Navigation – Plan du site

AccueilNuméros120MiscellanéesWords in context: The use of Feci...

Miscellanées

Words in context: The use of Fecit in the milestones of Roman Hispania

Les mots inscrits et leur contexte : l’utilisation du terme fecit dans les bornes milliaires de l'Hispanie romaine 
Sergio España-Chamorro
p. 123-134

Résumés

En épigraphie, le terme fecit apparaît généralement dans les monuments ou les infrastructures publiques indiquant que la personne associée à ce verbe était l'évergète de ces entreprises constructives. Cependant, le terme est également documenté sur quelques milliaires au cours des règnes de Trajan, d'Hadrien et de Sévère Alexandre. Dans ces cas-là, le choix spécifique de cette locution par rapport à d'autres formules épigraphiques ajouté au contexte particulier de ces inscriptions pourrait être révélateur que ce mot est employé comme un moyen de propagande en détournant son sens originel « fait par ». Afin de vérifier cette hypothèse, cet article propose un examen détaillé de ces inscriptions ainsi que de toutes celles qui traitent de réparation ou de reconstruction afin de mieux comprendre le processus dans son ensemble. Il en ressort que l'intention de ces empereurs était de faire naître l'idée que la société devait les axes vitaux de la communication terrestre à Trajan et Hadrien, puisqu'ils les ont construits, alors qu'en réalité ce n’était pas le cas.

Haut de page

Texte intégral

  • 1 Salama, 1987; Susini, 1997, p. 157-172; Sillières, 2003, p. 265-281; Kolb, 2011, p (...)
  • 2 Conventual administration refers to those functions of the conventus iuridici (a subdivisi (...)

1Roman milestones are frequently considered markers of distance, but they also had another important function: they were used as propaganda and euergetism in rural areas.1 In many cases, this type of inscription contains more information than just mile markers, such as the restoration of a road, the construction of bridges, or the opening of new pathways. There are similar examples to express the singularities of milestones and they generally change depending on the geographic area; they also provide useful information regarding epigraphic formulae or habits and the use of Latin in different contexts. This sort of inscription is quite exceptional because it is the only sequential epigraphic source in rural areas erected by the provincial, conventual2 or civic administration.

  • 3 See Horster 2001 as the main modern publication for the Western Roman Empire, even if she (...)
  • 4 “Antiquity can be presented as the destroyer of the material and spiritual works of humani (...)

2There is a repertoire of epigraphic formulae for expressing the new construction or reconstruction of buildings and infrastructures (the so-called Bauinschriften3) that are also present on milestones. Most of these expressions referred to a reconstruction (using verbs as refecit, restituit or phrases such a vetustate collapsum or consumptum, corruptum and similar terms and descriptions like multo tempore, post serie annorum, incuria, neglecta…). These kinds of expressions have been described with a negative view4 of the time and not ‘enduring through time’ that Vitrubius (2, 8, 18) applies to the word vetustas.

3However, one of these formulae is the Emperor’s particular use of the term fecit in some context. The third-person singular perfect active indicative of faciō can be effectively translated as the verb ‘to make,’ ‘to construct,’ or ‘to build,’ depending on the context of the overall inscription. In Latin epigraphy, fecit frequently appears in association with public works and infrastructures, indicating that the person associated with this verb was the financial sponsor of such facilities (e.g.: baths, roads, porticus, etc.) but the word is not linked with reconstruction works.

  • 5 Solana-Sagredo, 2006, p. 43-44 quotes milestones at Caracalla and Maximus-Maximinu (...)

4Curiously, the use of this word occurs only during the age of Trajan, Hadrian, and Severus Alexander,5 at least in Hispania. In most of the regions of the three Hispanic provinces, milestones started with Augustus and the Julio-Claudian emperors. However, this word was never used in milestones throughout all the Iberian Peninsula.

  • 6 Lostal Pros, 1992, p. 63-80 noticed this in the via Augusta in Hispania Citerior. The same (...)

5This verb was frequently used as a marker to indicate who made each State infrastructure. Notwithstanding, one can recognize a peculiarity in some milestones of Roman Hispania dated specifically to the ages of Trajan and Hadrian. Surprisingly, some scholars have analysed this anomaly but have never studied it in depth.6

  • 7 There are lot of studies but the main general approaches were made by Jouffroy, 1986; Dunc (...)
  • 8 Thomas-Witchel, 1992; Fagan, 1996.

6This resource is often used to support confirmation of the construction process without archaeological evidence,7 but some studies have paid attention to this problematic resource and investigated the reliability of these kinds of inscriptions.8

  • 9 Solana Sainz, 2013, p. 335-363 (however incomplete), and Vaquero, and Rubio, 1994, p. 441- (...)

7The purpose of this paper is not to compile all the information about restoration evidence in milestones, because this has already been done.9 Instead, this article focuses on the term fecit in its epigraphic, geographical, and archaeological context in order to decipher the choice of this specific word in every instance.

8If we observe these inscriptions, the use of fecit can be translated as ‘made by’ However, the contextual study of this source is apparently confusing because some evidence denotes the meaning fecit as ‘remade’ instead of ‘made’ from scratch.

9The Hispanic milestones containing this term are present in three provinces:

  • 10 Twenty documents regarding Trajan: CIL II, 6206 = CIL II, 4667 = Solana Sainz, and Sagredo (...)
  • 11 Milestone of Caligula (?) CIL II, 4640 Solana-Sagredo (n. 11), nº 94a; Milestone o (...)
  • 12 Puerta Torres (n. 4). The only books that compile the milestones of Lusitania have provide (...)
  • 13 Most of them are quoted in note 8 and 11, because they use the term refecit. See Puerta To (...)
  • 14 See the work of Roldán Hervás, 1971.

