Muros, turres, portas faciendas coeravit. Remarks on the chronology of the foundation of Barcino

1. The historiographical debate concerning the chronology and location of the first Barcino ^ 

The problem of the chronology of the foundation of the city of Barcelona (Roman Barcino) has attracted the attention of historians from at least the mid-19th century. If at first scholars linked the origin of Barcino to the Punics, and to the Barca family in particular (Pi y Arimón, 1854, pp. 13-17; de Bofarull, 1855, pp. XV-XVII; Fita, 1876, pp. 4-5; Sanpere y Miquel, 1890), doubts about this hypothesis were later raised by Almagro et al., (1945, p. 64) and Mayer (1975). Though traces of the old etymological and literary theories continued to appear sporadically through to the end of the 20th century (see, for example, Guiunta, 1988, passim), the historiographical debate preferred to focus on elucidating the exact moment in the Roman epoch at which the founding of the colony took place.

Literary sources are unable to resolve the matter, since Barcino is only mentioned for the first time in our surviving texts in Pomponius Mela’s De Choreographia (A.D. 43-44), where it is qualified as parvum oppidum (Mela 2. 90: «Inde ad Tarraconem parva sunt oppida, Blande, Iluro, Baetulo, Barcino, Subur, Tolobi») and its legal status is not made explicit before the work of Pliny the Elder (A.D. 77), who reports that the town held the rank of colony under the cognomen of Faventia (Plin. Nat. 3. 22: «In ora autem colonia Barcino, cognomine Faventia»).

The debate about the origin of Barcino was revived in the early 20th century by the discovery of an inscription dedicated by Caius Coelius, a local magistrate who held the position of quinquennial duumvir, in which he commemorated the construction of the city walls, with towers and gates (fig. 1):

C(aius) Coelius Atisi f(ilius) / IIvir quin(quennalis) mur(os), / turres, portas / fac(iendas) coer(avit).

Fidel Fita, the first editor of this inscription, pointed out in 1903 that the text was dated to the Caesarean epoch (Fita, 1903a, p. 459; Fita 1903b). In his opinion, the dictator may have granted the title of colony to the city, as he did with other settlements on the Iberian peninsula, such as Felicitas Iulia (Lisbon), Liberitas Iulia (Évora), Pax Iulia (Beja), colonia Iulia Romula (Seville) and colonia Iulia Urbs Triumphalis Tarraco (Tarragona). However, since the inscription had supposedly been found on the Montjuïc (the 173 m tall hill that towers over the city of Barcelona from the south), Fita thought that the walls referred to in the text had to be located in a primitive settlement near a hypothetical harbour at the mouth of the river Llobregat, and not in the high-Imperial Barcino built on the Mons Taber, where Barcelona’s Barrio Gótico is currently located:

Por ventura la ciudad que amuralló Cayo Coelio no es la actual cuyo centro está en la plaza de San Jaime sobre la cima del monte denominado Taber por los documentos de la Edad Media, sino que es el Castro del Puerto, hacia el desagüe del Llobregat en la falda del Monjuí, donde radica el cementerio de Sudeste (Fita, 1903a, pp. 460-61).

The hypothesis of the existence of two different urban centres seemed to be reinforced by the testimony of Avienus (4th c. A.D.), who, in his Ora Maritima, referred to the city in the plural as the rich «Barcelonas» (Avien. Ora Marit. 513-14: «Inde Tarraco oppidum / et Barcilonum amoena sedes ditium»). However, the theory that Barcelona had its origins in a sort of two-headed city was ruled out by the majority of later investigators, although some scholars continued to support it through to the end of the 1970s. In that sense, Sebastián Mariner (1975, pp. 185-86) has argued that this toponymic duality represents a phenomenon similar to that found in cities such as Arse-Saguntum or Tarraco-Cese, where there is only one population settlement but two denominations. In relation to the text of Avienus, the Thesaurus Linguae Latinae solved the problem by interpreting it as referring to «the rich Barcelonians» rather than to «the rich Barcelonas» (TLL II: 1750, s.v. Barcilo). As for the numismatic issues of the 2nd c. B.C. with the legend Laieśken, which were used as an argument to defend the hypothesis of an earlier pre-Roman urban nucleus, several authors argued that these do not refer to a primitive city (Laie), which has not been located by either sources nor archaeology, but to the ethnic group living in the region of Layetania (Gimeno, 1950, p. 74; Balil, 1964, pp. 38-41; Untermann, 1975, A.13; Bonneville, 1978, p. 52; Villaronga, 1982, p. 169; Granados, 1984a, pp. 268-69).

In the same year that Fita first advanced his claims, Manuel Rodríguez de Berlanga also dated the inscription to the end of the Republican epoch. This dating was grounded not only on the palaeography and the presence of archaic features such as coeravit, but also on the absence of a cognomen in the name of the donor. This, he argued, meant the epigraph was dated prior to the Lex Iulia municipalis of B.C. 45, which endorsed the inclusion of the tria nomina in the onomastic system, as well as the inclusion of the patronymic and the tribe (Berlanga, 1903-1904).

Half a century later, Alberto Balil re-examined Caius Coelius’ plaque and recognized that the text had undoubtable Republican palaeographic features. Nevertheless, Balil still argued that the date of the inscription should be delayed to the Augustan epoch since, in his opinion, the foundation of the colony just had to have taken place during the Principate (Balil, 1955-1956).

In the 1960s, Sebastián Mariner, following the discovery of the famous monumental inscription in St. Iu square (Barcelona, History Museum, inv. n° 3274: IRC IV 23 = IRC V, p. 111 = IRB 23 = HEp 1999, 240), financed by the colony in honour of Emperor Caracalla (in which the complete title of the city appeared, that is to say colonia Iulia Faventia Paterna Barcino), argued that Barcelona had to be a Caesarean foundation:

Imp(eratori) Caes(ari) M(arco) / Aurellio An[to]/nino Pio Fel(ici) A[ug(usto)] / Parthico ma[x(imo)] / Brit{t}an(n)ico m[ax(imo?)] / [Germ]anico m[ax(imo)] / trib(unicia) potest(ate) XVIIII, / imp(eratori) III, co(n)s(uli) I[I]II, / p(atri) p(atriae) pro co(n)s(ule) / col(onia) Iul(ia) Fav(entia) / Pat(erna) Barc(ino).

The hypothesis of Mariner emphasized the onomastic concomitances between Barcino and the cities of Arelate and Narbo, both colonies founded by Caesar after the battle of Munda (B.C. 45), as well as the reading of the epithet Faventia, which can be derived from the term faveo («favour»), hinting at the help given by the Layetans to Caesar against his Pompeian enemies. However, Mariner also defended the claim that it was Augustus who granted the city the title of colony and the different cognomina it held (Mariner, 1964). The hypothesis was accepted by Balil (1964, p. 43, n. 46), who refers to a Barcino vetus (pp. 87-88).

A few years later, Frederic-Pau Verrié suggested that there must have been a colony at the foot of Montjuïc not only earlier than Augustus but perhaps even before Caesar. This town must have been baptized, initially, with the cognomen of Faventia, to which those of Iulia and Paterna were later added on account of the town’s fidelity to Caesar. Subsequently, during the Principate, when the city must have been moved to its new location on the Mons Taber, the epithet of Augusta must have been added as well (Verrié, 1973).

Along much the same lines, Francisca Pallarés (1975, pp. 5-10) suggested a Caesarean chronology for Caius Coelius’ inscription and assumed that the first city with walls, towers, and gates referred to in the epigraph must have been not the former pre-Roman nucleus of Barcino, as Fita and Rodríguez de Berlanga believed, but another small settlement erected close to it. This, she argued, would be the only way of justifying the epithet Faventia, which has parallels in other foundations between the 3rd c. B.C. and the time of Caesar.

Isabel Rodà (1976) also endorsed the hypothesis of the existence of an earlier urban settlement, located on the Montjuïc, basing her support on the presence of the cognomina Iulia and Faventia in the official title of the colony. This settlement, she suggested, could have been granted the status of colony by Caesar and later, in Augustus’ time, being transferred to the Mons Taber and given the cognomen of Augusta.

Two years later, Jean-Nöel Bonneville (1978, pp. 52-61) forcefully ruled out the existence of a city on the Montjuïc prior to Barcino, as well as that of a harbour to the south. On the one hand, he pointed out that the findings from the Montjuïc area were few in number, sparse, and lacking in significance, while, on the other, he argued that it was inconceivable that the Iberians (who only showed a very limited interest in maritime activities) had built a harbour in the area. According to Bonneville, the city must have been founded in Augustan times, after the Cantabrian wars, and the walls referred to in the inscription of Caius Coelius were thus the original walls of the high-Imperial city.

