2.1 FORUM POPILII VEL ANNII

Mommsen connected the toponym Polla with the Forum Popilii located in the area by the Tabula Peutingeriana. According to Bracco, by contrast, the Tabula Peutingeriana confused the local forum with the more famous Forum Popilii in the Ager Falernus (Bracco, Reference Bracco1954: 18–24).Footnote ¹¹ Bracco (Reference Bracco1954: 10–14) believed that Polla was the Forum Annii located by Sallust (Sall. Hist. 3.98) at a distance of an overnight march from Nares Lucanae (modern Scorzo). In his opinion, given the local topography, only Polla could be the ancient Forum Annii. Bracco's argument is hardly decisive. The Forum Annii mentioned by Sallust may have been a different settlement in the proximity of Polla: in the Ager Falernus, for example, Forum Claudii and Forum Popillii were only two miles apart (Wiseman, Reference Wiseman1964: 32 and n. 49). At the same time, however, the Peutinger Table is a very unsafe basis for claiming that Polla was Forum Popillii: its description of Lucania is hopeless, with roads leading nowhere, and generally wrong distances (Suppl. It. III: 65–6).

According to Spinazzola (Reference Spinazzola1910: 87), Mommsen's identification is proved by onomastics, since — so he argued — Polla derives from Forum Popilii through shift of the accent (Popíli > Pópili) and syncope (Pópili > Pópli).Footnote ¹² This explanation, however, is very weak, as it does not explain why the word forum was dropped, whereas it has been maintained in all the other similar cases: Santa Maria di Forcassi (Forum Cassii), San Giovanni Profiamma (Forum Flaminii), Fossombrone (Forum Sempronii), Forlimpopoli (Forum Popilii), Forlì (Forum Livii), Fornovo (Forum Novum), Fréjus (Forum Iulii). In fact, a much more likely explanation is right at hand. In the Middle Ages, a number of local toponyms were derived from natural elements: for example, Padula, ‘the marsh’, or la Foresta, ‘the forest’, mentioned in a document from 1487 (Ebner, Reference Ebner1979: II, 366). This same document, significantly, testifies that Polla was actually called ‘la Polla’, i.e. ‘the spring’.

Modern Polla is not on the site of the ancient settlement: this stood slightly in the interior, on the right bank of the Tanager, at modern Borgo San Pietro (Bracco, Reference Bracco1954: 30–6). I suggest that the name of the ancient forum was later replaced by Borgo San Pietro; the name Polla, on the other hand, pertains to a medieval village, taking its name from the presence of a spring.Footnote ¹³ The drop of the article (la Polla > Polla) is paralleled by Sala Consilina, originally called ‘la Sala’, ‘the hall’ (Ebner, Reference Ebner1979: II, 367), having been the hall of a Lombard warlord (Ebner, Reference Ebner1979: I, 25).

2.2 VIA ANNIA VEL POPILLIA

Two third-century ad inscriptions (CIL VI 31338a and 31370) record the repairs carried out on a number of roads by their mancipes and iunctores iumentarii (that is, the superintendents of mansiones and their assistants). Of the two texts, one concerns the viae Appia, Traiana and Annia cum ramulis; the other concerns the viae Appia, Annia and Aurelia Nova (and perhaps the via Traiana should be restored in the lacunous section).

Bracco (Reference Bracco1954) pointed out that, of the roads mentioned in the first inscription (CIL VI 31338a), the viae Appia and Traiana were in southern Italy. He concluded that the third, the via Annia, must also be in the same area: with all likelihood, this was the road Capua–Regium. Ferrua (Reference Ferrua1955), instead, focused on the via Aurelia Nova of the second inscription (CIL VI 31370), which he considered to be the Etrurian Via Aurelia.Footnote ¹⁴ Ferrua concluded that the via Annia of the two inscriptions was also in Etruria, where indeed a road of this name is known to have existed.Footnote ¹⁵ Later, however, Wiseman (Reference Wiseman1964: 33) suggested that the via Aurelia Nova mentioned by CIL VI 31370 was not the Etrurian road but a different one, mentioned by another inscription (CIL III 1456). Wiseman located this further via Aurelia Nova in southern Italy, since this was the location of the other roads mentioned by CIL III 1456 (the viae Traiana and Aeclanensis). Wiseman concluded that CIL VI 31338a and CIL VI 31370 also concerned roads in southern Italy, and that therefore there was no reason to reject Bracco's idea that the road Capua–Regium was a via Annia. This argument, however, is not conclusive: one might well argue that the via Annia recorded by the two inscriptions, though in southern Italy, was yet another road (so, for example, Verbrugghe, Reference Verbrugghe1973: 32). Ockham's razor, it is true, would require us not to duplicate roads unless necessary. Yet, history does not proceed by logical — or simple — steps.

