10.13125/caster/4889
Questo contributo esamina alcune dinamiche politico-istituzionali, culturali e religiose nelle aree di confine della Tripolitania romana. Il sito di Ghirza, in particolare, offre spunti sulle forme e i contenuti dello scambio interculturale tra i gruppi nativi e i Romano-Bizantini. L’insediamento era anche cruciale per il controllo politico e territoriale dell’amministrazione romana in quelle aree marginali. Alcuni dei rilievi sui mausolei locali mostrano scene cerimoniali riguardanti l’investitura di alcuni capi. Gli studiosi hanno suggerito che la raffigurazione possa riferirsi a un magistrato romano, in qualità di praefectus o princeps gentis. Questo studio mira a definire meglio i poteri relativi al capo tribale di Ghirza. Tenta di individuare le più antiche basi giuridico-istituzionali su cui questa carica poté essere stata radicata. Il governo romano nelle zone di frontiera fungeva da garanzia di legittimità politica nella gestione delle confederazioni di tribù che gravitavano sul limes romano. In questo senso, questa ricerca intende identificare i “fossili” residuali delle magistrature etrusco-italiche che in contesti di frontiera erano molto più adatte delle magistrature romane ad una gestione politica indiretta.
&nbsp;
application/pdf
2532-1110
4889
en
Orietta Dora Cordovana
http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nd/4.0
Cartagine. Studi e Ricerche
magistrature
‘Fossils’ of political institutions. Rome and Tripolitanian marginal areas during Late Antiquity
Text.Serial.Journal
https://ojs.unica.it/index.php/caster
7
Saggi e studi
2022-04-20
2021-07-21
2022-04-14
2022-04-20
1
Orietta Dora Cordovana
2022/04/20
10.13125/caster/4889
2532-1110
magistrature
en
‘Fossils’ of political institutions. Rome and Tripolitanian marginal areas during Late Antiquity
https://ojs.unica.it/index.php/caster/article/download/4889/5099
7
Cartagine. Studi e Ricerche, 7 (2022)                      Sezione: Saggi e Studi
Rivista della Scuola Archeologica Italiana di Cartagine    Articolo presentato il 21/07/2021
http://ojs.unica.it/index.php/caster/index                 Accettato in data 02/02/2022
issn 2532-1110; doi: 10.13125/caster/4889                  Pubblicato in data 20/04/2022




                                                                                                    CaSteR, 7 (2022)




‘Fossils’ of political institutions.
Rome and Tripolitanian marginal areas during Late Antiquity

Orietta Dora Cordovana
Università di Roma TRE
mail: orietta.d.cordovana@gmail.com




                                                              “Ogni conquista poneva a Roma un nuovo problema:
                                                                ma era problema di compromesso e di convivenza,
                                                                             non di soppressione e di distruzione”
                                                                                          Mazzarino (2001), 125


It is widely recognised by several scholars that the settlement of Ghirza provides us with cru-
cial evidence in the understanding of the socio-economic and cultural dynamics between the
native populations and the Roman central government, especially in marginal and frontier
areas. In addition to the first systematic analysis and publication by Olwen Brogan and David
Smith, the archaeological evidence and the material culture of this town have shed light on
some of the distinctive features of social exchanges in semi-desert areas, primarily during Late
Antiquity1. The characteristics of the local culture have already been carefully highlighted by
experts of architectural decoration and via the analysis of the artistic and archaeological con-
texts. This paper, therefore, will draw attention to those archaeological elements that allows
us to identify the political institutions of Ghirza, a civitas of the pre-desert. The term civitas
should not be attributed to a specific legal statute that the Romans granted to the commu-
nity. The settlement was clearly outside the ‘direct’ political and administrative control of
the Roman state. On the contrary, civitas is a technical legal term for any community (i.e.
confederations of tribes, urban communities), that represented a legal entity recognised per
se. The concept and its value are clear in Pomponius, when he refers to territorium and civitas
in a technical sense of public law sense, without intending any specific Roman legal statute:

    1
     Literature is substantial especially from the Italian colonial period in Libya onwards. See Fantoli (1927),
43-51; Romanelli (1930), 53-75; Corò (1934), 51; Bauer (1935), 61-78; Vergara-Caffarelli (1960), 866-869;
Zimmer (1981), 3-10; Brogan, Smith (1984). Further evidence also emerged after the Italian mission in the
semi-desert area under the direction of Luisa Musso: Fontana, Munzi, Ricci (1996), 67-72; Fontana (1997),
149-162. Recent contributions are by Munzi, Felici, Cirelli, Schingo, Zocchi (2010), 725-748; Mattingly
(2011), 246-268; Bentivogli (2015), 2139-2154; Di Vita (2015), 1-38.

cc-by-nd
                                            Orietta Dora Cordovana


        ‘territory’ (territorium) is the totality of the fields within the boundaries of any community
        (civitas) and some people say that this is derived from the fact that the magistrates of the place
        concerned have the right within its boundaries of terrifying, that is suppressing2.

   On the basis of this premise, this contribution focuses more on the political and adminis-
trative peculiarities of the settlement than on any stylistic and iconographic elements derived
from the analysis of the archaeological evidence.
   A comparison with literary sources, visual culture, and archaeological data can be funda-
mental in reconstructing certain aspects of the town’s administrative history. At a methodo-
logical level, this analysis follows in the footsteps of two eminent historians, Santo Mazzarino
and Yves Modéran, who have made a significant impact in the study of Roman institutions
and cultural exchanges in the Roman empire. Within this framework, this paper intends to
highlight the peculiarities of the territorial contexts, while analysing the arrangements of the
central government in controlling the movement of tribes in marginal areas via a policy of
indirect control. This analysis thus challenges the traditional view of Roman borders as being
nothing more than linear boundaries or buffer zones. The structure of the limes Tripolitanus
was highly complex and rather than establishing a fixed line, it mainly resembled more a
patchwork of lands of different legal status3.
    1. Legal statutes of lands in Tripolitania, a premise
    The legal status of the land can be identified mainly in the areas close to the cities along
the coast and in the provincial hinterland of Tripolitania. The reconstruction has been de-
veloped by means of a synopsis between archaeological and topographical data, as well as by
collating the Itinerarium Antonini, with the evidence of inscriptions and the literary sources.
The Itinerarium Antonini lists the toponyms of several villae included in the relevant private
estates, whose archaeological remains have been identified along the Tripolitanian coastline4.
Moreover, the evidence of inscriptions, together with literary and legal sources has made it
possible to identify not only the legal status of the cities, but also the specific areas that the
tribes held and controlled5. During the 3rd and 4th century, after a process of assimilation of
Roman statutes that lasted more than two centuries, it is noteworthy that the legal status of
the main Tripolitanian cities appears fixed. By the last decades of the 2nd century, the mu-
nicipia of Sabratha and Oea had become coloniae. The special legal status of their territories
allowed these cities to lease their lands directly, as well as to levy various minor taxes and tolls,
the revenue of which created benefits especially among the local ruling classes. Moreover,
Leptis Magna enjoyed the statute of colonia iuris Italici6. Between 202 and 205, Septimius

    2
      Pomp. l. sing. ench.: D. 50.16.239.8: ‘Territorium’ est universitas agrorum intra fines cuiusque civitatis: quod
ab eo dictum quidam aiunt, quod magistratus eius loci intra eos fines terrendi, id est summovendi ius habent.
(Watson 1998). The legal characters of civitates are also in Paul. l. 1 ad ed.: D. 2.1.20; Aurel. Arc. Char. l. sing. de
mun. civ.: D. 50.4.18.25; Ulp. l. 3 de cens.: D. 50.15.4.2. Useful comparisons on the characteristics of civitates
in eastern provinces are in Hatzopulos (1993), 151-171; Hatzopulos (1996), 79-82.
    3
      On these aspects see Cordovana (2012), 458-494.
    4
      See esp. Itinerarium Antonini Augusti et Hierosolymitanum, G. Parthey, M. Pinder (Hrsg.), Berlin 1848,
18-29; Kolendo (1986), 149-161; Lewicki, Kotula (1986), 255-271; Mattingly (1989), 135-153, esp. p. 143 ff.;
Musso (1997), 203-208; Di Vita (2015).
    5
      Imperial domains and lands of tribes were mainly located in the Tripolitanian hinterland: Desanges (1962)
passim. Lassère (1977), 313-338, 352; Jacques (1992), 123-139; Modéran (2003), passim.
    6
      Oea: IRT 230, 183-185. Sabratha was granted the statute of colonia probably at some stage during the
Antonine period: IRT 117-125, 128, 130 and, especially, IRT 23 (175-180). Leptis Magna: Paul., l. II, de cens.:
D. 50.15.8.11.


