Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-fbnjt Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-14T22:04:22.813Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Costs, Outlays and Summae Honorariae from Roman Africa

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  09 August 2013

Richard Duncan-Jones
Get access

Extract

In this survey I have attempted to collect all the building costs and other known outlays or charges that have survived from the cities of Roman Africa, omitting only those examples which are purely military and those which date from after the reign of Diocletian. The list is based primarily on an investigation of the published epigraphy of the area, though I have also been able to use five unpublished price-inscriptions. None of the existing indices to the volumes of African inscriptions are comprehensive in their coverage of prices, and so it has been impossible to check whether the list includes all known examples; but it is unlikely that there are large omissions. The provinces from which the material is drawn are as follows: Africa Proconsularis, Numidia (which became an independent province in 197–198 A.D.) and the Mauretanias, Caesariensis and Tingitana. When giving the locality of cities in the province of Proconsularis, I have followed the Diocletianic divisions (Zeugitana, Byzacena, Tripolitania and Numidia Proconsularis) for the sake of closer definition.

Type
Research Article
Information
Papers of the British School at Rome , Volume 30 , November 1962 , pp. 47 - 115
Copyright
Copyright © British School at Rome 1962

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 The main sources are CIL VIII (hereafter referred to as C.), ILAlg I and II, i, ILAf, ILM, ILTun, IRT, and AE from 1890 onwards.

I am deeply indebted to Professors A. H. M. Jones and G. Charles-Picard for comments and suggestions. I am also grateful to Mrs. D. W. Brogan and M. H.-G. Pflaum for their advice, and to M. Marcel Leglay of the Service des Antiquités de l'Algérie for kindly providing, and allowing me to reproduce, three unpublished price inscriptions from Cuicul (given in note 114, p. 109). I am indebted for further information to Dr. J. Morris and Mr. M. H. Ballance.

2 H.-G. Pflaum, Libyca, 1957, p. 75.

3 ‘Recherches économiques sur l'Afrique romaine,’ Revue africaine, lxxv, 1934, pp. 491–520, with preceding discussion, pp. 354–414Google Scholar.

4 I have added one hundred new entries, together with some inferences about foundations whose financial details are incomplete; some prices have been listed here under headings different from those under which they appear in Bourgarel-Musso's list; sixteen of the entries in the earlier collection have been discarded because they are doubtful as prices; and it has been necessary to give different readings to more than 100 of the particulars of the inscriptions summarised by Bourgarel-Musso, though the present article cannot of course claim undeviating accuracy. But I am indebted to her lists for some references to price-inscriptions which appeared in the earlier part of this century. I have arranged the prices in each category in descending order throughout, in order to show clearly the range which they cover. I have given references to the main archaeological accounts of buildings whose remains survive, in the footnotes to the list of buildings (nos. 1–76 in the list; also 221 and 400). I have not reproduced the Zarai customs-tariff (discussed below, pp. 74–75), nor the benefits of the military colleges at Lambaesis (see note 30), since neither exemplifies ordinary current prices or expenditures in the cities of Africa.

5 Short of an attempt to list all prices known from the remaining western provinces, it is difficult to show the evidence for this difference. But the paucity of prices in the indices to the relevant volumes of CIL offers some indication, even though these indices are usually incomplete in their listing of prices. (See CIL II, III, V, VII, IX, X, XI, XII, XIII, XIV.) The number listed in the indices to these volumes is certainly less than the 420 odd which survive from Africa, although the total population of the other western provinces put together must have greatly outnumbered that of Africa.

6 Nos. 6 and 258 of the price-list.

7 See p. 65 below.

8 See forthcoming article by present author on African construction costs.

9 Nos. 6, 20, 30, 31, and 200 give the amounts of expenditures by cities.

10 Broughton, p. 228.

11 Five of the legacies in the present list were administered by the city (a feature indicated thus ***): nos. 1, 5, 38, 63, 67. The remaining 39 were administered by heirs (indicated in the list by a single asterisk *): nos. 4, 6a, 11, 15, 32, 36, 41, 54, 77, 82, 95, 101, 104, 105, 137, 154, 177, 180, 196, 248, 249, 251, 252, 254, 258, 259, 261, 262, 263, 265, 342, 343, 344, 390, 9, 79, 97, 109.

12 Thamugadi, C. 2343, BCB, p. 318; Cuicul, AE 1914, 41; Verecunda, C. 4252.

13 The usual title of the priest of the imperial cult of Africa Proconsularis was, from the early second century onwards, sacerdos provinciae Africa, but two references have also survived from the beginning of the century to a flamen Aug. provinciae Africae. It is clear from the close resemblance of phraseology between the earliest of the sacerdos texts (C. 14611) and the more explicit of the two flamen texts (ILAf 458 + the unpublished left-hand section of this inscription, seen by myself in the Memmian baths at Bulla Regia) that the office referred to was in both cases the provincial priesthood. From the sequence of the inscriptions as a whole, with two flamines both of whom are approximately Trajanic, against a series of eleven pre-Diocletianic sacerdotes which stretches througn the second and into the third century A.D., it is virtually certain that flamen Aug. was an earlier title, which gave way to the title sacerdos. The two inscriptions mentioned are dated to adjoining years: the Simitthus text (C. 14611) shows a ‘sacerdos … anni XXXVIIII’ (a. 109/11, dated from C. 12039 + 12030); while the unpublished section of the Bulla text shows a ‘flamen Aug. … anni XXXX’ (a. 110/112). This indicates that the title flam. Aug. was still in use at the latter date; from the apparently earlier occurrence of a sacerdos we should probably infer that the Simitthus text was engraved after the Bulla inscription (although it refers to a tenure of office one year earlier than that mentioned at Bulla), and that the wording was retrospectively altered to sacerdos to conform with the change in titulature which had by now taken place. This official change must therefore have been made within the lifetime of a man who had been of sufficient eminence to hold the highest office in the province in 109/11.

The change in titulature is also recognised in A. L. Abaecherli's ‘The Institution of the Imperial Cult in the Western Provinces,’ Studi e Materiali di Storia delle Religioni, 1935, pp. 153–186. Her suggestion that dating by the year of the provincial priesthood began in Africa under Caligula, and not under Vespasian as is commonly supposed, can be refuted from the evidence that is now available. The Bulla and Simitthus texts cited above show that the title flamen Aug. lapsed very soon after ‘annus XXXX’; while one of the Cuicul inscriptions (AE 1949, 40) shows that the title was nonetheless still in existence after the foundation of that city by Nerva. These co-ordinates will not allow ‘annus I’ to be placed as far back as the reign of Caligula. It seems safe to follow the CIL editors in thinking that the Furnos inscriptions (C. 12039, 12030) establish ‘annus CXIII’ between 183/185, and so place ‘annus I’ in the years A.D. 70/72.