2.3 THE SANT'ONOFRIO MILESTONE

A milestone found at Sant'Onofrio near Vibo Valentia in 1954 (AE 1955: 191 = AE 1956: 148 = ILLRP 454a = CIL I².4 2936) records the magistrate responsible for its installation as T. Annius, pr(aetor).Footnote ¹⁶ Since Valentia is one of the places mentioned in the inscription, the milestone certainly pertains to the road Capua–Regium.

In Bracco's opinion (Reference Bracco1954: 36–7), the finding definitely proves that the road was a via Annia.Footnote ¹⁷ According to Degrassi (Reference Degrassi1955; Reference Degrassi and Luzzatto1956; Reference Degrassi and Renard1962), however, the two inscriptions do not concern the same individual. Degrassi argued that the praetor T. Annius, recorded in the milestone, had only contributed to the road building, taking charge of its southernmost stretch. The rest of the project was carried out by a higher magistrate, the one celebrated by the lapis Pollae. Since a Popillius was known to have been consul at the same time when a T. Annius was praetor, Degrassi had no problem accepting Mommsen's identification of the magistrate.Footnote ¹⁸ Degrassi was persuaded that Annius and Popillius had explicitly cooperated in a large-scale infrastructural programme, which also included northeast Italy. There, works had been initiated by Popillius, who had built the road from Ariminum to Adria and further north to Patavium.Footnote ¹⁹ Annius, in this case, had taken up the project when the construction works were at some point between Adria and Patavium, as proved by the existence of the toponym Agna between these two cities (Degrassi, Reference Degrassi1955: 264).Footnote ²⁰ Eventually, his via Annia had reached as far as Aquileia.

Despite what is commonly assumed, though, the milestone of P. Popillius Laenas is not sufficient evidence to identify the road Ariminum–Adria as a via Popillia.Footnote ²¹ Indeed, a milestone recently found at Pontemagno (Donati, Reference Donati2009) or Ponte Maodino (Uggeri, Reference Uggeri2012) — a tiny hamlet close to Codigoro (ancient Corniculani), in the province of Ferrara — now suggests that the coastal road was a via Annia.Footnote ²² Until now, the apparent contradiction has not found a convincing explanation.Footnote ²³ Still, the conundrum could be easily solved if only we dismissed the unlikely assumption that milestones were set up exclusively when roads were built.Footnote ²⁴

In his discussion of C. Gracchus' road building (Plut. C. Gracchus 7.1–2), Plutarch remarks that much care was pit into the installation of milestones, as well as of smaller uninscribed stones used to mount on a horseback.Footnote ²⁵ From the passage, it appears clear that, at least from a certain date, particular care was devoted to recording the mileage of roads.Footnote ²⁶ It would be hard to believe that such attention ceased as soon as the road building was completed. Milestones required maintenance too: with the passing of time, they could be damaged, removed or lost. This helps to explain the presence of two different names on the milestones of the road Ariminum–Adria: I suggest that the two milestones belong to different series. This seems to be confirmed by their use of different systems to count distances. The Adria milestone counts the miles from Ariminum; the Codigoro milestone, on the other hand, provides the mileage from Rome. Since, as it is now clear, the via Annia was built by T. Annius Luscus, cos. 153 bc (Wiseman, Reference Wiseman1964: 22–30; Wiseman, Reference Wiseman1969: 82–8; Uggeri, Reference Uggeri2012), Popillius' milestone from Adria must be later than the other (contra Donati, Reference Donati2009: 80–1).Footnote ²⁷

Since there is no reason to suppose that Popillius carried out any road building work in northern Italy, the idea of a joint infrastructural programme should be reconsidered. Indeed, the suggestion that Annius and Popillius cooperated should be rejected also in the case of the road Capua–Regium. Susini's distinction, in the lapis Pollae, between sections composed by the magistrate and later additions rules out the possibility that the construction works proceeded southwards, and that Annius could have overseen their completion. At l. 8, it is true, the road is said to go from Capua to Regium; still, this statement was not formulated by the magistrate, who, instead, claims in section 1 (l. 1) that the road was built proceeding northwards from Regium to Capua.

