Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Dutch Archaeologists clash about city age...
#16
Quote:I beg to differ. We cannot have a municipal law if municipium is not something more than a name.
But that's not at issue. Imagine an easy scenario: the Flavians want to give all towns and tribes the same basic rights. They use the word "municipium", where earlier generations would have used "civitas". There is indeed something more than a name - nobody denies that there was a political/organizatorial level lower than province. But there is no need to assume that a name change ("Noviomagus" becoming "Ulpia Noviomagus") meant that all citizens received Latin rights. Nor can this juridical change be connected to the introduction of the word "municipium". A bureaucratic attempt to create unity may explain the rise of the title "municipium" as well.

To return to the main problem: in this thread, we have seen arguments pro and contra the existence of something like a legal rank called "municipium", which might or might not be granted. There is a debate. The Nijmegen archaeologists - which I sincerely admire - seem to be unaware that this debate exists. That is a bit strange, but there may be good reasons for that. The discipline has become very complex, and an archaeologist cannot always know what historians are doing, even though he should.

What I object to, is that the Nijmegen archaeologists have allowed the debate about the antiquity of the city to be taken over by the commercial interests of the tourist information. This debate is old (it started in 1955). It ought to have been solved, not left to journalists and, ahem, "municipal" politicians.
Jona Lendering
Relevance is the enemy of history
My website
Reply
#17
Quote:But that's not at issue. Imagine an easy scenario: the Flavians want to give all towns and tribes the same basic rights. They use the word "municipium", where earlier generations would have used "civitas". There is indeed something more than a name - nobody denies that there was a political/organizatorial level lower than province. But there is no need to assume that a name change ("Noviomagus" becoming "Ulpia Noviomagus") meant that all citizens received Latin rights. Nor can this juridical change be connected to the introduction of the word "municipium". A bureaucratic attempt to create unity may explain the rise of the title "municipium" as well.
This looks like a chicken and egg problem, but I guess the answer is not that hard to find. No doubt, the reality behind the word municipium was evolving in time, yet the Flavian municipium must have some substance, like the Hadrianic one, and others before and after that. Even if what we have here is an ad hoc creation or redefinition, it is a pre-requisite for municipal laws like lex Irnitana, otherwise the law couldn't address the municipes and set rights and obligations for them. One cannot have a law for a category which is not defined or is way too vague.

Based on my cursory reading of the texts, I'd say these laws are for those who are either citizens (cives Romani) or have Latin rights (Latini).
An example for the latter we find in article 28: "munic[eps] municipi Flavi Irnitani, qui Latinus erit". Let's note however we find the same formula as on many other inscriptions: "municipium <emperor> <city/tribe>". And in this case we know for sure it's not just a flattery (ex edicto [i]mp(eratoris) Vespasiani etc).

Quote:To return to the main problem: in this thread, we have seen arguments pro and contra the existence of something like a legal rank called "municipium", which might or might not be granted. There is a debate. The Nijmegen archaeologists - which I sincerely admire - seem to be unaware that this debate exists. That is a bit strange, but there may be good reasons for that. The discipline has become very complex, and an archaeologist cannot always know what historians are doing, even though he should.

What I object to, is that the Nijmegen archaeologists have allowed the debate about the antiquity of the city to be taken over by the commercial interests of the tourist information. This debate is old (it started in 1955). It ought to have been solved, not left to journalists and, ahem, "municipal" politicians.
I choose to see the good part of it, which is Roman urbanism (society) receives some attention, not only the military.

Even this discussion we're having here, if helpful for anyone or anything, is indebted to their quarrel.
Drago?
Reply


Forum Jump: