¹ Hyginus Gromaticus, hereafter in this study Hyginus 2 (Thulin, C., Corpus Agrimensorum Romanorum 1. i (Leipzig, 1913Google Scholar; repr. 1971), 131.3–8); see also n. 6.

² T 50.9–11. For Urbicus, see below, p. 76.

³ In the early period ‘surveyor’ was expressed in Latin by finitor and later by mensor; agrimensor appears in the imperial period, and gromaticus (derived from the groma or surveying instrument) in the later Empire.

⁴ For recent studies on Roman land surveyors, see Dilke, O. A. W., The Roman Land Surveyors (1071) (hereafter RLS)Google Scholar; Hinrichs, F. T., Die Geschichte der gromatischen Institutionen (1974)Google Scholar; Behrends, O. and Colognesi, L. Capogrossi (eds), Die römische Feldmesskunst: Interdisziplinäre Beiträge zu ihrer Bedeutung für die Zivilisationsgeschichte Roms (1992)Google Scholar; Chouquer, G. and Favory, F., Les arpenteurs romains: théorie et pratique (1992)Google Scholar; Clavel-Lévêque, M.et al., Siculus Flaccus. Les conditions des terres (1993)Google Scholar; Moatti, C., Archives et portage de la terre dans le monde romain (IIe siècle avant - Ier siècle après J.-C.) (1993)Google Scholar. For the legal framework of the regulation and distribution of land, see now Gargola, D. J., Lands, Laws and Gods. Magistrates and Ceremony in the Regulation of Public Lands in Republican Rome (1995)Google Scholar.

For a useful account of attempts to identify Roman field-systems and relate them to the morphology of the ancient world, see Chouquer and Favory, op. cit., 101–67 and the bibliography there cited. Archaeological investigations are too extensive to be examined in detail in this paper, which deals primarily with the theory of land survey and the information provided by the texts. However the following general surveys are of particular interest: Dilke, O. A. W., ‘Archaeological and epigraphic evidence of Roman land surveys’, ANRW 11.1 (1974), 564–92Google Scholar; Estudios sobre centuriaciones romanas en España (1974) — a review of Roman field-systems identified in Spain; Trousset, P., ‘Les bornes du Bled Segui: nouveaux aperçus sur la centuriation romaine du sud Tunisien’, Antiquités africaines 12 (1978), 125–77CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Bussi, R. (ed.), Misurare la terra: centuriazione e coloni nel mondo romano (1983)Google Scholar; Clavel-Lévêque, M. (ed.), Cadastres et espace rural: approches et réalités antiques (1983)Google Scholar; Clavel-Lévêque, M. and Favory, F., ‘Les “gromatici veteres” et les réalités paysagères: présentation de quelques cas’, in Römische Feldmesskunst, 89–139Google Scholar; Chouquer, G.et al., Structures agraires en Italie centro méridionale: cadastres et paysages ruraux (1987)Google Scholar; Barker, G. and Lloyd, J. (eds), Roman Landscapes: Archaeological Survey in the Mediterranean Region, Archaeological Monographs of the British School at Rome 2 (1991)Google Scholar; Doukellis, P. N. and Mendoni, L. G. (eds), Structures rurales et sociétés antiques (1994)Google Scholar. There is a useful case study of Modena in Bussi, R. (ed.), Misurare la terra: centuriazione e coloni nel mondo romano, il caso modenese (1984)Google Scholar. For computer assisted investigation of field-systems, see J. W. M. Peterson, ‘Information systems and the interpretation of Roman cadastres’, in Rahtz, S. P. Q. (ed.), Computer Applications and Quantitative Methods in Archaeology: CAA 88, BAR Int. Ser. S446 (1988), 133–49Google Scholar; ‘Flavian fort sites in South Wales: a spreadsheet analysis’, in Huggett, J. and Ryan, N. (eds), Computer Applications and Quantitative Methods in Archaeology, BAR Int. Ser. 600 (1995), 87–93Google Scholar.

⁵ See Nicolet, C., L'inventaire du monde. Géographie et politique aux origins de l'Empire romain (1988)Google Scholar, esp. chs 7–8, and the review by Purcell, N., JRS 80 (1990), 178–82Google Scholar; see further below, p. 89.

