Hostname: page-component-74656f9884-2dmjx Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-11-06T22:18:08.221Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

THE QUESTION OF THE OPPIDA VETERIS LATII IN PLINY THE ELDER'S NATVRALIS HISTORIA

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  06 July 2018

David Espinosa-Espinosa
David Espinosa-Espinosa*
Affiliation:
University of Santiago de Compostela
*
david.espinosa@usc.es
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

This article attempts to provide a plausible explanation of a series of expressions used by Pliny the Elder to designate a significant number of communities in Hispania: [oppida] Latio antiquitus donata, [oppida] Latinorum ueterum, oppidani Latii ueteris, [oppida] Latii antiqui and oppida ueteris Latii (Plin. HN 3.7, 3.18, 3.24, 3.25, 4.117). These phrases, commonly explained from a chronological or typological viewpoint, encompass fifty Augustan ciuitates, the most important feature of which was the enjoyment of Latin rights before the sources used by Pliny were written under the Early Principate. To address this issue, the meaning and the use of the term oppidum are first examined. In a second stage, the origin and the sense of the adjectives uetus and antiquum, as well as the adverb antiquitus, are analysed. The results suggest that oppida ueteris Latii and its variants may express, in a simple and comprehensible way, the administrative changes that a group of Republican Latin colonies in Hispania underwent through their transformation into municipia Latina during the reign of Augustus.

Information

Type
Research Article
Information
The Classical Quarterly , Volume 68 , Issue 1 , May 2018 , pp. 232 - 245
Copyright
Copyright © The Classical Association 2018 

This article attempts to provide a plausible explanation of a series of expressions used by Pliny the Elder to designate a significant number of communities in Hispania: [oppida] Latio antiquitus donata, [oppida] Latinorum ueterum, oppidani Latii ueteris, [oppida] Latii antiqui and oppida ueteris Latii (Plin. HN 3.7, 3.18, 3.24, 3.25, 4.117). These phrases, commonly explained from a chronological or typological viewpoint, encompass fifty Augustan ciuitates, the most important feature of which was the enjoyment of Latin rights before the sources used by Pliny were written under the Early Principate. To address this issue, the meaning and the use of the term oppidum are first examined. In a second stage, the origin and the sense of the adjectives uetus and antiquum, as well as the adverb antiquitus, are analysed. The results suggest that oppida ueteris Latii and its variants may express, in a simple and comprehensible way, the administrative changes that a group of Republican Latin colonies in Hispania underwent through their transformation into municipia Latina during the reign of Augustus.

I. PLINY THE ELDER, HISPANIA AND THE OPPIDA VETERIS LATII

The geographic description of Hispania contained in Books 3 and 4 of Pliny the Elder's Naturalis historia provides extensive information about a significant number of Hispanian communities (Plin. HN 3.6–30, 3.76–8, 4.110–20).Footnote 1 This information, mainly dating from an undetermined moment during the reign of Augustus,Footnote 2 poses a major historical problem in terms of the possible process of Latin colonization in Hispania during the Republican period.Footnote 3 According to the official sources consulted by Pliny (mainly the so-called formulae prouinciarum),Footnote 4 the provinces of Hispania were characterized by the presence of a series of ciuitates distinguished by the fact that they had held Latin status from a time before these sources were written. These towns, to which Pliny refers as [oppida] Latio antiquitus donata, [oppida] Latinorum ueterum, oppidani Latii ueteris, [oppida] Latii antiqui and oppida ueteris Latii,Footnote 5 set Hispania apart in the Republican history of Rome, since, although there were also oppida Latina in other provinces, none of them merited the qualification of uetus or antiquum.

The length of time this privilege had been in place (which Pliny does not specify) is determined by the adjectives uetus or antiquum, as well as by the adverb antiquitus (Plin. HN 3.7).Footnote 6 Since expressions such as oppida ueteris Latii and [oppida] Latio antiquitus donata were not legal-administrative categories traditionally used by Rome as a means of integrating peregrine communities legally and politically, we can suppose that this nomenclature conceals ciuitates Latinae which originated in the Republican period, and which had municipal status under the Early Principate.Footnote 7

a. The oppida ueteris Latii in Pliny's description of Hispania

With a total of fifty communities, the oppida ueteris Latii comprise the second largest group of ciuitates in Hispania (exceeded only by the two hundred and ninety-one ciuitates stipendiariae) and the first group of privileged towns ahead of the coloniae Romanae (with twenty-six towns), the municipia ciuium Romanorum (with another twenty-six), the ciuitates liberae (with six) and the ciuitates foederatae (also with six).Footnote 8

The majority of the oppida ueteris Latii were in Hispania Ulterior Baetica (with twenty-seven communities), followed by Hispania Citerior Tarraconensis (with twenty) and Lusitania (with three). Of these, Pliny provides the names of only twenty-five oppida and/or populi, with four in Baetica (Plin. HN 3.15: Laepia Regia, Carissa Aurelia, Vrgia Castrum Iulium and [Vrgia] Caesaris Salutariensis), eighteen in Tarraconensis (Plin. HN 3.20, 3.23–5, 3.77: Lucentum, Ausetani, Ceretani qui Iuliani, [Ceretani] qui Augustani, Edetani, Gerundenses, Iessonienses, Teari qui Iuliensis, Cascantenses, Ergauicenses, Graccurritanos, Leonicenses, Osicerdenses, Castulonenses qui Caesaris Iuuenalis, Saetabini qui Augustani, Valerienses, Guium and Tucis) and three in Lusitania (Plin. H N 4.117: Ebora quod item Liberalitas Iulia, Myrtilis [Iulia] and Salacia Vrbs Imperatoria).

The identities of the twenty-five remaining oppida are unknown, as for some reason their names were not indicated. Whatever the cause,Footnote 9 we might search for some of these twenty-five oppida ueteris Latii amongst the communities of Baetica that held the cognomina honorifica without any definition of their status.Footnote 10 As indicated by M.I. Henderson and B. Galsterer-Kröll, their titles clearly show that they were privileged towns prior to 27 b.c.Footnote 11 This is the case for Onuba Aestuaria, Sexi Firmum Iulium, Segida quae Augurina, Vlia quae Fidentia, Vrgao quae Alba, Ebora quae Cerialis, Iliberri quod Florentini, Ilipula quae Laus, Artigi quod Iuliensis, Vesci quod Fauentia, Ossigi quod Latonium, Iliturgi quod Forum Iulium, Isturgi quod Triumphales, Obulco quod Pontificense, Osset quod Iulia Constantia, Lucurgentum quod Iuli Genius, Nabrissa Veneria, Seria Fama Iulia, Nertobriga Concordia Iulia, Segida Restituta Iulia, Contributa Iulia Vgultunia, Lacimurga Constantia Iulia, Stereses Fortunales and Calenses Aeneanici (Plin. HN 3.7, 3.9–11, 3.13). As pointed out by J. González,Footnote 12 it is difficult to imagine that all of these towns continued to be ciuitates stipendiariae without having achieved colonial or municipal status, especially if we consider that the tribus Galeria is documented in many of them.Footnote 13 Moreover, scholars including M.I. Henderson, A.N. Sherwin-White, J. González and E. García-Fernández suggest that some of these communities (probably within the context of the bellum ciuile) may have received the Latium from Caesar,Footnote 14 which would explain the display of cognomina honorifica associated with the gens Iulia and the high degree of legal Latinization achieved by the Turdetani in the time of Augustus.Footnote 15

