III, 4 Pina 20/7/09 18:58 Página 281 DEPORTATION OF INDIGENOUS POPULATION AS A STRATEGY FOR ROMAN DOMINION IN HISPANIA FRANCISCO PINA POLO Under certain circumstances between the 3rd and the 1st centuries BC the Roman State used deportation as an instrument of dominion over neighbouring communities, involving both selective deportation of members of the elite and the forced transfer of a substantial part of the population (Pina Polo, 2004: 211-246; 2006: 178-192). The following are known instances where this occurred: – In the 3nd century, some of the Picentini who had rebelled against Rome were possibly transferred from the Picenum towards the coastal strip of the Tyrrhenian situated just north of the city of Paestum. This region was thereafter known as ager Picentinus (Pina Polo, 2004: 212). – As punishment for their attitude favouring Carthage during the Hannibalic War, some inhabitants of Campania were condemned to abandon their lands and to settle in Etruria, Latium and other Campanian regions towards the end of the 3rd century (Pina Polo, 2004: 213-219; 2006: 178-185). – Thousands of Greek aristocrats were forced to live in cities in Italy after the Roman victory in Pydna in the year 167 BC (Pina Polo, 2004: 223-225; 2006: 190). – Between the years 187 and 172 BC a good part of the Ligurians (Friniates, Apuani and Statelates) were forced to abandon their territories to settle in the Samnium and, quite probably, in the Cisalpine Gaul. According to Livy, in the year 180 BC 47.000 Ligures Apuani, including women and children, were deported to the region of the Samnium situated northeast of Beneventum, about 500 kilometres from their homeland (Pina Polo, 2004: 219-223; 2006: 185-190). – In the year 67, Pompey temporarily eliminated the danger posed by pirates in the Mediterranean. Having completed the military campaign, he organised the forced transportation of the defeated pirates and their families to various places where he forced them to settle, both in cities in Cilicia as well as in the Peloponnese and in the Cyrenaica (Pina Polo, 2004: 225-229). A series of regular patterns can be clearly observed in all these deportations (Pina Polo, 2004: 229-230; 2006: 191-192). All of them took place after the surrender of an enemy people III, 4 Pina 20/7/09 18:58 Página 282 282 LIMES XX Gladius, Anejos 13, 2009 following an armed conflict. The deportations happened immediately after the relevant war had ended. With the acquiescence of the Roman Senate, the decision to forcibly transfer the population was organised by the commanders, either consuls or proconsuls, who had led the military operations. In general, the deportations were carried out under military supervision, directed by the same imperatores or by some of their delegates on their behalf. In some cases at least, the transfer was executed with State funding although this can only be clearly ascertained in the case of the Ligures Apuani. All the known deportations were obviously regarded by the Roman State as a deterrent and a punishment against an enemy people after its defeat. The deportation involved the expulsion of people from their homeland and its main purpose was to uproot these peoples and to remove them far from their homes without hope of a return. However, along with the obvious penalising nature of the deportations, there was also a purpose of socialisation of the deportees. In every case, the Roman State understood that the final pacification of these peoples would only be possible if they were provided with a livelihood. For this reason, the deportees received sufficient lands for their survival while they were integrated into the typical Roman urban civilisation. To this end, the deportees were placed, either in newly founded cities –such seems to have been the case of the cities created for the Apuani or for the Picentini–, or, more commonly, in already existing cities that had unoccupied land available, as in the case of the Cilician pirates. In all the known cases, the deported peoples integrated into their new habitat and did not pose any further significant military problems, despite having to live with or being surrounded by people who spoke different languages and had a different culture. In this way, Roman deportations during the Republican period were both a penalty in the military sense and an important instrument of agrarian colonization that mobilized thousands of people. The Roman conquest of Hispania lasted two centuries. During this