⁶ The standard edition, containing most of the works in the Corpus, is Blume, F., Lachmann, K. and Rudorff, A., Die Schriften der römischen Feldmesser (2 vols, 1848Google Scholar; 1852; repr. 1967). Hereafter, references to texts in Lachmann are by page or page and line number prefixed by L. All references to those texts included in Thulin (n. 1) are by page or page and line number prefixed by T. The contents of the Corpus are usefully summarized in Dilke, RLS, 126–32; 227–30. For the manuscript tradition, see L. D. Reynolds (ed.), Texts and Transmission: A Survey of the Latin Classics (1983), 1–6; J. N. Carder, Art Historical Problems of a Roman Land Survey Manuscript: The Codex Arcerianus A, Wolfenbüttel (1978), 1–35; Toneatto, L., ‘Note sulla tradizione del Corpus agrimensorum Romanorum, I. Contenuti e struttura dell' “ars” gromatica di Gisemundus (IX sec.)’, MEFRM 94( 1982), 191–313CrossRefGoogle Scholar; ‘Tradition manuscrite et éditions modernes du Corpus agrimensorum Romanorum’, in Clavel-Lévêque, op. cit. (n. 4, 1983), 21–50; ‘Il nuovo censimento dei manoscritti latini d'agrimensura (tradizione diretta e indiretta)’, in Behrends and Capogrossi Colognesi, op. cit. (n. 4), 26–66.

⁷ A date in the late fourth to early fifth century for Urbicus has been argued most recently by Dr Mauro de Nadis in his unpublished PhD thesis, The Writings of the Roman Land Surveyors: Technical and Legal Aspects (University College London, 1994Google Scholar).

⁸ cf. Mommsen, Th., ‘Die Interpolationen des gromatischen Corpus’, BJ 96/97 (1895), 272–92Google Scholar = Ges. Schr. VII (1909), 464–82Google Scholar, esp. pp. 468–9; Thulin, C., ‘Der Frontinuskommentar. Ein Lehrbuch der Gromatik aus dem 5.–6. Jahrh.’, Rhein. Mus. 68 (1913), 110–27Google Scholar; also ‘Kritisches zu Iulius Frontinus’, Eranos 11 (1911), 131–5Google Scholar.

⁹ PIR ² 1.322; A. R. Birley, The Fasti of Roman Britain (1981), 69–72; Campbell, B., ‘Teach yourself how to be a general’, JRS 77 (1987), 14–15Google Scholar.

¹⁰ See below, n. 22.

¹¹ See e.g. T 16–18.

¹² De Aquis, praef. 2

¹³ Thulin, op. cit. (n. 8, 1911), 131–3, argued on the basis of a passage in Urbicus (T 25.3–13) that Frontinus had written a handbook for training surveyors and an account in six books of the science of measurement, including a section on land disputes. But there is no good reason to attribute any of this to Frontinus, who is not mentioned specifically; Urbicus is more likely to be referring to material he has collated from various surveying manuals for the instruction of students.

¹⁴ Argued convincingly by de Nardis, op. cit. (n. 7), 100–30.

¹⁵ MS A has: ‘There begins the Constitutio of Hyginus’ (‘Inc. Hygini Constitutio’), and ‘There ends with good fortune the Constitutio of Hyginus Gromaticus’ (‘Exp. Kygyni Gromatici Constitutio feliciter’). MS B has: ‘There begins the Book on Surveying by Hyginus’ (‘Inc. Lib. Hygini Gromaticus’), and ‘There ends the Book on Surveying by Hyginus’ (‘Liber Hygini Gromaticus Exp.’). MS B also has a subscript which apparently relates to a lost book: ‘The Surveying Book by Hyginus about Land Division ends’ (‘Liber Gromaticus Hygini de Divisionibus Agrorum Exp.’). MS P reads: ‘Inc. Kygeni Augusti Liberti de Limitibus Constituendis’. See Toneatto, L., ‘Una tradizione manualistica difficile: l'agrimensore Igino e gli scritti collegati al suo nome. Attribuzioni et datazioni’, Miscellanea (Università degli studi di Trieste) 4 (1983), 123–51Google Scholar.

¹⁶ It is generally believed that Hyginus 2 is distinct from Hyginus 1, though on the subjective grounds of stylistic differences; see Gemoll, A., Hermes 11 (1876), 164–78Google Scholar. But it might be more helpful to emphasize the broad similarities between the works which have come down to us under the name ‘Hyginus’, suggesting perhaps access to common sources, or, more likely, the presence of a body of established material relevant to the study and teaching of land surveying.