Bonneville’s hypothesis was developed further in the 1980s in a series of works by José Oriol Granados. Granados denied the existence of an Iberian or Roman settlement on the Montjuïc precisely on the grounds that, despite the several earthworks produced in the area, only a small series of scattered and low-profile archaeological finds had come to light, and these were insufficient to justify the hypothesis of a large nucleus. He did not exclude the possibility that a series of earlier small-scale rural settlements had existed in its place, and that it was the presence of these settlements that was preserved by the small quantity of scattered structures and ceramic remains. In his opinion, Barcino was founded ex novo some time around B.C. 15-13. The erection of miliaria marking the new coastal route of the via Augusta (which would not have taken place prior to B.C. 8-7) and the ramification of this route in the inland area would have coincided with the foundation of the city (Granados, 1984a, pp. 274-75; Granados, 1989-90; Granados et al., 1986. On the milestone from Barcelona dated to the Augustan epoch, see CIL XVII 1, 1, 9).

In the years since Granados’ work, the inscription commemorating the construction of the walls has been associated with the first defensive perimeter of Barcino on the Mons Taber. Most of the historiography has assumed that the foundation of the city occurred after B.C. 19, as a result of a deductio ordered by Augustus at the end of the Cantabrian wars, and that the inscription of Caius Coelius should be dated within that chronological span, despite the clearly Republican elements in its palaeography and spelling (Bonneville, 1982, p. 367; Rodà, 1989, p. 350; Pons, 1994, pp. 110-11; IRC IV 57; Rodà, 2001, pp. 33; Puig and Rodá, 2007, p. 597; Beltrán, 2010, pp. 39-41; Garrido, 2011, p. 14). The presence of archaisms such as coeravit were justified by the supposition of delays in development that were thought to be typical of the «arte provincial» (Granados, 1984a, p. 291).

The long-standing problem of Barcino’s primitive location has only recently (2017) been likely resolved as a result of Alessandro Ravotto’s research for his doctoral thesis (under the supervision of Isabel Rodà). Ravotto’s study of Barcelona’s ancient walls has revealed important new information related to Caius Coelius’ inscription (Ravotto, 2017, pp. 287-94; Ravotto, 2018, pp. 65-69). The report of the inscription’s discovery in 1903 was transmitted by Pelegrí Casades i Gramatxes, who sent a letter to Fita and Rodríguez de Berlanga informing them that the piece had been discovered that year in the southwest area of the Montjuïc. Berlanga’s answer to Casades was published in the journal of which the latter was editor (Berlanga, 1903-04), and scholars have, since then, accepted the Catalan historian’s account of the origin of the epigraph.

However, the inventory of the Municipal Artistic Museums for December 1902 includes, under the registration number 22, the following entry:

Donativo. D. José Laribal. Lápida romana descubierta en un solar de la calle Aviñó de esta ciudad, con la inscripción siguiente: Caius Coelius Atisi Filius Duunvir Quinquenalis Muros Turres Portas Faciendos Coeravit.

The place of discovery mentioned in this entry (carrer d’Avinyó) is not located in the southwest area of the Montjuïc at all, but next to the city walls, just a few tens of meters from the southwest Roman gate of the town. The donor of the piece, Josep Laribal i Lastrortas, was, it seems, a significant figure among Barcelona’s bourgeoisie, and also one of the main real estate magnates of the city in the second half of the 19th century. Among his portfolio of properties, Lastrortas owned a farm on the Montjuïc that was later expropriated by the City Council after his death. It is very likely that, as Ravotto suggests, the inscription of Caius Coelius was initially found at one of Lastrortas’ properties in Barcelona, and was later moved to his estate on the Montjuïc. The discovery in 1903, on the southern part of the mountain, of a homogeneous group of ruins belonging to a Roman exedra-shaped building led Casades to connect the inscription to these new findings (see the first report in Granados, 1984a, p. 270) while it had, in fact, actually been recovered from the Lastrortas estate on the northern part of the Montjuïc (Ravotto, 2017, pp. 292-294; Ravotto, 2018, pp. 65-69).

Thanks to Ravotto’s investigation, it now seems clear that Caius Coelius’ inscription, and its testimony relating to the construction of the city walls, refers to the colony of Mons Taber and not to a hypothetical pre-Roman town located on the Montjuïc. It also seems likely that Caius Coelius’ epigraphical activity corresponded with the foundational act of Barcino. Nevertheless, while this is an important advance, the detailed chronology of the city’s foundation and the construction of its walls remains open. Indeed, Ravotto himself goes on to accept the criteria set forth in IRC IV 57 by Georges Fabre, Marc Mayer Olivé, and Isabel Rodà, who argue that «malgré l’archaïsme apparent, la datation doit être augustéenne et non républicaine» (IRC IV 57; Ravotto, 2017, p. 287). This forces us to return once more to the palaeographic analysis of the inscription and to insert it back into its historical, archaeological, and topographic contexts, with the aim of shedding new light on this issue.

2. The inscription of Caius Coelius ^ 

Borja Díaz Ariño (2008a) did not include Caius Coelius’ inscription in his catalogue of the Republican Latin epigraphy of Hispania as he dated it back to Augustus (p. 61). Nonetheless, the features of the epigraph adhere perfectly to the series of technical, palaeographic, onomastic, and orthographic elements that, as the author points out in the introduction to his work, usually characterize this kind of inscription:

La paleografía suele ser poco cuidada. La O suele ser totalmente redonda. La P tiene la panza totalmente abierta. La M presenta los trazos exteriores convergentes y tanto la F como la E tienen los trazos horizontales de la misma longitud. Las interpunciones más características son las circulares, cuadradas y con forma de aspa, aunque también hay varios ejemplos de interpunciones triangulares (Díaz Ariño, 2008a, p. 48).

Also worth noting is that the letters in the inscription are engraved very deeply; that their height is very irregular; that the <C> is very open and with almost horizontal extremities; that the <Q> and the <R> have a rectilinear tail (and the tail of the <Q> is almost horizontal); that the <S> is very angular; that the strokes of the <M> form three equal triangles; that the numeral II is given a form identical to a Greek pi. In addition, the plate is made from the local sandstone of Montjuïc, and not marble.

Díaz Ariño (2008a, pp. 48-49) points out that Republican inscriptions often include certain linguistic archaisms, such as the use of the diphthong <EI> instead of <I> or the confusion of <C> and <Q> in formulas such as curavit / quravit. In Caius Coelius’ inscription, one such archaism can be identified clearly in the use of the coeravit form for the verb curavit. The abbreviated formula fac. coer. (in spite of the abundance of available space in the right half of the line) does not clarify whether the text carried a faciendas, or the (also archaic) faciundas.

The archaism coeravit is present in Spanish epigraphy of the late Republic and the early Principate. For example, we find it in an inscription from Tarraco from the beginning of the 1st c. B.C.: Cn(aeo) Lucretio / L(uci) f(ilio) Scap(tia) / Seleucus l(ibertus) de suo / faciendum coer(avit) (CIL I 2276 (p 1108) = CIL II 4371 = CIL II 6073 = RIT 12), but also in the Ampuritan plate of the early-Augustan epoch commemorating the construction of a campus: [L(ucius) C]aecilius L(uci) f(ilius) Gal(eria) / [Ma]cer aedil(is), IIvir / [ca]mpum de sua pecu(nia) / [facie]ndum coeravit / [idemq]ue probavit) (AE 1981, 563 = HEpOL 15782), or in the Saguntine plate, probably of the late 1st c. B.C., which commemorates the repair of the turris et murus of the city: [-] Ful[vius - f(ilius)] Titinian(us), / L(ucius) Lucilius L(uci) f(ilius) / IIvir(i) ex d(ecreto) d(ecurionum) / turris et mur[o]s / refic(iendos) co[er(averunt)]) (CIL II2, 14, 361). In these last two inscriptions, the form of the duo is a Greek pi, as in the case of Barcino.

As for the form referring to muri, turres, and portae, the inclusion of these three elements in the same epigraphic text is a phenomenon that is especially documented in late-Republican Italy: CIL X 6238 = ILLRP 602 (Fondi, 1st c. B.C.): M(arcus) Nellius M(arci) f(ilius), / A(ulus) Octavius C(ai) f(ilius), / L(ucius) Ursius A(uli) f(ilius) / aid(iles) / murum, portam, turris / faciunda ex s(enatus) c(onsulto) coe[r(averunt)] / eid(em)que probav(erunt); CIL X 6239 = ILLRP 603 (Fondi, B.C. 130-71): L(ucius) Numistronius L(uci) f(ilius) Decian(us), / C(aius) Lucius M(arci) f(ilius), M(arcus) Runtius L(uci) f(ilius) Mess(ianus) / aed(iles), portas, turreis, murum / ex s(enatus) c(onsulto) faciund(a) coera(ve)runt / eisdemq(ue) proba(ve)runt; CIL IX 1140 = ILLRP 523 (Aeclanum, B.C. 78-51): C(aius) Quinctius C(ai) f(ilius) Valg(us) patron(us) munic(ipii), / M(arcus) Magi(us) Min(ati) f(ilius) Surus, A(ulus) Patlacius Q(uinti) f(ilius) / IIIIvir(i) d(e) s(enatus) s(ententia) portas, turreis, moiros / turreisque aequas qum (!) moiro / faciundum coiraverunt; CIL V 3434 = AE 1987, 450 (Verona, B.C. 59-49): P(ublius) Valerius C(ai) f(ilius) [---], / Q(uintus) Caecilius Q(uinti) [f(ilius) ---], / Q(uintus) Servilius Q(uinti) [f(ilius) ---], / P(ublius) Cornelius P(ubli) f(ilius) [---] / IIIIvir(i) murum, porta[m, turreis], / cloacas d(e) d(ecurionum) s(ententia) faciu[ndum coer(averunt)]. / P(ublius) Valerius C(ai) [f(ilius) ---], / Q(uintus) Caecilius Q(uinti) f(ilius) [--- probav(erunt)] (cf. Gregori and Nonnis 2013). Nonetheless there is also an inscription from Saepinum dated to the Augustan epoch, during the last quarter of the 1st c. B.C.: CIL IX 2443 = AE 1976, 194: Ti(berius) Claudius Ti(beri) f(ilius) Nero pont(ifex), co(n)s(ul) [II, imp(erator) I]I, trib(unicia) potest(ate) V, / Nero Claudius Ti(beri) f(ilius) Drusus Germ[anicus] augur, c[o(n)s(ul)], imp(erator) [II], / murum, portas, turris [d(e) s(ua) p(ecunia)] f(acienda) c(uraverunt).

