This pdf of your paper in Roman Colonies in the First Century of their Foundation belongs to the publishers Oxbow Books and it is their copyright. As author you are licenced to make up to 50 offprints from it, but beyond that you may not publish it on the World Wide Web until three years from publication (Februrary 2014), unless the site is a limited access intranet (password protected). If you have queries about this please contact the editorial department at Oxbow Books (editorial@oxbowbooks.com). An offprint from R C   F C   F edited by Rebecca J. Sweetman © Oxbow Books 2011 ISBN 978-1-84217-974-1 Contents Acknowledgements List of Contributors Abbreviations 1. Introduction: 100 years of Solitude: colonies in the irst century of their foundation R. Sweetman 2. Language and Identity in the Roman Colonies of Sicily K. Korhonen 3. “A Tale of Two Colonies”: Augusta Emerita (Mérida) and Metellinum (Medellín) in Roman Lusitania J. Edmondson 4. Corduba/Colonia Patricia: the colony that was founded twice A. Jiménez and J. R. Carrillo 5. Imperial cult and imperial reconciliation P. D. Scotton 6. Between Atticus and Aeneas: the making of a colonial elite at Roman Butrint I. L. Hansen 7. “Alien settlers consisting of Romans”: identity and built environment in the Julio-Claudian foundations of Epirus in the century after Actium W. Bowden 8. Colonia Iulia Nobilis Cnosus, the irst 100 years: the evidence of Italian sigillata stamps M. W. Baldwin Bowsky 9. Colonial Space and the City: Augustus’ Geopolitics in Pisidia A. U. De Giorgi 10. Afterword: Catastrophe and Aftermath G. Woolf v vi vii 1 7 32 55 75 85 101 117 135 150 4. Corduba/Colonia Patricia: the colony that was founded twice Alicia Jiménez and José R. Carrillo Introduction Corduba is an exceptionally interesting example for understanding the different processes associated with the complex phenomenon of Roman colonisation and territorial expansion in the provinces. The irst Roman settlement in the area took place during the earliest stage of the conquest, at the beginning of the 2nd c. BCE, in a phase contemporary with the development of the very concept of colony on the Italian Peninsula. The archaeological evidence from Corduba is also especially valuable for exploring the material culture of a town inhabited from the outset by Romans and local peoples and for analysing, from a critical perspective, the relationship between the legal status and its material representation. In this respect, our accounts of the monumental character of colonies can, at least in part, be linked to ancient discourses on the reproduction of the model of the city of Rome, or the creation of ‘little Romes’ in colonies abroad. Corduba can be seen as an example of an old Republican colony that was refounded (enlarged, remodeled and embellished) and given a new name, Colonia Patricia, in the context of the extensive colonial programmes of Caesar and Augustus. In the irst section of this paper, the evidence provided by the ancient sources on the establishment of a Roman settlement next to an important native oppidum is contrasted with the archaeological remains discovered in the town in recent years. The traceable changes that occurred in the image of the town during the irst one hundred years of the colony are then analysed. Next, we tackle the question of the coexistence of several discourses on the meaning of ‘being Roman’ in Colonia Patricia through a comparison of the representation of collective identities in public spaces and of individual or family identities in houses and tombs and their relevance in the transformation of the Republican colony of Corduba into the Colonia Patricia of the early Empire. The problem of the origins According to Strabo (III.2.1.), Corduba was founded by Marcellus and, together with Gades, it was one of the towns that had grown most in fame and power in the Turdetania: “…because of the excellence of its soil and the extent of its territory, though the Baetis River has also contributed in great measure to its growth; and it has been inhabited from the beginning by picked men of the Romans and of the native Iberians; what is more, the irst colony which the Romans sent to these regions was that to Corduba.”1 Marcellus has been identiied as the Republican consul Claudius Marcellus, praetor of Hispania Ulterior and Hispania Citerior in 169–168 BCE2 and proconsular legate in Hispania Citerior in 152–151 BCE,3 and therefore it is usually claimed that Roman Corduba was founded in the second quarter of the 2nd c. BCE.4 However, this short passage has caused decades of controversy. The mere mention of Corduba as the irst colony in southern Spain has been considered problematic, since we know of at least two Roman towns founded before 169 BCE: Carteia5 and Italica.6 Carteia should be dismissed, according to Canto and Stylow,7 since it is located near Gadir on the Mediterranean coast and in this passage Strabo gives us information only about Turdetania. The colonial status of Italica in this early phase remains a thorny issue, although some scholars include it in the list of early Republican colonies.8 Also, the very use of the Greek terms Markéllou ktísma and apoikía are dificult to interpret. Canto has suggested, taking into account Casevitz’s work,9 that Strabo, like other Greek authors of Roman times, used this word not 56 Alicia Jiménez and José R. Carrillo to refer to the founder-hero of a Greek colony, as Greek writers did many centuries before, but to a ‘new founder’ or ‘benefactor’ of the town. If this was the case, the expression must be then understood in the context of a profound transformation of a town where the irst Roman settlement may have taken place some years before.10 In this respect, the role of Marcellus could be compared to that of Scipio’s in Tarraco, which Pliny, describing the Republican origins of the town, refers to as Scipionum opus.11 Strabo may have used the word apoikía not in the administrative sense of the colonial foundations of Caesar and Augustus, something inconceivable in the mid 2nd c. BCE, but to allude to a contingent of immigrants, an alternative meaning of the concept more in tune with the migratory currents from the Italian Peninsula in the late Republic12 as Bispham has pointed out, what in the early 2nd c. BCE counted as a colony, such as a small garrison.13 Recently, García (2002, 268; 2009, 385) has proposed a different reading of Strabo, that the reference to the apoikía must be related to the second phase of the town founded as a colonia civium Romanorum by Caesar and not with the Latin colony of Marcellus. According to this interpretation, Corduba was the first Roman colony founded by the Romans in southern Iberia and, therefore, no contradiction is to be found in considering Cartago Iunonia as the irst Roman colony established outside Italy (123 BCE) and in asserting that the foundation of Latin colonies such as Italica and Carteia were earlier than that of Corduba. Leaving aside the problematic translation of the word apoikía in modern texts, and the uncertain deinition of the legal status of the irst settlement (to be discussed briely later), it is usually admitted that Corduba may have enjoyed the status of Latin colony from the very beginning and probably accommodated a conventus civium Romanorum.14 In any case, Strabo describes the town as being inhabited from the start by individuals selected from the local and Roman communities.15 This is a characteristic that many Roman towns of southern Iberia may have had in common, even in those colonies founded ex nihilo in the areas surrounding native settlements, although this fact is not commonly acknowledged by modern scholars.16 In the case of Corduba, the local elite must have originated from the native settlement of Colina de los Quemados, which prompted a “change of domicile” and the creation of a new town by adding population from neighbouring settlements, almost in the fashion of the Greek synoecism.17 It must also be borne in mind that, according to the use of the term Romaioi by Hellenistic authors, the Roman population settled in Corduba must have been quite heterogeneous, including not only Roman citizens, but also mostly Italics and probably also the descendants of Roman soldiers and native women (hybridae).18 In fact, as Rodríguez Neila has pointed out, in Hispania Ulterior Italic nomina are predominant over Roman names, which might be related to the settling of Italic socii, who served as auxilia in the Roman army, in important towns like Tarraco, Emporiae, Carteia, Castulo or Corduba itself.19 Although speculation on the subject was common from the sixteenth century on, the exact location of the pre-Roman settlement of Corduba remained unknown until the 1960s, when excavations took place for the irst time on the Colina de los Quemados (present day Parque Cruz Conde)20 (Fig. 4.1). The latest archaeological investigations by Murillo have been crucial for demonstrating that the site had been occupied from the Copper Age to the end of the 2nd c. BCE and probably even the beginning of the 1st c. BCE.21 The data recovered showed for the irst time that the ‘Turdetanian’ oppidum had not been abandoned immediately after the foundation of the Roman settlement, as had been earlier thought. By the eighth century BCE the native oppidum of Corduba had become one of the most important towns on the Guadalquivir River, covering c. 50 hectares, according to some possibly optimistic estimates.22 There seem to be no evident breaks in the archaeological record, as is shown by the continuity of some structures and the typology of pottery sherds, up to the end of the settlement during the late Iron Age.23 However, a certain lack of deinition is characteristic of the site’s 2nd century BCE layers, leaving open the question of the magnitude of the impact of the new Roman settlement founded at that time next to Colina de los Quemados. The uncertainty about the irst stages of Roman Corduba is also important. Even though we are still lacking materials that can be unequivocally linked to the Roman army in the irst phase of the site, the idea that the Roman town may have had its origins in the cannabae of a Roman camp is not new. The involvement of the army in the origins of Roman Corduba has been claimed a number of times,24 although not all the researchers agree with this idea.25 Some of the earliest Roman towns of Hispania, such as Emporiae26 and Tarraco,27 are believed to have originated from or have been the result of the growth of military camps set up next to pre-existing settlements;28 others were founded, according to the ancient sources, to settle soldiers that had been 4. Corduba/Colonia Patricia: the colony that was founded twice 57 Figure 4.1. Map of Corduba in the late Republic. On the left, the native oppidum located in Colina de los Quemados (Parque Cruz Conde), on the right the Roman town founded by Marcellus. Late 3rd c. BCE–2nd c. BCE (Carrillo et al. 1999, ig. 1). involved in the early years of the wars in the Iberian