De Munitionibus Castrorum is the name given in the sixteenth century to a treatise, the beginning and end of which have been lost, which deals with the methods for measuring out a military camp and setting up its defences. It is preserved in the Arcerianus manuscript and was wrongly associated with the work of Hyginus 2; it is now generally agreed that the De Munitionibus was not written by either Hyginus 1 or Hyginus 2 (M. Lenoir, Pseudo-Hygin: des fortifications du camp (1979), vii–viii; 111–33).

¹⁷ Urbicus, in a passage perhaps derived from Frontinus (T 44.22), briefly mentions the ascription of a width to the river.

¹⁸ He mentions professio nostra (T 98.9).

¹⁹ For the importance of the preface in ancient literature, see Janson, T., Latin Prose Prefaces: Studies in Literary Conventions (1964)Google Scholar; for the preface in military handbooks, Campbell, B., JRS 77 (1987), 13–19Google Scholar.

²⁰ For verbal parallels or similarities, cf. the following passages of Frontinus:

T 3.14–15 and Hyginus 2 (T 161.17–19); T 9.10–11 and Hyginus 2 (T 164.12–13); T 10.20–11.8 and Hyginus 2 (T 131.8–132.4); T 11.4–5 and Hyginus 2 (T 134.18–19); T 11.9–14 and Hyginus 2 (T 132.6–12); T 12.5–10 and Hyginus 2 (T 135.10–14); T 12.11–15 and Hyginus 2 (T 132.18–21); T 13.2–7 and Hyginus 2 (T132.21–133.4) and also Siculus Flaccus (T 117.5–7); T 14.17–19 and Hyginus 2 (T 135.7–10); Hyginus 1 (T 74.8–9) and Siculus Flaccus (T 128.16–17); T 80.7–11 and Siculus Flaccus (T 127.14–20); T 83.12–18 and Siculus Flaccus (T 121.18–25); T 90.1 and Siculus Flaccus (T 103.11); T 94.5 and Siculus Flaccus (T 107.24); T 96.15–19 and Siculus Flaccus (T 127.6–11); T 97.15–20 and Siculus Flaccus (T 128.8–16).

The omission of certain themes in authors need not be significant since we cannot know if our texts are complete. Similar or identical phraseology can suggest that one writer had access to another's text or that both had a common source; in fact such phraseology is limited to a few words and the main correspondences are more thematic than in points of detail. Moreover, many of these passages concern well known topics, like the origins of limites and distinctions in boundary markers, where there was doubtless an established view.

²¹ For the basic categories of land see Hyginus 1 (T 78–80); Siculus Flaccus (T 99–102; 116–18).

²² For discussion see Dilke, RLS, 31–46; Hinrichs, op. cit. (n. 4), 158–70; Sherk, R. K., ‘Roman geographical exploration and military maps’, ANRW II.I (1974), 544–56Google Scholar; also my forthcoming translation of and commentary on the Corpus Agrimensorum Romanorum in the JRS Monograph series. Military surveyors (Sherk) were in the main ordinary soldiers ranking among the immunes; they were responsible for laying out camps and surveying other military sites and may occasionally have assisted in the establishment of military colonies; they could also be seconded to work on the projects of local communities (e.g. ILS 5795).

²³ Gellius, Aulus, Noctes Atticae XVI.13.9Google Scholar.

²⁴ Frank, T., An Economic Survey of Ancient Rome I (1959). 122–24Google Scholar. Aquileia in 181 B.C. was the last purely Latin colony to be founded (see in general Salmon, E. T., Roman Colonization under the Republic (1969), 40–111)Google Scholar.

²⁵ For settlements from 59–44 B.C., see Brunt, P. A., Italian Manpower (1971) (hereafter IM), 255–9Google Scholar; Keppie, L., Colonisation and Veteran Settlement in Italy 47–14 B.C. (1983) (hereafter CVSI), 49–58Google Scholar; preference of soldiers for land rather than cash — Brunt, P. A., ‘The army and the land in the Roman revolution’, JRS 52 (1962), 69–85Google Scholar, revised version in The Fall of the Roman Republic (1988), 240–80. Settlements between 41 and 14 B.C., see Keppie, CVSI, 58–86; cf. Brunt, IM, 319–44; 473–512; Salmon, op. cit. (n. 24), 128–44; provincial colonies — RG 28.