The title of the priesthood of the imperial cult in Sardinia also underwent a change of this kind, though the date has not been traced: the earlier title was ‘flamen divorum Augustorum,’ which seems to have given way at some time before the mid-third century to ‘sacerdos provinciae Sardiniae’ (RE IV, 812, 7).

The following inscriptions mention fiamines or sacerdotes of the province of Africa before Diocletian. (The list is based on the indices to CIL VIII, ILAlg I, ILAf, ILM, ILTun, IRT, and the Tables générales of AE.) ZEUGITANA:Simitthus, C. 14611; (Ghardimaou), C. 14731; Utica, C. 25385; Bulla Regia, ILAf 458 (flamen). BYZACENA: Ammaedara, C. 11546; Furnos Maius, C. 12039; Althiburos, C. 16472; Mactar, Atti del III Cong. Int. di epigrafia, 1959, pp. 265–6. TRIPOLITANIA: Gigthis, ILTun 36; LepcisMagna, IRT 397. NUMIDIA PROCONS.: Thubursicu Numidarum, ILAlg I, 1295. NUMIDIA: Cuicul, AE 1949, 40 (flamen); Cuicul, AE 1916, 13; Thamugadi (Thysdrus?), C. 2343, 4252, AE 1914, 41, BCB, p. 318. (Further inscriptions show a ‘flamen (Aug.) provinciae (Africae)’ probably of the late first century and so lying outside the period of the sample, ILAlg II, i, 71 and 36, Rusicade; and a sacerdos provinciae of the time of Julian, ILAlg I, 253, Calama. It is known from literary sources that Apuleius held the sacerdotium provinciae, probably under Marcus, St. Aug., Ep. 138, 19 and Apul., Flor. 16).

Lists of the known provincial sacerdotes of the Three Gauls and the provincial flamines of Narbonensis are given by J. A. O. Larsen, Representative Government in Greek and Roman history, 1955, pp. 226–227, n. 17–18.

14 This can be seen from the lists of buildings in Romanelli, Storia and CIL VIII, supp. 5, fasc. ii, ‘Imperatores.’

15 Caesar, Bell. Afr., 97, 3.

16 IRT, p. 252, including nos. 3 and 7 of present survey.

17 Supp. 5, fasc. ii, ‘Imperatores.’

18 Haywood, p. 114, and Charles-Picard, Civilisation, p. 102.

19 Charles-Picard, Civilisation, pp. 69–88.

20 Abbir Cella, Thibursicum Bure, Thugga and Macomades; the last is little more than 90 km. from Lambaesis as the crow flies, but the distance byroad was considerably more, and the town was an isolated one. (See ‘Réseau routier de l'Afrique romaine’ in Salama.)

21 See Table II, p. 77.

22 Broughton, in Econ. Survey, IV, p. 794Google Scholar.

23 In a valuable discussion of the implications of the amount of building and munificence in Africa, Charles-Picard, Civilisation, pp. 96–100. Some more detailed remarks are given by A. Lussana, ‘Munificenza privata nell'Africa romana,’ Epigraphica, 1952, pp. 100–113; but the statistics here consist only of approximate totals without references, and take no account of any of the five collections of African inscriptions published since CIL VIII.

Africans seem to have been remarkable among western provincials in their longevity as well as in their munificence. Burn finds a mean total life-expectation, from tombstones, of 48, at age 15, for men, and 44, at age 15, for women in Africa Proconsularis, against figures of 44/36, 40/33 and 40/37 in other western provinces. (A. R. Burn, ‘Hic breve vivitur,’ Past and Present, November 1953, pp. 2–31.) It might be tempting to link the prosperity of the African propertied class to this apparent demographic advantage; but it is difficult to see that variations in longevity of the degree shown could by themselves have been enough to have a critical effect either on the incidence of the 5 per cent, inheritance tax, or on the rate at which estates changed hands.

24 In the index to CIL VIII (supp. 5, fasc. ii, ‘Imperatores’) 62 dedications to Commodus, against 262 to Septimius and members of his family during his lifetime, miliarii excluded. Most of these were statues, though not all were privately financed. It should be noted as a caveat that Commodus suffered damnatio memoriae, though the Septimian rehabilitation of his memory resulted in the restoration of his name on many monuments. It is also relevant that Septimius was head of a family: provincials could show their enthusiasm for his reign by erecting statues of Caracalla, Geta, Julia Domna and Plautianus as well as of the emperor himself, whereas Commodus had only one imperial as ociate, Crispina.

25 In terms of public buildings, as distinct from statues, erected from private sources, the Commodan evidence in fact has a higher year-density than that from the reign of Septimius (see Table II, p. 77). The increase in munificence under the first of the Severi appears to have been mainly confined to smaller gifts.

26 Tacitus, , Ann. III, 72Google Scholar; Pliny, Ad Traian. 8.

27 P. Romanelli, Leptis Magna, 1925.

28 Charles-Picard, Civilisation, pp. 170–178.

29 Op. cit., p. 177.

30 Apart from the provisions of the military colleges, for which see ILS 2354, 2445, 9097, 9100; C. 2554; AE 1899, 60.

31 The twelve being nos. 95, 96, 97, 98, 100, 102, 104, 105, 106, 107, 108, and 109. The other statue prices in the range above HS8,000 are either late, or else are certainly of a size or elaboration which explains their cost without our supposing inflationary prices.

32 See Broughton passim.

33 Nos. 143, 159, 160, 161, 172, 173, 178, 179, 194.

34 The number of substantial specified gifts at Thugga (ten are of HS50,000 or more, nos. 4, 5, 6a, 8, 12, 45, 63a, 253, 323, 400) has led to the conclusion that ‘Thugga [was] perhaps the richest city of the proconsular province after Carthage’ (Haywood, p. 112); while Cary, evidently building on this statement, names it as one of the four major centres of population in Roman Africa as a whole (Geographic Background to Greek and Roman History, 1949, p. 229). This cannot be accepted, for the relatively small area of Thugga's remains, comprehensive though these are, the unremarkable size of the public buildings, and the very late dates at which the main promotions in status were achieved (to municipium under Septimius and colony under Gallienus) all show that the town cannot have stood high among African cities. (See Poinssot, Dougga; the plan suggests a main area of about 20 hectares.) Thugga's surpassing wealth is a mirage created by a high ratio of private to public financing of municipal buildings, unusual consistency on the part of the benefactors in specifying the value of their gifts, and a phenomenally high rate of inscription-survival, which is purely fortuitous.

35 AAA, fe. 27, 62.

36 C. 26281, Uchi Maius; C. 26458, *Thugga; ILAf 527, *Thugga; C. 22856, *Thysdrus; C. 22904, *Leptis Minor; C. 22721, Gigthis; IRT 140, Sabratha; Libyca, 1954, p. 394, Hippo Regius; C. 3284, *Lambaesis; AE 1905, 35, Macomades. The asterisk (*) denotes a testamentary gift.

The list of unpriced foundations may be an incomplete account of surviving examples, for this is a class of inscription that does not figure fully in the indices to the collections of African inscriptions.

37 Salama, op. cit., ‘Réseau routier de l'Afrique romaine.’

38 Calama theatre, Gsell, Monuments I, p. 102; Madauros theatre, Gsell/Joly, Khamissa, Mdaourouch, Announa, 1914, ‘Mdaourouch,’ pp. 80–89.

39 Gsell/Joly, op. cit.

40 The Calama theatre was promised either under Marcus and Verus or under Septimius and Caracalla, while the Madauros theatre is dated to the early C. III by Gsell/Joly, op. cit.

41 This has some general interest, for a number of other cities are known to have had theatres of roughly the same size as the building at Calama, whose width (in the same place as the scaenae frons) measures 58 m.; the same dimension at Cuicul is 62 m.; at Thamugadi 63m60; at Thubursicu Numidarum 56m80; and at Thugga 63m50 (Gsell/Joly, op. cit., ‘Khamissa,’ p. 99).

42 Pliny, Ad Traian., 39.

43 ILS 2354. I am indebted for this reference to Mme. Bourgarel-Musso's article. HS2,000 appears to be a standard burial charge of long standing, as it is also found in an inscription from Pompeii (ILS 6366, ‘decuriones … HS (2,000) in funere … censuerunt’). This sum is also found as a standard charge per day for games (see note 146), and as a common summa honoraria (see p. 69).

44 5 per cent, is mentioned as the rate of interest in nos. 248 and 258, and is implicit in the provisions of no. 262 (see Appendix, p. 114). It is also the rate suggested by the terms of no. 250, where 5 per cent, produces the price of HS195 per day for oil-distributions, with the extremely small surplus of HS20 annually. The interest-rates of 6 and 12 per cent, are found once each in Africa, but both the foundations concerned are extremely small (nos. 267 and 268).

45 See note 36, where an asterisk denotes bequests. A. Lussana points out that foundations were also very commonly testamentary gifts in the other western provinces, ‘Contributo agli studi sulla munificenza privata,’ Epigraphica, 1956, p. 85, n. 1.

46 See nos. 270–280 and pp. 73–74 below.

47 See n. 159 below.

48 Of a sample of twenty-seven statue prices from provinces including Italy, Germany, Gaul and Spain, ranging from HS 1,200 to 25,000, eleven belong to the range from HS6,000 to 4,000. (Most of these are included in the table of Friedländer, L., Darstellungen aus der Sittengeschichte Roms, 1910, t. iii, pp. 335–345.Google Scholar) Eleven out of twenty-seven is quite a close approximation to the proportion of these prices in the African statue-price sample, where they number almost half (see p. 62).

49 DS, ‘Honoraria summa’ (Cagnat); Liebenam, pp. 57–65; Ruggiero, E., Diz. Epig. III, pp. 951–952 (Campanile)Google Scholar; Bourgarel-Musso, op. cit.; Haywood, pp. 76–78. The distinction between ‘somme obbligatorie’ denoted as ‘honorariae’ or ‘legitimae,’ and ‘doni spontanei’ appearing under such formulae as ‘ob honorem pollicitus’ and ‘cum promisisset,’ was remarked by O. Hirschfeld in one of the earliest discussions of the African summae honorariae, although it has since been often overlooked (‘I Sacerdozi dei Municipii Romani nell'Africa,’ Ann. del Inst. di Corrisp. Arch., xxxviii, 1866, p. 62)Google Scholar.

50 C. 17837. No. 330 in present list.

51 AE 1941, 49.

52 In the case of the Cirtan confederacy inscriptions explicitly give HS20,000 as the fixed amount for the decurionate, the aedileship, the IIIvirate, and the quinquennalitas at Cirta, as well as for the aedileship at Rusicade (see nos. 345–361). When the same sum is twice given as payment or the decurionate at Rusicade, though without mention of legitima or honoraria, it seems nonetheless almost certain that the payment represents the fixed charge (no. 345a). At Bulla Regia the certain fixed charge of HS5,000 for the IIvirate (no. 354). makes it clear that the coeval payment of HS6,000 'ob honorem q(uin)q(uennalitatis) was mainly, if not entirely, the fulfilment of a fixed charge for that office (no. 363a).

53 This suggestion appears in Schmidt's commentary on an inscription from Zama Regia (C. 12018, no. 205 of present list). The crucial phrase is ‘ob h[ono]rem flam(onii) ampliata HS mil taxatione statuas duas posuit. …’ The ‘taxatio’ or assessment mentioned here probably applies not to an official payment for the flaminicate, as S. supposed, but to a first estimate of the cost of the statues (cf. similar phrasing in a Cuicul inscription (no. 53) ‘… mac]ellum … quod pro honore fl(amonii) p(er)p(etui) e[x] HS xxx m.n. taxaverat …’). I would translate the central phrase as ‘having increased the assessment of HS4,000 (for the statues),’ HS2,000 being virtually a minimum statue price (see nos. 91–212).

S. also cites an inscription from Gasr Mezuar in Zeugitana (C. 14427): ‘… victorias duas quas C. Annedius Severus ob honorem decurionatus … filior(um) suor(um) taxatis legitim[is ampliatis pro]miserat. …’ I follow Cagnat (DS, ‘Honoraria summa,’ p. 237, col. 1) in regarding the ‘taxatio’ here as applying to the office, not to the individual, and would translate the crux as ‘[having increased] the legitimate payments assessed (on the two decurionates).’

54 AAA fe. 27, 255.

55 AE 1914, 40.

56 50 hectares, C. Courtois, Timgad, antique Thamugadi, 1951, p. 19.

57 The area of Uchi appears to have been little more than 20 hectares (excluding necropoleis), See 1: 25,000 inset in Notes et Documents (de la Tunisie) II, 1908, p. 127. E. Marec (Hippone la royale, 1954, p. 43) estimates the size of Hippo as60 hectares. It is perhaps possible that the Hippo summa honoraria of the time of Septimius (the date of the Uchi inscription) would have been higher than the figure that has actually survived, which comes from a Hadrianic inscription; but we cannot assume increases in the levels of summae honorariae during the course of the second century without actual evidence.