In addition, it is likely that there were ciuitates Latinae other than those included in Pliny's Augustan lists as oppida ueteris Latii. Unlike the latter, which were preserved in the Imperial period through their transformation into municipia Latina (as we shall see later on),Footnote 16 these other Latin towns either succumbed to the bellum Sertorianum and the bellum ciuile (and were destroyed or legally diminished), or modified their status as a result of being granted Roman citizenship under Caesar or Augustus.Footnote 17 Pompelo may have belonged to the first group,Footnote 18 and Cesse/Tarraco to the second.Footnote 19 To these we should add the possible Latin colonies traditionally accepted by modern scholars that appear in the time of Augustus as coloniae and municipia ciuium Romanorum: Italica, Carteia, Corduba, Valentia, Palma, Pollentia, Saguntum and Carthago Nova.Footnote 20

II. ON THE ORIGIN AND STATUS OF THE OPPIDA VETERIS LATII

Focussing exclusively on the fifty Latin communities detailed by Pliny, the phrases oppida ueteris Latii and [oppida] Latio antiquitus donata, the origins and legal-administrative meaning of which cannot be found in any written source, pose two main problems in terms of historical interpretation. The first refers to the nature of the term oppidum, and the second to the reasons for using uetus, antiquum and antiquitus to refer to the Latin status that this kind of ciuitates enjoyed. One initial point to consider in determining the origin and legal-administrative status of these communities in Hispania is to examine the contents and the date of the main source consulted by Pliny, that is, the so-called formulae prouinciarum of Hispania.

a. Notes on the formulae prouinciarum of Hispania

P. López Barja de Quiroga considers that two elements were necessary in order to constituere prouinciam: a lex prouinciae and a formula prouinciae, the content of the latter being a list of the communities within the province, with their legal status, fiscal duties and obligations.Footnote 21 The formulae prouinciarum, according to this author, were official administrative documents made by the Roman administration in order to organize and classify the provincial ciuitates according to their status and ties with Rome.Footnote 22

As regards the date of the formulae prouinciarum of Hispania, authors such as M.I. Henderson have suggested that they were written around the change of the era.Footnote 23 However, I think that there are a number of reasons to suggest an earlier date, and therefore propose that they were drawn up during Augustus’ second or third stay in the western Roman provinces, that is, between the years 27–24 or 16–13 b.c.Footnote 24 A first terminus ante quem is the promotion of Segobriga to Latin municipium. As has recently been demonstrated, this must have happened prior to 15 b.c. This seems to have been the occasion on which an inscription bearing a consular date was set up, indicating that a decision-making process by the local ordo was already operating.Footnote 25 As Segobriga (according to Pliny) was a ciuitas stipendiaria (Plin. HN 3.25), we can safely presume that the information provided by this author, taken from the formula prouinciae of Hispania Citerior Tarraconensis, would have corresponded to a period prior to the promotion of the Segobrigenses.Footnote 26

A second terminus ante quem (or even the date when the formulae were actually written) seems to be provided by the division of the province of Hispania Ulterior into the provinces of Baetica and Lusitania. This is an important aspect, as Pliny appears to organize the description of Hispania according to the information in the formulae prouinciarum of the three imperial provinces. This would suggest that these formulae may have been written soon after or at the same time as the official constitution of Tarraconensis, Baetica and Lusitania. The moment when this separation occurred cannot be identified precisely, although there is significant evidence that these provinces were constituted between the years 16 and 13 b.c.

In this regard, as indicated by P. López Barja de Quiroga, the discovery of an edict of Augustus from El Bierzo and the existence of a new province in Hispania called Transduriana have introduced a greater degree of complexity into the process of territorial organization in the Iberian Peninsula at the start of the Principate.Footnote 27 According to the account by Dio Cassius for the year 27 b.c., Baetica was assigned to the Roman people and the Senate, and ‘the rest of Iberia, namely the area of Tarraco and Lusitania’ to Augustus (Dio Cass. 53.12.4–5).Footnote 28 However, despite placing the tripartite division of Hispania in this year, Dio Cassius himself reveals that the partition of Hispania Ulterior into Baetica and Lusitania may have occurred at a later date. On the one hand, Cassius Dio indicates that in his narration of the provincial organization of the Empire, he transmitted the situation into his own time, recognizing that at first some of these provinces were governed jointly (Dio Cass. 53.12.8). On the other hand, the situation to which Dio Cassius refers in relation to the operations of P. Carisius in Hispania between the years 25–23 b.c. allows the possibility that Hispania Ulterior had not yet been divided up (Dio Cass. 53.25.8, 54.5.1–2).Footnote 29 In this case, P. López Barja de Quiroga considers that, if this province had been divided at this time, it would be difficult to understand why the same legate would have acted in both Lancia and Augusta Emerita.Footnote 30 For these reasons, it seems more reasonable to suggest that the division of the Iberian Peninsula into three provinces took place at a later date. Specifically, according to scholars such as R. Syme and R. Étienne, this would have been during Augustus’ third stay in the Roman western provinces (16–13 b.c.),Footnote 31 shortly before Segobriga was transformed into a municipium Latinum in 16–15 b.c.

Finally, with regard to the terminus post quem, this would have been determined by the cognomina Augusta and Augustani that accompany the name of several privileged ciuitates and populi in Hispania (such as some populi Latinorum ueterum, for example the Ceretani qui Augustani and Saetabini qui Augustani: Plin. HN 3.23, 3.25), giving us a date after 27 b.c., when Octavius received the title from the Senate (Mon. Anc. 34; Livy, Per. 134.1; Suet. Aug. 7.2).Footnote 32 Therefore, taking into consideration both termini, the formulae prouinciarum of Hispania are likely to have been written at some time between 27 and 15 b.c.

b. On the Plinian meaning of the term oppidum

A second important element in resolving the origin and legal-administrative status of these communities in Hispania is to examine the Plinian meaning of the term oppidum. Numismatic evidence suggests that the oppida ciuium Romanorum and the oppida ueteris Latii were Roman and Latin municipia during the time of Augustus. Amongst the first group, this is demonstrated by the coinage from Turiaso, Bilbilis, Dertosa, Calagurris, Emporiae and Ilerda, and, amongst the second group, coinage from Ercavica.Footnote 33

The fact that some of the oppida ueteris Latii such as Gracchuris, Cascantum and Osicerda were not documented as holding the title of municipium during the time of Augustus, but instead during the reign of Tiberius,Footnote 34 should not imply that these communities were not already municipia from an earlier date. Ercavica, which was also an oppidum Latinorum ueterum (Plin. HN 3.24), was a municipium in the time of Augustus but also during the reigns of Tiberius and Caligula.Footnote 35 Whether owing to the fact that they have not been preserved or discovered, or because coins began to be minted at a later date, we should not forget that in the case of Carteia, the only Latin colony the status of which is confirmed by the literary sources (Livy 43.3.1–4), no coins have survived that make any mention of the term colonia.

