Cover image: Relief from honorary monument to Marcus Aurelius: sacrifice to Capitoline Jupiter. The only Roman image of the Capitoline Temple in Rome. Capitoline Museums, Rome.
Italian Capitolia and romanization: re-evaluating identifications and new perspectives Marthe Donders; S2081873
MA Thesis
Dr. T.C.A. de Haas
Classical and Mediterranean Archaeology University of Leiden, Faculty of Archaeology Leiden, 2019
Table of Contents
1. Introduction ... 6
1.1 Capitolia and romanization ... 6
1.2 Research questions ... 7
1.3 Methodology and scope ... 8
2. The historiography of romanization ... 9
2.1 Origins of the term romanization ... 9
2.2 Romanization in a post-colonial world ... 10
2.3 Alternatives for romanization ... 11
2.4 Globalization ... 12
2.5 Conclusion ... 13
3. Romanization and Capitolia ... 14
3.1 Historiography of Capitolia ... 14
3.2 Capitolia and romanization ... 15
3.3 Conclusion ... 16
4. Defining Capitolia on the basis of actual evidence ... 17
4.1 Previous definitions of Capitolia ... 17
4.2 Redefining Capitolia: my approach ... 22
4.3 Categorising ‘Capitolia’. ... 24
4.3.1 Definite Capitolia ... 27
4.3.2 Highly Potential Capitolia ... 28
4.3.3 Temples with Capitolium elements ... 29
4.3.4 Discarded ... 30
4.4 Analysing definite Capitolia ... 32
4.4.1 Geography ... 32
4.4.2 Chronology ... 32
4.4.3 Connection to colonization ... 33
4.5 Analysing ‘Highly Potential Capitolia’ ... 34
4.5.1 Geography ... 34
4.5.2 Chronology and connection to colonization ... 34
5. The place of Capitolia within a broader architectural development of Roman temples ... 38
5.1 The Capitolium in Rome ... 38
5.2 Architecture of Italian Capitolia ... 41
5.2.1 Brixia ... 41
5.2.2 Cumae ... 41
5.2.3 Pompeii ... 42
5.2.4 Comparing the Capitolia ... 43
5.3 Etruscan architecture ... 44
5.4 Etrusco-Roman temples ... 45
5.5 Hellenistic architectural influences ... 46
5.6 Architectural styles in relation to Capitolia ... 47
5.7 Conclusion ... 49
6. An alternative for romanization ... 50
6.1 Globalization ... 50
6.2 Criticism on alternatives ... 51
6.3 Globalization in relation to Capitolia ... 52
6.4 Conclusion ... 53 7. Conclusion ... 55 Abstract ... 58 Bibliography ... 59 Ancient sources ... 59 Internetpages ... 61 Secondary sources ... 62
List of figures, tables, appendices ... 69
Figures ... 69
Tables ... 69
Appendices ... 69
APPENDIX 1: CATALOGUE OF ITALIAN CAPITOLIA ... 70
ABELLINUM ... 72
AQUINUM A ... 76 AQUINUM B ... 78 AUGUSTA PRAETORIA ... 81 BENEVENTUM ... 83 BRIXIA ... 85 CAPUA ... 87 COSA ... 89 CUMAE ... 91 FAESULAE A ... 93 FAESULAE B ... 95 FALERII A ... 97 FALERII B ... 99 FLORENTIA ... 101 FORMIAE ... 103 HERCULANEUM ... 106 HISTONIUM ... 108 LITERNUM ... 110 LUNA ... 112 MARRUVIUM MARSORUM ... 114 MINTURNAE ... 116 NOLA ... 118 OSTIA ... 120 POMPEII ... 124 RAVENNA ... 126 SIGNIA ... 128 TARRACINA ... 130 TEATE MARRUCINORUM ... 132 TERGESTE ... 134 VERONA ... 136
1. Introduction
1.1 Capitolia and romanization
The Capitolium temple was the most important temple in the city of Rome, and maybe even of the whole empire (Todd 1985, 57). The Capitolium was where the Capitoline triad, which consisted of Jupiter, the supreme god of the Roman pantheon, his wife Juno, and his daughter Minerva, goddess of wisdom, was honoured. It was also the place where new consuls took up their office, the place where all triumphal processions culminated, and where the Roman senate would traditionally meet for the first meeting of the year. It was dedicated in 509 BC and was rebuilt several times. An important aspect of this temple in Rome was the tripartite cella: it was divided into three sections, so that each deity had its own quarter. Similar structures have been found all over the Italian peninsula. Therefore, it is assumed that the Capitolium in Rome served as a model for other Capitolia in the rest of the Roman Empire.
To better understand the spreading of Roman culture across the Italian peninsula and the rest of the Roman Empire, the concept of romanization is often used. This traditional view on the diffusion of Roman culture is based on the assumption that the Roman culture was superior over the conquered more primitive communities. The result was a uniform cultural entity covering the Roman Empire as a whole (Haverfield 1915, 11).
Research into Capitolia has long reflected this idea of romanization. In the 20th century,
scholars created an idea of a perfect Roman city in which the presence of a Capitolium temple was essential. Amongst scholars a general idea originated that having a Capitolium temple was a privilege that could only be obtained by Roman colonies (Castan 1869; Kuhfeldt 1883; Bianchi 1950). Since Roman colonies were seen as copies of Rome or mini-Rome’s, Capitolia were considered as central elements of Roman urbanism. It was assumed that these temples were the most important feature of every Roman colony. Capitolium temples outside Rome could therefore be seen as a key element of romanization. As a result, temples that fitted to this idea have been ‘automatically’ identified as Capitolia, without any hard archaeological or literary evidence (Quinn and Wilson 2013).
However, in recent decades, the concept of romanization has been heavily criticized. The post-colonial world started to see romanization as a reflection of the colonial era, as a way for certain countries to defend their imperialistic policy. Therefore, the concept has received negative attention in recent decades (Millett 1990). This has resulted in an overall revision of the concept. Modern scholars now try to look at romanization as a two-way process, in which cultures accustom to each other in different ways, instead of one being inferior to another.
Research on Capitolia has, as part of this revision, witnessed a similar process of revision in the last decade. This especially comes forward in an overview article by historian Josephine Quinn and archaeologist Andrew Wilson (Quinn and Wilson 2013, 117 – 173). Quinn and Wilson have made an inventory of all temples that have earlier been identified as Capitolia and have critically analysed the underlying evidence. Their research shows that the identification of a Capitolium is
often not supported by archaeological, epigraphical or literary evidence. Another interesting outcome of their research is that it shows that there has always been discussion amongst scholars whether a temple could be identified as a Capitolium or not.
Even though Quinn and Wilson have proven that revision of these identifications is necessary, their article mostly focuses on Capitolia in northern Africa. Other areas in which Capitolia have been found have received lesser attention in their research. One of these areas is the Italian peninsula. Even though some are discussed in their article, an exhaustive study into all Italian Capitolia is lacking.
