With this book, John Humphrey adds another excellent volume to the JRA Supplementary series, the culminating product of a session organized by Simon Keay for the Roman Archaeology Conference at the University of Leicester in 2002. It consists of seventeen essays, sixteen of which present overviews and new research relating to the development of nearly twenty major and minor Spanish towns from the early Roman period. Some of the essays originated as papers for the conference; others were written by leading local archaeologists who did not participate in the conference, but whose work the editors felt would fill out the picture of the Romanization of Hispania Tarraconensis. Many of the essays present material and data that is largely unknown to scholars working outside the Spanish peninsula. As the editors explain in their introduction, what used to be the Roman province of Hispania Citerior Tarraconensis now incorporates a variety of political entities “within which archaeological research and publication is conducted at very different levels of intensity and accessibility.” (9) This situation has caused the more accessible and glamorous coastal sites to loom overly large in our perception of Roman Spain; more importantly, it has impeded efforts to develop an accurate synthesis of Roman urban development in this region. The present volume goes a long way towards rectifying this problem. In their introduction, the editors establish their overarching theme(s) and main goals for the collected essays. The essays on individual sites or regions are arranged in a logical, geographical sequence, each with its own bibliography. It must be noted here that the authors seem not to have had access to one another’s essays, as I find no internal references to other articles in the book; nevertheless, Keay ties everything together in his concluding essay, providing just the sort of balanced synthesis that is called for.
The introductory chapter places the Spanish peninsula in its pre-Roman context; offers highlights of how Rome created its province of Hispania Citerior Tarraconensis over the last two centuries B.C.; and provides a brief overview of the development of Roman urbanism with the caveat that the unevenness of this development has to do with cultural differences in the various areas that fell under Rome’s control. The main goals for the book, outlined at the end of this chapter, are to provide an assessment of the degree to which the towns under consideration vary from one another in terms of layout and history; an attempt to gauge to what degree that variation can be attributed to pre-existing cultural patterns or to Roman influence (broadly defined); and an assessment of “the depth of cultural change implied in the transformation of urban landscapes, particularly from the Augustan period onward.” (15)
To achieve these goals, the authors of each paper were to focus on five issues (four, per Keay, who combines 4 and 5):
1) “the cultural context of urban foundations;”
2) “the degree of Italic and Roman influence in the layout and character of the towns;”
3) “the role of elites and patrons in the development of towns;”
4) “the relationship of towns to their hinterland; and”
5) “their roles in the political and administrative structure of the province.” (15)
For the most part, the authors covered the first three issues quite well; few of the authors, however, addressed the last two issues, but that may have been a function of the evidence available to them.
In “The Greek city of Emporion and its relationship to the Roman Republican city of Empúries,” X. Aquilué, P. Castanayer, M. Santos and J. Tremoleda demonstrate that the Romanization of Emporion was very slow indeed. Although a Roman praesidium was established on a plateau just above the Greek town by the early 2nd c. B.C., signs of Italic and Roman influence did not appear in the town until the middle of the 1st c. B.C. Romanization intensified dramatically with the creation of a forum and capitolium in the Augustan era, when the town became a municipium, and continued into the 2nd c. A.D.
In ” Scipionum opus and something more: an Iberian reading of the provincial capital (2nd-1st c. B.C.),” J. Ruiz de Arbulo argues that Tarraco, a strategic town for Roman interests since the Second Punic War, only began to Romanize its townscape in the late 2nd c. B.C. Indicators include a masonry sewer, a public forum, and opus signinum floors in private residences. Ruiz ties this urban renewal to the arrival there of C. Cato, a former consul exiled from Rome in 109 B.C.1 Using the relatively abundant literary and epigraphic testimonia for Tarraco, along with its archaeological data, Ruiz also offers a rich and interesting portrait of a strategically important town that kept much of its Iberian character down to the end of the Republic, when it finally attained formal urban status (49 B.C.). Tarraco also had the good fortune to become the seat of Imperial power when Augustus resided there for three years starting in 27 B.C., and thus enjoyed the patronage of the emperor himself.
J. M. Nolla i Brufau gives a brief review of the evidence for the Romanization, c. 80 – 70 B.C., of Gerunda, Aquae Calidae and Blandae in “The integration of NE Iberian communities and consolidation of the urban phenomenon.” Gerunda in particular, Nolla claims, is “the perfect example of an Iberian oppidum which became a Roman town” (45) and may be taken as an accurate model for Romanization across the region that comprises modern Catalunya. Whether its Romanization can be attributed to Sertorius, or to one of his Roman opponents, remains in question.
