Epigraphic Evidence for Boundary Disputes in the Roman Empire

Dissertation 2004 (Ancient History, Chapel Hill). This dissertation presents all published Greek and Latin epigraphic documents relating to internal boundary disputes of the Roman empire. In date, it spans the period from 2 BC to the third century AD. Spatially, the documents derive from 12 provinces (Achaia, Africa, Asia, Baetica, Cilicia, Creta et Cyrene, Dalmatia, Iudaea, Lusitania, Macedonia, Moesia and Syria), plus Italy. The presentation of each includes a text, English translation, bibliography and commentary. Analytical chapters expand upon recent published work by G. Burton and B. Campbell. Terminological analysis permits classification of epigraphic and literary evidence into five categories: boundary disputes, restoration of public and sacred lands, other land disputes, the assignment of boundaries and other authoritative demarcations involving Roman officials. The analysis also provides a more focused definition of several Latin and Greek words that indicate the delivery of a verdict by a Roman official (decretum, sententia, iudicium, ἀποφάσις, κρίσις, ἐπικρίμα). Categorization of evidence permits a close examination of the identities and roles of Roman administrative personnel involved in such cases. This analysis indicates that boundary disputes were normally handled at the lowest possible level. In the provinces, disputes between communities or individuals were handled by the governor, sometimes through appointed judges and sometimes in consultation with the emperor. Imperial legates with responsibility for the provincial census seem also to have had authority to adjudicate boundary disputes arising in the course of their duties. Disputes that straddled provincial boundaries or boundaries of imperial estates, or that involved cities with special status or privilege, required the emperor’s attention. These cases were normally delegated to special legates. A similar procedure could be employed in Italy, where there was no governor upon whom to rely. In all boundary disputes, the presiding officials seem to have been guided in their actions by the dictates of Roman private law in boundary dispute cases, whether it properly applied to the communities involved or not. In particular, they seem to have observed a requirement that the verdict in a boundary dispute be delivered on site in the presence of the parties to a case.