1.2 Research questions
With my research, I therefore aim to better understand all of the Capitolia in the Italian peninsula. First, I will critically re-evaluate the evidence and arguments that have been used by scholars to identify Capitolia within the Italian peninsula. By building an inventory of all the Capitolia and their evidence, I will critically analyse if the traditional view can still be maintained. Second, this research aims to better understand the development of these tripartite structures, within a broader architectural context. By doing this, it will be possible to view these temples in light of broader architectural developments, rather than drawing conclusions from a romanization perspective.
This research thus has two general questions. Firstly, to what extent does the archaeological, epigraphical and literary evidence support the interpretation of temples as Capitolia? Secondly, how can we better understand Capitolia in terms of architectural development within the Italian peninsula and broader processes of cultural change?
To answer these questions, it is necessary to first answer sub questions. I first dicsuss the concept of romanization in relation to Capitolia. How did this term come into being and how is it connected to Capitolia? Following this, I will present an overview of earlier definitions of Capitolia by different scholars. After evaluating the weaknesses and strengths of their criteria, I will form my own. This will lead to a categorisation of the temples found in the Italian peninsula. This categorisation is important as we can then draw conclusions from the identifications of these temples. Were they really only connected to colonies and in what scope can we put them? It will then become possible to see if we can still connect them to the concept of romanization.
To answer the second main question, we will look into broader architectural developments. To do this, it is first important to research the main Capitolium. What were its features and how did they develop over time? We will similarly investigate the Capitolia that have come forward through the data analysed previously and see how they developed over time as well. By doing this, it will become possible to contextualize them in a broader architectural development. Do they fit into a broader building tradition or have they been strongly influenced by other architectural styles? Lastly, this
thesis will explore the concept of globalization as an alternative into understanding Capitolia as opposed to romanization.
1.3 Methodology and scope
Central to answering these questions, is a database of thirty carefully collected examples of temples earlier identified as Capitolia, in the Italian peninsula. This database (appendix 1, p. 71) includes the archaeological, epigraphical evidence, as well as literary references and sculptural remains that lie behind these former identifications and a critical evaluation of this evidence.
This evidence shows that the chronological scope of these temples is very wide. The Capitolium temple in Rome was built as early as 509 BC, while some of these Capitolia were built in the first century AD. Despite this very wide chronological scope, the main architectural elements of these temples are in most cases very similar. They can therefore be compared to each other, regardless of their difference in time.
My research is then structured as follows: the second and third chapter of this thesis go into the historiography of romanization in relation to the study of Capitolia. It will introduce more thoroughly the past and current scholarship on these temples and the concept that has been central to it. Following this, chapter four presents a critical analysis of the evidence of the thirty Italian temples. In this chapter I will investigate to what extent the traditional view on Capitolia as a central element of Roman urbanism can still be maintained. The fifth chapter will research the architectural development of Capitolia in light of broader architectural development in temple building, including an analysis of other tripartite structures that have been found on the Italian peninsula. In the sixth chapter, I will further analyse if the concept of globalization proves to be more useful than romanization within research into Capitolia. In chapter seven, then, I will summarize my conclusions and answer the research questions I have proposed. The appendix contains the catalogue of the thirty Capitolia, which will be central for the critical analysis.
2. The historiography of romanization
“In modern text books the term romanization is put to frequent employment. It is vulgar and ugly, worse than that, anachronistic and misleading.’’ (Syme 1983, 36)
This quote clearly demonstrates how heavily debated the concept romanization had become by the end of the twentieth century. The term, developed in the beginning of the twentieth century, can be seen as a mirror of the political scene of the nineteenth and twentieth century. While Western countries were looking for different ways to defend their imperialistic policy at that time, they turned to the Roman Empire (Wallace-Hadrill 2008, 10). In what ways had the Roman Empire done the same that they had been doing? This chapter will research the origins of the term romanization, the criticism that followed and will introduce alternatives for the concept.
2.1 Origins of the term romanization
The origins of the term romanization can be found with British archaeologist and historian Francis Haverfield, who introduced the word romanization for the first time in his book ‘The Romanization of Roman Britain’ (Haverfield 1915). Throughout this work, he heavily relied on other influential historians and archaeologists of the 19th century, such as Theodor Mommsen and Henry Pelham (Freeman 1997, 29 – 35). While this work mostly talks about the influence of the Romans in Britain, he outlines his general take on romanization in the first chapter of this book.
In this chapter, called ‘the Romanization of the Empire’, he talks about the practicalities that the Romans had produced (Haverfield 1915, 9 – 23). According to him, the Roman Empire had resulted in two achievements: first of all, the Romans had defended the boundaries of the empire that they had built and had therefore secured internal peace. The second and most important achievement was that Romans had brought civilization to the other parts of the Empire. As Haverfield put it: “a large part of the world became romanized” (Haverfield 1915, 11). He explained the different forms in which Roman civilization became visible: Roman speech and manners, political franchise, city life etc. Haverfield looked at the native people from the provinces as barbarians, civilizations without any culture. The Romans, by expanding their empire, gave them an opportunity to become civilized. He acknowledged that this process had varied throughout the different parts of the empire, by distinguishing the process between the eastern and western part of the Empire. Haverfield argued that the east was less romanized than the west, because Greek civilization still reigned in the east. Even though the people in the east theoretically called themselves Romans, Roman civilization was little adopted. This was different in the west, where romanization ‘thrived’. In Haverfield’s opinion, there was no civilization here and therefore people were very open to accepting the new Roman culture.
Haverfield went on to explain how the language, religion and material culture of these native people were romanized. In the end of his chapter, he mentions that even though the Romans brought
civilization to the ‘barbaric lands’, the rituals, customs and material culture from these conquered people were still present, even if they were inferior. He stressed that Roman culture united the different people of all parts of the Roman Empire through its language, customs and material culture (Haverfield 1915, 22).
2.2 Romanization in a post-colonial world
Even though Haverfield’s work has had great influence on the academic world, the concept started to be criticised in the seventies of the previous century. The post-colonial world started to see romanization as a reflection of the colonial era, as a way for certain countries to defend their imperialistic policy.
Criticism on the concept started in the seventies, when Abdallah Laroui argued that romanization could no longer be used as a term to explain the spreading of Roman culture into northern Africa. He stated that revolts were constantly present during the Roman period in northern Africa and that romanization only happened superficially (Laroui 1977, 27 – 66). Together with Marcel Bénabou, he created a polarized idea in which the indigenous people revolted against Roman oppression, rather than simply taking over their culture (Bénabou 1976, 9 - 12). Their ideas not only led to criticism on romanization in northern Africa but started a debate on romanization in the rest of the Roman Empire.
A key figure in this debate has been Martin Millett (Millett 1990). Being a British archaeologist himself like Haverfield, he wrote an essay about his own vision of the concept. In this essay, he stresses that he wants to build on the foundations laid by Haverfield but wants to put more emphasis on the fact that Roman culture was not merely imposed on native culture. According to Millett, we have to keep in mind that romanization was a two-way process (Millett 1990, 1). It should be seen as an interaction between two cultures, producing a combination of the two. The latter aspect is what differs most from Haverfield’s work in the beginning of the 20th century. He saw the exchange of cultures as a one-way process, in which the Romans came, and the native people had to obey to their culture. Haverfield’s opinion was that natives had no culture at all.