Peninsula, as is the case of Italica29 or Valentia.30 In support of the hypothesis of the existence of a castellum or praesidium opposite the native town, right after the beginning of the Roman conquest of the Iberian Peninsula, the following evidence is usually enumerated: the mention by several sources of Corduba as a place of sojourn for the troops in the early stages of the war,31 some of the geostrategic characteristics of the colony (control over the crossing of the Guadalquivir and the harbour to ship minerals from the neighbouring mountain ranges and its location at a key communications junction),32 the disproportionate size of the Republican town (perhaps an indication of its use as a place to station the troops), and pottery inds that can be dated to 58 Alicia Jiménez and José R. Carrillo between the end of the 3rd c. BCE and the irst quarter of the 2nd c. BCE.33 The earliest archaeological contexts found so far in the north of the Roman town, which include house walls, local pottery and Campanian and Dressel 1 amphorae, can be dated to the second quarter of the 2nd c. BCE. At least in this part of the colony, the irst inhabitants of Roman Corduba lived in houses built using the same construction techniques as those found in the pre-Roman oppidum.34 Probably around the same date, or maybe a little earlier, the impressive town walls were built. They were two metres thick with a six-metre agger, a 15–metre deep fosse and several towers.35 The absence of levels from the irst half of the 2nd c. BCE in the early Roman towns of Hispania can be regarded almost as a common pattern. In Tarraco, the town walls of the irst phase of the upper enclosure of the Roman castrum have been dated to between the end of the 3rd c. BCE and the beginning of the 2nd c. BCE, although contemporary structures inside the enclosure are still missing. However, materials from this and earlier dates have been recorded in the native oppidum, located next to the Roman military base set up by Scipio in 218 BCE in the lower town.36 Another good example from Republican times is Valentia. Having been founded in 138 BCE after the settlement of veterans from the wars of conquest in an uninhabited spot, in the irst stage the town bore a close resemblance to a Roman camp, including tents and wooden structures. Probably only some months later, these dwellings were replaced by new houses built with masonry foundations and brick walls, although solid structures only began to appear in the course of the late 2nd c. BCE.37 The veriication of the irst founding of Corduba in the early 2nd c. BCE brings us back to the problem of studying the legal status of the town and its inhabitants and the early stages of the Roman colonisation using the written sources of the early Empire, such as Strabo or Pliny, as our main interpretative tools. This question goes far beyond the speciic example of Corduba and applies to the irst Roman settlements of the earlier provinces, at a stage when legal formulas of colonization implemented so far in the Italian Peninsula and the Cisalpin Gaul, such as the Latin colony, were probably tested for the irst time after the Second Punic War in the new conquered land, as the ancient sources show for the case of Carteia.38 The very meaning of the concept of ‘colony’ was the subject of antiquarian debate among different writers in the Gracchan period and in the 1st century BCE, after the modiication of the former status of different settlements in the Italian Peninsula as a consequence of the leges Iulia and Pompeia.39 The nature and purpose of coloniae seem to have been more blurred than the clear-cut legal categories used by modern scholars today. Bispham has showed how the juridical boundaries between colonies and other types of settlements, and between Roman and Latin colonies, usually established in the archaeological literature since Salmon,40 may not adequately describe the colonial situation prior to the late 2nd c. BCE.41 How, for example, did the ‘citizens’ of colonies established before the foundation of the irst Roman colony outside Italy (Carthage, in 123 BCE), perceive themselves and how were they perceived by others? The conundrum, in the case of Corduba, as we have seen, has been solved by stating that the Roman town was founded irst as Latin colony in the early 2nd c. BCE42 and remained as such probably up to the time of Caesar or Augustus, when, after being razed to the ground for supporting Pompey’s side in the civil wars,43 the city named Corduba, according to the legends of the coins,44 was reborn as a colonia civium Romanorum with a new name: Colonia Patricia. Perhaps the double tribus traced in the epigraphic record of the colony (Sergia and Galeria) is the testimony of two different deductiones, the irst taking place during the time of Caesar and the second performed by Augustus with veterans from the Spanish wars.45 A new series of coins showing the legionary eagle and two standards and, for the irst time, a completely Roman name (Colonia Patricia), is usually claimed as evidence of the settlement of retired soldiers.46 Thus, Corduba could be considered as a colony that was founded twice, irst probably as a colonia Latina and later as a colonia civium Romanorum,47 showing at the same time the extent to which it is important to make a distinction between the material reality of the ancient towns, the actual origins of a given Roman settlement, and its legal status. The image of a town: the irst one hundred years of the colony In the following section we will approach the question of how the successive changes in the legal status of Corduba inluenced its town planning and the settlement of a heterogeneous population group in the colonia. We will attempt to ascertain whether there is a direct relationship between the creation of a colony and the ‘monumentalization’ of civic spaces,48 or if those phenomena could be better interpreted, in the case of Colonia Patricia, within the framework of wider a process that affected different regions during the transition between the Republic and the Empire. 4. Corduba/Colonia Patricia: the colony that was founded twice 59 Figure 4.2. Map of Colonia Patricia in the early Empire. 1. Forum coloniae, 2. Forum adiectum, 3. Amphitheatre, 4. Bridge over the Gualquivir river, 5. Theatre, 6. Forum provinciae and circus (Courtesy of J. F. Murillo, Gerencia Municipal de Urbanismo of Córdoba). Finally, we will take into account, in this context, the dialogue established between the expression of collective identity symbolized in civic spaces by public buildings or state symbols and the selfrepresentation of individuals in houses and tombs. Leaving aside the town walls, which can be considered the most impressive element of the Republican town’s urban landscape, the construction of the irst monumental buildings took place several generations after the foundation of the settlement and also some decades after the consolidation of Corduba as capital of the provincia Ulterior (197 BCE), probably during the transition from the 2nd to the 1st c. BCE. The existence of an early forum, which could have been in use during the irst phase of the town, or at least from the middle of the 2nd c. BCE, judging from recent excavations,49 is also attested by ancient sources at least from 112 BCE.50 Around the transition between the 2nd and the 1st centuries BCE, a phase of intensive restructuring of the urban fabric of various Roman towns in southern Hispania,51 new building techniques (walls built of ashlars covered with stucco, tegulae and opus signinum) are attested for the irst time,52 together with the construction of a new public building associated with an open space in the south end of Corduba (Section 1, Casa Carbonell),53 probably a temple with Doric-Tuscan capitals, similar to that found in the Republican forum of Ampurias.54 The ancient writers also inform us of the existence of a forum with a basilica around the same period (80–70 BCE).55 The destruction of the town by Caesar’s troops during the civil wars may have left its mark in the archaeological record, since thick deposits of ashes and debris dating from this time have been documented in some stratigraphic sequences,56 although the basic layout of the street grid and the organisation of public and private spaces remained unaffected. During the reign of Augustus, coinciding with a series of administrative measures that would transform Colonia Patricia into the capital of the provincia Baetica and the conventus Cordubensis, the town underwent a profound programme of remodelling (Fig. 4.2). The old pomerium was altered extending the city walls towards the south to meet the banks of the river;57 the irst stone bridge over the Guadalquivir and an aqueduct, aqua Augusta,58 were built and the streets were paved with stone slabs and adorned with porticos and fountains59. Marble imported from Carrara-Luna was introduced at this time as a construction material in public buildings and decorative patterns in fashion in the Urbs were adopted in certain monuments.60 Some of the larger civic projects date also from this time. The largest 60 Alicia Jiménez and José R. Carrillo theatre in Hispania (Fig. 4.3), based on the model of the theatre of Marcellus in Rome, was probably built before 5 BCE,61 and the old Republican forum was remodelled to meet width-length ratio recommended by Vitruvius. This space was probably decorated with the addition of a large temple and a new arch over the entrance to the square. Soon after, a new forum was annexed (forum novum or adiectum),62 although it was not completed until the Julio-Claudian dynasty.63 The design of this new space was inspired by the forum Augusti in Rome64 and included a temple c. 30 m high, similar to the one consecrated to Mars Ultor in the capital of the Empire, with columns of 1.59 m in diameter, a group of sculptures with a colossal representation of Aeneas or, according to Spannagel,65 Romulus (Fig. 4.4), as well as several structures with marble facing, in stark contrast to the stucco or terracotta decoration of the late-Republican buildings. Even more ambitious projects were undertaken during the Julio-Claudian dynasty. The largest amphitheatre in Hispania known to us so far, with a capacity of 30,000 spectators, was built outside the walls, on the western side of the town.66 On the eastern lank, an enormous structure of three terraces, with a temple and an altar surrounded by a porticoed square at the top and a circus at the bottom, created a new monumental façade for those who approached the colony from that end.67 Some scholars believe that this space, completed during the Flavian age, should be identiied as a provincial forum, where the cult to the Imperial family for the whole of Baetica province would have been located.68 In addition to these large-scale interventions in the town planning of the colony, it must be remembered that the largest number of sculptures erected to honour the acts of evergetism of distinguished citizens also belong to the