10In Lusitania, we have an important number of milestones that discuss the restoration process ordered by Trajan and Hadrian in this province. The most common words used are restituit10 and refecit.11 The term fecit is present on few occasions. Some of these instances occur in the most important North-South axis of communication in the Lusitanian province: the so-called Silver Way, quoted in the Antonine Itinerary as Iter ab Emerita Asturicam. The majority of the 108 Lusitanian milestones were placed on this road.12 A total number of 20 road inscriptions belonging to the Trajanic period have been found,13of which there is one case of fecit, and another one using refecit. Archaeological and epigraphic sources have revealed the use of this important road before the Roman conquest,14 making it impossible to assume that Trajan made it. This is even clearer with the use of refecit or restituit on other Trajanic milestones placed along this road.

  • 15 Puerta Torres (n. 4), nº 103 = CPILC 703 = Solana-Sagredo (n. 4), 10 = CILCc III, 1083.
  • 16 Puerta Torres (n. 4), nº 41; CIL II 4660 = CPILC 4660 = CILCc III, 956 = Puerta Torres (n. 4), (...)
  • 17 One of Nero’s (CIL II, 4657 = CPILC 692 = HEp 13, 230) that does not quote any restoration (...)

11The only exception to this Trajan-Hadrian chronology that we could find in the Iberian Peninsula comes from 5 milestones pertaining to Severus Alexander. One was found in Capera (Caparra, Cáceres),15 and the other three examples were found near Carcaboso (Cáceres),16 all of them belonging to the Silver Way. Similar to the other examples, we have evidence of the use of this part of the road before Severus Alexander.
At least 7 milestones ordered by Tiberius, Nero, Trajan, Hadrian, and Septimius Severus have been found, all in the same place.17 We can be sure that they all come from this point thanks to the number quotation present on the milestones: all of them mark between 102 and 104, the precise distance to their caput viae placed in Augusta Emerita. Hence, one must assume that this was a complicated point of the route due to the need to constantly renovate it.

  • 18 d'Encarnação, 1988, nº 115 did the autopsy of this milestone previously known by the (...)

12The last milestone of Lusitania, where the word fecit is used, comes from Campo Maior (Portalegre, Portugal),18 and it is also dated from the reign of Severus Alexander. This is the only Lusitanian milestone with this word that does not originate from the Silver Way but was placed on another important route of the province: referred to by the Antonine Itinerary as Item ab Olisipone Emeritam (Lisbon-Mérida).

13Could the officina lapidaria have reproduced the pattern and epigraphic formulae of other Trajan or Hadrian milestones during Severus Alexander’s reign? I strongly consider that it is probable since this is the only context where the fecit inscription means ‘rework’ without the opening of a new road throughout this time. One should remember that these milestones are the only proof of Severus Alexander’s road policy in the whole Iberian Peninsula.

  • 19 CIL XVII, 1, 225; 229; 231; 232; 233 (?); 235.

14The rest of the Iberian Peninsula only reveals this formula in Trajan and Hadrian’s road inscriptions. In Hispania Citerior, and specifically on the road via a Caesaraugusta per Cluniam Asturicam versus, the use of fecit is unable to express ‘to make from scratch’ in Trajan’s milestone. In this via, an Augustan milestone (CIL XVII/1, 224 in Muro de Ágreda, Soria) marking the caput viae in Turiassone (Tarazona, Saragossa) was found near the road. This proves that this road was already functioning at the beginning of the first century CE. Nonetheless, six milestones from the age of Trajan were found, and all of them quote fecit.19 Although the caput viae was changed to Augustobriga (Muro de Agreda, Soria) instead of Turiassone, the Trajanic milestones belong to the same road. Thus, the use of fecit in this context does not mark the opening of a new road, but it is used to express a complete reorganization of the road policy in this area, including the capita viarum. On the same road, another milestone found in Ágreda (Soria, Spain) from the age of Hadrian (CIL XVII/1, 227) expresses the continuation of the restoration project, however in this case, it uses the term refecit. Could it be intentionally used as a differentiation of the restoration project begun by Trajan on the same road? It is quite probable.

  • 20 CIL XVII/1, 306.
  • 21 Campedelli probably based her restitution by taking the text of CIL XVII/1, 307 into (...)

15Another example can be found in the via in Insula Baliaricum minore ab Iamnone Magonem. This case is not as clear as the others since the original inscription is now lost. This milestone’s text20 was copied in a manuscript. If we trust in the drawing provided (reproduced in the CIL), the restitution of this text as [re]fecit seems unsuitable considering its ordinatio.21 If we look at the drawing of this inscription in the CIL volume, there is no space for re. This milestone was placed on the main route by the central part of the island, and it was already used in pre-Roman times. Here, once again, fecit is used in this particular way.

  • 22 CIL XVII/1, 302 (3 km. from Santisteban del Puerto, the ancient Ilugo) and 303 (La Aldehue (...)
  • 23 Sardinia CIL X, 8023; Gallia Narbonensis CIL XVII, 2, 55; 79; 160; 165; 168; 204; 209; 211 (...)
  • 24 Schmidt, vid. CIL XVII, 1, p. 246-246.