period, there were numerous military conflicts in which Celtiberians and Lusitanians were involved, especially during the 2nd century and at the beginning of the 1st century BC. These circumstances may have made it advisable for Rome at some point to use deportation of Hispanians as an instrument of punishment and pacification. Ancient sources confirm or suggest this possibility (Pina Polo 2004: 230-246). In the year 139 BC, the rebellious Lusitanians led by Tautalus surrendered to Caepio, ending a war that, in different stages, had been fought throughout the previous twenty years. Appian reports that Caepio seized all weaponry from the Lusitanians and he adds: “he gave them sufficient land, so that they should not be driven to robbery by want” 1. Diodorus Siculus provides the same information but he adds that Caepio granted them not only land but also a town to settle in 2. Livy’s Periochae slightly modify Appian’s and Diodorus’ reports while confirming and specifying them 3. On the one hand, the granting of land is attributed to Decimus Iunius Brutus and not to Caepio, which would place the event not before the year 138, a date from which Brutus took over the government of Hispania Ulterior. On the other hand, it is reported that the land was given to those who had fought sub Viriatho and that the town that was called Valentia was founded for them (oppidum dedit). 1 App., Iber. 75. 2 Diodor. 33, 1, 4. 3 Liv., per. LV. III, 4 Pina 20/7/09 18:58 Página 283 Gladius, Anejos 13, 2009 LA EXPERIENCIA HISPANA 283 The apparent confusion between Caepio and Brutus may actually be simply due to the course of events. Caepio, as victor over the Lusitanians, could have been the instigator of the transfer of the defeated troops. Brutus, his successor in the government of Hispania Ulterior, would have executed such a measure, undoubtedly once it had been approved by the Roman Senate. In respect to the oppidum founded by Brutus, different locations have been put forward for Valentia, but at present, there is no doubt that it corresponds to the Levantine Valencia, since archaeological excavations have established that it was founded in the decade beginning 130 BC, as Livy reports (Jiménez & Ribera, 2002). The same archaeological data has also proved without a doubt that the original settlers in Valentia were not Hispanians but that they had come from Italy. Therefore, the discussion on the interpretation of Livy’s phrase “sub Viriatho” seems to be resolved in the sense that the land was granted to the soldiers who had fought in the Roman army against Viriatus and not to the Lusitanians led by Viriatus, an interpretation that would however seem more logical in Latin phrasing. It was very probably a mistake –which is not uncommon–, made by the author of the Periochae who may have merged two different events into one: the foundation of a town for the Lusitanians and the creation of a town for Roman veterans. Consequently, the land where the Lusitanians were settled must be sought in another region of the Iberian Peninsula. With respect to this, a text by Strabo clarifies this matter. When describing the area between the Tagus river and the Guadiana river, he says that this region “is inhabited for the most part by Celtic peoples, and by certain of the Lusitanians who were transplanted thither by the Romans from the other side of Tagus” 4. In this brief section, the Greek author must be referring to, in my opinion, a deportation of Lusitanians under the control of the Roman State (Pina Polo, 2004: 230-232). Although Strabo does not provide any dates for this, it is reasonable to link it with the actions carried out by Brutus in the year 138 BC or a little later, so that the text allows us to suppose that an indeterminate number of Lusitanians were deported immediately after the war ended, transferring them from their usual habitat, situated North of the Tagus, to some region between the Tagus and the Guadiana, where they shared the land with Celtic peoples. Were we to link this information to the report from Diodorus, it would likewise be plausible that the Lusitanians were made settle in a newly founded city. Such a city would probably be Brutobriga, whose name refers to Brutus, from which the only known series of Hispano-Latin coins possibly dating from the second half of the 2nd century BC is known (García-Bellido & Blázquez, 2001: 69). In the decade of the 70’s in the 1st century BC the Sertorian War that took place throughout most of Hispania