Dedications to the Constantinian Dynasty from Zeugitana
10.13125/caster/3848
La recente scoperta di una nuova iscrizione ad Aunobari conferma la diffusa abitudine di dedicare statue a Costantino da parte delle comunità africane, soprattutto dopo la vittoria su Massenzio; vengono analizzate alcune differenze nella titolatura rispetto a un testo quasi identico di Musti. L’autopsia di altre due iscrizioni della stessa area pubblicate nel 1895-1907 permette di aggiungere una documentazione fotografica, una descrizione dell’attuale stato di conservazione, nonché alcune nuove ipotesi su riutilizzo, funzione e provenienza.
application/pdf
2532-1110
3848
it
Enrico Zuddas
http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nd/4.0
Cartagine. Studi e Ricerche
Costantino
Dediche alla dinastia costantiniana dalla Zeugitana
Text.Serial.Journal
https://ojs.unica.it/index.php/caster
4
Schede e materiali
2019-10-15
2019-09-19
2019-01-01
2019-10-15
1
Enrico Zuddas
2019/10/15
10.13125/caster/3848
Università degli Studi di Perugia
2532-1110
Costantino
en
Dediche alla dinastia costantiniana dalla Zeugitana
https://ojs.unica.it/index.php/caster/article/download/3848/3397
4
Cartagine. Studi e Ricerche, 4 (2019)                                Sezione: Schede e materiali
Rivista della Scuola Archeologica Italiana di Cartagine              Articolo presentato il 19/09/2019
http://ojs.unica.it/index.php/caster/index                           Accettato in data 27/09/2019
issn 2532-1110; doi: 10.13125/caster/3848                            Pubblicato in data 15/10/2019




                                                                                                                 CaSteR, 4 (2019)




Dedications to the Constantinian Dynasty from Zeugitana*



Mariette de Vos Raaijmakers1, Enrico Zuddas2
1
    Dipartimento di Lettere e Filosofia, Laboratorio di Archeologia Classica, Università degli Studi di Trento
2
    Dipartimento di Lettere, Laboratorio di Epigrafia Latina, Università degli Studi di Perugia

email: mariette.raaymakers@unitn.it; enricozudd@yahoo.com.




    1. A new dedication from Aunobari
    A new inscription on a poorly preserved statue base found at Aunobari (site DU550, 7 km
NE of Musti, see map fig. 8)1 can now be read and integrated thanks to an almost identical
text found at Musti (AE 2015, 1838)2 and to photomodelling by Alessandro Battisti, who
applied ‘Structure from Motion’3. The dedication is engraved on a limestone bloc which was
re-used in a wall of a gourbi, on the hilltop of Aunobari (5 ha, 500 asl). The highroad a Kar-
thagine Thevestem passed 1.2 km SE of Aunobari, at a level of 85 m lower4. During the Byzan-
tine period, the settlement was transformed into a fortress, because of its strategic position;
the bloc was probably re-used as building material in that occasion. The protruding part and
moulding of the plinth were cut away, and the base was buried upside down: this is why the
first three lines are better preserved than the central and final part of the text.
    Measures (in cm): H. 153+ (plinth with moulding: 42; epigraphic field: 92; moulded
crowning partially buried: 19+), W. 47, D. 47. Letter height: 5 (l. 1) - 4 (ll. 2-7).
    The inscription has probably sixteen lines (fig. 1-2) and reads as follows:

    *Although conceived as a unit, this work has been divided into two paragraphs: the first is by Enrico Zuddas,
the second is by Mariette de Vos. Thanks to Werner Eck, Mario Torelli, Frank Wissel, Ralf Krumeich, Daphni
Doepner and Silvia Orlandi for scientific advice, to Alessandro Battisti for SfM elaboration.
    1
      Information on this site (and on other sites mentioned in this paper, substituting the last three numbers
with the site code): http://rusafricum.org/it/thuggasurvey/DU550/.
    2
      First published by Brandt (2015, an Italian version of the paper in Brandt 2016): Divinae virtutis at/que
clementiae perpet(uo) maximoque principi, / fundatori pacis aeter/nae, restitutori publi/cae salutis libertatis/que
communis / d(omino) n(ostro) Flavio Valerio / Constantino fortis/simo Imperatori, / municipium Iulium / Aurelium
Mustita/num d(evotum) n(umini) m(aiestatique) eius.
    3
      Description of SfM method and restoration of CIL VIII 27409 in Battisti et al. (2016), 49-50, fig. 2-5.
    4
      The road between the 83rd and 89th milestones S of Agbia and Aunobari (fig. 8) is described and illustrated
by de Vos Raaijmakers et al. (2015), 18-19, 95-116. For a history of the road: de Vos Raaijmakers (2019), 339-
345.

cc-by-nd
                     Mariette de Vos Raaijmakers, Enrico Zuddas




Fig. 1-2. Aunobari, site DU550, statue base with dedication to Constantine I (A. Battisti).