²⁶ Mann, J. C., Legionary Recruitment and Veteran Settlement during the Principate (1983)Google Scholar; Keppie, L., ‘Colonisation and veteran settlement in Italy in the first century AD’, PBSR 52 (1984), 77–114Google Scholar. For the size of individual allocations, see p. 86.

²⁷ De Architectura 1.1.5.

²⁸ For land division as an expression of the conqueror's power, see Purcell, N., ‘The creation of provincial landscape: the Roman impact on Cisalpine Gaul’, in Blagg, T. and Millett, M. (eds), The Early Roman Empire in the West (1990), 7–29Google Scholar; Whittaker, C. R., Frontiers of the Roman Empire. A Social and Economic Study (1994)Google Scholar, ch. 1, esp. 18–20, also emphasizes the point that rectangular surveys occur at times of expanding power and colonial foundation, and were a means of organizing internal control.

²⁹ Founded probably in 25 B.C. after the defeat of the Salassi for 3,000 veterans of the Praetorian Guard, it guarded the approaches to the Greater and Lesser St Bernard passes. See further below, p. 83.

³⁰ Founded in 25 B.C. by Publius Carisius, governor of Lusitania, on the river Guadiana for veterans of the V Alaudae and X Gemina legions who had fought in the Cantabrian wars.

³¹ Sarmizegetusa was founded after the second Dacian War, Timgad in A.D. 100 for veterans of the III Augusta, on the road from the legions's camp at Lambaesis to Theveste; see Mann, op. cit (n. 26), 14; 39. Aelia Capitolina, founded by Hadrian after the Jewish revolt of A.D. 132–5, was in my view intended partly as a visible symbol of Roman domination of the Jews, through its location at the traditional cultural and religious centre of the Jewish nation; cf. Isaac, B., The Limits of Empire (rev. edn, 1992), 311–32Google Scholar, esp. 323–5.

³² Ann. XIV.27; XIII.31.

³³ ILS 2460 = M. McCrum and A. G. Woodhead, Select Documents of the Principates of the Flavian Emperors A.D. 68–96 (1961), no. 378.

³⁴ De Architectura 11. preface, 2–3. Alexander complimented him on the plan but not his choice of site.

³⁵ T 144.9–17; cf. T 145.10–16 — a surveyor should stick as closely as possible to the preferred system even if the site was difficult. For land division in Africa and the layout of Ammaedara, see Barthel, W., ‘Römische Limitation in der Provinz Africa’, BJ 120 (1911), 39–126Google Scholar; Caillemer, A. and Chevallier, R., ‘Les centuriations romaines de Tunisie’, Annales (ESC) 12 (1957), 275–86CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Atlas des centuriations romaines de Tunisie (1959); Trousset, op. cit. (n. 4), esp. 143–75.

The comparison with the design of military camps should not be pressed too far since the main roads of a camp did not intersect in the middle, which was occupied by the headquarters building. It is more likely that military and civilian surveyors drew on sources and methods which had certain common features.

³⁶ See T 44.3–21. For the territory of Augusta Emerita, see Wiegels, R., ‘Zum territorium der Augusteischen Kolonie Emerita’, Madrider Mitteilungen 17 (1976), 258–84Google Scholar.

³⁷ See the anonymous commentary De Controversiis (T 68.17–21).

³⁸ Dio LIII.25.3–5; ILS 6753 = EJ 338; Keppie, CVSI, 205–7.

³⁹ Hyginus 2 (T 144.1–8); see Chouquer, op. cit. (n. 4, 1987), 105–9. The remains of a Roman field system are particularly well preserved at Tarracina; Chouquer identifies a distribution of land in parallel strips along the north side of the Via Appia overlaid subsequently by centuriae of 20 by 20 actus (2,400 by 2,400 Roman feet = 200 iugera); this extends to the south side of the road.

⁴⁰ Siculus Flaccus (T 117.22–3).