Decisive proof of the municipal status of the oppida ueteris Latii is found in Pliny's description. Despite referring to Gades as an oppidum ciuium Romanorum when it was already a municipium (Cic. Fam. 10.32.2; Livy, Per. 110.2; Dio Cass. 41.24.1), Pliny explicitly refers to the existence of ten municipia ciuium Romanorum in Hispania Ulterior Baetica (Plin. HN 3.7) and of one municipium ciuium Romanorum in Lusitania, specifying in the latter case that this was Olisipo Felicitas Iulia (Plin. HN 4.117). In the case of Olisipo, Pliny mentions this town shortly beforehand, using the term oppidum (Plin. HN 4.116). He would therefore have used the term oppidum in its primary meaning of ‘fortified settlement’ or ‘urban centre’, while the ciuitas might technically be a municipium (whether Latin or Roman) or a peregrine community.Footnote 36

Furthermore, in his appraisal of these two provinces, immediately after mentioning the municipia ciuium Romanorum, Pliny provides details of the number of [municipia] Latio antiquitus donata or Latii antiqui. Given that in the summary of Hispania Citerior Tarraconensis he refers to oppida ciuium Romanorum and [oppida] Latinorum ueterum, it is highly likely that both expressions (equivalent to municipia ciuium Romanorum and municipia Latina) were created by Pliny as non-technical terms for the purpose of convenience and in an effort to simplify their status, even more so if we consider that the oppida Latina of Gallia Narbonensis were not municipia but colonies.Footnote 37

Despite this, some modern scholars consider the expression oppidum Latinum as a legal-administrative category of a privileged community.Footnote 38 In this case, the oppidum Latinum (the only written source of which is Pliny's lists) would have been an intermediary stage between a ciuitas stipendiaria and a colonia or municipium. This alleged category, unsupported by any epigraphic or numismatic evidence, would have postponed the promotion to colonial or municipal status of those ciuitates that were rewarded with Latin rights.Footnote 39 But this dislocation, which considers promotion as a supplementary privilege, lacks any support from written sources, and clashes with the presence of the expression municipium Latinum in Chapter 30 of the Lex Irnitana. Moreover, one example of the inseparable nature of Latinization and municipalization can be found in an inscription from Igabrum which indicates that it had municipal status within two years of being granted the ius Latii by Vespasian (CIL II2/5.308). The same occurred with the municipia ciuium Romanorum. Volubilis, which had received the ciuitas Romana from Claudius, is described as a municipium in an inscription dated between a.d. 25 January 44 and 24 January 45 (ILM 56).Footnote 40

c. On uetus, antiquum and antiquitus: their origin and historical meaning

It is much more complicated to unravel the origin and historical meaning of the adjectives uetus and antiquum, along with the adverb antiquitus, and to discover when and for what reason they were attributed by the Roman administration to the oppida Latina in Hispania. Despite this, the starting point seems clear. If the oppida ueteris Latii had been municipia since the time of Augustus, and if the legal-administrative information from the geographical description of Hispania had been taken by Pliny from the official documentation drawn up by the Augustan administration, then the term ueteris Latii conferred on these municipia would have been set at the moment the types of ciuitates that existed in the provinces of Hispania were registered legally and administratively. As oppidum ueteris Latii was not a Roman category for a privileged community, and municipal status was not associated with Latin rights until the reign of Augustus,Footnote 41 then these oppida (municipia Latio antiquitus donata)Footnote 42 may only have been Latin colonies with their origins in Republican times that were transformed into municipia Latina by Augustus.Footnote 43

Despite this situation, the adjectives uetus and antiquum can still be explained from a different perspective. In this respect, P. Le Roux, A. Canto and F. Beltrán believe that uetus and antiquum, as well as the adverb antiquitus, were not present in the official source used by Pliny (that is, the formulae prouinciarum), but were instead introduced by him with the aim of chronologically differentiating the Augustan municipia Latina from the more recent Flavian municipia.Footnote 44 If this hypothesis were true, it would seem contradictory that Pliny did not do the same with ciuitates stipendiariae, which, like Segobriga, had also received Latin municipal status from Augustus. These ciuitates, according to his reasoning, would also have had to appear as oppida ueteris Latii in the Naturalis historia. But, against all odds, this was not the case.

Moreover, if this hypothesis were correct, and uetus, antiquum and antiquitus had therefore been introduced by Pliny, we would expect to find a similar situation in the geographical description of Mauretania Caesariensis. In this province, according to Pliny, there were three oppida Latinorum: Arsennaria, Tipasa and Icosium (Plin. HN 5.19–20). However, while Arsennaria would already have been a municipium Latinum under Augustus, Tipasa and Icosium would have had to wait until the period of Claudius and Vespasian to be municipia Latina.Footnote 45 Arsennaria, according to this argument, should have been classified by Pliny as an oppidum ueteris Latii, but this was not the case.

A different matter, which has no relation to the question dealt with in the preceding paragraphs, is the inclusion of the term uetus in the denomination of some of the citizens who belonged to the ordo decurionum of certain communities. Amongst others, this is the case in Hispania for the Valentini ueterani et ueteres (CIL II2/14.14a, 14b, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 21, 22; AE 2002, 851), in Italy for the Arretini ueteres (Plin. HN 3.52; CIL XI.1849) and in Sicily for the Agrigentini ueteres (Cic. Verr. 2.2.123). In these examples, following the proposals of M.J. Pena, J.J. Seguí and A.U. Stylow,Footnote 46 uetus would seem to refer to the members of the populus of a ciuitas who formerly had a specific legal organization. Accordingly, attributing to them the adjective uetus would have been a way of safeguarding their identity and of specifying their seniority with regard to new members who had joined the community within the framework of a new legal and administrative organization.

Neither does the addition of the term uetus to the place name of certain towns have any connection with the proposal explained in this paper. In Hispania this applies to Tucci Vetus, Astigi Vetus and Aritium Vetus (Plin. HN 3.10, 3.12; CIL II.172). According to the suggestion of A.U. Stylow,Footnote 47 these would have been three ciuitates that would presumably have received the epithet of ueteres in order to differentiate them from three communities located close by at a specific moment in their history: Colonia Tucci Augusta Gemella, Colonia Augusta Firma Astigitana and Aritium Praetorium (Plin. HN 3.12; It. Ant. 418, 8; Rav. Cosm. 4.44 = 316.7). In the opinion of the same scholar, in addition to the first three we would have to add the unknown town of Acci Vetus, to distinguish it from Colonia Iulia Gemella Accitana (Plin. HN 3.25) following the discovery of an inscription in the ‘Cortijo de Periate’ (Píñar-Iznalloz, Granada), which refers to the existence of an ordo Accitanorum Veterum and describes L. Aemilius Propinquus as an Accitanus Vetus.Footnote 48 However, according to S. García-Dils de la Vega, it is difficult to support this proposal in the case of Astigi Vetus, as, in his opinion, this town would have occupied the same location as Colonia Augusta Firma Astigitana.Footnote 49 Astigi Vetus, in line with his proposal, would have been a ciuitas libera that, after the writing of the Augustan administrative sources consulted by Pliny, would have been extinguished as a result of the deductio of Colonia Augusta Firma Astigitana. In the opinion of S. García-Dils de la Vega, the presence of both towns in the Naturalis historia would have been the result ‘of a lack of thoroughness (…) at the time of contrasting administrative information from different periods’.Footnote 50

d. On the peculiarity of the oppida ueteris Latii in Hispania

As reported by Pliny, of the territories that comprised the Roman empire at the start of the Principate, only five (besides Hispania) had ciuitates Latinae. These were Gallia Narbonensis, Sicily, Mauretania Caesariensis, Africa Proconsularis and the Alpes. To these we should add Gallia Aquitania, which had at least two populi Latini, according to Strabo (Str. 4.2.2).Footnote 51 As regards Gallia Narbonensis, Pliny mentions thirty-two populi Latini or oppida Latina (Plin. HN 3.32, 3.35–7).Footnote 52 In the case of Sicily, we are informed of three [populi] Latinae condicionis (Plin. HN 3.91).Footnote 53 In Mauretania Caesariensis, Pliny enumerates three [oppida] Latinorum or [oppida] Latio dato (Plin. HN 5.19–20).Footnote 54 Meanwhile, in Africa Proconsularis, he lists only one oppidum Latinum (Plin. HN 5.29).Footnote 55 Finally, in the Alpes there were a large number of gentes, populi and ciuitates Latini iuris, according to Pliny (Plin. HN 3.133–5).Footnote 56

In terms of their administrative status, the ciuitates Latinae in Sicily, Mauretania Caesariensis, Africa Proconsularis and the Alpes (when we have epigraphic or numismatic evidence from the Julio-Claudian period) were municipia Latina.Footnote 57 The same does not apply to the ciuitates Latinae of Gallia Narbonensis and Gallia Aquitania. In all these cases, the preserved documentation proves that they were colonies.Footnote 58 It is unclear why these colonies were not transformed into municipia Latina by Augustus, as were the Latin colonies in Hispania. However, as a working hypothesis, this may have been for two reasons: on the one hand, the respect of the Princeps for the major programme of legal Latinization carried out by Caesar in Gallia Narbonensis; and on the other, the existence of the ius adipiscendae ciuitatis Romanae per magistratum, demonstrated by the ascription of the new ciues to the tribus Voltinia.Footnote 59 As a result, the provinces which had municipia Latina may have been those in which the ius adipiscendae ciuitatis per magistratum was granted by Augustus, either by promoting ciuitates stipendiariae, liberae or foederatae to municipia Latina (as was the case in Hispania, Sicily, Mauretania Caesariensis, Africa Proconsularis and the Alpes) or by granting this privilege in the previously existing coloniae Latinae (as was the case specifically in Hispania).

