judaism_and_rome 2026-07-22T01:33:26+02:00 1 223 Inscription https://heurist.huma-num.fr/heurist/?recID=223&db=judaism_and_rome 2022-08-16 23:18:41 2025-07-22 16:56:40 public Tabula Contrebiensis Bronze tablet. The plate has six regular and equal perforations, in circular form, of 6 mm. in diameter each. They are aligned at regular intervals, close to the edges of the long sides. The conservation of the piece is poor. It has been subjected to strong deformations, due to fire damage, which has caused the tablet to bend. 0087-05-15 0087 5 15 5957 2391 8ca29df5af23bc803a07b7e4c85e6969c1068bb4 watermark.jpeg image/jpeg 106 2022-08-12 11:58:16 Tabula Contrebiensis , 5957, Tabula Contrebiensis (106.34 KB)) https://heurist.huma-num.fr/heurist/?db=judaism_and_rome&file=8ca29df5af23bc803a07b7e4c85e6969c1068bb4 Latin 3058 2327 2316 2305 2294 2283 2272 2261 2250 2238 2227 <p>In the second century BCE the community of Contrebia Belaisca (modern Botorrita), in the far north-east of Spain, demonstrated an early engagement with Rome’s judicial practices, through the setting up of a bronze tablet that recorded the adjudication of a dispute between two native, non-Roman peoples. The tablet, the <em>Tabula Contrebiensis</em>, was discovered in the late 1970s and since that date has generated much discussion on the influence of, and assimilation to Roman legal procedures, even amongst non-Roman communities, where the <em>ius civile</em> of Rome carried no authority. The physical organisation of the text and its form – a bronze plaque set up, presumably, in a public space, was clearly taken from Roman municipal practice (Edmonson, “<em>Instrumenta Imperii</em>,” p. 175). As the following discussion shall show, even at this relatively early date in the Iberian peninsula’s interactions with Rome’s power, it appears that the authority of the form and its content – a legal order – was something that could be translated into a local context.<br /><br /></p><p>The <em>Tabula Contrebiensis</em> records the settlement of two disputed questions. Lines 1-5 are concerned with the right of the Sosinestani to sell land to the Salluienses (<em>agrum quem Salluienses ab Sosinestaneis emerunt</em>), so that they might construct a canal or draw water across it (<em>rivi faciendi aquaive ducendae</em>), which had been opposed by a third group, the Allvonenses (<em>inviteis Allavonensibus</em>). Members of the senate of Contrebia have been called in to resolve the dispute, presumably due to their independence from any specific interest in the water rights being claimed (<em>Senatus Contrebiensis quei tum aderunt iudices</em>). As noted by Peter Birks, Alan Rodger and John Simpson, of the four communities mentioned in the inscription, only the Salluienses and the Contrebienses can be securely located in the geography of the region, with the former in modern Zaragoza and the latter at Botorrita, meaning that it has not been possible to identify either the territory of the Sosinestani themselves, nor the water source that they were attempting to access (Birks, Rodgers and Simpson, “Further Aspects of the Tabula Contrebienses,” p. 47). The area was, generally speaking, extremely arid; although a number of strong rivers crossed the Ebro valley, for the most part the land was too dry for cultivation, and in places almost impossible to cross, making this kind of dispute over water rights and access to such all the more significant (Birks, Rodgers and Simpson, “Further Aspects of the Tabula Contrebienses,” p. 47).</p><p>Lines 6-11 contain the second dispute, which was the right claimed by the Salluienses to construct their canal over land other than that which they had bought, which is described as “public and private”, the <em>ager publicus</em> and the <em>ager privatus</em>. The dispute is focused thus:</p><p>“If the rules of the Sosinestan <em>civitas </em>were to apply, then, in the place where the Salluienses most recently and officially put in stakes, which is the subject of this action, if it would be permissible within their own rights for the Salluienses to make a canal through the public land of the Sosinestani within those stakes; or if it would be permissible within their own rights for the Salluienses to make a canal through the private land of the Sosinestani in the place where it would be proper for the canal to be made, so long as the Salluienses pay the money which is the value which would have been placed on the land…” (lines 6-11).