Revision of the term romanization was part of a much bigger revision within archaeology and history. Post-colonial scholarship started to focus more on the commoners rather than the elite and the native cultures rather than the centre, such as Rome. Classical archaeology became Mediterranean archaeology. In light of this, scholars have tried to look beyond Rome’s city borders and look at the Mediterranean as a whole. Rome is not seen as the central and only player anymore, but as one active player in a whole field of protagonists. Scholars try to see the interaction between all these players, instead of viewing Rome as the dominant factor. In the field of archaeology, this has resulted in more field research (Stek 2013, 342). Even though this field is quite new, and the results are yet to be generally accepted, the outcomes show that the traditional view of romanization is perhaps less strong than we assumed. The archaeological data shows that some key-symbols of
romanization, for example Roman colonies, were in fact less Roman than earlier assumed (Stek 2013, 344).
2.3 Alternatives for romanization
Through Millett’s essay, the concept of romanization obtained a new meaning. It was still founded on the ideas of Haverfield but scholars started to detach the term from its colonial and imperialistic connotations. It opened the door for different perspectives on cultural change within the Roman Empire. This has occurred especially in the last decade, in which concepts as métissage, creolization and cross-cultural fertilization were proposed as alternatives for romanization.
The concept of creolization was proposed and described by archaeologist Jane Webster in 2001 as a substitute for romanization (Webster 2001, 209 – 225). Creolization is a linguistic term, which explains the merging of two languages into a blended dialect (Webster 2001, 217). This linguistic term has been used to study the intercultural interaction between Caribbean societies. Webster has explained the term as following:
“Archaeologists working in the Americas have for some time been extending the model of creole language development to the study of material culture, suggesting that, like creole languages, creole material culture represents not the gradual replacement of one way of life by another, but the blending of both, in a clearly nonegalitarian social context.” (Webster 2001, 218)
According to her, a similar process should be applicable to the adapting of Roman culture by native cultures, blending together to form a new single culture. However, this model is based on a Caribbean example, which differs a lot from the European context connected to the Romans. The historical situation of the Caribbean leads to a firm division between the two colonising parties, which is distinguished by Europe and Africa and by the status of master and slave. This is not the case with the territory that the Romans conquer: these peoples do not become their slaves; these people enhance the Roman Empire and are in most cases, to a certain extent, left in their own value (Wallace-Hadrill 2008, 11).
A variation of the creolization model was therefore suggested by Patrick le Roux. He proposed the term ‘métissage’, which was used in the sixteenth century to describe ‘cross-breeding’ or ‘mixed blood’ in a colonial environment (Le Roux 2004, 287 – 311). This model ensures that there is a third space in which the result of the mixture of two cultures can exist. However, it also assumes that there can only be a single blended outcome, that is derived from two defined ‘parents’, in these cases cultures.
Problematic with this model, is that the outcome ignores the fact that cultures are constantly subject to change and continuity and can be considered as ‘fluid’. It also leaves out the option that
the colonising party can be influenced by the colonised culture. It only proposes a single new founded ‘culture’, that is the result of the blending of two cultures (Wallace-Hadrill 2008, 12).
Archaeologist Chris Gosden developed a more interactive model (Gosden 2004). According to him, colonised parties could be influenced by other cultures just as much as influencing others themselves, without needing to create a single new entity. This process of ‘cross-cultural fertilisation’ allows both parties to engage in a continuing process of defining their own culture whilst being influenced by one another. Gosden sees the Roman Empire in this case as the ‘great middle ground’, in which the Romans interact within a vast territory that surrounds them which caused multi-sided exchange (Gosden 2004, 105).
Besides the different models described above, there is also the possibility in which cultures co-exist alongside one another. This is for example explained through yet another linguistic term, bilingualism. In the case of bilingualism, two (or more) languages are used alongside each other, in which the user can choose words from both languages (Adams et al. 2002). The knowledge of both these languages is then distinct to the user and used upon improvisation. This theory could well have worked for the Roman Empire: the Empire then did not produce a new culture by blending with native ones, but native cultures co-existed alongside Roman culture, with the civilian being able to pick and choose elements from both. However, I do not find it assumable that civilians were able to consciously chose elements from one culture or the other, which is proposed through this concept. I do not think that two cultures co-existed alongside one another and were not influenced by each other and that the ‘user’ just chose the elements he liked. This concept is too clear-cut to be used in understanding cultural change.
2.4 Globalization
Even though, as described above, many alternatives for romanization have been proposed, none of them have found wide acceptance (Sweetman 2007, 66 – 67). We could also state that the romanization debate has led to a disappointing confusion. As a result, the term romanization is still widely used but is always combined with a certain form of explanation.
Nevertheless, a concept that has become popular since the nineties of the last century might be able to fill this gap. The concept of globalization is used to describe various modern processes, which are for example connected to economics, development and even the effect of global warming, but can also be used to describe various process within history.
According to Pitts and Versluys, globalization can in the simplest way be described as “processes by which localities and people become increasingly interconnected and interdependent” (Pitts and Versluys 2015, 11). Since the term is used in so many different disciplines, there are many variations on this basic definition that then apply to each discipline. Even though globalization is mostly used to describe modern processes, its characteristics can also very much be applied to certain periods within history (Hopkins 2002, 24). These periods in history can be characterized as
global in terms of interconnectivity, the existence of a common market, the idea of belonging to one world and so on. This is also valid for the Roman period. Therefore, this concept might just be fitting to explain how Roman culture spread throughout the Empire and what kind of impact it had. This concept will therefore be further explored in chapter six.
2.5 Conclusion
In this chapter we have researched the origins of the term romanization. It was created at the beginning of the twentieth century by archaeologist Francis Haverfield. The term became heavily criticized at the end of the twentieth century, as it was seen as a reflection of the colonial era. Criticism started with research into Roman influence on northern Africa and led to a debate about the use of romanization in the rest of the Roman Empire. In light of this, different alternatives were proposed. Creolization, métissage and cross-cultural fertilization did not seem to cover the whole phenomenon. The concept of globalization, which is described as immensely interconnected processes, does seem to fill this gap. Therefore, this concept will be further described in chapter six. First however in the next chapter, will be an analysis on how romanization was central within research to Capitolia in the course of over 150 years.
3. Romanization and Capitolia
Previously, we have researched the origins of the term romanization. This chapter will dive deeper into its influence on the study of Capitolia. To understand this influence better, it is important to describe the scholarship on Capitolia, which already started over 150 years ago.
