Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Water rights for tombs in eleven inscriptions from Rome

  • Published:
Water History Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Roman epitaphs occasionally mention the water supply for the tomb and the legal arrangements securing that water, as illustrated in eleven Latin inscriptions from in and around Rome. In these inscriptions, Romans use legal language to secure water rights and to express their aspirations and expectations for a lasting identity. Analysis of these legal expressions reveals the nature of water rights for tombs and their relationship to both the ius civile and to religious law. But the legal language was often imprecise, so that the epitaphs operated in the so-called “shadow of the law,” where the law shaped the choices of Roman tomb founders and in turn, these individuals made law server their social practice and beliefs.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. Picuti (2008, p. 51), Gregori (1987–88, p. 184), Bodel (2018).

  2. The inscriptions, collected in Online Appendix A include one recently published text, Sammartano n° 47, and ten from CIL Volume Six: 6.8485; 6.9404; 6.9421; 6.10235; 6.10247; 6.14614; 6.17653; 6.19012; 6.29519; 6.29907. Picuti (2008, 51 n. 73 and n. 75), cites six of these and two more that mention wells (CIL 6.29958 and 29,959). Gregori (1987–88, pp. 175–176) cites two more with wells (CIL 6.10237, 6.15593). The TLL (6.3.2574–75) lists three other inscriptions from other parts of Italy that mention haustus (CIL 14.864) and two from a well (CIL 5.3683, 5.3849). The inscriptions with wells serve as comparanda for our set.

  3. For the chronology see below at n.60.

  4. Kaser (1978, pp. 34–35), Thomas (2004).

  5. Purcell (1987), Eck (1987), Bodel (1997); the last will and testament functioned similarly according to Champlin (1991, pp. 21–27).

  6. According to Cooley (2012, p. 145), “inscriptions on the exterior of tombs were often legal in flavour.” Arrangements for fideicommissum (a life interest) in epigraphic testaments are characterized as “giuridicamento approssimativo” by Amelotti (1966, p. 20).

  7. For the phrase “shadow of the law,” Mnookin and Kornhauser 1979; cf. Grossberg 1998, 466. In Roman legal culture: Frier (1985, pp. 189–190), Kehoe (2011, p. 156), Kelly (2011, pp. 36–37, cf. 16–18).

  8. Complete texts: 6.8485 (twelve lines); 6.9404 (fifteen lines); 6.10235 (fourteen lines); 6.14614 (eight lines); 6.17653 (nine lines); 6.19012 (four lines). One short text, 6.9421 (five lines), is broken along the left side but the missing letters can be restored with some confidence.

  9. Broken at top or bottom: CIL 6.10247 (twenty-eight lines) is missing only the last line or two with the names of witnesses; CIL 6.29907 contains the last five lines complete.

  10. Substantial fragments: Sammartano n° 47 is damaged on the top and left side with eight lines partially preserved, though the last line which refers to water is complete. CIL 6.29519 is broken on all sides and abraded in the middle, leaving nine partial lines.

  11. Line four of 6.9421,]vmenti, should probably be restored to monimentum.

  12. CIL 6.10235 line 9 (twigs, timber), CIL 6.14614 line 7 (triclia or trellis, similar to a pergola). Cf. Picuti (2008, 51 n. 73).

  13. Family tombs with libertis formula: CIL 6.9404; 6.10235; 6.14614; 6.17653; 6.29519; cf. the name of the family, appella/tur Terentianorum, 6.10247, and mention of children, aput liberos, 6.29907. Lazzarini (1991) discusses CIL 6.9404 and 6.10235.

  14. On the legal terms: Bannon (2017, pp. 8–12), Möller (2010, pp. 78–85, 91–94), Capogrossi Cologensi (1966, pp. 70–79).

  15. Haustus: CIL 6.9404; 6.10247; 6.17653. Usus aquae hauriendae: CIL 6.14614.

  16. Usus aquae: CIL 6.9421. Aqua(e) usu(s): Sammartano n° 47. Aquam uti: CIL 6.29907.

  17. Aquae with an implied ius or usus (6.8485 and 6.10235). For the reading in 6.10235, see Gordon (1983, p. 145) and Online Appendix.