was ended by Pompey in the year 72. In the first few months of the year 71, Pompey returned to Italy but before leaving Hispania he ordered the construction of trophies in the Pyrenees commemorating his victory and he dealt with the punishment of the indigenous communities who had supported Sertorius during the war 5. The punishment included the deportation of indigenous communities with whom he founded, at least, one town north of the Pyrenees, Lugdunum (May, 1986; Rico, 1997: 140-142; 190). This information comes from a late source, the Contra Vigilantium by Hieronymus: Nimirum respondet generi suo, ut qui de latronum et Convenarum natus est semine Cn. Pompeius edomita Hispania, et ad triumphum redire festinans, de Pyrenaei iugis deposuit, et in unum oppidum congregavit: unde et Convenarum urbs nomen accepit hucusque latrocinetur 4 Str. 3, 1, 6. 5 Plut., Pomp. 21, 1. III, 4 Pina 20/7/09 18:58 Página 284 284 LIMES XX Gladius, Anejos 13, 2009 contra Ecclesiam Dei, et de Vectonibus, Arrebacis, Celtiberisque descendens... Fecit hoc idem Pompeius, etiam in Orientis partibus; ut Cilicibus et Isauris piratis latronibusque superatis: sui nominis inter Ciliciam et Isauriam conderet civitatem 6. Hieronymus discredits Vigilantius for descending from the Convenae, literally “the intertwined”. With regard to these people he claims that Pompey, once Hispania had been conquered and while preparing to go to Rome to celebrate his victory, ordered them to be taken through the Pyrenees and gathered together in one town, that was thus called urbs Convenarum in reference to the mixed origin of its inhabitants, who came from various places 7. Hieronymus specifies that these Convenae were Vectones, that is Vettones, Arrevaci, that is Arevaci, and Celtiberians. Naturally it must be understood that only part of these peoples were deported, those who were known to have supported Sertorius (Pina Polo, 2004: 233-239). The forced nature of the transfer, but also its purpose as a colonising tool, is made clear later on when Hieronymus compares it to Pompey’s actions in the East against the Cilician and Isaurian pirates, for whom, after they had been defeated, he founded a town in his own name, in reference to SoloiPompeiopolis, although this was only one of the repopulated towns then and was not founded ex novo. The deportees were probably distributed in various contingents to avoid an excessive concentration of indigenous people who were known for their contentious character. On the other hand, the probable high number of people who were transferred and their mixed cultural and ethnic background lead us to suppose that they were not settled in only one town but in several besides Lugdunum, both around it in the Haute-Garonne and possibly in Hispania. The distribution of the deportees amongst several towns was the usual procedure followed by the Roman State in these cases. The hypothetical route followed by the deportees can be traced taking into account the origin of the people transferred and knowing that Lugdunum was at least one of the destinations. If we consider the location of Lugdunum to be in the central Gaul Pyrenees, next to the Garonne, the final part of the journey would be the distance between the Ebro river and the south of Gallia through the Pyrenees, following either the western or the central route (Magallón Botaya, 1987: 113-139; Beltrán Lloris & Pina Polo, 1994: 104-106). The western route through Lepoeder to Aquitaine, in the Navarran Pyrenees, involved crossing Vascon territory. In my opinion, the fact that part of the victorious Pompeyan troops crossed the Pyrenees with the deportees would support the theory that the Urkulu trophy, situated at an altitude of 1,420 metres near the Roman road in this Pyrenean crossing, was the work of Pompey and it must be included amongst the tropaea that he had built in the Pyrenees as symbols of his victory before returning to Italy (Beltrán Lloris & Pina Polo, 1994: 115-117). Another theory could be suggested regarding the city of Pompelo (Pamplona), that is, Pompeiopolis, according to Strabo 8. Pompey has logically been attributed to the founding of this city –or rather, the re-founding, since it appears to have been a previously inhabited site–, thus named in honour of its founder. However, the usually accepted date of its founding in the years 75 or 74 based on the presumption that Pompey may have spent the winter with his troops in Vascon territory, does not have sufficient grounds in written sources. In fact, the manuscripts that 6 Hier., adv.Vigil., 4 ed. Migne, Patr. Lat. 11, 389-390. 