In order to illustrate the peculiarity of the oppida ueteris Latii in Hispania and to achieve a better understanding of the reasons for their absence in the other western Roman provinces, it is worthwhile to examine the historical and administrative development of the oppida Latinae condicionis in Sicily: Netum, Segesta and Centuripae. As Cicero reports from a letter sent to his friend Atticus on 22 April 44 b.c., Caesar had granted the Latinitas to the Siculi (Cic. Att. 14.12.1).Footnote 60 Until that time, and also according to Cicero, Segesta, Centuripae, Halaesa, Halicyae and Panormus would have been ciuitates liberae et inmunes, while Messana, Tauromenium and Netum were ciuitates foederatae (Cic. Verr. 2.3.13, 2.5.56, 2.5.133).Footnote 61

Bearing in mind what had happened just a few years earlier in Gallia Narbonensis under Caesar, it is safe to assume that following the donatio Caesaris all the towns in Sicily would have been transformed into Latin colonies. We therefore have the necessary requirement for Segesta, Centuripae and Netum (municipia Latina during the time of Augustus) to have been considered as oppida ueteris Latii by the Roman administration as a result of their administrative transformation into municipia. However, based on the available documentation, two important events occurred between the two statuses that affected their legal-administrative situation.

First, as Cicero tells Atticus (Cic. Att. 14.12.1), Marcus Antonius granted Roman citizenship to all the ciuitates on the island. A consequence of this decision was the transformation of the Latin colonies into municipia optimo iure. Although the Senate revoked this grant at the end of 44 b.c. or at the start of 43 b.c. (Cic. Phil. 12.12; 13.5), the towns on the island (under the control of Sextus Pompeius) continued to function as municipia ciuium Romanorum (Diod. Sic. 13.35.3, 16.70.6),Footnote 62 even though they would have reverted to Latin colonial status. In this context, second, Octavian (after defeating Pompeius) would have repealed the ius Latii granted by Caesar to the ciuitates of Sicily, transforming the Latin colonies into ciuitates stipendiariae in 36 b.c.Footnote 63 Although no mention is made of this legal-administrative deminutio by the ancient authors, it is quite likely based on the information provided by Pliny's sources: there were only three oppida Latina (none of which was uetus or antiquum) in comparison to the forty-five ciuitates stipendiariae (Plin. HN 3.91).

According to this information, everything seems to point towards the fact that Augustus would have reorganized the island at some time prior to 21 b.c. on the basis of ciuitates stipendiariae. In this case, he would have granted Latin rights and Roman citizenship to certain ciuitates, selectively. This process of reorganization would have left its mark on the official sources consulted by Pliny. As a result, in Sicily, together with the three municipia Latinae condicionis, there were five Roman colonies (Tauromenium, Catina, Syracusae, Thermae and Tyndaris) and one municipium ciuium Romanorum (Messana) (Plin. HN 3.88–91).Footnote 64 In addition, as in the case of Hispania, several ciuitates stipendiariae would have acquired the status of municipia Latina at some time subsequent to the drafting of the formula prouinciae, probably around 14 b.c.Footnote 65

In summary, there would not have been oppida ueteris Latii in Gallia Narbonensis, Gallia Aquitania, Sicily, Mauretania Caesariensis, Africa Proconsularis or the Alpes for two main reasons: first, because the Latin communities of Sicily, Mauretania Caesariensis, Africa Proconsularis and the Alpes, before becoming municipia Latina, would have been ciuitates stipendiariae, liberae or foederatae; and second, because the Latin colonies of Gallia Narbonensis and Gallia Aquitania would not have become municipia Latina in the same way as those in Hispania.

III. CONCLUSIONS

Pliny's descriptions of oppida ueteris Latii or oppida Latio antiquitus donata in Books 3 and 4 of the Naturalis historia refer to a significant number of Augustan municipia Latina in Hispania which originated as Latin colonies. These expressions would not be a result of Pliny's concerns about fixing the date when the municipia Latina from the provinces of Hispania were promoted, but instead the solution devised by the Augustan administration in order to distinguish the municipia Latina with a colonial origin from any other type of ciuitas Latina, regardless of whether it was a Latin municipium and had been promoted from a ciuitas libera, foederata or stipendiaria, or whether it was a colonia Latina.

The adjectives uetus and antiquum, as well as the adverb antiquitus, would have been used by the Roman administration with a double purpose: to confirm the early grant of Latin rights (Latium) in Hispania, which in some cases (such as in Italica, Gracchuris or Carteia) could have dated back to the third and second centuries b.c., and to record the administrative transformation into municipia Latina of a group of Republican Latin colonies during the time of Augustus. As the analysis of the Latin communities in Gallia Narbonensis, Gallia Aquitania, Sicily, Mauretania Caesariensis, Africa Proconsularis and the Alpes has shown, the absence in these provinces of an administrative transformation from coloniae Latinae to municipia Latina would explain the peculiarity in Hispania of the oppida ueteris Latii and therefore the absence of this type of ciuitates in the rest of the western provinces.

In the light of the official Augustan sources consulted by Pliny, that is, the so-called formulae prouinciarum, the widespread granting of the Latium in Hispania under Augustus and the period in which this happened are two unquestionable facts. If we add to this the granting of the ius Latii uniuersae Hispaniae during the Flavian period, then the result is that the provinces of Hispania were the territories that were Latinized and legally assimilated the most intensely and at the earliest stage. This situation, in my opinion, was a result of a process of Latin colonization in Hispania established during the Republican period. In this respect, the most significant proof of this is the fifty Augustan [municipia] Latio antiquitus donata referred to by Pliny the Elder in the Naturalis historia.Footnote 66

References

1 As Beltrán, F., ‘Locorum nuda nomina? La estructura de la descripción pliniana de Hispania’, in Cruz, G., Le Roux, P. and Moret, P. (edd.), La invención de una geografía de la Península Ibérica. II. La época imperial (Madrid, 2007), 115–60Google Scholar, at 115 has noted, it is the most relevant source for explaining the political geography and the administrative organization of the Roman provinces of Hispania at the start of the Principate. In this respect, its numerical accuracy and political-administrative perspective make Pliny's geographical description unique in comparison to the works of Strabo, Mela or Ptolemy.