                                                           2
        ‘Fossils’ of political institutions. Rome and Tripolitanian marginal areas during Late Antiquity




                   Fig. 1. Territoria of cities and tribes in Roman Tripolitania 3rd-4th c. AD

Severus granted the city this status, a privileged condition that assimilated the city’s territory
entirely to the Italian land through complete exemption of tax7. The measure mainly con-
cerned private property, the ownership of which could be interpreted in the same way as that
which already fell under the Italian title of proprietas ex iure Quiritium. This was the only
full ownership of land in Italy and remained distinct from the more limited and controlled
rights of possessio in the provincial areas8. In addition to the legal status of the municipia
and coloniae, the imperial domains and territories of tribes mainly encompassed the internal
provincial areas. Usually, imperial and public lands were leased under land tenure contracts
by local urban aristocracies, which were involved in the agrarian exploitation. Taxation on
these lands especially affected peasants (coloni) and direct incomes were paid to the imperial
treasury.
    The inland civitates, that is to say, the tribes and small settlements inhabiting the semi-de-
sert areas, also possessed territories that could be contiguous to or even encompassed within
imperial public domains, private estates, and territories of cities9. What was relevant for a
civitas, therefore, was precisely the territorium officially allotted to the community in the
aftermath of conquest. (Fig.1) This was not only the case of some communities in Spain
mentioned by Iulius Frontinus, but was also a common phenomenon in all the provinces of
the Empire:
   7
     The chronology of the grant has been examined by Dupuis (1996), 57-65 (205 AD); Cordovana (2007),
267-278, (202-203 AD). About the ius Italicum, see especially: Mazzarino (1980), 188-213; Cataudella (1987),
117-132; Malavolta (1995); Lopez Paz (1999), 289-294; Campbell (2000), 334-335.
   8
     See Grelle (1963); Luzzatto (1984), 205-241.
   9
     This is especially evident in Ag. Urb., de contr. agr. 16-22 Thu=84-85 La. See also Pomp. l. sing. ench.: D.
50.16.239.8; Paul. l. pr. ad edic.: D. 2.1.20.


                                                       3
                                           Orietta Dora Cordovana




               Fig. 2. The wadi and the settlement of Ghirza (from Brogan, Smith 1984, p. 40).



        Land has been contained in a survey whose entire area has been allocated to a community
        (civitas), as for example, in Lusitania in the case of the people of Salmantica (Salamanca), or in
        Hispania Citerior in the case of the people of Palencia. Moreover, in some provinces land sub-
        ject to tax has been defined for communities on the basis of its entire area. (Campbell 2000)10.

   Consequently, whether the communities were autonomous or under direct administra-
tion, the central government often recognised these civitates as legal entities in their own
right. Various rights and privileges could be determined on the basis of the loyalty of each
group. A paradigmatic example was the munus possessionis. This privilege allowed the civitates
under Roman administration to enforce the payment of a certain amount of corn every year
from the private lands within their territoria. A norm of Aurelius Arcadius Charisius in the
Digest clearly mentions this right:

        Furthermore, some communities have the right to demand that those who hold properties in
        their territory provide each year a certain quantity of corn according to the extent of their land;
        this kind of contribution is a munus of a property. (Watson 1998)11.

    But which magistracies were specifically responsible for the administration and government
of the civitates? And within this legal and economic framework, how did their administrative
status differed from that of the coloniae and municipia?

   10
        Iulius Frontinus, de agr. qual. 1-2 Thu=1-6 La: Ager est mensura conprehensus, cuius modus universus civi-
tati est adsignatus, sicut in Lusitania Salmaticensibus aut Hispania citeriore Palantinis et in conpluribus provinciis
tributarium solum per universitatem populis est definitum.
    11
        Aurel. Arc. Char. l. sing. de mun. civ.: D. 50.4.18.25. Praeterea habent quaedam civitates praerogativam,
ut hi, qui in territorio earum possident, certum quid frumenti pro mensura agri per singulos annos praebeant: quod
genus collationis munus possessionis est.


                                                          4
         ‘Fossils’ of political institutions. Rome and Tripolitanian marginal areas during Late Antiquity


    2. Ghirza a semi-desert civitas
    The settlement of Ghirza counts among the civitates of the semi-desert areas and forms
part of the limes Tripolitanus. The site is well known, particularly the southern and northern
necropolis along the banks of the wadi Ghirza, the monuments of which are renowned. (Fig.2)
    The toponym Ghirza was apparently linked to the sanctuary of the god Gurzil. The name
first appears in Arab sources. In the 11th century, Ibn al Bakri observed that a sanctuary of
Gurzil was located at Ghirza, and that it had been named after the god12. One would there-
fore be tempted to associate the Building 32, which was investigated by Olwen Brogan and
David Smith with the main sanctuary dedicated to the cult of Gurzil in this semi-desert
area. Although this association is plausible, no definitive identification can be made until
the Libyan inscriptions on the altars, which were part of the temple furnishings, are fully
understood13.
    The earliest sources from the late antique period tell us very little about the cult of Gurzil.
The main evidence can be found in Corippus, particularly certain passages of his Iohannides
which specify key details. The Iohannides is an epic poem celebrating the Byzantine general
Iohannes Troglita who fought against the Moors between 546 and 548. The importance of
the poem lies in the fact that it is a very valuable source for the history of North Africa after
the Vandal domination and during the Byzantine reconquest. Providing what appears to be
an eyewitness account, Corippus’ general insights are crucial for understanding social fabric
and cultural characteristics of the North African hinterland of that time. In his words:

        Fierce Ierna was the tribe’s leader and the priest of Gurzil. The people say that the god’s father
        was horned Ammon and that his mother was a wild heifer14.

   Based on this evidence, the leader of this community clearly had both religious and political
powers. In another passage, Corippus also specifies that the idol of the Libyan god was made
of wood. Before starting any combat, the Laguatans used to release a bull (a kind of war
machine allegedly), which they pretended was the god Gurzil unleashed against the enemies:

        Then suddenly, by some magical craft a bull was sent out from the centre of the Moorish line, a
        bull which Ierna, priest and mighty leader of the tribes’ chieftains, had devised to represent the
        divine presence of Ammonian Gurzil and to be a first omen for his own men. It raged between
        the two armies with its tall horns, unsure of where it might penetrate the enemy line15.

   In addition to the above-mentioned literary evidence in Corippus, together with the
plausible identification of the Building 32 with a sanctuary, further archaeological data of
the ancient Libyan cult of Gurzil have been found. On the tomb ‘G’ from the southern
necropolis at Ghirza a beautiful stone relief may well recall this ancestral religious ritual.
On the architrave of this mausoleum a couple of lions are visible. The animals hold an ox-
head that might be identified with the idol of the god Gurzil, in front of which sacrifices


   12
        Mac Guckin de Slane (1913), 31-32. See also Camps (1999), 3258-3259.
   13
        Brogan, Smith (1984), 81-92, 250-251.
    14
        Cor., iohan. II, 109-111: Ierna ferox his ductor erat, Gurzilque sacerdos. Huic, referunt gentes, pater est quod
corniger Ammon, Bucula torua parens. See Shea (1998), 84.
    15
        Cor., iohan. V, 22-6: Cum magica subito taurus dimittitur arte Maurorum e medio, taurus, quem Ierna
sacerdos, atque idem gentis rectorum maximus auctor finxerat, Ammonii signantem numine Gurzil omina prima suis.
Celsis tunc cornibus ille inter utrosque furit, dubius qua rumperet hostes. See also Cor., iohan. II, 404-409.


                                                           5
                                    Orietta Dora Cordovana




                      Fig. 3. Ghirza, Mausoleum South ‘G’ (Museum of Tripoli).




                           Fig. 4. Ghirza, Mausolea North ‘A’, ‘B’, and ‘C’.



usually took place. (Fig. 3) This is, of course, a hypothesis requiring further analysis and more
extensive comparisons, and so falls outside the parameters of this study.

  3. Rome, local chiefs and the sacred political landscape
  Whatever the ancient characteristics of the cult might be, in Corippus’ words there is no
doubt that the leader of the Moorish tribal confederation wielded the political and religious


                                                  6
         ‘Fossils’ of political institutions. Rome and Tripolitanian marginal areas during Late Antiquity




                     Fig. 5. Ghirza, relief of the ‘chieftain’ from the Mausoleum North ‘B’
                          (Museum of Leptis Magna) = (Brogan, Smith 1984, Pl. 63a)


powers associated with the priesthood of Gurzil. Is it possible, therefore, to provide a better
definition of these powers? Above all, what kind of indirect management by the Roman cen-
tral government could be detected in marginal tribal areas? Is it possible to distinguish the
legal and institutional basis in which the local office was rooted?
    In an attempt to answer these questions, we need to examine the reliefs adorning two
mausolea in the northern necropolis of Ghirza. In effect all the funerary monuments here
have been carefully studied, so that the carved bas-reliefs included in the architectural struc-
tures are very well known. In particular the friezes on the arches of tombs ‘B’ and ‘C’ have
received a great deal of scholarly attention. (Fig. 4) Among the various hunting and farming
scenes, Olwen Brogan identified the figure of a ‘chieftain’ seated in the centre of two ceremo-
nial scenes. Honours and gifts are offered to him in both reliefs16. The older and less accurate
relief of the two comes from mausoleum ‘B’. (Fig. 5) The architectural style and decoration of
this monumental tomb date to the first half of the 4th century. More precisely, the inscription
in situ could also help in better dating the monument. The text mentions a certain amount
of …milia folles for the construction costs. Apparently, the mint of Carthage only coined
folles during a limited period. It seems that Maximian began the issue during the expedition
against the Moorish in 296/297, although minting stopped quite soon after Alexander’s re-
volt in 31117. These chronological parameters can, therefore, be useful in refining the dating
of the mausoleum at Ghirza. The ceremonial scene on the main frieze depicts four figures,
all facing the right, but they are not equally represented in the foreground. There is no sense
of proportion, no perception of depth, and no coherent position in space. Except for the in-
dividual on the left, who stands in centre ground, the other figures are in the foreground on
the frame; their feet and the legs of the chair are discernible on the frame at the base of the
scene. Certain objects and details shown in the relief are also noteworthy. The figure on the
left wears a garment and apparently a tall cap; he holds an object that could perhaps be a cup
or a basket. The next figure carries a sort of sceptre and wears a long robe and a cloak. Olwen
Brogan also distinguished curly hair and a conical cap that are no longer visible, due to the


