Key to Umbria: Otricoli
 


Ancient History of Otricoli


Umbria:  Home   Cities    History    Art    Hagiography    Contact 

   

Otricoli:  Home    History    Art    Saints    Walks    Monuments    Museums


History:  Main page     Ancient History

Umbri

The Umbrian settlement of Ocar or Ukar was situated on the hill that is now occupied by modern Otricoli.  The name “Ocar” probably meant “Mount”.  Archeological remains point to a settled people whose urban centre was walled before its Romanisation (see below).

Necropolises (7th – 6th centuries BC)

Three ancient necropolises have been excavated at three sites to the southwest (all marked in the book by S. Hay et al., referenced below, in Fig. 1.2):

  1. One at Fondo Lupacchini  was excavated in ca. 1900.

  2. A second at Cerqua Cupa, which contained some 20 tombs, was excavated in 1929.  Grave goods discovered at this time are now in the Museo Civico, Magliano Sabina and at Villa Giulia, Rome.  Other grave goods discovered during excavations in 1975 are in the Antiquarium Casale San Fulgenzio.

  3. A third at Crepafico, which contained three tombs, was excavated in 2003. 

Sanctuary

The settlers in the region used a monumental temple that survives on nearby Monte San Pancrazio (near Calvi dell’ Umbria, some 11 km to the east).  A bronze statue of a warrior (5th century BC) found here is now in Villa Giulia, Rome.

Walls

The hilltop settlement was walled in ca. 400 BC.  The first walls, traces of which are preserved within the medieval circuit, were probably built to deter raids by Roman soldiers in their campaigns against Veii and Falerii (Etruscan cities to the south).  The best surviving stretch is incorporated to the wall near the Rocca. 

Romans

Roman Conquest

The Umbrians made their first significant appearance in Roman history in 308 AD, when a number of them assembled at Mevania (Bevagna) and began to issue threats against the Romans, who were at the time preoccupied by the Second Samnite War.  The Romans marched to Mevania and quickly defeated the Umbrians, who had foolishly attacked them while they were still fortifying their camp.  According to Livy, following the battle:

  1. “... a surrender was made in the midst of action by the first [Umbrian] promoters of the war; and on the next and following days, the other states of the Umbrians also surrendered.  The Ocriculans were admitted to a treaty of friendship with a ‘sponsio’ [a promise given by a commander in the field, which required subsequent ratification by the Senate]”” (‘Roman History’, 9:41).

Clearly, the ‘Ocriculans’ were singled out for special treatment, presumably because they had not participated in the war.   We can reasonably assume that this already urbanised community had a well-developed political system that facilitated their negotiations with the Romans, and that their ‘sponsio’ was subsequently ratified by the Roman Senate.  This treaty secured the Romans' access to Umbria and was the precursor to their siege of Nequinum (Narni) in 300-299 BC. 

It has long been known that the hilltop walled settlement gave way at some point to a settlement, Roman Ocriculum, on the plain below, beside an important port on the Tiber that could be easily reached by boat from Rome.  Recent excavations of the site have thrown some light on the relevant chronolgy, as summarised by Martin Millett (in the book by S. Hay et al., referenced below, at pp. 141-3):

  1. “Our survey has added significantly to knowledge of [the settlement of the ridge that was once on the Tiber, to the north of the archeological area of Otricoli] by identifying what is probably an earthen rampart defining the northern [i.e. the riverine] side of the [settled area].  Although this feature remains undated, there must be a strong possibility that it relates to the pre-Roman phase ...  If [future examination confirms that the rampart did indeed date to] this period, this would suggest that the settlement was rather more extensive than previously thought, covering the whole of the ridge ... [rather than just its western end, for which earlier evidence exists]. The pattern of its growth from the [previously identified] 8th century BC nucleus is uncertain, but [the settlement’s] position commanding an important landing place on a bend in the Tiber ... is surely significant.  Ceramic evidence from ... the centre of the [ridge] ... certainly indicates continuous occupation from the first half of the 3rd century BC, with the possibility of some activity in the 4th century.  This shows that the core of the settlement on the ridge had expanded before the alliance with Rome in 308 BC and certainly much before the construction of Via Flaminia in 220 BC.  Given the uncertainty about the date and status of the [walled settlement on the later site of modern Otricoli], it is not possible at present to establish whether the two sites were occupied consecutively of contemporaneously ... However, the chronology provided here shows that, by the time that Via Flaminia was constructed, there was in important settlement here that was on its planned route, which may have been designed to pass in front of the entrance to the historic core.”

