This book consists of the proceedings of the fifteenth French–Italian meeting on Roman epigraphy, held in October 2008 in Paris. The first half of the volume contains studies on ‘colonists and colonies’, while the second half publishes new epigraphic material from colonies around the Roman world. The book offers many important new insights into Roman colonies – all dating from the Augustan period to the late third century a.d.; the Republican period is hardly discussed. At the same time many studies are fairly traditional and the book as a whole does not offer major revisions of scholarship on Roman colonisation. Although the introduction emphasises the importance of studying not just the constitution and political development of colonies, but also their demography, cultural developments and relations between the colonists and incolae, most contributions remained focussed on administration and legal issues. In fact, the main aim of the volume, as stated in the introduction (p. ix) is ‘l’étude de l'installation des colons … et la constitution de nouvelles élites, ainsi que le devenir des nouvelles communautés romaines', which is presented as ‘une façon originale d’écrire l'histoire du monde romain'. Of course this subject is not quite original, and most of the studies are fairly traditional in method and content.
Most papers simply discuss an aspect of the history and administration of colonies, based on epigraphic evidence, but the volume does not present an overall, coherent view on colonists and colonies in the Roman world. Of course it would not be realistic to expect this from a conference volume and it is therefore more important to judge the individual contributions on their own merits.
What appears from several papers is that the period of Augustus was crucial in the history of Roman colonisation. At this time some towns received colonial status, others (such as Italica, discussed by Caballos Rufino) became municipia, yet others received Latin status; many articles in the volume dispel theories of foundations by Caesar, often suggested on the basis of literary sources; in most cases an Augustan foundation is better attested by the epigraphic material (e.g. in the case of Valentia in Gaul, as Faure & Tran argue, and Orange, as Christol demonstrates). Many towns were later promoted to a higher status, sometimes quite soon after the first grant of an honorific status. What motivated the choice for which status was received and when is unfortunately not explained; the first grant of municipal or colonial status by Caesar or Augustus was usually due to assistance in the civil wars, but later promotions are more difficult to explain. Colonies often varied little from other towns: in Britain for example, the colonies were about the same size and had the same type of buildings and material artefacts as non-colonial towns (Dondin-Payre & Loriot).
Several papers emphasise the flexibility of administrative procedures in colonies: they could, for example, either have duouiri or quattuoruiri as highest magistrates. This choice was not completely random, however; as Laffi suggests (though he offers little supporting evidence), it may have been motivated by the way the magistrates were elected. On the other hand, some institutions show remarkable uniformity throughout the Empire; the number of curiae, for example, was often 24, for example in the Lex Ursonensis and in Turris Libisonis on Sardinia (see Zucca). This flexibility is also illustrated by the fact that many towns were not municipalised or made into colonies; the Roman state did not adopt a systematic approach in this respect. Some areas in Italy which were less urbanised, for example in the territory of the Aequiculi, remained governed as pagi well into the Empire (Buonocore). The spatial layout of some colonies is quite interesting: in the case of Orange (see Christol) and Philippi (see Rizakis) communities of incolae remained in areas completely surrounded by the colony's territory. Such settlement patterns must have been conducive to cultural integration between locals and settlers: the incolae had to pay a vectigal to the colony, although they also had their own independent magistrates.
An important contribution to scholarship is made by several papers discussing the integration of colonial elites into the ruling classes of Rome; in many cases it is possible to follow a family through time and trace its rise to the imperial elite. Khanoussi & Mastino, for example, show how L. Pullaienus Lectus from Uchi Maius rose to the office of suffect consul in the early third century a.d. The Anicii and Flavonii from Antioch in Pisidia can be followed through many generations and several family branches; one branch of both families rose to imperial office, gaining senatorial status, while the other remained in the colony. The branches of Anicii and Flavonii remaining in the colony intermarried, indicating that both belonged to the local ruling class. It is clear that the rise of one branch of a family did not necessarily mean that all branches experienced the same social advancement (Christol & Drew-Bear).
In the relationship between colonial elites and the imperial aristocracy, an important role was played by the patrons of individual towns. Many members of the imperial elite acted as patrons for provincial towns, such as L. Nonius Asprenas for Valentia (Faure & Tran). Unfortunately the reasons why a certain person supported a certain town are not always clear; Asprenas had likely been a governor of Gallia Narbonensis. In some colonies patrons were elected by the population (e.g. in Sardinia, see Zucca), but the reasons for the choice are not specified in the inscriptions honouring them. Often patrons belonged to the local rather than the imperial aristocracy; if they then rose to hold an office in Rome, their connections with their home town would stay in place, as in the case of Pullaienus in Uchi Maius. Connections were also created by economic opportunities: in the territory of Tergeste, amphorae indicate that both local elites and imperial elites were active in the production of wine and olive oil (Zaccaria). This would have created links between these people and offered profitable social relationships for the local elites, which in time could lead to political advancement. Similarly, local men, including some from Uchi Maius, became involved in shipping African grain to Rome, and thus caught the eye of the imperial administration, leading to further office holding (Khanoussi & Mastino; Camodeca).
The presentations of new epigraphic material in the second part of the volume offer some new insights, mostly on a smaller scale – for example a new imperial letter on bronze from Toulouse (Armani), a new seruus regionarius from Sulci (Cenerini) and a new praefectus annonae (Camodeca). Panciera's contribution is of greater importance for our knowledge of epigraphy in general: he traces the development of standard abbreviations used in inscriptions. Abbreviations of names occurred very early, from the fifth century b.c. onwards, followed by Roman offices such as consul, quaestor, etc. in the early second century. Religious terms were also abridged early, for example d(onum) d(are) from the late third century, while professional titles, such as scriba and medicus, were only shortened in the first century. The subject in fact deserves more space than it can be given in this volume; it would be interesting if Panciera were able to expand his argument in later work.
The volume is well presented with very few typographical errors. One minor problem is that some of the photographs of inscriptions are hardly legible (e.g. pp. 156, 203, 269, 349); this makes it impossible to check the authors' interpretation of them. That said, many of the papers make important contributions to our knowledge of the administration of Roman colonies; these should therefore be read with attention by anyone interested in the history of Roman colonisation.