   16
        Brogan, Smith (1984), 137, 153.
   17
        See especially Grierson-Mays (1992), 60-61.


                                                        7
                                              Orietta Dora Cordovana




                       Fig. 6. Ghirza, relief of the ‘chieftain’ from the Mausoleum North ‘C’
                               (Museum of Istanbul) = (Brogan, Smith 1984, Pl. 78).

poor state of the stone. The seated figure wears a robe with thick folds descending from a sort
of diadem and presumably holds a scroll or sceptre.
    The same kind of ceremony is repeated on the frieze of mausoleum ‘C’, although the figure
on the right is articulated differently and faces towards left. (Fig. 6) Nevertheless, the relief
shows a more accurate execution of details and better-quality of sculptures. All the figures are
in foreground; they wear rich garments, tunics, and turbans of various shapes, and are holding
and offering different objects. On the left, the smaller figure holds a cup; the next figure
bears a wand or a sceptre and wears an elaborate hat. They approach the central personage
who, richly dressed and seated on a sella curulis, is holding a cup and maybe a volumen or
a sceptre. His head is apparently adorned by a diadem with cheekpieces. The figure on the
right is holding a closed vessel (a situla for sacrifice?) together with a bow and an arrow case.
According to its inscription, erected in memory of a couple, the parents of the customers, who
paid for the monument and whose names certainly are not Roman, the mausoleum costed
45.600 follis singulares18. It might be plausible to assume that the building was constructed
by relatives of the same family group as the “B” mausoleum. Perhaps they were members of
two younger generations in the peaceful period before 363. The reliefs undeniably reflect a
flourishing environment of Saharan agrarian activities and trade in the socio-economic life
of the community. After that year, turbulence and raids against Tripolitan cities began. This
was a period of instability for the tribal confederation, to which the Austurians belonged19.
    There is no doubt that both these scenes represent some public ceremony to honour those
who were chiefs in the community of Ghirza at that time. Some scholars have compared these
images with the beautiful description in a passage of Procopius. They have also been com-

    18
        IRT 898 = CIL VIII, 22660: M(archius) Chullam [et] Varnychsi/n pater et ma[te]r Marchi / Nimmire et
[M]accurasa/n qui eis [[hec(!)]] memori/am feceru[nt d]iscussi/mus rati[oci]nio ad / ea eroca[tu]m(!) est sum(p)/tos
merc[e]dibus in n/ummo |(denariorum) foll[es] singula/res numero quadragi/nta quinque [milia] sesce/ntos [[p]]r(a)
et[[er c]][i][[b]][aria] op/e[[ra]][nt]ibus felic[iter legant et] / visitent fili(i) et n[ep][[ot]][es] / [. Marchius Chullam
and Varnychsin, father and mother of the Marchii Nimmira and [?M]accurasan, who had this memorial built
for them. We paid out in reckoning for these things, in coin on salaries a total of forty-five thousand six hun-
dred folles, in addition to the food for the workmen. May their sons and grandsons visit it happily. (Reynolds,
Ward-Perkins). The word singulares is also mentioned in one of the documents included among the ‘Tablettes
Albertini’, the date of which is 5th April 493 AD.
    19
        See also Amm. Marc. XXVIII, 6, 2, about Austurians’ raids.


                                                             8
        ‘Fossils’ of political institutions. Rome and Tripolitanian marginal areas during Late Antiquity


pared with the statement of Servius Honoratus in his comment about the Aeneid. In Servius’
words the wand is a remarkable sign of power for magistrates: “the praefecti of the Moorish
people, when they assume the office receive and bear the wand”20. Apparently, Olwen Brogan
was not entirely convinced by this linking of the reliefs and the literary evidence. However,
Yves Modéran argued quite persuasively for a more in-depth analysis and claimed that these
images represent a prominent special magistrate who ruled the civitas of Ghirza. Combining
the evidence of both Servius and Procopius, Modéran’s opinion was that a praefectus gentis
governed the community of Ghirza, like the praefecti of other tribes/civitates in the African
provinces. Nevertheless, the office appeared to the scholar “une réelle anomalie du Bas-Em-
pire”, because the praefectus gentis did not have imperium, which meant that he was not a
true magistrate21. Modéran basically followed the opinion of Claude Lepelley, according to
whom, this anomalous office belonged to a “fonctionnaire délégué, dépourvue du caractére
de magistrate22.
   A closer evaluation of the evidence, though, can help to better define this office and may
reveal that this anomaly is only apparent. Procopius and Servius state that local rulers of the
semi-desert areas in North Africa seemingly held proper offices. In his account of the events
during 533, Procopius reports important details:

        For all those who ruled over the Moors in Mauretania and Numidia and Byzacium sent envoys
        to Belisarius saying that they were slaves of the emperor and promised to fight with him. There
        were some also who even furnished their children as hostages and requested that the symbols
        of office be sent them from him according to the ancient custom. For it was a law among the
        Moors that no one should be a ruler over them, even if he was hostile to the Romans, until the
        emperor of the Romans should give him the tokens of the office. And though they had already
        received them from the Vandals, they did not consider that the Vandals held the office securely.
        Now these symbols are a staff of silver covered with gold, and a silver cap, not covering the
        whole head, but like a crown and held in place on all sides by bands of silver, a kind of white
        cloak gathered by a golden brooch on the right shoulder in the form of a Thessalian cape, and
        a white tunic with embroidery, and a gilded boot23.

   This passage provides us with a glimpse of the North African hinterland during the
Byzantine reconquest in the sixth century AD. Nevertheless, many literary sources suggest that
the same kind of objects were usually given to foreign kings by the Roman government from
   20
       Serv., ad Aen. IV, 242: Tum virgam capit id est caduceus (…) virga vero insigne potestatis est, nam ideo ea
et magistratus utuntur. (…) Praefecti gentium Maurorum cum fiunt virgam accipiunt et gestant. At that time, he
(Mercury) took the wand that is caduceus (…). To speak the truth the wand is mark of power, and therefore
magistrates make use of it. (…) The praefecti of Moorish people when they assume the office receive and bear
the wand.
    21
       Modéran (2003), 486 ff.; see also Felici, Munzi, Tantillo (2006), 621, 623 ff.
    22
       Lepelley (2001), 315.
    23
       Proc., de b. vand. I, 25.3-8: ὅσοι γὰρ ἔν τε Μαυριτανίᾳ καὶ Νουμιδίᾳ καὶ Βυζακίῳ Μαυρουσίων ἦρχον,
πρέσβεις ὡς Βελισάριον πέμψαντες δοῦλοί τε βασιλέως ἔφασκον εἶναι καὶ ξυμμαχήσειν ὑπέσχοντο. εἰσὶ
δὲ οἳ καὶ τοὺς παῖδας ἐν ὁμήρων παρείχοντο λόγῳ, τά τε ξύμβολασφίσι παρ’ αὐτοῦ στέλλεσθαι τῆς ἀρχῆς
κατὰ δὴ τὸν παλαιὸν νόμον ἐδέοντο. νόμος γὰρ ἦν Μαυρουσίων ἄρχειν μηδένα, κἂν Ῥωμαίοις πολέμιος
ᾖ, πρὶν ἂν αὐτῷ τὰ γνωρίσματα τῆς ἀρχῆς ὁ Ῥωμαίων βασιλεὺς δοίη. ἅπερ ἤδη πρὸς Βανδίλων λαβόντες
οὐκ ᾤοντο ἐν βεβαίῳ τὴν ἀρχὴν ἔχειν. ἔστι δὲ τὰ ξύμβολα ταῦτα ῥάβδος τε ἀργυρᾶ κατακεχρυσωμένη καὶ
πῖλος ἀργυροῦς οὐχ ὅλην τὴν κεφαλὴν σκέπων, ἀλλ’ ὥσπερ στεφάνη τελαμῶσιν ἀργυροῖς πανταχόθεν
ἀνεχόμενος, καὶ τριβώνιόν τι λευκὸν, ἐς χρυσῆν περόνην κατὰ τὸν τριβώνιόν τι λευκὸν, ἐς χρυσῆν
περόνην κατὰ τὸν δεξιὸν ὦμον ἐν χλαμύδος σχήματι Θετταλῆς ξυνιὸν, χιτών τε λευκὸς, ποικίλματα ἔχων,
καὶ ἀρβύλη ἐπίχρυσος. (Dewing 1916, rist. 1990).