  18. Aquae ductu: CIL 6.19012.

  19. Aqua saliente: CIL 6.29519. For the technical term: Pliny, HN 36.121; Front. Aq. 9.9 and 103.4 (quoting an Augustan senatus consultum); see Rodgers (2004, p. 175).

  20. Similarly of a shared well in CIL 6.29958 and 29,959: commune est/puteum et iter ad tricleam. As printed, the last two lines of CIL 6.9421 read, usus aquae /commu]nis est, but the last line could be restored immu]nis est, to read the same as Sammartano, n° 47.

  21. Immunis of an inheritance: Dig. 38.2.34 Iavol. 3 ex Cass. Land free of tax: TLL 7.1.504.

  22. TLL 3.1968–1975.

  23. On the interpretation of res communes see Frier (2019).

  24. Aquam uti: 6.29907. Aqua(e) usu(s): Sammartano n° 47; 6.9421. Aqua with an implied ius or usus: 6.8485 and 6.10235. For usus of a servitude, see Möller (2010, pp. 88–89, 251–256).

  25. In one case, the right is the direct object of cedit (6.10247, ll. 13, 15), and in the other it is the subject of a passive form, usus aquae hauriendae concessus est (6.14614, l. 7). In epitaphs, cessere also indicates that parts of the tomb go together (cf. Gai. Inst. 3.34), and it seems to have that meaning in one of our texts (6.9404 ll. 12–13). On in iure cessio to create rights of use, see Gaius, Inst. 3.14, with Möller (2010, p. 90).

  26. TLL 5.2.1249–50 s.v. excipio; cf. e.g. Dig. 4.3.7 Ulp. [Pompon.] 11 ad Ed. (terms to sale); Dig. 22.3.9Cels. 1 Dig. (terms to pactum). Excipio is also used in a legal defense (exceptio), cf., e.g., Dig. 2.2.4 Gaius 1 ad Prov. Ed. (praetor formulates a defense); Dig. 43.12.1.16 Ulp. [Labeo] 68 ad Ed.

  27. Dig. 1.8.6.4 Marcian. 3 Inst.: Religiosum autem locum unusquisque sua voluntate facit, dum mortuum infert in locum suum. in commune autem sepulchrum etiam invitis ceteris licet inferre. sed et in alienum locum concedente domino licet inferre: et licet postea ratum habuerit quam illatus est mortuus, religiosus locus fit. TLL 7.2.1365-66 collects usage of licet in legal writings.

  28. The three inscriptions with praesto present only the formulaic list of rights with the verb, while the others present water rights along with other legal specifications, to be discussed shortly. Similarly, a right of access to a spring probably includes haustus in two epitaphs from Gaul and Germany, CIL 12.1188 and CIL 13.7252, with Capogrossi Cologensi (1966, pp. 116–121).

  29. Evangelisti and Nonnis (2004), Kaser (1978, pp. 81–82), Helttula (1974), De Visscher (1963, pp. 83–92). Compare also the unparalleled five letter abbreviation that probably refers to haustus: Capanna and Nonnis, n° 91.

  30. Tomb design to entice visitors: Hope (2009, p. 174).

  31. Water for purification before performing ritual generally (Cic. Leg. 2.24, Verg. Ecl. 8.64; Ovid, Fast. 3.12) and before burial of corpse Verg. Aen. 6.635; Ovid, Meta. 13.531–32. On suffitio, funeral ceremony involving fire and water, see Emmerson (2020a, pp. 7–8).

  32. Similarly access to a garden for ritual, CIL 6.13823 sacrifi/cique faciundi causa. More examples in Picuti (2008, pp. 53–55) and De Paolis (2010). For the rituals at the time of burial and annual commemoration during Parentalia and on deceased’s birthday see Bodel (1997, pp. 21–22), Hope (2009, pp. 85–88, 100–102), Emmerson (2020a, pp. 7–8).

  33. Schrumpf (2006, 105 n. 298) mentions CIL 6.10235 as evidence for ritual practice. Compare CIL 6.10239 which prescribes celebration at the Parentalia, the rosatio, and the deceased’s birthday (ll. 8–9), with Cook 1900, 11–13; also CIL 6.3626: itu ambitu/coronare sacrificare, with Picuti (2008, pp. 45, 51).

