es

tr a
tto
ANALYSIS
ARCHAEOLOGICA
AN INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF WESTERN
MEDITERRANEAN ARCHAEOLOGY

volume 1 – 2015

EDIZIONI QUASAR
 es
tr a
tto
Editor in Chief
Salvatore De Vincenzo (Viterbo)

Associate Editors
Stefano De Angeli (Viterbo); Alessandro Naso (Roma/Innsbruck);
Monika Trümper (Berlin)

Editorial Board
Judy Barringer (Edinburgh); Martin Bentz (Bonn);
Johannes Bergemann (Göttingen); Jacopo Bonetto (Padova);
Fabio Colivicchi (Kingston); Matteo D’Acunto (Napoli);
Gian Maria Di Nocera (Viterbo); Filippo Demma (Ancona);
Johanna Fabricius (Berlin); Marco Galli (Roma); Klaus Geus (Berlin);
Erich Kistler (Innsbruck); Enzo Lippolis (Roma);
Carlos Márquez Moreno (Córdoba); Attilio Mastino (Sassari);
Marina Micozzi (Viterbo); Rafaella Pierobon (Napoli); Silvia Polla (Berlin);
Chiara Elisa Portale (Palermo); Jonathan Prag (Oxford);
Christoph Reusser (Zürich); homas Schäfer (Tübingen);
Stephan Schmid (Berlin); Gianluca Soricelli (Campobasso);
Tesse Stek (Leiden); Nicola Terrenato (Ann Arbor); Stephan Verger (Paris);
Raimondo Zucca (Sassari)

Editorial Staff
Maria Amodio (Catania); Chiara Blasetti Fantauzzi (Göttingen);
Gian Franco Chiai (Berlin); Anca Dan (Paris); Cristina Murer (Berlin)

“Analysis Archaeologica” is a yearly journal and is funded by

the Università degli Studi della Tuscia (Viterbo)
and the Istituto Italiano di Archeologia.

For further information www.edizioniquasar.it/AnalysisArchaeologica

ISSN 2421-6380
ISBN 978-88-7140-592-6

© Roma 2015, Edizioni Quasar di S. Tognon srl, via Ajaccio 41-43,

I-00198 Roma; tel. 0685358444, fax 0685833591, email qn@edizioniquasar.it

www.edizioniquasar.it
Contents

Editorial . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
Salvatore De Vincenzo

Neapolis tardo-antica: la fondazione della basilica costantiniana e le

trasformazioni del tessuto urbano . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
Maria Amodio

Some Observations on the Urban Development of harros in Punic

and Roman Times . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41
Chiara Blasetti Fantauzzi

Materiali marmorei d’età romana nel comune di Lauro e nel Castello

Lancellotti (Av). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 51
Sergio Cascella

Macellum and Imperium. he relationship between the Roman State

and the market-building construction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 69
Armando Cristilli

he Urban and Rural Landscapes in Punic and Roman northwest

Sardinia: persistences, cultural interactions and rituals . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 87
Emiliano Cruccas

he fortiication wall of Eryx. A new deinition of the settlement’s

construction phases and topographic development in light of recent
excavations.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 103
Salvatore De Vincenzo

Il tempio di piazza della Liberazione e il culto di Giunone a Praeneste.

Aspetti, funzioni e signiicati . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 117
Clara di Fazio

Ambre da Roscigno-Monte Pruno: per una revisione del “Gruppo

Roscigno” . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 137
Bianca Ferrara

Nuovi bronzi nuragici da Othoca e dal Campidano settentrionale . . . . . 163

Alice Meloni – Raimondo Zucca

Appunti sulla produzione e circolazione della ceramica tra la Baia di

Napoli e la Campania settentrionale tra II e V secolo d.C. . . . . . . . . . . . . 185
Gianluca Soricelli
Tipologia e sviluppo del motivo iconograico della porta urbica nel
mosaico romano . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 213
Enrico Angelo Stanco

An early Roman colonial landscape in the Apennine mountains:

landscape archaeological research in the territory of Aesernia (Central-
Southern Italy) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 229
Tesse D. Stek – Emily B. Modrall – Rogier A. A. Kalkers – Ruud H. van
Otterloo – Jan Sevink

Colour plates . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 283

 es
tr a
tto
Macellum and Imperium. The relationship between the
Roman State and the market-building construction1

Armando Cristilli

AbstrAct
The Roman macellum, became over the years part of the imperial propaganda, shares
the same development of its hosting cities: in fact, it could appear only in centers with
the rank of municipium, of colonia or of civitates capitales (i.e. in Britannia and in the
Asturias). The result is that the macellum not only is built in contexts representing a
certain degree of urbanization, a certain level of economic development, a well-con-
nected geographical position and a suficient number of inhabitants, but sure also in
possession of speciic administrative determinants. In addition, a fair number of macella
are built under Hadrian and more than half of them following a personal visit of the
Emperor or the acquisition of a new civic status during his reign. This means that the
macellum was sanctioned instrumental symbol of Romanization from the 2nd century
A.D.

Keywords: Emperor Hadrian, Civic rank, Macellum, Roman Empire, Romanization

In recent years the macellum2, the Roman ish and meat market-building3,
has received more attention and this allows us to identify the efective pa-
rameters for its study: thereby now we have a much clearer understanding of
it4. But, our “certainties” have changed over the course of time, not for lack
of scientiic analysis, but because this building is a functional monument,
whose variations depend on the context5. In addition, the studies in hand
always appear limited by their regional character and don’t consider the
previous results6: in fact, to have an exact knowledge about this matter, it’s
necessary to compare the new contributions with an updated macella cor-
pus, along with the recent discoveries and new identiications. Otherwise,
the scholars tend to be dominated by the data which they study, developing
only theories against to analyse their material. he recently discovered or
recognized food-stafs markets in Italy, and even more so in the provincial
areas, provide a lot of information that should be matched with the indings
in previous researches.
As has been demonstrated7, the macellum begins to spread throughout
the Roman world from the second half of the 3rd century B.C. and, however,
there aren’t examples outside Rome before this date: the irst market-build-
ing appeared in the capital city in the 3rd century B.C. and only in 179 B.C. M.

1
his contribution is the extension of my report “Macellum and Imperium. he relationship
between the Roman State and the market-building construction in provincial cities”, present-
ed at the 1st International Conference “Imperialism and Identities at the Edge of the Roman
World”- Petnica Science Center, September 19th – 23rd 2012.
2
Of great importance is still de Ruyt 1983.
3
de Ruyt 2007 (with the literature cited). Maybe in the Macellum Magnum of Rome you
could also buy some sophisticated products as kosher meat: de Ruyt 1983, 363; Williams 2002.
4
de Ruyt 2000.
5
Sechi 1990.
6
See, i.e.: Torrecilla Aznar 2003; Torrecilla Aznar 2007; Tran 2009, 339-340; Hamdoune
2009.
7
de Ruyt 1983, 246–251.