2.4 ROAD MAINTENANCE, DETOURS AND MILESTONES

Although Degrassi's theory should be rejected, I will now suggest that his intuition was right: the Sant'Onofrio milestone does not provide the name of the magistrate of the lapis Pollae. I will argue that the milestone pertains to later improvement works, which are extremely unlikely to have been carried out by the same individual.

Surprisingly, the presence of blank spaces in the lapis Pollae — clearly visible after Nuceriam milia, after Valentiam and after statuam — has been noticed by only Susini, and has since since disregarded (the only exception being Uggeri, Reference Uggeri2012: 138). Susini (Reference Susini1997: 400) concluded that the stonecutter initially left the distances blank, and added the mileages only when he was given further indications. Despite the care that had been taken, however, all the mileages to Valentia and beyond (ad fretum ad statuam and to Regium) were subsequently reduced by two miles, and hence the total mileage was amended to 321 (even though, as Susini points out, the correct figure should be 320).Footnote ²⁸ Since numbers were constantly reduced by the same figure, and only places south of Valentia were affected, the amendments are hardly likely to be the result of mistakes made by the stonecutter. Rather, it would seem that the inscription was amended at a later stage.

In order to make sense of these corrections, we should take into account the fact that roads were not immutable, but underwent changes over the centuries. Describing the technical features of the roads built by C. Gracchus, Plutarch testifies to a particular attention for their straightness, for aesthetic and practical reasons.Footnote ²⁹ Straight roads often required expensive engineering works; Gracchus' roads are no exception: ‘depressions were filled up, all intersecting torrents or ravines were bridged over’ (Plut. C. Gracchus 7.1–2; trans. Perrin, LCL). It is perfectly conceivable that, when roads were built, in many cases easier solutions were initially preferred, involving long detours, and that only progressively roads were ‘straightened’ with galleries and bridges.Footnote ³⁰

I suggest, then, that the modification of mileage on the lapis Pollae can be explained by postulating subsequent changes to the original route. The small scale of the changes (just two miles) can be attributed to the fact that, as the magistrate of the lapis Pollae claims, the road was provided with the necessary infrastructures right from the beginning (in ea via ponteis omneis miliarios tabelariosque poseiuei).

The Codigoro milestone now reveals that, when roads changed their itineraries, milestones also underwent modifications. Clear traces of amendments are visible in the inscription: the letters to the right of the two CC have been erased, and an anchor-shaped L has been inscribed on top of them. These amendments suggest that the milestone was updated at some point, in connection with improvements to the road.Footnote ³¹ The Sant'Onofrio milestone, on the other hand, bears no trace of amendments. Therefore, it must have been set up later than the lapis Pollae: perhaps simultaneously with the corrections to the lapis, perhaps even later.Footnote ³² In principle, it is still possible that the improvements could have been overseen by the same magistrate who had built the road. This possibility, however, is ruled out by the clear statement made by the magistrate of the lapis Pollae, who claims to have set up all the milestones along the road: if he had been responsible also for the reduction of the mileage, he would have simply amended his milestones, rather than set up new ones.

2.5 CONCLUSIONS

In this section, I have showed that there is no decisive evidence to identify either the road or the forum. It is at least possible, however, to show that the lapis was not set up by the T. Annius praetor mentioned by the Sant'Onofrio milestone. This conclusion is extremely important for the dating of the lapis Pollae, since it provides a precise terminus ante quem. The milestone is undated, but it cannot be later than 131 bc, because no T. Annius held the praetorship after that date. Therefore, since the milestone is later than the lapis Pollae, the lapis Pollae must be earlier than 131 bc.

3.1 THE PURSUIT OF SLAVES

Originally, the pursuit of the slaves was explained in the context of the Servile Wars.Footnote ³³ Since these were brought to an end by Rupillius' harsh repression in 132 bc, Bracco concluded that 132 bc was a terminus ante quem for the date of the inscription. Wiseman (Reference Wiseman1964: 31–7; Reference Wiseman1969: 90; see also Brennan, Reference Brennan1990: 202), on the other hand, argued that, even though the upheaval of Sicilian slaves was for the most part repressed by Rupillius in 132 bc, rebellions were, with all likelihood, still going on in southern Italy. Wiseman suggested that the fugitives were slaves of Italian masters residing in the towns of Bruttium and Lucania (the Italici of the inscription), who had revolted under the stimulus of the Sicilian events: the most likely date was 131 bc, the episode being a sort of coda to the Servile Wars.Footnote ³⁴ Wiseman explained the fact that the magistrate was praetor in Sicily at the time by pointing out that it was not unusual for praetors of Sicily to intervene in southern Italy, as had indeed happened on a number of occasions in the first century bc.Footnote ³⁵

