the status of citizens without the vote at the end of the fourth century BCE was considered a punishment for rebelling against Rome. Consequently, the city was deprived of autonomy, and magistrates could only perform religious tasks. While Mouritsen (2007, 150–155) suggests that the concept of civitas sine suffragio was invented in the late second century BCE and is, therefore, a fiction, Torelli (2016, 265) hypothesizes that this status varies over the centuries. If, at the beginning of the fourth century, it had a favorable connotation and was granted as a type of honor to an allied community (e.g., Caere), starting at the end of the century it implied a loss of self-government and the obligation to serve in the Roman army. Both Plestia and Fulginiae seem to have received Roman citizenship optimo iure as praefecturae by the end of the third century BCE. For a discussion of the evidence of the Roman status of these two settlements, see Bradley 2000, 140–143 and Sisani 2007, 271–273 with previous bibliography.
Bradley (2000, 129–138) argues that Interamna was a Latin colony, but see Fora (2002) and Sisani (2007, 165–168) for arguments against this interpretation. Sisani suggests that Interamna Nahars was born as a praefectura in coincidence with viritane deductions in the area, which he believes are dated to the third century BCE (2007, 146–150). The only juridical difference between the two statuses was the right to vote. While the inhabitants of a praefectura were all Roman citizens and thus could vote in Rome, those of Latin colonies could vote for one tribe in Rome if they lived in the city at the time of the election: Carlà-Uhink 2017, 348. In either of these two instances, what seems to be certain is that the foundation of Interamna did not erase all indigenous political and social structures but should instead be seen as an addition to the existing situation. Bradley has convincingly demonstrated the presence of local people after the Roman conquest. As he points out (2000, 133), the presence of an imperial inscription recording the foundation of the city 704 years earlier shows that the memory that the city foundation pre-dated the arrival of settlers survived at least until the imperial period. This awareness could suggest that the pre-existing Umbrian community was incorporated into the city, regardless of its status as a Latin colony or as a Roman praefectura.
For the colonies: Liv. Per. 20; Vell. Pat. 1.14.8. For Forum Flaminii: Strab. 5.2.10. Fora were typically new foundations created by a Roman magistrate (Flaminius in this case) in connection with the construction of a road along which the forum was situated. Forum Flaminii almost certainly owed its existence to the building of the Via Flaminia. Here, in fact, the two branches of the Flaminia met again to cross the Apennines on their way to the Adriatic.
Liv. Epitom. 15.
Dionysius of Halicarnassus is the only source that mentions a third road, the Via Curia. Although its exact path remains unclear, scholars agree it passed through Reate and connected the Sabine territory (conquered in 290 BCE) with Interamna Nahars in Umbria: Sisani 2006, 122.
Frederiksen and Ward Perkins 1957 give a detailed description of this Roman road.
Potter 1979, 102–104.
Not for nothing Ray Laurence argues that this road created a “Rome-centered” geography, which enabled Latin colonies and allied communities to be linked among themselves and to Rome: Laurence 1999, 23.
The fact that the Umbrians are recorded as socii when they provided troops to Rome in 279 BCE against Pyrrhus of Epirus, and in 225 BCE and 205 BCE against the Gauls, may suggest that the Romans concluded foedera with the Umbrian peoples after the victory at Sentinum in 292 BCE: Sisani 2006, 100–115.
Cic. Balb. 46–47. With regard to the foedus with Iguvium, see Sisani 2001, 225–230.
Sisenn. 111 P.
For a list of these inscriptions, see Sisani 2006, 101, note 10.
Polyb. 2.24:
Bradley (2000, 121–122) adds fourteen more Umbrian centers to the list of the cities with a well-known treaty with Rome.
Badian 1958, 25–28.
The fact that Iguvium and Todi could mint their own coinage indicates their local sovereignty. For coinage as a sign of political organization, see Bradley 2000, chapter 4, s. 6. With respect to the clauses of the foedera between Roman and the Umbrian peoples, the only exception seems to be the foedus with Camerinum, which had greater freedom in choosing whether to send troops to help Rome or not. Liv. 38, 45, 13.
The measures contained in this document are not clear as there are no sources that elucidate them. In the lex agraria of 111 BCE it is mentioned that “all allies or members of the Latin name, from whom Romans are accustomed to demand soldiers in the land of Italy ex formula togatorum”; see Erdkamp 2007, 116–117. As mentioned above in this chapter, communities’ ability to conduct the levy is also considered by Bradley as a further sign of the organization of the region into a city-state communal structure by the time of the conquest.
Liv. 32, 6–7. ***.
This law entailed the redistribution of public land and its adsegnatio to new owners. The nature of this measure is explained by Appian (BCiv. I.10). For the foundation of the colony of Pisaurum, see Liv. 39, 44, 10.
Cic. Balb. 46; 48; Val. Max. 5.2.8; Plut. Mor. 202C–D. For a discussion on the different ways to acquire Roman citizenship see Harris 1971, 192–201.
App. BCiv. 1.36.162. See also the critical reading by Crawford 2012, 737 and 2014, 209–211. Umbrians and Etruscans were the only two groups who opposed both the lex agraria and the rogatio de sociis. On these issues, see Asdrubali Pentiti 1981–1982.
App. BCiv. 1.35.
App. BCiv. 1.36.164.
For an extensive treatment on the municipalization of Italy see Bisham 2007, 205–404; Dart 2015. The latter also assesses the repercussions of the Social War, investigating the legacy of the insurgency during the civil wars, and considers its role in reshaping Roman and Italian identity on the peninsula in the last decades of the Republic. For the strategy of urban renewal after the Social War, see Gabba 1994.