Macellum and Imperium. he relationship between the Roman State and the market-building construction 69
 es
tr a
tto
Fulvius Nobilior erected another one8. By this time the difusion of this new
kind of building outside Rome can start, after a process of absorption by the
Roman culture and that of the conquered cities.
An interesting aspect, barely hinted at in the past9, even though its po-
tential is considerable, is the possibility of a direct relationship between the
market place construction and the status ranking of the city it belongs to.
he macellum seems not to have been built until the hosting cities reached
a particular civic status. Of the 123 sites surveyed (except Rome and Con-
stantinople), we know the status acquisition and the building construction
dates only for 84 (maybe 85), while with the rest we know one date or the
other. herefore, we have a signiicant percentage of Roman food-market
buildings, which I use in this preliminary analysis.
he development of a community of the Roman world is afected, in
part, by the settlement’s rank, granted by the establishment10: the more the
rank is high, the more the community receives beneits. But this doesn’t
mean that a colony always has a happy life in return for its established po-
sition, as also, for example, a vicus or a pagus always remain in a position of
inferiority. Nevertheless, it is also true that the vicus has all the prerequisites
for full political and economic development. All settlements in the Roman
world, in every age, 1) respond to the government’s need to create regional
control centres for the exclusive use of the imperial power; 2) difer from
each other essentially for the political constitution and for the relations with
the surrounding area; 3) often mark the bestowal of a political constitution
by the construction or the restyling of their monumental centres cities.
his preliminary survey, derived from a work in progress, shows that
in the beginning the macellum had to share in the social development of
the host city: the building appears in high economic level settlements which
have obtained at least municipal statute and appears in the capital civitates
used for territorial control points. In particular, the latter are seen in diicult
areas of the Empire, with a still-strong military presence (e.g. the Asturias11
or, most problematic of all, Britain12): these are not fully urbanized at the
time of the acquisition of the status, but organized as municipia13, becoming
points of massive Romanization. So the caput civitas must be compared to
the municipium from a socio-political point of view.
At the present time, we have no information about the laws or the de-
crees which may have caused such a possible practice and the Roman sourc-
es tell us nothing about it: in fact, the only legal text available is the Flavian
Lex Irnitana (29, 1-11)14, entrusting the responsibility for the management
of the food-stufs market to the aediles (assisted by other low-ranking ig-
ures, who ranged from city to city, as the IIIvires macelli in Lepcis Magna
or the vilicus macelli in Placentia15). However, there isn’t any norm of laws
about the construction of this building. Yet it’s undeniable that such a prac-
tice seems to exist. On the other hand, it could also be that the macellum

8
Livius, Ab urbe condita, XL 51.4-6. See, i. e., García Morillo 2000, 266.
9
de Ruyt 1983, 269. Recently, Celis Sánchez et alii 2002, 272.
10
Lai 2006, 116; Lai 2007, 58–59.
11
Gonzáles Román 1996, 7; Santos Yanguas 1997, 416–417; Redentor 2014.
12
Frere 1967, 233–239; Wacher 1975, 17–35.
13
Tarpin 1999, 3–4.
14
Lebek 1993, 159; Wolf 2011; Torrent 2013, 132–137.
15
de Ruyt 1983, 103, 107 and 358–359. Recently Tran 2009, 335.

70 Armando Cristilli

Fig. 1. Lepcis Magna. Macellum plan.
Macellum and Imperium. he relationship between the Roman State and the market-building construction 71
es
tr a
tto
construction following the grant of a high civic city rank has become outdat-
ed over time, generation after generation, without an institutional interven-
tion. In regard to it, we must not forget that this building was not erected at
a city’s foundation, as, however, the Basilica or the Capitolium. So, it could
not looked natural building the market before the acquisition of a high rank,
the municipality at least, as the best social dimension to accommodate the
public monument.
he selected macella in this research are grouped in three groups ac-
cording their chronology (dated back to between the 1st century B.C. and the
4th century AD).
he irst group (see Appendix) is dated to the Republican age and in-
cludes the building-markets of the municipia and the coloniae distribut-
ed in the most powerful Roman areas (even if the
largest concentration is recorded in Italy) such as
Aletrium16, Velilla del Ebro17, Aquileia18, Pompeii19,
Ostia20, Naples21 and the splendidissima Marru-
vium22: the construction of their macella shows a
time when these cities are creating a powerful state-
ment of their Romanized identity.
he second group (see Appendix), which dates
back to the Julio-Claudian age23, contains the mar-
kets of the Gallic civitates Segodunum Rutenorum24
and Lugdunum Convenarum25, including, in the
middle of the 1st century AD, the African civitas
of hugga under Claudius26, the Hispanic Pompae-
lo  (?)27 and Samarobriva Ambianorum in Gallia
Belgica28. hese sites are in areas where the process
of Romanization was more intense.
Between the two groups, there is Lepcis Magna
(in Tripolitania), where the peculiar macellum with
two central kiosks is inanced in 9-8 B.C. by Annob-
al Himilchonis f. Tapapius Rufus, the local sufet and
lamen and praefectus sacrorum (igs  1-2)29. he
Lepcitan market-building is within an economic
system, where the proits “are reinvested by some
local families Romanized in order to realize pub-
16
Weis 2005.
17
Beltrán Lloris 1991, 56–57; Torrecilla Aznar 2007, 471 and 475.
18
Maselli Scotti et alii, 2007, 38–39.
19
Cristilli 2008; Romizzi – Spadafora 2008; Moormann 2011, 137–139.
20
de Ruyt 1983, 115–124.
21
De Simone 1985; de Ruyt 2000, 182.
22
de Ruyt 1983, 108.
23
Generally, in this period the number of food-stafs markets doubled compared to the past
around Roman Mediterranean.
24
Matheu et alii, 2009-2010, 328–331, 335, 341, 344, 347 and 353.
25
Esmonde-Cleary 2008, 9–10, 25, 31–35, 37, 43–45, 52, 56–57, 60, 68–69, 77, 87–88, 93
and 129; Fabres –Paillet 2009.
26
Recently, Palmieri 2010, 389–391.
27
Mezquiriz Irujo 1997, 89; Torrecilla Aznar 2007, 477–478.
28
Bayard – Massy 1984, 98 and 103; Coquelet 2011, 8 and 14.
29
de Ruyt 1983, 97–106.
 es
tr a
tto
Fig. 2. Lepcis Magna. Macellum re-
construction.

lic buildings”30. But this monument is also the architectonic translation of a

spontaneous Punic market experience31 revised in according to the Roman
culture. Here, the elites of this atypical Romanized city32 express their own
Romanization through the food-stufs market (together with the contempo-
rary theatre)33, without sufering an imposition by the central government as
elsewhere in the 1st century A.D.
Subsequently, the trend changes in the Imperial age and the third group
of the selected macella (see Appendix) is just dated to this period (last third
of the 1st – 4th century A.D.). From the end of the 1st century A.D. the cities
hosting the macella have a variety of civic status, without regard for the dis-
tinction of civic rank as it had been previously. In fact, at this time, for a city,
becoming a Roman colony was more a matter of prestige (especially if the
emperor gave also the ius Italicum) than a real need by the Empire. After all,
from the 2nd century A.D., there weren’t any diferences between the coloniae
and the municipia-civitates capitales, despite the former still possessing a
higher rank34. And this phenomenon seems also suggested by the macella
of the third group: in fact, these buildings appear in cities that do not difer
more rigidly to the civic status.
It’s also true that in this period the colonial status acquisition was of-
ten accompanied by the construction of a macellum, just as it had always
happened in the past. he market-building beside the Pozzuoli’s harbour
is the typical example, built following the dedication of the Colonia Fla-
via Augusta Puteolana by the Emperor Vespasian (ig. 3)35. his situation
shows that the food-stufs markets were still seen by that time as marks of
loyalty to the Empire and of full Romanization for the hosting cities, whose
citizens enjoyed wide possibilities of self-promotion. But it’s equally true
that the changing historical and social conditions in the Empire and the

30
Palmieri 2010, 386.
31
Gaggiotti 1989; Gaggiotti 1989a; Vattioni 1995, 111–112; Palmieri 2010, 387.
32
Crawley Quinn 2010.
33
Di Vita 1994, 159.
34
Di Nuccio 2006, 43.
35
Demma 2007, 77–113.

72 Armando Cristilli
 es
tr a
tto
new structure of the Roman provinces must have inluenced the relation-
ship between the civic rank and the macellum. he conclusive proof of this
change is the appearance in the 2nd century AD of a market-building in two
pagi which were very distant from each other: hibilis in Numidia36, which
is pagus until the reign of the Emperor Valerian (253-260 AD)37, and Pagus
Epotius in Gallia Narbonensis38. he presence of the market-buildings in
these sites of such inferior status39, even if they were fully urbanized, seals
the end of an old practice based on a rigid social distinction around the
mid-imperial age.
At this point, this latter feature could be taken as a new discriminating
factor for the future identiication of Roman market-buildings. In fact, the
history of this kind of buildings should be compared with the socio-political
conditions of their host cities at the food-stufs markets construction time.
And if one also wants to give consideration to the fact that, probably until the
end of the 1st century AD, a city must have been at least a municipium or a
capital civitas to have a macellum, we would have another criterion for more
exact identiication of this type of monument: the macellum had to be built
only in urbanized sites with good economic development, with a location
capable of connecting with the outside world40, with a fair number of inhab-
itants41 and, inally, with a high civic rank.
his research has revealed another interesting element too: a fair num-
Fig. 3. Puteoli. Macellum plan.
ber of the third group’s macella were constructed under the Emperor Hadri-
an (117-138 AD). hey were the markets of Aeclanum,
Aesernia and probably Herdonia in Italy, Corinium
Dobunnorum and Viroconium Cornoviorum in Great
Britain, Siscia in Croatia, Gerasa in Jordan, Larisa and
perhaps Pompeiopolis in Turkey and Lambaesis in Al-
geria; we can also add the restyling of the markets of
Cirene in Libya and of Alba Fucens in Italy in the same
period. Comparing also the construction dates with
the chronology of the Emperor’s journeys, more than
half of them were built following a personal visit by
Hadrian to these cities or following their acquisition of
a new status during his reign42, as part of the approval
display that goes with the travelling princeps. So, the
macellum becomes a sign of thanks for Hadrian’s good
governance. he presence of the Emperor, especially
in a provincial area, improved the conditions of urban
life and ensured the strength of borders. Moreover,
many ancient sources extoled Hadrian for his building
projects throughout the Empire43, especially because

36
de Ruyt 1983, 203–206.
37
Mastino 1985, 120.
38
Leveau 2002, 66–67; Matheu et alii 2009-2010, 328–329, 331, 333, 335 and 342.
39
Tarpin 2002.
40
Mac Mahon 2006, 292 and 305.
41
de Ruyt 1983, 379–380.
42
I have excluded from the list the alleged macella of Sebatum (San Lorenzo di Sebato) in
Noricum and of Nora in Sardinia, because these buildings don’t meet the necessary criteria
for their identiication as Roman food-stufs markets. Di Stefano – Scaroina 2002.
43
E.g., Cass. Dio 69, 5, 2-3.

Macellum and Imperium. he relationship between the Roman State and the market-building construction 73
 es
tr a
tto
these were the most palpable form Fig. 4. Viroconium Cornoviorum.
Macellum plan.
of imperial goodwill44. At the same
time, the market-building was used
in a lexible manner within these
criteria of needs, also expanding in
more peripheral areas of the Empire:
thus, in turn it became another form
of manifestation of Hadrian’s interac-
tion with cities. And this fact certain-
ly one hand increases our knowledge
about the interpretation of macellum
and other sheds new light on the political and cultural role played by it in
the imperial propaganda. We have to closely follow the stages of travel of
Emperor Hadrian that most interest us.
In 121-122 AD, during the irst Imperial Grand Tour (121-125 AD),
Hadrian goes with the Legio VI Victrix from Germania Inferior to Britan-
nia45 and on this occasion the urban provincial development shows clear
marks of recovery46, accelerating a Romanization process of an area and
people still dissatisied with Rome. his prosperous climate (so much so
that it has been speculated it had a speciic inancial contribution from the
princeps47) has also been felt in Viroconium Cornoviorum and in Corinium
Dobunnorum, which then built their respective market-buildings, locating
them in privileged positions within their urban layouts: the irst, along the
Cardo Maximus, which separated it from the Forum48 (ig. 4); the second, in
the central Insula II, at the crossroad between the Cardo Maximus and the
Decumanus Maximus49 (ig. 5). We have no information about the Emper-
or’s physical presence in these two civitates, but it is undeniable that his visit
to Britannia was the cause of these changes and especially the cause of the
macella construction.
he same situation presumably is determined in Larisa, in the Roman
province of Asia, which surely built its macellum under Hadrian and dedi-
cated it to him50. But, even if there is no evidence of the Emperor’s visit to the
city during his continual travels in and around this area, he possibly could
have been in Larisa or in its surrounds at the macellum construction time.
Between December 129 and March 130 AD Hadrian visited Gerasa (in
Arabia Petraea)51, where the local community welcomed him by enlarging
the city52 (ig. 6). Among other events (such as the construction of an arch
and the dedication of at least four honorary statues53), the city built an ele-
gant and reined (but dysfunctional) macellum (ig. 7), opened on the main

44
Boatwright 2000, 108–143.
45
SHA, Hadr., XI and IXX, 2; Syme 1988, 160.
46
Wacher 1975, 375; Wacher 1989, 92.
47
Wacher 1975, 375. We know that more than a hundred cities across the Roman Empire
were received special donations by Hadrian.
48
Ellis 2000; Creighton 2006, 117.
49
Wacher 1975, 294 and 298–299; Wacher 1976; McWhirr 1976; McWhirr 1981, 44–47.
50
de Ruyt 1983, 97; Talloen – Waelkens 2004, 187, note 44.
51
Baker 2012, 161.
52
Gregoratti 2011, 520–521.
53
Syme 1988, 164; Højte 2000, 230; Nassar 2014.

74 Armando Cristilli
 es
tr a
tto
Fig. 5. Corinium Dobunnorum. Ma-
cellum plan.
Fig. 6. Gerasa. City plan.
Fig. 7. Gearasa. Macellum plan.