  34. CIL 6.9404 and 10,235, with Lazzarini (1991, pp. 6–7). De Visscher (1963, p. 85) explains that the lex publica in such epitaphs prescribed the rites and sacrifices to be carried out at the tomb, citing CIL 6.19949 as an example.

  35. No distinctive evidence, Bodel (2018, pp. 199–208 (archaeological), 208–21 (textual)). Plants and a masonry enclosure are emphasized by Gregori (1987–88) and Picuti (2008); they both assume the presence of a garden implies a water supply. Examples from Gregori include his n° 1 (Feri and Gregori, Tituli 3, no. 112; vines and greenery with a cistern that piped water to a fountain with a bronze basin and jets), n° 11 (CIL 6.26942, cistern) and n° 12 (CIL 6.29961 cistern with basin).

  36. Picuti (2008, 51 n. 73) lists without discussion five of our set of inscriptions.

  37. Most small tomb enclosures at Pompeii had room for a small garden: Bodel (2018, p. 202).

  38. Bodel (2018, pp. 224–225) collects tomb garden plot sizes, cf. Gregori (1987–88, p. 184). Only tomb gardens larger than half a iugerum were commercially farmed, according to Bodel (2018, pp. 221–228), who analyzes one at Centocelle and another at Capua.

  39. Petron. Sat. 71.6–7, 9: praeterea ut sint in fronte pedes centum, in agrum pedes ducenti. Omne genus enim poma volo sint circa cineres meos, et vinearum largiter.

  40. Bodel (2018, p. 204).

  41. Wilson (2008, pp. 742–745); also from the site is CIL 11.3895 which specifies the use of cisterns on the estate.

  42. Rodgers’ (2004, pp. 148–149) commentary on Frontinus (Aq. 5.5): “It is likely enough that Appia ran for a short distance at or slightly above ground level between the Caelian and the Aventine, although the channel probably went beneath the roadway and need not have paralleled the line of the wall.” See also Aicher (1995, p. 19 (castellum of the Marcia), 34, 37 (Appia), 58 (Rivus Herculaneus)). Fabricius says that Appia cannot not have run on the top of the Porta Capena although it was high enough to do so–instead it went on its on “old arches" below the gate, while the Marcia ran across the Porta Capena–it also had a branch that sent water to the Caelian in a channel called rivus Herculaneus (Front. Aq. 19.8; Evans 2002, p. 41). Tombs along via Appia outside Porta Capena from s. 3 BCE (Purcell 1987; Verzár-Bass 1998, pp. 406–408 and 415–417; Patterson 2000, pp. 96–99).

  43. CIL 6.19012 prints aria but it should probably be corrected to ariae, genitive parallel to monumenti; see Online appendix for the full text,

  44. Cicero considered locating his daughter’s shrine in gardens on the right bank of the Tiber, trans Tiberim hortos, Cic. Att. 12.19.1 (= Shackleton Bailey 257), with Verzár-Bass (1998, pp. 421–424).

  45. Taylor (2000, pp. 196–197).

  46. See Online Appendix for findspots and current locations; six are known only from transcriptions.

  47. Bodel (2018, p. 201) cites AE 1914, 201 with CIL 6.2991 and 14.3797 as examples of productive gardens attached to tombs.

  48. CIL 5.3683 and 5.3849 with Capogrossi Cologensi (1966, p. 118).

  49. Dig. 8.1.14.1 Paul. 15 ad Sab. with De Visscher (1963, p. 72); Evangelisti and Nonnis (2004, pp. 349–350).

  50. Antico Gallina (1997, pp. 212–213) assimilates rights of access to tombs to property ownership in CIL 9.3395. The circumstances of this inscription might suggest a property right because it confirms the sale of land for the tomb along with the right of access, and praedial servitudes are typically transferred this way. But this text uses generic language similar to our inscriptions (monumento Fanni Phileti hac aditus debetur).

  51. D. 8.4.1.1 Ulp. 2 Inst., D. 8.3.20.3 Pompon. 33 ad Sab. with Kaser (1971, p. 440), Möller (2010, pp. 34–37), Bannon (2009, pp. 13–19).