16In the same province, but on the via a Castulone-in coloniam Acci, Trajan’s milestones22 express a strange formula: fecit et restituit. Some testimonies in Sardinia, Gallia Narbonensis, or even in Baetica23 present the similar expression of refecit et restituit. Again, the use of fecit sounds inexplicable because restituit implies ‘restored’ or ‘did again.’ Therefore, this expression cannot work because something newly constructed cannot be restored at the same time. The editor24 of the new volume of CIL, focusing on milestones from West Hispania Citerior, utilizes the citation of patria potestas just before the expression of restitution (PPFECIT) to establish an explanation based on haplological origin. In my opinion, this does not really justify the omission of re-. The same problem could exist with the milestone CIL XVII, 1, 307, where patria potestas is quoted immediately before the word refecit, although in this case the word is complete.

  • 25 CIL XVII/1, 268 of Trajan; CIL XVII/1, 269 of Hadrian.
  • 26 CIL XVII/1, 280 –restored fragment-; 281; 283 –restored fragment-. The milestone CIL XVII/ (...)
  • 27 CIL II, 990 = Rodríguez Colmenero, et alii, 2004, nº 57.
  • 28 Rodríguez Colmenero et alii (n. 28), nº 58; CIL II, 4779 = Rodríguez Colme (...)
  • 29 CIL XVII/1, 85 of Postumus; 88 of Hadrian; 251 of Trajan; 253 of Trajan; 293 of Tr (...)

17Apart from the milestone belonging to Hadrian’s reign found in Ágreda, one can identify other restoration processes in this province. Two via a Segontia Segisamonen per Cluniam milestones25 and (another) three via a Carthagine Nova per Segobrigam Complutum milestones,26 all from the age of Trajan, use the term refecit. The same term can be identified in other Trajanic milestones27 and four Hadrianic ones28 in the northwestern corner of the Iberian Peninsula. The use of restituit also occurs on the milestones of several roads of this province.29 This suggests that the word was used not too far from the other cases with fecit, and their use was deliberate in order to provide additional recognition and nuance.

  • 30 Mile I España-Chamorro, 2017c; Mile XXI HAE 2201 = ERIt 34, p. 193-195 = Sillières (n. 5), (...)
  • 31 The complicated debate can be checked in my own paper (España-Chamorro, 2017c).

18Four milestones from the same road30 provide the only example from Baetica province. In this case, these four inscriptions, dating from the age of Hadrian, were found on a road that connects Italica, Trajan and Hadrian’s family’s hometown, probably to the via Augusta. This road was used before Hadrian, but no previous milestones have been discovered.31 However, the new erection of the road inscriptions allowed him to use the word fecit so as to prove his interest in the inhabitants of Italica and the neighbouring cities.

  • 32 Sillières (n.1); (n. 6).

19Pierre Sillières32 indicated that roads could have different chronological phases of development because they underwent a long-lasting process of construction. However, the archaeological and epigraphical evidence provided above have demonstrated that this is not a possible explanation. Other milestones were placed on the same road not so far away for those inscriptions with fecit and also archaeological proofs revealed the use of these roads previous to the erection of these milestones.

  • 33 A milestone of Maximinus and Maximus published by Rodríguez Plaza, 2005, p. 385-421, was r (...)

20Was this word used by other emperors? Apart from Severus Alexander’s milestones in Lusitania, there are no additional examples in the whole Iberian Peninsula nor in the Balearic Islands.33 This word is almost exclusive to those Trajanic and Hadrianic road inscriptions. But why was this term used at that moment by three different Emperors? As I have previously explained, it is undeniable that Trajan, Hadrian, and Severus Alexander did not construct these roads. The final meaning of this terminology has proved to be complicated.

  • 34 Thomas-Witchel, (n. 8), p. 138.
  • 35 Pekary, 1968, 69; French, 1995; 2012.

21The ambiguity of its use in the Bauinschriften and epigraphic infrastructures is problematic. Thomas and Witchel admitted that inscriptions recording new construction but using the verb facere could indicate a commemoration of the repairing of buildings (even if they admitted that they did not really explore this topic deeply).They made a very complete panorama about this epigraphic anomaly but they also asserted that “milestones which record road-repair use the same types of languages but are not examined here, because they cannot easily be tested archaeologically”.34 The evidence provided by Hispanic milestones has confirmed their theory and it demonstrates the same problem of reliability. We should ask if fecit concerns the road or the milestone as other scholars have already asked regarding the evidence in Asia Minor.35 But in those contexts, Pekary and French wondered about the term restituit, because this part is written in Latin in the middle of the long Greek text on the milestones. In the specific case of Hispanic milestones, no clues allow the justification that the verb is related to the specific milestone because there are no other early traces of previous texts on them and that is why we should link the term fecit with the road.

  • 36 Sillières (n. 6); Vaquero and Rubio (n. 6). For the Northwest vid. Rodríguez Colmenero et (...)
  • 37 González-Conde Puente, 2015, p. 215-239.

22Then, why fecit? As I already explained, we also know other alternatives to signify ‘remade’, such as refecit or restituit.36 Surprisingly, both verbs were used in other Trajanic and Hadrianic milestones. These two Emperors’ use of fecit was conscious and motivated. Could it be a direct method of propaganda? These Emperors’ origins were from Hispania. The increase in their public honours in urban contexts has been well-documented.37 Thus, the rural areas show this euergetism through milestones. A reorganization of the road system at these points or the implementation of a part of the road could be possible, but this does not justify the use of a word whose meaning denotes the construction of something new, even less so if the other, more specific, words were used at the same time.

  • 38 Thomas-Witchel, (n. 8), p. 174.
  • 39 See Sablayrolles, 2006, esp. P. 343-344; Grandazzi, 2009, p. 560.