Macellum and Imperium. he relationship between the Roman State and the market-building construction 75
 es
tr a
tto
Fig. 8. Siscia. City plan.
Fig. 9. Siscia. Inscription mentioning
the macellum.
Fig. 10. Cirene. Macellum recon-
struction.
Fig. 11. Aeclanum. Macellum plan.
Fig. 12. Aeclanum. Macellum’s tho-
los.

road next the scenic “Oval Plaza”54 and ofered by Ti. Iulius Iulianus Alex-
ander55, the only Roman provincial governor known among the sponsors of
food-stufs markets.
In 133 AD the Emperor, travelling from Aquileia to Sirmium, passed
through Colonia Flavia Siscia, the centre of the Pannonia Superior56. Here
L. Titius Proculus (who has already dedicated a statue to Hadrian in 124 AD)
built the local food-stufs market, which can be identiied in the large build-
ing founded in Ulica Maršala Tita in Sišak57 (igs 8-9). Also, we don’t forget
that this colony is called Aelia just under Hadrian.
It is associated with the Emperor Hadrian also the architectural history
of the so-called “Market-heatre” of Cirene, the local macellum, where the
limestone and stucco were replaced by marble before the middle of the 2nd
century AD58, when the city assumed, for the irst time, an uniform “Roman”
appearance after the Jewish revolt of 116-117 AD59 (ig. 10). For this reason,
the market-building on “Valley Street” could be categorized along with the
previous macella, because this restyling was conigured as one of the most
real signs of the new romanitas of the Libyan city.

54
Martin Bueno – Uscatescu 1994.
55
Sartre 1976, 105–108.
56
Syme 1988, 167.
57
Christol – Demougin 1986, 186 and 191; de Ruyt 2000, 183; Vukelić 2011, 237–240.
58
Gibson – Ward-Perkins 1987; Sear 2006, 292–293.
59
Ziosi 2010.

76 Armando Cristilli
 es
tr a
tto
Looking at Italy, only Aeclanum became Colonia Aelia Augusta thanks
to Hadrian and at about the same time it built its market in the Forum60
(igs 11-12). Instead, the other samples may only be considered as acts of
pure local euergetism without close links to Rome, as the market-buildings
of Aesernia, donated pecunia sua by L. Abullius Dexter61, and maybe Herdo-
nia62 (ig. 13) seems to indicate. In this regard, however, we can’t completely
exclude a relationship with the Emperor Hadrian.
I shall take the liberty here of providing three of the latest data:

1) he irst interesting case-study is Perge of Pamphilia, which, upon

hearing the news of an impending visit by Hadrian in 121-122 A.D., which
didn’t actually take place (the Emperor instead visited the city during his
second journey to the East, ten years later63), restored its existing buildings
and built new ones as marks of its Romanization. Among the latter building
we must include deinitely the local macellum, situated at the east of the
Hellenistic City Gate, even if dated to Commodus (ig. 14)64. Nevertheless,
its decoration is stylistically similar to the Hadrianic local monuments,
so it’s possible that the macellum was designed with these buildings, but

60
de Ruyt 1982, 17–21.
61
CIL IX, 2653. Buonocore 1996-1997; Torelli 2003, 218; Arnolds 2005, 160.
62
de Ruyt 1982, 80–88.
63
Özdizbay 2008, 105.
64
Özdizbay 2008, 124; Poupaki 2011.

Macellum and Imperium. he relationship between the Roman State and the market-building construction 77
 es
tr a
tto
inished later65. his aspect, therefore, includes this
market among the macella that emerged during a
personal visit by Hadrian, at least from a design point
of view.
2) In 129-130 A.D. Hadrian went to Pompeiopo-
lis (in inner Paphlagonia), which, on this occasion,
restyled its urban arrangement and built its massive
colonnade harbour66. he city center is also equipped
with a macellum with an octagonal tholos, which dates
back to the Tetrarchic age just for its plan (ig. 15)67. But
considering the architectural analogy with the interior
courtyard of the food-stufs market of Gerasa, erected
in the same years (ig. 7), the Turkish market-building
may be the oldest, precisely dated to the Hadrian age,
thus falling within the Pompeiopolis renovation68.
3) In July 128 A.D. the Emperor went to Lambae-
sis (Numidia)69, where he addressed an adlocutio of
the Legio III Augusta stationed there70 and where the
presence of the macellum has only one epigraphic attestation dated to the Fig. 13. Herdonia. Macellum plan.

3rd century A.D.71. At this point, it’s my impression that this building may
well be placed during the visit by Hadrian, by analogy with other known
examples, at least as a working hypothesis. Moreover, the Lambaesis area
is peaceful, secure and fully Romanized in the 2nd century A.D.72, so the city
was able to host a market-building.
hus, the Hadrianic policy in the Empire manifests the prosperity and
the peace which now reigned in Rome. Furthermore, it is interesting that
the response of some cities was to construct a macellum, even without the
need for one, as happened in Gerasa, an emblematic case study of this (ig.
7). In the 1st century A.D., this city did not have a permanent market, in-
stead spreading marketing activities around and inside the city, but mainly in
the so-called “Oval Plaza”. When Hadrian arrived in Arabia Petraea, Gerasa
would have felt the need to express its present socio-cultural condition with
something that was typically Roman, but not too traumatic within its own
cultural background and in its urban landscape. hese requirements suited
a macellum on the main street, a stone’s throw from the so-called “Oval Pla-
za”73 (ig. 6): the pick is particular, because the building has no precedent in

65
Özdizbay 2008, 125. he macellum of Perge is not the only case of its kind in the Imperial
age. Garzetti 1974, 451–453; Boatwright 2000, 149–150.
66
Colvin 2004, 206.
67
Bielfeldt 2011.
68
It’s likely that the Nero’s Macellum Magnum in Rome is a prototype for the octagonal
courtyard, if the reconstruction proposal for it is exact. García Morcillo 2000; Torrecilla Az-
nar 2007, 463.
69
Le Glay 1974, 277–283; Syme 1988, 162.
70
Speidel 2006, 6; Moreno Posse 2011, 36-37.
71
de Ruyt 1983, 96.
72
Levi 1994.
73
he new presence of the macellum doesn’t exclude the possibility that a periodic market
continued to be in the so-called “Oval Plaza” or elsewhere inside and outside the city walls of
Gerasa. Moreover, i. e., the macella of Minturnae, Pompeii and Pozzuoli coexist with the local
nundinae outside the cities limits. Martín-Bueno 1992; Frayn 1993, 40; Andreau 2000; Storchi
Marino 2000, 105–106. See also Brüggemann 2004.