Of course, there are other texts dated to the 4th c. A.D. in which the repair of walls, towers, and gates is recorded (e.g. AE 1935, 86; CIL VI 1188-1190 = AE 1997, 107), but these are not relevant to our interests here.

In Hispania, an inscription from Pax Iulia (Beja, Lusitania) dated to the year B.C. 2 may have included the same three elements, like AE 1989, 368 = HEp 1990, 744: [Imp(erator) Caesar Divi f(ilius) Au]gustus pater pa[triae, / pont(ifex) max(imus), trib(unicia) p]otes(tate) XXI coloni[ae Pac(is)] Iul(iae) / [muros], turres e[t p]ortas [---]. For inscriptions in which only two of these three elements are referred to, see Bonneville (1978, pp. 57-58). As he points out, most of these are dated to the half-century preceding the establishment of the Principate. Unfortunately, the monument from Pax Iulia, of which only a part is preserved, was found in 1879 and then lost. The interpretation proposed by José D’Encarnação is, thus, entirely hypothetical (D’Encarnação, 1988, n° 131).

Finally, the absence of a cognomen (which, as Rodríguez de Berlanga already argued, would likely place the inscription at a time before the Lex Iulia municipalis of B.C. 45) did not become systematic until the first half of the 1st c. A.D. and, therefore, cannot be used as a leading argument for the inscription of Caius Coelius. Much more significant is the mention of the paternal name Atisius (likely a peregrinus) in the filiation formula, which strongly suggests that the donor belonged to the first generation of settlers.

One of the clearest Hispanic parallels to the inscription of Caius Coelius was found in Alcalá del Río (Seville), the old city of Ilipa. In this epigraph, an individual named Urchail, son of Attita, financed the construction of certain gates and their vaults in the decade of B.C. 40 (fig. 2):

Urchail Atitta f(ilius) / Chilasurgun / portas, fornic(es) / aedificand(a) / curavit de s(ua) p(ecunia).

Palaeographic similarities can also be found between the inscription of Coelius and some of the epigraphs concerning the walls of Carthago Nova (Cartagena). The city boasts a set of ten inscriptions related to the construction of the defensive enclosure, its towers, and its gates. The dating of the pieces has given rise to a long-standing debate. Juan Manuel Abascal Palazón and Sebastián F. Ramallo Asensio (1997, pp. 82-86), in their study of the epigraphy of Carthago Nova, linked most of these epigraphs to a single moment of building activity that they placed in the last quarter of the 1st c. B.C. But some of the protagonists of this activity certainly lived prior to that date, as, for example, did Marcus Calpurnius Bibulus, who should be identified with the individual who shared the consulate with Caesar in B.C. 59 and died at the beginning of B.C. 48. At present, the most widely accepted hypothesis is that they would have been dedicated between the middle of the 1st c. B.C. and the first years of the 1st c. A.D. (Díaz Ariño, 2008b). Along such lines, Díaz Ariño dates:

1. The epigraph with the names of the magistrates in charge of the construction of the walls [---] C(aius) Pr[--- IIviri (?)], / L(ucius) Fabius [---, - Ver]gilius C(ai) f(ilius) [aediles] / [tur]ris XI, portam, mur(um) [a fundame]nteis d(e) [s(ua) p(ecunia) f(acienda) c(uraverunt) i(dem)q(ue) p(robaverunt)] (fig. 3a) and the inscription M(arcus) Cal[purnius ---] / Bibulu[s mur(um) long(um) p(edes) ---] / faciun[dum coeravit i(dem)q(ue) p(robavit)] (CIL II 3422. Cf. Díaz Ariño, 2008a, p. 117, n° C25) to B.C. 54, possibly in relation to the concession by Pompey of a privileged juridical status.
2. The inscription of the aedile Caius Maecius Vetus (fig. 3b) to B.C. 45, after the passage of Caesar through Spain: [-] Maecius C(ai) f(ilius) Vetus / aug(ur), aed(ilis) murum / p(edes) LX f(aciendum) c(uravit) i(dem)q(ue) p(robavit).
3. The inscription of the duumvir Marcus Cornelius Marcellus (fig. 3c) to the mid-30s: M(arcus) Cornelius M(arci) f(ilius) / Gal(eria) Marcellus aug(ur), / quinq(uennalis) murum a porta / Popilia ad turrim / proximam ped(es) CXLVI et / ultra turr(im) p(edes) XI d(ecreto) d(ecurionum) f(aciendum) c(uravit) i(dem)q(ue) p(robavit). Abascal (2002, pp. 30-31) has proposed that this individual may have been duumvir in B.C. 34.
4. The inscription of Cnaeus Cornelius Cinna (fig. 3d) to the last quarter of the 1st c. B.C.: Cn(aeus) Cornelius / L(uci) f(ilius) Gal(eria) Cinna / IIvir / murum long(um) p(edes) CII / ex d(ecreto) d(ecurionum) f(aciendum) c(uravit) i(dem)q(ue) p(robavit).

If we look at other Western Mediterranean contexts, such as North Africa, we also find a very close parallel to Coelius’ epigraph, not only with regard to its stylistic and palaeographic characteristics, but also the presence of the archaic use of coeravit. The epigraph in question is a dedication paid by the quaestor pro praetore Decimus Laelius Balbus in Carpis (El Mraissa, Tunisia), dated B.C. 44-42 (fig. 4): D(ecimus) Laelius D(ecimi) f(ilius) / Balbus q(uaestor) pro / pr(aetore) assa, destrictar(ium) / solariumque / faciundu(m) coerav(it).

On the other hand, the inscriptions from Barcino that can confidently be dated to the Augustan era also have distinctive features of their own, which are not shared by Coelius’ text. The inscription IRC IV 72, a lintel made of the local sandstone of Montjuïc, is a paradigmatic example (fig. 5): Q(uinto) Salvio L(uci) [f(ilio)] Galeria aedili, / duo{i}vir[o] et duo{i}viro quinq/uennal[i] [he]redes ex / testamento). Here, the <O> and the <Q> are not completely round, but rather ovoid, while the tail of the <Q> (especially that of the nomen of Quintus) originates at the lower extremity of the body of the letter (and not at the bottom of its right belly) and is not horizontal and rectilinear, but slightly sinuous. The convergent outer strokes of the letters <A>, <V>, and <M> are also much more closed. What is more, the inscription is dedicated to an individual (Quintus Salvius) who was already enrolled in a tribe and held the positions of aedile, duumvir, and quinquennial duumvir, which places the inscription at a time later than Coelius’ generation, probably at the beginning of the Augustan epoch.

Considering all that has been said so far, it is true that Coelius’ inscription does not, by itself, constitute an indisputable document for dating the foundation of Barcino to either the Caesarean or the Augustan epoch. The epigraph contains elements that could either be dated to the time of the dictatorship of Caesar or to the very beginning of the Principate. However, there is a whole series of further data that, taken as a whole, allows us to better situate the inscription in its historical context and thus shed more light on the problem.

3. The title of Barcino and its tribe ^ 

First of all, additional information can be extracted from the official title of Barcino, that is colonia Iulia Augusta Faventia Paterna Barcinonensium, whose complete nomenclature appears in the 2nd c. A.D. inscription IRC IV 76 (fig. 6): Col(oniae) Iul(iae) Aug(ustae) Fav(entiae) Pat(ernae) / Barcin(onensium) / IIIIIIviri Augustal(es).

Isabel Rodà herself recognized 45 years ago that the cognomina of the city of Barcino (Faventia and Paterna) correspond to those granted to other peninsular Caesarean foundations, such as Ulia Fidentia, Vesci Faventia, Osset Iulia Constantia, Ituci Virtus Iulia, Ucubi Claritas Iulia, Seria Fama Iulia, Nertobriga Concordia Iulia, Lacimurga Constantia Iulia, or Olissipo Felicitas Iulia, all cities with Caesarean cognomina that share an abstract term followed by the gentilice Iulius (Rodà, 1976, pp. 231-32). In our case, Faventia might refer to the wish for a good omen (Canto, 1990, p. 291, n. 18).

The cognomen Paterna is a detail of crucial importance: the city of Barcino shares this epithet with two Caesarean colonies – Arelate (colonia Iulia Paterna Arelate) and Narbo (colonia Iulia Paterna Narbo Martius) – that were founded in Gallia Narbonensis by Tiberius Nero in B.C. 46 under the orders of Caesar (Vittinghoff, 1952, p. 66). It is symptomatic that the city of Narbo, in particular, seems to have held a close relationship with Barcino. Fabre, Mayer, and Rodà all emphasize that the gentilices of the first settlers of Barcino (Ratumedius, Herennuleius, or Lucceius) may have come either from central Italy or, more likely, from the city of Narbo. The gentilice Coelius itself is also widely documented in the onomastics of the Narbonensis (IRC IV 57, p. 131).

As for the explanation of the meaning of the cognomen Paterna, several hypotheses have been proposed. Sebastián Mariner has argued that this appellation was related to the founding action of Augustus, who granted this nomenclature because the city helped his father during the war against Pompey, which would mean that there was a pre-Caesarean settlement (Mariner, 1964, p. 238). Other authors, especially for the cases of Arelate and Narbo, have argued that Augustus would have given them the epithet of Paterna to distinguish those colonies that were founded by his father, Caesar, from those he had founded himself (Vittinghoff, 1952, p. 66, n. 2). José Carlos Saquete (1997, p. 29), who also suggests that Barcino may have been founded prior to B.C. 27, links the cognomen of Paterna to Caesar’s paternity in relation to Augustus and to the inhabitants of these cities, who would be Caesarean veterans. Alicia Canto has advanced another hypothesis, based on a text by Siculus Flaccus in which the author writes about the mixed land assignments (miscellum) that affected veterans who had been deducted at the time of Caesar, but who were once again recruited under Augustus (Sic. Fl. Agrim 44). These are called by Adolf August Rudorff «veterani paterni» and, according to Canto, this phenomenon could explain the cognomen assigned to the city (Canto, 2007). In this connection we can note Dio Cassius’ statement that, at the end of the Cantabrian wars, Agrippa had to resort to soldiers «already old and exhausted by the continuous wars» (Dio Cass. 54. 11.3). According to Canto (2007), these might have been the veterans who had already fought under Caesar.

Most of the foundations of the Triumvirate, Caesar, and Octavian prior to B.C. 27 received the cognomen Iulia in their official denomination after obtaining a privileged juridical status. In Hispania we have some paradigmatic examples: Pax Iulia (Beja), colonia Iulia Nova Carthago (Cartagena), Ebora Liberalitas Iulia (Évora), colonia Iulia Urbs Triumphalis Tarraco (Tarragona), or even the controversial colonia Iulia Gemella Acci (Guadix), a Caesarean foundation in the opinion of some while other hold that it dates to the Octavian period (before B.C. 27) (Pastor, 2001, pp. 426-27; González Román, 2011, pp. 307-18).

One final element can be added to what has been said thus far about the city’s official title. In Hispania there were only three cities which had, at one and the same time, the two official cognomina of Iulia and Augusta: Ilici, Gades, and Barcino (Alföldy, 2003, pp. 42-43). The first two obtained, respectively, the legal status of colonia and municipium in Caesar’s time and, a few years later, underwent a second foundation which incorporated the cognomen of Augusta (as for the case of Ilici see Abascal, 2004, p. 80; Amela, 2013; a triumviral foundation of Ilici has been also proposed by Ventura et al., 2018, pp. 39-40; as for Gades see Alföldy, 2003, p. 42). The succession of nomenclatures of these cities is endorsed by the text of Cassius Dio, which indicates how Augustus, during his third trip to Hispania, «colonized numerous cities in Gaul and in Spain (…) besides allowing them, by a decree, to call their city Augusta (…). [M]y purpose is to show that the senate even assigned names to cities as a mark of honour and that the inhabitants did not, as is usually done now, make out for themselves in each instance lists of names according to their own pleasure» (Dio Cass. 54.23.7-8).

The case of Mérida is somewhat different. For Mérida, the official title of Augusta appears by itself in the city’s official documents (i.e., in its coinage), while in other, unofficial, records (pipes, private dedications, ceramics, etc.) the cognomen of Iulia is also used alongside. Canto makes the quite compelling argument that Emerita might be a Caesarean foundation, although this hypothesis has been widely rejected with strong counterarguments (Saquete, 1997, pp. 29-36). In Barcino, the opposite is the case: the official title of the city always includes the cognomen Iulia, but sometimes omits Augusta, as in the public inscription dedicated to Caracalla that has been discussed above (see supra IRC IV 23). It is unlikely that the absence of the epithet Augustus can be explained by reference to the unfinished status of the inscription, as suggested in IRC IV 27 (see supra fig. 2). In conclusion, on the basis of its nomenclature we should expect that Barcino would have been a Caesarean foundation, as was the case with Ilici and Gades, and, above all, Arelate and Narbo.

Before ending this section, it is necessary to say something about the tribes in which the inhabitants of the city were enrolled. It should be noted that the factors that led a magistrate to enrol the inhabitants of a colony in one or another tribe are neither clear nor follow an established pattern, especially outside Italy (Castillo, 1988; Stylow, 1995,; Saquete, 1997, pp. 30-31). That said, Carmen Castillo (1988, p. 236) has stressed that Caesar seems to have ascribed his coloniae to the tribe Sergia and his municipia to the tribe Galeria. Augustus, on the other hand, seems to have tended to grant diverse tribes to his coloniae and the Galeria to his municipia. However, according to Castillo (1988, p. 235) there was a group of colonies that were most likely founded by Octavian prior to B.C. 27, such as Tarraco, Virtus Iulia, Claritas Iulia, and our own place of interest, Barcino, which was registered under the tribe Galeria. In Barcino, citizens were for the most part registered in this tribe (Mayer, 2005, p. 280), although as many as six other tribes have also been documented in the city (Wiegels, 1985, pp. 168-178; Fasolini, 2012, pp. 168-178). The one with the second largest number of representatives is the Aniensis, which represents a majority only in Caesaraugusta. According to Rainer Wiegels (1985, p. 97), this might be an indication that the two cities maintained close relationships which resulted in a degree of migratory mobility. More recently, Donato Fasolini has pointed out that members of the Aniensis tribe also form a majority in Forum Iulii (Gallia Narbonensis), and that the families of individuals documented in Barcino could have been from any of these cities (Fasolini, 2012, pp. 169-170).

Although, again, not conclusive, the tribe argument does at least suggest, once again, that the foundation of Barcino should be framed before the Principate, as pointed out by Castillo and Wiegels. Wiegels in particular (1985, p. 98, n. 14) has highlighted the high likelihood («durchaus möglich») that the community of Barcino had obtained, before B.C. 27, a privileged legal status, although not as a colony of Roman citizens.

4. The city walls ^ 

The archaeological analysis of the city walls could help to solve the problem of the foundation of Barcino and, therefore, of the chronology of Coelius’ inscription.

The analyses that took place along the walls of Barcino in the mid-20th century identified the existence of two historically sequential layers of defensive structures (Durán and Sanpere, 1945; Durán and Sanpere, 1959; Serra, 1959). That there were two different phases involved in the construction of the wall is a fact that has been known since the 19th century (see the passage of the Diario de Barcelona of 22 August 1871, transcribed by Granados, 1991, p. 171). The most recent investigations confirmed that the outer walls that are currently visible were erected at the end of the 3rd c. A.D. (Ravotto, 2017, pp. 418-44; Ravotto and Rodà, 2017, pp. 51-52, with bibliography). However, the study of the inner wall is considerably more difficult.

Josep Calassanç Serra i Ràfols classified the ancient wall as «de técnica ibérica» and «fechable hacia el tiempo de Augusto, poco más o menos hacia el cambio de era» (Serra, 1959, pp. 136-37, n. 9). However, the evidence to support these claims was very limited. Granados subsequently studied the composition of the walls of Barcelona and determined that the exterior façade of the late-Imperial epoch made use of the technique of filling opus quadratum with caementicium. The ancient wall, by contrast, presented a parament of opus vittatum or a slightly irregular opus certum formed by small sandstone blocks of Montjuïc stone arranged in rows, internally filled by opus caementicium, and without any reused material throughout (Granados, 1984a, pp. 284-85; Granados, 1996-97, 1619, cf. also Ravotto, 2017, p. 213). Unfortunately, Granados was not able to identify any stratigraphic data that allowed him to date the foundation of the first walls. The only possible source of dating is offered by a study of the paraments. The constructive technique of the opus certum was «propio de las ciudades fundadas o reconstruidas en época augustea en Italia y Galia Narbonense, completándose en estructuras principales con el opus quadratum» (Granados, 1984a, p. 286). The initial transition from opus incertum to opus certum can be traced in the area of Provence around the 20s B.C., in the fortification of Navale Augusti (Granados, 1984a, pp. 286-87). Its use only seems to have become widespread at the beginning of the Empire: «así lo hallamos en Arezzo, Arcoli, Termas de Fiesole, Teatros de Sepino, Assisi, Gubbio o en las construcciones de Bevagna, Trieste y Verona» (Granados, 1984a, p. 287). According to Granados, the construction of the walls of Barcino occurred at a time when the opus incertum was being replaced by the certum, which should be dated around the change of era.