Continuing the discussion from the previous chapter, J. Guitart i Duran applies some interesting interpretive ideas to this region in “Iluro, Baetulo, Iesso, and the establishment of the Roman town model in Catalunya.” Guitart argues that Roman settlements in NE Spain in the early 1st c. B.C. followed patterns established centuries earlier in Italy: the smaller coastal settlements at Iluro and Baetulo resembled Rome’s small coloniae maritimae, founded on Italy’s Tyrrhenian coast; the larger inland foundations at Iesso and Aeso resembled Rome’s larger coloniae Latinae, established to protect Italy’s inland passages. Since Roman colonies were typically founded in pairs, Guitart proposes a synchronized, programmatic foundation of towns of NE Spain as part of a larger strategy to establish propugnacula in the wake of the Cimbric invasion of Hispania Citerior (late 1st c. B.C.). Guitart carefully points out that this comparison is based on physical and functional terms only, as these towns did not fall into the juridical categories of coloniae civium Romanorum or coloniae Latinae. Guitart concludes with the tantalizing suggestion that Marius’ veterans may have settled these towns(60).2
“From Arse to Saguntum,” by C. Aranegui Gascó, describes the cultural colonization of this important town, whose capture by Hannibal became the pretext for Rome’s declaration of war against Carthage. Aranegui reads the early 2nd c. B.C. temple established on the town’s acropolis as a dedication to Hercules Victor, rather than a capitolium (suggested by earlier scholars due to its tripartite cella and high podium), a manifestation of a joint Roman-Iberian refounding of the town after its recapture from Hannibal. (65-68) Indeed, the somewhat ambiguous nature of the evidence — some Iberian, some Roman — connected to the temple’s founding suggests to Aranegui and to Keay that it exemplifies “Roman ritual being mediated through an Iberian filter.” (227)
In “The Roman foundation of Valencia and the town in the 2nd-1st c. B.C.”, A. Ribera i Lacomba argues that Valentia was a Roman foundation from its very beginning in 138 B.C. Ribera deploys archaeological evidence to counter the statement of Livy’s epitomator that land and a town were given by consul D. Brutus to those who had fought under Viriathus (Liv. Per. 55): D. Iunius Brutus cos. in Hispania is [sc. iis ] qui sub Viriatho militaverant, agros et oppidum dedit, quod vocatum est Valentia. The statement seems unambiguous enough, but it certainly does not specify the ethnicity of the town’s settlers (usually assumed to be Lusitanians; Roman deserters would not have received such kind treatment), nor does it say who built the town itself, and those are the issues at hand. Evidence from the towns earliest phase, sparse though it is, includes postholes for circular huts. These seem to indicate that the town might have begun as a Celtiberian oppidum. (77) Meanwhile, Italo-Roman buildings and amenities appear years later (sometimes decades later), so could be attributed to the influence of Italian negotiatores whose renewed activities in Hispania Citerior — following the conclusion of the Numantine War in 133 B.C. — are well established (Ramallo 95, below). Ribera further argues from Valentia’s Italian-cognate name and its Italian-style coinage that the original population could not have been Lusitanian in origin. (87) The town’s name, however, could have been a later appellation taken upon its acquisition of colonial status (a common circumstance); or, it could have been imposed by the Roman authorities who resettled Viriathus’ men there. Valentia’s Italian-style coin types, meanwhile, were copied from Roman coins issued in 127 B.C.; it is therefore impossible that Valentia’s coins appeared before ca. 125 B.C. Indeed, Crawford (1985) argues, on good evidence, that Valentia probably issued these coins during the Sertorian era, two generations after the town’s founding, thus rendering them useless as evidence for the ethnicity of the town’s founders.3 Even the evidence dating to Valentia’s destruction by Pompey’s forces in 75 B.C. is ambivalent: the remains of numerous soldiers — presumably Sertorians — were found with Roman-style weaponry and armor, but with Celtiberian style shields. It is hazardous to argue, as Ribera does, that these soldiers were of Italian descent based on their armor, since armor captured from enemies was surely used to equip cash-poor armies (as was likely the case for Sertorius’ forces), or to deceive the enemy (as Sertorius’ forces did at least once: Plut. Sert. 3.5). In short, it does not seem necessary to conclude from the evidence adduced that Livy (or his epitomator) was wrong, or that the town was in fact originally established as a Roman colony (Ribera candidly admits that the legal status is in doubt). Based on all the evidence presented, one could argue that Valentia had its beginnings as an oppidum; came to resemble an Italian town a few years later thanks to Italian immigrants eager to exploit reopened markets; and received the rank of colonia some time prior to 60 B.C., when it is first attested as such.4