  52. Maganzani (2004, p. 189).

  53. For personal rights to tap the city aqueducts in Front. Aq. 108, see Rodgers (2004, pp. 290–291), Maganzani (2004, pp. 209–214). Frontinus does not use the same terms as the epitaphs, preferring phrases with ius “right” such as ius ducendae aquae (Aq. 103) and ius aquarum (Aq. 128).

  54. Personal communication: L. Capogrossi Colognesi and P. Du Plessis..

  55. On utilitas as a requisite for praedial servitudes: Möller (2010, pp. 21–25, 34–37, 192–198).

  56. Bannon (2017, 20–21).

  57. De Visscher (1963, 83–92).

  58. Similarly, De Visscher (1963, 66–68, cf. 83–92) concludes that prohibitions on alienation were independent of the religious nature of the tomb.

  59. Caldelli et al. (2004, pp. 369–372), Kaser (1978, p. 42).

  60. In CIL 6.29519, a fountain appears in the middle of a fragmentary text in ablative phrase, et aqua saliente eius aedificis in/custodiam eiusdem monimenti. The fountain appears to belong to the structure (eius aedificis) and both are related to maintenance of the monument, custodia monimenti; eius is either the genitive pronoun referring to the owner of the tomb or it is a misspelling for eis, agreeing with aedificis, which may be a dative or an ablative, “with the fountain in or for his buildings.” In CIL 6.19012, the text’s brevity makes interpretation uncertain, but here, too, custodia probably refers to maintenance because of the phrasing: custodia monumenti et/aria(e) qua est aquaeductu. Emending aria to the genitive ariae yields parallelism with monumenti, both modifying custodia and connecting it with care for the tomb.

  61. For custodia as a legal concept: Kaser (1971, pp. 506–507).

  62. CIL 6.29958; 6.29959: commune est/culina et puteum/et iter at triclia.

  63. Chronology in Evangelisti and Nonnis (2004, p. 357).

  64. Dig. 11.7.12 pr. Ulp. 25 ad Ed., with De Visscher (1963, pp. 88–92), Lazzarini (1991, p. 7).

  65. In Justinian’s era, servitudes were grounded in the ius gentium rather than the ius civile (Just. Inst. 1.3.2) and praedial servitudes could be created by contract, i.e., as personal rights (Inst. Iust. 2.3.4). The use of contracts to establish servitudes began in the provinces and was later generalized: see Möller (2010, 332 n. 58).

  66. Generally, on tombs and lasting memory, see Hope (2009, pp. 171–177) and scholarship cited at note 5.

  67. Bodel (2018, pp. 228–230) emphasizes otium.

  68. Location on main roads: Emmerson (2020b, pp. 64–65), Borg (2019, pp. 24–27), Purcell (1987, 2007). Bodel (2018, p. 21) notes that tombs competed with truck gardens in Rome’s “cargo belt.” As Rome grew it increasingly relied on its hinterland for food, especially perishable goods like fruit, vegetables, and flowers that required irrigation: Marzano (2013).

  69. Picuti (2008, p. 49) argues that dimensions aim to guarantee integrity of the place.

  70. Thomas (2004, p. 42); other examples in Picuti (2008, p. 50), Gregori (1987–88, p. 177).

  71. Kaser (1978, pp. 33–34), De Visscher (1963, pp. 49–60), Thomas (2004, pp. 42–46).

  72. Dig. 8.3.4 Papin. 2 Resp., with Bannon (2017, p. 10).

  73. Alsietina: Front. Aq. 11.1. The lex Quinctia (9 BCE) affirmed grants of haustus but prohibited the use of mechanical water lifting devices to exercise these rights, “except by wheel, watersnail or mechanism,” praeterquam rota, coclea, machina, Front. Aq. 129.11.

  74. Dig. 11.7.37.1 Macer 1 ad leg. vices .hered., with De Visscher (1963, pp. 56–58). For establishing the tomb garden in advance: personal communication Lisa A. Hughes.

  75. Bodel (2018, pp. 221–222). Expenses generally: Champlin (1991, p. 171. Funerary foundation: Kaser (1978, pp. 66–67), Thomas (2004, p. 42). Rituals: Grimal (1943, p. 9).