Julio-Claudian period,69 probably impacting an urban landscape that only changed drastically two hundred years after the establishment of the irst Roman colony in Corduba, setting the town within a Mediterranean pattern of transformations undergone by various towns in the Empire approximately at the same time, although on different scales.70 The house and the tomb: representing family and individuals The irst inhabitants of ‘Roman Cordoba’ are as dificult to trace in the archaeological record as the irst public monuments and town planning of the colony. Despite all the archaeological research conducted in the city in recent decades, it has been impossible to ind evidence of the pre-Roman necropoleis. However, a few years ago Murillo published a summary of the materials found in a cremation tomb that belonged to a necropolis in use, in his opinion, between the 7th and the 2nd c. BCE and located in the eastern part of Parque Cruz Conde.71 According to him, a number of tombs from this cemetery were plundered in the early 1990s and the artefacts were dispersed in several private collections. He announced in this article that he was conducting a study of the materials from the site, of which the data on this tomb, consisting of a painted funerary urn, a bowl and a lagynos,72 were an advance (Fig. 4.5). This humble burial is of enormous relevance: irstly, because pre-Roman necropoleis are few in the area identiied by archaeologists as Turdetania, known from the ancient texts and also because the possible causes of this absence in the archaeological record of Andalusia have become the subject of a vehement debate among scholars;73 and secondly, because it is the oldest record of funerary practices in Cordoba known to date and it documents roughly the time of the irst Roman foundation next to the native settlement. Moreover, the inds published to date show that at least some of the Republican forefathers of the subsequent Roman colony made use of a characteristic painted local urn as a receptacle for their ashes and covered them with a drinking bowl, following a standard funerary ritual in the Mediterranean areas of pre-Roman Iberia. Corduba was, in this respect no exception, since this type of burial and funerary receptacle were still in use in Colonia Patricia and other Roman towns in southern Iberia well into the years of the early Empire.74 The Republican phase houses are also barely known, although it is possible to confirm that thirty or forty years after the founding of the irst settlement, by the mid 2nd c. BCE, most of them were still made of rubble bases and mud walls, a construction technique also used, incidentally, in the ancient and contemporary native settlement.75 The irst tombs we know of in the Roman town are even later and have been dated to almost a century after the irst Roman settlement, between the end of the 2nd c. BCE and the beginning of the 1st c. BCE. Precisely at that time a change in private architecture was introduced and for the irst time houses with an atrium and perhaps a peristyle were built with ashlar masonry and tegulae roofs. These houses also had stucco walls and signinum loors (Fig. 4.6).76 These changes coincide with the progressive abandonment of the native town of Colina de los Quemados, where the most recent evidence belongs to the beginning of the 1st c. BCE. It is almost two hundred years after the establishment of the irst Roman apoikía in Corduba that some 4. Corduba/Colonia Patricia: the colony that was founded twice 61 Figure 4.3. Plan of the different levels of the Roman theatre of Colonia Patricia (After Ventura 2002, igs 5, 6 and 7). 62 Alicia Jiménez and José R. Carrillo important changes can be seen in the funerary contexts of the town. With the location of monuments at this time along the roads leading out of the town from different gates in the walls, the cemeteries of Colonia Patricia resembled the funerary areas of other Roman towns on the Italian and the Iberian peninsulas. The very concept of displaying the tombs in this way implies a new notion of the funerary space and what was then thought of as an appropriate place for ancestors. Before the Roman conquest, necropoleis were usually located at some distance from the town, typically in a near hill or area that could be seen from the settlement. On the other hand, during the early years of the Empire in Colonia Patricia a gallery of ancestors (represented by gladiatorial gravestones, funerary enclosures with altars and statues, chamber tombs, funerary aediculae and monuments decorated with reliefs) greeted passers-by as they entered or left the town.77 Tombs were then also placed, following the Roman custom, outside the religious limits of the pomerium, sometimes in funerary plots measured in Roman units (in agro pedes, in fronte pedes), as can Figure 4.4 (left). Thoracata, interpreted as a representation of Romulus or Aeneas. (Baena 2007). Figure 4.5 (below). Pre-Roman oppidum of Corduba. Objects from a tomb found in Parque Cruz Conde (Colina de los Quemados) (after Murillo and Jiménez Salvador 2002, 186). 4. Corduba/Colonia Patricia: the colony that was founded twice be read in inscriptions found in Cordoba.78 We also see at the time a novel need to record the name of the deceased on epigraphs carved in stone, and in doing so, leaving behind evidence of their place within a nexus of social relationships,79 something previously unknown in the local cemeteries of southern Iberia. In fact, one of the highest concentrations of gladiatorial epitaphs outside Rome has been unearthed in Colonia Patricia along a Roman road that leads to the recently discovered amphitheatre.80 The inscriptions must have been placed not only in stelae, but also in the walls of funerary enclosures and other types of structures, including funerary altars and aediculae, similar to those that were being erected on the Italian Peninsula or in the Urbs.81 At the western gate of the town were even built, in the late irst c. BCE, a pair of monuments resembling the tomb of Augustus itself (Fig. 4.7).82 These new cemeteries, reminiscent of their Roman counterparts, can only be fully understood when analysed in conjunction with the coexistence of alternative ways of honouring the dead in Colonia Patricia.83 Fancy memorials and gladiators’ epitaphs were intermingled in some funerary spaces with tombs in which the ashes of the dead were kept in painted funerary pots very similar to those used for the same purpose in the region for four hundred years before Augustus84 (Fig. 4.8). At the beginning of the 1st century CE a drinking bowl was used to seal the top of such containers, as was also customary in pre-Roman necropoleis. However, it is very important to bear in mind that this sort of pottery, which has only been found in small quantities in the contemporary town, was not an exact copy of the Iberian types, but Roman ware freely inspired in the linear painted decorations and the shape of ancient local urns to confer on these receptacles a ‘traditional’ appearance. The comparison of different burial areas in the same town is relevant in this respect. Local pottery predominates in some funerary areas of Roman Corduba, such as Camino Viejo de Almodóvar, while imports such as sigillata seem to have been virtually absent in the early years of the Empire.85 In other necropoleis in the town, such as La Constancia, the lower percentage of local pottery found during excavations masks the fact that, although traditional ware is not abundant, its presence and function are signiicant, as the painted local ware usually corresponds, precisely, to the funerary urn.86 With regard to funerary spaces, the founding of a Roman colony in Colonia Patricia meant not only the reframing of the Italic material culture in the provinces, but also the development of ways particular to the region of expressing a link with local pasts. In the new cemeteries of the colony, which were divided into Roman funerary plots 63 Figure 4.6. Roman Corduba. Domus found under the ancient palace Castejón (Photo A. Cánovas). and located along the roadsides during the 1st c. CE, sometimes no memorials of the Roman type were to be found, only the traditional painted urns accompanied by some grave goods, as well as simple inhumations or even funerary chambers similar to the Punic hypogea from North Africa (Fig. 4.9). In fact, some architectural and ritual aspects of these underground funerary chambers are reminiscent of the Punic necropoleis of southern Iberia, including that of Villaricos (Almería), where this type of tomb was in use between the 6th/5th c. BCE and the early Empire,87 or that of Carmona (Seville). The Carmona funerary chambers (dated to the 1st and 2nd c. CE), as well as three monumental tombs found in Cordoba and some monuments from Punic necropoleis, 88 had in common the presence of an entrance ritually blocked with ashlars that were only removed to bury a new body. This feature would have made it dificult to enter the tomb during the mandatory visit to the dead that was part of Roman festivities such as lemuria or parentalia. Instead, libations were probably poured through the ritual cavities found in some of the Carmona and Corduba chambers. 64 Alicia Jiménez and José R. Carrillo Figure 4.7. Colonia Patricia, western necropolis next to one of the monumental gates of the city. Virtual model of the mausolea found on Paseo de la Victoria (Murillo et al. 2002, ig. 20). Figure 4.8. Colonia Patricia, western necropolis. Local funerary urns found in Camino Viejo de Almodovar, according to the typology of García Matamala (Modiied from García Matamala 2002, igs 2, 4, 6, 7 and 9. No scale in the original igures). 