Academia.edu no longer supports Internet Explorer.
To browse Academia.edu and the wider internet faster and more securely, please take a few seconds to upgrade your browser.
Figure 7 12. Vici in the ager Praetutianus (adapted from Guidobaldi 1995, 248 fig. 5). > whereas further the centre of Interamna were most heavily hit by the Roman viritim assignations’” away in the hinterland these sites could continue to flourish. Campovalano, where a Praetutian settle- ment ceased to exist in the course of the second century BC, would be an example of the first category This last settlement however was, as far as we know, not a vicus in the strict sense. The two securely attested vici in this area do not come across as pre-Roman settlements; on the contrary. An inscription dates site 2 (Localita Case Lanciotti-Masseria Nisii) to 55 BC, although some remains could date to the second century BC at the earliest. The other site (5), the vicus Stramentarius, has yielded some pre- Roman materials but the formation of the settlement proper is dated to the second century BC. Even the inclusion of sites 6,7, and 8 that could represent vici in spite of the lack of decisive evidence does not change the picture as these date also to a period after the Roman conquest, 1.e. the second and early first centuries BC. The image of these vici as the remnants of pre-Roman settlement can thus be seriously questioned. It seems much more probable that the vici represent the outcome of processes that started after Roman interference. PQwea Ew Aen AE atk wo cwem BD! nena Unotitwtinwe be Aborasediad <eao chawld wel vaecslevacq wxohnk dh eos odin