</p><p>Essentially the Salluienses had placed wooden stakes to mark out the line of their water channel where it crossed public land, and intended to do the same over private land, for which the Contrebian adjudicators in the case awarded the Sosinestani compensation (Richardson, “The Tabula Contrebiensis,” p. 35). It is a striking feature in this text that the dispute – and indeed its resolution – was described using technical Roman legal language. The <em>ager publicus</em> and <em>ager privatus</em> – public and private land – were fundamental to the Roman understanding of land ownership, with the former, <em>ager publicus</em>, “an essential feature of the subsistence economy” of Italy (Richardson, “The Tabula Contrebiensis,” p. 36). Equally significant is the statement made at the beginning of line 6, that the matter should be judged “on the assumption that they were the Sosinestan <em>civitas</em>” (<em>sei Sosinestana ceivitas esset</em>). John Richardson’s publication of the inscription recognised this clause as a <em>fictio</em>, or “fiction” - a procedural device taken from the Roman formulary system, which is described in Gaius’s <em>Institutes</em> (e.g. 4.32). According to Richardson’s explanation, none of the parties involved are Roman citizens, and the “adjudication is based on local rights and customs,” which is emphasised by the use of the <em>fictio</em>, which gave the Salluienses the same rights as the Sostinestani, just as would be have been done in a <em>fictio civitatis</em> in a Roman court, when the person involved would be treated during the hearing as having the rights of a Roman citizen (Richardson, “The Tabula Contrebiensis, p. 38-39). However, as Peter Birks and Alan Rodgers’s reassessment of the legal aspects of the text has shown, the clause should not be understood as being left open; that is, that the judges have not been asked to consider two sides of the hypothesis, “whether there was <em>or was not</em> a Sosinestas civitas,” but rather they have been instructed precisely what assumption to make (Birks, Rodgers and Richardson, “Further Aspects,” p. 52-53).</p><p>The inscription continues in lines 12-14 with the matter of how the disputes are to be judged, with the <em>iudicium</em> – judgement – being devolved to the Contrebian senators – whose names demonstrate the existing local autonomy from Rome –, who are required to give a common <em>sententia</em> – opinion (Galsterer, “Roman Law in the Provinces,” p. 22). The case had been brought before the Roman proconsul, Caius Valerius Flaccus, the urban praetor in Rome in 96 BCE, who set in motion the Roman framework for dealing with such a case. That peregrine communities might appeal to Rome for assistance in resolving disputes was not a new development in 87 BCE; Rome had taken the place of the Hellenistic Kings as acting as arbitrators in the cities of the Greek east, with the Senate well-used to hearing the appeals and passing a <em>senatus consultum</em> in response. However, in the case of the <em>Tabula Contrebiensis</em>, no <em>senatus consultum</em> is mentioned, with C. Valerius Flaccus the only authority figure named (Birks, Rodgers and Richardson, “Further Aspects,” p. 48). Although it was certainly possible that the Senate in Rome had been involved in the case, but omitted from the inscribed text, it would seem unlikely given the Roman models – the use of Latin and on a bronze tablet – that were followed in its construction. It is more plausible that the Roman Senate were simply not involved in the resolution of the dispute. Rather than being required to act as an arbitrator, Valerius Flaccus has been invoked as a “source of justice by an aggrieved party” who “provides, through the use of the formulae and the adjudication of the Contrebian senate, a judicial remedy” (Birks, Rodgers and Richardson, “Further Aspects,” p. 50).