                                            2
                      Dedications to the Constantinian Dynasty from Zeugitana

         Divin̂ ae virtutiṣ
         ạtque clẹmentiae
         pẹrpetuo
             ̣         ṃạxiṃoque
         priṇc ̣ipi, fun[datori]
                        ̣
   5     pạc[is]
           ̣         aẹter[n]aẹ res[ti]=				
         [tut]or<i>q(ue) publi[cae]
         s[alut]is lịḅẹrṭatisqụe
                                  ̣
         communis (vac.)
         [d(omino) n(ostro) Flavio Valerio]
   10    [Constantino]
         [pio] fẹḷịci
                   ̣      invicto Ạ[ug(usto)]
         [- - - - - -]
         [res publica]
         [municipii Aunobar(itani)]
   15    [devota numini]
         [maiestatiq(ue) eius].

   Letters: R corrected from an original S (l. 1). Nexus INA (l. 1).
   The pretentious initial part coincides with that of the dedication of Musti (see note 2),
except for minimal differences (e.g., at line 6, –que after restitutor<i> does not appear in the
other inscription). As has been observed, it presents close analogies with the numismatic
and panegyric formulations: an official protocol to which the local communities indulged in
constructing inventive variants5. References to the clementia and the restored libertas parti-
cularly suit the period after the victory at the Milvian Bridge (less likely after Licinius’ defeat
in 324)6. In fact, soon after October 28th, 312 AD, despite the end of the sailing season,
Maxentius’ head was sent to Carthage, to prove that his reign was over. This was made ad
permulcendam Africam… quam maxime vivus adflixerat, because two years earlier he had des-
troyed Carthage, Cirta and other cities during the expedition against the usurper L. Domitius
Alexander7; after restoring his authority in Africa, Maxentius had severely punished and made
reprisals especially against those privileged by birth and wealth8.
   Africa’s outburst of joy over the death of Maxentius, frequently recorded in inscriptions9,
together with the very similarities of the Musti copy, make certain the identification of the
honored in Constantine, despite the name being practically illegible today. Although the


   5
       Tantillo (2017a), 133-134.
   6
       The epithet invictus (l. 11), which was replaced by victor in 324, lays against a chronology following Li-
cinius’ defeat.
    7
       Pan. IV [X], 32, 6-7, also for what follows; see also Origo Const. 4, 12. Although Constantine never
recognized Alexander, the two are named together as Augusti (with Alexander’s name first) on a milestone found
between Sicca Veneria and Naraggara, some 65 km W of Aunobari (CIL VIII 22183). For an overview of the
subject, see Salama (1954); Andreotti (1969); Aiello (1989); copy of the milestone in Salama (2002), 142.
    8
       Aur. Vict. Caes. 40, 18-19; Zosim. 2, 14, 2-4. Maxentius sent his praetorian prefect, Ceionius Rufius
Volusianus, with an army to Africa; the punitive expedition culminated in the destruction of Cirta, which was
later refounded by Constantine with the name of Constantina: Ruggeri (1999), 65-72 (with the analysis of the
inscriptions exalting the emperor for his building activity). During the purge Volusianus killed probably the
owner of the Passienus estate, in this way the name of his son, prefect of Rome in 365, appeared above the door
of the praedia 4.7 km E of Thibursicum Bure, site DU388: http://rusafricum.org/it/thuggasurvey/DU388/
DU388EP003/.
    9
       Grünewald (1990), 100-101; Van Dam (2011), 170-173 and note 24; Tantillo (2017a), 128-129; Lenski
(2016), 141-144.