Until very recently, Granados’ hypothesis has remained unquestioned, with the scholarship on the topic assuming that the foundation of the walls took place in the Augustan epoch (Puig and Rodá, 2007, pp. 604-10; Ravotto, 2009-11; Ravotto and Rodà, 2017, pp. 50-51). However, Ravotto’s 2017 PhD dissertation, discussed above, offers a new and compelling analysis of the construction techniques of the defensive wall. Ravotto argues that the parament rather makes use of the technique of opus vittatum, combined, in some sectors, with opus quadratum (Ravotto, 2017, pp. 211 and 450), and that some of the gates, such as those at the north-west and south-east, might be contemporaneous with the building of the defensive enclosure (Ravotto, 2017, pp. 158 and 309). He finds the best parallels in the late-Republican and Augustan walls and gates of Brixia, Fanum Fortunae (especially its «Gate of Augustus»), Hispellum (especially the «Venere» and «Consolare» Gates), Novum Comum, Pola, and the «Pretoria» and «Decumana» Doors of Augusta Praetoria. The walls of Barcino should thus be framed in the stylistic current that matured in the late-Republican epoch and lasted through to the beginning of the early-Imperial period (see the specific bibliography collected in Ravotto, 2017, pp. 209-10).

As the stylistic argument for stressing an Augustan chronology has not been validated by clear stratigraphic information, Ravotto tries to confirm his hypothesis by basing it instead on the presence of certain marks on the walls, in a sector of the north-western gate (fig. 7). These four vertical lines, which the author identifies with the numeral IIII, were accompanied by «un signe indesxifrable» which, «ni tan sol a nivell d’hipòtesis», could belong to a specific kind of vexillum (Ravotto, 2017, pp. 131 and 314). According to Ravotto (2017, pp. 310-14), these signs are typical of the legio IIII Macedonica (cf. Gómez-Pantoja, 2000; Morillo Cerdán, 2000). If this were to be shown to be correct, then we could suppose that this legion participated in the construction of the city walls after the end of the Cantabrian wars, and the chronology of the foundation would, thus, necessarily be Augustan. But the argument for the identification of these marks with the legio IIII is very weak (cf. Navarro Caballero et al., 2014), to the extent that Ravotto himself is forced to recognize that «a dia d’avui, els elements de datació directa proporcionats per les excavacions arqueològiques no són suficients per assegurar una cronologia en funció del material moble recuperat en la estratigrafia» (Ravotto, 2017, p. 308). This being the case, we must instead direct our investigation in another direction.

5. The archaeological context: the temple and the forum ^ 

Our knowledge of the layout of the city of Barcino has been improved by several authors who have dedicated their efforts to the investigation of its urban planning. Thanks to their work, the location of the forum is now roughly known, although its orientation is still speculative (Orengo and Cortés 2009-11, pp. 189-92; Beltrán, 2015b; Beltrán, 2015a). In addition, a part of the elevation of the temple that presided over the public square, the so-called «Temple of Augustus» of carrer Paradís, is well preserved. Unfortunately, nothing is known of its phases beyond the fact that the building, due to its architectural characteristics, might have been erected at the time of the foundation of the city (Orengo and Cortés, 2009-11, p. 187).

In María Ángeles Gutiérrez Behemerid’s study of the architectural decoration of the temple, the author highlights the large number of late-Republican elements that characterized the temple: the type of peripteral plan that appears in Rome at the beginning of the 1st c. B.C.; the use in the mouldings of the podium of the kyma reversa; the absence of the plinth in the bases; the imoscapus of the column and the base carved in the same block; the Attic bases with the two tori of almost identical height and diameter, and a narrow and deep intermediate scotia (fig. 8); the capitals belonging to the so-called «style of the second triumvirate», with stems topped by rosettes, which developed between B.C. 45 and 29 (fig. 9a-b); the cornice profile, very simple, with a bracket and without denticles; etc. (Gutiérrez Behemerid, 1991, pp. 97-99). Despite this, Gutiérrez Behemerid (1991, p. 102), aware that «esta cronología pudiera, en alguna manera, entrar en contradicción con las fechas que se barajan sobre la fundación de Barcino», concludes that the construction of the temple had to have been carried out during the last quarter of the 1st c. B.C., with the presence of all these archaisms being due to a provincial delay or a provincial style.

Ana Garrido Elena, in her recent PhD dissertation supervised by Ricardo Mar and Isabel Rodà, also provides a valuable architectural and stylistic analysis of the temple, typologically and stylistically framing the construction of the building within the third quarter of the 1st c. B.C. Despite this, she concludes (in the same way as Gutiérrez Behemerid does) that «la fecha de la fundación de la colonia, en torno al 10 a.C., nos lleva necesariamente a situar la construcción del templo en el último decenio de este siglo» (Garrido, 2011, pp. 340-41; on the existence of archaising workshops in the area of Catalonia, see Domingo et al., 2011).

In addition to taking into account all the architectural elements that suggest a dating in the third quarter of the 1st c. B.C., it is important to draw attention to another feature that seems to have gone unnoticed by even the most acute scholars. The vestiges of the forum of Barcino are so poor that, in reality, the structure of the square has been reconstructed from the position of the temple, the network of the streets and the parallelism with other forums. This has led to the forum being reconstructed as a rectangular square, slightly shifted to the north with respect to the urban fabric, and presided over by the temple on its eastern side (Mar et al., 2012, pp. 85-94). On the opposite side of the square, an area of tabernae and, supposedly, a curia were discovered in 2003. The basilica should, therefore, be located on one of the lateral sides of the square. A decade later, in 2013, a number of structures, identified with what could be a small part of the forum curb in its northern area, behind the temple, were discovered along carrer de la Freneria (Beltrán, 2015b, pp. 129-31). The vestiges found so far make it possible to establish, in a hypothetical manner at least, the limits of the forum. However, a careful examination of the published plans of Barcino shows that the temple is slightly rotated with respect to the limits of the portico (fig. 10). In our opinion, this anomaly is due to the fact that there were at least two building phases in the process of the organization of the urban fabric of the city. We suggest, with the caution that is necessary due to the poverty of the remains so far brought to light, that both the walls and the temple that has widely (and erroneously) been called «of Augustus» were built in a first phase, which can be dated to the third quarter of the 1st c. B.C. This was then followed by a second phase in which the urban plot of the city was defined and monumentalized. This process, we suggest, corresponds to the re-foundation of the colony by Augustus.

6. Conclusions ^ 

In general, the historiography of the last decades has dated the foundation of Barcino around B.C. 10, setting the event within the framework of the reorganization of the northern peninsula after the Cantabrian wars. As a result of this process, the construction of the coastal variant of the via Augusta would have taken place, which begins to be documented in the miliaria from B.C. 8, as would the construction of the Pont de Martorell and the arch of Castellbisbal. These works would have involved soldiers of the legions IIII, VI, and X (Gurt and Rodà, 2005) who, rewarded with a deductio, would have received plots of land on the coastal plain located between the rivers Besòs and Llobregat, and would have contributed to the first building phases of the city (Rodà, 2001, pp. 22 and 33). This same period would have also seen the erection of the walls by Caius Coelius, as well as the activity of one of the first quinquennial duumvirs of Barcino (Quintus Salvius) (see supra CIL II 4530 = IRC IV 72) and the construction of the exedra on the Montjuïc in which the names of three or four other magistrates appear (AE 1959, 113 = IRC IV 62 = IRC V, p. 113 = IRB 71: L(ucius) Licinius // A // C(aius) Iulius A // S(extus) Sedillus).

It is true that there seems to be no documented trace of ceramics in the current city of Barcelona that can be dated prior to B.C. 10 (Berni and Carreras, 2001). This factor may support its Augustan chronology. The same can be said for the absence of miliaria before B.C. 8. However, these are only arguments ex silentio. Throughout this work, several clues have been identified which, taken together, cohere strongly enough to provide good grounds for rescuing an old hypothesis: the claim that the foundation of Barcino took place during the Caesarean epoch (plausibly B.C. 45-44), and not under Augustus. The markedly Republican palaeographic and stylistic characteristics of the inscription of Caius Coelius, the official title of the city, the building techniques of its walls, the architectural features of the so-called «Temple of Augustus», and the orientation of the temple with respect to the urban fabric all support this thesis.

How would this hypothesis fit into the historical evolution of the north-eastern peninsular region? From at least B.C. 118-117, the Layetan territory began to be organized thanks to the establishment of a network of communication routes that not only connected Gaul with Tarraco and Valentia through the via Heraclea in its passage through the Catalan pre-coastal depression, but also articulated the different late-Republican oppida of the territory of the Maresme (Mayer and Rodà, 1986; Olesti, 2008, pp. 237-58; Revilla and Santacana, 2015, p. 85).