This dating for the occupation of the ridge seems to undermine the ‘received wisdom’ that the hilltop site was completely destroyed in the Social Wars (below), and that it was only at this point and for this reason that the Ocriculani moved to the site by the Tiber.

Second Punic War (218-201 BC)

It was perhaps fortunate for the Ocriculani that, after the disastrous Battle of Trasimene (217 BC), in which the consul Flaminus (like most of his soldiers) was killed, Hannibal’s march on Rome along Via Flaminia had been halted at Spoletium.  Flaminius’ fellow consul, Cnaeus Servilius Geminus had been based at Rimini at the time of the battle, and detained by the Gauls.  The detachment he had sent to reinforce Flaminius had been too late, and Hannibal engaged with and destroyed it soon after Trasimene, adding to the panic that seized Rome.  Livy reports that:

  1. “Cnaeus Servilius, the consul, having fought some slight battles with the Gauls and taken one inconsiderable town, when he heard of the defeat of [Flaminius] and the army, alarmed now for the walls of [Rome], marched towards the city, that he might not be absent at so extreme a crisis.  Quintus Fabius Maximus, a second time dictator, assembled the senate the very day he entered on his office ... ” (History of Rome’, 22:9). 

After due deliberation and religious ceremony:

  1. “It was decreed that [Fabius] should receive the army from Cnaeus Servilius ... : that he should levy, moreover, from the citizens and allies as many horse and foot as seemed good; ....  Fabius said he would add two legions to the army of Servilius.  These were levied by the master of the horse, and were appointed by Fabius to meet him at Tibur on a certain day.  And then having issued proclamation that those whose towns or castles were unfortified should quit them and assemble in places of security; that all the inhabitants of that tract through which Hannibal was about to march, should remove from the country, having first burnt their buildings and spoiled their fruits, that there might not be a supply of anything; he himself set out on the Flaminian road to meet [Servilius] and his army [who were presumably marching along Via Flaminia from Rimini]; and when he saw in the distance the marching body on the Tiber, near Ocriculum, and [Servilius] with the cavalry advancing to him, he sent a beadle to acquaint [Servilius] that he must meet the dictator without the lictors.  When he had obeyed his command, and their meeting had exhibited a striking display of the majesty of the dictatorship before the citizens and allies ... a letter arrived from [Rome] stating that [merchant ships] conveying provisions from Ostia to the army in Spain had been captured by the Carthaginian fleet ... [Servilius] was immediately ordered to proceed to Ostia... Great numbers of men were levied at Rome ... [those that] were under35 were put on board ships, the rest were left to protect the city” (History of Rome’, 22:11).

It is clear from this account that, at least in Livy’s reconstruction of events, Ocriculum was not only the site of this dramatic meeting between Fabius and the disgraced Servilius but also an important strategic site in the defence of Rome.  One can imagine that those of the Ocriculani who had settled in the plain would have taken refuge within the walled city, perhaps having destroyed anything that could have aided the enemy.  Although Hannibal had been deflected at Spoletium from his march on Rome, no-one knew then that the immediate threat was over.

Popilius Cups (2nd and 1st centuries BC)

The so-called Popilius cups, which were inscribed with the Latin name of Caius Popilius (CIL XI 6704, 3), were made in Mevania and Ocriculum and were widely spread throughout Etruria.  It seems likely that Caius Popilius was a Latin-speaking migrant who was attracted by the clay deposits at Mevania and by the transport links offered by Via Flaminia and by the port on the Tiber at Ocriculum.  Two examples are illustrated in the catalogue Screhto Est” (referenced below, respectively entries 80 and 81):

  1. One from Cerveteri, which is now in the Museo Nazionale Etrusco di Villa Giulia, Rome, has the inscription:

  2. C POPILI/ OCRICLO

  3. One from Corchiano (near Viterbo), which is now in the Museum of Fine Arts, Boston (95.59), has the inscription:

  4. C POPILI/ MEUANIE

Other Popilius signatures are illustrated in the article by André Baudrillart (referenced below).

Social Wars (ca. 90 BC)

Florus recorded that, during what are known as the Social Wars:

  1. “All Latium and Picenum, all Etruria and Campania, and finally all Italy rose against their mother and parent city [Rome].  The flower of our bravest and most trusted allies were led, each under their several standards, by the most eminent leaders from the country towns .... The devastation wrought by Hannibal and Pyrrhus was less serious.  Lo! Ocriculum, Grumentum, Faesulae, Carseoli, Aesernia, Nuceria [Alfaterna] and Picentia were utterly laid waste by fire and sword” (‘Epitome of Roman History’, 2: 6-11). 