Wiseman's explanation, however, is now ruled out by my argument that the lapis Pollae is earlier than 131 bc. Besides, as Fraschetti (Reference Fraschetti, Giardina and Schiavone1981: 58–9) has showed, the episode is much more likely to have taken place in Sicily, where, as Diodorus reports, slaves were marked. The presence of marks on the bodies of the slaves makes it easier to understand how the magistrate could have been able to return each of the 917 slaves to their legitimate masters. The term Italici in the lapis Pollae does not refer to Italians living in the peninsula, but should be understood as Italians lato sensu, including both allies and Romans, just like the well-known Italicei qui Deli negotiantur of Delian inscriptions (Giardina, Reference Giardina1997: 59). In Sicilian epigraphy, indeed, the word Italici is used with this exact meaning: Italicei, for example, made a dedication to L. Cornelius Scipio at Halaesa (CIL X 7459). Just like these people, then, the Italici of the lapis Pollae should be interpreted, following Fraschetti, as those Romans and Italians who were involved in economic activities in Sicily.

The pursuit of the slaves is unlikely to have happened during the Servile Wars, when, as Verbrugghe (Reference Verbrugghe1973: 27) pointed out, slaves were punished with the utmost severity. All the available evidence on the Servile Wars makes clear that the rebels were considered a threat to the state; it is therefore very hard to believe that as many as nearly 1,000 slaves would have simply been returned to their masters. The episode of the fugitive slaves, on the other hand, fits well in the context of the progressive escalation of slave unrest and violence that anticipated the outbreak of the Servile Wars.Footnote ³⁶

3.2 MAGISTERIAL RULING ON AGER PUBLICUS

My dating of the inscription also warrants caution when connecting the sentence on ager publicus with the Gracchan land distributions. The distribution of land, in fact, took years, which is at odds with the formulation of the lapis Pollae, referring to a completed operation. Indeed, already Tibiletti (Reference Tibiletti1955: 255–7) had questioned the connection, pointing out that the Gracchan land reform did not encompass the transformation of land from grazing into arable, but only the redistribution of arable land. It is true that other explanations exist that would work outside the context of the Gracchan period; still, these too assume that the lapis Pollae refers to a land distribution.Footnote ³⁷ As a matter of fact, the text of the inscription proves this to be a misconception.

The verb cedo does not only mean ‘withdraw, abandon’, but also ‘yield to one's superiority, give priority to someone’.Footnote ³⁸ With this meaning, cedo with de + ablative can be translated as ‘give priority to someone with regard to something’.Footnote ³⁹ We may translate the statement of the lapis as follows: ‘I was the first to provide that shepherds would give priority to ploughmen with regard to public land’.Footnote ⁴⁰ The difference may look minimal, but is in fact substantial. So far all translators have assumed that the magistrate forcefully removed the shepherds, and settled ploughmen. According to my translation, by contrast, ploughmen were not brought in from elsewhere. Both groups appear to have been already present, and to have used ager publicus in competition; the magistrate intervenes at a later stage, and rules that the claim of ploughmen on public land has priority over that of shepherds.

3.3 THE LOCATION OF AGER PUBLICUS

As I have argued in section 3.1, the pursuit of fugitive slaves took place in Sicily. The nature of the lapis Pollae — a document in which geographical minutiae are central — strongly suggests that, if the event described in the following clause had taken place in a different geographical context, we would have been informed. Therefore, even though we cannot be sure that the two clauses followed each other in the original document from which they have been excerpted, the fact that no place is specified in the second clause suggests that the episode concerning ager publicus also took place in Sicily (Fraschetti, Reference Fraschetti, Giardina and Schiavone1981: 57–61).

As long as the passage on ager publicus was believed to belong to a southern Italian context, the expansion of agriculture at the expenses of husbandry was explained as part of the ongoing attempt to develop that remote and mountainous area, left depopulated, according to Toynbee's classic thesis, by the devastations of the Hannibalic War. Since I am advocating, instead, a Sicilian setting, in this section I will show how the controversy on the use of ager publicus fits in the economic and administrative context of the island before the Servile Wars.