In chapter 7, “Carthago Nova: urbs opulentissima omnium in Hispania“, S. F. Ramallo Asensio highlights the rich and multicultural history of this important city, including its earliest phase as an Iberian settlement; its refounding as a Carthaginian city, with Punic and Hellenistic elements, under the Barcids; an intermediate phase beginning ca. 110-90 B.C., when Italian negotiatores involved in local mining activities introduced Romanizing elements into the town’s urban fabric (93, 95); and a major transformation of the town’s layout in the late Caesarian – early Augustan era, driven by euergetistic competition, particularly among new elites whose status derived from priesthoods in the imperial cult. The date for the town’s establishment as a colonia ca. 45 B.C. is approximated by calculating the number of quinquennial duumvirs who issued coins.5 The town entered a period of decline in the late Flavian or early Antonine period, which Ramallo attributes to the success of nearby Tarraco.
A reinterpretation and update of previous work is the focus of chapter 8, “Lucentum: origin and evolution of a Roman municipium in the Sinus Ilicitanus,” by M. H. Olcina Domènech. As with Carthago Nova (above), Lucentum was a 4th/3rd c. B.C. Iberian settlement refounded as a Carthaginian town by the Barcids, destroyed by the Romans in the late 3rd or early 2nd c. B.C., then rebuilt shortly before, or during, the Sertorian War. Olcina dates the town’s new status as a municipium with Latin rights to the early Augustan era since its forum, along with other monumental buildings, was begun between 30-20 B.C. Villa culture seems to have followed a generation or so later. But, as with Carthago Nova, Lucentum went into decline in the late 1st c. A.D., which Olcina attributes to the economic successes of Ilici and Portus Ilicitanus, located a mere 20 km away.
Ilici is one of two sites discussed by L. Abad Casal in “The juridical promotion of oppida of the southeast of the Iberian peninsula: the cases of Ilici and Ilunum.” Since Ilici is fairly well known from its long history of excavation, Abad focuses more on the site of El Tolmo de Minateda, identified as ancient Ilunum. Abad provides a fascinating overview of the elite families who occupied this town based on the fairly abundant epigraphic material discovered there, including a monumental imperial inscription from 9 B.C. which had been reused in the town’s Visigothic wall.6 Abad also highlights the fact that Ilunum’s town center seems to have declined with the rise of villa culture and the diffusion of economic power from the town center to the chora/environs in the later-1st or early-2nd c. A.D.
M. Orfila, M. E. Chávez and M. A. Cau discuss “Pollentia and the cities of the Balearic Islands” in chapter 10, demonstrating that, despite Rome’s conquest of the islands in 123 B.C., Roman urban development cannot be dated to before 70 B.C. when the first Roman-style buildings appear in the archaeological record. The reason for this 53-year gap between conquest and Romanization remains to be determined.
In “Labitolosa and other Roman towns on the south side of the Pyrenees,” L. Chasseigne, M. Fincker, M. A. Magallón Botaya, M. Navarro Caballero, C. Rico, C. Saénz and P. Sillières highlight Labitolosa, “one of the best-known Pyrenean towns of Hispania Citerior,” as paradigmatic of the developmental course taken by lesser-known towns in the vicinity, such as Iacco, Aeso and Barbotum. (156) The authors argue that, even though Labitolosa was a civitas stipendaria from the Augustan era until Vespasian granted Latin rights to all of Hispania, the town was really a municipium in all but name, as it had a forum and curia from the reign of Augustus, and had been fully monumentalized by the middle of the 1st c. A.D. (155) Using epigraphic evidence, the authors also demonstrate how some of Labitolosa’s elites — acculturated early to Romanitas — competed for status not only in the town, but even managed to rise into “the lower echelons of imperial administration.” (156)
F. Burillo Mozota presents the results of investigations conducted by the Segeda Project (begun in 1998) that used literary, numismatic and archaeological evidence to solve the problem of locating ancient Segeda in “Segeda and Rome: the historical development of a Celtiberian city-state.” Segeda (I) was known to have been the main locus for the tribes against whom Rome declared war in 154 B.C.: the Segedans forced the people of surrounding towns to synoecize with them and build massive fortifications around the hilltop town, all of which provoked Rome to declare war and destroy the town in 153 B.C. (App. Iber. 44) Burillo explains how a study of the output and distribution patterns of “SEKEIDA” coins helped firmly identify the town’s location, which had previously been a matter of dispute. Study of the site itself proved not only that the inhabitants of Segeda (I) had indeed synoecized and built massive walls, but that they rebuilt Segeda (II) in the plain adjacent to the old site.