7 Str. 4, 2, 1; Plin. 4, 108. 8 Str. 3, 4, 10. III, 4 Pina 20/7/09 18:58 Página 285 Gladius, Anejos 13, 2009 LA EXPERIENCIA HISPANA 285 include the Plutarchean biography of Sertorius report that while Metelus spent the winter of the years 75–74 in Gallia, Pompey spent it amongst the Vaccaei 9 (cf. Konrad, 1985: 149-150). It was Schulten who, linking Plutarch’s text to an obscure fragment from Histories by Sallust that raises important problems due to its gaps 10, considered that Plutarch made a mistake and, not only mixed the Vaccaei with the Vascones, but he also said that Pompey spent the winter in Pompelo (Schulten, 1937: 217). The consequence drawn from this mere speculation, that has traditionally been accepted, is that Pompey founded Pompelo during his stay amongst the Vascones (Pérex Agorreta: 209-210; García Morá, 1991: 268-282; Rico, 1997: 136-140). But the change suggested by Schulten is not sufficiently justified and, in any event, it is more reasonable to place the founding or repopulation of Pompelo in the year 72 or 71, once the military operations were over. Likewise, I believe it is more reasonable to accept the theory that the new settlers may have been some of the Hispanian deportees, Vettones, Arevaci or Celtiberians, who coexisted thereafter with the already existing Vascones. As in the case of SoloiPompeiopolis, where the Cilician pirates lived alongside the previous inhabitants, the town would be called, from then on or from a later point in time, Pompelo. Vigilantius’ origin, against whom Hieronymus writes the invective in which he alludes to the deportation of the Convenae, may give us an indication on the other towns founded or repopulated by deported Hispanians. Vigilantius came from Calagurris 11, a Gallic town belonging to the Convenae situated on the Garonne, mentioned by the Antonine Itinerary between Tolosa and Lugdunum 12, that corresponds to the present-day Saint-Martory, about thirty-five kilometres from Lugdunum (Dupré, 1998). As is well known, Calagurris on the Ebro, Calagurris Nassica, was one of the last redoubts of the Sertorian resistance against Pompey 13. It is possible that the survivors, or some of them, were among the deportees to Gallia and this would account for the toponym of Calagurris amongst the Convenae. But yet it is possible to find another Calagurris also probably connected to these events. Although Pompey’s route through Vascon territory was the most direct one according to the origin of most of the deported Hispanians, the transfer of some of them to Southern Gaul may have also been made through the Central Pyrenees, through the port of Palo or through Somport, ascending from the Ebro valley following the course of the river Gállego. According to Pliny 14, it is significant that there existed near Osca a stipendiary community of Calagurritani, known as Fibularenses, whose location is still being debated. Without concluding evidence, the castle of Loarre or Bolea have been suggested, although another option could be Biscarrués on the Gállego, since there exists the microtoponym Calaborra (Asensio Esteban, 1995: 70-71). All these places are located east of the river Gállego, about thirty kilometres northwest of Osca, very near the Central Pyrenean route that according to the Antonine Itinerary would later on connect Cesaraugusta to Beneharnum. A Caesarean passage confirms the proximity of these Calagurritani and Osca and their presence in that territory at least prior to the conflict between Caesar and 9 Plut., Sert. 21, 8. 10 Sall., hist. 2, 93. 11 Hier., adv.Vigil. 1. 12 It. Ant. 457, 6. 13 Flor. 2, 10, 9; Oros. 5, 23, 14; Sall., hist. 3, 86-87; Val. Max. 7, 6, ext.3. 14 Plin. 3, 24. III, 4 Pina 20/7/09 18:58 Página 286 286 LIMES XX Gladius, Anejos 13, 2009 Pompey 15. The text also says that these Calagurritani were “contributi” of the Oscenses, and that both of them joined Caesar against Pompey’s troops. All of this makes me put forward the theory that these Calagurritani were among the deportees after the end of the Sertorian war and that they were settled by Pompey beside the river Gállego, in lands that used to belong to Osca, a city that, because of its significant support for Sertorius may have undergone some form of punishment, such as the loss of part of its territory. Ancient sources do not mention the possible deportation of Celtiberians within the context