                                                        9
                                          Orietta Dora Cordovana


the Republican age onwards24. These gifts were part of a formal recognition of sovereignty in
bilateral diplomatic relations between different kingdoms, on a supposedly equal footing. In
North Africa, however, the specific setting and context highlight the political dynamics of
that frontier environment, which was strongly characterised by the attitude of the local tribes
towards the central government and by the representation they might have of the ‘central
State’ and its laws. The fluid character of those marginal areas was deeply marked, indeed, by
the choice of tribes to “stay out of the way” of the two opponents (i.e. Vandals and Romano-
Byzantines), waiting for “the outcome of the war”25. The ritual described by Procopius, however,
does not really imply any direct administration of the tribal areas involved. Continuity of
cultural contacts characterised the strong ties between the Romans and Moorish communities.
Indeed, young hostages and children of chiefs, for example, living among the Romans and
receiving a Roman education, plausibly made a substantial contribution to shaping local
cultures differently, without denying their native traditions, cultural identity, and ethnic self-
consciousness. However, it would be misleading to encapsulate these characteristics in the idea
of an abstract cultural hybridity, as if they were absorbing a different power system in shaping
alternative political landscapes, especially in marginal areas. For the Moorish tribes this new
experience was, on the contrary, deeply enriched by elements rooted in the historical past of
Roman institutions. The insignia of power made the content and meaning of an ancestral
office more visible. This office was the one that best suited the local socio-political context in
a tribal confederation.

    4. Praefecti gentium and the management of marginal areas
    Fundamental questions emerge from the narrative of Procopius. How ancient is this
ceremony and how far back can this political administrative institution thus be traced? Was it
a genuine Roman office, or an anomalous legal position without imperium?
    Based wholly on the evidence of Ghirza’s reliefs, Modéran dated the office to the 4th century
AD, in other words, to the period of official contacts between central government and local
tribes which were lawfully recognized as political entities, that is to say, civitates in their territoria
and part of the limes-system. However, the magistracy in question must have been much older.
Scholars identified the chieftain of Ghirza either as a praefectus gentis, or as a princeps gentis,
but doubted that he would have had the power of a real magistrate endowed with imperium.
Praefecti gentium are mentioned in North African inscriptions from the 1st century AD until
the Vandal period. It is reasonable to suppose that the office was of republican origin26. Military
praefecti gentium were Roman citizens of equestrian rank at the head of local communities,
   24
       Several examples are mentioned in: Dion Hal., ant., V, 35.1 (Porsenna); Liv. XXVII, 4.8, (Syphax, 210
B.C.); Liv. XXX, 15.11, XXXI, 11.11, and App., pun. 32, (Massinissa, 203/200 B.C.); Sall., Iug. 65.2, (Gauda,
108 B.C.); Liv. XLII, 14.10 and Diod. XXIX, 34, (Eumenes II 172 B.C.); Polyb. XXXII, 1.3, (Ariarathes V, 160
B.C.); Plut., Sull. 22.3, 23.2 (Archelaos of Kappadokia); Val. Max. V, 7 (ext.2), (Ariobarzane II, 62 B.C.). The
same ornamenta (i.e. sella curulis, sceptre, and golden dyadem) also are on coins of the imperial age: see Schäfer
(1989), 60 ff.
    25
       Proc., de b. vand. I, 25.9: Βελισάριος δὲ ταῦτά τε αὐτοῖς ἔπεμψε καὶ χρήμασι πολλοῖς αὐτῶν ἕκαστον
ἐδωρήσατο. οὐ μέντοι αὐτῷ ἐς ξυμμαχίαν ἀφίκοντο, οὐ μὴν οὐδὲ Βανδίλοις ἐπαμύνειν ἐτόλμησαν, ἀλλ᾽
ἐκποδὼν ἀμφοτέροις στάντες ἐκαραδόκουν ὅπη ποτὲ ἡ τοῦ πολέμου τύχη ἐκβήσεται. ὧδε μὲν Ῥωμαίοις
τὰ πράγματα εἶχε. And Belisarius sent these things to them, and presented each one of them with much money.
However, they did not come to fight along with him, nor, on the other hand, did they dare give their support
to the Vandals, but standing out of the way of both contestants, they waited to see what would be the outcome
of the war. Thus, then, matters stood with the Romans.
    26
       In addition to the literature quoted in n. 21, see also Kotula (1965), 347-365; Leveau (1973), 153-192;
Lepelley (1974), 285-295; Christol (2005), 11-23; Weiss (2006), 101-116.


                                                       10
        ‘Fossils’ of political institutions. Rome and Tripolitanian marginal areas during Late Antiquity


especially tribes, in the provinces during the late Republic and early Empire. Later, from
the 2nd century AD onwards, these magistrates were chosen by the central government
from among the local aristocracies and tribal leaders, as their names often appear to be of
local origin. They were always Roman citizens, as they held a proper Roman magistracy and
represented the central government through the direct administration of tribes. Nevertheless,
communities of tribes could be adtributae, annexed to and dependent on the administration
of major cities in the same territorial area27. Cesare Letta asserts that the praefecti gentium were
always Roman citizens and so acted in the role of magistrates who represented the central
government. Scrutinising the inscriptions from the western provinces in Europe and North
Africa, Letta also observed that the principes gentium, on the contrary, did not necessarily
have Roman citizenship28. In many cases, they did not distinguish themselves as Roman
citizens and remained peregrini. Therefore, the granting of Roman citizenship to the principes
of the Baquati, for example, was a very exceptional and noteworthy honour for the nobles of
that tribe in Mauretania29.
    Praefecti and principes gentium, therefore, should not be confused and their roles should
not be overlapped, because they are clearly distinguished in the sources, especially during
Late Antiquity. Ammianus and Augustine imply this distinction between the two different
roles. When referring to Firmus’ revolt in Mauretania in 373, Ammianus reports that Theo-
dosius (father of the Emperor) put Bells, princeps of the Mazices, and Fericius, praefectus gen-
tis, to death. They had supported the usurper Firmus and, obviously from the Roman point
of view, had committed high treason30. To prevent similar episodes in the future, Theodosius
was extremely careful to choose “prefects of tried fidelity in charge of the peoples through
whose country he was marching”31.
    Augustine is even more precise. In one of his letters to Hesychius, he refers to popula-
tions and territories involved in the limes-system (qui pacati Romanis finibus adhaerent), the
structure of which mirrored the socio-political organization and nature of Roman control
in marginal areas during the early 5th century. Clearly, the frontier areas were by no means
politically and legally uniform. Augustine states that there were communities which, on the
one hand, had their own kings and, on the other, groups which were directly ruled by Roman
prefects32. Direct administration and indirect political control are the two basic coexisting
elements which affected the frontier dynamics in the areas of the limes.
    We should not, therefore, imagine the North African frontier in spatial terms, meaning
tribes and population groups ‘inside’ and ‘outside’ the limes. It often happened, indeed,
that those different parcels and territorial areas could interlock deeply within the provincial
territory itself. This is a crucial point that must be reaffirmed. The management of marginal
and frontier areas consisted of the interplay between directly administered areas and indirect
control by the Roman central government along the limes-system. Praefecti and principes
gentium are precisely the unmistakable signs of this double and dovetailed presence, one at
   27
         The phenomenon is well known in various provinces. On the topic see Laffi (1966), esp. 74-95.
   28
         Letta (2002), 2093-2110.
     29
         IAM II, 94. The inscription has been the object of several studies. Comments and previous literature are
in Purpura (2012), 625-641.
     30
         Amm. XXIX, 5, 21 and 24.
     31
         Amm. XXIX, 5, 35: gentibus per quas transibat dux consultissimus apposuit fidei compertae praefectos.
(Engl. transl. J.C. Rolfe, London, Loeb 1972).
     32
         August., epist. 199, 12: Pauci tamen anni sunt, ex quo quidam eorum rarissimi atque paucissimi, qui pacati
Romanis finibus adhaerent, ita ut non habeant reges suos, sed super eos praefecti a Romano constituantur imperio, et
illi et ipsi eorum praefecti Christiani esse coeperunt.