3.1 Historiography of Capitolia
In 1869 the first systematic study on Capitolia was published by Auguste Castan, a French archaeologist (Castan 1869). In this work, he listed eleven Capitolia in Italy. According to him, these temples were an exclusive privilege that could only be obtained by Roman colonies. In 1883 Oscar Kuhfeldt expanded the list of provincial Capitolia in his dissertation ‘De Capitoliis imperi Romani’ (Kuhfeldt 1883). He discusses multiple types of evidence to identify Capitolia. Just as Castan, he noticed that mostly colonies had the privilege of having a Capitolium but explained that municipia could have them too. The dissertation by Kuhfeldt prompted Castan to revise his earlier studies. In his revised work he expanded his list of Capitolia, including several temples in North-Africa, but again stating that only colonies could have Capitolia.
His studies combined with that of Kuhfeldt, were used by other scholars. This mainly meant that it was assumed that Capitolia were an essential part of colonies (Quinn and Wilson 2013, 121). Whether or not colonies were the only cities that had the privilege to obtain a Capitolium remained an important aspect of the studies into Capitolia. In 1899 the French archaeologist Jules Toutain published ‘Étude sur les Capitoles provinciaux de l’empire romain’, in which he expanded the list of Capitolia provided by Castan and Kuhfeldt (Toutain 1899). Also, he stated that Capitolia were not restricted to colonies by any law or custom, since municipia had them too.
About twenty years later, a handbook on Roman Archaeology was published by French historians René Cagnat and Victor Chapot (Cagnat and Chapot 1916). This book further cemented the idea that Capitolia were a central element of Roman urbanism and not just of colonies. Italian historian Ugo Bianchi even argued in his article ‘Disegno storico del culto Capitolino nell’Italia romana e nelle provincie dell’Impero’ that Capitolia could be seen as examples of a national cult and were therefore logically to be found in an average Roman city (Bianchi 1950, 349 - 415).
The notion that Capitolia were a central element of Roman cities was further argued by American archaeologist Frank Brown. In his studies of the city of Cosa, he argued that the temple found on the Arx had to be a Capitolium (Brown 1951, 63). He considered this a fact, because the city was a colony newly founded by the Romans and should therefore topographically be similar to Rome. This meant that the temple on the highest point of the city with its triple cella had to be the copy of the Capitolium in Rome, but other than the location of the temple and a tripartite cella, he did not have anything else to prove that this was indeed the Capitolium. The Capitolium in Cosa might just be the product of a limited view that is connected to romanization, instead of actual archaeological evidence (Fentress 2000, 9 – 25).
Scholarship in the following decades maintained this view that Capitolia were a central element of Roman cities. This also comes forward in a book written by American historian Daniel Gargola in 1995:
“[...] Roman colonies possessed certain highly standardized elements. From the fourth century, the urban core was organized around a square or forum and a high place or arx, and clustered around those places (and elsewhere in the town) was a range of public buildings and temples, including a Capitolium patterned after the temples of Jupiter Best and Greatest on the Capitol at Rome.”(Gargola 1995, 83)
Similarly, Paul Zanker mentions in his paper ‘The City as Symbol: Rome and the Creation of an Urban Image’ that a “typical Roman city” features at least three things, one of which is a Capitolium situated at the intersection of cardo and decumanus (Zanker 2000, 27).
3.2 Capitolia and romanization
It has thus become clear that over time, scholars have created the idea that Roman cities had certain key-elements, of which a Capitolium was one of them. Within academic research, Capitolia have therefore become a standard feature of Roman urbanism (Quinn and Wilson 2013, 117). Since these temples have been found all over the Roman Empire, they have been seen as a perfect example of romanization. They are a key element of the material culture of the Romans, which is central in romanization.
That the concept of romanization is present throughout the scholarship into Capitolia is for example to be seen in Bianchi’s definition of a Capitolium. He stated that a Capitolium was much more than a temple dedicated to the Capitoline Triad. He argued that it embodied Roman culture and was a representative of a national culture and that cities who had the privilege of obtaining a Capitolium could be seen as cities that had embraced and adopted culture to the maximum (Bianchi 1950, 399). Even though he did not explicitly mention romanization, it becomes clear from this description that he saw the spreading of Capitolia as a spreading of a national culture, and that cities who possessed this could – according to him – be seen as ultimate Roman examples. However, as I have explained earlier, the concept of romanization had become revised in the previous century. Simultaneously, Capitolia were also revised in light of this. Quinn and Wilson wrote an overview article on Capitolia, in which this re-evaluation was presented (Quinn and Wilson 2013, 117 – 173). In this article they summarized all of the previous research into Capitolia and critically analysed the evidence that supported the identification of certain Capitolia, especially in Northern Africa (Quinn and Wilson 2013, 117 – 173). They have identified temples on their actual archaeological and epigraphical evidence, rather than its location or assumed function.
traditional view that a Capitolium was a central element of a Roman city. This resulted in the identification of Capitolia solely based on this assumption, rather than actual archaeological or any other type of evidence.
3.3 Conclusion
Ever since research into Capitolia started over 150 years ago, scholars have assumed that these temples were a key element of a Roman city. Research on Roman urban planning has been heavily influenced by the concept of romanization. Capitolia, temples that are similar to the main Capitolium in Rome, have traditionally been seen as a central element of Roman urbanism, and therefore as an ultimate example of romanization.
From 2000 onwards though, this view started to change. Capitolia are now being re-evaluated on the basis of the actual archaeological and epigraphical evidence, rather than its location or assumed function. Quinn and Wilson tried to critically analyse the actual evidence that lies behind the identifications of these temples in the whole Roman Empire and suggested that many temples are in fact not Capitolia
With these developments in mind, I aim to do a similar research that is limited within the Italian peninsula. The following chapter will therefore carefully analyse previous definitions of what a Capitolium is. Drawing upon earlier criteria, I will form my own set of criteria to identify Capitolia. This definition will be central in analysing thirty Italian temples that have been previously identified as Capitolia. Are they actually a central element of Roman urbanism, or have scholars assumed so because they were influenced by the concept of romanization?
4. Defining Capitolia on the basis of actual evidence
On the basis of the catalogue that is presented in the appendix, the following chapter will analyse a corpus of thirty temples assumed to be Capitolia in the Italian peninsula. This data comprises the archaeological remains of these thirty temples, as well as epigraphical evidence, sculptural remains and primary and secondary literature. Instead of assuming that these thirty cities had to have a Capitolium and placing this label on certain temples, this chapter will look into the actual evidence that supports any of these identifications. Before categorising these different temples, it is important to see how previous scholars have come to identify these temples as Capitolia. This is followed by my own definition of a Capitolium and a revision of the dataset.
4.1 Previous definitions of Capitolia
Even though earlier scholars have identified certain temples as Capitolia, a clear set of criteria for identifying a Capitolium was not defined until 1982, by Ian M. Barton (Barton 1982, 260 – 261). Barton built on the earlier definition of a Capitolium by Ugo Bianchi (1950). He stated that a Capitolium was much more than a temple dedicated to the Capitoline Triad. It embodied Roman culture and was a representative of a national culture. In Bianchi’s opinion, cities that had the privilege of obtaining a Capitolium could be seen as a city that had embraced and adopted culture to the maximum, by adopting its national culture (Bianchi 1950, 399).