58 Charles-Picard, Civilisation, p. 126.

59 ILS 6087, caps. 70–71; see note 146.

60 Some examples are C. 14370 (no. 127, Avedda); C. 26255 (no. 103, Uchi Maius); ILAf 119 (Sufetula); AE 1946, 234 (no. 211, Themetra). There were, of course, other important sources of civic revenue besides the summae honorariae; in the form of rents from public land, etc. (Jones, A. H. M., ‘The Cities of the Roman Empire,’ Recueils de la Société Jean Bodin, VI, i, 1954, pp. 165–167.Google Scholar) Debbasch's suggestion that the Cirtan summae honorariae show ‘d'une façon assez complète le budget de [cette] cité’ is implausible (Y. Debbasch, ‘Le Vie et les Institutions municipals de la Carthage romaine,’ Rev. Hist. du Droit, 1953, p. 356).

61 I owe this information to MrMorris, John's Ph.D. thesis, ‘The Roman Senate A.D. 69–193’ [London, 1952], kindly lent by the authorGoogle Scholar.

62 ILAlg, ILAf, ILTun, ILM, IRT.

63 Charles-Picard, Civilisation, p. 124.

64 ILS 6675 and 6509.

65 This percentage is arrived at by relating a number of second-century leases, and an average Egyptian land-price for the second century, to the general run of Egyptian wheat-prices for the second century. See Johnson, , Econ. Survey, II, pp. 80–95, 147, 310–312Google Scholar.

66 Pliny, , Ep. VII, 18Google Scholar. It is true that Columella also implies that competent viticulture in Italy, even on poor soil, could bring in 20 per cent, or more, but this passage is clearly propagandist and must exaggerate enormously (De. re ag. III, 8–13).

67 Recueil 1879, pp. 364–5. C. 19135. XXXviri are found at Castrimoenium in Latium, CIL XIV, 2458.

68 ‘[decuri]onib(us) n(umero) ccc ccc denarios sing[ulos dedit]’ (ILAf 266).

69 As Professor Charles-Picard has pointed out to me, the Curia at Thuburbo would be very much too small for a gathering of 600; the internal dimensions of its main chamber are 12·30 × 9·25m. (A. Merlin, ‘Forum de Thuburbo Maius,’ Notes et Documents (de la Tunisie), vii, 1922, p. 34). Andsince Thuburbo was not a very large town (G. L. Feuille, Thuburbo Maius, Tunis, 1950) it would be surprising if its population could muster 600 men rich enough to pay the summa honoraria, assuming that this was asked of decurions at this town. No. 364 (HS3.000 for the quinquennalitas) is the only surviving Thuburbo summa honoraria.

70 Teutsch, L., ‘Gab es “Doppelgemeinden” im römischen Afrika ?’ Rev. Internat. des Droits de l'Antiquité, viii, 1961, pp. 280–356, esp. pp. 329–332Google Scholar.

71 Massilia, Tiberias and Antioch had 600 decurions (Liebenam, p. 229).72Leschi, p. 247 ff., provides the most recent edition of the Thamugadi Album. The effective total that survives is 160 (excluding the patrons, as at Canusium, CIL IX, 338).

73 Liebenam, p. 229 ff. The present method of financial inference as a means of deducing ordosizes was suggested by a calculation in R. Meiggs' Roman Ostia 1960, p. 181.

74 Album, Canusium, CIL IX, 338Google Scholar. I owe this telling conjecture, made in reply to a less exact reconstruction of my own, to Professor Charles-Picard. It has also provided the starting-point for the reconstruction of a Gor foundation (no. 263, see Appendix, p. 114). The numerical possibilities that a sportulae foundation of HS50.000 allows can be shown thus:

75 Merlin (cited in note 69 above), pp. 32 and 34, n. 4–8.

76 C. 16472.

77 C., p. 283; Liebenam, pp. 214–215.

78 ILTun 728; Rev. Afric. 1956, p. 310.

79 IRT, p. 263, index IX. The figure for the number of curiae that is known elsewhere in the west, twenty-four, bears no perceptible resemblance to the African totals. (Turris Libisonis in Sardinia, ILS 6766; and Lanuvium in Latium, ILS 6199, where the reading ‘n(umero) XXIIII’ is preferable to Dessau's ‘n(ummos),’ as Hirschfeld evidently recognised, Hermes, 1891, p. 150, n..) The dissimilarity in numbers might well support Gsell's view that the African curiae were a partially independent evolution from the political clubs that had existed in the Punic period.

80 Broughton and AAT passim.

81 J. Toutain, Cités romaines de la Tunisie, 1896, pp. 284–285; S. Gsell, Histoire de l'Afrique du Nord, II, pp. 232–233; Charles-Picard, Civilisation, p. 28. The opposite interpretation is argued at length by J. Roman, who suggests that the African curiae should be regarded as tribes in the literal Roman sense, i.e. as voting divisions of the people as a whole (Annales de la faculté de Droit d'Aix, 1910, pp. 85–123). An inscription from Thubursicu Numidarum which speaks of ‘ordo et populus in curias contributus’ (ILAlg I, 1295) might appear to lend colour to his thesis, but it is not conclusive. For there was always an element of euphemism or at least hyperbole in the use of the term ‘populus’ in the context of financing dedications, since the process must have been carried out by agents only partially representative of the citizens as a whole. It is possible that ‘populus’ when used in an active sense in the inscriptions should generally be understood as meaning the curiae of a town, the nearest organisation to a popular representiative body that existed in the cities of Roman Africa. Two Sufetula dedications financed by ‘universus populus curiarum’ probably support this view (C. 11349; ILAf 138). Two more inscriptions clearly imply that the curiae were restricted at the cities from which they come, Theveste and (Chaouat): C. 16556 (no. 309), ‘curiis quoque et Augustalibus aureos binos et populo vinum dedit’; and C. 25371, ‘epulum curiis et universo populo dedit.’

81a But see Addendum, p. 115.

82 CIL X, 451, 544, 2408, 3927; CIL XIII, 1921Google Scholar; RE IV, cols. 2330–1; AE 1914, 40 (examined in note 147) shows hierarchical distribution of sportulae at Lambaesis.

83 ILAf 266, nos. 302, 308. The explanation of the custom found here and elsewhere, of rendering the sum bestowed on each curia collectively and not individually, as with decurial benefits, may lie in the relative numbers involved: though it was evidently possible to make individual distributions on the spot to the (600?) decurions (no. 302), to have extended this treatment to the curiales, of whom there were probably 1,100 at Thuburbo (ILTun 728, ‘undecim curiae’), would have greatly prolonged the ceremony of dedication, and would have meant the presence of crowds of unwieldy size, Hence it is understandable that a lump sum should have been given to each curia as an entity, to be subsequently distributed among its members or to pay for one of their regular dinners.