The entitlement to use ager publicus in Sicily seems to have been regulated soon after the conquest.Footnote ⁴¹ Some public land, confiscated from hostile communities, was given as private property to loyal individuals: at Syracuse, Sosis was allowed to select for himself 500 iugera (Livy 26.21.12–13); at Morgantina (listed by Cicero among the civitates decumanae), Mericus received 500 iugera, Belligenes 400, and other land was given to their Spaniards; a similar fate was possibly suffered also by Leontini (Pinzone, Reference Pinzone1999b: 469–70). Other public land seems to have been returned to the local communities after the stipulation of foedera.Footnote ⁴² The territory of Messana, as Pinzone (Reference Pinzone1999a: 103–4) has persuasively argued, must have become ager publicus p. R. after the deditio of the Mamertini in 262 bc, and was returned to the city once the foedus with Rome was officially stipulated.Footnote ⁴³ Local communities also secured territorial grants in the immediate aftermath of the conquest, sending embassies to the senate. In 210 bc, the Syracusan βουλή sent an embassy to Rome.Footnote ⁴⁴ In all likelihood, on this occasion the city of Syracuse was bestowed part of the former χώρα βασιλική.Footnote ⁴⁵

It is not immediately clear what happened to the land that Rome maintained in public property. According to Cicero (Verr. 2.3.13), the territory of the few cities (perpaucae civitates) conquered in war (bello subactae) was returned to their citizens, but it was also subjected to censoria locatio.Footnote ⁴⁶ Cicero's statement has generally appeared contradictory, and a mix of textual amendments and subtle interpretations has been variously suggested in order to make sense of it (Prag, Reference Prag2014: 192). In fact, there is no contradiction: in a passage that celebrates Rome's benevolent treatment of Sicily, Cicero is representing as a proper restitution the permission given to the defeated communities to use the land, on the payment of a vectigal. Indeed, elsewhere in the Verrines (2.5.53) Cicero makes clear that the land subject to censoria locatio was ager publicus (Prag, Reference Prag2014: 193). In the same fashion, the people who lived in the ager Recentoricus were given by the senate entitlement to use it (Cic. Leg. agr. 2.57), even though the land was still ager publicus (Prag, Reference Prag2014: 195, commenting on Cicero's expression non agri condicione defendunt).Footnote ⁴⁷

In Sicily, in sum, Rome does not seem to have retained direct control of the exploitation of public land. We can conclude, then, that the controversy to which the lapis Pollae refers took place in a local community. Either due to the legal status of land, or because a final decision could not be reached by the local authorities, the matter was brought before the praetor. The decision of the praetor to pass a judgement seems perfectly in line with his role as provincial governor, ruling partim edicto, partim iudiciis.

Equally, the controversy between shepherds and ploughmen makes perfect sense in a Sicilian setting. Diodorus Siculus (34–35.2.3) provides abundant evidence for the importance of pastoralism in the Sicilian economy on the eve of the Servile Wars (Coarelli, Reference Coarelli, Giardina and Schiavone1981: 10; Mazza, Reference Mazza, Giardina and Schiavone1981: 20). At the same time, however, the needs of the city of Rome stimulated the restoration of grain production right after the disruptions of the Punic War (Mazza, Reference Mazza, Giardina and Schiavone1981: 30–5, 39–49).Footnote ⁴⁸ I suggest that the episode reported in the lapis Pollae should be set against the background of the expansion of agriculture on public land that was underway in Sicily, which produced contrasts and competition with the owners of flocks.

3.4 PRIMUS FECEI UT …: COMPETITION FOR LAND IN THE SECOND CENTURY BC

At this point, it is necessary to explain why the magistrate could consider a controversy internal to a Sicilian community so important that it deserved a place in his tabula triumphalis. I will argue that the episode may have been more important than it is immediately apparent, since it is likely to have involved Roman businessmen operating on the island. I will argue further that the magistrate used it for personal propaganda, touching a raw nerve of Roman political debate.

Roman outsiders appear to have played an important role in the Sicilian economy after the Roman conquest. The attempt by some Italians to put their hands on land in Syracuse (see n. 44) shows that the conquerors took an interest in landholding immediately after the war. Diodorus records the involvement on a large scale of Roman equites in Sicilian husbandry.Footnote ⁴⁹ At the same time, though, he also mentions their appetite for agricultural investment (Coarelli, Reference Coarelli, Giardina and Schiavone1981: 10). With dramatic exaggeration, Florus (Epit. 2.7.3) claims that, on the eve of the Servile Wars, the estates of Roman citizens covered the whole island. Unfortunately, very few names of Roman landowners survive for that period, such as the poet Lucilius, or Q. Lollius, who must have acquired land early on, since he was almost 90 at the time of Verres' praetorship (Coarelli, Reference Coarelli, Giardina and Schiavone1981: 54).