Even though Bianchi described the cultural elements of a Capitolium, he did not describe a certain set of standards that should be met to identify a temple as such. Without such a set of criteria, it becomes hard to define a Capitolium or eliminate one. Because of this, he defines nineteen Capitolia, based on different assumptions, such as location or architecture. From the identifications, no set of criteria stands out. Barton, reacting to the work of Bianchi, draws “certain consequences from this definition” (Barton 1982, 260). In Barton’s opinion, Capitolia should be defined according to the following:
- the building must have a dedication to the Capitoline triad, this being Jupiter Optimus Maximus, Juno Regina and Minerva (Augusta), or;
- the presence of cult statues of either one of these divinities, according to a traditional pattern of a seated Jupiter, flanked by Minerva on his right and Juno on his left, or;
- a design that resembled the original Capitolium in Rome, i.e., the temple should be situated on a podium, which is approached by steps, with a pronaos and a cella that would be able to host the three cult statues, whether this was done by three cellae or a similar division that reminds one of a dedication to the Capitoline triad, or;
- the building is located in a dominating location, either the highest point of the city or the centre of the town.
With this set of criteria, Barton also defines nineteen temples as Capitolia, even though these nineteen do not match the list that was drawn up by Bianchi.
Quinn and Wilson reflect on these criteria (Quinn and Wilson 2013, 128 – 133). They begin by stating that buildings labelled as Capitolia in primary literature are a way of identifying a Capitolium. For other ways of identifying a Capitolium, they consider the criteria of Barton useful, even though they would like to explain them further. In regard to Barton’s first criterion, they see a dedication of the building to the Capitoline Triad only applicable if this is mentioned in the building inscription, and only if this inscription mentions at least two of them and an inscription of the third one can be filled in in a lacuna, within the same inscription. On top of this, the mention of Jupiter Optimus Maximus should be looked at with caution: only references with the epithet Jupiter Optimus Capitolinus can be regarded as an indicator of a Capitolium temple, because there have been cases where the epithet Jupiter Optimus Maximus has been used for other cults and was not associated with Capitolia (Quinn and Wilson 2013, 129).
Quinn and Wilson have a similar opinion regarding Barton’s second criterion, which refers to the cult statues; they only see this as definite evidence if the combination of the three can be found and not just one of the three divinities. Furthermore, references to the Capitoline Triad should always be associated with a certain building. The presence of the Capitoline Triad, not associated with any building, could also indicate the existence of the Capitoline cult, but does not automatically imply the existence of a Capitolium temple (Quinn and Wilson 2013, 129).
One specific criterion that Quinn and Wilson struggle with is that the temple should resemble the one in Rome. Barton explains that this means that the building should have a high podium approached by steps, a pronaos with columns and a cella capable of holding the three cult statues. According to Quinn and Wilson, this specific design is problematic, because there are many temples in the Roman Empire that represent this specific design but are not Capitolia. Moreover, they argue that temples that have been certainly identified as Capitolia, do not necessarily show this specific design. Therefore, they discard this criterion. (Quinn and Wilson 2013, 130).
Barton’s criterion that the cella does not necessarily have to be divided into three but should at least recall some similar division is probable according to Quinn and Wilson. They do however nuance this, as Barton’s identifications are sometimes solely based on the fact that a certain temple shows a possible tripartite cella. Quinn and Wilson go on to explain that this could never be the sole explanation, as a tripartite cella is described as the norm for Tuscan temples by Vitruvius and do therefore not necessarily represent a Capitolium (Vitruvius 4.7.2) (see also chapter 5). The last criterion of Barton has also been criticized by Quinn and Wilson, as they see the dominating position of a temple as a good indicator for a Capitolium but explain that this can never be used solely to identify a temple as such (Quinn and Wilson 2013, 132). As a result, Quinn and Wilson have come to the following criteria to identify a Capitolium (Quinn and Wilson 2013, 133):
2. A building inscription with a dedication to at least two of the three deities, i.e., Jupiter Optimus Maximus, Juno and Minerva (with the third restorable in a lacuna), or;
3. The remains of cult statues likely to represent at least two of those divinities associated with a temple structure
Following these criteria, Quinn and Wilson have defined eight temples as Capitolia, which is considerably less than Barton or Bianchi, which have each listed nineteen as definite (Bianchi 1950; Barton 1982, 259 – 266).
The different methods that were used to identify Capitolia have led to different interpretations by different scholar (table 1). This can be seen in the total number of identifications, which ranges from eight to nineteen. Even though the interpretations have been different, some of the identifications are consistent. This is for example the case with temples in Beneventum, Capua, Falerii and Histonium. Also, some of the temples have only been identified by one scholar, which make it seem as if the particular scholars were led by their own beliefs rather than a certain set of standards. Nonetheless, it becomes clear that in Quinn and Wilson’s opinion, most of these identifications did not prove to be sufficient, as they have only identified eight Capitolia.
The fact that these temples have been interpreted so differently by different scholars lies in the fact that the evidence comes in many forms. They include:
- archaeological remains - epigraphical evidence - primary literary references - secondary literary references - sculptural remains
- location
Not only are individual temples associated with different types of evidence, most of the temples are only connected to a small part of these. This makes it very difficult to associate them with one particular set of criteria. This is shown in table 2, which shows all the Capitolia and the types of evidence that are associated with their identification. This table shows that most of the Capitolia are not associated with all types of evidence and that in some cases, scholars have identified these temples on the basis of just one type of evidence, or even no type of evidence. Table 2 also shows that a tripartite cella is in most cases not present or questionable. Sculptural remains are very scarce, which is the same for Roman literary references. In this latter case, these references are also often referring to Jupiter and not the Capitoline Triad as a whole. Another aspect that comes forward is that some of these temples are not associated with any evidence at all, such as Abellinum or Aquileia.
As has been described above, Bianchi, Barton and Quinn and Wilson have all used different methods and criteria to define Capitolia. In the course of these last decades the criteria have become much stricter. While Bianchi’s definition of 1950 was still quite vague,
Table 1: Identifications of Italian Capitolia by different scholars
Scholar
City
Castan
1869 Kuhfeldt 1883 Bianchi 1950 Barton 1982 Quinn/Wilson 2013
Abellinum X Aquileia X X Aquinum X X ? Asisium X Augusta Praetoria ? Beneventum X X X X X Brixia X X X ? Capua X X X X X Cosa X Cumae X X X Faesulae X X X ? Falerii X X X X X Florentia X X X ? Formiae X X Herculaneum ? Histonium X X X X X Liternum X Luna X Marruvium Marsorum X X X X X Minturnae X X Nola X Ostia X X X ? Paestum X Pompeii X ? X X Ravenna X X Signia X Tarracina X X Teate Marrucinorum X Tergeste X Verona X X X X X Total: 11 13 19 19 8 .
Table 2: Capitolia and the associated evidence.