This does not necessarily mean that the people of Ocriculum joined the revolt; it is possible that they were simply unfortunate in that they provided the field for an engagement of the Romans and the rebels.  Further, as noted above, we do not know on which site this putative engagement took place.  Whatever the damage, archeological remains indicate that the riverine Ocriculum became a thriving municipium thereafter, ascribed to the Arnensis tribe. 

Cicero, in his unsuccessful defence of Titus Annius Milo Papianus against the charge murdering of Publius Clodius Pulcher in 52 BC, recounted that Milo’s accusers claimed that:

  1. “... arms [for the murder] had been conveyed down the Tiber to his villa at Ocriculum” (‘Pro Milo’, 24:64).

This illuminates the fact that Ocriculum already housed the villas of prominent Romans, who obviously found its proximity to Rome and its easy river access convenient.

Edward Bispham (referenced below) discussed three inscriptions referring to the early magistrates of the municipium:

  1. The first (discussed at pp. 319-21 and as Q61, p. 492) reads:

  2. ....vir i(ure) d(icundo) e(x) s(enatus)

  3. de sua peq(unia) f(acienda) c(oeraverunt)

  4. This surviving text was in two parts of the original inscription, one of which is lost while the other is embedded in the wall of Casa Birellli.   I relates to something that had been financed by a quattuorvir iure dicundo, one of the senior pair of quattuorviri.

  5. The other two related to holders of the more junior office of quattuorvir aedilis:

  6. The first of these (CIL XI 0491, discussed at pp. 370-1 and as Q92, p. 503) was on a limestone altar dedicated by Caius Caesilius and Lucius  Clovius; and

  7. The second (CIL XI 7804, discussed at pp. 371-2 and as Q93, p. 503) commemorated Titus Licinius Postumus (see below).

  8. Bispham pointed out (at p. 370) that this designation, which became common in the imperial period, is known in the republican period only in these two inscriptions, a precocity that he suggested (at p. 372) that:

  9. “It is possible that, as early as the 60s [BC], Ocriculum had sought to express its close association with Rome by giving a nod to the Roman aediles and changing, perhaps by alteration of its lex, the titulature of those of its magistrates with aedilician functions [i.e. functions associated with public works].”

As Martin Millett (in the book by S. Hay et al., referenced below, at p. 143) pointed out:

  1. “...it should be noted that [Edward Bispham’s] dating for [Ocriculum’s] magistracies is based on the incorrect assumption that the town was not established on the Tiber until the middle of the 1st century BC.”

Thus, it is probably wise to leave the dating of at least the first two of these inscriptions within the period from 60s BC, when, as Edward Bispham demonstrated (at p. 373) the senior and junior quattuorviral posts began to be differentiated in Italy, until (probably) the end of the triumviral period (ca. 30 BC).

The third inscription (CIL XI 7804) mentioned above, which is on a marble slab [where?], in fact contains two related inscriptions:

  1. The first reads:

  2. Τ(ito) Licinio Τ(iti)/f(ilio) Post(umo) (IIIIvir(o) aed(ili)/ apparitores

  3. In this, the ‘apparitores’ (assistants to the local  magistrates) honoured the quattuorvir aedilis Titus Licinius Postumus.

  4. The second reads:

  5. C(aio) lulio Caesaris l(iberto) Salvio

  6. accenso, mag(istro) luperc(orum),   viat(ori) trib(unicio)

  7. Postumus IIIIvir aed(ilis)

  8. Here, Titus Licinius Postumus in turn honoured Caius Julius Salvius.  The latter was a freedman of ‘Caesar’, which could mean Julius Caesar or Octavian (the future Emperor Augustus).  He had enjoyed an impressive career in Rome after gaining his freedom,  as:

  9. accensus’ (personal advisor, presumably to his ex-owner);

  10. magister’ of the ‘Luperci’ (i.e. the head of one of the two/three priestly colleges associated with the Lupercalia, as discussed below;  and

  11. viatori tribunicio’ (messenger of the tribune, a post in the civil service).

  12. Julius Caesar introduced the third college of Luperci in 44 BC, and famously appointed Mark Antony as its first magister (just before his own assassination). 

  13. -If we assume that this was the college to which Salvius belonged, then he had clearly become magister in the triumviral period.  He had presumably subsequently retired to Ocriculum: if ‘Caesar’ meant Octavian, this would suggest a date for the inscription before 27 BC.

  14. -Alternatively, if Salvius had been the magister of one of the two older colleges, this might alternatively suggest a date for the inscription after 48 BC (when Julius Caesar became dictator) and before 42 BC (when he became divus Julius).