Cicero (Verr. 2.3.53) says that in Sicily it was common practice for the locupletes to rent land to cultivate (conducere arationes magnas).Footnote ⁵⁰ We should, therefore, consider the possibility that Roman outsiders also rented the ager publicus bestowed to the various communities. These people too will have been affected by the judgement of the magistrate.

The Sicilian episode is also likely to be part of a wider phenomenon underway in the 150s–140s. Until the first century bc, scriptura had a prominent role in public revenues (Crawford, Reference Crawford, Harris and Lo Cascio2005: 164–5).Footnote ⁵¹ Indeed, it seems that the word pascua could refer to censorial fiscal revenues in their entirety (Cic. Leg. agr. 1.3; Plin. HN 18.11). Still, it is possible that, around the middle of the second century bc, ongoing agricultural intensification (stimulated by urban growth) was increasing the demand for arable land, and this generated contrasts in the use of public land.

Competition for land appears to have been a sensitive issue in the political debate of that period. At an uncertain date between the late 150s and the 140s, an agrarian reform was attempted by none other than C. Laelius. The project was soon abandoned amid staunch opposition (Plut. Ti. Gracchus 8.4).Footnote ⁵² Plutarch takes it for granted that Laelius' reform was similar in scope to the Gracchan legislation. Despite Tibiletti's (Reference Tibiletti1955) contrary opinion, this assumption has been commonly accepted. Astin (Reference Astin1967: 307–8), for example, argued that only an attempted redistribution of land could stir such a fierce resistance. This interpretation, though, does not take into consideration that, a few years later, none of Scipio Aemilianus' associates supported Ti. Gracchus' plan. The apparent contradiction, which Astin (Reference Astin1967: 310) did indeed notice, can only be resolved by assuming that Laelius' reform had a different scope.

I would suggest that Laelius' project and the claim of the magistrate of the lapis Pollae should be understood in the light of the contrasts generated by the extensive use of public land for pasture. It is possible that the Romans who had economic interests in arable farming were lobbying with Roman magistrates to obtain privileged access to public land, at the expense of those people whose interests lay in husbandry, in agreement with Cato's dictum (Cic. Off. 2.89) that husbandry was the most profitable investment.Footnote ⁵³ In fact, we should not assume that Laelius was defending the interests of the peasantry, or that the magistrate of the lapis was trying to secure their support. Just as in Sicily, we are faced with a controversy internal to the Roman upper classes. This is the audience addressed by the lapis Pollae: people who owned slaves — often in large quantities — and were willing to invest in arable farming. By placing emphasis on having been the first (primus fecei) to privilege the claims of ploughmen, the magistrate is trying to take political credit for a decision that, although related to the political debate of those years, is not directly relevant to it. In all likelihood, the contrasts were mostly related to ager publicus in Italy, with which Laelius' bill must have been concerned.

3.5 THE AUDIENCE

We come now to the problem of audience. As I have already explained in my discussion of the inscription of T. Annius Luscus in the forum of Aquileia (see n. 27), the selection of the information included in celebrative inscriptions is contextual to their location, and the selected material must be of some relevance to their audience (Giardina, Reference Giardina1997: 145). In the previous section, I suggested that the magistrate tried to exploit his earlier achievements as praetor in Sicily to allure people who were concerned with Italian ager publicus. In this section, I will suggest that the audience of the lapis Pollae should be identified as those wealthy individuals from Roman colonies in Lucania, as well as from Campania, who were shifting the balance of local economy towards arable farming as early as the second century bc.Footnote ⁵⁴

Toynbee (Reference Toynbee1965), as it is widely known, had an apocalyptic view of the consequences of the Hannibalic War, whereby the area had been left in ruins and depopulated (and had failed to recover ever since: the questione meridionale, for him, had very ancient roots). This picture, though, has now undergone serious revisions, thanks to long years of archaeological research focused on three areas of Lucania: ‘Grumentum and the upper Agri valley, and the eastern and the western coast’ (Fracchia, Reference Fracchia and Evans2013: 193).