                                                       3
                                Mariette de Vos Raaijmakers, Enrico Zuddas


expression divinae virtutis atque clementiae is an unusual iunctura10, a reference to his divina
virtus can be found in the dedication recently discovered at Thugga (AE 2003, 2014)11,
where the emperor is also presented as [extinctor ty]rannicae factionis et v[ictor?, defensor?
pro]vinciarum suarum atque urb[ium/is restitutor?]. Many citations of the emperor’s clemen-
cy are known12; the formulation fundator pacis aeternae, also used for Diocletian, is more
frequent for the Constantinian dynasty13, while the wording restitutor salutis is practically
exclusive to Constantine14.
    According to Brandt15, another point in favor of the dating between 312 and 315 AD is
the presence of the Maximus title16: however, it should be noted that we are dealing here with
a formulation (ll. 3-4: perpetuo maximoque principi) that does not conform to the official
titulature but could constitute a generic affirmation of power – where perpetuus refers to the
motif of an endless continuity of the prince and his reign, locked in a perpetuum saeculum
aureum17 – without a specific claim to primacy18.
    The Aunobari copy seems to feature the “regular” protocol form, in use until 324, with
the titles Pius Felix Augustus, adopted in the West since 307, when Constantine was elevated
by Maximian (in exchange for Maxentius’ recognition), plus Invictus, added in 31019. This
is a striking difference with Musti’s copy, which instead shows a protocol irregularity, in the
absence of the Augustus title. In fact, it cannot date back to the time when Constantine only
had the Caesar rank20: not only even this one is absent here, but formally, the title imperator
recorded in the inscription can only be held by an Augustus; as we have seen, the opening
formulas refer to a period after Maxentius’ defeat.
   10
        But cf. CIL VIII 210 = 11299 (clementia temporis et virtute divina of Constantine and Licinius, restorers
of the arch in colonia Cillitana after Maxentius’ defeat).
     11
        The new inscription validates the integration [principi] proposed by Khanoussi, Mastino (2003), 427
although in the absence of direct comparisons.
     12
        Grünewald (1990), 47; CIL VI 40770 and VIII 1179 = 14309 (both 324 AD); see also CIL VI 1134,
1143 (clementissimus). On the connection between virtutes and the emperor’s public image see Maranesi (2013),
103-107.
     13
        Mastino, Ibba (2012), 197-209.
     14
        CIL VIII 15451 (312 AD), on which Mastino, Teatini (2001), 284-285 (and 280-289 on the profusion of
triumph formulas after the battle at the Milvian Bridge); IRT 54; ILTun 813; CIL XIV 131 (restitutori publicae
libertatis… communis omnium salutis auctori); CIL VI 1145 (fundatori pacis et restitutori publicae libertatis) and
1146 (fundatori pacis et restitutori rei publicae, 330-337 AD). Restitutor libertatis often recurs for Magnentius.
     15
        Brandt (2015), 306; Id. (2016), 104.
     16
        As known, Lactantius (mort. pers. 44, 10) records that during the fall of 312 the primi nominis titulus was
granted by the Senate virtutis gratia (cf. line 1: virtutis).
     17
        Arnaldi (1980), 96-107, part. 102 (legend PERPETVO PRINCIPI in coins dating 315 and 318-320)
and 105-107 (the epithet replaces aeternus, for its more nuanced connection to the divinity). Aeternuus and
perpetuus are among the many epithets that express the idea of universality in Constantine’s power, emphasizing
its extension over time: Mastino (1986), 108-111.
     18
        Grünewald (1990), 88-92. The title, sporadically used since 313, is stabilized in June 315: Kienast
et al. (20176), 287. Tantillo (2017a), 147 underlines the absence of this title in the Thugga dedication (see
above), which should in any case belong to the same historical context (Khanoussi, Mastino 2003, 428-431; a
possibility that the inscription might reflect a reminiscence of the victory over Licinius, coming from the title
victor possibly recorded at line 2, is discussed by U. Gehn in LSA 92).
     19
        Grünewald (1990), 35, 54; Ehrhardt (1980); Gregori, Filippini (2013), 518.
     20
        In 306-307, Constantine, acclaimed by the soldiers, only accepted the title of Caesar in order not to
offend Galerius’ susceptibility; in 309, after Carnuntum, Constantine was once again degraded to Caesar and
rewarded of the title of filius Augustorum, together with Maximinus Daia, but he kept his Augustus title in the
West; the title of Augustus was permanently obtained from Galerius in 310. On the position of Constantine
within the tetrarchy and on the evolution of his power see Stefan (2006), Corcoran (2012), Roberto (2013).


                                                        4
                      Dedications to the Constantinian Dynasty from Zeugitana

    The omission of the title is remarkable; a recent statistical survey has highlighted the
almost constant presence of Caesar or Augustus for the years 306-324 in Constantine’s
epigraphic sources21. A parallelism has been established22 with a milestone from via Valeria23,
but in the latter the absence only depends on a mistake by the engraver (who may have
skipped the word) or a bad reading of a palimpsest (as evidenced by AE 1990, 224b, from the
same location, which has an identical text, but with Augg.). On the contrary, a comparison
with the Egyptian dedication CIL III 6633 is more appropriate, where the emperors of the
third tetrarchy (306-307) are divided into two categories: Maximiano [i.e. Galerio] et Severo
imperatoribus et Maximino et Constantino nobilissimis Caesaribus24.
    Anyhow, domino nostro Flavio Valerio Constantino fortissimo imperatori in the Musti
dedication is a unique formulation in all Constantinian epigraphy, not only because Imperator
is rather expected to appear in the opening formulas, but also because in that position
fortissimus is more convenient to a Caesar. It is not possible to give an explanation to this
formulation, especially after the new text from Aunobari shows that it was adopted only by
Musti. Even though the inscriptions may come as an immediate celebration of Constantine’s
victory, which seems to have had a capillary impact also on small sites in the African rural
hinterland, the protocols used seem to reflect urban models officially disclosed25.
    One thing seems quite certain: Musti and Aunobari pose dedications together,
simultaneously, as shown by the fact that not only we have the Constantinian twin
inscriptions, but also those, really identical, for Constantius Chlorus nobilissimus Caesar (AE
2015, 1837 and CIL VIII 15563) that belong to a different era (by 305, the first tetrarchy);
in fact, it is thanks to the Constantius’ dedication (engraved on a statue base broken into two
pieces found at Aunobari between 1885-1888, and now lost)26 that we are able to integrate
without doubt the lines 13-16. The poor quality of the Aunobari inscription may be due to
the modesty of the settlement, incapable to emulate the richer municipality in the vicinity.
    Constantine had planned to visit Africa in the years 315-316, but never went there;
his absence however did not reduce the number of inscriptions: more than 30 statues in
Zeugitana, Byzacena and Numidia (listed according to the quantities) are dedicated to him27.