23Thomas and Witchel have proposed that the use of this word was “as a short-term solution to the problem of asserting imperial authority within the frame of local tradition”38 for the construction-reconstruction inscriptions on buildings. For the specific case of roads and milestones this does not seem to be the correct answer due to the geographical and chronological context (Hispania under the reign of Trajan and Hadrian). Alternatively, the use of this word could be a way to consciously persuade inhabitants that the Spaniards Trajan and Hadrian were caring for them by constructing new infrastructures, not so much in the role of the emperor himself but rather as the provincial, conventual and civic administration in charge of the road network. In my opinion, their intention was to generate the idea that society owes the vital axes of terrestrial communication to Trajan and Hadrian, since they constructed them, even though they really did not. This will match with Thomas and Witchel’s other idea of considering this language as a “symbolic fashion”, almost as a literary resource with a metaphoric meaning.39 The concentration of these fecit inscriptions in some very specific geographic areas allows us to propose that maybe the justification of this use could be vindicated through the fact that works on these points were very profound or even a better solution might be that they were a re-adaptation of certain sections of the road making “new sections” of the main road.

Fig. 1. Table with the Hispanic milestones using the word fecit.

  • 40 The text provided by CIL II, 4678 is followed by ERPSa 217 and CIRPSa 196. Puerta To (...)
Milestone Emperor Current location Province Corpora
I Trajan Navalmoral de Beja, Salamanca (SP) Lusitania CIL II, 4678 = Puerta Torres (n. 4), nº 15640
II Severus Alexander Cáparra, Cáceres (SP) Lusitania Puerta Torres (n. 4), nº 103 = CPILC 703 = Solana-Sagredo (n. 8), 10 = CILCc III, 1083
III Severus Alexander Carcaboso, Cáceres (SP) Lusitania Puerta Torres (n. 4): nº 41
IV Severus Alexander Carcaboso, Cáceres (SP) Lusitania CIL II, 4660 = CPILC 4660 = CILCc III, 956 = Puerta Torres (n. 4), nº 103
V Severus Alexander Carcaboso, Cáceres (SP) Lusitania Roldán Hervás 1971 : nº 56 = Puerta Torres (n. 4), nº 110
VI Severus Alexander Campo Maior, Portalegre (PO) Lusitania Encarnaçao, 1988: FE 25, nº 115
VII Trajan Matalebreras, Soria (SP) Citerior CIL XVII, 1, 225
VIII Trajan Pozalmuro, Soria (SP) Citerior CIL XVII, 1, 229
IX Trajan Aldeapozo, Soria (SP) Citerior CIL XVII, 1, 231
X Trajan Aldeapozo, Soria (SP) Citerior CIL XVII, 1, 232
XI Trajan Aldeapozo, Soria (SP) Citerior CIL XVII, 1, 233
XII Trajan Calderuela, Soria (SP) Citerior CIL XVII, 1, 235
XIII Trajan Alaior, Menorca (SP) Citerior CIL XVII/1, 306
XIV(with restituit) Trajan Santisteban del Puerto, Jaén (SP) Citerior CIL XVII/1, 302
XV Trajan Úbeda, Jaén (SP) Citerior CIL XVII/1, 303
XVI Hadrian Province of Seville (SP) Baetica Author, 2017c
XVII Hadrian Guillena, Seville (SP) Baetica HAE 2201 = ERIt 34, p. 193-195 = Sillières (n. 5), nº 79 = CILA 5, 1040 = Corzo-Toscano (n. 27), nº 48 = Solana-Sagredo (n. 8), nº 64
XVIII Hadrian Santiponce, Seville (SP) Baetica HAE 578, 1033 y 2200 = ERIt 34 = CILA 3, 367 = Sillières (n. 5), nº 7 = Corzo y Toscano (n. 27), nº 4 = Solana-Sagredo (n. 8), nº 65I
XIX Hadrian Santiponce, Seville (SP) Baetica Corzo-Toscano 1992: nº 47 = Solana y Sagredo (n. 8), 66 = HEp. 5, 708 = HEp. 13, 615

Fig. 2. Location of the milestones using the word fecit in Hispania.

Fig. 2. Location of the         milestones using the word fecit in Hispania.

Fig. 3. Comparative chart of the restoration words in Hispania by Trajan, Hadrian, and Severus Alexander.

Fig. 3. Comparative chart         of the restoration words in Hispania by Trajan, Hadrian, and Severus         Alexander.
Haut de page

Bibliographie

Corzo Sánchez, R. and Toscano San Gil, M., 1992, Las vías romanas de Andalucía, Sevilla.

Curchin, L.A., 1983, Personal wealth in Roman Spain', Historia 32.2, p. 227-244.

d'Encarnação, J.M., 1988, Miliário de Severo Alexandre em Campo Maior, Ficheiro Epigráfico, 25, nº 115.

España-Chamorro, S., 2017a, El paisaje epigráfico viario de la via Augusta. Consideraciones de la jurisdicción de los conventus iuridici y la epigrafía miliaria, Florentia Iliberritana, 28, p. 29-49.

España-Chamorro, S., 2017b, Los Capita Viarum de la Baetica, Anales de Arqueología Cordobesa, 28, p. 11-32.

España-Chamorro, S., 2017c, Cuarto miliario bético de la serie Hadrianus Augustus fecit hallado fortuitamente en La Rinconada (Sevilla), Cuadernos de Prehistoria y Arqueología de la Universidad Autónoma de Madrid, 43, p. 241-250.