“Conquest and Romanization in Celtiberia Ulterior: Numantia as a paradigm,” by A. Jimeno, is something of a surprise in that the author allocates two thirds of the article to a discussion of Roman conquests in the region, the Numantine War and, Roman activity after the war. The remaining third is devoted to a somewhat sketchy discussion of Numantia’s pre-war nature as a Celtiberian town, and its post-war Romanization, for which there is little actual evidence: the streets became more regular; balneae or small baths and peristyle style houses made an appearance, but no forum and no grand public buildings were built, despite the fact that it gained municipal status in the Flavian era. Ultimately, Jimeno does not adequately demonstrate how Numantia, with its unique history and distinct lack of public spaces and buildings typical of Roman towns, is paradigmatic of other towns in the region.
Segobriga, “one of the most important towns in the Spanish Meseta” is the subject of chapter 14 by J. M. Abascal, M. Almagro Gorbea and R. Cebrián: “Segobriga: caput Celtiberiae and Latin municipium.” First settled in the Iron Age, Segobriga became one of the most impressive Spanish towns of the Roman era after its promotion, ca. 15 B.C., from oppidum stipendiarium to municipium iuris Latini (other towns were similarly promoted during Augustus’ residence in Spain from 15-13 B.C.). The town’s original townscape was obliterated by a new monumental urban landscape, including a forum, sewer, baths, theater and amphitheater (the latter two largely intact), thanks in large part to its control of the mining district that produced lapis specularis. The authors make excellent use of Segobriga’s rich corpus of epigraphic evidence to sketch a revealing portrait of the town’s cosmopolitan population: local elites included not only families of Italian descent, but also many Celtiberians bearing nomina of the Republic’s great families, e.g., Sempronius and Valerius, combined with Celtiberian cognomina; on the other end of the spectrum, numerous inscriptions point to the presence of imported slaves, many with Greek names, not to mention a familia publica of slaves owned by the town itself.7
In chapter 15, “The Roman army and urban development in NW Spain: Asturica Augusta and Legio VII Gemina,” A. Morillo Cerdán discusses the conquest and Romanization of northern Spain, which occurred nearly two centuries after Rome’s acquisition of territory in SE Spain. Roman encampments established during the Cantabrian Wars (29-19 B.C.), Morillo points out, led to urban development in the region through a process which included: acculturation of the indigenous peoples to Roman-Italic lifestyle; the replacement of some, but not all, of the encampments with civil settlements a few years later; and the building of roads and bridges, along with economic exploitation of local resources. Morillo points to Astorga (ancient Asturica) as a paradigm for this development. Legio X Gemina established a military base there ca. 15-10 B.C., then moved to a new site ca. A.D. 15-20. The old legionary encampment was then converted into a town, with an orthogonal layout slightly modified from that of the fortress: the main thoroughfares were paved; a monumental landscape was begun, eventually comprising a large basilica (100m long), a forum, great baths, and buildings dedicated to the imperial cult; and peristyle houses with opus signinum floors began to make an appearance. Additional monumentalization occurred in the Flavian period, surely spurred on by the town’s advancement to the rank of municipium, and later in the Antonine period as well.