4. Corduba/Colonia Patricia: the colony that was founded twice 65 Figure 4.9. Colonia Patricia. Northern necropolis. Chamber tomb found in Bodega St. (after Vaquerizo, 2002b, ig. 17). Thus, the most important changes in funerary commemorations took place during the time of Augustus, approximately at the same time as the second foundation of the town. However, it is very important to state that this transformation happened simultaneously in other settlements in the province, where we ind funerary monuments that ‘resemble’ their Roman counterparts, regardless of their legal status. It was precisely at this time that Rome itself underwent a transformation in the ways of remembering the dead through monumental architecture.89 In the context of the new monuments that were erected in the forum and along the roadsides, the existence of a dialogue between different ways of commemorating family ancestors in the tombs and the images of ‘collective’ Rome forefathers depicted in public spaces is especially meaningful.90 From Corduba to Colonia Patricia According to a frequently quoted passage by Aulus Gellius (NA 16, 13, 9.), the Roman colonies in the Empire were “quasi eigies parvae simulacraque”, a relection, almost a ‘double’ (a small copy), of the Urbs itself. Corduba could thus be seen as a provincial mirror, something that ‘resembles’, but cannot be compared with the greatness of the city of Rome. As archaeologists and historians interested in the so-called ‘Romanization’ process, we have searched carefully for signs of this desire to create small, although imperfect, ‘Romes’ in the provincial colonies and other towns. However, the statement should be placed in the administrative, legal 91 and certainly propagandistic context of Hadrianic times, where it belongs.92 According to Zanker, the slow pace of urban development in Rome and its particular layout meant that the Urbs was a dificult model to imitate in speciic ways. The imitation of the outward appearance of Rome was limited to speciic urban political structures and buildings, such as the forum (including a comitium and a curia), the basilica or the baths. However, Zanker argues that “‘Romanization’ can also be understood as something abstract and idealized, that is, the notion of how a Roman imagined the ideal city (or certain elements of this ideal city) ought to look… .”93 This could explain why colonies abroad did not look like Rome, but did look like each other, because of the presence of a cardo and a decumanus that intersected in a central public square and certain public buildings.94 To what extent these provincial towns tell us more about an evolving provincial idea of the Roman town 66 Alicia Jiménez and José R. Carrillo than about a static and unitary Roman idea of a city is open to further exploration. It is certainly interesting to note that the best examples of the aforementioned emulation phenomenon took place in political spaces that were particularly useful for Imperial propaganda, such as theatres or fora. Caryatids and clipei decorated with the head of Zeus-Ammon and Medusa, similar to those placed in the forum of Augustus in Rome, have been unearthed in the three provincial capitals of Hispania: Corduba, 95 Tarraco 96 and Emerita Augusta.97 Perhaps even more important for building of a collective identity through the setting of images in the forum was the placement of sculptures closely linked to the ‘ancestors’ of the Imperial family and the Roman people, including the kings of Alba Longa or Aeneas with Ascanius.98 This attempt to mimic the metropolis, which can be seen particularly in certain urban spaces or in buildings often related to the Imperial cult, such as theatres, can be equated to the discourse spread by the literary sources during the reign of Augustus.99 Both can be considered as parallel elite discourses taking place during a signiicant phase of intensive change that would turn the conquered land into provinces and Rome into the capital of an Empire. It is quite probable that some kind of nexus existed at this time between the ability to read Latin texts and the capacity to ‘read’ or interpret the symbols displayed in the forum and the building of a Roman identity in the colonies. The old Corduba, the defeated town that had supported Pompey during the civil war and had been razed to the ground by Cesar, was reborn as Colonia Patricia. The adjective ‘Patricia’ added to the new name given to the city after its refoundation has been interpreted in different ways. Traditionally a connection with a single famous ancestor, Caesar, of patrician origins, as founder or deductor, has been made by modern scholars.100 However, it is certainly interesting to verify the presence in some colonies of southern Iberia of names that could be loosely linked to alleged Roman/Italic forefathers or founders.101 Apart from Colonia Patricia, the examples of Iulia Romula Hispalis (a reference to Romulus), Iulia Genetiva Urbanorum (a name that links the town to the Urbs) or Italica (founded according to the ancient sources by retired allied Italic troops after the Punic wars) could be cases in point. Colonia Patricia became a colonia civium Romanorum not by chance during the implementation of the ambitious colonization programme carried out by Caesar and Augustus, at a time when most of the colonies were promoted or founded in Baetica and built over or next to pre-existing local towns (Fig. 4.10).102 Pliny mentions nine:103 Colonia Patricia/ Corduba, Colonia Romula Hispal, Hasta Regia, Asido Caesarina, Augusta Fima Astigi, Augusta Gemella Tucci, Ituci Virtus Iulia, Ucubi Clairtas Iulia and Iulia Genitiva Urbanorum Urso. According to some scholars, another four towns in southern Iberia may be added to the list: Colonia Iulia Gemella Acci,104 Colonia Salariense, Italica105 and Colonia Iliturgitana,106 although the legal status of the last two is particularly problematic. Some of these towns acquired their new status during Caesar’s reign only as titular colonies, meaning that even though they may already have accommodated a conventus civium Romanorum, there was no real deductio of citizens, which has obvious implications for our analysis of the composition of the town’s population; it was more common in Augustan foundations to settle new citizens, frequently veterans from the army. The irst foundation of Corduba in the early 2nd c. BCE must, in any case, be placed within a context in which the very process of creating ixed colonial categories in the provinces was taking place. While the ‘second’ foundation, in the second half of the 1st c. BCE, coincides with an extensive political programme of colonization in southern Hispania and the creation of a monumental setting in many towns, regardless of the date they were founded or their legal status. It might be possible to ind here a common pattern with the other provincial capitals in Hispania, such as Tarraco, which was also founded during the Republic (although its legal status in this early phase remains hard to deine as well) and was probably granted later the title of Roman colony during the time of Caesar (49 BCE).107 Emerita Augusta, appointed as the capital of the provincia Lusitania and as a Roman colony by Augustus, received also in 25 BCE a deductio of veterans from the Cantabrian wars under this Emperor.108 In Corduba, the old name of the town disappears in the oficial records that have come down to us, almost after the fashion of a damnatio memoriae.109 However, the brand-new Colonia Patricia, refounded in the time of Caesar and Augustus, transforms itself into a monumental scenario, essential for Imperial propaganda in southern Hispania. Colonia Patricia became then the capital of the conventus and the capital of Baetica province, as the result of the administrative reforms of the irst emperor. Colonia Patricia, the seat of the governor, received a deductio probably of veterans from the Cantabrian wars. To pay these soldiers, Augustus minted in Colonia Patricia a series of coins with a particular connection to the Imperial propaganda and the honours granted by the senate to Octavius. Around this time, Colonia Patricia became a particularly 4. Corduba/Colonia Patricia: the colony that was founded twice 67 Figure 4.10. Roman Republican foundations and colonies of southern Hispania (Blank map courtesy of F. Quesada and J. de Hoz. Research projects PB97/0057 and Hesperia). attractive place for the elites of the region, who were eager to establish connections with members of the Imperial administration or to be promoted to one of the privileged ordines.110 Leaving aside Tarraco, Corduba stands out in our records as having produced the highest number of equites from Hispania. From Italica and Corduba come too the largest number of Baetican senators known to us. The fact that Corduba at the time offered a wide range of opportunities may also explain the presence of other population groups. According to a recent survey, Corduba was, at least qualitatively, the Baetican town that received the largest number of alieni and immigrants from Hispania during the early Empire.111 It is interesting to turn now to the metaphor of Rome as a cosmopolis advanced by Edwards and Woolf. During the early Empire, the trope of the Urbs as a cosmopolis or the epitome of the civilized world appears in the texts of some authors in parallel to the presence in Rome of works of art or spoils from different conquered regions. The city absorbed the world by placing in a new context objects and images dragged from distant lands now under the Roman control but, at the same time and to a certain extent, was itself taken in by the world, as citizens of different origins created small colonies in the capital of the Empire.112 Meanwhile, in the provinces, different representations of the ideal Roman town were implemented, especially in monumental settings, but also new interpretations of local identities in contrast to, or in dialogue with, an image of Rome that was perceived diversely. The metaphor of provincial colonies as a multiple mirror of the magniicence of Rome can be qualiied through the study of private spaces such as cemeteries. The Roman town was a mixture, as Zanker113 has reminded us, of both state planning and a long term process carried out by its inhabitants, which is especially true in Baetica, where most Roman towns were ‘founded’ above of or next to preRoman settlements. The relection of the image of Rome is thus much more complex and interesting. In this new scenario it is possible to see provincial capitals such as Colonia Patricia, the recipients of a ready-made set of symbols of the Imperial power, as cosmopolitan centres. In these towns alternative or parallel versions of the meaning of being a citizen of Corduba were as ‘real’ as those offered by the oficial Roman history on the expansion of its own culture all over the Mediterranean. Acknowledgements Some of the ideas presented in this paper have been explored in greater depth in Jiménez (2008a). We are grateful to the editors of the volume, to an anonymous referee, to Estela García (Universidad Complutense de Madrid) and Juan José R. Villarías (CSIC) for their comments on an earlier version of the text and also to all the participants in the conference “100 years of Solitude” held at St. Andrews University (12th–14th September 2007) for their feed-back. We would also like to thank Sebastián Vargas (CSIC) and 68 Alicia Jiménez and José R. Carrillo Antonio Jesús Pinto (CSIC) for their generous help during the writing of the text. Research funded by the European Social Fund (I3P-CSIC). Project HUM 2007 – 64045/HIST). Bibliography Almagro Gorbea, M. J. 1984. La necrópolis de Baria, Excavaciones Arqueológicas de España 129 (Madrid). Amela, L. 2004. “La ceca de Córdoba en época republicana” XII Congreso Nacional de Numismática (Madrid), 177–93. Arce, J. 2004. “Introducción histórica” in X. Dupré Raventós (ed.), Las capitales provinciales de Hispania. II. Mérida. Colonia Augusta Emerita (Roma) 7–13. Astruc, M. 1951. La Necrópolis de Villaricos, Informes y Memorias 25 (Madrid). Baena, M. D. (ed.) 2007. Thoracata. La imagen del poder (Córdoba). Bandelli, G. 2002. “La colonizzazione romana della Penisola Iberica da Scipione Africano a Bruto Callaico”, in G. Urso (ed.) Hispania terris omnibus felicior. Premesse et esiti di un proceso di integrazione (Pisa) 105–142. Barrera