Alfred Michael Hirt
- Published in print:
- 2010
- Published Online:
- May 2010
- ISBN:
- 9780199572878
- eISBN:
- 9780191721885
- Item type:
- chapter
- Publisher:
- Oxford University Press
- DOI:
- 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199572878.003.0003
- Subject:
- Classical Studies, European History: BCE to 500CE
Mining and quarrying operations under imperial control appear to have taken place within a strictly defined territorial entity distinct from the colonial, municipal and ‘tribal’ territories within a ...
More
Mining and quarrying operations under imperial control appear to have taken place within a strictly defined territorial entity distinct from the colonial, municipal and ‘tribal’ territories within a province. The existence of such districts (termed metallum or territoria metallorum) is highlighted most prominently in the Vipasca tablets. Some scholars have tried to identify further imperial mining and quarrying districts (e.g. patrimonium regni Norici), their extent, and their setting within the ancient landscape of Roman provinces. The legal sources, coinage (nummi metallorum), and further written evidence is explored in order to verify or falsify the hypothesis of vast mining districts. The chapter then addresses the question of ownership of mining and quarrying ventures. Besides evidence for municipal or private ownership of extractive operations, it is argued that quarries and mines might have been owned publicly, yet were in fact controlled and run by the Roman emperor.Less
Mining and quarrying operations under imperial control appear to have taken place within a strictly defined territorial entity distinct from the colonial, municipal and ‘tribal’ territories within a province. The existence of such districts (termed metallum or territoria metallorum) is highlighted most prominently in the Vipasca tablets. Some scholars have tried to identify further imperial mining and quarrying districts (e.g. patrimonium regni Norici), their extent, and their setting within the ancient landscape of Roman provinces. The legal sources, coinage (nummi metallorum), and further written evidence is explored in order to verify or falsify the hypothesis of vast mining districts. The chapter then addresses the question of ownership of mining and quarrying ventures. Besides evidence for municipal or private ownership of extractive operations, it is argued that quarries and mines might have been owned publicly, yet were in fact controlled and run by the Roman emperor.
Elio Lo Cascio
- Published in print:
- 2015
- Published Online:
- September 2015
- ISBN:
- 9780198728924
- eISBN:
- 9780191795831
- Item type:
- chapter
- Publisher:
- Oxford University Press
- DOI:
- 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780198728924.003.0004
- Subject:
- Classical Studies, Archaeology: Classical, World History: BCE to 500CE
The role of imperial property in the working of the Roman economy is unique when compared with the role it played in other empires in history. Its peculiarity stems from the ways in which it was ...
More
The role of imperial property in the working of the Roman economy is unique when compared with the role it played in other empires in history. Its peculiarity stems from the ways in which it was originally formed and more generally from the ways in which the new imperial order was established. The ambivalent position of the princeps, who was neither a magistrate nor simply a private person, was reflected in the ambivalent position of his patrimonium, the property of a private individual that was used to meet ‘public’ ends. This can explain why imperial property was always run through the very instruments adopted by private people in managing their property, and why the economic scenario in which the emperor acted did not radically change in consequence of his presence. Neither did this situation change with the ‘crisis’ of the third century and the new political organization which emerged from it.Less
The role of imperial property in the working of the Roman economy is unique when compared with the role it played in other empires in history. Its peculiarity stems from the ways in which it was originally formed and more generally from the ways in which the new imperial order was established. The ambivalent position of the princeps, who was neither a magistrate nor simply a private person, was reflected in the ambivalent position of his patrimonium, the property of a private individual that was used to meet ‘public’ ends. This can explain why imperial property was always run through the very instruments adopted by private people in managing their property, and why the economic scenario in which the emperor acted did not radically change in consequence of his presence. Neither did this situation change with the ‘crisis’ of the third century and the new political organization which emerged from it.