</p><p>The fact that Roman legal procedure carried enough weight amongst these subject communities is highly significant, emphasizing not only the power of Rome but the ease with which non-Roman communities appear to have adopted her model of jurisdiction as an authority. Although the Salluienses had, in fact, been awarded citizenship following their provision of cavalry to Pompeius Strabo during the Social War some three years earlier (see <em>CIL</em> I, 709), and were therefore entitled to resolve their dispute’s under Rome’s laws, the case was not judged according to Roman law, but rather described local legal practice in terms and formulae borrowed from Rome’s own sophisticated legal procedures. As Hartmut Galsterer has rightly stated, the Latin formulae utilised by Valerius Flaccus made the clear distinction between the concepts of <em>ager publicus </em>and<em> ager privatus</em> as they pertained to the territories owned by these communities, but they did so with the stipulation that the matter should be decided according to the law of the local Celtiberian communities that it concerned; they were “Roman concepts [that] were to be applied to non-Roman realities by non-Roman judges” (Galsterer, “Roman Law in the Provinces,” p. 22).</p><p>The resolution of the dispute was also recorded following a Roman model in the sense that it was inscribed in bronze and set up in a public space, as indicated by the nail holes around the edge of the plaque (Edmonson, “<em>Instrumenta Imperii</em>,” p. 184). In this instance, Rome’s legal system provided an authoritative process and language with which a problem could be solved, but within the accepted practices and regulations that existed amongst the disputing communities. The language and practices of Rome’s legal world – from the formulae used to describe the cases to the setting up of monumental inscriptions in bronze – in this inscription from Contrebia thus demonstrates how peregrine communities might engage with the Roman presence and influence, using Roman practices – in this case legal procedure - as a model for their own local contexts; in cases such as these it was possible to borrow whichever aspects of Roman law suited their needs.</p> Roman Spain water Roman law praetor local law local senate judge legal right private land public land dispute Hispania Museo de Zaragoza, Spain. Bronze Height:  20.8 cm  Width:   43.8 cmDepth:  0.5 cm  40 Unknown location, Contrebia Belaisca, Hispania Citerior. 270 160 164 Roman Fatás, Guilliermo, “El nuevo bronce latino de Contrebia” in Boletin de la Real Academia de la Historia 176 (1979), p. 421-438 Richardson, John S., “The Tabula Contrebiensis: Roman law in Spain in the early first century” in Journal of Roman Studies 73 (1983), p. 33-4 HispanicaEpigraphica: 8156 No <div style="text-align: justify;">Senatus Contrebie[n]sis quei tum aderunt iudices sunto sei par[ret ag]rum quem Salluienses</div> <div style="text-align: justify;">[ab Sosinest]ane[is] emerunt rivi faciendi aquaive ducendae causa qua de re agitur Sosinestanos</div> <div style="text-align: justify;">[iure suo Sa]lluiensibus vendidisse inviteis Allavonensibus tum sei ita [p]arret eei iudices iudicent</div> <div style="text-align: justify;">eum agrum qua de re agitur Sosinestanos Salluiensibus iure suo vendidisse sei non parr[e]t iudicent</div> <div style="text-align: justify;">iur[e] suo non vendidi[sse]</div> <div style="text-align: justify;">eidem quei supra scriptei [sunt] iudices sunto sei Sosinestana ceivitas esset tum qua Salluiensis</div> <div style="text-align: justify;">novissume publice depalarunt qua de re agitur sei [i]ntra eos palos Salluiensis rivom per agrum</div> <div style="text-align: justify;">publicum Sosinestanorum iure suo facere licere[t] aut sei per agrum preivatum Sosinestanorum</div> <div style="text-align: justify;">qua rivom fieri oporteret rivom iure suo Sallvie[n]sibus facere liceret dum quanti is a[ger] aestumatu[s]</div> <div style="text-align: justify;">esset qua rivos duceretur Salluienses pequniam solverent tum sei ita [p]arret eei iudices iudicent</div> <div style="text-align: justify;">Salluiensibus rivom iure suo facere licer[e] sei non parret iudicent iure suo facere non licere</div> <div style="text-align: justify;">sei iudicarent Sallviensibus rivom facere licere tum quos magistratus Contrebiensis quinque</div> <div style="text-align: justify;">ex senatu(!) suo dederit eorum arbitratu pro agro preivato q[u]a rivos ducetur Sallvienses</div> <div style="text-align: justify;">publice pequniam solvonto iudicium addeixit C(aius) Valerius C(ai) f(ilius) Flaccus imperator</div> <div style="text-align: justify;">sentent[ia]m deixerunt quod iudicium nostrum est qua de re agitur secundum