J. L. de la and W. Trillmich 1996. “Eine Wiederholung der Aeneas-Gruppe vom Forum Augustum samt ihrer Inschrift in Mérida (Spanien)”, Mitteilungen des deutschen archäologischen Instituts (Abt. Röm.) 103, 119–38. Bendala, M. 1976. La necrópolis romana de Carmona (Sevilla) (Sevilla). Bendala, M. 1981. “La etapa inal de la cultura ibero-turdetana y el impacto romanizador”, in La baja época de la cultura ibérica (Madrid) 33–48. Bendala, M. 1990. “El plan urbanístico de Augusto en Hispania: precedentes y pautas macroterritoriales”, in W. Trillmich and P. Zanker (eds), Stadtbild und Ideologie: die Monumentalisierung hispanischer Städte zwischen Republik und Kaiserzeit, (Madrid, 19–23 octubre de 1987) (Madrid) 25–40. Bendala, M. 1992. “Tartessos: ¿concierto o desconcierto?”, Arqrítica 3, 20–22. Bendala, M. 2002. “Perduraciones y romanización en Hispania a la luz de la arqueología funeraria: notas para una discusión”, Archivo Español de Arqueología 75, 137–58. Bendala, M. 2003. “De Iberia in Hispaniam: el fenómeno urbano”, in L. Abad (ed.), ‘De Iberia in Hispaniam’. La adaptación de las sociedades ibéricas a los modelos romanos (Alicante) 17–35. Bendala M. and L. Roldán 1999. “El cambio tecnológico en la arquitectura hispanorromana: perduración, novedades y peculiaridades”, in R. de Balbín and P. Bueno (eds), II Congreso de Arqueología Peninsular. Tomo IV – Arqueología Romana y Medieval (Zamora, 1996) (Alcalá de Henares) 103–15. Bernier, J. and J. Fortea 1963. “Niveles arqueológicos del Valle del Guadalquivir”, Boletín de la Real Academia de Córdoba 85, 199–206. Bispham, E. 2006. “Coloniam deducere: how Roman was Roman colonization during the middle Republic?”, in G. Bradley and J. P. Wilson (eds), Greek and Roman colonization. Origins, ideologies and interactions (Wales) 73–160. Blanco, A. 1970. “Vestigios de Córdoba romana”, Habis 1, 109–23. Caballos, A. 1994. Italica y los italicenses. Aproximación a su historia (Sevilla). Caballos, A. 2006. El nuevo bronce de Osuna y la política colonizadora romana, (Sevilla). Cadiou, F. 2008. Hibera in terra miles. Les armées romaines et la conquête de l’Hispanie sous la République (218–45 av. J.-C.) (Madrid). Canto, A. 1991. “Colonia Patricia Corduba: nuevas hipótesis sobre su fundación y nombre”, Latomus L, 4, 846–57. Canto, A. 1997. “Algo más sobre Marcelo, Corduba y las Colonias Romanas del año 45 a. C.”, Gerión 15, 223–81. Canto, A. 1999. “La Vetus Urbs de Itálica, quince años después. La planta hipodámica de D. Demetrio de los Ríos, con otras novedades”, Cuadernos de Prehistoria y Arqueología de la Universidad Autónoma de Madrid 25.2, 145–191. Carrasco, I. 2001. “Intervención arqueológica de urgencia en un solar sito en calle Góngora número 13 esquina a calle Teniente Braulio Laportilla (Córdoba)”, Anuario Arqueológico de Andalucía 1997, III, (Sevilla) 199–208. Carrillo, J. R. 1999. “Evolución de la arquitectura doméstica en la Colonia Patricia Corduba” in F. R. García Verdugo and F. Acosta (eds), Córdoba en la Historia: La Construcción de la Urbe, Actas del Congreso, (Córdoba, 20–23 de Mayo 1997) (Córdoba), 75–86. Carrillo, J. R., R. Hidalgo, J. F. Murillo and A. Ventura 1999. “Córdoba. De los orígenes a la Antigüedad Tardía”, in F. R. García Verdugo and F. Acosta (eds), Córdoba en la Historia: La Construcción de la Urbe, Actas del Congreso, (Córdoba, 20–23 de Mayo 1997) (Córdoba) 37–74. Casevitz, M. 1985. Le vocabulaire de la colonisation en grec ancien. Étude lexicologique: les familles de κτίζω et de οἰκέω-οἰκίζω (Paris). Castillo, C. 1974. “Hispanos y romanos en Córdoba”, Hispania Antiqua IV, 191–7. Chaves Tristán, F. 1977. La Córdoba hispano-romana y sus monedas (Sevilla). Conde, M. J. 1998. “Estado actual de la investigación sobre la cerámica ibérica pintada de época plena y tardía”, Revista de Estudios Ibéricos 3, 299–335. Edwards, C. and G. Woolf 2003. “Cosmopolis: Rome as a world city”, in C. Edwards and G. Woolf (eds), Rome the Cosmopolis (Cambridge) 1–20. Escacena, J. L. 1987. “El poblamiento ibérico en el Bajo Guadalquivir”, in A. Ruiz and M. Molinos (eds), Iberos. Actas de las primeras Jornadas sobre el Mundo Ibérico (Jaén, 1985) (Jaén) 273–98. Escacena, J. L. 1989. “Los Turdetanos o la recuperación de la identidad perdida”, Tartessos. Arqueología Protohistórica del Bajo Guadalquivir (Barcelona) 433–76. Escacena, J. L. 1992. “Indicadores étnicos en la Andalucía prerromana”, Spal 1, 321–43. Escacena, J. L. and M. Belén 1994. “Sobre las necrópolis turdetanas”, Homenaje al Profesor Presedo, P. Sáez and S. Ordóñez (eds) (Sevilla) 237–65. Fishwick, D. 2000. “A new forum at Corduba”, Latomus 59.1, 96–104. Fishwick, D. 2004. The Imperial Cult in the Latin West. Studies in the Ruler Cult of the Western Provinces of the Roman Empire. Volume III: Provincial Cult. Parte 3: The Provincial Centre; Provincial Cult (Leiden-Boston). Galsterer, H. 1997. “Die Stadt Italica: Status und Verwaltung” in A. Caballos and P. León (eds), Italica MMCC. Actas de las Jornadas del 2.200 Aniversario de la Fundación de Italica (Sevilla, 8–11 noviembre 1994) (Sevilla) 49–64. García, E. 2002. “Observaciones jurídicas sobre la fundación de Corduba y la tribus Sergia”, in S. Crespo and Á. Alonso (eds), Scripta Antiqua in honorem Ángel Montenegro Duque et José María Blázquez Martínez (Valladolid) 265–72. 4. Corduba/Colonia Patricia: the colony that was founded twice García, E. 2009. “Relexiones sobre la latinización de Hispania en época republicana”, in I. Rodá, J. Andreu and J. Cabrero (eds), Hispaniae: las provincias hispanas en el mundo romano (Tarragona) 377–90. García y Bellido, A. 1952. “Nuevos datos sobre la cronología inal de la cerámica ibérica y sobre su expansión extrapeninsular”, Archivo Español de Arqueología XXV, 39–45. García-Bellido, M. P. 2006. “Corduba y Colonia Patricia: Historia de dos ciudades”, in D. Vaquerizo and J. F. Murillo (eds), El concepto de lo provincial en el mundo antiguo. Homenaje a la Prof. Pilar León, Vol. I (Córdoba) 251–66. García Matamala, B. 2002. “Enterramientos con urnas de tradición indígena en Corduba”, in D.Vaquerizo (ed.), Espacio y usos funerarios en el Occidente Romano (Córdoba) 275–295. García Matamala, B. 2002–2003. “Enterramientos de tradición indígena en Corduba”, Anales de Arqueología Cordobesa 13–14, 251–277. García Prósper, E. and P. Guérin 2002. “Nuevas aportaciones en torno a la necrópolis romana de la Calle Quart de Valencia (s. II a.C.–IV d.C.)”, in D. Vaquerizo (ed.), Espacio y usos funerarios en el Occidente Romano (Córdoba) 203–215. Garriguet, J. A. 2002. El culto imperial en la Córdoba romana: Una aproximación arqueológica (Córdoba). González Román, C. 1991. “Las colonias romanas de la Hispania meridional en sus aspectos socio-jurídicos”, in C. González Román (ed.), La Bética en su problemática histórica (Granada) 87–100. González Román, C. 1998. “Ciudad y privilegio en la Bética”, in M. J. Hidalgo, D. Pérez and M. J. R. Gervás (eds), “Romanización” y “reconquista” en la Península Ibérica: nuevas perspectivas (Salamanca) 129–40. González Román, C. 2002. Ciudad y privilegio en Andalucía en época romana (Granada). Gros, P. 2001. L’architecture romaine: du début du IIIe siècle av. J.-C. à la in du Haut-Empire. Vol. 2: Maisons, palais, villas et tombeaux (Paris). Haselberger, L. 2007. Urbem adornare: die Stadt Rom und ihre Gestaltumwandlung unter Augustus, Journal of Roman Archaeology, Suplementary Series 64 (Portsmouth, RI). Hesberg, H. von. 1992. Römische Grabbauten (Darmstadt). Hesberg, H. von 1996. “La decorazione architettonica di Cordova. Sulla funzione dell’ornamentazione architettonica in una città romana” in León, P. (ed.) Colonia Patricia Corduba una relexión arqueológica (Sevilla) 155–74. Hita, J. M., P. Maril and N. Marín 1993. “Aproximación a la Corduba prerromana a través de la cerámica de barniz negro”, in I Coloquio de Historia Antigua de Andalucía (Córdoba) 403–20. Hidalgo, R. 1993. “Nuevos datos sobre el urbanismo de Colonia Patricia Corduba excavación arqueológica en la c/ Ramírez de las Casas-Deza 13”, Anales de Arqueología Cordobesa 4, 91–134. Jiménez, A. 2006. “Contextos funerarios en la transición del mundo prerromano al romano en el sur peninsular», Anales de Arqueología Cordobesa 17, vol. I, 67–97. Jiménez, A. 2008a. Imagines Hibridae. Una aproximación postcolonialista al estudio de las necrópolis de la Bética, Anejos del Archivo Español de Arqueología 43 (Madrid). Jiménez, A. 2008b. “A critical approach to the concept of resistance: new ‘traditional’ rituals and objects in funerary contexts of Roman Baetica” in Fenwick, M. Wiggins and D. Wythe (eds), TRAC 2007: Proceedings of the Seventeenth Theoretical Roman Archaeology Conference (London 2007) (Oxford) 15–30. 69 Jiménez Salvador, J. L. 2002. “Últimas novedades en relación al mundo funerario romano en el Este y Sureste de Hispania (siglos II. a.C.–IV d.C.)”, in D. Vaquerizo (ed.), Espacios y usos funerarios en el Occidente romano, vol. 1 (Córdoba), 181–202. Keay, S. 1997. “Early Roman Italica and the Romanisation of western Baetica”, in A. Caballos and P. León (eds), Italica MMCC. Actas de las Jornadas del 2.200 Aniversario de la Fundación de Italica (Sevilla, 8–11 noviembre 1994) (Sevilla) 21–47. Keay, S. 1998. “The development of towns in Early Roman Baetica”, in S. Keay (ed.), The Archaeology of Early Roman Baetica (Portsmouth, Rhode Island) 54–83. Knapp, R. C. 1977. Aspects of the Roman Experience in Iberia, 206–100 B.C. (Valladolid). Knapp, R. C. 1983. Roman Córdoba (Berkeley). Lafi, U. 2002. “La colonización romana desde el inal de la guerra de Aníbal a los Gracos”, in J. L. Jiménez Salvador and A. Ribera i Lacomba (eds), Valencia y las primeras ciudades romanas de Hispania (Valencia) 19–26. León, P. 1999. “Itinerario de monumentalización y cambio de imagen en Colonia Patricia (Córdoba)”, Archivo Español de Arqueología 72, 39–56. León Pastor, E. 2007. La secuencia cultural de la “Corduba” prerromana a través de sus complejos cerámicos (Córdoba). López, I. M. 1998. Estatuas masculinas togadas y estatuas femeninas vestidas de colecciones cordobesas (Córdoba). Luzón, J. M. and D. Ruiz Mata 1973. Las raíces de Córdoba. Estratigrafía de la Colina de los Quemados (Córdoba). Mar, R. (ed.) 1993. Els monuments provincials de Tàrraco. Noves aportacions al seu coneixement, Documents d’Arqueologia Clàssica, n. 1 (Tarragona). Marín, M. A. 2002. “Observaciones sobre las colonias latinas en la Hispania meridional”, in C. González Román and A. Padilla (eds), Estudios sobre las ciudades de la Bética (Granada) 277–87. Marín, C. and A. Ribera i Lacomba 2002. “La realidad arqueológica de la fundación de Valencia: magia, basureros y cabañas”, in L. Jiménez Salvador, A. Ribera and Lacomba (eds), Valencia y las primeras ciudades romanas de Hispania (Valencia) 287–98. Márquez, C. 1998a. La decoración arquitectónica de Colonia Patricia, Córdoba. Márquez, C. 1998b. “Acerca de la función e inserción urbanística de las plazas en Colonia Patricia”, Empúries 51, 63–78. Márquez, C. 1998c. “Modelos romanos en la arquitectura monumental de Colonia Patricia Corduba”, Archivo Español de Arqueología 71, 113–37. Márquez, C. 1999. “Colonia Patricia Corduba paradigma urbano de la Bética” in J. González (ed.) Ciudades privilegiadas en el Occidente romano (Sevilla) 351–363. Márquez, C. 2002. “La ornamentación arquitectónica en ámbito funerario de Colonia Patricia”, in D. Vaquerizo (ed.), Espacios y usos funerarios en el Occidente Romano (Córdoba) 223–46. Márquez, C. 2004a. “Baeticae Templa”, in Simulacra Romae. Roma y las capitales provinciales del occidente europeo (Tarragona), 109–25. Márquez, C. 2004b. “La decoración arquitectónica en Colonia Patricia en el período julio-claudio”, in S. Ramallo (ed.), La decoración arquitectónica en las ciudades romanas de Occidente (Murcia), 337–53. Márquez, C. 2004c. “Arquitectura oicial”, in X. Dupré Raventós (ed.), Las capitales provinciales de Hispania. I. Córdoba. Colonia Patricia Corduba (Roma) 55–62. 