España-Chamorro, S., 2018, La frontera occidental de la Baetica con la Lusitania: (Ad) Fines, Serpa, Moura y la invención historiográfica de Arucci Nova, Rivista Storica dell’Antichità, 48, p. 229-255.

España-Chamorro, S., 2021, Engaging landscapes, connecting provinces. Milestones and the construction of Hispania at the beginning of the Empire, in M. Horster and N. Hächler (eds), The impact of Empire on Roman landscapes, IMEM 37, Leiden, p. 92-110.

Duncan-Jones, R.P., 1990, Structure and Scale in the Roman Economy, Cambridge.

Fagan, G.G., 1996, The Reliability of Roman Rebuilding Inscriptions, PBSR, 64, p. 81-93.

French, D., 1995, Milestones from the Izmir Region, EpigrAnat 25, p. 95-102.

French, D., 2012, Roman Roads and Milestones of Asia Minor Vol. 3: Milestones, Fasc. 3.1: Republican, London.

Gil Mantas, V., 1990, A rede viaria do Convento Escalabitano, in Simposio sobre la red viaria en la Hispania romana, Zaragoza.

González-Conde Puente, M.P., 2015, Dedicaciones públicas a Adriano en las ciudades de Hispania, Habis, 46, p. 215-239.

Grandazzi, A., 2009, Summa difficultas faciendi pontis : César et le passage du Rhin en 55 av. J.-C. (B.G., IV, 17). Une analyse sémiologique, MEFRA, 121.2, p. 545-570.

Horster, M., 2001, Bauinschriften römischer Kaiser, Stuttgart.

Jouffroy, H., 1986, La construction publique en Italie et dans l’Afrique romaine, Strasbourg

Kolb, A., 2011, Miliaria: Ricerca e metodi. L’identificazione delle petre miliari, in F. Pavan (ed.), I miliari lungo le strade dell'impero. Atti del Convegno (Isola della Scala, 28 novembre 2010), Verona, p. 17-28.

Lostal Pros, J., 1992, Los miliarios de la provincia Tarraconense, Zaragoza.

Ozcáriz Gil, P., 2006, Los conventus de la Hispania Citerior, Madrid.

Pekary, T., 1968, Untersuchungen zu den römischen Reichstraßen, Bonn

Puerta Torres, C., 2002, Los Miliarios de la Vía de la Plata, Unpublished doctoral thesis. Universidad Complutense de Madrid, Madrid.

Rio-Miranda Alcón, J. and Iglesias Domínguez, M.G., 2004, Nuevas aportaciones a la epigrafía y arqueología de Cáceres, Ahigal, 24, p. 12-13.

Rio-Miranda Alcón, J. and Iglesias Domínguez, M.G., 2007, Nuevas aportaciones a la epigrafía y arqueología romana de Cáceres. Miliario 110 – Oliva de Plasencia, Ahigal, 30 (2007), w. p.

Rocchi, S. and Mussini, C., 2017, Introduction, in S. Rocchi and C. Mussini (eds), Imagines Antiquitatis. Representations, Concepts, Receptions of the Past in Roman Antiquity and the Early Italian Renaissance, Berlin, p. 1-17.

Rodríguez Colmenero, A., Ferrer Sierra, S., and Álvarez Asorey, R., 2004, Miliarios e outras inscricións viarias romanas do Noroeste Hispánico (Conventos Bracarense, Lucense e Asturicense), Lugo.

Rodríguez Plaza, R. M.A., 2005, Epigrafía latina de Oliva de Plasencia, REEx, 61/2, p. 385-421.

Roldán Hervás, J.M., 1971, Iter Ab Emerita Asturicam: El Camino De La Plata, Salamanca.

Sablayrolles, R., 2006, Caesar Pontem Fecit... Voyageurs du bout du monde et conquérants de l'inutile, Pallas, 72, p. 339-367.

Salama, P., 1987, Bornes milliaires d'Afrique proconsulaire, Paris-Tunisia.

Sauer, E., 2014, Milestones and Instability (Mid-Third to Early Fourth Centuries AD), Ancient society, 44, p. 257-305.

Sillières, P., 1984, Deux nouvelles bornes de la voie Ebora-Pax Iulia, Conimbriga, 23, p. 65-67

Sillières, P., 1990, Les Voies de communication de l'Hispanie méridionale, Paris.

Sillières, P., 2003, Paysage routier, syncrétisme religieux et culte impérial le long des voies de I'Hispanie méridionale: l’apport de la toponymie, Gerion, 21.1, p. 265-281.

Solana Sainz, J.M., 2013, Construcción y reparación de vías y puentes en la Hispania romana: los términos “refecit y perfecit” recogidos en los miliarios, in R.M. Cid López and E. B. García Fernández (eds), Debita verba: estudios en homenaje al profesor Julio Mangas Manjarrés, Madrid, p. 335-363.

Solana Sáinz, J.M. and Hernández Guerra, L., 2002, La política viaria en Hispania siglo III d.C., Valladolid.

Solana Sainz, J.M. and Sagredo San Eustaquio, L., 1998, La Política viaria en Hispania. Siglo IV d.C., Valladolid.

Solana Sainz, J.M. and Sagredo San Eustaquio, L., 2006, La red viaria romana en Hispania: siglos I-IV d.C., Valladolid.

Solana Sainz, J.M. and Sagredo San Eustaquio, L., 2008, La política viaria en Hispania: siglos I-II d.C., Valladolid.