84 C. 4508.

85 Haywood, pp. 81–82.

86 See West, L. C., ‘The cost of living in Roman Egypt,’ Class. Phil., 1916, pp. 293–314, especially Tables II–VCrossRefGoogle Scholar.

87 For slave-prices, A. H. M. Jones, Econ. Hist. Rev., 1956, pp. 185–199, reproduced in M. I. Finley, ed. Slavery in Classical Antiquity, 1960.

88 C. 23956.

89 West, loc. cit., and Johnson, A. C. in Econ. Survey, IIGoogle Scholar.

90 There was the same duty on cattle as on donkeys, although it is unlikely from the Egyptian evidence (to which we can add HS115 as the purchase price for a cow or bull in Germany under Claudius, AE 1920, 42), that their prices were generally the same.

91 See, for instance, F. Hultsch, Griechische und römische Metrologie, 1882, p. 317; Frank, , Econ. Survey, V, p. 153; SEHRE2, p. 470Google Scholar.

92 Pliny, , NH XVIII, 12, 67Google Scholar, gives the weight of a modius of African wheat as slightly over 17 lb. avoirdupois. For Roman wheat-prices, see note 159.

93 Gsell suggests a Severan date for this building on the ground that its donor is described as H(onestae) M(emoriae) V(ir), an appellation not found before the third century, according to Hirschfeld (Kleine Schriften, p. 680). For two reasons I think a date slightly before the beginning of the third century the most likely: from evidence cited on pp. 58–59 it appears that Lambaesis and its neighbouring cities were subject to heavy inflation in the early third century; if the Capitol is dated to this period also, its relatively low cost (see forthcoming article on African construction costs) conflicts with the other evidence. Secondly, if it had been erected after 197, when the phenomenal series of dedications to the Severi began (see index, ‘Imperatores,’ in CIL VIII, supp. 5, fasc. ii), it would be extraordinary to omit the emperor's name from the dedication, this being a building of the greatest importance and prestige-value. Such an omission would, on the other hand, have been quite possible during the uncertain period from 193–197, when the uneasy collaboration between Septimius Severus and Clodius Albinus (ended by Clodius's defeat in 197) can hardly have given provincials reason to trust in the permanance of the regime. I have therefore tentatively dated the building to 193–197.

See Gsell, Monuments I, pp. 143–145, pl. XXIII and fig. 5; BCB, pp. 163–165.

94 The ground measurements of this temple (excluding peribolos) are approximately 7m90 × 15m30, from the survey made in 1946 by C. Catanuso. (Unpublished. I am obliged to Mr. M. H. Ballance for a copy of the plan.)

95 Dated to 185–192 by Poinssot, L. in NAM xviii, 1910, p. 95Google Scholar. Poinssot, Dougga, no. 5.

96 Two figures are mentioned in the inscription: one of HS50,000, which was the amount of the original estimate or promise (‘taxatis hs quinquaginta milib. n.’); the second, of HS100,000, is the sum from which the temple was completed. The phrase denoting the application of the second sum (‘ad perficiendum id opus’), led Bourgarel-Musso to regard the sum of HS50,000 as a separate earlier contribution. But though there may have been other payments besides the 100,000 (there being a lacuna of ten or fifteen letter-widths), it does not appear that the sum of 50,000 was paid as a separate amount. C/G, pp. 82–85 + pl. XXV–XXVII; Poinssot, Dougga, no. 10 + pl. VIII–IX; Charles-Picard, Religions, p. 158.

97 For an account of the building see R. Thouvenot, Volubilis, 1949, pp. 37–38. Chatelain (who reproduces this inscription as ILM 45) restores the figure as ‘Ccc’ or 300,000, without giving grounds for the improvement. Cagnat proposes no restoration in his original publication, but the photograph of the stone (Hesperis, loc. cit.) suggests that not two but three digits of the figure are missing. Parallels are too diverse for any sure conjecture to be made about the price, but in general African building prices of more than HS 100,000 are in broad round figures, and a cost such as HS400,000 would not be disproportionate as the price of the Capitol of a large town: the Capitol at Lambaesis cost HS600,000 (no. 1).

98 This price refers to an extensive rebuilding on the site of an earlier and smaller temple: ‘templum modicum antiqua vet[ust]ate dilapsum ampliato spatio columnis et regiis duabus picturis ornatum pecunia sua ex hs mil. d [sic] n.a solo coeptum perfecit. …’

99 Additions to this temple whose cost is not known were made at a slightly later date (C. 26470 + ILTun 1391). Poinssot, Dougga, no. 16; Charles-Picard, Religions, p. 160.

100 L. Poinssot remarks that the design of this miniature semi-circular temple is primitive (NAM, xii, 1904, p. 407). He dates it tentatively (by the lettering) to the reign of Hadrian (p. 413), but whether the dedication was even as late as this is uncertain. For the temple of Fortune (no. 8), built between 119 and 138, definitely infringes its entrance on one side (see photo opp. p. 408, loc. cit.; the plan in Poinssot, Dougga, p. 36, does not show this); and it seems unlikely that an infraction of this sort would have been made while the two executors of the bequest which provided the smaller temple were still living. Hence a Trajanic or even Flavian date for the building seems quite possible. The earliest surviving evidence for private munificence at Thugga is actually early first-century (C. 26598 and ILAf 558, both reign of Tiberius), while the earliest dated epigraphic mention of a price in Africa is Vespasianic (no. 3, A.D. 72). See L. Poinssot, NAM, xii, 1904, pp. 406–416; C. Poinssot, Dougga, no. 5 + pl. VI + fig. 3 (no. 5); F. Benoit, L' Afrique mediterranéenne, 1931, pl. XXIX.

101 This temple was financed by subscription, a method unusual in Africa; a list on the front wall of the cella gives a series of names and contributions, the average individual sum being HS2,000–2,400. The list is not complete. C/G, pp. 104–105 + pl. XXVIII–XXIX.

102 See C/G, pp. 68 ff. + pl. V–VI; Benoit, op. cit., pl. LVI.

103 See Constans, L. A., NAM, xiv, 1916, pp. 48–51 + pl. II, VIIGoogle Scholar. Reprinted with same pagination as ‘Gigthis. Éitudes d'histoire et d'archéologie sur un emporium de la petite Syrte,’ 1916.

104 See C/G, pp. 18–20.

105 See C/G, pp. 82–85 + pl. XXV–XXVII. This temple is quite sizeable, despite the tiny amount first promised, which is our only information about its cost.

106 See pp. 61–62 above.

107 The two descriptions referring to these baths appear to be respectively foundation stone and final dedication; the interval between their dates indicates a construction time of seventeen months and fifteen days. No remains of this building are known, but the community, one of the castella of Cirta, was probably a small one; the total area of remains extant at the beginning of this century (without excavation) was 6 hectares, Recueil, xl, 1907, pp. 258–259Google Scholar.