App. BCiv 36.162–164. For a discussion on Umbria’s participation to the War, see Harris 1971, 212–229.
As Harris (1970, 230) suggests, it is reasonable to hypothesize that a senatus consultum was passed to enfranchise the towns that remained in arms during the war.
Due to the lack of excavation data, the date and function of Samnite hillforts have been largely overlooked. However, ongoing studies in the modern region of Lucania and Campania are revealing new information not only on the function of hillforts but also on their organization; see Hoer 2020. For hillforts in Britain and Gaul, see Harding 2012; Oswald et al .2013 with previous bibliography.
As mentioned in the first chapter, in the past two decades the view of Roman colonization as an acculturation process and of colonies as a medium for this process has been strongly criticized by scholars working mainly in Latium, Etruria, and Samnium. For a more general overview of Roman colonization and its impact on Italic territories, see Bradley 2006, Stek and Pelgrom 2014, Scopacasa 2015 with previous bibliography. For a discussion of Roman colonization and its effects on the sacred sphere see Chapter 2.
Harris 1971, 170.
Bonomi Ponzi 2006, 66.
Sisani 2006.
Sisani 2006, 151–152; Bonomi Ponzi 2006, 65.
Mommsen 1869, 474.
Most of these contributions are mentioned in Chapter 2 in the discussion of cultural change. For a more general discussion of the latest developments see Pelgrom and Stek 2014 and the several contributions to the Companion to Roman Italy (Cooley 2016).
Um 10: Crawford 2011, 101–102: ager. emps .et termnas .oht(retie)c(aie).u.uistinie.ner.t.babr(ie) Maronatei uois(ie). ner. propartiet. u. uoisiener sacre. Stahu. “A-field bought and bounded in-the-auctorship of-Cauius/Gaius Vistinius (son)-of-Vibius/Vibis (Osc.) (and) Nero Babrius (son)-of-Titus (and) in-the-maronateship of-Voisienus Propartius (son)-of-Nero (and) Titus Voisienius (son)-of-Vibius/Vibis(Osc.). I-stand sacredly.” This inscription refers to a field that has been bought and delimited during the period of office of two uthors, C. Vastinius and Nero Babrius, and two marones, Voisienus Propartius and Titus Voisienus. In this text, all Umbrian inscriptions are mentioned according to Rix’s (2002) catalog of inscriptions.
CIL 11.390: Post(umus) Mimesius C(ai) f(ilius), T(itus) Mimesius Sert(oris) f(ilius), Ner(o) Capidas C(ai) f(ilius) Ruf(- - -), Ner(o) Babrius T(iti) f(ilius), C(aius) Capidas T(iti) f(ilius) C(ai) n(epos), V(ibius) Voisienus T(iti) f(ilius) marones murum ab fornice ad circum et fornicem cisternâmq(ue) d(e) s(enatus) s(ententia) faciundum coiravere. This inscription is carved over an arch that leads to a Roman cistern and is dated to the second BCE. It records the building of a terrace wall that extended from the arch of the cistern to another arch near the circus during the office of six marones, among whom we find Nero Babrius.
The civic office of the maro is a local Umbrian magistracy and is attested as a collegiate office of two. Since the office doubles the Etruscan MarunuX, it has been suggested that it had become part of the political institution of Umbrian communities at least since the fourth century BCE (Bradley 2000, 258). Indeed, it is during this century that the great Etruscan centers, such as Volsinii and Perusia, began to exert influence on Umbrian communities. From the epigraphic evidence, it is clear that the sphere of influence of the marones was limited to the construction of buildings and public monuments. The parallel between maroship and the aedileship is further strengthened by the absence of this office from the Iguvine Tablets, whose religious content excludes the public undertakings associated with the marones. This office is attested at Asisium, Fulginiae (Um 6), Tadinum (Um 7).
Devoto 1947, 370. This office is mentioned also in the Iguvine Tablets (TI Va 2, 15) and at Maevania (Um 25). Here, the uthor presides over two moments of the acts and rites of the Atiedian Brethren. In order to define the role and status of this magistracy, early scholarship focused primarily on the mention of the uthor in the Iguvine Tablets, by far the most studied among the Umbrian inscriptions. Vetter, Buck, and others (Vetter 1953, 211–212; Buck 1904, 301, Coli 1964, 142–143) held that it was an internal office of the Atiedian Brotherhood, perhaps even appointed by its members, while Devoto maintained that it was a public magistrate who was given a special role during the sacrifices in honor of Puemun-Vesuna. This controversy seems to have been resolved in favor of Devoto, when he found the inscription from Maevania, where the uthor is mentioned after the dead man’s name in the style of a public magistracy. Recently, the presence of the uthor in the Umbrian cursus honorum has been further proved by Weiss (2010, 77). The author examines inscription no. 5 and rightly argues that this boundary-marking inscription supports Devoto’s argument about the political role of the uthor.
Terrenato 2014, 45–60. The new ongoing project “Non-Roman Elites: Tracking persistence and change in central Italy through the Roman conquest,” of which I am part, has the potential to shed further light on the role of individual elite members during the period of Roman expansion. By focusing on two bodies of evidence—burial evidence for local elites and onomastic evidence from regional epigraphy relating to elite family groups, some of which can be reconstructed in stemmatic lineages—in central Italy, this project explores new models for understanding the negotiations as Rome expanded and incorporated new elites into her imperial project. Early results of this research group were presented in January 2019 at the AIA conference in San Diego.
Terrenato 2008, 240.
For a discussion, see Cornell 2004; Stek 2015, 6–8; Terrenato 2014.
Cornell 2004, 115–131.
Bradley 2014, 60–73.
He is echoed by Amann 2011.