   21
        Maranesi (2013), 108-110; the scholar does not record any case of absence of the title (with the exception
of CIL VIII 22114/5, which, however, is incomplete). He establishes a difference with the panegyrics: in that of
310 the term Augustus appears in a very insistent way (to accentuate Constantine’s legitimacy), in that of 312 it
coexists with the more frequent Imperator (5 occurrences versus 14), and then disappears completely in that of
321: nevertheless, it does not seem convincing that this substitution reflects the distancing from the tetrarchic
optics to underline a dynastic conception of power.
     22
        Brandt (2015), 306; Id. (2016), 104.
     23
        EE VIII 833: dd(ominis) nn(ostris) Constantino Maximo et Val(erio) Liciniano Licinio et Fl(avio) Crispo et
Val(erio) Liciniano Licinio et Fl(avio) Cl(audio) Constantino nobb(ilissimis) Caess(aribus) b(ono) r(ei) p(ublicae)
natis.
     24
        No support can be provided by the Sardinian milestone AE 2014, 543, where the word imperatori
following the onomastic formula (instead of Augusto) seems to be pertinent to an imperial salutation: the text is
incomplete and the resulting reading (Lai 2014) is not acceptable in itself, since the filiation Constantini maximi
filio, without divi, contradicts the dating 355-356 AD.
     25
        Tantillo (2017a), 149.
     26
        CIL VIII 15563 = LSA 1831 [G. de Bruyn]: D(omino) n(ostro) / M(arco) Fl[a]vio / Valerio / Constantio /
nob(ilissimo) Caes(ari) / res publica / municipii / Aunobaritani / devota numi/ni maiestati/que eius.
     27
        See the statistics and lists collected by Tantillo (2017b), 220 and 245-250. Africa equals Italy numerically
in Constantinian epigraphy: Gregori, Filippini (2013), 525.


                                                         5
                                 Mariette de Vos Raaijmakers, Enrico Zuddas


   2. A re-reading of two African dedications

    CIL VIII 27415
    Architrave with dedication to Constantine and Licinius (fig. 3-4), discovered in a rural site
(Sidi Bou Atrous, DU741, see map fig. 8), 2.8 km S of Agbia, near wadi Mansoura, and 2.5
km from the next rural site DU744. The left half of the block was cut away and lost between
1907 and 1916, when the dedication was published in CIL VIII, Suppl. IV (partis intuenti
sinistrae ectypum contulimus): of the initial length, equal to 280 cm, only 140 cm are now
preserved; the visible height is also reduced from 45 to 35, because 10 cm have been buried
and covered by a concrete floor, which prevents from checking if the bottom side is eventually
a cut-out door lintel. Currently we have only the right good half of line 1. Its right margin is
chipped, with the loss of the last two letters.
    Measures (in cm): H. 46; W. 140 (2013; originally 280 cm according to CIL); D. 53.
Letter height: 9; T longae (10-12.5).
    Further editions: Carton (1895), 49-50, n. 49; Zeiller (1903), 194, n. 19; Merlin (1907),
208.

   Salvis et propiti(i)s dd(ominis) nn(ostris) Coṇstantino maxiṃo et Licinio Aug̣g(ustis).
   Res p(ublica) municipi Ag(biensium).
   CALVE[- - -?].

   L. 1. PROPITIIS Carton, Merlin; PROP+IS Zeiller; PROPITIS CIL.
   L. 2. Ag(biae) Carton; Ag[biensium] CIL. Even if written in full, the word would in any
case fall within the now lost left part. According to Merlin, the line is complete: in that case
the poleonym AG would have been abbreviated (or, at the most, left incomplete).
   L. 3. CALVE Merlin, CIL; SALVE Carton; ACCALVE Zeiller (on line 2).

    The inscription should be dated after the defeat of Maximinus Daia on April 30, 313 (or
after his death in the following July), at the start of the new diarchy; the terminus ante quem
is provided by the Caesars’ elevation on March 317 (but may be moved back to October 316,
that is before the rift between Licinius and Constantine, that led to the bellum Cybalense)28.
    Licinius’ name has been handed down as erased in previous editions, but in reality it is still
legible, the somewhat weathered surface of the stone in this section does not show evident
hammering traces: it could be the case of omitted hammering, following the damnatio
memoriae after his definitive defeat in 32429, or a very bland execution of the chipping of the
name.
    We are unable to determine the exact layout of the text; if aligned to the left (Merlin,
Zeiller, CIL; line 3 is centered according to Carton)30, it is not suited to an architrave, nor
to a statue base: nevertheless, the not centered second line in CIL VI 1184 (AD 379-383)

   28
       Grünewald (1990), 109-112. On the chronology of the war: Bratož (2014), 104-107.
   29
       On Licinius’s damnatio see Eus. HE 10, 9, 5: οὐκέτ̓ ἦσαν, οὐδὲ μέχρις ὀνόματος μνημονευόμενοι,
γραφαί τε αὐτῶν καὶ τιμαὶ τὴν ἀξίαν αἰσχύνην ἀπελάμβανον. For a contextualization of this passage in the
Historia Ecclesiastica see Cristofoli (2010). List of erased inscriptions in Diz. Ep. IV.2, 1030 [R. Andreotti]; the
name is not erased, e.g., in CIL X 7950.
    30
       Of these editors, Carton, a military doctor with a passion for archaeology, is often the most reliable:
Hanoune (2017). Alfred Merlin, still not in his thirties, arrived in Tunisia in 1904-05 with the ministerial task
of revising the inscriptions published in CIL VIII: Tessier (1965), 488-489.