78 Armando Cristilli

Fig. 14. Perge. Macellum plan.
Fig. 15. Pompeiopolis. Macellum
plan.
Macellum and Imperium. he relationship between the Roman State and the market-building construction 79
es
tr a
tto
Roman Middle East architectural experiences until the 2nd century A.D.74.
And this novelty is felt in the poor execution of the project75 and in its very
original reworking of the planimetric tradition of the Roman macella. On
balance, this is the same attitude that led to the British macella of Corini-
um Dobunnorum and Viroconium Cornoviorum, albeit in a less triumphalist
shape, but it’s the idea that is behind the Lepcis Magna food-stufs market
almost a century and a half earlier.
Everybody knows the prestige that the market-building brings to a
city76, but what should be emphasized here is that this monument seems to
be loaded with a new value in the mid-imperial age, in particular to Hadri-
an’s time, at the end of a long development: the macellum, in fact, would
be able to demonstrate the degree of Romanization of a community (in the
provinces) and its loyalty to the Empire (in Italy) and, consequently, to co-
operate with the imperial power. Several elements support this hypothesis
including, a) the building requires that the hosting site had a well-developed
organization of an urban type, the real mark of civilization; b) the food-stafs
market often houses in the imperial cult77, to which Hadrian is not indifer-
ent78; c) the macellum is a typical Roman building, which isn’t known any-
where earlier and isn’t always built when a new city is founded.
herefore, I think that the monument is actually an expression of the
condition of a city and its enthusiasm to comply with Rome and the rest of
the Empire. In truth, this basic concept is already evident in the 1st century
AD, but it becomes more concrete under Hadrian, when the provinces gen-
74
he food-stufs market of Dura Europos is the irst example in the Mediterranean East
and the supposed macellum of Gadara is really a Bizantin church: de Ruyt 1983, 68–69; Paw-
lik 2012. On the consideration of the macellum as a Roman creation, see, e.g., Cristilli 1999,
61–64 (fully bibliography); Sartre 2007, 237; contra: de Ruyt 2000, 178–179 and 181; Torrecil-
la Aznar 2003; Gullini 2004, 386; Hamdoune 2009, 27.
75
Martín-Bueno – Uscatescu 1997.
76
de Ruyt 1983, 351–355.
77
de Ruyt 1983, 374–375; Cristilli 2008.
78
Boatwright 2000, 83–107.
 es
tr a
tto
erally lived in a more stimulating condition of welfare, thanks to the new
Pater patriae79.
In addition, we may well note that not all cities hosting a macellum
of Hadrian’s day have the municipal or colonial rank and that this relation-
ship between the food-stufs market construction and the civil rank was not
strictly observed in the Imperial age. So, under Hadrian, the macellum is not
inluenced by the city statuses, a fact that could be justiied by the new fea-
ture performed by the building. his doesn’t mean that from the 2nd century
AD the macellum lost its commercial value, but rather, it also represented a
symbol of Romanization. he new character of the market-building became
more important and it was taken in so high a consideration as not to think
more to the city status. For the city, it was not necessary to be a municipium
or a colony, because it was more important to show the similarities it had to
the other cities of the Empire.
he macellum, during its historical development, becomes the demon-
stration of the social cohesion and the cultural background and the economic
autonomy of the host Roman cities. It is an indicator of the Romanization of
the territory and the cities celebrate through it the same membership policy
and the cultural sensibility of Rome and, inally, their economic vitality: the
city as a whole asserts its identity and itself through its food-stafs market.
hat’s why the Roman market-building, becoming part of the propaganda of
the Empire, will get its own institutional autonomy and its own socio-politi-
cal identity. It will be always and everywhere a functional urban space capa-
ble of bringing the host city to the standard model of the city designed by the
Roman government. In the same time, it plays an instrumental role into the
system of patronage underlying the social organization of the Empire. At this
point, it’s easy to understand how the macellum building, real exceptional
architectural evidence, also becomes a privileged index of economic and po-
litical culture of the Roman cities.

79
Nutton 1978; Boatwright 200, 204–210.

80 Armando Cristilli
 es
tr a
tto
Appendix

First macella group (2nd century B.C. - early 1st century A.D.)

Host city Nation Civic rank Macellum’s construction date

Aquileia Italy colonia End of 2nd century B.C.
Aletrium Italy municipium 130 – 90 B.C.
Pompeii Italy colonia Second half of 2nd century B.C.
Colonia Lepida Celsa Spain colonia Second half of 1st century B.C.
Firmum Apulum/ Vibinum Italy colonia 1st century B.C.?
Ostia Italy colonia Second half of 1st century B.C.
Patavium Italy municipium End of 1st century B.C
Castrum Truentinum Italy municipium Last Republican age
Buxentum Italy municipium 1st century B.C. – 1st century A.D.
Brundisium Italy colonia 40 B.C.
Colonia Iulia Turris Lisbonis Italy colonia 27 B.C. – 11 A.D.
Colonia Immunis Caesaraugusta Spain colonia 10 B.C.
Leptis Magna Libya municipium 9-8 B.C.
Tarvisium Italy municipium Early 1st century A.D.
Minturnae Italy colonia Augustan age
Herculaneum Italy municipium Augustan age
Municipium Iulium Carales Italy municipium Augustan age
Bononia Italy colonia Augustan age
Segesta Italy municipium Augustan age
Colonia Libertinorum Carteia Spain colonia Augustan age

Second macella group (Julio-Claudian age)

Host city Nation Civic rank Macellum’s construction date

Lugdunum Convenarum France civitas Tiberius’age
Municipium Turobrigensis Spain municipium Caligola-Claudian age
Colonia Iulia Laus Corinthus Greece colonia First half of 1st century A.D.
Colonia Catina Italy colonia First half of 1st century A.D.
Colonia Ituci Virtus Italia Spain colonia First half of 1st century A.D.
Carthago Tunisia colonia Claudius’age
Baelo Claudia Spain municipium Claudius’age
Colonia Valentia Spain colonia 1st century A.D.
Narbo Martius France colonia 1st century A.D. (?)
Neapolis Italy municipium Middle of 1st century A.D.
Marruvium Italy municipium Middle of 1st century A.D.
Samarobriva Ambianorum France civitas Middle of 1st century A.D.
Colonia Iulia Equestris Switzerland colonia Middle of 1st century A.D.
hugga Tunisia civitas 54 d.C.

Macellum and Imperium. he relationship between the Roman State and the market-building construction 81
 es
tr a
tto
hird macella group (Flavian age - 4th century A.D.)

Host city Nation Civic rank Macellum’s construction date

Municipium Flavium Irnitanum Spain municipium Second half of 1st century A.D.
Municipium Complutum Spain municipium Second half of 1st century A.D.
Verulamium Catuvellorum Great Britain municipium End of 1st century A.D.
Alba Fucens Italy colonia End of 1st century A.D.
Puteoli Italy colonia Flavian age
Hippo Regius Tunisia municipium (?) Flavian age
Bracara Augusta Portugal colonia Flavian age
Colonia Clunia Sulpicia Spain colonia Flavian age
Pitinum Mergens Italy municipium 1st century A.D.-2nd century A.D.
Carsulae Italy municipium 1st century A.D.-2nd century A.D.
Allon Spain municipium 1st century A.D.-2nd century A.D.
Lancia Spain municipium First half of 2nd century A.D.
Ammaia Spain municipium First half of 2nd century A.D.
Aelium Augusta Vindelicum Germany municipium First half of 2nd century A.D.
Saepinum Italy municipium 2nd century A.D.
hibilis Algeria pagus 2nd century A.D.
Pagus Epotius France pagus 2nd century A.D.
Corinium Dobunnorum Great Britain civitas Hadrian’s age
Viroconium Cornoviorum Great Britain civitas Hadrian’s age
Colonia Flavia Siscia Croatia colonia Hadrian’s age
Aeclanum Italy colonia Hadrian’s age
Gerasa Jordan colonia Hadrian’s age
Aesernia Italy municipium Hadrian’s age
Larisa Turkey Hadrian’s age
Cirene Libya Augustan age
Pompeiopolis Turkey Hadrian’s age (?)
Lambaesis Algeria Harian’s age (?)
huburbo Maius Tunisia municipium Antoninus Pius’age
Cuicul Algeria colonia Antoninus Pius’age
Perge Turkey Commodus’age
Aezani Turkey Antoninian age
Gightis Tunisia municipium Middle of 2nd century A.D.
Philippi Greece colonia Marcus Aurelius-Commodus’age
Colonia Ulpia Traiana Augusta Bulgaria colonia 169-176 A.D.
Sagalessos Turkey civitas libera Commodus’age
Auzia Algeria colonia 230-233 A.D.
Bulla Regia Tunisia colonia Second half of 2nd century A.D. - Ear-
ly 3th century A.D.
Praeneste Italy colonia End of 2nd A.D.
Paestum Italy municipium 2nd century A.D.-Early 3th A.D.
Ammaedara Tunisia colonia 2nd century A.D.-3th A.D.
Ratae Corieltauvorum Great Britain civitas End of 2nd century A.D.-Early 3th A.D.
hamugadi (Central market) Algeria colonia Septimius Severus’age