It is now clear that surrender to Rome did not necessarily imply decline. Volceii, having capitulated in 209 bc, appears to have prospered since then (Di Lieto, Reference Di Lieto and Colivicchi2011: 52), undergoing ‘renewal along Hellenistic lines’ (Gualtieri, Reference Gualtieri, Ligt and Northwood2008: 405). Indeed, in 225 bc the Lucanians were apparently able to provide Rome with 33,000 soldiers (Diod. Sic. 14.101; Polyaenus, Strat. 2.23.12) (Di Giuseppe, Reference Di Giuseppe and Colivicchi2011: 70). This more optimistic view of the consequences of the Hannibalic War is accompanied by a reconsideration of rural settlement and farming. Agriculture was certainly among the economic activities of local communities.Footnote ⁵⁵ It is possible that not all the land was confiscated; besides, the dediticii may have been permitted to remain on their land, now ager publicus, in return for a vectigal (Torelli, Reference Torelli and Colivicchi2011: 210).

It is true, however, that the Roman conquest altered the patterns of rural settlement. Rome's immediate concern for securing territorial control translated into a number of colonial foundations in the 190s bc: Buxentum, Croton, Valentia, Puteoli, Salernum, Tempsa (and a supplementum was sent to Venusia in 200). These new settlements did not only bring in new population, but also included local inhabitants (La Torre, Reference La Torre and Colivicchi2011: 146–7).Footnote ⁵⁶ A comparison between rural settlements around Lucanian centres and around Roman foundations — Venusia and Grumentum, which was founded at a later stage — suggests that, whereas new Roman foundations helped to maintain the countryside populated, rural settlement declined in those areas that were not interested in colonization.Footnote ⁵⁷ It is possible that the traces of settlement abandonment signal displacement and relocation, rather than depopulation (Di Giuseppe, Reference Di Giuseppe and Colivicchi2011: 70).

According to Giardina (Reference Giardina, Giardina and Schiavone1981), the overwhelming presence of transhumant pastoralism in inner Lucania was essentially motivated by the parasitic attitude of wealthy Romans, who, ignoring any legal limitation to the number of animals, made huge profits through transhumant pastoralism. In the immediate aftermath of the Hannibalic War, however, the preference for pastoralism should not be seen as unwillingness to invest. Away from nucleated settlements, the region was mountainous and covered with woodland, and its fluvial plains were characterized by the presence of marshes (Inscr. It. III.1: xviii–xx; Roselaar's [Reference Roselaar2010: 170] description of the Tanager valley as fertile and suitable for cultivation cannot be applied to this early period). In such conditions, investing in pastoralism is not a sign of scarce interest; on the contrary, it is an intelligent adaptation of investment strategies to geographical conditions. Farming would have required expensive draining and land clearance; the absence of infrastructures, together with low settlement density, made the chances for commercial agriculture quite feeble. Wool, on the other hand, could be marketed to distant places, and the mobility of sheep provided the perfect solution to the problem of transport.

According to Giardina, things never changed, and ager publicus remained largely under-exploited. This view, however, does not account for two factors. On the one hand, the settlement of Gracchan colonists on an impressive scale — testified by the cippi found in the territory of Volcei, Atina and Consilinum (Gallo, Reference Gallo2011: 55–6) — created a ‘dense, mixed population inhabiting the fertile countryside’ (Gualtieri, Reference Gualtieri, Ligt and Northwood2008: 406).Footnote ⁵⁸ At Grumentum, for example, pottery finds have a new peak between 150 and 125 bc, inverting the declining trend (Di Giuseppe, Reference Di Giuseppe and Colivicchi2011: 65). On the other hand, there was a renewed interest in landholding from the turn of the first century bc, as archaeological finds have revealed. In the upper Bradano valley, rural sites grew, and the villas of San Gilio, San Pietro and Masseria Ciccotti were built around that time (Di Giuseppe, Reference Di Giuseppe and Colivicchi2011: 72). In Bruttium, villas appeared between the end of the second century and the first century bc (La Torre, Reference La Torre and Colivicchi2011: 154).