Susini, G., 1997, Compitare per via. Antropologia del lettore antico: meglio, del lettore romano, in Epigrafia e Antichità. Epigraphica Dilapidata. Scritti scelti di Giancarlo Susini, Faenza, p. 157-172.

Thomas, E. and Witschel, C., 1992. Constructing reconstruction: claim and reality of Roman rebuilding inscriptions from the Latin west, PBSR, 60, p. 135-177.

Vaquero, B. and Rubio, M.J., 1994, Las reparaciones de calzadas en la Bética romana, in II Congreso de Historia de Andalucía. Historia Antigua, Córdoba, p. 441-452.

Haut de page

Annexe

Corpora Epigraphica

CIL II Supp.: Hübner, E., 1893, Inscriptionum Hispaniae Latinarum suplementum, Berlin.

CIL II: Hübner, E., 1869, Corpus Inscriptionum Latinarum, volumen secundum. Inscriptiones Hispaniae Latinae, Berlin.

CIL XVII/1 fas. I = Schmidt, M. and Campedelli, C., 2015, Corpus Inscriptionum Latinarum XVII: Miliaria Imperii Romani - Miliaria Provinciae Hispaniae Citerioris, Berlin / Boston.

CILA = González, J. (ed.)., 1989-2005, Corpus de Inscripciones Latinas de Andalucía. Sevilla (8 vol.).

CILCc = Esteban Ortega, J., 2007-2017, Corpus de Inscripciones Latinas de Cáceres, several volumes, Badajoz.

CIRPSa = Alonso Ávila, A. and Crespo Ortiz de Azcárate, S., 1999, Corpus de inscripciones romanas de la provincia de Salamanca: fuentes epigráficas para la historia social de Hispania romana, Salamanca.

CPILC = Hurtado de San Antonio, R., 1977, Corpus Provincial de Inscripciones latinas, Cáceres.

EE = Ephemeris Epigraphica (1872-1913).

ERBC = Canto de Gregorio, A., 1977, Epigrafía Romana de la Beturia Céltica, Madrid.

ERIt = Canto de Gregorio, A., 1983, Epigrafía Romana de Itálica. Madrid.

ERPSa = Hernández Guerra, L., 2001, Epigrafía de época romana de la provincia de Salamanca. Valladolid.

FE = Ficheiro epigrafico (Annual supplement of Conimbriga 1982- ).

HAE = Hispania Antiqua Epigraphica (Annual supplement of Archivo Español de Arqueología, 1961-1969).

HEp. = Hispania Epigraphica (1989- ).

IRCP = d’Encarnação, J., 1984, Inscriçôes romanas do Conventus Pacensis, Coimbra.

Haut de page

Notes

1 Salama, 1987; Susini, 1997, p. 157-172; Sillières, 2003, p. 265-281; Kolb, 2011, p. 17-28; Sauer, 2014, p. 257-305; España-Chamorro, 2017a and 2017b. Despite the fact that propaganda is a modern term, I use as a conventionalism in the Classic studies.

2 Conventual administration refers to those functions of the conventus iuridici (a subdivision of the provincial administration of Roman Hispania) Ozcáriz Gil, 2006.

3 See Horster 2001 as the main modern publication for the Western Roman Empire, even if she barely discusses the role of milestones.

4 “Antiquity can be presented as the destroyer of the material and spiritual works of humanity”, Rocchi and Mussini 2017, p. 9.

5 Solana-Sagredo, 2006, p. 43-44 quotes milestones at Caracalla and Maximus-Maximinus. They must be linked with the corpus Solana-Hernández, 2002, nº 66 for Caracalla (that is a reconstruction of the text without proofs and parallels) and nº 129 and 132. For nº 132 (found in Cáceres), the new autopsy provided by Puerta Torres, 2002, nº 49 corrected the word fecerunt by refecerunt. Milestone nº 132 of Solana-Hernández (n. 5) was first published by Sillières, 1984, p. 65-67 (= AE 1984, 467; Sillières said that there was an unusual space between the letters of “fecerunt”). This was found in Camoiras, a place on the Ebora-Pax Iulia road. This milestone of Maximus and Maximinus and its text is quite similar to the one from Cáceres. Despite the fact that this inscription was also found on an ancient route it will also support my theory that Spanish milestones with fecit should not be understood as a sign of a new road, I think that this milestone must be corrected like the other (refecerunt instead of fecerunt). There is another milestone with the same problem, see footnote nº 34.

6 Lostal Pros, 1992, p. 63-80 noticed this in the via Augusta in Hispania Citerior. The same occurs in Puerta Torres (n. 4), 191 in Lusitania and Sillières, 1990, p. 44 in the South of the Iberian Peninsula (Baetica and Hispania Citerior). Gil Mantas, 1990, p. 229 said that this formula was used only by Hadrian in Lusitania.

7 There are lot of studies but the main general approaches were made by Jouffroy, 1986; Duncan-Jones, 1990. For Hispania see Curchin, 1983.