Salluienses iudicamus quom ea res</div> <div style="text-align: justify;">iud[ic]atas[t mag]is[tr]atus Contrebienses heisce fuerunt Lubbus Urdinocum Letondonis f(ilius) praetor Lesso Siriscum</div> <div style="text-align: justify;">Lubbi f(ilius) [ma]gistratus Babbus Bolgondiscum Ablonis f(ilius) magistratus Segilus Annicum Lubbi f(ilius) magistratus</div> <div style="text-align: justify;">[- - -]atu[- - -]ulovicum Uxe[- - -]i f(ilius) magistratus Ablo Tindilicum Lubbi f(ilius) magistratus caussam Sallui[ensium]</div> <div style="text-align: justify;">defen[d]it [- - -]assius [- - -]eihar f(ilius) Salluiensis caussam Allavonensium defendit Turibas Teitabas f(ilius)</div> <div style="text-align: justify;">[Allavo]n[en]s[is] actum [C]ontrebiae Balaiscae Eidibus Maieis L(ucio) Cornelio Cn(aeo) Octavio consulibu[s]</div> <div style="text-align: justify;">Taken from Birks, Peter, Rodger, Alan and Richardson, John, “Further Aspects of the Tabula Contrebiensis,” <em>Journal of Roman Studies</em> 74 (1984) p. 46. © Cambridge University Press, reproduced with permission.</div> <div style="text-align: justify;"> </div> <div style="text-align: justify;">Let those of the senate of Contrebia who shall be present at the time be the judges. If it appears, with regard to the land which the Salluienses purchased from the Sosinestani for the purpose of making a canal or channelling water, which matter is the subject of the action, that the Sosinestani were within their rights in selling to the Salluienses against the wishes of the Allavonenses; then, if it so appears, let those judges adjudge that the Sosinestani were within their rights in selling to the Salluienses that land which is the subject of this action; if it does not so appear, let them adjudge that they were not within their rights in selling.</div> <div style="text-align: justify;">Let those same persons who are written above be the judges. On the assumption that they were the Sosinestan <em>civitas</em>, then, in the place where the Salluienses most recently and officially put in stakes, which matter is the subject of this action, if it would be permissible for the Salluienses within their rights to make a canal through the public land of the Sosinestani within those stakes; or if it would be permissible for the Salluienses within their rights to make a canal through the private land of the Sosinestani in the place where it would be proper for a canal to be made so long as the Salluienses paid the money which is the value which would have been placed on the land where the canal might be brought ; then, if it so appears, let those judges adjudge that it is permissible for the Salluienses within their rights to make the canal ; if it does not so appear, let them adjudge that it is not permissible for them to do so within their rights.</div> <div style="text-align: justify;">If they should adjudge that it is permissible for the Salluienses to make the canal, then, on the arbitration of five men, whom a magistrate (<em>or perhaps</em> the magistracy) of Contrebia shall have assigned from his (<em>or</em> their) senate, let the Salluienses pay money from public funds for the private land where the canal shall be brought. C. Valerius C. f. Flaccus, <em>imperator</em>, conferred the right of judgment.</div> <div style="text-align: justify;">They pronounced the opinion : ‘ Whereas the right of judgment is ours, in the matter which is the subject of this action we give judgment in favour of the Salluienses. ’ When this adjudication was made, these were the magistrates of Contrebia : Lubbus of the Urdini, son of Letondo, praetor ; Lesso of the Sirisi, son of Lubbus, magistrate ; Babbus of the Bolgondisi, son of Ablo, magistrate ; Segilus of the Anni, son of Lubbus, magistrate ; . . . , of the . . . ulovi, son of Ux . . us, magistrate ; Ablo of the Tindili, son of Lubbus, magistrate. . . . assius, son of Eihar, the Salluiensian, presented the case for the Salluienses. Turibas, son of Teitabas, the Allavonensian, presented the case for the Allavonenses. Transacted at Contrebia Balaisca, on the Ides of May, L. Cornelius and Cn. Octavius being the consuls.</div> Yes palus licet pecunia magistratus arbitratus sententia iudicium Senatus Contrebienses iudex ager Salluienses Sosinestanes Allavonenses rivus aqua iuro vendo civitas Caroline Barron English Legal text Yes 1