of the military conflicts between these peoples and Rome, both in the central part of the 2nd century and at the beginning of the 1st century BC. However, the Roman use of deportations as a means of deactivating prolonged conflicts makes it plausible, in my opinion, that this method was also used against the pugnacious Celtiberians at some point during their long-standing confrontation (Pina Polo, 2004: 239-245). In light of the data provided by archaeology in the last few years, but taking into account also toponymy and a relevant text by Pliny, it may be suggested that the possible zone where groups of Celtiberians were transferred to, was the southwest of the Iberian Peninsula, a vast territory situated between the Tagus and the Guadalquivir, especially, but not exclusively, the Baeturia Celtica, a geographical and territorial term adopted by Pliny that refers to a specific area situated between the rivers Guadiana and Guadalquivir in southern Extremadura and north of the province of Huelva (Berrocal-Rangel, 1994; Canto, 1997; Berrocal-Rangel, 1998). In his description of Baeturia Celtica, Pliny specifies that Baeturia is the name of a region between the rivers Guadalquivir and Guadiana, divided into two parts, that of the Celtici and that of the Turduli 16. We do not know whether this is a learned conclusion by Pliny or he obtained this information from some earlier source, but from the text it can be deduced that he was convinced that the Celtici from Baeturia descended from the Celtiberians, as their religious rites, language and the names of their cities would confirm: Celticos a Celtiberis ex Lusitania advenisse manifestum est sacris, lingua, oppidorum vocabulis, quae cognominibus in Baetica distinguntur 17. The Latin author’s disputed statement has begun to be confirmed by archaeological findings in the last few years, to the point that we are beginning to talk convincingly about a process of “Celtiberianization” of the material culture in the southwest of the Iberian Peninsula from the second half of the 2nd century BC onwards (Berrocal-Rangel, 1998: 120-131). Regarding this, the mint of Tamusia had traditionally been placed somewhere in Celtiberia because of the types and inscriptions used, which are clearly Celtiberian. At present it seems certain that it corresponds to Villasviejas de Tamuja (Botija) in the province of Cáceres, where most coins have been found and where its toponym has been preserved (Blázquez, 1995; GarcíaBellido & Blázquez, 2001: 360-361). There is no doubt that it is a Celtiberian mint, as its inscriptions and iconography demonstrate. In the same place, two tesserae hospitales have been discovered, which indicate a Celtiberian environment (Ballester, 1993/95). From this it can be deduced that between the Tagus and the Guadiana there was at least one town inhabited by Celtiberians who minted their own coins following the example of the communities from Celtiberia proper. 15 Caes., bell. civ. 1, 60. 16 Plin. 3, 14. 17 Plin. 3, 13. III, 4 Pina 20/7/09 18:58 Página 287 Gladius, Anejos 13, 2009 LA EXPERIENCIA HISPANA 287 But Tamusia may not have been the only Celtiberian town in the area, and perhaps not the only one that minted coins with Celtiberian characters. It is noteworthy that the coins from Tamusia are identical to the coins of the last series from Sekaisa which indicates a close relationship between both mints (Blázquez, 1995: 244-245; García-Bellido & Blázquez, 2001: 360). It is also striking that the last series from Sekaisa was mainly spread throughout Baeturia, and that in Villasviejas de Tamuja, 10% of the coins found correspond to the mint of Sekaisa (Blázquez, 1995: 250-251 & 254; García-Bellido & Blázquez, 2001: 342; Gomis Justo, 2001: 76-84 & 118-119). Unquestionably, the mint of Sekaisa originally corresponds to the city of Segeda in the Jalón valley. However, we cannot discount the possibility that the last series from Sekaisa was minted in the city of Segida located by Pliny in the Baeturia Celtica. Regarding the toponymy, two of the towns of the Baeturia Celtica were called Segida and Nertobriga. Segida is similar to Segeda-Sekaisa by the Jalón. Likewise, in the Jalón valley there was a town called Nertobriga that minted coins with the name of Nertobis. Two of the most active towns against Rome when the war broke out, between 153 and 151 BC, were indeed Segeda and Nertobriga. The Titti were also directly involved in the conflict at that time since the expansion of the walls