Live tweeting of this conference by others can be found here.
Palombi on Urbanism in Transition
paper read by Mignone
In literature portrayal changes from an Etruscan city to that of a Greek city, portrayal accepted by Romans
De-etruscanization closes with taking of Volsinii and desolving of Etruscan decopolis; Greekness affirmed by admission to Isthmian games
Invention of tradition
Sparse archaeology supplemented by records in literary sources, buildings listed on slide by century (but not sources): “IV cent 7 temples, III 40 temples, II 20 temples, I seven temples” (but excludes temple of Diana Plancia!?!)
Interventions of the fourth century in comitia, square to circular shift. New name Graecostatis
“explosion of the sacred” in the 3rd century
lacking confirmation of archaeology
“masochistic tendency to down date the use of Roman concrete”
Colonies “cities of great modernity” urban planning
Urban models used by Rome in 3rd and 4th century based on Latin models
“Rome did not Romanize Latium, but rather Latinized Italy”
“City of Tuff vs City of Limestone”
City walls restored through out Latium with gates (usually with arches) and bastions in 4th/3rd century
Extension to include new Road system, cf. Praeneste, Ariccia
Cora extension of terraces
Tusculum’s forum also shaped in this period because of terrace construction
Tusculum’s forum has a true Greek style portico already in 3rd Century
Cosa, Alba Fucens – colonies draw on models from Magna Graecia, cf. Paestum, Argigento for civic meeting spaces.
Wide spread use of votive offering found in Latium does not seem to have a parallel in Rome itself
Imposing terraces as defining characteristic of Latin cities, defining space, even before contact with Hellenistic building practices
Latin experimentation with urban planning is distinctive: a combination of substructures and hippodamian long blocks
Regularity valued in outlay of terraces in relationship to forums and sacred spaces: Cf. Gabbi and Norba
Monumentalizing of the main functional feature of city
Must reject Romanocentric view and respect the separate history of Latium and its relationship with other communities, esp. Greek communities and its resistence of Roman hegemony. Consider the network of Myths that connect Latin communities with the Greeks.
Roselaar – Land Tenure as Spoils of War
Begins by summarizing ideas of James Tan: Rome most interested in widing tax base, citizenship is not a reward, a mechanism of subjugation, tributum institution 406? Land regularly distributed. Allies supplied troops, but did not pay taxes, better off than citizens!
Latin war watershed in how land taken was treated, viritane distribution less common
Creations of new tribes resisted by elites to limit power of colleagues through creation of client base of the sponsoring member of the elite
Colonies become alternative to viritane distribution
Colonies must be independent from Rome to serve effectively as military outposts
Colonists exchanged citizenship for land, but retained ius commercii, ius conubii, ius migrationis (the last did NOT apply to their sons though, to ensure colony remained intact and functioned as military outposts)
Non-Romans Non-Latin allies not admitted to colonies at least not in 4th Century.
Ager Publicus present but not fully utilized or well controlled by State. What was function of this land that was NOT distributed in colonization? Some sold to fund war efforts in 2nd Punic War–> thus earlier the state had not distribute all the land available to it!
Ager Publicus known to be such would have been valued lower and not developed by private individuals because of insecurity of possession; it would be a bad investment.
2nd century period of fast economic growth, can it be a model for understanding late 4th century boom as discussed by De Haas in morning session.
Luceria’s position determined by its ability to control surrounding area.
Latin colonists have larger land grants, enough to provide for themselves and families (Roman colonies are different story).
Fregellae had big economic opportunities: wool and leather –> attracted greater population
Italian allies had been working ager publicus as if it was their private land.
Summary: New system of land tenure after Latin War: civitas sine suffragio and Latin colonies; The system ends when disputes over remain ager publicus comes to a head with Gracchi and in following period…
Varia from Question Period:
Bernard/Davies: 268 BCE = Temple of Tellus gets map of Italy
Roselaar: Does not believe Rome collects rents on ager publicus…
Terrenato: disagrees, why take land not to do anything with it?
Tan: Different ‘theys’ one generation thinks confiscation and rent collection a good idea, next gen may see advantages in NOT doing so…
Mignone: Dion. Hal. reports land confiscations and compensation on Aventine. Historical? Compares Lex Thoria (suggesting date of 111 BCE).
Smith: Fretting about whether there is such a thing as a Latin Colony, worry stems from Dutch research, and Roselaar’s own research, and Terrenato’s new book–> foundations at the same time as these colonies that are not colonies.
Roselaar: colonies special for rights of individual colonists, but not necessarily economically different from other foundations, communities.
Ager Publicus is in areas where colonies are absent.
Audience member (?): in agrarian society land ownership is most important thing: more than symbolic. People take chances to be able to ‘own’, opportunism
Tan: 330s different treatment of upland and low land places. Changes based on function of place. Qualitative different in types of ager publicus, arable lands vs. pasture lands.
Roselaar: land close to Rome is key and is what is likely that sold in 2nd Punic War.
De Haas: asks about how we can validate picture through archaeological evidence… Settlement density? Centuriation as a signal of the sale of ager publicus?