As Gualtieri (Reference Gualtieri, Carlsen and Cascio2009: 348–9) remarks, the traditional view that only Roman and central Italian landholders developed Italian agriculture in the second and first centuries bc should be rejected, and due attention should be paid to local developments, and the role of local elites. Still, it is equally true that investors from outside were present.Footnote ⁵⁹ Already by the first century bc, a number of wealthy Romans owned land in southern Italy, not only equites and senators (Giardina, Reference Giardina, Giardina and Schiavone1981: 87 n. 3), but also people such as Cicero's friend — and possibly former praefectus fabrum — Sicca, who owned a villa at Valentia, or the M. Tullius defended by Cicero in the Pro Tullio, who owned land at Thurii, just as the plaintiff P. Fabius did.Footnote ⁶⁰ The trend continued during the Principate. In its first phase, the Masseria Ciccotti villa belonged to Vedius Pollio, eques and a friend of Augustus; the San Pietro di Tolve villa belonged to Nero's aunt, Domitia Lepida, or to one of her liberti (Di Giuseppe, Reference Di Giuseppe2007; Gualtieri, Reference Gualtieri, Carlsen and Cascio2009: 351–9).

By the first century bc, cereal cultivation appears to have been typical (as it is nowadays). In the upper Bradano valley, grinding mills have been detected both in excavated (for example, Masseria Ciccotti) and unexcavated sites (Gualtieri, Reference Gualtieri, Carlsen and Cascio2009: 361). The growth of cereal cultivation should be explained not only by the growth of local demand (Roman colonies, Gracchan settlements), but also by the steady urban growth of the Campanian cities, and of Rome.Footnote ⁶¹ Access to these markets was provided by the road Capua–Regium, and by the roads built in the Gracchan period (Camodeca, Reference Camodeca1997: 268).Footnote ⁶²

Giardina (Reference Giardina, Giardina and Schiavone1981: 91) remarks that even after the Gracchan distributions, pastoralism was still present in the area. This should not surprise us. Apparently, a mixture of agriculture and pastoralism was already practised by Lucanian elites, before the Roman conquest disrupted the patterns of rural settlement. Mixed strategies are found, for example, at Torre di Satriano (Osanna and Serio, Reference Osanna, Serio and Osanna2009: 105–6), whose occupation was discontinued after the Roman conquest. When, thanks to demographic growth and increased urbanization, commercial agriculture returned to be practised, the same kind of mixed activities were adopted. Indeed, in Sallust's account, Spartacus admonishes his companions to move to laxiores agros magisque pecuarios, ‘looser territories, and with a higher presence of flocks’ (Sall. Hist. 3.98), in order to add more recruits to their ranks; when they arrive at Forum Annii, though, they also find ploughmen (cultores), and the harvest ripe (ma<tura in agri>s erant autumni frumenta).

Grain growing was now a sensitive choice for investors. At the same time, pastoralism was still widely practised, both in areas unsuitable to agriculture (Roubis et al., Reference Roubis, Colacino, Fascetti, Pascale, Pastore, Sdao, De Venuto, Florenzano, Mercuri, Miola and Panarella2013: 119–20), and along the communication lines from the plain to the mountain. Thus, all the four villas excavated in the upper Bradano valley (Moltone, San Pietro, San Gilio, Masseria Ciccotti) are connected with a tratturo that goes down to Apulia (Di Giuseppe, Reference Di Giuseppe2007: 157).Footnote ⁶³ Even though they all produced grain, they also relied on their strategic position to exploit transhumance. A wool spinnery was excavated at the San Pietro di Tolve villa; shearing scissors were found at the San Gilio villa; wool washing basins, dated to last decades of the first century bc, or the early first century ad, were discovered at Masseria Ciccotti (Gualtieri, Reference Gualtieri, Carlsen and Cascio2009: 351–9).

Archaeological data suggest that, in the second century bc, commercial agriculture had not yet taken roots. Still, the lapis Pollae now suggests that, as early as the 150s–140s bc, attempts were already being made to develop arable farming. In the late Republic and early Empire, the same individuals could have interests in both pastoralism and arable farming. Cicero, for example, addresses P. Fabius as a novus arator et idem pecuarius (Cic. Tull. 19). In the same fashion, either directly or in partnership with her liberti, Domitia Lepida was involved in both grain growing and husbandry.Footnote ⁶⁴ Now, the lapis Pollae provides a glimpse of the earlier stages of commercial exploitation of Lucania. It is possible that, in these early stages, the elites of the new settlements, and perhaps of Campania, were faster to seize the opportunities for commercial agriculture, while the owners of greges based in Rome continued to focus on pastoralism.Footnote ⁶⁵ It is possible that this situation generated contrasts. The celebration of magisterial achievements in the lapis Pollae, then, should be understood as an attempt by a member of the Roman nobility to secure ties of gratitude and patronage among the local elites, even at the cost of taking sides against his peers.