8 Thomas-Witchel, 1992; Fagan, 1996.

9 Solana Sainz, 2013, p. 335-363 (however incomplete), and Vaquero, and Rubio, 1994, p. 441-452 (only in Baetica).

10 Twenty documents regarding Trajan: CIL II, 6206 = CIL II, 4667 = Solana Sainz, and Sagredo San Eustaquio, 2008, nº 48 & 48 bis; CIL II, 4648 = CPILC 671 = CILCc I, nº 69, p. 70; CIL II, 4673 = CPILC 717 = CILCc III, 951; HEp 15, 102; CIL II, 4667 = CPILC 709; HAE 1372 = ERPSa 202 = CIRPSa 16; CIL II, 453* = CIRPSa 198 = ERPSa 203; HAE 1374 = CIRPSa 200 = HEp 6, 220 (probably from Trajan); CIL II, 4682 = CIRPSa 47 = ERPSa 220; CIRPSa 189 = ERPSa 222; CIL II, 4677 = CIRPSa 264; CIRPSa 195 = HEp 6, 847 ERPSa 218; CIRPSa 196 = ERPSa 217 = CIL II, 4678 = HEp 1, 522; CIL II, 4674 = CPILC 718 = CILCc III, 953; CIRPSa 203 = ERPSa 196; ERPSa 197 = HEp 6, 849 = HEp 11 3862; CIL II, 4684 = CIRPSa 244 = ERPSa 230; CIL II, 4685 = CIRPSa 243; G. Gallini, and M. Santonja, ‘Miliarios de la vía de la Plata en la provincia de Salamanca’, in: G. Gillani y M. Santonja, eds., Arqueología de la Vía de la Plata (Slamanaca) (Béjar, 2007), 120-121, 160; CIL II, 4680 = CIRPSa 201 = ERPSa 207; CIL II, 4679 = CIRPSa 175 = ERPSa 205; Hadrian or Trajan HEp. 14, 93; Thirteen documents concerning Hadrian Adriano restituit = CIL II, 4662 = CPILC 705; CIL II, 4663 = CPILC 705; CIL II, 4669 = CPILC 713; CIL II 4668 = CPILC 710; EE IX, 412 = HAE 655; ERPSa 221 = CIRPSa 40; HEp. 11, 137; CIL II, 6202= EE IV, p.23 = CILCc III 952; CIL II, 4656 = CPILC 691 = CILCc III 957 o 960; CIL II, 4659 = CPILC 693 = CILCc III, 955; CIL II, 4661 = CPILC 696 = CILCc III, 958; CIL II, 4658 = CILCc III, 957. Apart from these emperors, there are some isolated inscriptions that use this word: Domitian (in a specific expression vias corruptas et pontes restituit) Rio-Miranda Alcón, and Iglesias Domínguez, 2004, p. 12-13, nº 2; Septimius Severus CIL II, 4666 = CPILC 708; Caracalla CIL II, 4676 = CIRPSa 176 = ERPSa 200.

11 Milestone of Caligula (?) CIL II, 4640 Solana-Sagredo (n. 11), nº 94a; Milestone of Hadrian CIL II, 4633; Milestone of Hadrian Solana-Sagredo (n. 11), nº 130; another milestone of Hadrian found in Serpa contains refecit (ERBC 197 = HEp 4, 1994, 1001). This road was a central connection between the provinces of Baetica and Lusitania (España-Chamorro, 2018; 2021); IRCP p. 733-734, nº 676; milestone of Constans Solana-Sagredo, 1998, nº 132; unknown Emperor (probably) from the third century CIL II, 4637; IRCP p. 735, nº 678; Solana-Hernández (n. 5), nº 194; Gil Mantas (n. 5), 229 says that the term refecit was mostly used by Hadrian.

12 Puerta Torres (n. 4). The only books that compile the milestones of Lusitania have provided the number of 108 milestones, Solana-Sagredo (n. 11), Solana-Hernández (n. 5) and Solana-Sagredo, (n. 5) give the “official number”. I cannot provide an updated number, however my last review clarifying the corpus of Lusitanian milestones (under preparation) reveals more than 160.

13 Most of them are quoted in note 8 and 11, because they use the term refecit. See Puerta Torres (n. 4) for milestones of the Silver Way.

14 See the work of Roldán Hervás, 1971.

15 Puerta Torres (n. 4), nº 103 = CPILC 703 = Solana-Sagredo (n. 4), 10 = CILCc III, 1083.

16 Puerta Torres (n. 4), nº 41; CIL II 4660 = CPILC 4660 = CILCc III, 956 = Puerta Torres (n. 4), nº 103; Roldán Hervás, 1971, nº 56 = Puerta Torres (n. 4), nº 110.

17 One of Nero’s (CIL II, 4657 = CPILC 692 = HEp 13, 230) that does not quote any restoration of the road; Milestone of Trajan: HEp 15, 102; Four milestones of Hadrian CIL II, 4661 = CPILC 696 = CILCc III, 958; CIL II, 4658 = CILCc III, 957; CIL II, 4659 = CPILC 693 = CILCc III, 955; CIL II, 4656 = CPILC III, 691 = CILCc III 957 or 960, this problematic inscription has been discussed at length. A profound study of the corpora information has revealed that all the information provided is confusing, so it could be either one, two, or three different inscriptions; if we trust the information given by Strada and quoted in the CIL, this eruditus could read the inscription, and he said that it was an epigraph of Hadrian quoting the word restituit -the one preserved and identified with this stone has been almost completely erased due to poor conditions of preservation; One of Septimius Severus CPILC III, 712. There is still another milestone published in 2007 (HEp 16, 94 = CILCc III 959) but with an illegible inscription.

18 d'Encarnação, 1988, nº 115 did the autopsy of this milestone previously known by the news given by Antonio Carvalho in 1918 = HEp. 2, 822 = Solana-Hernández (n. 5), nº 80.