2 This has been proposed in modern historiography since the beginning of the studies on the nature, compositional method and written sources of the Naturalis historia (especially those referring to the geography books, that is, the Dreiquellentheorie) at the end of the nineteenth century: Cuntz, O., De Augusto Plinii geographicorum auctore (Bonn, 1888)Google Scholar; id., ‘Agrippa und Augustus als Schriftsteller des Plinius’, Neue Jahrbücher für Philologie und Paedagogik Supp. 17 (1890), 475–526; Klotz, A., Quaestiones plinianae geographicae (Berlin, 1906)Google Scholar; Detlefsen, D., Die Geographie Afrikas bei Plinius und Mela und ihre Quellen. Die Formulae Prouinciarum, eine Hauptquelle des Plinius (Berlin, 1908)Google Scholar; de Lessert, C. Pallu, ‘L’œuvre géographique d'Agrippa et d'Auguste’, MSAF 7–8 (1909), 215–98Google Scholar. Far from refuting this chronological attribution, the most recent studies carried out in the last fifty years have underlined the fact that the administrative documentation consulted by Pliny bore the trace of Augustus. Some of the main works include Henderson, M.I., ‘Julius Caesar and Latium in Spain’, JRS 31 (1942), 1–13Google Scholar; Sallmann, K., Die Geographie des älteren Plinius in ihrem Verhältnis zu Varro: Versuch einer Quellenanalyse (Berlin and New York, 1971)CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Desanges, J., Pline l'Ancien. Histoire Naturelle. Livre V (1–46) (Paris, 1980)Google Scholar; Christol, M., ‘Pline l'Ancien et la formula prouinciarum de la province de Narbonnaise’, in Demougin, S. (ed.), La mémoire perdue. À la recherche des archives oubliées, publiques et privées de la Rome antique (Paris, 1994), 45–63Google Scholar; Beltrán, F., ‘Municipium c. R., oppidum c. R. y oppidum Latinum en la NH de Plinio: una revisión del problema desde la perspectiva hispana’, in González, J. (ed.), Ciudades privilegiadas en el Occidente Romano (Seville, 1999), 247–67Google Scholar; id. (n. 1); García-Fernández, E., El municipio latino. Origen y desarrollo constitucional (Madrid, 2001)Google Scholar; Abascal, J.M., ‘Los tres viajes de Augusto a Hispania y su relación con la promoción jurídica de ciudades’, Iberia 9 (2006), 63–78Google Scholar.

3 For an overview on this problem, see García-Fernández, E., ‘El ius Latii y los municipia Latina’, SHHA 9 (1991), 29–41Google Scholar; id. (n. 2).

4 Detlefsen (n. 2); Pallu de Lessert (n. 2). More recently, see Henderson (n. 2), 1–5; Brunt, P.A., Italian Manpower (Oxford, 1971), 585 and 589Google Scholar; Christol (n. 2); Beltrán (n. 1), 118; García-Fernández, E., ‘Gracurris y los oppida de antiguo Lacio’, in Andreu, F.J. (ed.), Los Vascones de las fuentes antiguas. En torno a una etnia de la Antigüedad peninsular (Barcelona, 2009), 215–30Google Scholar, at 221. According to Christol (n. 2), 45, Pliny would have confirmed the existence of documents of this kind in the description of Gallia Narbonensis, explicitly indicating that adiecit formulae Galba Imperator ex Inalpinis Avanticos atque Bodionticos quorum oppidum Dinia (Plin. HN 3.37).

5 For details, see the references cited above.

6 As García-Fernández (n. 4), 222 has argued, since the bulk of the Plinian administrative information (that is, the formulae prouinciarum) dates from Augustus, uetus, antiquum and antiquitus should be analysed in the context of the reign of Augustus, not of the Flavian period.

7 On this matter, see Henderson (n. 2); Desanges (n. 2); Beltrán (n. 2); id. (n. 1); García-Fernández (n. 2); id. (n. 4).

8 Pliny, in referring to the provinces of Hispania, provides a numerical summary of a large amount of administrative data. After that, he breaks this down selectively, enumerating the conuentus and indicating the total number of ciuitates in general terms and by legal-administrative rank. As Beltrán (n. 1), 120 has pointed out, this is a rare privilege for historians of antiquity, so often bereft of quantitative data.

9 Although Pliny indicates with satisfaction the thoroughness of his work by way of several summae, according to Naas, V., Le Project encyclopédique de Pline l'Ancien (Rome, 2002), 82Google Scholar and to Carey, S., Pliny's Catalogue of Culture. Art and Empire in the Natural History (New York, 2003), 21–2Google Scholar, expressions such as rerum dignarum cura and ex exquisitis auctoribus would suggest a discrimen, i.e. a selection of information, placing the focus more on the quantity than on the content. This could possibly be associated with Pliny's eagerness for efficiency (Plin. Ep. 3.5.12; García-Fernández [n. 2], 117; Naas [this note], 135–6), with the principle of economy found in different parts of the text (Beltrán [n. 1]) and with the scientific purpose of the work. In this sense, as Pliny himself states, the aim of his encyclopaedic project was indicare, non indagare (Plin. HN 11.8), which may explain why he did not specify the colonial or municipal status of the oppida ueteris Latii, and why he omitted their names. We should also bear in mind that he only introduces the name of populi and towns digna memoratu aut Latio sermone dictu facilia (Plin. HN 3.7, 3.139).

10 In this regard, see Henderson (n. 2), 6–7; Brunt (n. 4), 584–5; Galsterer-Kröll, B., ‘Zu den spanischen Städtelisten des Plinius’, AEA 48 (1975), 120–8Google Scholar; González, J., ‘Colonización y latinización en la provincia Baetica’, in Angeli, M.G. and Donati, A. (edd.), Il cittadino, lo straniero, il barbaro, fra integrazione ed emarginazione nell'Antichità (Rome, 2005), 289–303Google Scholar, at 301; García-Fernández (n. 2), 83; id. (n. 4), 219 n. 23.

11 Henderson (n. 2), 6–7; Galsterer-Kröll (n. 10).

12 González, J., ‘Reflexiones sobre los municipios provinciales: Plinio y la Tabula Siarensis’, in González-Román, C. and Padilla, A. (edd.), Estudios sobre las ciudades de la Bética (Granada, 2002), 177–84Google Scholar, at 183.

13 Henderson (n. 2), 7–8; Brunt (n. 4), 584.

14 Henderson (n. 2), 5–12; Sherwin-White, A.N., The Roman Citizenship (Oxford, 1973), 230–2Google Scholar; González (n. 12), 182–3; García-Fernández (n. 2), 102–4.

15 Galsterer-Kröll (n. 10), 127–8. On the Latin status of the Turdetani during the Augustan age, see Strabo 3.2.15.

16 This thesis has been supported and developed by Henderson (n. 2), 10; García-Fernández (n. 3), 37–41; id. (n. 2), 71, 73–8, 82–7, 95–104 and 132; id. (n. 4), 223–5; Espinosa-Espinosa, D., Plinio y los ‘oppida de antiguo Lacio’. El proceso de difusión del Latium en Hispania Citerior (Oxford, 2014)Google Scholar.

17 With respect to the latter, see Henderson (n. 2), 10–11; Brunt (n. 4), 588; García-Fernández (n. 4), 230.

18 On the probable Latin colonial status of Pompelo, see García-Fernández (n. 2), 81. In his opinion, this town may have suffered a process of deminutio as a result of providing hypothetical support to the political and military cause of its conditor (Pompey the Great, according to Strabo 3.4.10) during the bellum ciuile. This decision would explain why the Pompelonenses appear in the Naturalis historia as stipendiarii (Plin. HN 3.24).