                                                        11
                                          Orietta Dora Cordovana


the administrative, institutional level, the other at the political level. Cesare Letta rightly
noted that there is no evidence of praefecti outside the provincial territory33. Nonetheless,
the scholar compares Procopius’ and Servius’ accounts of the symbols of power given to the
praefecti Maurorum. He thinks that Procopius is mainly referring to the Roman magistrates,
the praefecti, who led local tribes34. It should be noted, however, that Procopius does not
actually describe the investiture of the Roman magistrates, the praefecti. Indeed, the equivalent
term in the Greek translation - ἔπαρχοι - would have been specified, along with the precise
mention of the office, rank, and imperium. On the contrary, Procopius defines attributes
and symbols of a proper sovereign power – ἀρχή – characterised by symmachia towards
the Romans (ξυμμαχήσειν ὑπέσχοντο, τά τε ξύμβολασφίσι παρ’ αὐτοῦ στέλλεσθαι τῆς
ἀρχῆς). This description, therefore, appears more appropriate and fits especially in the case of
principes gentium and reges35. The overlapping of roles and confusion of prerogatives between
the praefecti and the principes gentium/reges may persist, if we maintain the representation of
the Roman frontier in terms of areas ‘inside’ and ‘outside’ the province. On the contrary, if we
think rather of contiguous territories, where we observe a direct administration or, vice versa,
an indirect political control through local chiefs, the different offices acquire more coherent
roles and functions in the framework of the frontier. Principes gentium and reges, who were
most likely the chiefs of Ghirza, were not lower-ranking magistrates without imperium. In
this context and in this particular case, the lack of imperium becomes an extraneous issue.
They were allies and comrades, tribal chiefs, ethnic leaders who, above all, made the indirect
power of Rome and its political authority in marginal areas tangible.
    The geo-political fragmentation of the North African hinterland was ancient and went
back well beyond Roman times. At the time of Diodorus, the distinction between δυνάσται
and βασιλεῖς, as rulers of the different tribal groups, was very precise36. Throughout the cen-
turies, however, intense contacts with Roman legal culture modified some internal structures
among the tribes. Those indigenous chiefs, together with the leadership of different tribes,
began to seek legal legitimacy. During Late Antiquity, politics led to fundamental transfor-
mations in the geography of the limes-system. The organization of the tribes was mainly based
on the individual supremacy of the chiefs, who were able to unify and maintain consensus
among different groups. However, the consolidation of personal power necessarily needed
a legal and institutional basis. The legal and political structure of the Roman imperial State
could provide that institutional basis by becoming a source of legal legitimacy.

    5. Political and institutional ‘fossils’
    Archaic and ancestral institutions were part and parcel of Rome’s political past, and
worked in terms of an institutional reservoir of legal heritage, to be drawn on as needed. The
most suitable political organization for the tribes, those communities that were alien to the
structure of city-states, could be found in the archaic Italic law rooted in the monarchical
era. It can, therefore, be inferred that the office at Ghirza was in effect a political-institutional
‘fossil’, whose roots can be specifically traced back to the transition between the monarchy
and the early Republic.

   33
        Letta (2002), 2107.
   34
        See Letta (2002), 2105. Likewise, see Camps (1984), 183-218 and Lepelley (2001), 310.
    35
        A comparative insight is in Fanning (2011), who especially considers reges/reguli/principes in contexts of
tribes in Europe and North Africa.
    36
        Diod. III, 49, 2-5. On this passage see Cordovana (2015), 111-113.


                                                       12
        ‘Fossils’ of political institutions. Rome and Tripolitanian marginal areas during Late Antiquity


   Historically, fossilised political structures and institutional powers belonging to earlier,
archaic, and ‘pre-historic’ phases, seems to be characterised by a strong sense of symbolism37.
In addition to Servius’ aforementioned passage, other testimonies support this claim. With
regard to the symbols of power, in fact, it would be difficult to reject Apuleius’ speech, when
he specifies that:

        These items, a bag and a staff, were for Diogenes and Antisthenes the equivalent of a king’s
        diadem, of a general’s cloak, of a pontiff’s bonnet, of an augur’s crook38.

   Undoubtedly on both of the ‘chieftains’ scenes, the objects depicted – sella curulis and
scroll (?), wands and sceptres, diadem and tunic, as well as arrows and bow – can thus be
easily identified as the symbols of power of a ruler and high magistrate, while the cups and
vessels presumably represent the ritual objects pertaining to the religious leader of the civitas.
In order to identify the nature, prerogatives, and origin of this office, a comparison with other
bas-reliefs bearing representations of similar subjects would be useful.
   The closest thematic and iconographic links are to be found in some Etruscan-Italic reliefs
dating to the second half of the 6th century BC. Identical tools and signs of power are depict-
ed on some slabs found in funerary contexts in central Italy. A funerary cippus from Chiusi
and a terracotta relief from Velletri represent the best level of correlation39. On the frieze from
Velletri six figures sit on chairs; two standing figures approach the seated group from the left.
(Fig. 7) One of them carries a bow and an arrow; the other person gestures as if he was talk-
ing. The persons belonging to the seated group wear chitons; the first and the fourth figure
hold a sceptre; the second and the sixth (partially missing) carry a lituus. A similar scene can
be seen on the cippus from Chiusi. Five figures sit on sellae curules, but three standing figures
are also depicted between them. The first seated pair holds a wand and a lituus respectively.
(Fig. 8).
   Santo Mazzarino focused on these Etruscan funerary reliefs and clarified roles and posi-
tions of power for all the portrayed figures. Contrary to the opinion of other scholars, who
thought of an assembly of gods, he provided strong evidence that the series of seated figures
represented a meeting of magistrates40. According to Mazzarino, these reliefs are tangible
figurative evidence of the fundamental political and institutional transformation that was
changing many city-states in central Italy at the end of the 6th century BC. Through keen
insight and exegesis, he highlighted the precise historical context during which new institu-
tional functions transformed the political landscape of the Etruscan-Latin cities. He clarified
the ways in which a crucial institutional change took place in the transition from the monar-
chical age to the republican state. Although the historical tradition attributes an abrupt and
traumatic end to the monarchy in Rome after the kingdom of Tarquinius Superbus, the Ital-
ian historian persuasively described how the transition was gradual and uneven in space and
time. From a personal/individual political system (i.e. ‘monarchy’), the change manifested
   37
       See especially the evaluation of Torelli (2006), 408.
   38
       Apul., apol. 22, 7: verum tamen hoc Diogeni et Antistheni pera et baculum, quod regibus diadema, quod
imperatoribus paludamentum, quod pontificibus galerum, quod lituus auguribus.
    39
       The terracotta relief from Velletri is now stored in the National Museum of Naples. See Andrén (1939),
pl. 128, no. 450, 449. The cippus from Chiusi is preserved in the Archaeological Museum of Palermo. See
Gàbrici (1928), Tav. V, b; Paribeni (1938), Tav. XIX, no. 1-2.
    40
       See Andrén (1939), 412-413; Åkerström (1954), 213-214; Torelli (1997), 89, 94-95. The symbolic
value of the sella curulis and fasces, together with the iconographic evidence, are studied in Schäfer (1989): see
esp. 24-40, 50-69.


                                                       13
                                        Orietta Dora Cordovana




Fig. 7. Velletri, terracotta relief with a gathering of magistrates 550-525 ca. BC (National Museum of Naples).
                                          Andrén (1939), pl. 128, no. 450, 449.




         Fig. 8. Chiusi, cippus with magistrates, 550-525 ca. BC (Archaeological Museum of Palermo).
                       From Gàbrici (1928), Tav. V, b; Paribeni (1938), Tav. XIX, no. 1-2.

itself in terms of a new ‘collegiate’ magistracy in the scheme of a consular res publica. The pre-
vailing idea was that of an indivisible imperium between two consuls, whose power, however,
was mutually limited by the intercessio. Mazzarino realised that this was not only applicable to
Rome, since the reliefs of both Velletri and Chiusi clearly show the figurative representation
of this new shared political atmosphere and the institutional creation of a collegiate system
of power in central Italy. In his opinion, the relief of Velletri is the first document that can be
linked to the existence of a collegiate office in a republican city-state in the second half of the
6th century BC. Mazzarino’s analysis, however, proceeds by considering the special case of
Veius. A rex held a permanent non-collegiate magistracy and ruled the city during the archaic
period. At the beginning of the 5th century, however, the city experienced a government led
by collegiate offices, but under the Roman military threat it reverted to a monarchy at the end
of the same century. From these facts Mazzarino assumes two fundamental considerations.
On the one hand, the transition in Rome from a permanent individual office to a temporary
collegiate magistracy was not an isolated case. On the other, the Etruscan reliefs depict a
hierarchy of magistrates bearing sceptres and litui, and therefore reproduce a real-life scene41.