Evidence
Capitolia
Tripartite
cella Tripartite pedestal or similar division Epigraphical reference to Capitolium or IOM Roman literary reference Sculptural remains that depict J/J/M Along the Forum Abellinum Aquileia Aquinum A ? X Aquinum B X Asisium X Augusta Praetoria X X Beneventum X Brixia X X X X Capua X Cosa X Cumae X (second
phase) Jupiter) X (to X X
Faesulae A X X Faesulae B Falerii A X X Falerii B X Florentia X X Formiae X X X (to Jupiter) Herculaneum X Histonium X Liternum X X Luna ? ? X Marruvium Marsorum X Minturnae ? X (to Jupiter) X Nola X Ostia X X X Paestum X X Pompeii X X X X X Ravenna Signia ? Tarracina X Teate Marrucinorum Tergeste ? X Verona X X X
Barton’s criteria in 1982 led to a much clearer approach. By re-evaluating these criteria, Quinn and Wilson have come to the conclusion that the criteria set up by Barton made the identifications better than before but were still too vague. These vague criteria led to the identification of a high number of Capitolia, which is questionable when you connect these identifications to the actual evidence. Therefore, Quinn and Wilson set up stricter criteria, leaving only eight temples identified as Capitolia.
4.2 Redefining Capitolia: my approach
Drawing on the earlier works of Bianchi, Barton and Quinn and Wilson, I would like to make these criteria even stricter. I have explained above that there are many types of evidence that are associated with the identification of a Capitolium. Even though Quinn and Wilson have also argued that this is problematic and have therefore made their criteria much stricter than their predecessors, there are still some weak spots in their criteria.
Their first criterion, stating that a Capitolium can be defined according to a building inscription seems right to me. However, since Quinn and Wilson have made an overview article on Capitolia throughout the whole Roman Empire, this is not a useful criterion for Capitolia in Italy. none of the thirty temples bear a building inscription labelling them as a Capitolium or an inscription dedicated to the Capitoline Triad.
This leaves the article of Quinn and Wilson with only two useful criteria for Capitolia in Italy. However, the second criterion, which entails a building inscription that bears the names of at least two of the three divinities of the Capitoline Triad (and the third one restorable in a lacuna) is also problematic. The problem is the same as the first criterion: the mention of all three divinities in a building inscription is never the case in Italy and it is therefore not possible to use this as evidence. The last criterion, the presence of cult statues of at least two of three divinities in association with a temple structure, seems plausible to me. However, I do not agree that this criterion alone can be used to identify a temple structure when there is no other evidence that is associated with a Capitolium. Therefore, I think that this criterion can only be regarded as useful when it can be matched with other aspects that are associated with Capitolia.
In addition to the criteria made up by Quinn and Wilson being less useful for Italy, I think that there is not a clear line between definite and uncertain Capitolia. In their conclusion, they have indicated that the identification of some temples as Capitolia are doubtful. I find this still quite vague and want to indicate a clearer separation between these different types degrees of certainty that are connected to Capitolia. Therefore, I would like to set up my own criteria, from which I can then categorise the thirty Italian cases. These criteria will draw upon the earlier works of Barton and Quinn and Wilson, but will be much stricter, so that a clearer separation can be made. This will then result into different categories of these temples, namely: ‘definite’, ‘highly potential’, ‘temples with Capitolium elements’ and ‘discarded’. The thirty Capitolia of Italy will be analysed according to their data that is further described in appendix 1 (p. 71).
I think a temple can be defined as a definite Capitolium according to a couple of criteria. To begin, I agree with Quinn and Wilson that Capitolia that have been labelled as such in primary literary references can without a doubt be considered as definite Capitolia. However, this criterion can only be met when the literary reference is specifically referring to a local Capitolium, not the Capitolium in Rome.
Apart from this literary evidence, it is also possible to identify a Capitolium according to archaeological data. In the past, these ‘archaeological’ criteria have often been weak. This is for example the case with Barton’s criteria, who has identified temples as Capitolia solely on the basis of a (possible) tripartite cella.
To draw a much stricter separation between these different temples and to divide them into different categories, it is important to set up even stricter criteria than Quinn and Wilson have already done. As I have mentioned previously, I find that the first two of their three criteria do not work in Italy itself. Even though I find their last criterion plausible, I do not regard solely this specific one criterion as enough to identify a Capitolium. Therefore, I would like to state that a Capitolium can be identified as ‘definite’ if it meets the following two criteria:
1. the archaeological remains of the building contain a tripartite cella, or a similar division that refers to the cult statues of the Capitoline Triad; and
2. sculptural remains that depict at least two divinities of the Capitoline Triad that are associated with the building
Whereas Quinn and Wilson view a temple as a Capitolium when they have met just one of their three criteria, I would like to emphasize that in my research, a building can only be positively identified as a Capitolium when they meet both of the requirements described above, or if they have been labelled as such in a literary reference.
As I have mentioned previously, I would like to categorise the remaining temples that according to these criteria cannot be considered as certain Capitolia. I will do this on the basis of aspects that are connected to a Capitolium temple. These aspects are:
1. Tripartite cella or a similar division that refers to the cult statues of the Capitoline Triad 2. A dominating location, whether this is in the centre of the city (along the Forum) or on the
highest point of the city
3. Epigraphical evidence that has been found in a city that refers to the Capitoline Triad or Jupiter Optimus Maximus
4. Sculptural remains that depict Jupiter, Juno or Minerva, associated with a specific building 5. Primary literary reference to Jupiter
I would like to categorise the remaining temples, according to how many of these aspects they contain. Since some of the temples do show a tripartite cella, but do not have sculptural remains as described in the criteria, they cannot be qualified as Capitolia for certain. However, they might show a combination of other aspects that make it plausible that they were a Capitolium. Therefore, if temples show a combination of at least three aspects, that differs from the two criteria that can identify them as a Capitolium for certain, these temples can be regarded as ‘highly potential Capitolia’. Temples that show two of the above-mentioned elements are categorised as ‘temples with Capitolium elements’. This category contains the temples that show two of the above-mentioned aspects. The temples that remain are temples that show so few solid elements of a Capitolium, that they should be discarded as such and should be looked at from a different perspective. Concludingly, this means that temples that show one or less of the previously mentioned aspects are categorised as ‘discarded’.
A summary of the criteria is described in table 3.
Table 3: Criteria of defining a Capitolium in this thesis.
Definite Capitolia Primary literary reference to a local Capitolium or;
Tripartite cella/tripartite division and;
sculptural remains that depict at least two of the three deities Highly potential Capitolia Three aspects associated with
Capitolia Temples with Capitolium
elements
Two aspects associated with Capitolia
Other One or less aspects
associated with Capitolia
4.3 Categorising ‘Capitolia’.
On the basis of these criteria, a categorisation of the analysed temples can be made. An overview of this categorisation can be found in table 4. What immediately comes forward, is the considerably smaller amount of definite Capitolia: five. Of the remaining temples, nine can be considered as highly potential and ten of them display enough elements to be categorised as ‘temples with Capitolium elements’. Also, of all the temples analysed, nine temples can no longer be associated with Capitolia and should be discarded. The geographical distribution of all of these temples can be found in figure 1.