82 Armando Cristilli
 es
tr a
tto
Host city Nation Civic rank Macellum’s construction date
hamugadi (Sertius’ market) Algeria colonia Septimius Severus-Caracalla’s age
Domavia Croatia municipium ante 217-218 A.D.
hignica Tunisia municipium ante 229 A.D.
Aquincum Hungary colonia First half of 3rd century A.D.
Auguntum Austria municipium 3rd century A.D.
Mediolanum Aulercorum France caput civitas 3rd century A.D.
Mactaris Algeria colonia 231 A.D.
Iulium Carnicum Italy municipium ante 235 A.D.
Genava Switzerland civitas (?) Second half of 3rd century A.D.
Antiochia Syria colonia Valens’age

sources oF Figures

Fig. 1: after de Ruyt 1983, 99, ig. 39 – Fig. 2: reworked from Gros 1996, 455, ig. 508 –
Fig. 3: after de Ruyt 1983, 152, ig. 57 – Fig. 4: after de Ruyt 1983, 221, ig. 85 – Fig. 5:
after Wacher 1975, 295, ig. 67 – Fig. 6: http://www.atlastours.net/jordan/jerash_map.
html – Fig. 7: after Martín-Bueno – Uscatescu 1994, 176, ig. 3 – Fig. 8: after Chri-
stol-Demougin 1986, 193 – Fig. 9: after Zaninović 1981, 208 – Fig. 10: reworked from
Gibson - Ward Perkins 1987, 49, ig. 7 – Fig. 11: after de Ruyt 1983, 18, ig. 1 – Fig. 12:
photo by the author – Fig. 13: after de Ruyt 1983, 81, ig. 32 – Fig. 14: after Özdizbay
2008, 66, ig. 20 – Fig. 15: after Bielfeldt 2011, 57, ig. 1.

reFerences

Andreau 2000: J. Andreau, Les marchés hebdomadaires du Latium et de Campanie au

Ier siècle ap. J.C., in: Lo Cascio 2000, 69–91.
Arnolds 2005: M. Arnolds, Funktionen republikanischer und frühkaiserzeitlicher
Forumsbasiliken in Italien, PhD Dissertation (Heidelberg 2005) http://www.
ub.uni-heidelberg.de/archiv/7440.
Baker 2012: R. Baker, Epiphanius, On Weights and Measures §14: Hadrian’s Journey to
the East and the Rebuilding of Jerusalem, ZPE 182, 2012, 157–167.
Bayard – Massy 1984: D. Bayard – J. L. Massy, Le développement d’Amiens romain, du Ier
siècle av. J.C. au IVe siècle ap. J.C., in: Les villes de la Gaule Belgique au Haut-Em-
pire. Actes du Colloque tenu à Saint-Riquier (Somme) les 22-23-24 octobre 1982
(Revue archéologique de Picardie. Numéro spécial, 3-4) (Amiens 1984) 89–112.
Beltrán Lloris 1991: M. Beltrán Lloris, Celsa (Zaragoza 1991).
Bielfeldt 2011: R. Bielfeldt, Das Macellum von Pompeiopolis: Eine neue kleinasiatische
Marktanlage mit oktogonaler Tholos, in: L. Summerer (ed.), Pompeiopolis I. Eine
Zwischenbilanz aus der Metropole Paphlagoniens nach fünf Kampagnen (2006 -
2010) (Langenweissbach 2011) 49–62.
Boatwright 2000: M. T. Boatwright, Hadrian and the Cities of the Roman Empire
(Princeton 2000).
Brüggemann 2004: T. Brüggemann, Nundinae als Bindeglied zwischen römischer Ad-
ministration und indigenen Gesellschaften im antiken Nordafrika, in: B. Streck
(ed.), Segmentation und Komplementarität. Organisatorische, ökonomische und
kulturelle Aspekte der Interaktion von Nomaden und Sesshaften. Beiträge der
Kolloquia am 25.10.2002 und 27.06.2003 (Halle 2004) 157–187.
Buonocore 1996-1997: M. Buonocore, La dedica da Aesernia a L. Abullius Dexter:
note di storia amministrativa locale, RendPontAc 69, 1996-1997, 289–325 (= AE
1999, 546).
Celis Sánchez et alii 2002: J. Celis Sánchez – M.a J. Gutiérrez Gonzales - J. Liz Guiral,
Nuevos datos y aportaciones a la secuencia cultural de la ciudad de Lancia (Villa-
sabariego, Léon, España), Zephyrus 55, 2002, 257–282.
Christol – Demougin 1986: M. Christol – S. Demougin, Notes de prosopographie
équestre, 4. Un chevalier romain juge des cinq décuries originaire de Siscia, ZPE
64, 1986, 185–194.