⁴¹ For Roman surveying instruments, see Dilke, RLS, 66–81; there is a new interpretation of the construction of the groma and a useful review of previous literature by Schiöler, T., ‘The Pompeii groma in new light’, Analecta Romano 22 (1994), 45–60Google Scholar. For orientation, usually effected by sighting compass points, and its possible association with augury and Etruscan learning, see Dilke, RLS, 32–4; 56–8; 86–7; Imago Mundi 21 (1967), 16–18Google Scholar; W. Hübner, ‘Himmel und Erdvermessung’, in Behrends and Capogrossi Colognesi, op. cit. (n. 4), 140–70; Frontinus (T 10–11); Hyginus 2 (T 131–2).

⁴² Frontinus (T 13.2–7); Hyginus 2 (T 132.20–133–4).

⁴³ Hyginus 2 (T 157.9–13).

⁴⁴ cf. the charter of Caesar's colony at Urso (Osuna) in southern Spain, which laid down that the limites were not to be blocked or ploughed over (FIRA ⁴⁵ 1, 191, clause 104).

⁴⁵ Hyginus 2 (T 139.9–16; 154.14–20).

⁴⁶ Most notably in Structures agraires, op. cit. (n. 4). The Liber Coloniarum was probably compiled in the early fourth century A.D., with some subsequent alterations. Part of it may be based on accounts written in Augustus' reign, and it gives details of land allocations in Italy from the Gracchi to the second century A.D. However individual entries are of variable quality (see also n. 99; good summary in Keppie, CVSI, 8–12).

⁴⁷ For discussion of the size of allocations, see Brunt, IM, 53–5; 193–4; 295–6; 309–11; 314–15; 341–2; Keppie, CVSI, 91–6.

⁴⁸ See below, p. 89.

⁴⁹ Bradford, J., Ancient Landscapes (1957), 198–9.Google Scholar

⁵⁰ ibid., 175–83; Chevallier, R., ‘La centuriazione romana dell' Istria e della Dalmazia’, Att. Mem. Soc. Istr. 9 (1961), 11–23Google Scholar; Keppie, , CVSI, 203–4Google Scholar. There is a brief summary of possible identifications of internal divisions of centuriae in Bussi, op. cit. (n. 4), 88–93.

⁵¹ T 136–9; 157–9.

⁵² T 73.6–24; 163.2–164.5. Lots could of course be drawn individually; the total number of settlers and the size of allocations were established, and therefore the number who could be accommodated in a centuria. The names were inscribed individually on lots and drawn out in turn; the man whose name was drawn out first then made the first draw of the lots containing the location of the plots of land (T 162.12–163.2). For a detailed discussion of texts relating to sortition, see Campbell, B., ‘Sharing out land: two passages in the Corpus Agrimensorum Romanorum’, CQ 45.2 (1995), 540–6CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

⁵³ cf. T 73.24; 141.7–8; 144.13–16. Siculus Flaccus mentions equal distributions to soldiers (T 119.9), although there were often exceptions (120.12–23).

⁵⁴ Hyginus 2 (T 167.12).

⁵⁵ See e.g. Agennius Urbicus (T 35.9; 3519; 36.18; 37.22; 39.11; 44.1); Hyginus 1 (T 71.1; 74.9; 81.7; 81.11; 82.28; 88.20–1; 89.6–7; 97.5–8; 97.12; 98.4); Siculus Flaccus (T 102.9; 102.13–14; 118.17; 119.28; 125.5–6; 126.8; 126.26; 127.18; 128.14–15; 128.31; 129.9; 130.11); Hyginus 2 (T 161.10–12; 163.18–164.5; 165.4–6; 165.10–166.2; 167.13–15). For detailed discussion of the keeping of archives for land division schemes, see Moatti, op. cit. (n. 4). The records of land distribution which accompanied the map (forma) have a variety of Latin terms: scriptura, instrumentum, libri, tabulae, commentarii; see my forthcoming translation and commentary (above n. 22).

⁵⁶ Maps — see e.g. T 118.16–19; 84.12; other records on bronze — T 94.20–95.1; 102.9–10; 163.19–164.5; 165.10–16.

⁵⁷ cf. T 102.9–10 — ‘There is no bronze record, no map of these lands (occupatorii) which could provide any officially recognized proof for landholders …’. Maps made privately in these lands had validity only if agreed by both parties. Note that the tenants on the imperial estates at Souk-el-Khmis emphasize in their petition to Commodus that there should be no dispute since the agreement concerning their obligations ‘has been preserved in its permanent form up to this very day by being inscribed on bronze and circulated on all sides by all our neighbours …’ (FIRA ² 1, 497; translation from Ancient Roman Statutes, no. 265).