   41
        Mazzarino (2001), 75-76. See also Heurgon (1957), 63-97.


                                                     14
        ‘Fossils’ of political institutions. Rome and Tripolitanian marginal areas during Late Antiquity


    Moreover, his thesis was corroborated by coeval written sources, as he compared
archaeological evidence with inscriptions mentioning specific offices42. Thus, it emerged
that the phenomenon did not induce a uniform, sudden, and immediate change. On
the contrary, a gradual process of political and institutional transformation took place in
different ways in the city-states of the Etruscan-Italic koiné43. In the government of some
cities, Mazzarino was able to distinguish magistracies that were not yet collegiate and of fixed
duration. At a very early stage, the institutional structure of Veio and Chiusi appears more
conservative. These cities, on the one hand, were characterised by permanent offices, such
as purθne and purθ-zilaθ that perhaps resembled rex/princeps and pritanis, respectively in a
Latin and Greek environment. On the other hand, Tarquinia, Orvieto, Vulci, and Velletri,
for example, developed new forms of political leadership based on power sharing among
temporary offices44. Although it is not yet possible to specify a precise equivalence between all
Latin and Etruscan offices and their specific functional and legal prerogatives, the similarity
between lauχumo and augur / sacerdos is almost certain. Analogous considerations can be
drawn about the parallel functions of the Roman praetor and aedilis with respect to the zilaθ
and maru at the head of the Etruscan league. These offices, moreover, are also evident in the
very first inscriptions from Caere, dated to the end of the 6th century BC.45.
    The recognition of cooperative collegiality prevailed over the time in the city-states and,
eventually, the new ‘consular’ magistracy became the norm. Mazzarino’s conclusions can be
enumerated as follows.
    First, the subject of the reliefs is not about a divine gathering, but an assembly of magis-
trates.
    Second, there is specific hierarchy between the ‘sceptre’ bearing magistrates, the low-
er-ranking officers carrying the lituus, and the standing figures.
    Third, this type of representation combined with the coeval inscriptions is a remarkable
sign that the idea of ‘collegiate’ offices was cropping up in many cities of central Italy and was
prevailing over the older monarchical institution based on personal and permanent power.
This was a gradual phenomenon and did not represent a sudden and generalised transforma-
tion in the constitutional structure of the Etruscan-Latin cities.
    A different problem arises, on the contrary, when it comes to verifying whether in Rome
itself there was a sudden and abrupt transition from the monarchy to the republican consti-
tution, as the ancient sources allegedly suggest46. Mazzarino identifies a transitional form of
magistracy characterised by a collegiate but unequal imperium: the dictatorship47. In some
Latin cities, such as Aricia, Nomentum, and Lanuvium this office was ordinary and annual.
The dictator, indeed, could appoint a magister equitum, a subordinate colleague. In the in-
stitutional transition from monarchy to Republic, this peculiar magistracy (not comparable
to the extraordinary, absolute, and very short-lived one of the republican age) could have
represented a plausible form of transition towards the consulship.

   42
       Mazzarino (2001), 67-165.
   43
       Legal, religious, and cultural aspects of this institutional change are also highlighted in Fiori (2019),
411-525.
    44
       Discussion and primary evidence in Mazzarino (2001) pp. 87-97, 104-112; Cappelletti (2016), 85-99.
    45
       ET Cr. 4,4 (= H. Rix (Hrsg.), Etruskische Texte, I-II, Tübingen 1991); ETP 22 (= Etruscan Texts Project).
See especially Heurgon (1957), 75-86; Cappelletti (2016), 96 and further literature in notes; Briquel (2019),
247-273.
    46
       Liv. I, 29-30, 49-50; Strabo V, 2.2; Fl. I, 7.11, 9.1-3; Eutr. I, 8-11.
    47
       Mazzarino (2001), 91 refers to ‘collegialità diseguale’.


                                                      15
                                    Orietta Dora Cordovana


    Basically, the political framework of the city-states of central Italy shows a high level of
variability in the last decades of the Archaic Age. Together with the development of institutions
characterised by a collegiate power in multiple offices, a rex, a lucumon, a pritanis, a dictator
(whatever his name might be) was the expression of a persistent political tradition that was still
linked to monarchical principles in a good number of Latin, Etruscan, and Graeco-Italic cities.
These rulers carried out the tasks of individual offices which, with a certain degree of hybridity,
could differ in terms of permanent or temporary duration, depending on the cities’ choices.
The symbolic value and ideological significance of the insignia of power, common to both
kings and high magistrates in central Italy, were probably first fixed during that delicate passage
of institutional coexistence and became part of a legal and political heritage the tradition of
which did not decay over the centuries. Indeed, later, thanks to this original ‘flexibility’ of use
in hybrid situations, they could be exported to foreign contexts where political and diplomatic
relations required it. The sceptre, crown, sella curulis, lituus, arms and various furnishings
became signs of political and religious power, whatever the office they belonged to, be it
collegiate or individual, temporary, or permanent.
    In this general framework a pivotal principle emerges. Although the Roman government
developed a certain hierarchy among local communities, by ruling provinces and marginal
areas, it never imposed random political structures. The political and institutional system of
municipia and coloniae never became a generalised legal scheme. The collegiate, temporary,
and separate offices (such as, duoviri, quattuorviri, aediles etc.) of the city-states with Roman
status functioned in juxtaposition to the individual and personal rule of the magistrates of
as many non-Roman communities. The power of these magistrates, therefore, could be per-
manent or temporary, elective or not, depending on the local traditions of different civitates.
The historical consequences of these administrative institutions are decisive, especially in the
provinces during the imperial period. The granting of the status of municipium and colonia
implied the constitutional adoption of collegiate offices that were usually represented by
duumviri in association with the local curia. This political structure, it is known, resembled
the Roman Republican consulship and senate. However, these statutes were never generalised
and were never granted indiscriminately. Loyal civitates and oppida could become municipia
and coloniae only if on a socio-cultural level, as well as on a political one, they were ‘ready’
to receive institutions based on collegial magistracies. This was often the case with civitates,
whose previous political and administrative experience was mainly that of autonomous city-
states. In contrast, the socio-cultural features and institutional structures of civitates of other
kingdoms and tribes could diverge markedly from the city-state model. These communities
were still accustomed to the individual, cumulative, political, military, and religious power of
a rex, a lucumon, a rex-augur, an ethnic chief. For this second category of civitates, the roughly
equivalent offices of rex and princeps gentis were politically more suitable and based on indi-
vidual and usually permanent power. Otherwise, on the part of the central government, it
would have been a very ruinous and dangerous policy to impose exogenous and unfamiliar
offices on local communities.
    In addition to the remark of Ammianus and the inscriptions mentioning several principes
gentium in the North African provinces, two inscriptions document ‘kings’ at the head of
certain tribes. The texts are from Lambaesis and Gightis and date from the middle of the
3rd and 4rth century AD respectively. Between 253 and 260, the legatus Augusti pro praetore
in Numidia celebrated his successful campaign against four kings of the Bavares, against
the tribe of the Quinquegentanei, as well as the famosissimus dux of the Fraxinenses. All these
tribes, allied in a common action and attacking in multiple waves, devastated the territories

                                                16
         ‘Fossils’ of political institutions. Rome and Tripolitanian marginal areas during Late Antiquity


of Milev, the provincial borders between Numidia and Mauretania, and even the Roman
provinces themselves.

         To the Best and the Greatest Jupiter and to the other immortal gods and goddesses. Caius Ma-
         crinius Decianus highly regarded man, military governor of the two Augusti in the provinces
         of Numidia and Noricus (dedicated this altar) because the Bavares were killed and expelled
         after that their four kings gathered together and invaded for the first time the region of Milev,
         for the second time the border between Mauretania and Numidia, for the third time the peo-
         ple of Quinquegentanei, who devastated Mauretania Caesarensis and similarly the people of
         Fraxinenses, who devastated the province of Numidia, after that their very famous leader was
         captured48.

   Another valid piece of evidence dating to the reign of Constantius II and Julian comes
from an inscription from Gigthis, in the first line of which (if the integration of the line is
correct) a ‘king’ at the head of the Austurians was mentioned. Presumably, at that time Ghirza
was the main religious settlement of that confederation of tribes, who were particularly de-
voted to the cult of Gurzil. The stone celebrates the victory of the comes Titus Archontius
Nilus against their rex (?).

         After the defeat of the Austurians’ king, who was promoter of every force/violence in this re-
         gion and certainly first and alone, the senate and people of the municipium of Gigthis gladly
         erected (this dedication) in honour of Titus Archontius Nilus most excellent man, protector
         (praeses) and count (comes) of province Tripolitania.49

   In conclusion, it seems clear that the political position of the ‘chieftains’ honoured in the
mausolea of Ghirza was an autonomous one, situated at the head of a confederation, but it
derived from and was embedded in the network of diplomatic relations of a territorial State
along its borderlands. In the limes-system of Late Antiquity these chiefs were not Roman
magistrates, but principes/reges, legitimately recognised by both the Romano-Byzantine ad-
ministration and the local semi-desert communities. Their direct power over the civitates was
part of the indirect political control and management of the limes areas, the stability of which
proved highly fluctuating and volatile during the 4th and 5th centuries. It was the dawn of
what, in a few decades, would transform those political arrangements into the territories of
the Romano-Berber kingdoms, after the final fragmentation of the Western Roman Empire.