An inscribed statue base (CIL VI 0872) from Ocriculum, which is now in the Sala Rotunda, Musei Vaticani, reads

Divo Iulio iussu / populi Romani/ statutum est lege/ Rufrena

It records that the base supported a statue of divus Julius that had been erected by order of the Roman people according to the Lex Rufrena: this law seems to have given effect to a ruling of the Senate in 42 BC that statues of divus Julius should be set up in the cities controlled by Rome.  Only two other references to it are known, from similar inscriptions: CIL I 2972, from Minturnae in Latium et Campania; and CIL IX 5136, from Interamna Praetuttiorum (near modern Teramo) in Picenum.   (One wonders whether Caius Julius Salvius (above) presided over the erection of the statue at Ocriculum and where it was erected.]

Early Empire

Despite the fact that Ocriculum lay in Sabine country, the Emperor Augustus assigned it to Region VI (Umbria).  The new settlement traded with Rome using both Via Flaminia and from the Tiber, which they accessed from the Porto dell’ Olio, traces of which survive.

An inscription (CIL XI 4087) now embedded in the wall of Casa Squarti, which Martin Millett (in the book by S. Hay et al., referenced below, at p. 10) illustrated and dated to the 1st century AD, reads:

L(ucio) Iulio L(ucio) f(ilio) Pal(atina)/ Iuliano

IIIIvir(o) aed(ili)/ IIIIvir(o) i(ure) d(icundo)

IIIIvir(o) quinq(uennali)/ quinq(uennali) II dest(inato)

patrono / municipi(i)/ pleps (sic) ob merita/ l(ocus) d(atus) d(ecreto) d(ecurionum)

Despite his glittering municipal career at Ocriculum, where he was clearly resident, Julius Julianus belonged to the Palatina rather than the Arnensis tribe:

  1. A man of the same name and tribe, who might have been the grandson of ‘our’ Julius Julianus, was commemorated in an inscription (CIL XI 4182, late 2nd century AD) at Interamna Nahars (Terni).  However, this does not help to determine his origins: Interamna Nahars was assigned to the Clustumina tribe.

  2. One wonders whether ‘our’ Julius Julianus was also the father of Julius Julianus, father of Julia Lucilia, who financed the baths at Ocriculum (see the Walk around Ocriculum), probably in ca. 140 AD.

Augustus’ restoration of Via Flaminia in 27 BC seems to have inspired the first ‘serious’ monumentalisation of Ocriculum.

An impressive Augusteum was established at Ocriculum, probably during the reign of Tiberius.  It received a massive statue of Caligula, the face of which was subsequently recut to represent his successor, Claudius.

According to Tacitus, as Vespasian approached Rome in 69 AD intent on seizing the throne after the anarchy of the so-called year of the four emperors:

  1. “[His] forces left Narnia and quietly celebrated the Saturnalia at Ocriculum.  The excuse given for such unseemly delay was that they were waiting for [reinforcements]” (‘Histories’, 3:78).

Ocriculum continued to attract rich Romans as a place in which to build suburban villas.  For example,  Pliny the Younger exclaimed in a letter to Pompeia Celerina, his mother-in-law:

  1. “What treasures you have in your villas at Ocriculum, at Narnia, at Carsola and Perusia! Even a bathing place at Narnia!” (Letters of Pliny the Younger, 1:4)

3rd Century

An inscription (CIL XI 4082) refers to temple to Valentia, who was a goddess of health or well-being.  Tertullian, writing in 197 AD, recorded that she was  revered in Ocriculum but not in Rome (‘Apologeticus pro Christianis’, 24:8).  The inscription, which dates to the 3rd century AD, reads:

Pro salute itus ac/ reditus d(omini) n(ostri) sanctis/simi [... Invic]/ti Aug(usti)

aediculam/ concili(i) deorum/ dearumque/ Aurelius Faustus

prot(ector) divini lateris/ Aug(usti) n(ostri) ex viso deae / Valentiae

s(ua) p(ecunia) f(aciendum) c(uravit)

Thus, as soldier called Aurelius Faustus, who was a member of the imperial bodyguard (protector divini lateris Augusti nostri) built a sanctuary to Valentia somewhere in Ocriculum for the health of an emperor whose name is no longer legible.  