⁵⁸ Note also the words commalleo and commalliolo, used to refer to the attaching of an additional piece of land to a property (T 41.13; 167.4–5), but which perhaps also suggest the hammering out of a bronze sheet for welding on to a bronze map (cf. OLD, s.v. malleatus — ‘beaten’ or ‘hammered’).

⁵⁹ T 165.14–16 (centuriae, neighbouring territories); T 80.1–2; 121.16; 128.6–7; 164.11–12 (pasture and woods); T 80.7; 127.14 (land of Vestals and other priests); T 79.17–19; 119.16–27; 120.10–12; 121.14–15 (land restored to individuals, exchanged; excepta); T 84.17–20 (subseciva); 122.1–8 (rivers); T 161.21–4 (mountains); T 165.10–16 (summary of typical map contents).

⁶⁰ Fernández, P. Sáez, ‘Estudio sobre un inscripcion catastral colindante con Lacimurga’, Habis 21 (1990), 205–27Google Scholar. In this case details of ownership and public land and smaller items of topography were presumably recorded elsewhere.

The famous inscriptions from Arausio (Orange) are records of the local community of a survey carried out for taxation purposes, and not a surveyor's topographical map, though doubtless they owed much to current surveying practice; they depict the decumanus maximus and kardo maximus, centuriae with their designations, topographical features including rivers and roads, and contain notations describing the status and area of land, occupancy, and rental (see Piganiol, A., Les documents cadastraux de la colonie romaine d'Orange, Gallia suppl. XVI (1962Google Scholar)).

The Lex Agraria (l. 78) refers to public maps of land in Africa (M. H. Crawford (ed.),Roman Statutes (1995), No. 2, p. 121).

⁶¹ Hyginus 2 (T 166.10).

⁶² cf. Moatti, op. cit. (n. 4), 45–6, who cites Clavel-Lévêque's suggestion (in a work not available to this author) that the fragment of the Spanish forma (n. 60) had a scale of 1:46,750. However I think that there is insufficient evidence to justify the wider contention that Roman land surveyors generally employed a consistent scale of about 1:48,000 for their maps (cf. Clavel-Lévêque, M., ‘Centuriation, géometrie et harmonie, le cas du Biterrois’, in Guillaumin, J. Y. (ed.), Mathématiques dans l'Antiquité (1992), 161–76Google Scholar).

⁶³ The tabula was a wax-covered wooden tablet which often served as a public record; cf. the Lex Agraria (FIRA ² I, 104Google Scholar, 7 = Crawford, op. cit. (n. 60), No. 2, p. 113, 7), in respect of public land ‘… IIIvir dedit adsignavit reliquit inve formas tabulasve retulit referive iusit’. Keppie (CVSI, 94) argued that Hyginus 2 was using genuine records here, perhaps relating to the foundation of Augusta Emerita in 25 B.C. In my translation of Hyginus 2 I have corrected Thulin's misprint of XLVI for LXVI at 164.3.

⁶⁴ Purcell, op. cit. (n. 5), 180–1 (see also n. 28) rightly emphasizes the importance of lines in the Roman definition of space, including centuriated land. But in my view surveyors were not significantly interested in symbolic or psychological aspects of this kind in their work.

⁶⁵ The emperor himself did not necessarily sign the map and registers left in the new settlement; that could be left to his agent. It is possible however that he signed the copy stored in Rome.

⁶⁶ T 166.11–13. It is worth noting the provision of the Lex Mamilia that an area within five or six feet of a boundary could not be appropriated as it was to serve as a pathway to fields or as a space in which to turn a plough. For the origins of this law, see Crawford, M., Athenaeum 67 (1989), 179–90Google Scholar.

⁶⁷ For the status of compascua see Crawford, op. cit. (n. 60), p. 161; importance of common grazing land for small farmers — K. D. White, Roman Farming (1970), 336; 345–6; P. A. Brunt, IM, 194; JRS 62 (1972), 158Google Scholar (review of White); Halstead, P., JHS 107 (1987), 84CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Spurr, M. S., Arable Cultivation in Roman Italy c. 200B.C.–A.D. 700 (1986), 120–26Google Scholar, emphasizing, however, that prata were essential for oxen and equines.

⁶⁸ R. Meiggs does not mention the Gromatici in the index of passages cited in Trees and Timber in the Ancient Mediterranean World (1982).