Obviously, these numbers vary from Barton or Quinn and Wilson. This is mostly due to the fact that in this thesis, I have made a much stricter set of a criteria which has led to a much clearer separation of the different types of temples. In contrary to Quinn and Wilson, the doubtful cases are now categorised into a clear distinction. In the following subchapter, I will shortly describe the subcategories and the relevant temples. A full critical analysis of all of their evidence can be found in appendix 1 (p. 71).
Figure 1: Categorised Capitolia of Italy. Green: definite; yellow: Highly Potential Capitolia; orange: Temples with Capitolium Elements; red: Discarded.
Table 4: Categorisation of previously identified Capitolia of Italy. Capitolia Definite Capitolia Highly potential Capitolia Temples with Capitolium elements Discarded Abellinum X Aquileia X Aquinum A X Aquinum B X Asisium X Augusta Praetoria X Beneventum X Brixia X Capua X Cosa X Cumae X Faesulae A X Faesulae B X Falerii A X Falerii B X Florentia X Formiae X Herculaneum X Histonium X Liternum X Luna X Marruvium Marsorum X Minturnae X Nola X Ostia X Paestum X Pompeii X Ravenna X Signia X Tarracina X Teate Marrucinorum X Tergeste X Verona X Total: 5 9 10 9
4.3.1 Definite Capitolia
As I have described previously, Capitolia can be positively identified according to either a primary literary reference or if they meet the two archaeological criteria. On the basis of this, only five of the thirty temples analysed in the appendix, can be identified as Capitolia: Beneventum, Brixia, Capua, Cumae and Pompeii (figure 2).
Of these five, Beneventum and Capua were identified because of primary literary references by Suetonius and Tacitus. Based on the archaeological remains, the temples in Brixia, Cumae and Pompeii met the criteria to be defined as a Capitolium. In Brixia, the temple built during
the reign of Vespasian had a tripartite cella. Parts of cult statues that depict Jupiter and Minerva
phase and two colossal heads were found that depict Juno and Minerva. The temple of Pompeii also acquired a tripartite cella in a second building phase and a bust of Jupiter and a head of Juno were found here. Later in this chapter (4.5), we will go deeper into the chronological, cultural and geographical conclusions that we can draw from these definite Capitolia.
4.3.2 Highly Potential Capitolia
Nine temples meet three of the previously described criteria and can therefore be considered as ‘Highly Potential Capitolia’ (figure 3). These are Aquinum A, Faesulae A, Florentia, Formiae, Luna, Minturnae, Ostia, Tergeste and Verona.
These temples thus display a lot of the elements that are associated with a Capitolium but miss the critical elements to be identified for certain. Most of these temples, like Florentia, Aquinum A, Minturnae and Ostia have tripartite divisions or cellae and are located in a dominating position within the city. In the cases of Florentia and Ostia there is also epigraphical evidence that testifies to the existence of a cult dedicated to the Capitoline Triad. Other types of evidence, such as a primary literary reference confirm the existence of a temple dedicated to Jupiter in Minturnae, which was likely later turned into a Capitolium, as for example at Cumae and Pompeii. In the case of these temples, any find in the future can be confirming identification as a Capitolium, as all of the other evidence points in this direction.
4.3.3 Temples with Capitolium elements
Besides definite Capitolia and ‘highly potential Capitolia’, ten of the remaining thirty Italian temples have elements that are associated with a Capitolium. Since these temples only possess two of the six elements, it is difficult to determine if they were indeed a Capitolium. Consequently, these temples will be considered as ‘temples with Capitolium elements’. These temples are Abellinum, Aquileia, Aquinum B, Asisisum, Augusta Praetoria, Cosa, Falerii A and B, Liternum and Paestum (figure 4).
Even though these temples do show elements that are associated with a Capitolium, they cannot be identified solely on the basis of this. For many of these temples, like Asisium, Cosa and the temples in Falerii, they have only been identified on the basis of their location and (possible) tripartite cella (Fentress 2000, 9 – 24). However, as Vitruvius describes, tripartite cellae are the norm for any Tuscan temple and they do not necessarily have to be Capitolia (Vitr. 4.6.6). I believe that these temples have been labelled as Capitolia from a perspective of romanization and because of their location and little similarity to the Capitolium in Rome (in terms of architecture). Yet, there is no other evidence (such as sculptural remains, or inscriptions that refer to the Capitoline Triad) that can confirm the dedication to the Capitoline Triad. Consequently, it remains uncertain whether or not these temples were Capitolia, even though they show certain Capitolia aspects.
4.3.4 Discarded
The remaining nine temples that have formerly been identified as Capitolia contain only one or even none of these aspects and therefore, can no longer be regarded as Capitolia. I am convinced that even though these temples show similarities with Capitolia, these temples had a different dedication. These remaining temples are Faesulae B, Herculaneum, Histonium, Marruvium Marsorum, Nola, Ravenna, Signia, Tarracina and Teate Marrucinorum (figure 5).
For some of these temples, the evidence just falls too short. This is for example the case with Herculaneum. The only evidence for the existence of a Capitolium in this city is an epigraphical reference, which refers to the restoration of a Capitolium. However, it remains unclear if this inscription refers to a local Capitolium or the original one in Rome. Since there is no other evidence or a building to attach to this inscription, the existence of a Capitolium cannot be confirmed. All of these temples lack evidence that connects them to a Capitolium. Therefore, I think they need to be discarded from research into Capitolia.
4.4 Analysing definite Capitolia
Now that we have categorised all of the analysed temples, it is possible to draw certain conclusions from this data. What can we tell about these temples that can be identified as definite Capitolia, in regard to chronology, geography and their connection to colonization?
4.4.1 Geography
Figure 2 shows how the distribution of the definite Capitolia over Italy. We can immediately notice that there seems to be a nucleus of Capitolia in the southern part of Italy, in Campania. We here find the Capitolia of Beneventum, Capua, Cumae and Pompeii. The Capitolium of Brixia, located in the upper north of Italy, seems to stand out from the rest. From this picture, the Capitolia do not seem to have spread out equivalently. They also do not appear in the utter south of Italy, which was previously part of Magna Graecia.
4.4.2 Chronology
Table 5 shows an overview of the different building phases of these definite Capitolia. The data
Table 5: Building phases of definite Capitolia.
Capitolia 1st building phase 2nd building phase Colonization of
the city
Beneventum Unknown N/A 268 BC
Brixia 73 AD N/A 27 BC
Capua Unknown N/A 59 BC
Cumae 4th century BC (not
yet a Capitolium)
End of 1st century AD N/A
Pompeii 2nd century BC (not
yet a Capitolium)
1st century BC 80 BC
show that these temples were all built during different time periods. Since two of the Capitolia are only mentioned in primary literature (Beneventum and Capua), it is uncertain when these temples were built. We can only confirm that these temples were already dedicated at the time of writing, at the end of the first century AD. For the others, it is noticeable that these were instituted between the first century BC and the first century AD. The temples at Cumae and Pompeii were firstly dedicated to Jupiter alone and were only in a later phase turned into a Capitolium. The Capitolium of Brixia was dedicated in the first century AD. When we connect these data to the geographical spread of this Capitolia, it still remains an unambiguous picture.