M. Martins discusses “Bracara Augusta: a Roman town in the Atlantic area” in chapter 16. Martins concludes from the abundant epigraphic evidence that this town, founded in the Augustan era, had an “ideological and religious context for its creation based on the cult of Augustus; for inscriptions always refer to the emperor and his family” (214) including Caius, Lucius and Agrippa Postumus. As with many of the towns discussed so far, much of the town’s monumental urban landscape dates to the Flavian and early Antonine era, a period when the town would have been upgraded to municipal status; at least, it appears so, since the evidence for the town’s physical appearance in the Julio-Claudian period was largely obliterated by later construction. (217) The town’s population, according to inscriptional evidence, was largely indigenous, although they had assimilated “Roman economic, cultural and ideological patters of life.” (219) The locals had not absorbed merely the externals of Roman life, however, as their “adoption of [Roman] religious and funerary customs” indicates a much deeper lever of cultural change and assimilation. Martins also provides an interesting discussion relating the town’s influence on the surrounding countryside (one of the few authors to do so, in fact).
Keay’s concluding essay, “The Early Roman towns of Tarraconensis: a discussion,” explains how the inception, speed and intensity of Roman-style urbanization was not at all uniform throughout the province. This is due in large part to the fact that the Roman conquest of Hispania Citerior — a land encompassing a wide range of geography and cultures — took nearly two centuries, beginning with the coastal areas and their hinterlands controlled by the Barcas until the Second Punic War, and concluding with the land of the Astures and Cantabri in the NW of Spain in the reign of Augustus. Throughout that period, the Romans employed different strategies depending on the landscapes — physical, political, economic and cultural — over which they were trying to gain control. At the same time, the Celtiberian, Greek and Punic peoples who already lived in these areas employed, in varying degrees, their own strategies to determine which aspects of Italo-Roman urbanism they would adopt, adapt, reinterpret or reject. These processes were particularly complex in communities that already enjoyed a high degree of urbanization, e.g., Carthago Nova and Emporion. After Augustus consolidated Rome’s control of Spain, the adoption of Roman urban culture sped up and became more broadly uniform: Augustus’ programmatic transformation of Roman art, architecture and religion in Rome had a trickle-down influence on the development of many Spanish towns, most notably Tarraco (Augustus’ imperial residence for several years), Carthago Nova and Emerita Augusta (in Lusitania, so not within the scope of this book), all seats of their respective conventus. The establishment of emperor worship in the West, with the prestige it conferred on those who became augustales or flamines of the imperial cult, along with the euergetistic competition of these and other elites, helped drive this spate of urban development, which lasted until the end of the 1st c. A.D. in some towns, and as late as the 3rd c. in others.
This book is an immensely valuable resource for scholars interested in the evolution and history of urban sites in Spain, the Romanization of pre-existing towns or of areas that had previously lacked any urban culture at all, social history and urban culture in the provinces, and more. It is up to date, well written and well produced (as one can expect from the folks at JRA), and brings together a tremendous amount of material that is inaccessible, or nearly so, to scholars outside of Spain and Portugal. The few missteps, e.g., incorrect historical data or improperly transcribed inscriptions (for which see the notes below), do not detract from the overall excellence of the archaeological research presented in these articles. Despite the fact that the historical picture of some of the sites discussed will change over time as new discoveries are made, this volume should remain useful for years to come thanks to its overarching themes and Keay’s synthesis in the final chapter, which is itself an education in how to read and think about the history of an entire region of the Roman empire. One can only hope that more regional studies like this one are in preparation.
Table of Contents
List of Illustrations
L. Abad Casal, S. Keay and S. Ramallo Asensio: Introduction
[Part I] The Conventus Tarraconensis
The Mediterranean Coast
1. X. Aquilué, P. Castanayer, M. Santos and J. Tremoleda. The Greek city of Emporion and its relationship to the Roman Republican city of Empúries.
2. J. Ruiz de Arbulo. Scipionum opus and something more: an Iberian reading of the provincial capital (2nd-1st c. B.C.).
3. J. M. Nolla i Brufau. The integration of NE Iberian communities and consolidation of the urban phenomenon.
4. J. Guitart i Duran. Iluro, Baetulo, Iesso, and the establishment of the Roman town model in Catalunya.
5. C. Aranegui Gascó. From Arse to Saguntum.
[Part II] The Conventus Carthaginiensis
6. A. Ribera i Lacomba. The Roman foundation of Valencia and the town in the 2nd-1st c. B.C.
7. S. F. Ramallo Asensio. Carthago Nova: urbs opulentissima omnium in Hispania.
8. M. H. Olcina Domènech. Lucentum: origin and evolution of a Roman municipium in the Sinus Ilicitanus.
9. L. Abad Casal. The juridical promotion of oppida of the southeast of the Iberian peninsula: the cases of Ilici and Ilunum.