Smith: are there mutually beneficial relationships that mean binary ours/ theirs model is not valid. (echoing Tan sentiments?)
Tan: ager publicus needed to make surrounding small plots actually self-suffient: shared resources.
De Angelis – Rome’s Visual Culture
338-241 BCE is his ‘fourth century’
Plut. Marc. 2.1-3 – bringing spoils from Syracuse, but before this all war trophies
Stereotype of warlike middle republic is used as counterpoint to more sophisticated late republic
Date of shift to luxury varies by author/rhetorical need
Anti-primitive middle Rome lead by Coarelli starting from Medio Repubblicana exhibition and publication
Most now believe that Rome was a major cultural center in the 4th century.
338 – equestrian statues in forum, a hundred years after previous datable reference to an honorific statue.
Capitoline ‘Brutus’ contrasted with Etruscan funeral portaits
It’s too good, fits too well with literary stereotypes. Some even think it is a retrospective piece of early imperial period.
Cf. Mirrors, Cistae, Red Figure, Sarcophagi,
Rome plates:
Paucity of Rome evidence, leads to looking towards visual cultures of surrounding Latin communities. But do we then lose local specificity
Calenos LAMPS [!!!!learn more about these and their epigraphy!!!}
Ficoroni Cista
NOVIOS PLAVTIOS MED ROMAI FECID …..
This object is not an exceptional object: conforms with cista styles and quality of Praeneste and theme is known in other media both from Etruria and S. Italy.
The identity of Cneve Tarchunies as Roman is far less important than the way in which the whole tomb celebrates the bonds between brothers against various adversaries!
Davies – architecture’s agency
Summarizes Flower on periodization based on governance, not warfare
Ideas of Agency, what can be an an actor
Concept of Object-Scapes and human acculturation
We cannot be too reductionist, humans are still required
Entanglements –> ‘Chicken/Egg’ –> must not underestimate either human or object agency
Monuments primary communicators of history in this period
Discussion of temple style and slide with maps from her recent book
348 – massive walls
Veii brings new material and thus specialization of labor (cites Bernard); but most labor still corvée labor
308 – Butchers give way to Bankers spaces with Samnite shields of dedication
305 – Temple of Victoria, first lateral columns in 100 years, elongated, and stone entablature, maybe IONIC order
ROmans of 4th Century experience different object-scapes, middle of century stable, but then vast changes. Contracting, now replaces corveé labor. So more of a service of the state rather than a burden on the citizens.
Things were NOW changable! Object-scape allows new ways of thinking about permeability, accessibility, and expansiveness.
Shields, rosta embody foreign states
A new aesthetic in Rome representative of alterity
Plans underplay the radicalness of the shift, better seen in reconstructions of elevations
Then and NOW
Object agency is what she’s proposing
Cf. Her reading of Caesar’s Forum against Pompey’s theater complex: stark/all-business vs. luxury.
The past becomes more limited, austere, harder, unified, rigid, domineering, inward looking by CONTRAST by newer styles.
Did Romans perceive this shift? Possibly.
E.g. Updating of Temple of Castor (GREAT RECONSTRUCTIONS side by side)
Sulla’s on reconstructions focus nearly exclusively on regal and very earliest republic. He is using the 4th century and before to signal conservative agenda.
Architecture more than index, but historical agent, by creating contrasts between present and past.
Bernard and Davies sidebar: ALL about how much of early temples Ionic
Question period
Feeney: underscores Rostra and evocation of Sea and Antium
Audience Member: what was recognizable?
Davies: foreignness readable even if origins specifically are not.
Bernard: comments on who the craftspeople are and that these people are coming from ‘everywhere’
Peralta: Human agency is beside the point…
De Angelis: would not be so radical… raises issue of Caleno artists identifying place or origin on the black-glaze ware…
Smith: Points back to Palombi paper and asks if these papers undermines the idea of Latin agency; Context makes the object, and the context defines the people as well, creates capacity to imagine oneself as different, but what is the ‘DIFFERENT’? This is a period of great militarism, as well as artistic revolution. What sort of new citizen is being created?
Davies: Not so much an issue of foreign policy, but who has access to power… How they conceive power relations among themselves. New types of sponsors of architecture, new funding streams, different people are speaking in the language of architecture, the most authoritative language that is available.
Smith: Palombi paper…
Davies: I’m deliberately not answering that (laughing)
De Angelis: I wish Palombi was here I don’t fully understand… To what extent does knowledge of Etruscan temples effect these developments?
Davies: I’m most interested in how building in Rome effect Romans…
Rosenstein: Who are these Romans you expect to be influenced by this architecture? De-centralized population… Urban population doesn’t exceed 10% of whole…
Davies: That’s my point, its limited
Rosenstein: Hierarchy of Romanness…
[I said stuff about Minucian Column here]
Feeney: reviews how many people were seeing this building, esp. in social-religious contexts, not just citizens, but non-citizens as well.
Cornell: We many not be able to call anything Etruscan, but rather just old style… Much of this stuff is being produced by Plebeians…A new ruling class is coming into being.
Davies: The architecture is propelling this new class.
Tan: Gaius Maenius may be key. All following him.
Davies: Yeah, I wrote that in my book.