70 Alicia Jiménez and José R. Carrillo Márquez, C. 2005. “Córdoba romana: dos décadas de investigación arqueológica”, Mainake 27, 33–60. Mattingly, D. J. 2004. “Being Roman: expressing identity in a provincial setting”, Journal of Roman Archaeology 17, 5–26. Mattingly, D. J. 2006. An Imperial Possession. Britain in the Roman Empire (London). Melchor, E. 2006. “Corduba, caput provinciae y foco de atracción para las élites locales de la Hispania Ulterior Baetica”, Gerión 24.1, 251–79. Morillo, A. and J. Aurrecoechea (eds) 2006. The Roman Army in Hispania. An Archaeological Guide (León). Murillo, J. F. 1995. “Nuevos trabajos arqueológicos en Colina de los Quemados: el sector del Teatro de la Axerquía. (Parque Cruz Conde, Córdoba)”, Anuario Arqueológico de Andalucía 1992, III, 188–99. Murillo, J. F. 2004. “Topografía y evolución urbana”, in X. Dupré Raventós (ed.), Las capitales provinciales de Hispania. I. Córdoba. Colonia Patricia Corduba (Roma) 39–54. Murillo, J. F. and D. Vaquerizo 1996. “La Corduba prerromana”, in P. León (ed.), Colonia Patricia Corduba. Una relexión arqueológica (Córdoba) 37–47. Murillo, J. F., A. Ventura, S. Carmona, J. R. Carrillo, R. Hidalgo, J. L. Jiménez, M. Moreno and D. Ruiz 2001. “El circo oriental de Colonia Patricia” in T. Nogales and F. J. Sánchez Palencia (eds), El Circo en Hispania Romana (Mérida 2001) (Madrid) 57–74. Murillo, J. F. and J. L. Jiménez Salvador 2002. “Nuevas evidencias sobre la fundación de Corduba y su primera imagen urbana”, J. L. Jiménez Salvador and A. Ribera i Lacomba (eds), Valencia y las primeras ciudades romanas de Hispania (Valencia) 183–93. Murillo, J. F., J. R. Carrillo, M. Moreno, D. Ruiz and S. Vargas 2002. “Los monumentos funerarios de Puerta de Gallegos. Colonia Patricia Corduba”, in D. Vaquerizo (ed.) Espacios y usos funerarios en el Occidente Romano (Córdoba) 247–74. Murillo, J. F., M. Moreno, J. L. Jiménez and D. Ruiz 2003. “El templo de la c/ Claudio Marcelo (Córdoba). Aproximación al foro provincial de la Bética”, Romula 2, 53–88. Nogales, T. 2008. “Rómulo en el Augusteum del foro colonial emeritense”. In E. La Rocca, P. León and C. Parisi Presicce (eds), Le due patrie acquisite: studi di archeologia dedicati a Walter Trillmich, (Roma), 301–312. Nogales, T. and J. M. Álvarez 2006. “Fora Augustae Emeritae: la ‘interpretatio’ provincial de los patrones metropolitanos” in D. Vaquerizo and J. F. Murillo Redondo, El concepto de lo provincial en el mundo antiguo: homenaje a la profesora Pilar León Alonso, Vol. 1, (Córdoba) 419–50. Olmos, R. 1994. “Algunos problemas historiográficos de cerámica e iconografía ibéricas: de los pioneros a 1950”, Revista de Estudios Ibéricos 1, 311–34. Olmos, R. and P. Rouillard 2004. La vajilla ibérica en época helenística (siglos IV–III al cambio de era) (Madrid). Padilla, A. 2006. “La integración de las oligarquías indígenas en las elites coloniales del sur de Hispania”, in A. Caballos and S. Demougin (eds), Migrare. La formation des élites dans L’Hispanie romaine (Bordeaux) 205–40. Panzram, S. 2003. “Los Flamines Provinciae de la Baetica: Autorrepresentación y culto imperial” Archivo Español de Arqueología 76, 121–30. Peña, A. 2007. “Relejos del Forum Augustum en Italica”. In T. Nogales and J. González (eds), Culto Imperial: política y poder (Roma), 323–45. Ramallo, S. F. 1989. Cartagena, la documentación arqueológica, Murcia. Remolà, J. A. 2004. “Arquitectura funeraria”, X. Dupré (ed.), Las capitales provinciales de Hispania. III. Tarragona. Colonia Iulia Vrbs Triumphalis Tarraco (Roma) 83–95. Ribera i Lacomba, A. 2006. “The Roman foundation of Valencia and the town in the 2nd–1st c. B.C.”, in L. Abad, S. Keay and S. Ramallo (eds), Early Roman Towns in Hispania Tarraconensis, Journal of Roman archaeology. Supplementary series 62 (Portsmouth, Rhode Island), 75–89. Ripollès, P. P. 1998. “Las acuñaciones cívicas romanas de la Península Ibérica”, in C. Alfaro, A. Arévalo, M. Campo, F. Chaves, A. Domínguez and P. P. Ripollés, Historia monetaria de la Hispania Antigua (Madrid), 335–95. Rodríguez Neila, J. F. 1976. “Consideraciones sobre el concepto de vicus en la Hispania romana. Los vici de Corduba”, Corduba n. 2, vol. I, fasc. 2, 99 -118. Rodríguez Neila, J. F. 1981. “Introducción a la ‘Corduba’ romana en época republicana”, Córdoba. Apuntes para su historia (Córdoba) 107–34. Rodríguez Neila, J. F. 1992. “Corduba”, Conquista y modos de intervención en la organización urbana y territorial, Dialoghi di Archeologia 1–2, 177–94. Ruiz de Arbulo, J. 2002. “La fundación de la colonia Tárraco y los estandartes de César”, in J. L. Jiménez Salvador and A. Ribera i Lacomba (eds), Valencia y las primeras ciudades romanas de Hispania (Valencia) 137–56. Ruiz de Arbulo, J. 2006. “Scipionum opus and something more: an Iberian reading of the provincial capital (2nd–1st c. B.C.)”, in L. Abad, S. Keay and S. Ramallo (eds), Early Roman Towns in Hispania Tarraconensis, Journal of Roman archaeology. Supplementary series 62 (Portsmouth, Rhode Island), 33–43. Ruiz Osuna, A. 2007. El proceso de monumentalización en las áreas funerarias de Colonia Patricia Corduba (ss. I a.C.–II d.C.) (Córdoba). Ruiz, A. and M. Molinos 1993. Los iberos. Análisis arqueológico de un proceso histórico (Barcelona). Sillières, P. 2003. “Voies romaines et contrôle de l’Hispanie à l’époque républicaine: l’exemple de l’Espagne ultérieure”, in A. Morillo, F. Cadiou and D. Hourcade (eds), Defensa y territorio en Hispania de los Escipiones a Augusto (Salamanca) 25–40. Spannagel, M. 1999. Exemplaria principis: Untersuchungen zu Entstehung und Ausstattung des Augustusforums (Heidelberg). Stylow, A. U. 1990. “Apuntes sobre el urbanismo de la Corduba romana”, in W. Trillmich and P. Zanker (eds), Stadtbild und Ideologie. Die Monumentalisierung hispanischer Städte zwischen Republik und Kaiserzeit (Kolloquium in Madrid vom 19 bis 23 Oktober 1987) (München) 259–82. Stylow, A. U. 1996. “De Corduba a Colonia Patricia. La fundación de la Córdoba romana”, in P. León (ed.), Colonia Patricia Corduba, una relexión arqueológica, (Sevilla) 77–85. Stylow, A. U., C. González Román and G. Alföldy (eds) 1995. Corpus Inscriptionum Latinarum. Vol. 2. Inscriptiones Hispaniae Antiquae. Editio altera. Pars. 7. Conventus Cordubensis (Berolini). Taller Escola d’Arqueologia 1989. “El Foro Provincial de Tárraco. Un complejo arquitectónico de época flavia”, Archivo Español de Arqueología 62, 141–91. Torelli, M. 1988. “Aspetti ideologici della colonizzazione romana più antica”, Dialoghi di Archeologia 3, 6.2, 65–72. Trillmich, W. 1996. “Los tres foros de Augusta Emerita y el caso de Corduba”, in P. León (ed.) Colonia Patricia Corduba: una relexión arqueológica (Córdoba), 175–95. 4. Corduba/Colonia Patricia: the colony that was founded twice Trillmich, W. 1998. “Las ciudades hispanorromanas: relejos de la metrópoli” in Hispania: el legado de Roma, en el año de Trajano (Zaragoza) 163–74. Van Dommelen, P. 2001a. “Cultural imaginings. Punic tradition and local identity in Roman Republican Sardinia”, in S. Keay and N. Terrenato (eds), Italy and the West. Comparative Issues in Romanization (Oxford) 68–84. Van Dommelen, P. 2001b. “Ambiguous Matters: Colonialism and Local Identities in Punic Sardinia”, in C. L. Lyons and J. K. Papadopoulos (eds), The Archaeology of Colonialism (Los Angeles) 121–47. Van Dommelen, P. 2007. “Beyond resistance: Roman power and local traditions in Punic Sardinia”, in P. van Dommelen and N. Terrenato (eds) Articulating local cultures. Power and identity under the expanding Roman Republic, Journal of Roman Archaeology, Supplementary Series. (Portsmouth, Rhode Island) 55–70. Vaquerizo, D. (ed.) 1996. Córdoba en tiempos de Séneca (Córdoba). Vaquerizo, D. 2001. “Formas arquitectónicas funerarias de carácter monumental en Colonia Patricia Corduba”, Archivo Español de Arqueología 74, 131–60. Vaquerizo, D. (ed.) 2002a Espacios y usos funerarios en el Occidente romano (Córdoba). Vaquerizo, D. 2002b. “Espacios y usos funerarios en Corduba”, in D. Vaquerizo (ed.), Espacios y usos funerarios en el Occidente Romano (Córdoba) 143–200. Vaquerizo, D. 2002c. “Recintos y acotados funerarios en Colonia Patricia Corduba”, Madrider Mitteilungen 43, 168–206. Vaquerizo, D. (ed.) 2003. Guía arqueológica de Córdoba (Córdoba). Vaquerizo, D. 2004. “Arquitectura doméstica y funeraria”, X. Dupré Raventós (ed.), Las capitales provinciales de Hispania. I. Córdoba. Colonia Patricia Corduba, Roma, 81–94. Vaquerizo, D. 2005. “Arqueología de la Corduba republicana”, in E. Melchor, J. Mellado and J. F. Rodríguez Neila (eds), Julio César y Corduba: tiempo y espacio en la campaña de Munda (49–45 a.C.) (Córdoba) 165–205. Vaquerizo, D. 2006. “Corduba: una ciudad puente” in Civilización: un viaje a las ciudades de la España antigua: catálogo de la exposición (Alcalá de Henares) 123–41. Vaquerizo, D. 2008. “Topografía y usos funerarios en la capital de Baetica” Archeologia Classica LIX, 63–111. Vaquerizo, D. and S. Sánchez 2008. “Entre lo público y lo privado. Indicatio pedaturae en la epigrafía funeraria hispana”, Archivo Español de Arqueología 81, 101–31. Vargas, S. 2002. “El conjunto funerario de La Constancia (Córdoba). Ajuares y cronología”, in D. Vaquerizo (ed.), Espacio y usos funerarios en el Occidente Romano (Córdoba) 297–310. Ventura Martínez, J. J. 1992. “Cerámica campaniense de la Corduba romana”, Anales de Arqueología Cordobesa 3, 137–70. Ventura Martínez, J. J. 1996. “El origen de la Córdoba romana a través del estudio de las cerámicas de barniz negro”, in P. León (ed), Colonia Patricia Corduba, una relexión arqueológica (Sevilla) 49–62. Ventura Villanueva, A. 1993. El abastecimiento de agua a la Córdoba romana I: El acueducto de Valdepuentes (Córdoba). Ventura Villanueva, A. 1996. El abastecimiento de agua a la Córdoba romana II: Acueductos, ciclo de distribución y urbanismo (Córdoba). Ventura Villanueva, A. 1999. “El teatro en el contexto urbano de Colonia Patricia (Córdoba). Ambiente epigráico, evergetas 71 y culto imperial”, Archivo Español de Arqueología 72, 57–72. Ventura Villanueva, A. 2002. “El teatro romano de Córdoba: caracterización arquitectónica”, in