FIG. 2. Minturnae, schematic drawing after a vignette of Hyginus, Vat. Palat. lat. 1564, f. 88r. fig. 89 Th., 150 L.
Minturnae (fig. 2).163 Certainly, the same rule was also applied to the old colonists when a decision was made to found a new colony on the same territory. This might also explain the occasional occurrence of what are called ‘double communities’.164 In this context, it should be remembered that it was rarely the case that the conquered were completely exterminated. The agrimensores clearly underline the necessity of taking into account the presence of peregrine communities in colonial territory. In some cases, their lands retained peregrine status and did not fall under the authority of the colony.165 What is more, in a somewhat difficult passage, Hyginus notes that a peregrine oppidum could still exist in the territory of a colony. In this instance he says the oppidum would retain its previous status. In fact, the authority of the colony was limited to what had been given to the new
163
Chouquer and Favory 1992, 53. The drawing shows the land of the colony: on the right is the division into regular squares for new settlers; on the left is the ager adsignatus per professiones to the veteres possessores who received the right to stay where they had previously been settled. Limitatio is made here by using natural landmarks and visible monuments (here a grave and a statue of Diana). Sic. Flacc., Cond. agr. 159.1420 L., 125 Th.: “aliquando vero in limitationibus si ager etiam ex viciniis territoriis sumptus non suffecisset, et auctor divisionis assignationisque quosdam cives coloniis dare velit et agros eis assignare, voluntatem suam edicit commentariis aut in formis extra limitationem, MONTE ILLO, PAGO ILLO, ILLI IVGERA TOT, aut ILLI AGRVM ILLVM, QVI FVIT ILLIVS; hoc ergo genus fuit assignationis sine divisione.” Clavel-Lévêque et al. 1993, 81-82.
164
165
Cf. Pelgrom in this volume, who, however, uses the term to describe a different scenario (i.e. the sharing of a territory by a colonial and a non-colonial community). On this see below. See now Gagliardi 2011, 68-72. Hyg., Cond. agr. 82 Th.; Hyg., Cond. agr. 119 L: “Alioqui<n>, cum ceteros possessores expelleret et pararet agros quos divideret, quos dominos in possessionibus suis remanere passus est, eorum condicionem mutasse non videtur: nam neque cives coloniae accedere iussit.” Hyg., Cond. agr. 83 Th.; 120 L.: “Illud vero observandum, quod semper auctores divisionum sanxerunt, uti quaecumque loca sacra, sepulchra, delubra, aquae publicae ac vicinales, fontes fossaeque publicae vicinalesque essent, item si qua conpascua, quamvis agri dividerentur, ex omnibus eiusdem condicionis essent cuius ante fuissent.”