19 On the possible Latin colonial status of Cesse/Tarraco, see Mar, R. and de Arbulo, J. Ruiz, ‘Tarraco. Morfología y trazado urbano’, in Ribeiro, M.C. and Sousa, A. (edd.), Evolução da paisagem urbana: transformação morfológica dos tecidos históricos (Braga, 2013), 63–89Google Scholar, at 80; Espinosa-Espinosa, D., ‘Reflexiones sobre la probable promoción de Cesse/Tarraco a colonia latina’, Klio 98 (2016), 570–604CrossRefGoogle Scholar. Tarraco is described as colonia in the Naturalis historia (Plin. HN 3.21). On the Roman colonial status of Tarraco, see Alföldy, G., ‘Wann wurde Tarraco römische Kolonie?’, in Paci, G. (ed.), Epigraphai. Miscellanea epigrafica in onore di Lidio Gasperini (Rome, 2000), 3–22Google Scholar; de Arbulo, J. Ruiz, ‘La fundación de la colonia Tarraco y los estandartes de César’, in Jiménez, J.L. and Ribera, A. (edd.), Valencia y las primeras ciudades romanas de Hispania (Valencia, 2002), 137–56Google Scholar.

20 Among the authors who support a Latin colonial status for all or some of these communities are Galsterer, H., Untersuchungen zum römischen Städtewesen auf der Iberischen Halbinsel (Berlin, 1971)Google Scholar; id., ‘La trasformazione delle antiche colonie latine e il nuovo ius Latii’, in Calbi, A. and Susini, G. (edd.), Pro Populo Arimenese (Faenza, 1995), 79–94Google Scholar; Humbert, M., ‘Libertas id est ciuitas: autour d'un conflit négatif de citoyennetés au IIe s. avant J.-C.’, MEFRA 88 (1976), 221–42CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Knapp, R.C., Aspects of the Roman Experience in Iberia 206–100 b.c. (Valladolid, 1977)Google Scholar; Marín, M.A., Emigración, colonización y municipalización en la Hispania republicana (Granada, 1988)Google Scholar; id., ‘Observaciones sobre las colonias latinas en la Hispania meridional’, in González-Román, C. and Padilla, A. (edd.), Estudios sobre las ciudades de la Bética (Granada, 2002), 277–87Google Scholar; Canto, A.M., ‘Colonia Patricia Corduba: nuevas hipótesis sobre su fundación y nombre’, Latomus 50 (1991), 846–57Google Scholar; id., ‘La Vetus Vrbs de Itálica, quince años después. La planta hipodámica de D. Demetrio de los Ríos, con otras novedades’, CPAM 25 (1999), 145–91Google Scholar; García-Fernández (n. 2); id. (n. 4); Alföldy, G., ‘In omnes prouincias exemplum: Hispanien und das Imperium Romanum’, in Urso, G. (ed.), Hispania terris omnibus felicior. Premesse ed esiti di un proceso di integrazione (Pisa, 2002), 183–99Google Scholar; Ripollès, P.P. and Velaza, J., ‘Saguntum, colonia latina’, ZPE 141 (2002), 285–91Google Scholar; Pena, M.J., ‘La tribu Velina en Mallorca y los nombres de Palma y Pollentia’, Faventia 26 (2004), 69–90Google Scholar; Caballos, A., ‘Colonizzazione cesariana, legislazione municipale e integrazione provinciale: la Provincia Hispania Ulterior’, in Urso, G. (ed.), Cesare: precursore o visionario? (Pisa, 2010), 63–84Google Scholar; id., ‘Colonización, integración y vertebración. El caso de Itálica’, in Demougin, S. and Scheid, J. (edd.), Colons et colonies dans le monde romain (Rome, 2012), 7–39Google Scholar; Le Roux, P., La Péninsule Ibérique aux époques romaines (fin du IIIe s. av. n. È. – début du VIe s. de n. È.) (Paris, 2010)Google Scholar; Beltrán, F., ‘Les colonies latines d'Hispanie (IIe siècle av. n. È.): émigration italique et intégration politique’, in Barrandon, N. and Kirbihler, F. (edd.), Les gouverneurs et les provinciaux sous la République romaine (Rennes, 2011), 131–44Google Scholar; Vaquerizo, D., Murillo, J.F. and Garriguet, J.A., ‘Novedades de arqueología en Corduba, colonia Patricia’, in González, J. and Saquete, J.C. (edd.), Colonias de César y Augusto en la Andalucía romana (Rome, 2011), 9–46Google Scholar; Ribera, A., ‘La realidad material de la fundación de Valentia, una colonia en Iberia a mediados del siglo II a.C., y la situación previa de su entorno territorial inmediato’, in Mercuri, L., González-Villaescusa, R. and Bertoncello, F. (edd.), Implantations humaines en milieu littoral méditerranéen: facteurs d'installation et processus d'appropriation de l'espace (Préhistoire, Antiquité, Moyen Âge) (Antibes, 2014), 149–61Google Scholar.

21 de Quiroga, P. López Barja, ‘La provincia Transduriana’, in Sánchez-Palencia, F.J. and Mangas, J. (edd.), El Edicto del Bierzo. Augusto y el Noroeste de Hispania (Ponferrada, 2000), 31–45Google Scholar, at 32.

22 On this matter, see Detlefsen (n. 2); Pallu de Lessert (n. 2); Christol (n. 2), 47. For an approach to the concept of prouincia, see Richardson, J., The Language of Empire: Rome and the Idea of Empire from the Third Century b.c. to the Second Century a.d. (Cambridge and New York, 2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

23 Henderson (n. 2), 1–5.

24 As an acceptable working hypothesis, it could be proposed that the formulae prouinciarum of Hispania were created at the same time as those of Sicily and Gallia Narbonensis. For details on the date of these formulae prouinciarum, see Pallu de Lessert (n. 2), 289–90; Christol (n. 2), 55–7 and 61; Wilson, R.J.A., Sicily under the Roman Empire. The Archaeology of a Roman Province, 36 b.c. – a.d. 535 (London, 1990), 35–8Google Scholar and 42; Vera, D., ‘Augusto, Plinio il Vecchio e la Sicilia in età imperiale. A proposito di recenti scoperte epigrafiche e archeologiche ad Agrigento’, Kokalos 42 (1996), 31–58Google Scholar, at 32–3. For a comprehensive overview on the three stays of Augustus in the West, see Abascal (n. 2).

25 ------ / M. Drus[o L. Pisone co(n)s(ulibus)] / decre[to decurion(um)] (AE 2004, 809 = HEp 13, 2003/2004, 332). On this inscription and the Latin municipal status of Segobriga under Augustus, see Alföldy, G., Abascal, J.M. and Cebrián, R., ‘Nuevos monumentos epigráficos del foro de Segobriga. Parte primera: inscripciones votivas, imperiales y de empleados del Estado romano’, ZPE 143 (2003), 255–74Google Scholar; Abascal, J.M., Almagro-Gorbea, M. and Cebrián, R., ‘Segobriga: caput Celtiberiae and Latin municipium’, in Abad, L., Ramallo, S. and Keay, S. (edd.), Early Roman Towns in Hispania Tarraconensis (Portsmouth, 2006), 184–96Google Scholar; Abascal, J.M., Alföldy, G. and Cebrián, R., Segóbriga V: inscripciones romanas, 1986–2010 (Madrid, 2011), 51–2Google Scholar, no. 27; Abascal, J.M. and Almagro-Gorbea, M., ‘Segobriga, la ciudad hispano-romana del sur de la Celtiberia’, in Carrasco, G. (ed.), La ciudad romana en Castilla-La Mancha (Cuenca, 2012), 287–370Google Scholar.

26 A second inscription from Segobriga is associated with its promotion to a Latin municipium. The text provides information on M. Porcius M. f. Pup., Caesaris Augusti scriba and patronus Segobrigensium (HEp 10, 2000, 301). This may be connected to the delivery of the document that granted the community its municipal status, as well as to the organization of the new local tabularium and the administrative and financial structure. On this matter, see Abascal, Almagro-Gorbea and Cebrián (n. 25), 188; Abascal (n. 2), 71–2.