A little later, at the beginning of the 1st c. B.C., two new cities were founded on the coast north of the river Besòs, Iluro (Mataró) and Baetulo (Badalona), as well as two other settlements in the inland area, Auso (Vic) and Gerunda (Girona), which began to restructure the territory from an economic and administrative perspective (as for Iluro see Revilla and Cela, 2006, p. 89; for Baetulo see Guitart and Padrós, 1990, p. 165; see also Palet, 1997, p. 165; Guitart, 2006; Revilla and Santacana, 2015, p. 86; Revilla 2020). A series of road axes were thus established linking the aforementioned coastal cities with the Roman foundations of the interior, among which the nuclei of Aqua Calidae (Caldes de Montbui) and Auso (Vic) stand out (Flórez and Rodà, 2014; Revilla and Santacana, 2015, p. 86).

For its part, the area of the Baix Llobregat and the Pla de Barcelona was involved in a process of change from the beginning of the 1st c. B.C. (more pronounced in the north than in the south), that led to significant changes in the local production model, which was oriented from this time towards the production and marketing of wine (see Mar et al., 2012, pp. 71-72; Solias, 1989, pp. 88-91 and 101-02; cf. Berni and Carreras, 2001, p. 104). The business would have been managed by individuals of Italian origin or by local aristocrats, as is evidenced by the epigraphic marks documented by the amphorae of the area of the Maresme (Miró, 1988, pp. 226-32; Pena, 1999; Revilla, 2004, pp. 178-90; Mar et al., 2012, p. 72). If there was a pre-Roman settlement on the Montjuïc, from which the Iberian coinage of the end of the 3rd c. B.C. was perhaps issued with the toponym of Baŕkeno (Balil, 1964, pp. 37-41; Untermann, 1975, A.13; Mayer, 1991, pp. 298-99) and of which the most significant element that has been located so far is a field of silos in the neighborhood of Magòria (Granados, 1984b; Mayer and Rodà, 1991, pp. 346-47), then this might have formed the basis for the establishment of a military deductio in the area. When did this occur? In our opinion, it is possible that this took place over not one but two successive foundations (or, at least, urban phases): the first in the time of Caesar and the second in the time of Augustus.

As Ricardo Mar, Ana Garrido, and José A. Beltrán-Caballero have recently pointed out in a study of the historical development of Barcino and its territory, the Augustan foundation of the city took place at a time when the Tarraconensis had already been administratively reorganized. It would, therefore, be a creation that was motivated exclusively by economic concerns related to the control of the production of Layetan wine and its export to the markets of Rome (Mar et al., 2012, p. 73; Miró Canals, 2020). However, if we disassociate the creation of Barcino from Augustus’ territorial reorganization policy and frame it instead within the historical process that occurred after the battles of Ilerda (B.C. 49) and Munda (B.C. 45), the resulting conclusions are even stronger. As a result of his victory, and in order both to consolidate his power in the Iberian Peninsula and deal with the need to settle veterans, Caesar established a colony annexed to the Greek city of Emporiae, most likely founded the municipium of Dertosa (Pena, 1993, p. 590; contra Faria, 1992, p. 35; Abascal, 2006, p. 76; Amela, 2017, pp. 82-83), granted the legal status of colony to Tarraco, and, as we have suggested, created a new urban settlement in the area of the Pla de Barcelona that allowed the effective control of the entire Layetan area located to the south of the river Besòs. However, whether the project was carried out before the death of the dictator, or alternatively in the years between his death and the establishment of the Principate (as happened at Tarraco), is something that we cannot determine.

A few years later, after Augustus’ third visit to Hispania, the colony would have received a second deductio, as happened in the other two privileged Hispanic cities that held the official epithet of Iulia and Augusta (Ilici and Gades). This deductio would have concluded the distribution of land in the area of the Pla de Barcelona among licensed veterans, leading to the centuriatio identified by some scholars (Palet, 1997, pp. 109-13; Palet et al., 2010, pp. 120-25). As a result, the city launched itself on a new phase of urban development that resulted in the conclusion of the works in the forum (establishing a different orientation to that started by the first settlers), and in the erection of the rest of the public and private buildings that would ultimately give shape to the urban plot of the early Imperial Barcino.

Funding and acknowledgements ^ 

This contribution is a collateral product of the synergy of two different projects developed at the Institute of Historiography Julio Caro Baroja of the Universidad Carlos III de Madrid: the project LARNA - Lived Ancient Religion in North Africa (funded by the Aids of Attraction of Research Talent of the Autonomous Community of Madrid, 2017-T1/HUM-5709 and led by Valentino Gasparini, 2018-2022) and the PhD Dissertation of José Carlos López-Gómez, entitled El desvanecimiento del politeísmo romano en Hispania: transformaciones religiosas en el siglo III, funded by an FPU Research Grant (FPU014/0438) from the Ministry of Education, Culture and Sports, supervised by Jaime Alvar Ezquerra and defended on January 17, 2020. A first version of this work was presented at the 1st International Workshop of Epigraphy Los muros parlantes. Inscripciones edilicias en la península ibérica y el Mediterráneo (Complutense University of Madrid, April 8-10, 2019), organized by Silvia Gómez Jiménez, Sara López-Maroto Quiñones, Sonia Madrid Medrano, and David Sevillano López, whom we thank for accepting the paper. Juan Manuel Abascal Palazón (University of Alicante) participated in the same workshop and provided invaluable constructive criticism, which contributed significantly to the final version of this work. We are also indebted to Gianluca Gregori (University of Rome – La Sapienza) and Víctor Sabaté Vidal (University of Barcelona) for the extremely helpful epigraphic suggestions they gave us. Paul Scade was so kind as to provide us with a linguistic check of the text. Federico Bencini and Roberto Silvestrini García, together with Oriol Granero Almendariz (Barcelona, Archaeology Museum of Catalonia) and Carles Mela Sancho (Barcelona, History Museum), helped us collecting some of the images published in this article.

Bibliography ^ 

Abascal, J. M. (2002) “La fecha de la promoción colonial de Carthago Nova y sus repercusiones edilicias”, Mastia, 1, pp. 21-44.

Abascal, J. M. (2004) “Colonia Iulia Ilici Augusta”, in L. Abad and M. S. Hernández (eds.) Iberia, Hispania, Spania. Una mirada desde Ilici. Alicante: Asociación Española de Museólogos, pp. 79-94.

Abascal, J. M. (2006) “Los tres viajes de Augusto a Hispania y su relación con la promoción jurídica de ciudades”, Iberia, 9, pp. 63-78.

Abascal J. M. and Ramallo, S. F. (1997) La ciudad de Carthago Nova: la documentación epigráfica. Murcia: Universidad de Murcia.

Alföldy, G. (2003) “Administración, urbanización, vida pública y orden social”, in J. M. Abascal and L. Abad (eds.) Las ciudades y los campos de Alicante en época romana, Canelobre, 48. Alicante: Diputación Provincial de Alicante, pp. 35-57.

Almagro, M., Serra, J. and Colominas, J. (1945) Carta Arqueológica de España. Madrid: Instituto de Estudios Turolenses.

Amela, L. (2013) “Sobre el origen de la Colonia C. Ilici Augusta. Una nota”, ARSE, 47, pp. 125-138.

Amela, L. (2017) “(Dertosa) Hibera Iulia Ilercavonia en época de Augusto”, Acta Numismática, 47, pp. 81-91.

Balil, A. (1955-1956) “La exedra romana de Montjuich (Barcelona)”, Ampurias, 17-18, pp. 273-276.

Balil, A. (1964) Colonia Iulia Augusta Paterna Faventia Barcino. Madrid: Instituto Español de Arqueología, CSIC.

Beltrán, J. (2010) “Barcino, de colonia augustea a sede regia en época visigoda. Las transformaciones urbanas a la luz de nuevas aportaciones de la arqueología”, in Arqueología patrimonio y desarrollo urbano. Problemática y soluciones. Girona: Ajuntament de Girona, pp. 31-50.

Beltrán, J. (2015a) “Barcino, la topografía de una fundación augustea”, in J. López Vilar (ed.) Tarraco Biennal. Actes. 2on Congrés Internacional d’Arqueologia i Món Antic: August i les províncies occidentals: 2000 aniversari de la mort d’August, Tarragona, 26-29 de noviembre de 2014, Vol. I. Tarragona: Fundació Privada Mutua Catalana, pp. 207-216.

Beltrán, J. (2015b) “Novetats sobre el fòrum de Barcino: la curia i altres edificis publics”, Quaderns d’Arqueologia i Història de la Ciutat de Barcelona, 11, pp. 126-146.

Berlanga, M. (1903-1904) “Comunicaciones”, Revista de la Asociación Artístico Arqueología Barcelonesa, 4, pp. 114-16.

Berni P. and Carreras, C. (2001) “El circuit comercial de Barcino: reflexions al voltant de les marques amfòriques”, Faventia, 23.1, pp. 103-129.

Bonneville, J. N. (1978) “Aux origines de Barcino romaine (Barcelone)”, Revue des Études Anciennes, 80, pp. 37-71.