108 Both the inscriptions here mention the price of HS 100,000, though they are dated to adjacent years; there may be two buildings in question, but if so, it is remarkable that a small community should have erected two separate buildings of the same relatively high valuation within the space of two years. I have hazarded that there was only one building and that this was a set of baths, on the analogy with no. 30 which comes from a small community in the same area, is of the same price, and is drafted in a similar way. The absence of a deity here almost certainly indicates that the edifice was functional, not sacred.

109 To deduce the actual price of this arch, something should be subtracted from the total to allow for the two tetrastyles, perhaps a sum in the region of HS60,000, which would leave HS190,000 as the cost of the arch alone (see nos. 93 and 94). See Gsell, , Monuments I, pp. 180–185 + pl. XLIIIGoogle Scholar.

110 See town-plan in Y. Allais, Djemila, 1938; the foundations of the arch are shown immediately to the east of the theatre, on the road leading towards the town.

111 See BCB, pp. 297–304 + figs. 140–142 + pl. XXXVIII (written at a time when the inscription revealing the nature of the building had not yet been discovered); Pfeiffer, H., Mem. Amer. Acad. Rome, ix, 1931, pp. 157–166CrossRefGoogle Scholar + pl. 16–19, gives restorations of the building.

112 See Gsell/Joly, Khamissa, Mdaourouch, Announa, ‘Mdaourouch,’ pp. 57–73 + figs. 9–12 + pl. II, III, XVIII.

113 Carton, L., Recueil, xxxix, 1906, pp. 61–65Google Scholar, with 4 plates; Poinssot, Dougga, no. 11 + pl. VI. C. Poinssot conjectures that the building (whose inscription is incomplete) was a temple, but mentions no architectural parallels. Thestyl obate (0·45 m.) would be low for a temple, since the building is one of some size. The four balustraded enclosures in the centre of the court may perhaps indicate that this was some kind of market, as Carton suggested.

114 I am indebted to M. Marcel Leglay for copies of three unpublished price-inscriptions from Cuicul (nos. 50, 104 and 410 of present list) and for kind permission to reproduce them here. The restorations are mine.

No. 50: ‘[nomen] … mus aed(ilis) … [quod ob honorem] fl(amonii) p(er)p(etui) ex hs lxx (milibus nummis) p[romiserat? …]’; two fragments of a one-line inscription discovered separately, letter-height Omll. Bourgarel-Musso, who refers to this inscription without reproducing it, suggests that it may have belonged to the basilica Iulia built at Cuicul by C. Iulius Crescens Didius Crescentianus (see no. 189, C. 8318–8319); but since the donor's cognomen apparently ended in ‘mus,’ this identification cannot be accepted.

No. 104: ‘divo M. An[to]/nino patr[i/Imp. Caes./L. Aeli Aureli/Commodi…/…]i Aug/ex testame[nto]/C Anni(i) Ma[…/ex] hs mil(ibus) [n(ummis) …/… C An[n]i…/… verissi…/… f(ecit?) ide[mq(ue) ded(icavit)]. There are no further lines of text; letter-height 0·05m. Statuebase.

No. 410: ‘… adlectu[s in quinque dec(urias) ? …/… qua]m ex hs x m(ilibus) [n(ummis) promiserat ?…]. Fragment of two-line inscription: letter-height Om08.

115 The inscription, together with an account of the building to which it refers, is given in BCB, pp. 317–319 + figs. 148–150. The exactness of the figure is paralleled in African expenditures of this size only by no. 83.

116 See Allais, Y., Djemila, Paris, 1938, pp. 38–40Google Scholar; a small ground-plan appears as part of the general plan of Cuicul. Charles-Picard, Civilisation, pl. XIX, p. 83.

117 The donor of this building, M. Coculnius Quintillianus, was adlected to the Senate by Septimius Severus.

118 Dedicated under the proconsulship of L. Hedius Rufus Lollianus Avitus, which is dated to 157–158 by Syme, in ‘Proconsuls d'Afrique sous Antonin le Pieux,’ Rev. Et. Anc., 1959, pp. 310–319Google Scholar. A plan appears in Caputo, G., Il Teatro di Sabratha, Rome, 1959, Tav. LXXXXGoogle Scholar; a description of the theatre by Caputo appears in Enciclopedia dello Spettacolo (d'Amico, S., ed.), Rome, 1959, vol. VI, pp. 1410–1411 + tav. CXCIGoogle Scholar; and a monograph on the theatre by Caputo is forthcoming.

119 This sum was subscribed for the mosaic of the baths by some of the decurions (‘pleriq(ue) decuriones’); the rest of the cost of restoring the baths was paid with public money. Their remains have been built over, and their size has not been given in any publication; but a rough guess at the area of mosaic that they are likely to have contained can still be made. Public baths were also built in the 260's at Thugga, a nearby town identical status: both cities became municipium under Septimius and colony under Gallienus. The area of mosaic in the baths at Thugga was approximately 640 sq. m., as far as can be deduced from the plan and verbal indications in Poinssot, Dougga (no. 15 + pl. XI, XII, XIII + fig. 5) and from the indications of L. Poinssot and R. Lantier in BAC, 1925, pp. xxix–xxxi. If the comparison is of any value, it may suggest a mean price of the order of HS70 per square metre of mosaic.

120 As well as the substantial decorations contributed to the arch by the relations of the original donor (which cost HS25,000), the city added a quadriga to its adornment.

121 Leschi (p. 229) points out that the dedication to the Genius coloniae from which this gift is known is not itself mentioned as part of the outlay, but since the base on which it is engraved is too shallow to have been used as support for a statue, its cost would have been a negligible part of the large total outlay. (Nos. 392 and 393 show the prices of statue bases by themselves as HS500 and HS400.)

122 These statues, the statues in no. 189, the basilica Iulia at Cuicul, whose price is not known, and half of the price of an arch (no. 36) were given by C. Iulius Crescens Didius Crescentianus, a knight of the reigns of Antoninus and Marcus who held all the honores at both Cirta and Cuicul.

123 In terms of the Septimian debasement, assuming this as a mean 50 per cent, (see Table III), the bullion value of this statue would have been HS115,000 odd. An inscription from Formiae in Italy gives HS 100,000 as the price for a statue of a chariot of Minerva which was to contain 100 pounds of silver (ILS 6282). If the metal in the Formiae gift was valued in terms of the debasement of Marcus (25 per cent.), though the inscription may be earlier, the money-value of the silver would have been less than HS55,000. This suggests that in this instance at least, workmanship had a cost practically equivalent to that of the metal used. Hence some substantial amount should be added to the figure in the Lepcis inscription to give an indication of the overall cost of the statue, which is the most expensive of those known in Africa.