                                                         6
                    Dedications to the Constantinian Dynasty from Zeugitana




                          Fig. 3-4. Sidi Bou Atrous, site DU741, architrave with
                          dedication to Constantine I and Licinius (A. Battisti).


testimonies how the layout rules become less stringent during the 4th century and offers an
example of the use of an architrave as a base for a bronze statue group31.
    The reading of line 3 is the most problematic, to the point that Dessau suspected that
the block had been abandoned because of the errors in the text: fortasse titulus propter menda
imperfectus relictus. The indication of the executor (a Calventius?) after the name of the
dedicating community is the most likely explanation, even if it is not supported by the current
state of the stone (curante is missing at the beginning of the line, which is said to be complete
by Merlin). Carton’s reading salve could well fit the architrave’s use as a monumental entrance
along the road from Agbia to the ancient site Sidi Bou Atrous, but no similar examples of
such a greeting formula are known: the expression salve opening a dedication to Gratian from
Agbia itself (CIL VIII 1552), despite Wilmanns’ hesitation in CIL, must certainly be corrected
in salvo/salvis or [pro] salu[t]e32. The dedication by the municipium of Agbia could eventually
have been intended to mark the territorial competence on the entrance to the imperial estate
attested in the nearby Pagus Thac[---], now Ain Teki (see below, notes 40-41); three or four
arches, possible entrances to imperial properties, are in fact identifiable in the area33. Carton,

   31
      Bauer (1999), specially fig. 16; LSA 1294 [C. Machado] = EDR129612 [11/07/2013, I. Grossi].
   32
      Nor can any help come from the corrupt form salverant in a fragmentary dedication to Valentinian,
Theodosius and Arcadius (AE 1981, 871).
   33
      CIL VIII 25955, arch dedicated to Hadrian, entrance to Glia, site DU395, identified by Carcopino
(1906), 430 as centre of the saltus in which he found the Ain Djemala copy of the lex Hadriana (CIL VIII
25943); CIL VIII 15516a-b along the via a Karthagine Thevestem next to the estate AVGG. NN. (AE 1922, 55);


                                                    7
                                Mariette de Vos Raaijmakers, Enrico Zuddas


the discoverer of the stone, considered it without hesitation a lintel of an entrance; he was
inspired probably by a similar lintel (H. 43, L. 436, D. 66 cm), without mouldings, found by
him 12 km N of site DU744 still in situ above the entrance to the praedia Pullaienorum34. The
via a Karthagine Thevestem bordered the W limit of the imperial estate as suggested through
the 86th and 89th milestones bearing the name of Decius in the genitive case, as probable
reference to the imperial property alongside the road. Decius’ 86th milestone is situated at the
same latitude as the dedication to Constantine and Licinius CIL VIII 27415; Decius’ 85th
milestone with the emperor’s name in nominative is outside the imperial property35.

   ILAfr 593
   A limestone base for a statue, honoring Constantius II as Caesar – one of the few36 so far
known throughout the Empire for the years 324-337 AD – found in 1920 in the orchard of
a farm near Ain Teki (site DU744, see map fig. 8) occupied by Monsieur Jousse. The front
face of the rectangular base is re-inscribed within a moulded panel from which a previous
inscription seems to have been erased. The moulding consists of two tori instead of the usual
cymation. A protruding moulded crowning (taenia - cyma recta - cavetto) and a square plinth
constitute the top of the shaft. The tooth chiseled surface of the vertical face of the plinth
differs from that of the epigraphic field on the shaft, illustrating its reuse. The top face of the
plinth presents oblong sockets for inserting a life-size standing statue of Constantius II: two
large and deep sockets (W. ca. 8 and 10 cm), three smaller ones (ca. 5 cm) and a shallow,
sloping one (5 cm). Four were for the feet, while the two front ones were used for the fixing
of attributes, like a hasta or vexillum37; some of them may be in part due to the former use of
the base.
   Measures (in cm): H. 77, W. 39, D. 39; epigraphic field 44+ x 30. Letter height 6.5. L. 3,
centre: T longa (6.8).
   Further bibliography: Poinssot (1920), CCXV-CCXVI; LSA 1834 [G. de Bruyn].
   The inscription has six surviving lines (fig. 5-7), which read as follows:

         D(omino) n(ostro)
         Flavio Iulio
         Constantio
         nobilissi=
   5     mo Caesa=				
         ri, res pub[l(ica)]			
         ------



CIL VIII 15572 (Musti), near Ain Gueliane (Abid 2016), arch honoring Gordian III with statues upon it (line
4: superpositis statuis: Beschaouch 1969); CIL VIII 16417, Henchir el-Oust, 8 km S of Musti, entrance to fundus
Turris Rutundae (Saumagne 1927, Beschaouch 1981, 107). For inscribed arches as entrance to an imperial estate
see the arcuus duo of the saltus Massipianus at Henchir el Goussa (CIL VIII 587); Ben Baaziz (2005), 35-36 (site
067.073).
    34
       CIL VIII 26415; http://rusafricum.org/it/thuggasurvey/DU142/DU142EP001/.
    35
       de Vos Raaijmakers et al. (2015), 101, fig. 127-129, Pl. Va: 85th milestone; 102, fig. 130-131, Pl. Vb: 86th
milestone.
    36
       The other ones are CIL VIII 8932 = LSA 2555 [G. de Bruyn], found at Saldae (Mauretania Sitifensis);
CIL III 5208 = LSA 1135 [U. Gehn] from Noricum; CIL II 4108 = LSA 1982 [C. Witschel] from Tarraco.
    37
       Cf. Bauer (1999), 221-226, Abb. 8-11a-b.