A. Ventura, C. Márquez, A. Monterroso and M. A. Carmona (eds), El teatro romano de Córdoba (Córdoba), 107–116. Ventura Villanueva, A. 2003. “Los ediicios administrativos de la Córdoba romana: problemas de localización e identiicación”, Romula 2, 183–96. Ventura Villanueva, A. 2007a. “Bauliche und literarische Inszenierung: die Eliten der Colonia Patricia und das Jahr 5 v. Chr.” in S. Panzram (Hg.), Städte im Wandel. Bauliche Inszenierung und literarische Stilisierung lokaler Eliten auf der Iberischen Halbinsel (Münster) 87–126. Ventura Villanueva, A. 2007b. “Relexiones sobre la arquitectura y advocación del templo de la calle Morería en el Forum Adiectum de Colonia Patricia Corduba” in T. Nogales and J. González (eds), Culto imperial: política y poder. Actas del Congreso Internacional (Roma) 215–238. Ventura Villanueva, A. 2008. “Una lastra ‘campana’ en Córdoba: Asinius Pollio, el auguraculum y la deductio de Colonia Patricia”, M. P. García-Bellido, A. Mostalac and A. Jiménez (eds), Del imperium de Pompeyo a la auctoritas de Augusto, Anejos del Archivo Español de Arqueología XLVII (Madrid) 85–105. Ventura Villanueva, A., P. León and C. Márquez 1998. “Roman Cordoba in the light of recent archaeological research”, in S. Keay (ed.), The Archaeology of Early Roman Baetica, JRA Supp. Series 29 (Portsmouth, Rhode Island) 87–107. Ventura Villanueva, A., C. Márquez, A. Monterroso and M. A. Carmona (eds) 2002. El teatro romano de Córdoba (Catálogo de la exposición) (Córdoba). Ventura Villanueva, A. and C. Márquez 2005. “Corduba tras las Guerras Civiles” in J. F. Rodríguez, E. Melchor and J. Mellado (eds) Julio César y Corduba: tiempo y espacio en la campaña de Munda (49–45 A.C.) (Córdoba) 431–68. Wallace-Hadrill, A. 2008. Rome’s Cultural Revolution (Cambridge). Woolf, G. 1996. “Monumental writing and the expansion of Roman society in the early Empire”, Journal of Roman Studies LXXXVI, 22–39. Woolf, G. 1998. Becoming Roman: the origins of provincial civilization in Gaul (Cambridge). Zanker, P. 1987. Augusto y el poder de las imágenes (Madrid). Zanker, P. 2000. “The city as a symbol: Rome and the creation of an urban image”, in E. Fentress (ed.), Romanization and the city. Creation, transformations and failures, JRA, Supp. Series 38 (Portsmouth, Rhode Island) 25–41. Notes 1. 2. 3. English translation by Horace Leonard Jones, The Loeb Classical Library (Cambridge, Mass) 1960: πλεῖστον δ’, ἥ τε Κóρδυβα ηὔξηται, Μαρκέλλου κτíσμα, καì δóξῃ καì δυνáμει, καì ἡ τῶν Γαδιτανῶν πόλις, ἡ μὲν διὰ τὰς ναυτιλίας καὶ διὰ τὸ προσθέσθαι ῾Ρωμαίοις κατὰ συμμαχίας, ἡ δὲ χώρας ἀρετῇ καὶ μεγέθει, προσλαμβάνοντος καὶ τοῦ ποταμοῦ Βαίτιος μέγα μέρος· ᾤκησάν τε ἐξ ἀρχῆς ῾Ρωμαίον τε καὶ τῶν ἐπιχωρίων ἄνδρες ἐπίλεκτοι· καὶ δὴ καὶ πρώτην ἀποικίαν ταύτην εἰς τούσδε τοὺς τόπους ἔστειλαν ῾Ρωμαῖοι. Liv. XLV.4. App., Iber. 48–49. 72 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. 21. Alicia Jiménez and José R. Carrillo Some authors have shown their preference for the irst of these dates (Knapp, 1983, 10; Stylow, 1990, 262; Stylow, 1996, 77–78). Rodríguez Neila (1992, 177) however considers 152 /151 BCE as a more likely date for the foundation of Corduba. See Stylow 1996: note 1 and Knapp, 1983, note 61 for previous references. Canto has proposed a completely different interpretation, assimilating the Marcellus of the Strabonian text with the ill-fated nephew of Augustus (Canto 1991; eadem 1997). The main criticism of this hypothesis is found in Stylow, 1996 and Ventura Villanueva 2008, 89–91. Founded as a colonia Latina in 171 BCE, according to Livy 43.2.3. According to Appian (Ib. 38. 153), Publius Cornelius Scipio chose to settle the soldiers wounded in the battle of Ilipa (Alcalá del Río, Seville) in 206–205 BCE in a town he named Italica after Italy. Canto 1991, 847–8, Stylow et al. (eds) 1995, 61; Stylow 1996, 80. See infra for a brief discussion on the legal status of early Republican colonies in southern Iberia. See note 105 on the colonial status of Italica. Some scholars have adopted a restrictive view of the colonial phenomenon in this area and include only Carteia in the group of early Republican colonies, while others consider that towns such as Corduba, Italica or Castulo can be also regarded as Latin colonies. See González Román 1998, 131, note 6; Marín 2002, 281 and Bandelli 2002, 121–2 with previous bibliography. Casevitz 1985. Canto 1991, 847. Canto made this point in connection with the identiication of Marcellus with the nephew of Augustus, but the correct interpretation of the term is relevant in a general sense. Plin. NH 3.21. Castillo 1974, 191; Rodríguez Neila 1981, 112. Rodríguez Neila 1992, 181. Bispham 2006, 83, 122. Stylow 1996, 80; Knapp 1983, 11; Ventura 2008, 100; García 2009. According to the latter (2009, 379), all the colonies founded ex novo in Hispania during the 2nd c. BCE, like Italica, Carteia or Corduba must be considered Latin colonies of Italian type, which followed the colonial model implemented in Italy probably until the foundation of Aquileia in 181 BCE. They had a military nature and were located in strategic positions to stabilize recently conquered regions. Trying to isolate the native population through prosographic studies has proven to be dificult (Knapp, 1983: note 76). Other evidence to take into account when analysing the hybrid nature of the Roman town are the high percentages of Roman imported ware attested in the Republican colony compared to the native oppidum, native building techniques, references to ancient Etruscan cults (Bendala 1981, 45), the survival of a non-Latin pre-Roman town name (Corduba) (Rodríguez Neila 1981, 108) or the use of some archaic Latin words in the 1st c. BCE (Blanco, 1970: 109). González Román, 2002, 61. Bendala 1990, 32; idem 2003, 28. Knapp 1977, 138; Stylow 1996, 78. Rodríguez Neila 1992, 180. Bernier and Fortea 1963; Luzón and Ruiz Mata 1973. Murillo 1995, 196, with previous bibliography. The study of the pottery sequence has been updated by León Pastor 2007. 22. It is necessary to remember that the size of Corduba in the late Republic – probably one of the largest Roman towns of the time in the Iberian Peninsula – has been calculated in 47 hectares (Vaquerizo 1996, ed., 26; Carrillo et al. 1999, 42). 23. Murillo, 1995; Murillo and Vaquerizo 1996, 39–40; Carrillo et al. 1999, 38–9. 24. Bendala 1990, 33; Rodríguez Neila, 1992, 178, 186; Murillo and Vaquerizo 1996, 42; Ventura Martínez 1996, 56; Carrillo et al. 1999, 41; Murillo and Jiménez Salvador 2002, 184–7; Murillo 2004, 39–40; Vaquerizo 2005, 171–2. 25. Against this hypothesis Knapp 1983, 9: “…permanent legionary bases were not normal at this period; arrangements varied from year to year according to the theatres and fortunes of war. Troops were billeted in various towns, not in a single camp, for the winter months. At best, the prefoundation Roman presence at Córdoba was limited to some resident Roman businessmen and, perhaps, a garrison such as that attested at Ilipa, a little downstream from the town.” See also Stylow 1996, 78–9 and most recently Cadiou 2008, 351–2, 359–60. 26. The archaeological evidence of the irst Roman fortiication is still scarce in Emporiae. See Morillo and Aurrecoechea eds, 2006, 242–5, for a recent summary on the literary and archaeological evidence. 27. The literary and archaeological evidence has also been recently summarized in Morillo and Aurrecoechea eds, 2006, 281–287. 28. See, however, the criticisms to the evidence traditionally related to the presence of permanent praesidia in these cities in Cadiou 2008, 328–50. 29. Apian Iber. 38. A section of ditch excavated in El Olivar to the west of Santiponce was identiied as part of a rectangular Roman camp. However, it is difficult to ascertain, on the one hand, if the ditch enclosed the whole settlement and on the other, rectangular military camps are not characteristic of this early date (Keay 1997, 28; Galsterer, 1997, 52). 30. Liv., Per. 55. Recent excavations seem to conirm the possibility of the existence of an early military camp in Valentia. The archaeological evidence consist mainly of foundation of huts, alignments of stones from the barracks, postholes from tents, remains of bonires, sallow ditches, rubbish deposits and a large midden (Ribera i Lacomba 2006, 79–80). 31. Polib. XXXV, 22; Sal., Hist., II, 20, 28; App., Ib., 65–66; Cic., Pro Arch., 26; Bell. Hisp., IV, VI, XII. Although this does not imply that the troops were always stationed intra-muros (Stylow 1996; Cadiou 2008, 369). 32. Corduba was located in the intersection of the so-called via Heraclea (that linked Tarraco, Valentia and Corduba) and the road that reached Castra Caecilia, crossing in its way Carteia, Munda and Corduba. For that reason, Corduba became a strategic centre, both for controlling the territories south of the Guadalquivir and as military base for the troops involved in the conquest of the Meseta in the north. That explains the frequent reference to Cordoba during the 1st c. BCE as a place to station the troops during the winter, especially in the 1st c. BCE (Sillières, 2003). 33. Rodríguez Neila 1976, 113; idem 1981, 115; Bendala, 2003, 20; Murillo and Jiménez Salvador, 2002, 189; Hita et al. 1993; Carrillo et al. 1999, 42, note 8; Sillières 2003, 33. Unfortunately these materials come from two tips, where the debris from a couple of construction plots had been dumped. The location of one of them is unknown, but the 4. Corduba/Colonia Patricia: the colony that was founded twice other was for sure situated outside the Roman walls. The ive sherds dated before the 2nd c. BCE can be identiied as Morel 2234a 1, 2764a 1, 1324c 1, P321b 2, 7712 (Hita et al. 1993). Other ceramics found in the centre of the Republican city or in one of its roads can only be loosely dated to the irst half of the 2nd c. BCE (Ventura Martínez, 1992; Ventura Martínez, 1996). Recent rescue excavations in different points of the city, the forum of the colony and the decumanus maximus seem to conirm the early date of some of the ceramics found in Corduba. Carrillo et al. 1999, 42, note 8; Murillo and Jiménez Salvador, 2002, 184. 34. Murillo and Vaquerizo 1996, 45; Carrillo, 1999: 75; Murillo and Jiménez Salvador 2002, 184, 189–92. 35. Murillo and Jiménez Salvador 2002, 187. 36. Murillo and Vaquerizo 1996, 46; Ventura Villanueva, León and Márquez, 1998, 91; Ruiz de Arbulo 2002, idem 2006; 146; Morillo and Aurrecoechea eds 2006, 287. 37. Marín and Ribera i Lacomba 2002: 289, 297. Ribera i Lacomba 2006, 80. 38. Liv., 43, 3, 1–4. Rome had founded Latin colonies in Gallia Cisalpina during the 3rd century, but this process ends in the Italian Peninsula quite likely with the establishment of Aquileia in 181 BCE (Lafi 2002; García 2009, 383). 39. Bispham 2006, 83–5. The earliest contemporary reference to any kind of colonia is recorded in an inscription from earlysecond-century Aquileia (CIL I2 621, Bispham 2006, 81). The town was founded in 181 BCE, therefore, after Italica (206–205 BCE) and just some years earlier than Carteia (171 BCE) and Corduba (169–168/152–151 BCE). 