124 Part of the cost of this statue was provided by the city (HS12,000), the rest being the contribution of the donor, an unusual procedure, but cf. note 125.

125 This statue was financed from the summa honoraria of the flamen charged with its erection (HS12,000) together with some unspecified amount of public money; the base was provided by the flamen from his own resources. The financing of statues from three sources is unusual.

126 This statue was erected from a bequest of HS8,000, from which the 5 per cent, inheritance tax was subtracted, leaving 7,600, to which 3,000 was added by the three freedmen of the donor, presumably contributing 1,000 apiece.

127 The statue was erected from the will of the father and two brothers of the man in honour of whose flaminate it was dedicated. Since the price is the unparalleled figure of HS9,000, it is likely that it resulted from equal contributions by each of the three testators (cf. preceding note).

The dedication of this statue was accompanied by the giving of ‘sportuiae duplae’ to the decurions (probably HS8, see note 147), and the sum of HS120 to each of the curiae for an unspecified purpose; whatever this was, the natural level of generosity to each curialis would perhaps have been half the sum given to the decurions, i.e. HS4 (cf. Thuburbo gift for distribution to decurions and curiae, p. 74). If this was so, the number of members per curia would have been thirty at Verecunda. This is much lower than the figure of 100 inferred elsewhere (see pp. 73–74 above), but Verecunda was possibly still no more than a vicus at this date (A.D. 213; Broughton, p. 202). Thirty is a total authenticated for the number of decurions at one Italian and probably at one Numidian town (see above, pp. 70–71).

If, on the other hand, the figure of HS120 per curia was arrived at by calculations on the basis of the 10 asses per man deduced elsewhere (see above, pp. 74–74), this would suggest ‘half-size’ curiae of approximately fifty members each.

128 A false duplicate of this inscription appears as C. 5295 (rescinded in a later supplement to the same volume, p. 1685). Liebenam (p. 57) inferred from the inscription a figure of HS600,000; but the context makes clear that the amount was no more than 6,000 odd, though the figure is stated as . A similar abuse of the bar over numerals occurs in no. 404, where an amount given as ‘ N’ is either an addition to or component of ‘HS N,’ and so clearly must signify 3,500, although the literal meaning is 497,000. No. 160 provides another example: a figure from the financing of a statue which must be HSl,800 is stated as The inconsistency may have arisen from the confusion of two conventions of numerical notation. According to one, the bar over the letter showed that the symbol was numerical, as in (ILAlg I, 1295). The second practice was that shown above, of using the bar to indicate figures multiplied by a thousand.

129 See note 53.

130 See L. Renier, ‘Le Tombeau de T. Flavius Maximus,’ Revue archéol., 1850, pp. 186–187, pl. CXL.

131 The gift of P. Licinius Papirianus, procurator a rationibus under Marcus and Verus. The other Roman alimentary schemes whose rates are known are the private scheme at Tarracina in Italy, whose rates were HS20 and HS16, exactly double those at Sicca; and the governmental scheme known in Italy under Trajan, whose rates were HS16 and HS12 per month, also considerably higher than the Sicca allowances, though half a century earlier (ILS 6278 and 6675). CIL II, 1174 (Hispalis) gives one of the rates of a supplementary alimentary scheme.

132 This was part of a gift by L. Aemilius [Frontinus], proconsul of Asia, which also included a temple dedicated to the Genius of the colony of Oea.

133 The total value of this gift was probably more than HS700,000, its other components being nos. 32 and 382. The donor was C. Cornelius Egrilianus, praefectus leg. XIIII Geminae. See p. 58.

134 See Appendix, p. 113.

135 See Appendix, p. 114.

136 See Appendix, p. 113.

137 See Appendix, p. 114.

138 See Appendix, p. 114.

139 See Appendix, p. 114.

140 See Appendix, p. 115.

141 See Appendix, p. 115.

142 See Appendix, p. 115.

143 See p. 63.

144 This outlay may well have provided a single feast for the curiae, for the figure as revealed is somewhat below the annual cost of feasts at Uthina, Abthugni and Mactar (HS3,000–2,400 for the whole occasion), and the increase may have made it a sum of this size (see nos. 272, 275, 276).

145 An inscription from Cirta suggests compensation to the donors of munera in the amphitheatre in the form of box-office returns: ‘statuam quam promisit ex reditibus locorum amphitheatri diei muneris quern … edidit’ (ILAlg II, i, 560, probably Septimian). The procedure followed here may have been only a peculiarity of the arrangements made by the individual concerned; but it would be curious to forfeit the goodwill created by a free entertainment by imposing an entrance fee, if the practice was not an established one, especially since the donor was sufficiently well provided to be able to devote the funds so acquired to a further outlay, the statue from whose base the text comes. But it need not follow that the figures that have survived for games are less than the actual cost; for the full price could well have been quoted for the sake of effect, even if the donor did not bear the expense unaided.

146 It is interesting that the same budgeting, HS2,000 per day, is found in the provision for Ilviral games in the Caesarian charter of Urso, probably at least two centuries earlier (ILS 6087, cap. 70). Each IIvir was to contribute at least HS2,000 of his own money, and was allowed a subvention of up to HS2.000 of public money, for four days of joint games. Their estimated total cost was thus HS8,000.

147 The account given of the sportulae is: ‘fl(amini)b(us) p(er)p(etuis) aureis singulis et honor (ibus) functis duplis et cond(ecurionibus) sed et curial(ibus) sportulis datis.’ ‘Sportulae duplae’ and ‘(singulae)’ almost certainly indicate rates of 2 and 1 denarii per man, for the single denarius is the commonest known African sportulae-rate (see nos. 290–305), and was an obvious rate for distributions, since it meant a single silver coin per man. The ‘double’ rate probable here, HS8, is explicitly found in one instance at Auzia (no. 296). (Another Lambaesis inscription, C. 2711, of the reign of Septimius, contains the identical formula ‘datis sportulis condecurionibus suis et honorib(us) functis duplis’; a Verecunda inscription of the reign of Caracalla, C. 4202 + 18494, mentions ‘sportulae duplae.’) Hence the tariff here is HS100 to the flamines perpetui, HS8 to those who had held magisterial office, and HS4 to the remainder of the decurions, and presumably to the curiales also. Discrimination by so large a factor is not paralleled n Africa, but a donation at Bovillae in Latium shows a similar range (rates of HS100, 20, 12, 4, CIL XIV, 2408; sportulae of HS100 are also found at Forum Clodii in Etruria, ILS 6584). There appear to be no parallels in Africa for giving the flamens preferential treatment in distributions, though we find that they take precedence over the magistrates in the Album of Thamugadi of the mid fourth century (Leschi, p. 246 ff.). In this Lambaesis inscription, which is probably third century, he highest sportula is described as an aureus, meaning the gold coin of this name, instead of being given in the usual denarii or sesterces, as is the case in the two Italian inscriptions referred to above, both of which date from the 160's. Hence the avour shown to the flamens here was probably even more extreme than the nominal ratios suggest; for the aureus still retained its purity and its customary ratio to the denarius of 1: 25 under the Severi, despite the heavy debasement of the silver coinage by this period (Table III), and it was thus under-priced in terms of the silver currency. By he reign of Caracalla it had become a favour for a soldier to receive payment in gold currency, clearly because this now possessed a real value higher than its money value (see A. H. M. Jones, Econ. Hist. Rev., 1952, p. 297). Aurei are also found as a donative in no. 309, where they were apparently given to various groups as collective sportulae, perhaps to be exchanged and divided among the members.