27 López Barja de Quiroga (n. 21), 31.

28 The division of Hispania into three provinces in 27 b.c. was questioned by scholars including Syme, R., The Roman Revolution (Oxford, 1939), 326Google Scholar.

29 On these warlike actions, see Flor. 2.33.55–8; Oros. 6.21.10–11. For a reconstruction of P. Carisius’ military operations, see Alföldy, G., Fasti Hispanienses. Senatorische Reichsbeamte und Offiziere in den spanischen Provinzen des römischen Reiches von Augustus bis Diokletian (Wiesbaden, 1969), 131–2Google Scholar.

30 López Barja de Quiroga (n. 21), 35. Dio Cassius (53.26.1) dates the founding of Augusta Emerita to 25 b.c. This town minted a series of coins with the inscriptions P CARISIVS LEG PRO PR (RIC I, 9a and 9b) and P CARISIVS / LEG / AVGVSTI (RIC I, 11a and 11b) between 25–23 and 23–22 b.c. respectively.

31 Syme, R., ‘A governor of Tarraconensis’, in Badian, E. (ed.), Roman Papers II (Oxford, 1979), 732–41Google Scholar, at 733; Étienne, R., ‘L'horloge de la Civitas Igaeditanorum et la creation de la province de Lusitanie’, REA 94 (1992), 355–62CrossRefGoogle Scholar, at 361–2.

32 Similarly, see Cuntz (n. 2), 11; Abascal (n. 2), 77.

33 Without any pretensions to being exhaustive, see RPC 405 (Turiaso): obverse IMP AVGVSTVS P P, reverse TVRIASO, MVN; RPC 392 (Bilbilis): obverse AVGVSTVS DIVI F PATER PATRIAE, reverse MVN AVG(V)STA BILB(ILIS) M SEMP TIBERI L LICI VARO, II VIR; RPC 205 (Dertosa): obverse MVN HIBERA IVLIA, reverse ILERCAVONIA; RPC 433 (Calagurris): obverse MVN CAL IVL, reverse L GRANIO C VALER(IO) II VIR; RPC 234 (Emporiae): obverse EMPORIA, reverse MVNICI(P); RPC 259 (Ilerda): obverse IMP CAESAR DIVI F, reverse MVN ILERDA; RPC 459 (Ercavica): obverse AVGVSTVS DIVI F, reverse MVN ERCAVICA.

34 RPC 429 (Graccurris): obverse TI CAESAR DIVI AVG F AVGVSTVS, reverse MVNICIP GRACCVRRIS; RPC 425 (Cascantum): obverse TI CAESAR DIVI AVG F AVGVSTVS, reverse MVNICIP CASCANTVM; RPC 468 (Osicerda): obverse TI CAESAR AVGVSTVS, reverse MVN OSICERDA.

35 On the coinage of Ercavica, see Gomis, M., La ceca de Ercávica (Barcelona and Madrid, 1997)Google Scholar.

36 On this subject, see Capalvo, A., ‘El léxico pliniano sobre Hispania: etnonimia y designación de asentamientos urbanos’, Caesaraugusta 63 (1986), 49–67Google Scholar; Papazoglou, F., ‘Oppidum Stobi ciuium Romanorum et municipium Stobensium’, Chiron 16 (1986), 213–37Google Scholar; Beltrán (n. 2); id. (n. 1); García-Fernández (n. 2), 113–17; Andreu, F.J., ‘En torno al ius Latii flavio en Hispania. A propósito de una nueva publicación sobre latinidad’, Faventia 29 (2007), 37–46Google Scholar, at 44.

37 One clear example is provided by Ruscino, mentioned by Mela as a colonia during the time of Claudius (Mela 2.84) but catalogued by Pliny as an oppidum Latinum during the Flavian period (Plin. HN 3.32). The use of the same sentence by Pliny and Mela to describe Illiberis (magnae quondam urbis tenue uestigium) would seem to suggest that both authors took their information from the same source, but that Pliny replaced the term colonia with the more generic term oppidum. On this matter, see Gascou, J., ‘Duumvirat, quattuorvirat et statut dans les cités de Gaule Narbonnaise’, in Epigrafia. Actes du colloque en mémoire de Attilio Degrassi (Rome, 1991), 547–63Google Scholar, at 553 n. 23.

38 Among the supporters of this thesis are Braunert, H., ‘Ius Latii in den Stadtrechten von Salpensa und Malaca’, in Corolla Memoriae Erich Sowoboda dedicata (Graz and Cologne, 1966), 68–83Google Scholar; Le Roux, P., ‘Municipe et droit latin en Hispania sous l'Empire’, RHD 64 (1986), 325–50Google Scholar; Chastagnol, A., ‘A propos du droit latin provincial’, Iura 38 (1987), 1–24Google Scholar; Kremer, D., Ius Latinum. Le concept de droit latin sous la République et l'Empire. Romanité et modernité du droit (Paris, 2006)Google Scholar.

39 García-Fernández (n. 2), 75; Andreu (n. 36), 44–5. According to Beltrán (n. 2), 249, it is surprising and significant that there is no numismatic, epigraphic or literary evidence of the existence of this administrative status. As García-Fernández (n. 2), 107 n. 92, 113 n. 105 and Andreu (n. 36), 43–4 n. 44 have pointed out, the only epigraphic references to the term oppidum seem to refer to an urban context: oppidum coloniae or oppidum municipii (Lex Vrs. 73 and 75; Lex Tarent. line 32; CIL II2/5.871: Sabora; AE 1985, 326: Alba Fucens; CIL VIII.9228: Usinaza).

40 On this date, see Christol, M. and Gascou, J., ‘Volubilis, cité fédérée?’, MEFRA 92 (1980), 329–45Google Scholar, at 330 n. 4.

41 See Henderson (n. 2); García-Fernández (n. 3); id. (n. 2).

42 Canto, A.M., ‘Oppida stipendiaria: los municipios flavios en la descripción de Hispania de Plinio’, CPAM 23 (1996), 212–43Google Scholar, at 231 has made an important observation about the adverbial and non-adjectival nature of the term antiquitus. Thus, the expression Latio antiquitus donata refers to a Latium that was received ‘a long time ago’.

43 While there can be no doubt that the transformation of the Latin colonies into Roman municipia was a legal-administrative improvement, the transformation of these colonies into Latin municipia should not be considered in terms of an administrative deminutio but instead as an administrative adjustment following the development of a new procedure of Latin colonization in 89 b.c. On this topic, see García-Fernández (n. 2), 13–29 and 73–8.

44 Roux, P. Le, ‘Droit Latin et municipalisation en Lusitanie sous l'Empire’, in de Urbina, E. Ortiz and Santos, J. (edd.), Teoría y práctica del ordenamiento municipal en Hispania (Vitoria, 1996), 239–53Google Scholar, at 241; Canto (n. 42), 230–8; Beltrán (n. 2), 254; id. (n. 1), 120–1 n. 29. For a discussion on this matter, see García-Fernández (n. 4), 220–5.

45 Desanges (n. 2), 150–60, 165–9. Similarly, E. Ortiz de Urbina, Las comunidades hispanas y el derecho latino. Observaciones sobre los procesos de integración local en la práctica político-administrativa al modo romano (Vitoria, 2000), 42 n. 59.

46 Pena, M.J., ‘Consideraciones sobre el estatuto jurídico de Valentia’, Saguntum 22 (1989), 303–17Google Scholar, at 313; Seguí, J.J., ‘Las familias de Valentia durante el Alto Imperio Romano (I)’, Saitabi 41 (1991), 167–87Google Scholar, at 182; Stylow, A.U., ‘Die Accitani veteres und die Kolonie Iulia Gemella Acci. Zum Problem von veteres, Alt-Stadt und Kolonie in der Hispania Ulterior’, Chiron 30 (2000), 775–806Google Scholar, at 781–4.