Bonneville, J. N. (1982) “Les inscriptions impériales de Barcino (Barcelona), un reflet de l’histoire de la colonie”, in Homenaje a Sáenz de Buruaga (Madrid 1982). Badajoz: Institución Cultural Pedro de Valencia, pp. 365-388.

Canto, A. (1990) “Las tres fundaciones de Augusta Emerita”, in W. Trillmich and P. Zanker (eds.) Stadtbild und Ideologie. Die monumentalisierung hispanischer Städte zwischen Republik und Kaiserzeit. Munich: Verlag der Bayerischen Akademie der Wissenschaften, pp. 289-298.

Canto, A. (2007): https://www.celtiberia.net/es/biblioteca/?id=1597 (November 5th 2019).

Castillo, C. (1988) “La tribu Galeria en Hispania: ciudades y ciudadanos”, in J. González and J. Arce (eds.) Estudios sobre la Tabula Siariensis. Madrid: CSIC, pp. 233-244.

D’Encarnação, J. (1988) “Inscrição Monumental de Pax Ivlia”, Ficheiro Epigráfico, 29, pp. 3-6.

De Bofarull, A. (1855) Guía-Cicerone de Barcelona. Barcelona: Nabu.

Díaz Ariño, B. (2008a) Epigrafía latina republicana de Hispania, Col.leció Instrumenta, 26. Barcelona: Universitat de Barcelona.

Díaz Ariño, B. (2008b) “Las murallas romanas de Cartagena en la segunda mitad del siglo I a.e.”, Zephyrus, 66, pp. 225-34.

Domingo, J., Garrido, A. and Mar, R. (2011) “Talleres y modelos decorativos en la arquitectura de la Tarraconense en torno al cambio de Era: el caso de Barcino, Tarraco y Auso,” in T. Nogales and I. Rodà (eds.) Roma y las provincias. Modelo y difusión. XI Coloquio Internacional de Arte Romano Provincial. Roma: L’Erma di Bretschneider, pp. 851-862.

Durán y Sanpere, A. (1945) “Noticias de Excavaciones. Bajada de la Canonja y calle de los Condes”. Divulgación Histórica, 1, pp. 23-24.

Durán y Sanpere, A. (1959) “Novetats a la muralla romana de Barcelona”, Germinabit, 60, pp. 20-21.

Faria, A. M. (1992) “Cidades e moedas hispano-romanas. Anotaçôes a «Roman Provincial Coinage» I”, Arqueologia (Porto), 22, pp. 33-37.

Fasolini, D. (2012) Le tribù romane della Hispania Tarraconensis. L’ascrizione tribale dei cittadini romani nelle testimonianze epigrafiche. Milan: Vita e pensiero.

Fita, F. (1876) “Antiguas murallas de Barcelona”, Revista Histórica, 3.21, pp. 4-5.

Fita, F. (1903a) “Monumentos romanos de San Juan de Camba, Córdoba, Linares, Vilches, Cartagena, Barcelona y Tarrasa”, Boletín de la Real Academia de la Historia, 42, pp. 446-461.

Fita, F. (1903b) “Barcelona romana. Su primer periodo histórico”, Boletín de la Real Academia de la Historia, 42, pp. 481-483.

Flórez, M. and Rodà, I. (2014) “Las vías romanas en Cataluña: el caso del Vallès Oriental (Barcelona)”, in E. Boube, A. Bouet and C. Fabien (eds.) De Rome à Lugdunum des Convènes. Bordeaux: Aquitania, pp. 247-262.

Garrido, A. (2011) Arquitectura y urbanismo de Barcino en época alto imperial: la decoración arquitectónica de edificios públicos y privados. PhD Diss. Univ. Autònoma de Barcelona. Departament de Ciències de l’Antiguitat i de l’Edat Mitjana. Link access https://ddd.uab.cat/record/127276 (last consulted on February 5th 2021).

Gimeno, F. (1950) Aportación al estudio de las monedas de Laie. Barcelona : Imp. Casa Provincial de Caridad.

Gómez-Pantoja, J. (2000) “Legio IIII Macedonica”, in J. Le Bohec and C. Wolff (eds.) Les légions de Rome sous le Haut-Empire. Actes du congrès de Lyon (17-19 septembre 1998). Paris: Boccard, pp. 105-117.

González Román, C. (2011) “Colonia Iulia Gemella Acci (Guadix, Granada)”, in J. González and J. C. Saquete (eds.) Colonias de César y Augusto en la Andalucía romana. Roma: L’Erma di Bretschneider, pp. 297-331.

Granados, J. O. (1984a) “La primera fortificación de la colonia de Barcino”, in Papers in Iberian Archaeology, BAR International Series, 193.1. Oxford: BAR, pp. 267-319.

Granados, J. O. (1984b) “Los primeros pobladores del Pla”, in El Pla de Barcelona i la seva història. Actes del I Congrés d’Història del Pla de Barcelona. Barcelona: Edicions de la Magrana, pp. 67-82.

Granados, J. O. (1989-1990) “La colònia Bàrcino: origen i estructura d’una colònia augustea”, in Història urbana del Pla de Barcelona: Actes del II Congrés d’Història del Pla de Barcelona celebrat a l’Institut Municipal d’Història els dies 6 i 7 de desembre de 1985. Barcelona: Ajuntament de Barcelona, pp. 59-95.

Granados, J. O. (1991) “Estructura urbana de la ciutat romana”, in J. Sobrequés (ed.) Història de Barcelona 1. La ciutat antiga. Barcelona: Enciclopèdia Catalana, Ajuntament de Barcelona, pp. 141-201.

Granados, J. O. (1996-1997) “La muralla de Barcino a la llum de les darreres descobertes”, Annals de l’Institut d’Estudis Gironins, 38, pp. 1613-1638.

Granados, J. O., Mazaira, L., Miró, M.T., Rovira, C. and Salgot, D. (1986) “Montjuïc dins el context del mon ibèric laietà antic”, in Protohistòria catalana: 6è Col.loqui Internacional d’Arqueologia de Puigcerdà (7-9 de desembre de 1984). Puigcerdà: Institut d’Estudis Ceretans, pp. 211-218.

Gregori, G. L. and Nonnis, D. (2013) “Il contributo dell’epigrafia allo studio delle cinte murarie dell’Italia republicana”, Scienze dell’Antichità, 19, 2-3, pp. 491-524.

Guitart, J. (2006) “Iluro, Baetulo, Iesso, and the establishment of the Roman town model in Catalunya”, in Early Roman Towns in Hispania Tarraconensis, JRA, Supp. 62. Portsmouth: JRA, pp. 51-61.

Guitart, J. and Padrós, P. (1990) “Baetulo, cronología y significación de sus monumentos,” in W. Trillmimch and P. Zanjer (eds.) Stadtbild und Ideologie die onumentalisierung hispanischer Städte zwischen Republik und Kaiserzeit: Kolloquium in Madrid vom 19. bis 23. Oktober 1987. Munich: Verlag der Bayerischen Akademie der Wissenschaften, pp. 165-178.

Guiunta, F. (1988) Punica Barcino. La fondazione di Barcelona. Barcelona: Sezione di Studi Storici.

Gurt, J.M. and Rodà, I. (2005) “El pont del diable. El monumento romano dentro de la política territorial augustea”, Archivo Español de Arqueología, 78, pp. 147-165.

Gutiérrez, M.A. (1991) “El templo romano de Barcino. Análisis de la decoración arquitectónica”, in Templos romanos de Hispania, Cuadernos de Arquitectura romana, 1. Murcia: Universidad de Murcia, pp. 95-105.

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

Mar, R., Garrido, A. and Beltrán-Caballero, J.A. (2012) “Barcino y el urbanismo provincial romano”, in R. Grau (ed.) Presència i lligams territorials de Barcelona. Vint segles de vida urbana, Barcelona Quaderns d’Història, 18. Barcelona: Arxiu Historic de la Ciutat, pp. 61-112.

Mariner, S. (1964) “Les cognomina de Barcino à la lumière d’une inscription de Caracalla récemment découverte”, in Akte des IV internationalen Kongresses für griechische und lateinische Epigraphik. Wien: Hermann Bühlaus Nachs, pp. 234-238.

Mariner, S. (1975) “La Barcelona romana a través de su municipio”, Cuadernos de Arqueología e Historia de la Ciudad, 16, pp. 185-197.

Mayer, M. (1975) “Punica Barcino”, Latina et Graeca, 6, pp. 45-54.

Mayer, M. (1991) “El nom de Barcelona,” in J. Sobrequés (ed.) Història de Barcelona. 1. La ciutat antiga. Barcelona: Enciclopèdia Catalana, Ajuntament de Barcelona, pp. 297-308.

Mayer, M. (2005) “La sociedad romana barcinonense a través de la epigrafía”, in M. G. Angelli and A. Donati (eds.) Il cittadino, lo straniero, il barbaro, fra integrazione ed emarginazione nell’antichità. Atti del I Incontro Internazionale di Storia Antica (Genova 22-24 maggio 2003). Roma: L’Erma di Bretschneider, pp. 273-282.