However, there seems to be a connection between the construction of these Capitolia and the Flavian emperors. This can also be seen in the original Capitolium in Rome. One of the first actions of Vespasian when he rises to power is to restore the Capitolium:
“He began the restoration of the Capitol in person, was the first to lend a hand in clearing away the debris and carried some of it off on his own head.” (Suet., Vesp. 8.5)
As the Capitol was the most important building of Rome, it was an important gesture of Vespasian to reconstruct this building first and to be involved himself. The rebuilding of this temple could create the illusion of a social order renewed (Fredrick 2003, 199). The Capitoline temple remained important for Flavian emperors, as Domitian rebuilt it again after a fire in 80 AD. The building program of the Flavians was not only restricted to the Capitolium and Rome itself. Architecture played an important role in the propaganda of the Flavians. During their reign new refurbished fora and encampments rose all over the Empire (Boyle 2003, 31). It is highly likely that Capitolia were just another part of this building programme and that therefore the Capitolia of Brixia and Cumae were built in light of this. Barbara Levick, in her work on Vespasian, emphasizes that the Capitolium in Brixia was built to display physical and moral order, and served as just as an important building as the Capitolium in Rome (Levick 2017, 140 – 141).
4.4.3 Connection to colonization
As I have described in chapter 3.1, many scholars assume that only colonies could obtain the privilege of having a Capitolium. From the data that comes forward in table 4, this can no longer be maintained. Cumae never became a colonia but remained a municipium, and still had a Capitolium.
Also, it would seem probable that when a city was colonized, the most important Roman temple would soon be constructed. This does only seem to be the case for Pompeii, as it was colonized in 80 BC and it is estimated that around the same time the temple of Jupiter was turned into a Capitolium. However, scholars argue that this process might also have happened sometime before the actual colonization, as an act of self-romanization of the city (Lauter 1979, 390 – 457). This is difficult to prove; however, we can acknowledge that Roman culture did have an influence on the construction of the Capitolium in Pompeii.
For the other cities, this does not seem to be the case. Brixia became a colony in 27 BC, yet a Capitolium was not dedicated until almost a century later. Because Cumae never became a colony, we cannot connect the construction of the Capitolium to this event. The reconstruction of the temple of Jupiter into a Capitolium happened in the Flavian period, which is the same period in which the Capitolium of Brixia was dedicated.
4.5 Analysing ‘Highly Potential Capitolia’
Because the temples in the category of ‘Highly Potential Capitolia’ have a high potential of being a Capitolium, I find it important to involve them in this study. Even though they cannot be identified for certain, their chances of being a Capitolium are so high that I am under the impression that we should also analyse their geographical and geographical patterns, as well as their connection to colonization. By comparing these results to the category of ‘definite Capitolia’, it might be possible to see a more complete pattern.
4.5.1 Geography
Figure 3 shows the distribution of ‘Highly Potential Capitolia’ over Italy. As with the definite Capitolia, again we see a nucleus here in the southern part of Italy, in Campania. The rest of the temples seem to have evenly spread over the northern part of Italy. Again, they do not appear in the utter southern part of Italy, which might have to do with the fact that this before was part of Magna Graecia. When we combine both the definite and highly potential Capitolia, their seems to be a more consistent spread of Capitolia (figure 6). Capitolia are now present in most parts of the Italian peninsula, with the exception of Sicily and southern Italy.
4.5.2 Chronology and connection to colonization
In table 6, an overview is shown of the different building phases of the temples in this category.
Table 6: Overview of the chronology of 'Highly Potential Capitolia'.
1st building phase 2nd building phase
Aquinum A Second century BC Augustan period
Faesulae A Unknown, but already existed
at the end of the Republican period
N/A.
Florentia Second century BC – Social
War
40/30 BC (when Florentia became a colony) or Hadrian period
Formiae End of second century
BC/beginning of first century BC
N/A.
Luna ±177 BC (around the
colonization of the city)
End of second century BC/beginning of first century BC
Minturnae Third century BC (dedication was only to Jupiter)
Second century BC (transformation into a Capitolium)
Ostia End of first century BC Hadrian period
Tergeste First or second century AD N/A.
Verona 1st century BC (when Verona
became a municipium)
N/A.
Most of these buildings seem to have a construction phase in the second century BC. In a lot of these cases, the data that have been proposed have been done so to match the colonization of the city. There is not a lot of actual evidence that these buildings were constructed at these dates, but, because scholars were led by the idea of romanization, they have automatically connected the construction period to the colonization of the city. This is the case with temples in Faesulae, Florentia Luna and Verona (although this city became a municipium). This is exceptionally well illustrated in the case of Florentia. In general, scholars have dated the second phase of the temple to the colonization of the city, in the forties or thirties BC. Actual evidence to support this theory, except for the colonization, is lacking. The archaeologist who excavated the site is however convinced that this second phase should be dated to the Hadrian period, because of an altar from this period that was found here.
If we compare the chronology of these temples with the definite Capitolia, it is noticeable that these temples were all built earlier (with the exception of Pompeii), around the second century BC. This could be due to the fact that the Punic Wars were finally over, and more money was available to construction rather than military equipment.
4.6 Conclusion
Even though a broad definition of a Capitolium was given by Ugo Bianchi in 1950, a certain set of criteria was missing. In 1982, Ian Barton presented a list of criteria in his article on Capitolia in Italy and the provinces. Since these criteria were still somewhat vague, a new set of criteria was drawn up by Quinn and Wilson in 2013. With these stricter rules for defining a temple as a Capitolium, the list of Capitolium within the Roman Empire became considerably smaller.
Drawing upon these different sets of rules, my own criteria were presented in this chapter. The overall aim was to come to a categorisation of the temples that had previously been identified as Capitolia, on the basis of historical and archaeological evidence. This could only be done with a stricter set of criteria. This stricter approach is necessary due to the many types of evidence that make an identification difficult. In the appendix, I have therefore categorised the different types of evidence into a clear structure, to ensure what type of evidence is present and which is not.
As a result of these stricter criteria, only five Italian temples remained that can be considered as a Capitolium for certain, which is considerably less than any previous research. This is a result of a much stricter set of rules, which have more clearly separated ‘definite’ Capitolia from ‘highly potential Capitolia’. In previous researches, these lines sometimes overlapped and therefore the number of Capitolia was always considerably higher. After these five definite Capitolia were identified, the rest of the temples were then classified into different categories (table 3).
It becomes clear that, for a large group of these temples, they were once identified solely on the basis of their plan and location. This is for example the case with Asisium, Cosa, Falerii Novi, Teate Marrucinorum and so on. When investigating the actual evidence behind these identifications,