4th Century

Restoration of the Thermal Complex

The people and local council ‘splendidissimae civitatis Ocricolanae” (of the most splendid city of Ocriculum) set up marble statues to two men who  had restored the winter baths, as evidenced by the  surviving statue bases in the Galleria Lapidaria, Musei Vaticani.  Their respective inscriptions commemorate:

  1. Sextus Cluvius Martinus (CIL XI 4096; LSA-1632); and

  2. Marcus Caesolius Saturninus (CIL XI 4097; LSA-1633).

An associated inscription (CIL XI 4095) commemorates both men in the same context, and noted that this restoration took place in the “challenged age” of the Emperors Constantius II and Constans.  The reference here is to the civil war of 340 AD,  in which Constans defeated his other brother, Constantinus and became supreme in the west (until 350 AD - see below).  The inscriptions are all dated to the consulship of Antonius Marcellinus and Petronius Probinus  (341 AD).

Yet another inscription (CIL XI 4094; LSA-2682; Museo Pio Clementino, Musei Vaticani) commemorates Caius Volusius Victor, who similarly restored the winter baths and consequently received a statue .  Unfortunately, this inscription (and hence the date of the corresponding restoration) can only be roughly dated to the 4th century AD.

Visit of Constantius II (357 AD)

According to Ammianus Marcellinus:

  1. “... Constantius, as if the temple of Janus had been closed and all his enemies overthrown, was eager to visit Rome and after the death of Magnentius [in 353 AD] to celebrate, without [justification], a triumph over Roman blood.  ... So, ... in the second prefecture of Orfitus [Memmius Vitrasius Orfitus Honorius, whose second period as Urban Prefect was in 357-9 AD], he [Constantius] passed through [Ocriculum], elated with his great honours and escorted by formidable troops; he was conducted ... in battle array, and everyone's eyes were riveted upon him with fixed gaze” (‘Roman History’, 16:10;4).

This refers to the famous visit to Rome of Constantius II in 357 AD.  Magentius, mentioned in this passage had rebelled in 350 and seized power in the west in an uprising in which Constans was killed.  When Constantius II defeated him three years later,  he became sole Emperor.  Ocriculum was clearly the last important stop before his triumphant entry into Rome.

Trial of Iulius Festus Hymetius (371 AD)

According to Ammianus Marcellinus:

  1. “When [Hymetius] was governing Africa as proconsul, he took from the storehouses grain intended for the Roman people and sold it to the Carthaginians...  And so [the Emperor] Valentinian, suspecting that he had sent less than he should have sent as the result of his trafficking, punished him with a fine of a part of his property.  To add to his calamity, this also had happened at that same time, which was not less fatal: the soothsayer Amantius ... was betrayed on secret evidence of having been employed by the said Hymetius, for the purpose of committing certain criminal acts ... Upon his denial, his secret papers were brought from his house and a memorandum in the handwriting of Hymetius was found ... When [Valentinian] learned this from the report of the judges, who gave what had been done a harsh interpretation, he issued orders that the affair should be investigated with excessive strictness.  .... Hymetius was taken to the town of Ocriculum, to be heard by Ampelius, the [Urban Prefect] and Maximinus, the deputy-prefect; and when it was evident that he would immediately be condemned to death, he boldly appealed to the emperor's protection ...” (‘Roman History’, 28:1:22).

It is not clear why Hymetius was tried at Ocriculum: perhaps the matter was too sensitive for trial in Rome.  The result was that Hymetius was exiled, although he was able to return and to continue his career after Valentian’s death in 375. 

Trade with Rome

This marble weight (4th century AD) was found in 1989 [near the mausoleum] at Ocriculum.  The inscription reads:

OCRIC.P.LIGN.HAB.AUR.URB.P.CL

The letters P. LIGN refer to the “pensor or pondus lignarius” (weigher or weight of wood).  The stone was clearly used for weighing wood sourced locally and shipped (along the Tiber or along Via Flaminia) to Rome.  The weight presumably belonged to Aurelius, who must have been an important person connected with this trade.  The letters “P.CL” at the end record the value of the weight: 150 librae (56 kg).   (The Roman “libra” is the source of the abbreviation “lb” for a British pound weight). 


Read more:

S. Hay, S. Keay and M. Millett, “Ocriculum (Otricoli, Umbria): An Archaeological Monograph (number 22) of the British School at Rome”, (2013)

L. Agostiniani et al. (Eds), “Screhto Est: Lingua e Scrittura degli Antichi Umbri”, (2011) Città di Castello

E. Bispham, “From Asculum to Actium: The Municipalisation of Italy from the Social War to Augustus”, (2008) Oxford

A. Baudrillart, “Coupes Signées de Popilius”, Mélanges de l' École Française de Rome, 9 (1889) 288-98


History:  Main page     Ancient History


Return to the home page of Otricoli.