    48
        CIL VIII, 2615=ILS 1194 (altar from Lambaesis, 253-256 AD): I(ovi) O(ptimo) M(aximo) / ceterisq(ue)
di(i)s deabusq(ue) immortalib(us) / C(aius) Macrinius Decianus v(ir) c(larissimus) legat(us) / Augg(ustorum) pr(o)
pr(aetore) prov(inciarum) Numidiae et No/rici Bavaribus qui adunatis IIII / regibus in prov(inciam) Numidiam
in/ruperant primum in regione / Millevitana iterato in confi/nio Mauretaniae et Numidi/ae tertio Quinquegenta-
neis / gentilibus Mauretaniae Cae/sariensis item gentilibus Fra/xinensibus qui provinciam / Numidiam vastabant
cap/to famosissimo duce eorum / caesis fugatisque.
    49
        CIL VIII, 11031=ILTun, 14 (Gightis, 350-363 AD): [devicto] / rege Au[sturianorum omnis] / vigor[is in
hac re]/gione [auctori] / primo vel solo / T(ito) Archontio Nilo / v(iro) p(erfectissimo) p(raesidi) et comiti / p(rovin-
ciae) T(ripolitanae) ordo populu[sq(ue)] / mu(nicipii) Gightensiu[m] / patrono grat[an]/[t]er conloca[vit. See also
CIL VIII, 22766, 22767. About the text and the identification between Austurians and Laguatan see Matting-
ly (1983), 96-108; Modéran (2003), 123 ff., 227-249; Felici, Munzi, Tantillo (2006), 596-599.


                                                           17
                                            Orietta Dora Cordovana


Bibliography


Andrén A. (1939), Architectural Terracottas from Etrusco-Italic Temples, (Skrifter utgivna av Svenska institutet i
   Rom 64), Lund: Gleerup-Leipzig: Harrassowitz.
Åkerström Å. (1954), Untersuchungen über die figurlichen Terrakottefriese aus Etrurien und Latium, Opuscula
   Romana 1, 213-219.
Bauer G. (1935), Vestigia di Roma nel territorio di Ofella. Le due necropoli di Ghirza, Africa Italiana 6, 61-78.
Bentivogli V. (2015), Mausolei romani dell’Africa Proconsolare. Distribuzione spaziale, tipologie architetton-
   iche e rango sociale, in Momenti di continuità e rottura: bilancio di 30 anni di convegni L’Africa romana,
   Atti del XX convegno di studio, (Alghero 26-29 Settembre 2013), P. Ruggeri, M. B. Cocco, A. Gavini, E.
   Badaracco, P. Longu [eds.], Roma: Carocci, 2139-2154.
Briquel D. (2019) , I re in Etruria: una realtà difficile da precisare, in R. Fiori (ed.), Re e popolo Istituzioni arca-
   iche tra storia e comparazione, Göttingen: Vandenhoeck &Ruprecht Verlag, 247-273.

Brogan O., Smith D.J. (1984), Ghirza. A Libyan settlement in Roman Period, Tripoli: Department of Antiqui-
   ties.
Campbell B. (2000), The Writings of the Roman Land Surveyors. Introduction, Text, Translation and Commentary,
  (The Journal of Roman Studies Monograph 9), London: Society for the Promotion of Roman Studies.
Camps G. (1984), Rex Gentium Maurorum et Romanorum : recherches sur les royames de Maurétanie des VI et
  VII siècles, Antiquités Africaines 20, 183-218.
Camps G. (1999), s.v. Gurzil, in Encyclopédie Berbère v. 21, 1999, 3258-3259.
Cappelletti L. (2016), Riflessioni sui sistemi di governo etruschi prima e dopo la guerra sociale (91-88 a.C.),
   in Homenaje al Professor Armando Torres, A. Murillo Villar, A. Calzada González, S. Castán
   Pérez-Gómez [eds.], Madrid: Dykinson S.L., 85-99.
Cataudella M. R. (1987), Società e diritto nell’Africa romana. Ius italicum: aspetti e riflessioni, in L’Africa Roma-
   na, Atti del IV convegno di studio, (Sassari 12-14 dicembre 1986), A. Mastino [ed.], Sassari: Pubblicazioni
   del Dipartimento di Storia dell’Università di Sassari, 117-132.
Christol M. (2005), Rome et les tribus indigènes en Maurétanie Tingitane, in Id., Regards sur l’Afrique, Paris:
   Errance 2005, 11-23.
Cordovana O.D. (2007), Segni e immagini del potere i Severi e la provincia Africa Proconsularis, Catania: Edizioni
   del Prisma 2007.
Cordovana O.D. (2012), Historical Ecosystems. Roman Frontier and Economic Hinterlands in North Africa,
   Historia 61.4, 458-494.
Cordovana O.D. (2015), Diritti territoriali, migrazioni e conflitti sociali in Africa tardoantica, in L. Montecchio
   [ed.], Tensioni sociali nella Tarda Antichità nelle province occidentali dell’Impero Romano, Perugia: Graphe
   2015, 109-131.
Corò F. (1934), Meraviglie archeologiche nel territorio di Ghirza, in L’Italia coloniale .
Desanges J. (1962), Catalogue des tribus africaines de l’antiquité classique à l’ouest du Nil, Dakar: Publications de
   l’Université Dakar.
Di Vita A. (2015), Il limes romano di Tripolitania nella sua concretezza archeologica e nella sua realtà storica,
   in M.A. Rizzo, G. Di Vita Evrard (eds.), A. Di Vita, Scritti Africani, (Monografie di Archeologia della Libia
   38), vol. I, Roma, 1-38.
Di Vita A. (2015), La villa della “gara delle Nereidi” presso Tagiura: un contributo alla storia del mosaico roma-
   no, in M.A. Rizzo, G. Di Vita Evrard (eds.), A. Di Vita, Scritti Africani, (Monografie di Archeologia della
   Libia 38), vol. I, Roma, 93-152.



                                                          18
        ‘Fossils’ of political institutions. Rome and Tripolitanian marginal areas during Late Antiquity


Dupuis X. (1996), La concession du Ius italicum à Carthage, Utique et Lepcis Magna: mesure d’ensemble ou
  décisions ponctuelles?, in Splendidissima civitas. Études d’histoire romaine en hommage à François Jacques, A.
  Chastagnol, S. Demougin, C. Lepelley [eds.], Paris: Publications de la Sorbonne, 57-65.
Fanning S. (2011), Reguli in the Roman Empire, Late Antiquity, and the Early Medieval Germanic Kingdoms,
   in R. W. Mathisen., D. Shanzer (eds.), Romans, Barbarians, and the Transformation of the Roman World.
   Cultural Interaction and the Creation of Identity in Late Antiquity, (sixth Biennial Shifting Frontiers in Late
   Antiquity Conference held at the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign in March of 2005), Lon-
   don-New York: Farnham, 43-54.
Fantoli A. (1927), Ghirza, in Le vie d’Italia, 43-51.
Felici F., Munzi M., Tantillo I. (2006), Austuriani e Laguatan in Tripolitania, in A. Akerraz, P. Ruggeri, A. Siraj,
    C. Vismara [eds.], Mobilità delle persone e dei popoli, dinamiche migratorie, emigrazioni ed immigrazioni nelle
    province occidentali dell’Impero romano, Atti del XVI convegno di studio (Rabat 15-19 dicembre 2004),
    Roma: Carocci, 591-688.
Munzi M., Felici F., Cirelli E., Schingo G., Zocchi A. (2008), Il territorio di Leptis Magna: ricognizioni tra Ras
  el-Mergheb e Ras el-Hammam (2007), in M. Milanese, P. Ruggeri, C. Vismara [eds.], I luoghi e le forme dei
  mestieri e della produzione nelle province africane, L’Africa romana, Atti del XVIII convegno di studio, Olbia
  11-14 dicembre 2008, Roma, 725-748.
Fiori R. (2019), Le forme della regalità nella Roma latino-sabina, in R. Fiori [ed.], Re e popolo Istituzioni arcaiche
    tra storia e comparazione, Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 411-525.
Fontana S. (1997), Il pre-deserto tripolitano: mausolei e rappresentazione del potere, Libya Antiqua n.s. 3, 149-
   162.
Fontana S., Munzi M., Ricci G. (1996), Insediamenti agricoli di età ellenistica e romana nell’area dell’uadi Bendar
   (Leptis Magna), Libya Antiqua n.s. 2, 67-72.
Gàbrici E. (1928), La collezione Casuccini del Museo Nazionale di Palermo, Studi Etruschi 2, 55-82.
Grelle F. (1963), ‘Stipendium vel tributum’. L’imposizione fondiaria nelle dottrine giuridiche del II e III secolo,
   Napoli: Jovene.
Grierson P., Mays M. (1992), Catalogue of Late Roman Coins in the Dumbarton Oaks Collection and in the Whit-
   temore Collection. From Arcadius and Honorius to the Accession of Anastasius, Washington D.C.: Dumbarton
   Oaks.
Jacques F. (1992), Propriétés impériales et cités en Numidie Méridionale, Cahiers du Centre Glotz 3, 123-139.
Hatzopulos M.B. (1993), Épigraphie et villages en Grèce du Nord: ethnos, polis et kome en Macédoine, in A.
   Calbi, A. Donati, G. Poma (eds.), L’epigrafia del villaggio, (Epigrafia e antichità 12), Faenza 1993, 151-171.
Hatzopulos M.B. (1996), Macedonian Institutions Under the Kings I. A Historical and Epigraphic Study, Athens,
   79-82.
Heurgon (1957) L’État étrusque, Historia 6.1, 63-97.
Kolendo J. (1986), Les grandes domaines en Tripolitaine d’après l’Itinéraire Antonin, in Histoire et Archéologie
   de l’Afrique du Nord, Actes du IIIe colloque international sur l’histoire et l’archéologie de l’Afrique du Nord
   (Montpellier 1-5 Avril 1985), Paris: Éditions du Comité des Travaux Historique et Scientifique, 149-161.
Kotula T. (1965), Le principes gentis et les principes civitatis in Afrique romain, Eos 55, 347-365.
Laffi U. (1966), Adtributio e Contributio. Problemi del sistema politico-amministrativo dello stato romano, Pisa:
    Nistri-Lischi.
Lassère J.-M. (1977), Ubique populus. Peuplement et mouvements de population dans l’Afrique romaine de la chute
   de Carthage à la fin de la dynastie des Sévères (146 a.C.-235 p.C.), Paris: Éditions du Centre National de la
   Recherche Scientifique.
Lepelley C. (2001), La préfecture de tribu dans l’Afrique du Bas-Empire, in Id., Aspects de l’Afrique romaine. Les
   cités, la vie rurale, le christianisme, Bari: Edipuglia, 305-317.