                                                        8
      Dedications to the Constantinian Dynasty from Zeugitana




Fig. 5-7. Site DU744, statue base with dedication to Constantius II (A. Battisti).




                                        9
                                Mariette de Vos Raaijmakers, Enrico Zuddas




                       Fig. 8. Map of the region of Aunobari, Agbia and Pagus Thac[---],
                             sites DU741 and DU744 are underlined (A. Battisti).




    The last lines with mention of the dedicator are missing. The discoverer of the inscription
(L. Poinssot) supposed that the base came from Aunobari (3.2 km NO from the site)38.
However, a provenance from the closer (only 0.6 km away) Pagus Thac[---] is possible. This
pagus is mentioned in a dedication to Minerva pro salute of the Severan emperors (AE 1932,
15) by Patroclus, the same imperial libertus and procurator of an inscription found in the
imperial estate at Ain Wassel39. Pagus Thac[---] had the status of pagus under the Severan
emperors; its decuriones appear in a dedication of an arch to Caelestis40; during the 3rd cent.
or under Constantine it could have been promoted to res publica, like two other pagi at a
distance of only 13 and 21 km: Uchi Maius, pagus in 161, 164 (CIL VIII 26252; AE 1997,
1666) and res publica in 166-169 and 179-180 (AE 2012, 1882; CIL VIII 26253); Thibari,
pagus in 195-198 (CIL VIII 26179, 26180, 26185) and res publica in 228 (ILAfr 511)41. That
is why an alternative integration res publica Thaciensium (with the name of the community,
as in CIL VIII 20155 and others) cannot be excluded.



   38
      Poinssot (1920); the integration is accepted in LSA 1834 [G. de Bruyn]. Cf. CIL VIII 15563 (see above,
note 26) and AE 2001, 2082a: r(es) p(ublica) A(unobaritanorum).
   39
      CIL VIII 26416; http://rusafricum.org/it/thuggasurvey/DU025/DU025EP010/.
   40
      CIL VIII 27416, ll. 1-4: Cael[esti ---] / arcum cu[m ---] / pagus Thac[---] / fecit d(ecreto) d(ecurionum).
Gascou (1979), 386-387, 391-395; Aounallah (2010), 117.
   41
      Aounallah (2010), 74-77, 79-80, 130-134.


                                                      10
                       Dedications to the Constantinian Dynasty from Zeugitana

Bibliography


Abid H. (2016), Aïn el Gueliane: le centre d’un domaine impériale aux environs de Mustis?, in Peuplement, ter-
   ritoire et culture matérielle dans l’espace méditerranéen, Actes du V Colloque International (Kairouan, 15-17
   avril 2014), Boukhchim N., Ben Nasr J. [eds], Tunis, 99-114.
Aiello V. (1989), Costantino, Lucio Domizio Alessandro e Cirta: un caso di rielaborazione storiografica, in
    L’Africa romana, Atti del VI Convegno di studio (Sassari, 16-18 dicembre 1988), Mastino A. [ed.], Sassari :
    Gallizzi, 179-196.
Andreotti R. (1969), Problemi di epigrafia costantiniana I: la presunta alleanza con l’usurpatore Lucio Domizio
   Alessandro, Epigraphica, 31, 144-180.
Arnaldi A. (1980), Motivi di celebrazione imperiale su monete e epigrafi, Rivista Italiana di Numismatica, 82,
   85-107.
Aounallah S. (2010), Pagus, castellum et civitas. Étude d’épigraphie et d’histoire sur le village et la cité en Afrique
   romaine, Bordeaux : Ausonius.
Battisti A., Pepe C., de Vos M. (2016), A harmonious marriage in Africa: the funeral carmen of Lucius and Iulia
   (CIL 8.27409 = CLE 1972) reconsidered, Zeitschrift für Papyrologie und Epigraphik, 199, 44-51.
Bauer F.A. (1999), Das Denkmal der Kaiser Gratian, Valentinian II. und Theodosius am Forum Romanum,
   Mitteilungen des Deutschen Archäologischen Instituts, Abteilung Rom, 106, 213-234.
Ben Baaziz, S. (2005), Carte Nationale des sites archéologiques et des monuments historiques. Thala 067, Tunis :
   Institut National du Patrimoine (http://www.inp.rnrt.tn/Carte_archeo/pdf/Fr/067ThalaFr.pdf ).
Beschaouch A. (1969), La dédicace de l’arc de Mustis, Bulletin de la Société Nationale des Antiquaires de France,
   1967, 273-274.
Beschaouch A. (1981), Le territoire de Sicca Veneria (El-Kef ), nouvelle Cirta, en Numidie proconsulaire (Tuni-
   sie), Comptes Rendus de l’Academie des Inscriptions et Belles-lettres, 125.1, 105-122.
Brandt H. (2015), Konstantin der Große in einer Ehrung aus Mustis, Zeitschrift für Papyrologie und Epigraphik,
   193, 304-309.
Brandt H. (2016), Un’iscrizione inedita per Costantino il Grande da Mustis (Tunisia), in Fra Costantino e i
   Vandali, Atti del Convegno Internazionale di Studi per Enzo Aiello (1957-2013), (Messina, 29-30 ottobre
   2014), De Salvo L., Caliri E., Casella M. [eds], Bari : Edipuglia, 101-106.
Bratož R. (2014), Costantino tra l’Italia nordorientale e l’Illirico (313-326), in Costantino il Grande a 1700 anni
   dall’“Editto di Milano” (Antichità Altoadriatiche, 78), Cuscito G. [ed.], Trieste : Editreg, 95-128.
Carcopino J. (1906), L’inscription d’Aïn-el-Djemala. Contribution à l’histoire des saltus africains et du colonat
   partiaire, Mélanges de l’École Française de Rome. Antiquité, 26, 65-481.
Carton L. (1895), Découvertes épigraphiques et archéologiques en Tunisie (région de Dougga), Paris : Leroux.
Cristofoli R. (2010), Religione e strumentalizzazione politica: Costantino e la propaganda contro Licinio, in
   Istituzioni, carismi ed esercizio del potere (IV-VI sec. d.C.), Bonamente G., Lizzi Testa R. [eds], Bari : Edipu-
   glia, 155-172.
Corcoran S. (2012), Grappling with the Hydra: co-ordination and conflict in the management of Tetrarchic
   succession, in Costantino prima e dopo Costantino: Constantine Before and After Constantine, Bonamente G.,
   Lenski N., Lizzi Testa R. [eds], Bari : Edipuglia, 3-15.
de Vos Raaijmakers M., Attoui R., Battisti A. (2015), Rus Africum III. La Via a Karthagine Thevestem, ses mil-
   liaires et le réseau routier rural de la région autour de Dougga et Téboursouk, Bari : Edipuglia.
de Vos Raaijmakers M. (2019), Twin Roads: the Road Carthage-Theveste and the via nova Rusicadensis; some
   Observations and Questions, in Roman Roads. New Evidences – New Perspectives, Kolb A. [ed.], Berlin-Bos-
   ton : de Gruyter, 338-374.



