Bryn Mawr Classical Review 2000.12.02
Kulikowski on Alföldy on Kulikowski on Alföldy . Response to 2000.11.11
Response by Michael Kulikowski, History, Smith College (firstname.lastname@example.org)
The following note was received in response to my review of Géza Alföldy, Provincia Hispania superior:
Dear Mr. Kulikowski,
I have seen your review of my booklet "Hispania superior" published on the Internet, and I thank you for your interest. I would like to note that your remark that Hispania superior = Callaecia is, in my view, the same as Hispania nova citerior, is an error: on the contrary, I argued that Hispania "nova" citerior is the rest of the Hispania citerior without Callaecia, separated from it; "nova" does not mean that there was a "vetus" citerior, but the existence of Hispania citerior in a reorganised form (i.e. without Callaecia). As to the question whether Hispania superior existed in the mid-third century or not, please do not forget that the inscription of Bombius Rusticus attests at that time the existence of only three hispanic provinces.
With kind regards,
Professor Alföldy's first note is entirely correct and I apologize for my error. The second is a matter of interpretation, as the inscription in question is not securely dateable. As the original review acknowledges, I suspect that the author's interpretation is correct but do not believe it to be susceptible of definite proof given the evidence presently known to scholarship.