Mayer, M. and Rodà, I. (1986) “La epigrafía republicana en Cataluña. Su reflejo en la red viaria,” in Epigrafía Hispanica en época republicana. Zaragoza: Instituto Fernando el Católico, pp. 157-169.

Mayer, M. and Rodà, I. (1991) “La romanització de Catalunya. Algunes qüestions”, in VI Col·loqui Internacional d’Arqueologia de Puigcerdà, 1984. Puigcerdà: Institut d’Estudis Ceretans, pp. 339-351.

Miró, J. (1988) La producción de ánforas romanas en Cataluña. Un estudio sobre el comercio del vino en la Tarraconense (siglos I a.C.-I d.C.), BAR International Series, 473. Oxford: BAR.

Miró Canals, J. (2020) “Barcino Augustea y Julio-Claudia. Dinámica socio-económica de la producción y el comercio del vino layetano”, Spal, 29.2, pp. 205-234. https://doi.org/10.12795/spal.2020.i29.24

Morillo Cerdán, A. (2000) “La legio IIII Macedonica en la península Ibérica. El campamento de Herrera de Pisuerga (Palencia)”, in J. Le Bohec and Wolff, C. (eds.) Les lègiones de Rome sous le Haut-Empire, Paris, 2000, pp. 609-624.

Navarro Caballero, M., Magallón, M. A., Uribe, P., Bea, M., Domingo, R. And Fanlo, J. (2014) “La presa romana de Muel (Zaragoza, España) ¿una obra militar?”, in F. Cadiou and Navarro, M. (eds.) La guerre et ses traces. Conflits et sociétés en Hispanie à l’époque de la conquête romaine (IIIe-Ier s. a.C.). Bordeaux: Ausonius, pp. 573-598.

Olesti, O. (2008) El territorio del Maresme en época republicana (s. III – I a.C.). Estudi d’Arqueomorfologia i Història. Barcelona: Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona.

Orengo, H. and Cortés, A. (2009-2011) “El templo de Augusto de Barcino. Nuevas perspectivas de estudio”, Empuries, 56, pp. 183-197.

Palet, J. M. (1997) Estudi territorial del Pla de Barcelona: estructuració i evolució del territorio entre l’època íbero-romana i l’altmedieval. Segles II-I aC. - X-XI d.C. Barcelona: Centre d’Arqueologia de la Ciutat.

Palet, J. M., Orengo, H. E., and Riera, S. (2010) “Centuriación del territorio y modelación del paisaje en los llanos litorales de Barcino y Tarraco. Una investigación Interdisciplinar a través de la integración de datos arqueomorfológicos y paleoambientales”, Agri Centuriati, 7, pp. 113-132. https://doi.org/10.1400/169533

Pallarés, F. (1975) “La topografia i els orígens de la Barcelona romana”, Cuadernos de Arqueología e Historia de la Ciudad, 16, pp. 5-48.

Pastor, M. (2001) “Epigrafía y sociedad en la Colonia Iulia Gemella Acci”, in L. Hernández Guerra, L. Sagredo and J. M. Solana (coords.) Actas del I Congreso internacional de Historia Antigua. Valladolid: Universidad de Valladolid, pp. 425-439.

Pena, M. J. (1993) “Algunas precisiones sobre el estatuto jurídico de Dertosa”, in II Congreso Peninsular de Història Antiga. Actas. Coimbra: Universidad de Coimbra, pp. 581-596.

Pena, M. J. (1999) “Productores y comerciantes de vino layetano”, in El vi a l’Antiguitat. 2n Col·loqui Internacional d’Arqueologia Romana, 1998. Badalona: Museu de Badalona, pp. 305-318.

Pi y Arimón, A. (1854) Barcelona antigua y moderna. Barcelona: Imprenta y Librería Politécnica de Tomás Gorchs.

Pons, J. (1994): Territori i societat romana a Catalunya dels inicis al Baix Imperi. Barcelona: Edicions 62.

Puig, F. and Rodá, I. (2007) “Las murallas de Barcino. Nuevas aportaciones al conocimiento de la evolución de sus sistemas de fortificación”, in A. Rodríguez Colmenero and I. Rodà (eds.), Murallas de ciudades romanas en el occidente del Imperio: Lucus Augusti como paradigma. Lugo: Museo Provincial y Diputación de Lugo, pp. 595-632.

Ravotto, A. (2009-2011) “Datos para la cronología de la muralla bajoimperial de Barcino”, Empuries, 56, pp. 249-276.

Ravotto, A. (2017) La muralla de Barcino. PhD Diss. Univ. Autònoma de Barcelona. Departament de Ciències de l’Antiguitat i de l’Edat Mitjana. Link Access https://www.tdx.cat/handle/10803/402256#page=1 (last consulted on February 5th 2021).

Ravotto, A. (2018) “El enigma de C. Coelius y la primera muralla de Barcino”, Quaderns d’Arqueologia i Història de la Ciutat de Barcelona, 14, pp. 64-76.

Ravotto, A. and Rodà, I. (2017) “La cronologia de les muralles romanes de Barcelona després d’un segle de recerques arqueològiques”, in E. Riu-Barrera (ed.) Intervenir a la muralla romana de Barcelona. Una visió comparativa. Barcelona: Museu d’Història de Barcelona, pp. 43-65.

Revilla, V. (2004) “Ánforas y epigrafía anfórica en Hispania Tarraconensis”, in J. Remesal (ed.) Epigrafía anfórica, Instrumenta, 17. Barcelona: Universitat de Barcelona, pp. 159-196.

Revilla, V. (2020) “Los parva oppida de la Citerior nororiental entre los siglos I a. C. y I d. C.: monumentalización y promoción jurídica”, in J. Andreu Pintado (ed.) Parva Oppida. Imagen, patrones e ideología del despegue monumental de las ciudades en la Tarraconense hispana (siglos I a. C.-I d. C.). Los Bañales: Fundación Uncastillo, pp. 239-278.

Revilla V. and Cela, J. (2006) “La transformación material e ideológica de una ciudad de Hispania: Iluro (Mataró) entre los siglos I y VII d.C.”, Archivo Español de Arqueología, 79, pp. 89-114. https://doi.org/10.3989/aespa.2006.v79.5

Revilla V. and Santacana, J. (2015) Catalunya romana. Barcelona: Rafael Dalmau.

Rodà, I. (1976) “Barcino. Su fundación y títulos honoríficos”, in Symposium de Ciudades Augusteas, II. Zaragoza: Librería General, pp. 225-232.

Rodà, I. (1989) “Los primeros magistrados en colonias y municipios de la Hispania Citerior”, in J. González (ed.) Estudios sobre Urso Colonia Iulia Genitiva. Sevilla: Alfar, pp. 345-356.

Rodà, I. (2001) “La cronología de las fortificaciones de las ciudades romanas de Hispania Citerior (al norte del Ebro y del Duero)”, Histria Antiqua, 7, pp. 21-40.

Saastamoinen, A. (2010) The phraseology of Latin building inscriptions in Roman North Africa. Helsinki: Finnish Society of Sciences and Letters.

Sanpere y Miquel, S. (1890) Topografía Antigua de Barcelona: Rodalía de Corbera. Barcelona: Imprenta De Henrich y Cia.

Saquete, J.C. (1997) Las élites sociales de Augusta Emerita, Cuadernos emeritenses, 13. Mérida: Museo Nacional de Arte Romano.

Serra, J.C. (1959) “Las excavaciones de la muralla romana de la Tapinería, Barcelona”. Zephyrus, 10, pp. 129-141.

Solias, J.M. (1989) “La romanització del curs inferior del Llobregat”, in I Jornades Arqueològiques del Baix Llobregat. Vol. VII. Ponències. Castelldefels: Ajuntament de Castelldefels, pp. 57-119.

Stylow, A. U. (1995) “Apuntes sobre las tribus romanas en Hispania”, Veleia, 12, pp. 105-123.

Untermann, J. (1975): Monumenta linguarum Hispanicarum, vol. I. Die Münzlegenden. Wiesbaden: Reichert.

Ventura Villanueva, A., Andreu Pintado, J. and Romero Novella, L. (2018) “Equites del ala tauriana al servicio de Roma: los Sempronii del oppidum de los Bañales (Hispania citerior)”, Gladius, 28, pp. 35-45. https://doi.org/10.3989/gladius.2018.03

Verrié, F. P. (1973) “Barcino Augusta”, in Akten des VI Internationalen Kongresses für griechische und lateinische Epigrafik, Vestigia, 17. Munich: C.H. Beck, pp. 478-480.

Villaronga, L. (1982) “Les seques ibèriques catalanes: una síntesi”, Fonaments, 3, pp. 135-186.

Vittinghoff, F. (1952) Römische Kolonisation und Bürgerrechtspolitik unter Caesar und Augustus. Mainz: Steiner.

Wiegels, V. R. (1985) Die Tribusinschriften des romischen Hispanien. Berlin: De Gruyter.

Authors' contributions ^ 

Both authors have conveived and designed the research, collected the data, performed the analysis and wrote the paper.