                                                         11
                                 Mariette de Vos Raaijmakers, Enrico Zuddas


EDR, Epigraphic Database Roma, http://www.edr-edr.it/.
Ehrhardt C.T.H.R. (1980), “Maximus”, “Invictus” und “Victor” als Datierungskriterien auf Inschriften Kon-
   stantins des Großen, Zeitschrift für Papyrologie und Epigraphik, 38, 177-181.
Gascou J. (1979), L’emploi du terme respublica dans l’épigraphie latine d’Afrique, Mélanges de l’École Française
   de Rome. Antiquité, 91.1, 383-398.
Gregori G., Filippini A. (2013), L’epigrafia costantiniana. La figura di Costantino e la propaganda imperiale, in
   Costantino I. Enciclopedia costantiniana sulla figura e l’immagine dell’imperatore del cosiddetto editto di Milano
   313-2013, vol. I, Roma : Treccani, 517-541.
Grünewald T. (1990), Constantinus Maximus Augustus. Herrschaftspropaganda in der zeitgenössischen Überlie-
   ferung, Stuttgart : Steiner.
Hanoune R. (2017), Louis Carton, d’après quelques documents d’archives, in Louis Carton, de Saint-Omer à
  Tunis, Podvin J.-L. [ed.], Aachen : Shaker, 99-112.
Khanoussi M., Mastino A. (2003), Il culto imperiale a Thibaris ed a Thugga tra Diocleziano e Costantino, in
   Usi e abusi epigrafici, Atti del Colloquio internazionale di epigrafia latina (Genova, 20-22 settembre 2001),
   Angeli Bertinelli M.G., Donati A. [eds], Roma : Bretschneider, 411-436.
Kienast D., Eck W., Heil M. (2017), Römische Kaisertabelle. Grundzüge einer römischen Kaiserchronologie, 6.,
   überarbeitete Auflage, Darmstadt : Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft.
Lai F. (2014), Miliaria Sardiniae: riedizione di un miliario di Costanzo II, Epigraphica, 76, 533-537.
Lenski N. (2016), Constantine and the Cities. Imperial Authority and Civic Politics, Philadelphia : University of
   Pennsylvania Press.
LSA, The Last Statues of Antiquity, http://laststatues.classics.ox.ac.uk/ Oxford, Smith R.R.R., Ward-Perkins B.
   (dir).
Maranesi A. (2013), Consensus e virtutes nella prima età costantiniana, Aevum, 87, 99-112.
Mastino A. (1986), Orbis, κόσμος, οἰκουμένη: aspetti spaziali dell’idea di impero universale da Augusto a
  Teodosio, in Popoli e spazio romano tra diritto e profezia, Atti del III Seminario “Da Roma alla terza Roma”
  (Roma, 21-23 aprile 1983), Napoli : Edizioni Scientifiche Italiane, 63-162.
Mastino A., Teatini A. (2001), Ancora sul discusso «trionfo» di Costantino dopo la battaglia del Ponte Milvio.
  Nota a proposito di CIL, VIII 9356 = 20941 (Caesarea), in Varia Epigraphica, Atti del Colloquio interna-
  zionale di epigrafia (Bertinoro, 8-10 giugno 2000), Angeli Bertinelli M.G., Donati A. [eds], Faenza : F.lli
  Lega, 273-327.
Mastino A., Ibba A. (2012), L’imperatore pacator orbis, in Pignora Amicitiae. Scritti di storia antica e di storio-
  grafia offerti a Mario Mazza, III, Cassia M., Giuffrida C., Molè C., Pinzone A. [eds], Roma : Bonanno,
  139-212.
Merlin A. (1907), Rapport sur les inscriptions latines de la Tunisie découvertes depuis la publication du Supplé-
  ment du CIL, Nouvelles Archives des Missions Scientifiques, 14, 125-228.
Poinssot L. (1920), Renseignements sur les fouilles de Dougga, Bulletin Archéologique du Comité des Travaux
   Historiques et Scientifiques, CCXV-CCXVI.
Roberto U. (2013), La carriera di un imperatore. Dal fallimento della tetrarchia alla monarchia carismatica, in
   Costantino I. Enciclopedia costantiniana sulla figura e l’immagine dell’imperatore del cosiddetto editto di Milano
   313-2013, vol. I, Roma : Treccani, 53-68.
Ruggeri P. (1999), Costantino conditor urbis: la distruzione di Cirta da parte di Massenzio e la nuova Constan-
   tina, in Africa ipsa parens illa Sardiniae. Studi di storia antica e di epigrafia, Sassari : EDES, 61-72.
Salama P. (1954), À propos de l’usurpateur africain L. Domitius Alexander, Bulletin Antieke Beschaving, 29,
    67-74.
Salama P. (2002), Les provinces d’Afrique et les débuts du monogramme constantinien, Bulletin de la Société
    Nationale des Antiquaires de France, 1998, 137-159.


