Locatio in Roman agrimensura

Cover Page

Cite item

Abstract

The relevance of this study is due to the lack of works in Russian historiography that would examine in detail the phenomenon of locatio as an act of creating a possession. Using a comprehensive method of historical research, the author comprehensively studies both the legal component of the mentioned phenomenon and its practical component: we are talking about arcifinius as a technical expression of locus. The author’s goal is to, having comprehensively studied the procedure of simple locatio, give a legal assessment of the phenomenon itself, as well as determine its place in the system of Roman agrimensura and in Roman land law. The work uses the works of outstanding Roman agrimensors, such as Hyginus the Elder and Agennius Urbicus (Corpus Agrimensorum Romanorum), as well as extensive historiography, both domestic and foreign. As a result of the undertaken research, the author comes to the following conclusions: firstly, locus and arcifinius in the archaic period of Roman history symbolized the category ager publicus; secondly, the possession that arose in the public field as a result of locatio was secured by the ancient law of ius Quiritium and retained its significance until the era of the Empire; thirdly, during the Empire, land provided to citizens as possessions on a lease basis began to be allocated in a similar way. Thus, the ancient locatio retains its significance throughout the history of the Roman state.

About the authors

Inna A. Gvozdeva

Lomonosov Moscow State University

Author for correspondence.
Email: innagvozdeva@mail.ru
ORCID iD: 0000-0001-6075-9033
SPIN-code: 9189-1625

PhD in Historical Sciences, Associate professor, Department of History of the Ancient World, Faculty of Historical Sciences

27, 4, Lomonosovsky Avenue, Moscow, 119234, Russian Federation

References

  1. Gvozdeva IA. Kategorija ploshhadi v zemel’nyh assignacijah jepohi rimskoj respubliki [Category of area in land appropriations of the Roman Republic]. Agrarnoe i zemel‘noe pravo. 2018;4(160):32–38. (In Russ.).
  2. Schulten A. Die Römische Flurteilung und ihre Reste. Berlin: Weidmann; 1898.
  3. Castаgnoli F. Le ricerche sui resti della Centuriazione. Roma: Ed. di Storia e Letteratura; 1958. Pр. 48.
  4. Salmon ET. Roman colonisation under the republic. L.: Thames & Hudson; 1969.
  5. Gvozdeva IA, Gvozdeva TB. Arhaicheskij i formuljarnyj process v zemel’nom prave Drevnego Rima [Archaic and formulaic process in the land law of Ancient Rome]. Agrarnoe i zemel‘noe pravo. 2017;2(146):30–35. (In Russ.).
  6. Behrends O. Bodenhoheit und privates Bodeneigentum im Grenzwesen Roms. In: Die Römische Feldmeßkunst. Interdisziplinäre Beitrage zu ihrer Bedeutung für die Zivilizationsgeschichte Roms. Göttingen; 1992, рр. 192–280.
  7. Gvozdeva IA. Pretorskaja zashhita vladenija po traktatam rimskih zemlemerov [Praetorian defence of possession according to the treatises of Roman surveyors]. Ancient East and Ancient World. 2002;(5):166–172. (In Russ.).
  8. Capogrossi-Colognesi L. La struttura della proprietà e la formazione dei “iura praediorum” nell’età republicana. Milano; 1969. V. 1.
  9. Capogrossi-Colognesi L. La struttura della proprietà e la formazione dei “iura praediorum” nell’età republicana. Milano; 1976. V. 2.
  10. Behrends O. Les conditions des terres dans L’Empire Romain. In : De la terre au giel. Paysages et cadastres antiques. V. II. Univ. Franche-Conte. 2004; pр. 6–10.
  11. Castillo Pascual MJ. Ager arcifinius significado etimológoco y náturaleza real. Gerión. 1993;(11):145–151.
  12. Moatti С. Étude sur l’occupation des terres publiques à la fin de la République Romaine. In : Cahiers du Centre G. Glotz. 1992;(3):57–73.
  13. Knütel R. Die actio finium regundorum und die ars gromatica. In: Die Römische Feldmeßkunst. Interdisziplinäre Beitrage zu ihrer Bedeutung für die Zivilizationsgeschichte Roms. Göttingen; 1992.
  14. Hinrichs FT. Die Geschichte der gromatischen Institutionen. Wiesbaden; 1974.
  15. Kaser M. Restituere als Prozessgegenstand. Die Wirkungen der litis contestatio auf den Leistungsgegenstand im römischen Recht. München; 1968.
  16. Gvozdeva IA. Ius subsecivorum v agrimensure i zemel‘nom prave Drevnego Rima [Ius subsecivorum in agrimensura and land law of Ancient Rome]. Drevnij Vostok i antichnyj mir. 2012;(8):149–166. (In Russ.).
  17. Favory F. La part de l’indigène et du vernaculaire dans les texts des arpenteurs romains. Études rurales. 2003;(167/168):33–45.

Copyright (c) 2024 Gvozdeva I.A.

Creative Commons License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License.

This website uses cookies

You consent to our cookies if you continue to use our website.

About Cookies