  76. Cic. Leg. 2.67: quem nos morem tenemus; cf. 2.61 reliqua sunt in more.

  77. Dig. 18.1.73.1 Papin. 3 Resp.: Intra maceriam sepulchrorum hortis vel ceteris culturis loca pura servata, si nihil venditor nominatim excepit, ad emptorem pertinent. According to Helttula (1974, p. 12) this distinction also motivates the formulaic list of rights of access.

  78. On the meaning of purus, see Thomas (2004, pp. 41–42).

  79. Cic. Att. 12.19.1 (est hic quidem locus amoenus); cf. Att. 12.36.1, 12.37.2. Picuti (2008, p. 51) emphasizes display as function of water; compare Cupitò (2001, p. 51).

  80. No filiation: 6.8485; 6.9404; 6.14614; 6.17653; 6.19012; broken: Sammaratano 47; CIL 6.29907.

  81. Evans-Grubbs (2002, p. 39): “no doubt it is because this transaction normally required a tutor’s permissions that Statia Irene’s possession of the ius liberorum is stated four times in this inscription”.

  82. Tombs and epitaphs celebrated the deceased’s public status as well as personal virtues, according to Borg (2019, pp. 72–76). Freedmen used epitaphs to assert their free status: Mouritsen (2012, p. 289), Eck (1987, pp. 74–77).

  83. For ambiguous criteria in funerary contexts: Borbonus (2014, p. 118).

  84. According to Helttula (1974, pp. 13–15), the formulaic list of rights of access communicated important legal information, even if the Latin expressions are not strictly grammatical and “written by people not well acquainted with Latin grammar.”.

  85. For the similar effect of formulaic language in legal and religious documents on tablets: Meyer (2004, pp. 69–72).

  86. Cf. Mnookin and Kornhauser (1979).

References

  • Aicher P (1995) Guide to the Aqueducts of Ancient Rome. Bolchazy-Carducci, Wauconda

    Google Scholar 

  • Amelotti M (1966) Il testamento romano attraverso la prassi documental, I, Le forme classiche di testamento. Le Monier, Florence

    Google Scholar 

  • Antico Gallina M (1997) Locus Datus Decreto Decurionum. Riflessioni topografiche e giuridiche sul suburbium attraverso i tituli funerari. Epigraphica 59:205–224

    Google Scholar 

  • Arrangio-Ruiz V (1943) Fontes Iuris Romani Antejustiniani, III. Negotia. Barbèra, Florence

    Google Scholar 

  • Bannon CJ (2009) Gardens and neighbors: private water rights in Roman Italy. University of Michigan Press, Ann Arbor

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Bannon CJ (2017) Fresh water in Roman Law: rights and policy. JRS 107:1–30

    Google Scholar 

  • Bodel J (1997) Monumental villas and villa monuments. JRA 10:5–3

    Google Scholar 

  • Bodel J (2018) Roman tomb gardens. In: Malek A-A, Gleason KL, Jashemski WF (eds) Gardens of the Roman Empire. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp 199–242

    Google Scholar 

  • Borbonus D (2014) Columbarium tombs and collective identity in Augustan Rome. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Borg B (2019) Roman tombs and the art of commemoration : contextual approaches to funerary customs in the second century CE. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Caldelli ML et al (2004) Iura sepulcrorum a Roma: consuntivi tematici ragionati. Donare, emere, vendere, ius habere, possidere, concedere, similia. Donazione e compravendita proprietà, possesso, diritto sul sepolcro e diritti di sepoltura” In: Libitina e i luci sepolcrali, Le leges libitinariae Campane Iura Sepulcrorum. Vecchie e nuove iscrizioni. Edizioni Quasar, Rome, pp 310–427

  • Capanna MC, Nonnis D (2004) Iura sepulcrorum a Roma. Inediti e revisioni (n° 91, p. 258) In: Libitina e dintorni: Libitina e i luci sepolcral. Le leges libitinariae campane, iura sepulcrorum: vecchie e nuove iscrizioni. Edizioni Quasar, Rome, pp 177–308

  • Capogrossi Cologensi L (1966) Ricerche sulla struttura delle servitù d’acqua in diritto romano. Giuffrè, Milan