40. E. T. Salmon, Roman Colonization under the Republic, London, 1969. 41. Bispham 2006, 84. 42. See note 14. 43. Caes. Bell. Hisp. 34. 44. The irst series are dated to the beginning of the 1st c. BCE. Chaves 1977; Amela 2004; García-Bellido, 2006. 45. Ventura Villanueva (2008) has suggested in a recent article that the deductor of the Roman colony under Caesar might have been C. Asinius Pollio during his stay as governor in Cordoba between 44–43 BCE. It is known now (thanks to the information contained in the new bronze found in Osuna – Lex Coloniae Genetivae Iuliae, cap. XV) that he probably acted as deductor in other colonies of the provincia Ulterior such as Urso (Caballos 2006, 340–1). 46. However, we must bear in mind that this type of images are not unusual in the coinage of Roman colonies, regardless of the origin of the irst citizens. Ripollès 1998, 346. 47. Stylow 1990, 263; idem 1996, 80–81; Knapp 1983, 28; García 2002; Marín 2002, 287. 48. The bibliography on the monuments and public spaces of Corduba/Colonia Patricia is too numerous to be quoted here. For an overview on this vast topic see: Carrillo et al. 1999; von Hesberg 1996; León 1999; Márquez 1998a, 1999, 2005; Murillo 2004; Stylow 1990; Vaquerizo 2003, 2005, 2006; Ventura Villanueva 2003; Ventura and Márquez, 2005; Ventura et al. 1998, with previous references. 49. Carrasco 2001, 205; Márquez 2004c, 56. 50. Cic. Verr. 2, 4, 56. 51. Bendala and Roldán 1999. 52. Murillo 2004, 44 53. León 1999, 40. 54. Márquez 1998c, 122, Fig. 17. 55. 73 Bel. Alex. 52, 2. Márquez 1998b. See also Ventura Villanueva, 2007a for the date, location and denomination of this building. 56. Some Republican buildings were also demolished around the same phase, and structures with a different orientation were built over them in Imperial times. Hidalgo 1993, 105. 57. Carrillo et al. 1999, 46. 58. Ventura Villanueva 1993, idem 1996. 59. Murillo 2004, 46. 60. Von Hesberg 1996; Ventura Villanueva et al. 1998, 95. 61. Ventura Villanueva 1999; Ventura Villanueva et al. (eds) 2002. 62. Márquez 1998a, 176 ff., idem 2004a, 109–17. 63. Ventura Villanueva, 2007b; See also Fishwick 2000 and 2004, 79–83. 64. Márquez 1998a, 178. 65. Spannagel 1999, 132. For possible representations of summi viri, see López 1998. Trillmich (1996, 1998) was the irst to establish a connection between the iconographic programme of the forum of Augustus in Rome and similar representations found in the capitals of the Hispanic provinces. The same phenomenon has been described in towns such as Arlés, Pompei, Vienne or Nyon. See infra and note 97. 66. The irst references to these indings have been published in Vaquerizo (ed.) 2003. 67. Murillo et al. 2001. 68. Murillo et al. 2003, 65 ff. In recent years there has been a lively debate about the identiication of the public spaces of the city in relation to the Imperial cult and its “provincial” or “colonial” character. See, for example, Fishwick 2004, Garriguet 2002, Panzram 2003 and most recently the new proposal by Ventura Villanueva 2007b, 234–236. 69. Stylow et al. (eds) 1995. 70. For the concept of the ‘Roman cultural revolution’ and the important changes in Augustan times see Wallace-Hadrill 2008 and Woolf 1998, 238 with further references. 71. Murillo and Jiménez Salvador 2002, 186. 72. M5422/Lamb. 59, 210–190 BCE. 73. Escacena 1987, idem 1989, idem 1992, 332–334; Escacena and Belén 1994; Bendala 1992; Jiménez 2006; eadem 2008a, 73–4, 140–5. 74. The survival of the traditional painted ware in Imperial times was a fact already noticed by García y Bellido in the early 1950s (García y Bellido 1952, 42). The ‘survival’ of local pottery used as funerary urns has been noticed in other early Roman towns of Hispania, such as Tarraco (Remolà 2004), Valentia (García-Prosper and Guerin 2002), Carthago Nova (Ramallo 1989, 122) or Lucentum (Jiménez Salvador 2002, 195). On the problem of establishing an accurate chronology for the pre-Roman pottery of southern Spain see Ruiz and Molinos (1993, 23–52). For the “characteristically Iberian” painted ware of Oliva-Llíria and Elche-Archena, displaying complex iconographies depicting hunters, warriors and women wearing local dresses, produced precisely during the irst two centuries of the Roman occupation in some areas of the Mediterranean coast, see various contributions in Olmos and Rouillard (2004) and also the synthesis in Olmos 1994 and Conde 1998 with previous bibliographical references. 75. Murillo and Vaquerizo 1996, 45; Murillo and Jiménez Salvador 2002, 184, 189–92. 76. Carrillo 1999; Vaquerizo 2004. 74 77. 78. 79. 80. 81. 82. 83. 84. 85. 86. 87. 88. 89. 90. 91. 92. 93. 94. 95. 96. 97. Alicia Jiménez and José R. Carrillo Vaquerizo 2001; idem 2008, 80–93; Ruiz Osuna 2007. Vaquerizo 2002c; Vaquerizo and Sánchez 2008. Woolf 1996, 29. Stylow et al. 1995; Jiménez 2008a, 291–2, 327–8, with previous references. Vaquerizo 2008, 93–7. Vaquerizo 2001; idem 2002a; idem 2002b; Márquez 2002; Murillo et al. 2002. See Mattingly 2004, 22; idem 2006, passim, for the concept of ‘discrepant experiences’. Van Dommelen, 2001a: 81; idem, 2001b: 141 on the notion of ‘local culture’ in the regions conquered by Rome and the importance of this concept to go beyond binary oppositions such as Roman:native in our analysis of provincial cultures. On the contrary imported Campanian ware was present in the earlier layers of this cemetery. García Matamala 2002, idem 2002–2003. Jiménez 2008a, 343. Vargas 2002, 298, ig. 8; Jiménez 2008a, 273–4. Astruc 1951; Almagro Gorbea 1984. Carmona and Punic necropolis, Bendala, 1976, 36, 82–83; idem 2002, 150–152. See for the hypogea on Calle de la Bodega, Palacio de la Merced and the so-called “Gran Tumba” of Camino Viejo de Almodóvar, Jiménez 2008a, 261–2, 266–7, 285, with previous references. Gros 2001, 440–443; von Hesberg 1992, 26–37. See van Dommelen 2007 and Jiménez 2008b for a critical approach to the relation between ‘traditional-looking’ material culture and different forms of resistance. However, even from a legal point of view, many Roman colonies in southern Spain did not enjoy all the privileges attached to this status in Italy and therefore can not be compared to Rome in this sense. Only Acci was granted the ius italicum, according to the ancient sources; Tucci, Ituci, Ucubi, Urso and Astigi were endowed with inmunitas and the rest did not have special privileges (González Román 1991, 92–93). Torelli 1988, 65–6; Bispham 2006, 78–9. For a different interpretation see Zanker (2000, 41): “In this famous passage, Gellius is apparently not interested in the concrete physical appearance of these cities, but rather their aesthetic effect and the quality of life that they offered their people.” Zanker 2000, 26. Bispham, 2006, 75. See Márquez (2004b, 342, ig. 8) for a clipeus that has been recently put in connection to the so-called forum adiectum of the colonia. A statue from the Tienda collection has been identiied as a representation of Aeneas or Romulus (see Fig. 4.4 and note 65). Taller Escola d’Arqueologia 1989; Mar (ed.) 1993. In Mérida clipei and caryatids, as well as fragments of sculptures dressed in a toga picta have been found; these probably correspond to representations of summi viri, a igure that might have been a portrait of a mythical king of Alba Longa and a depiction of Aeneas, Ascanio and Anquises related to the light from Troy. Attention has also been brought to an inscription interpreted as an elogium of Aeneas by de la Barrera and Trillmich. See Trillmich 1996; idem 1998; de la Barrera and Trillmich 1996; Nogales and Álvarez 2006 and Nogales 2008 with previous bibliography. Recently, A. Peña 2007 has suggested that the model of the forum of Augustus in Rome was also followed in Hispania by Roman towns other than the 98. 99. 100. 101. 102. 103. 104. 105. 106. 107. 108. 109. 110. 111. 112. 113. provincial capitals, such us Italica, where fragments of clipei and monumental statues have also been found. Zanker 1987, 230–55 Spannagel 1999; Haselberger 2007, 156–160. It is true that similar images can also be found in the decoration of private spaces or objects, however, the meaning usually changes within different contexts and, for example, the image of Aeneas carrying his father Ascanio on his shoulder can be read more as a symbol of individual loyalty and pietas than as a sign of political support for the Imperial family (Zanker 1987, 321–5). For a summary of the main views on this issue, see Vaquerizo 2005, 169 ff.; Canto (1991, 855–6) suggests a possible relation with the homage paid to the Senate (the patres) by Augustus, an idea rejected by Stylow (1996, 81). Rodríguez Neila has collected a series of examples in Rome and provincial towns, where it is possible to trace a connection between the supposed ethnic origin of the population and the name of a vicus, such as the vicus Tuscus in Rome. It was also not unusual to name provincial vici after the vici of the Urbs, as we can see from the vicus Patricius in the Colonia Caesarea Antiochia. For more examples of this phenomenon and the possible connection of the new name of Corduba with an early vicus see Rodríguez Neila (1976, 106, 116, note 72) and also Bispham 2006, 87 for an example of Republican date in Cales. See Keay 1998, 63 and Apendix III for a list of Roman coloniae and other privileged towns in Baetica. Nat. 3.3.7; 3.3.10–12. Caesar is considered to be responsible for the foundation of Hasta Regia, Iulia Romula Hispal, Ituci Virtus Iulia, Claritas Iulia Ucubi, Genitiva Iulia Urbanourm Urso and Iulia Gemella Acci. Augustus may have been the founder of Augusta Gemella Tucci, Augusta Firma Astigi, and Caesarina Augusta Asido. Hispalis and Corduba are thought to have been refounded in time of Augustus. Italica was granted the status of colonia civium Romanorum by Hadrian. Plin. Nat. 3.3.25. The legal status of the earliest Republican settlement remains unclear and it is somehow remarkable that the only mention to the Scipio’s settlement in 206–205 BCE is recorded in a text dated in middle of the 2nd c. CE (Apian, Iber. 38) and not by earlier writers like Livy (Galsterer 1997, 51). For Canto (1999, 145–82) and García (2009, 379), the early settlement may have had the status of colonia Latina. See against this hypothesis Caballos 1994, 30; Keay 1997, 26; Galsterer 1997, 53. Italica was granted the status of municipium civium Romanorum some time in the second half of the 1st century BCE, probably between 16 and 13 BCE (Caballos 1994, 61–4) and became a colonia Civium Romanorum under Hadrian (Aul. Gelius, Noct. Attic. XVI, 13, 4) changing its name to Colonia Aelia Augusta Italica. See González Román 1991, 89, with previous bibliography, for the problematic inscription used as evidence of the colonial status of Iliturgi under Hadrian. Ruiz de Arbulo 2006, 41. Arce 2004. Canto 1997, 274, 280; García-Bellido 2006, 256. Melchor 2006. Melchor 2006, 252, for the integration of the local elites in the colonies of southern Hispania, see Padilla 2006. Edwards and Woolf 2003, 2. 2000, 25.