Macellum and Imperium. he relationship between the Roman State and the market-building construction 83
 es
tr a
tto
Colvin 2004: S. Colvin, The Greco-Roman East. Politics, Culture, Society (Cambridge
2004).
Coquelet 2011: C. Coquelet, Les capitales de cité des provinces de Belgique et de
Germanie. Etude urbanistique (Louvain-la-Neuve 2011).
Creighton 2006: J. Creighton, Britannia. The creation of a Roman province (Ox-
on-New York 2006).
Crawley Quinn 2010: J. Crawley Quinn, The Reinvention of Lepcis, in Roma 2008 –
International Congress of Classical Archaeology Meetings between Cultures in
the Ancient Mediterranean. Bollettino di Archeologia On Line, I, 2010/Volume
speciale A/ A7/ 6 (www.archeologia.beniculturali.it) 52–69.
Cristilli 1999: A. Cristilli, Il complesso di Za Rodinu: apatouron o macellum?, RendNap
68, 1999, 53–67.
Cristilli 2008: A. Cristilli, Tra evergetismo e culto imperiale: le statue-ritratto dal Ma-
cellum di Pompei, RStPomp 19, 2008, 35–43.
De Simone 1985: A. De Simone, Il complesso monumentale di S. Lorenzo Maggiore,
in: E. Pozzi (ed.), Napoli antica (Napoli 1985) 185–195.
de Ruyt 1983: Cl. de Ruyt, Macellum. Marché alimentaire des Romains (Louvain 1983).
de Ruyt 2000: Cl. de Ruyt, Exigences fonctionnelles et variété des interprétations
dans l’architecture des macella du monde romain, in: E. Lo Cascio (ed.), Mercati
permanenti e mercati periodici nel mondo romano. Atti degli Incontri capresi
di storia dell’economia antica, Capri 13-15 ottobre 1997 (Bari 2000) 177–186.
de Ruyt 2007: Cl. de Ruyt, Les produits vendus au macellum, Food and history 5, 2007,
135–150.
Demma 2007: F. Demma, Monumenti pubblici di Puteoli (Roma 2007).
Di Nuccio 2006: G. Di Nuccio, Cenni sui papiri giuridici di Petra, Dura e Nessana, Iuria
Orientalia 2, 2006, 27–51.
Di Stefano – Scaroina 2002: S. Di Stefano – L. Scaroina, Il macellum di San Lorenzo
di Sebato. Studio e proposta per una ricostruzione graica, in: L. Dal Ri – S. Di
Stefano (ed.), Archäologie der Romerzeit in Südtirol. Beiträge und Forschun-
gen. Archeologia Romana in Alto Adige. Studi e contributi (Bolzano-Wien 2002)
841–856.
Di Vita 1994: A. Di Vita, Leptis Magna, in: Dupré i Raventós 1994, 159-163.
Dupré i Raventós 1994: X. Dupré i Raventós (ed.), La ciutat en el món romà. La ciudad
en el mundo romano, I-II (Tarragona 1994).
Ellis 2000: P. Ellis, The Roman baths and macellum at Wroxeter. Excavations by Gra-
ham Webster, 1955-85 (London 2000).
Esmonde-Cleary 2008: S. Esmonde-Cleary, Rome in the Pyrennees. Lugdunum and the
Convenae from the First Century B.C. to the Seventh Century A.D. (London –
New York 2008).
Fabres – Paillet 2009: G. Fabres – J.-L. Paillet, Saint-Bertrand-de-Comminges – 4, Le
Macellum (Pessac 2009).
Frayn 1993: J. M. Frayn, Markets and Fairs in Roman Italy (Oxford 1993).
Frere 1967: S. Frere, Britannia. A History of Roman Britain (London–Henley–Boston
1967).
Gaggiotti 1989: M. Gaggiotti, Macellum e magalia: ricezione di elementi “culturali” di origi-
ne punica in ambiente romano-repubblicano, in: L’Africa Romana 7, 1989, 773–782.
Gaggiotti 1989a: M. Gaggiotti., Considerazioni sulla “punicità” del macellum romano,
in: L’Africa Romana 7, 1989, 783–792.
García Morcillo 2000: M. García Morcillo, El Macellum Magnum y la Roma de Nerón,
Iberia 3, 2000, 265–289.
Garzetti 1974: A. Garzetti, From Tiberius to the Antonines. A history of the Roman
empire, A.D. 14 – 192 (London 1974).
Gibson – Ward Perkins 1987: S. C. Gibson – J. B. Ward-Perkins, The “market theatre”
complex and associated structures, Cyrene, LibSt 18, 1987, 43–72.
Gonzáles Román 1996: C. Gonzáles Román, Roma y la urbanización de Occidente
(Madrid 1996).
Gregoratti 2011: L. Gregoratti, The Role of Decapolis Region in Connecting Inland
Syria with Mediterranean Coast, Aram 23, 2011, 520–531.
Hamdoune 2009: C. Hamdoune, Les macella dans les cités de l’Afrique romaine, An-
tAfr 45, 2009, 27–36.
Højte 2000: J. M. Højte, Imperial Visits as Occasion for the Erection of Portrait Stat-
ues?, ZPE 133, 2000, 221–235.
Lafi 2006: U. Lafi, La struttura costituzionale nei municipi e nelle colonie romane.
Magistrati, decurioni, popolo, in: L. Capogrossi Colognesi – E. Gabba (ed.), Gli
Statuti Municipali (Pavia 2006) 109–132.

84 Armando Cristilli
 es
tr a
Lafi 2007: U. Lafi, Colonie e municipi nello Stato romano (Roma 2007).

tto
Lebek 1993: W. D. Lebek, La Lex Lati di Domiziano (Lex Irnitana): le strutture giuri-
diche dei capitoli 84 e 86, ZPE 97, 1993, 159–168.
Le Glay 1974: M. Le Glay, Hadrien et Viator sur les champs de manœuvre de Numidie,
in: AA.VV., Mélanges d’histoire ancienne offerts à William Seston (Paris 1974)
277–283.
Leveau 2002: P. Leveau, L’habitat rural dans la Provence Antique: villa, vicus et mansio.
Études de cas, RANarb 35, 2002, 52–92.
Levi 1994: M. A. Levi, Le iscrizioni di Lambaesis e l’esercito di Adriano, RendLinc 5,
1994, 711–723.
Lo Cascio 2000: E. Lo Cascio (ed.), Mercati permanenti e mercati periodici nel mondo
romano. Atti degli Incontri capresi di storia dell’economia antica, Capri 13-15
ottobre 1997 (Bari 2000).
Mac Mahon 2006: A. Mac Mahon, Fixed-point retail location in the major towns of
Roman Britain, OxfJA 25, 2006, 289–309.
Martín-Bueno 1992: M. Martín-Bueno, The Macellum in the Economy of Gerasa, in: M.
Zaghloul – K. ‘Amr – F. Zayadine – R. Nabeel (ed.), Studies in the History and
Archaeology of Jordan IV (Amman – Lyon 1992) 315–319.
Martín Bueno – Uscatescu 1994: M. Martín Bueno - A. Uscatescu, El Macellum de
Gerasa (Ýaras, Jordania): la trasformacion de un ediicio publico romano en un
área artesanal bizantina, BSAA 60, 1994, 171-185 = in: Dupré i Raventós 1994,
262–264.
Martín-Bueno – Uscatescu 1997: M. Martín-Bueno – A. Uscatescu, The macellum of
Gerasa (Jerash, Jordan). From a market place to an industrial area, BASOR 307,
1997, 67–88.
Maselli Scotti et alii 2007: F. Maselli Scotti – L. Mandruzzato – C. Tiussi, Primo impianto
coloniario di Aquileia: l’area tra foro e macellum, in: L. Brecciaroli Taborelli (ed.),
Forme e tempi dell’urbanizzazione nella Cisalpina (II secolo a.C. - I secolo d.C.).
Atti delle Giornate di studio, Torino 4-6 maggio 2006 (Firenze 2007) 35–40.
Mastino 1985: A. Mastino, La ricerca epigraica in Algeria (1973-1985), in: L’Africa
Romana 3, 1985, 113–166.
Matheu – Rémy – Desaye – Levéau 2009-2010: N. Matheu – B. Rémy – H. Desaye –
P. Levéau, Épigraphie, architecture et économie dans le villes et agglomérations
secondaires des Gaules, des Germanies et des provinces alpines. Recherches sur
quelques mots: diaeta, fabrica, iglina, horreum, macellum, mercatus, portus, taberna,
Caesarodunum 43-44, 2009-2010, 325–357.
McWhirr 1976: A. D. McWhirr, Cirencester (Corinium): a civitas capital in the west
country, in: K. Branigan (ed.), The Roman West Country. Classical culture and
Celtic society (Newton Abbot 1976) 81–98.
McWhirr 1981: A. D. McWhirr, Roman Gloucestershire (Gloucester 1981).
Mezquiriz Irujo 1997: Mª A. Mezquiriz Irujo, El periodo romano en la Vasconia Penin-
sular, Isturitz 7, 1997, 83–93.
Moormann 2011: E. M. Moormann, Divine Interiors: Mural Paintings in Greek and
Roman Sanctuaries (Amsterdam 2011).
Moreno Posse 2011: J. E. Moreno Posse, El relejo en las fuentes de la política militar
del emperador Adriano, Ab Initio 3, 2011, 30–40.
Nassar 2014: M. Nassar, Hadriana’s Arch’s From Roman Period, Jordan: A Compara-
tive Study, MedAArchaeometry 14.1, 2014, 247–259.
Nutton 1978: V. Nutton, The beneicial ideology, in: P. D. A. Garnsey (ed.), Imperial-
ism in the ancient world (London 1978) 209–221.
Özdizbay 2008: A. Özdizbay, Perge’nin M.S. 1.-2. Yüzyıllardaki Gelişimi, unpublished
PhD Dissertation (Istanbul 2008).
Palmieri 2010: L. Palmieri, Romanization and deinition of commercial areas, in Africa
Proconsularis: The examples of Leptis Magna and Thugga, in: C. Corsi – F. Ver-
meulen (ed.), Changing Landscapes. The impact of Roman towns in the Western
Mediterranean. Proceedings of Roman Colloquium, Castelo da Vide – Marvão
15th – 17th May 2008 (Bologna 2010) 385–392.
Pawlik 2012: K. Pawlik, Did Gadara have a macellum?, Trowel 13, 2012, 25–31.
Poupaki 2011: E. Poupaki, The Macellum of Perge: New Aspects on its Building Material, in:
A. Giannikourh (ed.), The Agora in the Mediterranean from the Homeric to Roman
Times, International Conference. Kos, 14-17 April 2011 (Α να 2011) 279–293.
Redentor 2014: A. Redentor, Militares na Asturia Meridional: os testemunhos epigráf-
icos do Nordeste Transmontano, Brigantia 32, 2014, 51–66.
Romizzi – Spadafora 2008: L. Romizzi – G. Spadafora, Il Macellum di Pompei. Mer-
cato, santuario, pinacoteca. Nuovi rilievi e acquisizioni, in: P. G. Guzzo – M. P.