⁶⁹ op. cit. (n. 67), 122–3. It was possible that forest areas could be brought under cultivation by cutting down and burning numbers of small trees and undergrowth; the ash then acted as a fertilizer (ibid., 121).

⁷⁰ Hyginus 2 (T 168.13–169.2). Surveyors had to be on their guard against false definitions and declarations, which led to disputes. This way of defining land seems to have operated also in Phrygia and the rest of the province of Asia, where we are told the same kinds of dispute occurred (T 169.2–4).

⁷¹ T 42.18–43.8 (Urbicus, probably following Frontinus); Hyginus I (T 87.12–15).

⁷² See Spurr, op. cit. (n. 67), 8, n. 22.

⁷³ See Urbicus (T 42–44); Hyginus I (T 87–88); Siculus Flaccus (T 121.26–122.17). The question of ownership of alluvial land was a matter for lawyers, (T 122.2–17). though surveyors could be called in as expert technical witnesses by adjudicating officials.

⁷⁴ See above, p. 83.

⁷⁵ Hyginus I (T 88.13–18); Siculus Flaccus (T 122.2–17).

⁷⁶ For the organization of estates, see White, K. D., ‘Latifundia’, Bulletin of the Institute of Classical Studies 14 (1967), 62–79CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Roman Farming, op. cit. (n. 67), ch. 12.

⁷⁷ Siculus Flaccus (T 119.10–13).

⁷⁸ Hyginus 1 (T 79.17–21).

⁷⁹ Hyginus 2 (T 165.10–12).

⁸⁰ ibid.

⁸¹ Hyginus 1 (T 82.20–3). See further below, p. 97.

⁸² p. 77.

⁸³ T 126.26–127.5. This also illustrates Flaccus' meticulous methods of investigation.

⁸⁴ For discussion of communities where divisions between the original inhabitants and the new settlers may have persisted, see Brunt, IM, 306–7; Keppie, CVSI, 101–4; G. D. B. Jones, ‘Civil war and society in southern Etruria’, in M. R. D. Foot (ed.), War and Society: Historical Essays in Honour and Memory of J. R. Western 1928–1971 (1973), 281–7; also n. 85 below.

⁸⁵ Cicero, Pro Sulla 61–2. It seems unlikely that Cicero will have distorted the nature of the relationship between his client and the community at Pompeii since his statement could so easily be checked.

⁸⁶ FIRA ²I, 188.97.

⁸⁷ Aen. V.755–56; VII.157–59; cf. 1.422–26; III.137; cf. Bussi, op. cit. (n. 4), 140–2.

⁸⁸ ILS 6308 — ‘qua aratrum ductum est’, presumably celebrating the ploughing of a new sacred furrow. Note bronze coins (reign of Augustus) from Augusta Emerita showing a priest ploughing (Burnett, A., Amandry, M. and Ripollès, P. P., Roman Provincial Coinage Vol. I, Part I (1992), nos 5–7; 13).Google Scholar

⁸⁹ AE 1975.251; for discussion, see Keppie, op. cit. (n. 26), 98–104; cf. M. Mello and G. Voza, Le iscrizioni latine di Paestum (1968), no. 86. It seems that Babullius was sent to Paestum either as procurator of the emperor, or with this title.

⁹⁰ We find the same procedure for colonial settlement in the despatch by Trajan of veterans to Cyrene, probably after the Jewish revolt in A.D. 115, under Lucius Gavius Fronto ‘entrusted by the divine Trajan with three thousand legionary veterans to found a colony at Cyrene …’ (E. M. Smallwood, Documents Illustrating the Principates of Nerva, Trajan and Hadrian (1966), no. 313).

The personal responsibility of the emperor in finding land for his veterans was recognized by some veterans settled in Deultum in Thrace by Vespasian — ‘Since we served in Legion VIII Augusta and after completion of our [twenty-five years] of service [have been settled] by the most revered emperor in the colony of Deultum …’ (McCrum and Woodhead, op. cit. (n. 33), no. 486).

⁹¹ See Keppie, CVSI, 112–22.

⁹² FIRA ² I, 423.

⁹³ RG 8; Isidoms, Etym. v.36.4.

⁹⁴ De Arch. I. preface 2 — ‘I noted that you were concerned not only with the common life of all mankind and the organization of the state, but also with the provision of public buildings’. See also n. 98.