47 Stylow (n. 46), 805–6.

48 Stylow (n. 46); HEp 10, 2000, 321 = AE 2000, 782.

49 de la Vega, S. García-Dils, ‘Colonia Augusta Firma Astigi (Écija, Sevilla). La estructura urbana de una fundación romana en la Baetica’, in González, J. and Saquete, J.C. (edd.), Colonias de César y Augusto en la Andalucía romana (Rome, 2011), 99–128Google Scholar, at 101–3.

50 García-Dils de la Vega (n. 49), 104.

51 The passage from Strabo shows that there were more populi Latini in Gallia Aquitania. The text explicitly states: ‘the Romans have given the Latin rights to certain of the Aquitani just as they have done in the case of the Auscii and the Conuenae’.

52 For a general overview on these ciuitates, see Christol, M., ‘Le droit latin en Narbonnaise: l'apport de l’épigraphie’, in Castillo, C. (ed.), Actas del Coloquio Internacional AIEGL sobre Novedades de epigrafía jurídica romana en el último decenio (Pamplona, 1989), 65–76Google Scholar; id. (n. 2); Gascou (n. 37); Chastagnol, A., La Gaule Romaine et le Droit Latin (Lyon, 1995)Google Scholar; id., ‘Les cités de la Gaule Narbonnaise. Les statuts’, in M. Christol and O. Masson (edd.), Actes du Xe Congrès International d’Épigraphie Grecque et Latine (Paris, 1997), 51–73; García-Fernández (n. 2), 38–67.

53 On these populi Latini, see Wilson, R.J.A., ‘Towns of Sicily during the Roman empire’, ANRW 2.11.1 (1988), 90–206Google Scholar; id. (n. 24); Manganaro, G., della, ‘A proposito “latinizzazione” della Sicilia’, in González, J. (ed.), Roma y las provincias: realidad administrativa e ideología imperial (Madrid, 1994), 161–8Google Scholar.

54 For a historical commentary on these communities, see Teutsch, L., Das Städtewessen in Nordafrika in der Zeit von C. Gracchus bis zum Tode des Kaisers Augustus (Berlin, 1962)Google Scholar; Desanges (n. 2); Shaw, B.D., ‘The Elder Pliny's African geography’, Historia 30 (1981), 424–71Google Scholar.

55 As has been proposed by Teutsch (n. 54), 164, Gascou, J., La politique municipale de l'Empire romain en Afrique proconsulaire de Trajan à Septime Sévère (Rome, 1972)Google Scholar, 25 n. 3, 34–5 and Desanges (n. 2), 201–3, Hippo Regius would also have been a municipium Latinum (Plin. HN 5.22).

56 On the status of these communities, see Letta, C., ‘La creación del municipio de Segusio (Alpes Cottiae) y el problema de los municipia Latina en el Occidente romano’, FlorIlib 17 (2006), 115–34Google Scholar.

57 On this point, see Henderson (n. 2), 10; Teutsch (n. 54), 164; Desanges (n. 2), 285; Wilson (n. 53), 95–9; id. (n. 24), 41–5; Manganaro, G., ‘Per una Storia della Sicilia romana’, ANRW 1.1 (1972), 442–61Google Scholar, at 458; id., ‘La Sicilia da Sesto Pompeo a Diocleziano’, ANRW 2.11.1 (1988), 3–89, at 19–21; id. (n. 53), 161–7; García-Fernández (n. 3); id. (n. 2), 78–104; Letta (n. 56), 121–34. Despite this, scholars such as Chastagnol, A., ‘Considérations sur les municipes latins du premier siècle ap. J.-C.’, in L'Afrique dans l'Occident Romain. Ier siècle av. J.-C. – IVe siècle ap. J.-C. (Rome, 1990), 351–65Google Scholar, Le Roux (n. 38), 331–40 and Kremer (n. 38), 3, 139 and 175 suggest that the Latin municipium did not appear until the time of Claudius or Vespasian.

58 On this matter, see Saumagne, Ch., Le droit Latin et les cités romaines sous l'Empire. Essais critiques (Paris, 1965)Google Scholar; Gascou (n. 37), 552–3; id., ‘Magistratures et sacerdoces municipaux dans les cités de Gaule Narbonnaise’, in M. Christol and O. Masson (edd.), Actes du Xe Congrès International d’Épigraphie Grecque et Latine (Paris, 1997), 75–140, at 107–8, 113–14 and 118–20; Goudineau, C., ‘Le statut de Nîmes et des Volques Arécomiques’, RAN 9 (1976), 105–14CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Roman, D., ‘Aix-en-Provence et les débuts de la colonization de droit latin en Gaule du Sud’, RAN 20 (1987), 185–90CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Christol (n. 52); Le Roux, P., ‘La question des colonies latines sous l'Empire’, Ktema 17 (1992), 183–200Google Scholar; Christol, M. and Heijmans, M., ‘Les colonies latines de Narbonnaise: un nouveau document d'Arles mentionnant la Colonia Iulia Augusta Avennio’, Gallia 49 (1992), 37–44CrossRefGoogle Scholar, at 40–3; Chastagnol (n. 52); Galsterer-Kröll, B., ‘Latinisches Recht und Municipalisierung in Gallien und Germanien’, in de Urbina, E. Ortiz and Santos, J. (edd.), Teoría y práctica del ordenamiento municipal en Hispania (Vitoria, 1996), 117–29Google Scholar; García-Fernández (n. 2), 38–67.

59 See, in this respect, Christol and Heijmans (n. 58), 40–3; Gascou (n. 37), 560–1; id. (n. 58), 118–20; García-Fernández (n. 2), 38–67. In the opinion of Henderson (n. 2), 10, the Latin colonies in Gallia Narbonensis were preserved because Augustus did not tamper with the affairs of Narbonensis before it was handed over to the Senate in 22 b.c.

60 On this event, see Wilson (n. 53), 94; id. (n. 24), 35; Manganaro (n. 53), 163.

61 Wilson (n. 53), 93; id. (n. 24), 20. Furthermore, Morgantina might also have had Latin colonial status. As proposed by Manganaro (n. 53), 166–7, it is very likely that the town had received the Latium at the end of the Second Punic War, coinciding with the settlement of mercenaries from Hispania in Morgantina (Livy 26.21.13–17).

62 In this regard, see Wilson (n. 24), 33.

63 On this point, see Wilson (n. 24), 33–5 and 44–5.

64 Moreover, there was one municipium ciuium Romanorum on the island of Lipara (Plin. HN 3.93). On these ciuitates, see Wilson (n. 53), 94–101; (n. 24), 35–6.

65 This may be the case of Agrigentum, Haluntium, Halaesa and Lilybaeum. On this matter, see Wilson (n. 53), 98; (n. 24), 42; Manganaro (n. 53), 165; Vera (n. 24).

66 This work was supported by the research groups ‘Ciudades Romanas’ (UCM/930692/HIST—Complutense University of Madrid) and ‘Sincrisis. Investigación en Formas Culturais’ (GI–1919—University of Santiago de Compostela), as well as the research project ‘Nuevas bases documentales para el estudio histórico de la Hispania romana de época republicana: onomástica y latinidad (III–I a.C.)’ (HAR2015–66463–P—Complutense University of Madrid). I wish to express my gratitude to Dr. Estela García-Fernández for her valuable contributions in preparing and writing this paper. I would also like to thank the anonymous referees for their insightful comments and suggestions which improved the manuscript, as well as Dr. Charlotte Tupman who kindly revised the final version of the English text.