Macellum and Imperium. he relationship between the Roman State and the market-building construction 85
 es
tr a
tto
Guidobaldi (ed.), Nuove ricerche archeologiche nell’area vesuviana (scavi 2003-
2006). Atti del Convegno internazionale, Roma 1-3 febbraio 2007 (Roma 2008)
556–557.
Santos Yanguas 1997: N. Santos Yanguas, Flavionavia. una civitas romana en territorio
de los Astures Transmontanos, EspacioHist 10, 1997, 415–436.
Sartre 1976: M. Sartre, Ti. Iulius Iulianus Alexander, gouverneur d’Arabie, AAJ 21,
1976, 105–108.
Sartre 2007: M. Sartre, Romanisation en Asie Mineure?, in: G. Urso (ed.), Tra Oriente
e Occidente. Indigeni, Greci e Romani in Asia Minore. Atti del convegno interna-
zionale, Cividale del Friuli, 28 - 30 settembre 2006 (Pisa 2007) 229–245.
Sear 2006: F. Sear, Roman Theatres. An Architectural Study (New York 2006).
Sechi 1990: S. Sechi, Razionalizzazione degli spazi commerciali: fora e macella nell’Afri-
ca Proconsularis, in: L’Africa Romana 8, 1990, 345–371.
Speidel 2006: M. P. Speidel, Emperor Hadrian’s Speeches to the African Army – a New
Text, (Mainz 2006).
Storchi Marino 2000: A. Storchi Marino, Reti interregionali integrate e circuiti di mer-
cato periodico negli indices nundinarii del Lazio e della Campania, in: Lo Cascio
2000, 93–130.
Syme 1988: R. Syme, Journeys of Hadrian, ZPE 73, 1988, 159–170.
Talloen - Waelkens 2004: P. Talloen – M. Waelkens, Apollo and the emperors, 1. The
material evidence for the imperial cult at Sagalassos, AncSoc 34, 2004, 171–216.
Tarpin 1999: M. Tarpin, Colonia, Municipium, Vicus: Institutionen und Stadtformen, in:
N. Hanel – C. Schuncany (eds.), Colonia, municipium, vicus. Struktur und Ent-
wicklung städtischer Siedlungen in Noricum, Rätien und Obergermanien. Beiträ-
ge der Arbeitsgemeinschaft „Römische Archäologie“ bei der Tagung des West-
und Süddeutschen Verbandes für Altertumsforschung in Wien, 21.-23.5.1997
(Oxford 1999) 1–10.
Tarpin 2002: M. Tarpin, Vici et pagi dans l’Occident romain (Roma 2002).
Torelli 2003: M. Torelli, Chalcidicum. Forma e semantica di un tipo edilizio antico,
Ostraka 12.2, 2003, 215–238.
Torrecilla Aznar 2003: A. Torrecilla Aznar, El origen del macellum romano en el ágora
comercial griega, Bolskan 20, 2003, 309–324.
Torrecilla Aznar 2007: A. Torrecilla Aznar, Aproximación al estudio de los macella
romanos en Hispania, Caesaraugusta 78, 2007, 455–480.
Torrent 2013: A. Torrent, Una nueva edición de la ‘lex Irnitana’, Index 41, 2013,
132–137.
Tran 2008: N. Tran, Les cités et le monde du travail urbain en Afrique romaine, in: C.
Berrendonner – M. Cébeillac-Gervasoni – L. Lamoine (ed.), La quotidien munici-
pal dans l’Occident romain (Clermont-Ferrand 2008) 333–348.
Vattioni 1995: F. Vattioni, Varia semitica, 9, AnnOrNap 55, 1995, 109–115.
Vukelić 2011: V. Vukelić, Lokalitet ‘Rimska pivnica’ u Sisku. Primjer istraživanja an-
tičke monumentalne gradˉevine javne namijene u drugoj polovici 19. Stoljeća,
HistriaAnt 20, 2011, 237–240.
Wacher 1975: J. Wacher, The towns of Roman Britain (London 1975).
Wacher 1976: J. Wacher, Corinium Dobunnorum, PECS (Oxford 1976) 240.
Wacher 1989: J. Wacher, Cities from the Second to Fourth Centuries, in: M. Todd
(ed.), Research on Roman Britain: 1960-1989 (London 1989) 91–114.
Weis 2005: A. Weis, Liberalitas and Lucrum in republican city planning. Plautus (Curc.
466-83) and L. Betilienus Varus, in: A. Haltenhoff – A. Heil – F. H. Mutschler,
Römische Werte als Gegenstand der Altertumswissenschaft (München 2005)
225–258.
Williams 2002: M. H. Williams, Alexander, bubularus de macello: Humble Sausage-sell-
er or Europe’s First Identiiable Purveyor of Kosher Beef, Latomus 61, 2002,
122–133.
Wolf 2011: J. G. Wolf, Die Lex Irnitana: ein römisches Stadtrecht aus Spanien: latei-
nisch und deutsch (Darmstadt 2011).
Ziosi 2010: F. Ziosi, Sulle iscrizioni relative alla ricostruzione di Cirene dopo il Tumul-
tus Iudaicus, e sul loro contesto, ZPE 172, 2010, 239–248.

Address

Dr. Armando Cristilli

Via Bartolo Longo, 91/C – 80147 Napoli (Italy)
armandocristilli@hotmail.com

86 Armando Cristilli