⁹⁵ Frontinus (T 7.9–10); Hyginus 1 (T 82.28–83.3); Pliny, , NH III.46Google Scholar.

⁹⁶ Suet., De Gram. 20; Servius, , Ad Aen. III.553Google Scholar; cf. Schanz, M. and Hosius, C., Geschichte der römischen Literatur ⁴ II, 368–79Google Scholar.

⁹⁷ cf. Boethius, Demonstratio Artis Geometricae (L 402.6–10). For Balbus, see R. Thomsen, The Italic Regions from Augustus to the Lombard Invasion (1947), 273–77; butcf. Nicolet, op. cit. (n. 5), 171.

⁹⁸ Nicolet's belief (op. cit. (n. 5), 181–99) in an Augustan grand design to develop geographical enquiry and enhance administrative structures, certainly finds little support in the evidence of land surveying texts.

⁹⁹ Frontinus (T 7.9–10); Hyginus 1 (T 73.3–4; 82.28–83.3); Siculus Flaccus (T 126.27); Hyginus 2 (T 135.18; 136.17–19; 142.2–12; 157.9–10; 160.10–16; 164.6–7; 166.11–13); Augustus is mentioned twice in the anonymous Commentum (T 58.5; 65.16), which may derive from earlier writers.

Augustus is also mentioned twenty times in the Liber Coloniarum (L 209.2; 16; 220.1; 10–11; 221.15–16; 224.11; 229.21–22; 230.1; 232.7–8; 10; 15–16; 233.12; 234.9–10; 235.1; 20–21; 236.11; 237.17–18; 239.10; 15; 242.12–13). This may, however, indicate that commentaries written in his reign had been used by the compilers of the Liber.

¹⁰⁰ T 73.2–5; 164.6–8.

¹⁰¹ See above, p. 90, and n. 92. Rullus' land bill of 63 B.C. apparently referred to land that was ‘capable of being ploughed or cultivated’ (Cicero, , De leg. ag. II.67Google Scholar).

¹⁰² Tacitus, , Ann. I.17Google Scholar.

¹⁰³ Liber Coloniarum (L 242.12–15). Inscribed boundary stones are of course known from the time of the Gracchi.

¹⁰⁴ ILS 5970.

¹⁰⁵ See above, p. 84. In addition Augustus laid down twelve Roman feet for quintarii and eight for lesser limites (Hyginus 2 — T 157.9–13).

¹⁰⁶ T 136.17–137.3. The interest of emperors in the welfare of their veterans continued, as we learn from the story of how, in Trajan's time, an evocatus and surveyor devised an especially sophisticated method of designating individual allocations which ensured that there could be no disputes over the veterans' land (see above, p. 89).

¹⁰⁷ See too Moatti, op. cit. (n. 4), 92–4.

¹⁰⁸ See above, p. 93.

¹⁰⁹ ILS 8901 = E. M. Smallwood, Documents Illustrating the Principates of Gains Claudius and Nero (1967), no. 385.

¹¹⁰ He records how he spent 860 million sesterces in purchasing land in Italy and the provinces for his veterans, and boasts: ‘I was the first and only one to have done this in the recollection of my contemporaries’ (RG 16). This is exaggerated; Augustus had the resources of the Roman state at his disposal, and other dynasts had bought up land (T 166.6–8); Rullus' land bill of 63 B.C. had promised purchase at the seller's price (Cic., , De leg. ag. I.14Google Scholar; II.67), while Caesar in 59 B.C. used census valuations (Dio XXXVIII.1.4).

¹¹¹ Hyginus 1 (T 82.24–83.6).

¹¹² Frontinus (T 7.1–13).

¹¹³ T 80.25–83.6; see also Urbicus (T 45.6–15); Siculus Flaccus (T 124.9–125.17; 127.21–129.10).

¹¹⁴ Siculus Flaccus (T 121.18–25), ascribes this generally to the ‘auctores divisionis assignationisque’. Cf. Lex Coloniae Genetivae Iuliae (n. 44), clauses 78–9, which guarantee rights of way in the colony's territory and access to water for landholders.

¹¹⁵ ILS 251.

¹¹⁶ e.g. ILS 5935–6. Note also the setting up of boundary stones along the banks of the Tiber — ILS 5923a–5924d.