of Segeda, which caused the war, was intendend as a means of incorporating them into the city 18. It is worth noting that in Villasviejas de Tamuja there are numerous coins with the inscription Titiakos, found in the same percentage as those from Sekaisa (García-Bellido, 1995: 283),as well as in general in the southwest of the Peninsula, which could back the hypothesis that at least the last series were minted in this region and not in Celtiberia. Due to the typology of the coins and their suffix -kos, the mint of Titiakos has been placed in the area of Rioja (García-Bellido & Blázquez, 2001: 367) discounting the possibility of attributing the coins to the mint of the Titti by the Jalón, although in my opinion this option still ought to be considered. Without ruling out possible migrations at another time and under yet indeterminate circumstances, and despite the fact that written sources do not clearly mention any forced transfer from Celtiberia, my proposal consists of explaining the settlement of Celtiberians in the southwest of Hispania by means of a deportation carried out by Rome within the context of the Celtiberian Wars, either between 153 and 133, or at the beginning of the 1st century BC. With all the due reservations given the current state of our knowledge, it is noteworthy that toponyms and coins from Baeturia Celtica and its surroundings direct us to Segedenses, Nertobrigenses and, perhaps, Titti, who played leading roles in the Celtiberian revolt against Rome, which, in my opinion, allows us to support the hypothesis that these peoples were transferred to Baeturia after their surrender, in the context of the war fought during the central part of the 2nd century. BIBLIOGRAPHY ASENSIO ESTEBAN, J. Á. (1995): La ciudad en el mundo prerromano en Aragón, Zaragoza. BALLESTER, X. (1993/95): “CAR en celtibérico”, Kalathos 13-14, 389-393. BELTRÁN LLORIS, F. & PINA POLO, F. (1994): “Roma y los Pirineos: la formación de una frontera”, Chiron 24, 103-133. 18 App., Iber. 44; Diodor. 31, 39; Flor. 1, 34, 3. III, 4 Pina 20/7/09 288 18:58 Página 288 LIMES XX Gladius, Anejos 13, 2009 BERROCAL-RANGEL, L. (1994): “Oppida y castros de la Beturia Céltica”, M. ALMAGRO GORBEA & A. M. MARTÍN (coords.): Castros y oppida en Extremadura, Complutum Extra 4, Madrid, 189-241. BERROCAL-RANGEL, L. (1998): La Baeturia. Un territorio prerromano en la baja Extremadura, Badajoz. BLÁZQUEZ, C. (1995): “Sobre las cecas celtibéricas de Tamusia y Sekaisa y su relación con Extremadura”, Archivo Español Arq. 68, 243-258. CANTO, A. M. (1997): Epigrafía Romana de la Beturia Céltica (E.R.BC), Madrid. DUPRÉ, N. (1998): “Les Calagurris de Gaule et d’Hispanie. À propos de Saint-Martory (HauteGaronne) et de Calahorra (La Rioja)”, Kalakorikos 3, 19-26. GARCÍA-BELLIDO, Mª P. (1995): “Célticos y púnicos en la Beturia según los documentos monetales”, A. VELÁZQUEZ & J. J. ENRÍQUEZ (eds.): Celtas y Túrdulos: la Beturia, Cuadernos Emeritenses 9, Mérida, 257-292. GARCÍA-BELLIDO, Mª P. & BLÁZQUEZ, C. (2001): Diccionario de cecas y pueblos hispánicos. II. Catálogo de cecas y pueblos, Madrid. GARCÍA MORÁ, F. (1991): Un episodio de la Hispania republicana: la guerra de Sertorio, Granada. GOMIS JUSTO, M. (2001): Las acuñaciones de la ciudad celtibérica de Segeda/sekaiza, Teruel-MaraZaragoza. JIMÉNEZ, J. L.; RIBERA, A. (coords.) (2002): Valencia y las primeras ciudades romanas de Hispania, Valencia. KONRAD, C. (1985): A Historical Commentary on Plutarch’s Life of Sertorius, Diss., Chapel Hill. MAGALLÓN BOTAYA, M. Á. (1987): La red viaria romana en Aragón, Zaragoza. MAY, R. (1986): Saint-Bertrand-de-Comminges (antique Lugdunum Convenarum). Le point sur les connaissances, Toulouse. PÉREX AGORRETA, Mª J. (1986): Los vascones, Pamplona. PINA POLO, F. (2004): “Deportaciones como castigo e instrumento de colonización durante la República romana. El caso de Hispania”, F. MARCO SIMÓN, F. PINA POLO & J. REMESAL (eds.): Vivir en tierra extraña: emigración e integración cultural en el mundo antiguo, Barcelona, 211-246. PINA POLO, F. (2006): “Deportation, Kolonisation, Migration: Bevölkerungsverschiebungen im republikanischen Italien und Formen der Identitätsbildung”, M. JEHNE & R. PFEILSCHIFTER (eds.): Herrschaft ohne Integration? Rom und Italien in republikanischer Zeit, Frankfurt am Main, 171-206. RICO, C. (1997): Pyrénées romaines. Essai sur un pays de frontière (IIIe siècle av. J.-C.–IVe siècle ap. J.-C), Madrid. SCHULTEN, A. (1937): Fontes Hispaniae Antiquae, vol. IV, Barcelona.