19 CIL XVII, 1, 225; 229; 231; 232; 233 (?); 235.

20 CIL XVII/1, 306.

21 Campedelli probably based her restitution by taking the text of CIL XVII/1, 307 into consideration.

22 CIL XVII/1, 302 (3 km. from Santisteban del Puerto, the ancient Ilugo) and 303 (La Aldehuela, Úbeda).

23 Sardinia CIL X, 8023; Gallia Narbonensis CIL XVII, 2, 55; 79; 160; 165; 168; 204; 209; 211; 219; 222; 227; 229; 248; 267; 270; 272; 277; 279; 280; 285; Baetica CIL II, 4725.

24 Schmidt, vid. CIL XVII, 1, p. 246-246.

25 CIL XVII/1, 268 of Trajan; CIL XVII/1, 269 of Hadrian.

26 CIL XVII/1, 280 –restored fragment-; 281; 283 –restored fragment-. The milestone CIL XVII/1, 296 of Hadrian is doubtful.

27 CIL II, 990 = Rodríguez Colmenero, et alii, 2004, nº 57.

28 Rodríguez Colmenero et alii (n. 28), nº 58; CIL II, 4779 = Rodríguez Colmenero et alii (n. 28), nº 81; CIL II, 4780 = Rodríguez Colmenero et alii (n. 28), nº 90.

29 CIL XVII/1, 85 of Postumus; 88 of Hadrian; 251 of Trajan; 253 of Trajan; 293 of Trajan.

30 Mile I España-Chamorro, 2017c; Mile XXI HAE 2201 = ERIt 34, p. 193-195 = Sillières (n. 5), nº 79 = CILA 5, 1040 = Corzo-Toscano, 1992, nº 48 = Solana-Sagredo (n. 11), nº 64; Mile XXV HAE 578, 1033 and 2200 = ERIt 34 = CILA 3, 367 = Sillières (n. 5), nº 7 = Corzo-Toscano (n. 31), nº 4 = Solana-Sagredo (n. 11), nº 65I; Mile XXV Corzo-Toscano, (n. 31), nº 47 = Solana-Sagredo (n. 11), 66 = HEp. 5, 708 = HEp. 13, 615.

31 The complicated debate can be checked in my own paper (España-Chamorro, 2017c).

32 Sillières (n.1); (n. 6).

33 A milestone of Maximinus and Maximus published by Rodríguez Plaza, 2005, p. 385-421, was reinterpreted by Rio-Miranda Alcó, and Iglesias Domínguez, 2007, w. p. They provided the word fecerunt at the end. The reading of this inscription contained several mistakes, if we compare it to the photograph provided by the authors. I could not make the autopsy of the piece, but nevertheless this interpretation is quite improbable, as J. Gómez-Pantoja also stated in HEp 16, 112. It would be better to interpret refecerunt, as on the other milestones of these emperors (see footnote 6).

34 Thomas-Witchel, (n. 8), p. 138.

35 Pekary, 1968, 69; French, 1995; 2012.

36 Sillières (n. 6); Vaquero and Rubio (n. 6). For the Northwest vid. Rodríguez Colmenero et alii. (n. 28).

37 González-Conde Puente, 2015, p. 215-239.

38 Thomas-Witchel, (n. 8), p. 174.

39 See Sablayrolles, 2006, esp. P. 343-344; Grandazzi, 2009, p. 560.

40 The text provided by CIL II, 4678 is followed by ERPSa 217 and CIRPSa 196. Puerta Torres (n. 4), nº 156 provided a new and more accurate version. CIL, ERPSa and CIRPSa indicate the number of CXI miles and the word rest(ituit). This milestone was found in Peromingo. There are 30 miles of difference between the real distance and the mile distance. Puerta Torres made a new autopsy, and she provided a new text. She indicated that the milestone was in good conditions (and it can be appreciated in the photography she provides). Her new text quotes CXL miles, the right distance, and the word fecit. For this reason, I think the read of Puerta Torres is the good one.

Haut de page

Table des illustrations

Titre Fig. 2. Location of the milestones using the word fecit in Hispania.
URL http://0-journals-openedition-org.catalogue.libraries.london.ac.uk/pallas/docannexe/image/25749/img-1.jpg
Fichier image/jpeg, 269k
Titre Fig. 3. Comparative chart of the restoration words in Hispania by Trajan, Hadrian, and Severus Alexander.
URL http://0-journals-openedition-org.catalogue.libraries.london.ac.uk/pallas/docannexe/image/25749/img-2.jpg
Fichier image/jpeg, 218k
Haut de page

Pour citer cet article

Référence papier

Sergio España-Chamorro, « Words in context: The use of Fecit in the milestones of Roman Hispania »Pallas, 120 | 2022, 123-134.

Référence électronique

Sergio España-Chamorro, « Words in context: The use of Fecit in the milestones of Roman Hispania »Pallas [En ligne], 120 | 2022, mis en ligne le 27 octobre 2023, consulté le 20 juillet 2024. URL : http://0-journals-openedition-org.catalogue.libraries.london.ac.uk/pallas/25749 ; DOI : https://0-doi-org.catalogue.libraries.london.ac.uk/10.4000/pallas.25749

Haut de page

Auteur

Sergio España-Chamorro

Post-doctorant IdEx Bordeaux
Institut Ausonius UMR 5607, CNRS-Université Bordeaux-Montaigne,
Labex LaScArBx

Haut de page

Droits d’auteur

CC-BY-NC-ND-4.0

Le texte seul est utilisable sous licence CC BY-NC-ND 4.0. Les autres éléments (illustrations, fichiers annexes importés) sont « Tous droits réservés », sauf mention contraire.

Haut de page
Rechercher dans OpenEdition Search

Vous allez être redirigé vers OpenEdition Search