                                                         19
                                           Orietta Dora Cordovana


Letta C. (2002), I praefecti di tribù non urbanizzate in Africa e in Europa, in Lo spazio marittimo del Mediterraneo
    occidentale: geografia storica ed economia, Atti del XIV convegno di studio (Sassari 7-10 dicembre 2000), M.
    Khanoussi, P. Ruggeri, C. Vismara [eds.], Roma: Carocci, 2093-2110.
Leveau P. (1973), L’aile II des Thraces, la tribu des Mazices et les praefecti gentis en Afrique du Nord (à propos
   d’une inscription nouvelle d’Oppidum Novum et de la pénétration romaine dans la partie orientale des
   plaines du Chélif ), Antiquités Africaines 7, 153-192 .
Lewicki T., Kotula T. (1986), Un témoignage d’Al-Bakri et le problème de la ratio privata sévérienne en Tripol-
   itaine, Antiquités Africaines 22, 255-271.
Lopez Paz P. (1999), La formula ex tributario solo del catastro de Orange y la categoria juridica de las tierras co-
   loniales de las provincias. Ius Italicum e immunitas, in Ciudades privilegiadas en el occidente romano, (Historia
   y Geografía, 42), J. González [ed.], Sevilla: Diputación de Sevilla, 289-294.
Luzzatto G.I. (1984), La riscossione tributaria in Roma e l’ipotesi della proprietà-sovranità, in Giuseppe Ignazio
   Luzzatto. Scritti minori epigrafici e papirologici, R. Bonini [ed.], Sala Bolognese: Forni, 205-241.
Mac Guckin de Slane W. (1913), Description de l’Afrique Septentrionale par el Bekri, French translation, Paris:
  Imprimerie Impériale.
Malavolta M. (1999), s.v. ius Italicum, Dizionario Epigrafico 4.
Mattingly D.J. (1983), The Laguatan: a Libyan Tribal Confederation in the Late Roman Empire, Libyan Studies
  4, 96-108.
Mattingly D.J. (1989), Farmers and Frontiers. Exploiting and Defending the Countryside of Roman Tripolita-
  nia, Libyan Studies 20, 135-153.
Mattingly D.J. (2011), Imperialism, Power, and Identity. Experiencing the Roman Empire, Princeton: University
  Press.
Mazzarino S. (1980), Ius Italicum e storiografia moderna, ora in Id., Antico Tardoantico ed era costantiniana, I,
  Bari: Laterza, 188-213.
Mazzarino S. (2001), Dalla Monarchia allo Stato repubblicano. Ricerche di Storia Romana Arcaica, Milano: Riz-
  zoli (rist.).
Modéran Y. (2003), Les Maures et l’Afrique romaine (IVe-VIIe siècle), (Bibliothèque des Écoles Françaises d’Athènes
  et de Rome 314), Roma: Publications de l’ École Française de Rome.
Musso L. (1997), Leptis Magna e il suo territorio. Suburbio, ville marittime, necropoli, mausolei, in Missioni
  archeologiche italiane. La ricerca archeologica, antropologica, etnologica, Roma: L’Erma di Bretschneider, 203-
  208.
Paribeni E. (1938), I rilievi chiusini arcaici, Studi Etruschi 12, 57-141.
Purpura G. (2012), Tabula Banasitana de viritana civitate (180/181 d.C.), in Revisione ed integrazione dei Fontes
   Iuris Romani Anteiustiniani FIRA. Studi preparatori, I, Leges, G. Purpura [ed.], Palermo: Giappichelli, 625-
   641.
Romanelli P. (1930), La vita agricola tripolitana attraverso le rappresentazioni figurate, Africa Italiana 3, 53-75.
Schäfer T. (1989), Imperii Insignia. Sella curulis und fasces. Zur Repräsentation römischer Magistrate, (Mitteilun-
   gen des Deutschen Archaeologischen Instituts. Roemische Abteilung 29), Mainz: Philipp von Zabern.
Shea G. W. (1998), The Iohannis or de Bellis Libycis of Flavius Cresconius Corippus, (Studies in Classics 7), Lewis-
   ton: E. Mellen Press.
Torelli M. (1997), Il rango, il rito e l’immagine, Milano: Mondadori Electa.
Torelli M. (2006), Insignia Imperii. La genesi dei simboli del potere nel mondo etrusco e romano, Ostraka 15.2,
   407-430.
Vergara-Caffarelli E. (1960), Ghirza, in Enciclopedia dell’Arte Antica III, 866-869.
Watson A. (1985) [ed.], The Digest of Justinian, I-IV, Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press.


                                                        20
        ‘Fossils’ of political institutions. Rome and Tripolitanian marginal areas during Late Antiquity


Weiss A. (2006), Das Amt des praefectus gentis in den kaiserzeitlichen nordafrikanischen Provinzen, Antiquités
   Africaines 42, 101-116.
Zimmer G. (1981), GhirzaGrenzsiedlung am Limes Tripolitanus, Antike Welt 12.2, 3-10




                                                      21
                                        Orietta Dora Cordovana


Riassunto /Abstract



    Abstrac: This paper examines some political-institutional, cultural, and religious dynamics in
the border areas of Roman Tripolitania. The site of Ghirza, in particular, offers insights into the
forms and content of intercultural exchange between the native groups and the Romano-Byzantines.
The settlement was also crucial for the territorial political control of the Roman administration in
those marginal areas. Some of the reliefs on the local mausolea show ceremonial scenes concerning
the investiture of certain chiefs. Scholars have suggested that the depiction may refer to a Roman
magistrate, such as praefectus or princeps gentis. This paper aims to better define the powers related to
the tribal chief of Ghirza. It also attempts to distinguish the earliest legal-institutional basis on which
this office may have been rooted. The Roman government in the borderlands acted as a guarantee of
political legitimacy in the management of the confederations of tribes that gravitated on the Roman
limes. In this sense, this research is supposed to identify the residual “fossils” of the Etruscan-Italic
magistracies which in frontier contexts were much more suitable than the Roman magistracies for
indirect political management.

    Riassunto: Questo contributo esamina alcune dinamiche politico-istituzionali, culturali e religiose
nelle aree di confine della Tripolitania romana. Il sito di Ghirza, in particolare, offre spunti sulle forme
e i contenuti dello scambio interculturale tra i gruppi nativi e i Romano-Bizantini. L’insediamento
era anche cruciale per il controllo politico e territoriale dell’amministrazione romana in quelle aree
marginali. Alcuni dei rilievi sui mausolei locali mostrano scene cerimoniali riguardanti l’investitura di
alcuni capi. Gli studiosi hanno suggerito che la raffigurazione possa riferirsi a un magistrato romano,
in qualità di praefectus o princeps gentis. Questo studio mira a definire meglio i poteri relativi al capo
tribale di Ghirza. Tenta di individuare le più antiche basi giuridico-istituzionali su cui questa carica
poté essere stata radicata. Il governo romano nelle zone di frontiera fungeva da garanzia di legittimità
politica nella gestione delle confederazioni di tribù che gravitavano sul limes romano. In questo senso,
questa ricerca intende identificare i “fossili” residuali delle magistrature etrusco-italiche che in contesti
di frontiera erano molto più adatte delle magistrature romane ad una gestione politica indiretta.

   Key words: Roman marginal areas, Ghirza, limes, tribes’ confederations, magistracies
   Parole-chiave: aree marginali romane, Ghirza, limes, confederazioni di tribù, magistrature




   Come citare questo articolo / How to cite this paper
   Orietta Dora Cordovana, ‘Fossils’ of political institutions. Rome and Tripolitanian mar-
ginal areas during Late Antiquity, CaSteR 7 (2022), doi: 10.13125/caster/4889, http://ojs.
unica.it/index.php/caster/




                                                    22