The Balearic Islands
10. M. Orfila, M. E. Chávez and M. A. Cau. Pollentia and the cities of the Balearic Islands.
[Part III] The Conventus Caesaraugustanus
11. L. Chasseigne, M. Fincker, M. A. Magallón Botaya, M. Navarro Caballero, C. Rico, C. Saénz and P. Sillières. Labitolosa and other Roman towns on the south side of the Pyrenees.
The Lower Ebro Valley
12. F. Burillo Mozota. Segeda and Rome: the historical development of a Celtiberian city-state.
[Part IV] The Conventus Caesaraugustanus/Cluniensis
13. A. Jimeno. Conquest and Romanization in Celtiberia Ulterior: Numantia as a paradigm.
14. J. M. Abascal, M. Almagro Gorbea and R. Cebrián. Segobriga: caput Celtiberiae and Latin municipium.
[Part V] The Conventus Asturum
15. A. Morillo Cerdán. The Roman army and urban development in NW Spain: Asturica Augusta and Legio VII Gemina.
[Part VI] The Conventus Bracaraugustanus
16. M. Martins. Bracara Augusta: a Roman town in the Atlantic area
17. S. Keay. The Early Roman towns of Tarraconensis: a discussion.
1. Cic. Pro Balb. 28. The author claims C. Cato, cos. 114, was exiled in 109 B.C. on pp. 35 and 39, but in 108 B.C. on p. 36. The earlier date is to be preferred, as it coincides with the quaestio established by C. Mamilius Limetanus, tr. pl. 109, against those Roman leaders who allegedly abetted Jugurtha in evading Roman justice (C. Cato and three other consulars, among others, were exiled).
2. Guitart incorrectly dates Marius’ victory over the Teutones and Cimbri to 100-98 B.C. instead of 102 and 101 B.C. respectively (60). Guitart also credits the senate with passing laws during these years (after 98?) to aid Marius’ veterans, all “on the recommendation of Saturninus.” (60) This cozy-sounding cooperation never existed: the senate, of course, did not actually pass laws; Saturninus did pass laws, but almost always against great opposition from most of the senate; finally, Saturninus was dead by December of 100, so would not have been passing much of anything in 99 and 98.
3. For a discussion of the nature and dating of Valentia’s coinage, see M. H. Crawford, Coinage and Money under the Roman Republic: Italy and the Mediterranean Economy (London 1985) 98, 211, 213 fig. 90 and 347 App. P. For the Roman originals from which Valentia’s types were copied, see M. H. Crawford, Roman Republican Coinage (Cambridge 1974) 289 no. 265/1 and pl. xxxviii.
4. E.T. Salmon, Roman Colonization Under the Republic (London 1969) 193 n. 257 gives a cogent, if brief summary of these issues, noting that, despite its apparent colonial status in 60 ( ILS 878 = CIL IX 5275), Valentia could not have been a colony before 122 B.C., since the uproar over Rome’s first transmarine colony, Colonia Junonia (Carthage), in that year confirms that prior foundations overseas did not have the juridical rights of colonies. See also S.J. Keay, Roman Spain (Berkeley 1988) 35 and 224 n. 31 with bibliography, noting the problems of fixing Valentia’s actual location, and the possibility that Livy’s epitomator indeed got it wrong.
5. Ramallo refers to two Spanish publications for this numismatic information, but does not seem to be cognizant of the magnum opus on Roman provincial coins of which Carthago Nova’s issues were a part: A. Burnett, M. Amandry and P. P. Ripolles, Roman Provincial Coinage, Vol. I From the death of Caesar to the death of Vitellius (44 BC-AD 69). (London, 1992) 90-97 nos. 146-186; pp. 90-92 for discussion of the dates of this coin series.
6. The transcription is, unfortunately, sloppily expanded on p. 127 with several misplaced parentheses, brackets and lacunae indicated in the wrong places. On the same page, Abad has L. Domitius Ahenobarbus and Nero Claudius Drusus as nephews of Augustus, when both were nephews-in-law, being married to Antonia Maior and Antonia Minor respectively (both daughters of Augustus’ sister, Octavia, by M. Antonius); the latter, Livia’s son by Ti. Claudius Nero, was also Augustus’ stepson.
7. There was one notable error, in which T. Sempronius Gracchus is given instead of Ti. Sempronius Gracchus (187).