148 See note 69.

149 This probably implies a minimum free male adult population of 4,000 at Siagu.

150 The knight responsible for this unusual generosity, M. Amullius Optatus Crementianus, was also donor of a building at Thagaste, whose cost was HS300,000 (no. 39).

151 It has been convincingly shown by Lancel, S. in Libyca, vi, 1958, pp. 143–152Google Scholar, that the gymnasia common in African inscriptions were not athletic displays, but distributions of oil as an unguent for use after bathing: the Theveste ‘gymnasia’ (no. 320) took place in the baths, as was probably the usual practice.

An inscription from Tuficum in Umbria (ILS 6643) gives a price for oil of 4 asses, or HS1, per Roman pound (following Buecheler's interpretation, Rhein. Mus., 1902, p. 325). Since it was sold at this rate as a public service at a time of ‘karitas olei,’ the price may well have been a fair one in normal conditions. If the same price prevailed at Theveste under Caracalla, the amount provided per day would have been 195 Roman pounds of oil, or about four tons per year (there were distributions on sixty-four days of the year, no. 320).

152 Leschi suggests that the figure of HS21,200 paid in honour of the augurate represents the summa honoraria for the office (Leschi, p. 231). On that assumption he interprets the financial details of an inscription (AE, 1941, 49) from which nos. 160 and 337 come, which mentions the payment of the legitima for the augurate without revealing the amount, and infers a total payment in this case of HS32,000 (4,800 + 6,000 + ?21,200). This ingenious conjecture cannot be accepted, for the cost of the statue involved was not initially calculated at 4,800, and only reached this level through an addition to the original promise, perhaps because of a mason's bill larger than had been expected. This undermines the arithmetical argument for inserting the payment of HS21,200 as the legitima for the augurate; further arguments against equating this ob honorem payment with the fixed charge for the office are given on p. 66 above.

153 See p. 67 above.

154 See note 52 above.

155 Haywood, following Bourgarel-Musso, quotes a phantom summa honoraria of HS 10,000 for the IIvirate at Hippo Regius, giving as authority ILAlg I, 10. This inscription mentions only one fixed charge, which apparently refers to the quinquennalitas.

156 This figure may represent a valuation of the treasures in the incomplete list which starts ‘synopsis. Iovis [sic] victor argenteus in kapitolio’ (ILAlg II, i, 483); or it may refer to other bullion resources in the Capitol at Cirta. The two texts are not necessarily coeval, and their most recent editor, M. Pflaum, does not relate them. The Cirtan Capitol was very much the largest of those in Africa whose ground-plan is known; the plan in BCB (p. 162) suggests a span from outer wall to outer wall of the two lateral cellae of more than 100 m.

157 See p. 69.

158 See p. 64.

159 This is the only explicit African wheat price. The nature of the benefaction and the figure itself make clear that it must belong to a period of chronic famine or dearth. The inscription does not appear to be later than the first third of the third century A.D. Haywood (p. 44) assembles the evidence for corn shortage in Africa. HS2–4 per modius was a common level for wheat prices in other parts of the Empire, and it is unlikely that the normal price in the largest corn-growing area in the Empire would have been higher than this. See A. H. M.Jones, Econ. Hist. Rev., 1952, pp. 295–296; Heichelheim (Econ. Survey, iv, p. 181) mentions a Palestinian average of HS2 per modius; also RE vii, cols. 145 ff. (Rostovtseff).

160 The bulk of stone necessary for carving this marble vat would presumably have been as large as the maximum dimensions of the vat, i.e. about two-fifths of a cu. m. It is unlikely that the ordinary statue would have used, at most, more than three times this quantity of rough marble, and the price of its raw material on this scale would thus have been less than HS600, allowing for the cost of carving the vat. This strongly suggests that the bulk of the cost of ordinary marble statues lay in the workmanship, though marble prices would depend upon the availability of the stone, and the distance of the marble quarry from the town. The average statue-cost was HS4,000–6,000, usually with the base (see p. 62), and bases cost by themselves HS400 or 500, see nos. 392–393.

161 The second line of this inscription is given in ILAf 222 as ‘[di]e pollicitationis ss mil [n..].’ It can perhaps be restored thus: ‘[(nomen) templum? quod ex ss … promiserat, item di]e pollicitationis ss mil [m. reipubl. inlatis, ampliata pecunia ? posuit].’

The figure comes from a fragment of a three-line frieze, with lettering 9 and 7 cm. high. Large-scale building such as this implies was rare in the mid third century, but Abbir Cella was one of the few cities which obtained an advance in status at this period (‘Municipium Iulium Philippianum,’ C. 814). At Thugga, the substantial baths also erected under Gallienus (with which no. 323 is probably connected, L. Poinssot and R. Lantier, BAC 1925, p. xxviiiff.; Poinssot, Dougga, no. 15) coincided with the city's promotion to colony (Romanelli, Storia, p. 486). At Thibursicum Bure the baths were elaborately restored in 260–262, just before an identical advance in status given by the same emperor (ILAf 506, no. 64; Romanelli, loc. cit.).

162 Much of the inscription has survived, but it has not been effectively restored. It is clear that a number of donors contributed funds towards the temple, though the main erection was carried out in the name of one man. Neither of the two figures seems to refer to the basic construction cost. A foundation for sportulae to the decurions and for ludi scaenici as mentioned, and the figure of HS60,000 may perhaps refer to this (the figure would be very plausible, cf. nos. 260, 261); the smaller sum may refer to the cost of silver statues of the goddess Caelestis, but neither of these attributions is certain (C/G, pp. 25–30 + pl. XI–XIV; Poinssot, Dougga, no. 10 + pl. VIII–IX).