Divided lands, divided peoples? A reconsideration of the concept of Roman land division, its practices, purposes, and effects

Abstract

In this thesis, I pursue a reconsideration of the concept of Roman land division, focusing on three aspects: the practical process, the possible functions, and the impact on human and natural landscapes. Since the rise in identifications of land divisions through aerial reconnaissance in the 1970s and 1980s, scholarship on Roman land division has been harshly divided: a small group has passionately debated and defended their reconstructions of land divisions, while the majority has largely turned away from the topic. In both cases, however, ideas of Roman land division are based on the same paradigm of a uniform physical appearance, strong imperialist and systematizing objectives, and an invasive, disruptive effect on the landscape. This paradigm is seriously outdated and needs to be updated in the light of new data and recent research.

To accomplish this, I have relied principally on a return to the primary sources, together with an interdisciplinary approach. I use a combination of qualitative and quantitative analysis, through the more traditional interpretation of textual sources such as the Corpus Agrimensorum Romanorum, epigraphic material such as the formae, and archaeological material from for example surface surveys, and the use of innovative spatial analyses and GIS mapping techniques in three separate case studies.

My research shows that the practical process of Roman land division is based on principles of flexibility and adaptation, not on normative uniformity as is often thought. Local traditions and circumstances were more important than adhering to a single system. Secondly, from the oft-repeated objectives of land division – colonization, taxation and agricultural practices – only the settlement of new colonists could be supported by evidence. Thirdly, the impact of land division on the landscape can in certain cases be seen, but again the strength of influence depends on local circumstances and is not universal. Consequently, the current paradigm is adjusted.