    Google Scholar 

  • Champlin E (1991) Final judgments: duty and emotion in Roman Wills, 200 B.C. – A. D. 250. University of California Press, Berkeley

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Cook B (1900) Iostephanos. JHS 20:1–13

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cooley A (2012) The Cambridge manual of Latin epigraphy. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Cupitò C (2001) Riti funebri alle porte di Roma: la necropoli di Via Salaria. In: Heinzelmann M, Ortalli J, Fasold P, Witteyer M (eds) Römischer Bestattungsbrauch und Beigabesitten. Culto dei morti e costumi funerari romani Dr. Ludwig Reichert, Wiesbaden, pp 47–52

    Google Scholar 

  • De Visscher F (1963) Le droit des tombeaux romains. Giuffrè, Milan

    Google Scholar 

  • De Paolis M (2010) Iura sepulcrorum a Ostia: consuntivi tematici ragionati. Archeol Class 61:583–629

    Google Scholar 

  • Eck W (1987) Die Wasserversorgung im römischen Reich: Sozio-politische Bedingungen, Recht und Administration. In: Garbrecht G (ed) Geschichte der Wasserversorgung, vol 2. Die Wasserversorgung antiker Städte. Philipp von Zabern, Mainz am Rhein, pp 49–101

    Google Scholar 

  • Emmerson AEC (2020a) Reexamining Roman death pollution. JRS 110:5–27

    Google Scholar 

  • Emmerson AEC (2020b) Life and death in the Roman Suburb. Oxford University Press, Oxford and New York

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Evangelisti S, Nonnis D (eds) (2004) Itus, aditus, ambitus, similia. L’accesso al sepolcro: garanzie e finalità. In: Libitina e dintorni. Libitina e i luci sepolcrali. Le leges libitinariae campanae. Iura Sepulcrorum: vecchie e nuove iscrizioni, Edizioni Quasar, Rome, pp 349–359

  • Evans HB (2002) Aqueduct hunting in the seventeenth century: Raffaello Fabretti’s De aquis et aquaeductibus veteris Romae. University of Michigan Press, Ann Arbor

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Evans-Grubbs J (2002) Women and the law in the Roman Empire: a sourcebook on marriage, divorce, and widowhood. Routledge, London and New York

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Frier BW (1985) The rise of the Roman jurists: studies in Cicero’s Pro Caecina. Princeton University Press, Princeton

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Frier BW (2019) The Roman origins of the public trust doctrine. JRA 32:641–647

    Google Scholar 

  • Gordon AE (1983) Illustrated introduction to Latin epigraphy. University of California Press, Berkeley

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Gregori GL (1987–88) Horti sepulchrales et cenotaphia nelle iscrizioni urbane. BCom 92:175–188

  • Grimal P (1943) Les jardins romains à la fin de la République et aux deux premiers siècles de l’Empire: essai sur le naturalisme romain. E. de Boccard, Paris, p 1943

    Google Scholar 

  • Grossberg M (1998) How to tell law stories. Law Soc Inq 23(2):459–470

    Google Scholar 

  • Helttula A (1974) On itum ambitum datum: a formula of ius sepulchri. Arctos 8:9–17

    Google Scholar 

  • Hope VM (2009) Roman death: the dying and the dead in ancient Rome. Continuum, London

    Google Scholar 

  • Kaser M (1971) Das römische Privatrecht, 2nd edn. Beck, Munich

    Google Scholar 

  • Kaser M (1978) Zum römischen Grabrecht. ZRG 95(1):15–92

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kehoe DP (2011) Law and social formation in the Roman Empire. In: Peachin M (ed) The Oxford handbook of Roman Social Relations. Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp 144–163

    Google Scholar 

  • Kelly B (2011) Petitions, litigation, and social control in Roman Egypt. Oxford University Press, Oxford

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Lazzarini S (1991) Sepulcra Familiaria: Un’indagine epigrafico-giuridica. CEDAM, Padua

    Google Scholar 

  • Maganzani L (2004) L’approvvigionamento idrico degli edifici urbani nei testi della giurisprudenza classica: contributi giuridici alle ricerche sugli acquedotti di Roma antica. In: Gallina MA (ed) Acque per l’utilitas, per la salubritas, per l’amoenitas. Edizioni ET, Milan, pp 185–220