                                                        12
                      Dedications to the Constantinian Dynasty from Zeugitana

Saumagne Ch. (1927), Le domaine impérial de la “Tour Ronde”, Bulletin Archéologique du Comité des Travaux
   Historiques et Scientifiques, 103-108.
Stefan A. (2006), Les jeux d’alliances des tétrarques en 307-309 et l’élévation de Constantin au rang d’Auguste,
    Antiquité Tardive, 14, 187-216.
Tantillo I. (2017a), Costantino nell’epigrafia delle province africane, con particolare riferimento al periodo suc-
   cessivo alla battaglia di Ponte Milvio, in Costantino a Milano. L’editto e la sua storia (313-2013), Macchioro
   R. [ed.], Milano : Bulzoni, 125-150.
Tantillo I. (2017b), La trasformazione del paesaggio epigrafico nelle città dell’Africa romana, con particolare
   riferimento al caso di Leptis Magna (Tripolitana), in The Epigraphic Cultures of Late Antiquity, Bolle K.,
   Machado C., Witschel C. [eds], Stuttgart : Steiner, 213-270.
Tessier G. (1965), Notice sur la vie et les travaux de M. Alfred Merlin, Secrétaire perpétuel honoraire de l’Aca-
   démie, Comptes Rendus de l’Académie des Inscriptions et Belles-lettres, 109.2, 482-494.
Van Dam R. (2011), Remembering Constantine at the Milvian Bridge, Cambridge : Cambridge University Press.
Zeiller M.J. (1903), Inscriptions latines d’Afrique, Bulletin Archéologique du Comité des Travaux Historiques et
    Scientifiques, 184-201.




                                                       13
                            Mariette de Vos Raaijmakers, Enrico Zuddas




Riassunto /Abstract



    Riassunto: La recente scoperta di una nuova iscrizione ad Aunobari conferma la diffusa
abitudine di dedicare statue a Costantino da parte delle comunità africane, soprattutto dopo la
vittoria su Massenzio; vengono analizzate alcune differenze nella titolatura rispetto a un testo
quasi identico di Musti. L’autopsia di altre due iscrizioni della stessa area pubblicate nel 1895-
1907 permette di aggiungere una documentazione fotografica, una descrizione dell’attuale
stato di conservazione, nonché alcune nuove ipotesi su riutilizzo, funzione e provenienza.

   Abstract: The recent discovery of a new inscription at Aunobari confirms the widespread
dedication of statues in honor of Constantine by the African communities, especially after
the victory over Maxentius; some titulature differences with an almost identical text from
Musti are also analyzed. The autopsy of two other inscriptions from the same area published
in 1895-1907 permits to add a photographic documentation, a description of the current
preservation state as well as some new assumptions about reuse, function and provenance.

   Keywords: Costantino; Licinio; Costanzo II; titolatura imperiale; dedica di statue; Africa
Proconsularis Zeugitana; Aunobari; Agbia.

   Parole chiave: Constantine; Licinius; Constantius II; imperial titulature; statue dedications;
Africa Proconsularis Zeugitana; Aunobari; Agbia.



   Come citare questo articolo / How to cite this paper
   Mariette de Vos Raaijmakers, Enrico Zuddas, Dedications to the Constantinian Dynasty
from Zeugitana, CaSteR 4 (2019), doi: 10.13125/caster/3848, http://ojs.unica.it/index.php/
caster/




                                               14