    Google Scholar 

  • Marzano A (2013) Agricultural production in the hinterland of Rome: wine and olive oil. In: Bowman AK, Wilson AI (eds) The Roman agricultural economy: organization, investment and production. Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp 86–105

    Google Scholar 

  • Meyer E (2004) Legitimacy and law in the Roman world: tabulae in Roman belief and practice. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Möller C (2010) Die Servituten: Entwicklungsgeschichte, Funktion und Struktur der grundstückvermittelten Privatrechtsverhältnisse im römischen Recht. Mit einem Ausblick auf die Rezeptionsgeschichte und das BGB. Wallstein, Göttingen

    Google Scholar 

  • Mnookin RH, Kornhauser L (1979) Bargaining in the shadow of the law: the case of divorce. Yale Law J 88(5):950–997

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mouritsen H (2012) The freedman in the Roman world. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge

    Google Scholar 

  • Patterson J (2000) On the margins of the City of Rome. In: Hope VM, Marshall E (eds) Death and disease in the ancient City. Routledge, New York and London, pp 85–103

    Google Scholar 

  • Picuti MR (2008) Il contributo dell’epigrafia latina allo scavo delle necropoli antiche. In: Scheid J (ed) Pour une archéologie du rite, Nouvelles perspectives de l’archéologie funéraire. École Française de Rome, Rome, pp 43–58

    Google Scholar 

  • Purcell N (1987) Tomb and suburb. In: von Hesburg H, Zanker P (eds) Römische Gräberstrassen Selbstdarstellung, status, standard. Beck, Munich, pp 25–41

    Google Scholar 

  • Purcell N (2007) The horti of Rome and the landscape of property. In: Leone A, Palombi D (eds) Res bene gestae: ricerche di storia urbana su Roma antica in onore di Eva Margareta Steinby. Edizioni Quasar, Rome, pp 289–305

    Google Scholar 

  • Rodgers RH (ed) (2004) Frontinus: De Aquaeductu Urbis Romae. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge

    Google Scholar 

  • Sammartano ME (2004) Iura sepulcrorum a Roma. Inediti e revisioni. In: Libitina e dintorni: Libitina e i luci sepolcrali. Le leges libitinariae campane, Iura sepulcrorum: vecchie e nuove iscrizioni. Edizioni Quasar, Rome pp 177–308

  • Schrumpf S (2006) Bestattung und Bestattungswesen im Römischen Reich. V&R Unipress/Bonn University, Göttingen

    Google Scholar 

  • Taylor R (2000) Public needs and private pleasures: water distribution, the Tiber river, and the urban development of ancient Rome. L’Erma di Bretschneider, Rome

    Google Scholar 

  • Thomas Y (2004) Res religiosae: on the categories of religion and commerce in Roman law. In: Pottage A, Mundy M (eds) Law, anthropology, and the constitution of the social: making persons and things. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp 40–72

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Verzár-Bass M (1998) A proposito dei mausolei negli horti e nelle villae. In: Cima M, La Rocca L (eds) Horti romani. L’Erma di Bretschneider, Rome, pp 401–424

    Google Scholar 

  • Wilson A (2008) Villas, horticulture and irrigation infrastructure in the Tiber valley. In: Coarelli F, Patterson H (eds) Mercator placidissimus: the Tiber valley in antiquity. Edizioni Quasar, Rome, pp 731–768

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Classical Studies, Indiana University, Bloomington, IN, USA

    Cynthia J. Bannon

Authors
  1. Cynthia J. Bannon
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Cynthia J. Bannon.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

With thanks to Allison Emmerson and Lisa Hughes for reading early drafts. Mistakes are my own.

Supplementary Information

Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.

Supplementary file1 (DOCX 25 kb)

Rights and permissions

Springer Nature or its licensor (e.g. a society or other partner) holds exclusive rights to this article under a publishing agreement with the author(s) or other rightsholder(s); author self-archiving of the accepted manuscript version of this article is solely governed by the terms of such publishing agreement and applicable law.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Bannon, C.J. Water rights for tombs in eleven inscriptions from Rome. Water Hist 15, 13–27 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1007/s12685-022-00315-w

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s12685-022-00315-w

Keywords

Search

Navigation