12
Family Forms and Conflicts in Roman North Africa

Kai Haase and Roland Steinacher1

Westfälische Wilhelms-Universität, Münster/Austrian Academy of Sciences, Vienna

Introduction

Ancient North Africa differs markedly from our modern understanding. Pliny the Elder was succinct: “The Greeks have given the name of Libya to Africa, and have called the sea that lies in front of it the Libyan Sea. It has Egypt for its boundary” (Nat. Hist. 5.1—trans. H. T. Riley). Egypt in the Graeco-Roman world was regarded as part of Asia instead; North Africa lay west of its boundaries. Romans from at least the first century BCE accepted this division, as is attested for example in Sallust’s Bellum Jugurthinum (Sal. Jug. 17.3f.; 19.3; Huß 1996: 217–20). And as late as the seventh century CE, Isidore of Seville was able to give quite a precise description: Africa extended along south through Ethiopia as far as Mount Atlas. Its boundary on the north was the Mediterranean Sea. The Spanish priest even lists most of Rome’s African provinces (Cyrenaica/Pentapolis, Tripolitana, Byzacena, Africa Proconsularis/Carthage, Numidia, Mauretania Sitifensis/Tingitana; Etym. 14.3.27–8).

The Greeks conceptualized this division far earlier and in more ethnographic terms: Herodotus distinguished the “ploughing” Africans west of Lake “Triton” (most likely the Gulf of Gabès) from the “meat–eating and milk–drinking nomads” east of the Triton. Furthermore, Herodotus distinguished between immigrant Africans (Phoenicians and Greeks) and indigenous Africans (Libyans and Aithiopes) in his Libyan logos at the end of book four (4.191.1–3; 4.197.2; see Asheri, Lloyd, and Corcella 2007; Zimmermann 1999). While from the fifth century BCE, the term “Libyan” was applied to the Carthaginians and their allies, later it became a term for the inhabitants of North Africa in general. (Herodian, for example, called the emperor Septimius Severus a Libyan (3.10.6). The sixth century CE historian Procopius labeled the Latin-speaking African population Libyans: “All the Libyans being Romans in earlier times had come under the Vandals by no will of their own and had suffered many outrages at the hand of these barbarians” (BV 1.20.19—trans. H. B. Dewing).

Moreover, for many ancient authors, North Africa was a mystic land. South of its civilized area, in the sun’s heat, lay Ethiopia. Since the Homeric epics, Aἰθιoπία applied not only to the Upper Nile, but to all the regions of the Sahara in general.

Where the south declines towards the setting sun lies the country called Aethiopia, the last inhabited land in that direction. There gold is obtained in great plenty, huge elephants abound, with wild trees of all sorts, and ebony; and the men are taller, handsomer, and longer lived than anywhere else.

(Hdt. 3:114 – trans. A. D. Godley)

Various barbarian nations lived there as well as the fabulous basilisk, which killed with its breath and smell (Isid. Etym. 14.5.3; see also Plin. Nat. 8.78 and Isid. Etym. 12.4.6). And a bifurcation of North Africa and its peoples since the time of Herodotus had been fixed: agricultural and urbanized inhabitants lived along the shores of the Mediterranean, while in the hinterland nomads and pastoralists slept in tents or huts and were not civilized.

This division lasted well into Late Antiquity. Procopius categorized the Moors, Maurousioi, as the real African barbarians, wholly different from the decadent Vandals who entered North Africa in 429:

For of all the nations which we know, that of the Vandals is the most luxurious, and that of the Moors the most hardy…The Moors live in stuffy huts both in winter and in summer and at every other time, never removing from them either because of snow or of the heat of the sun or any other discomfort whatever due to nature. And they sleep on the ground, the prosperous among them, if it should so happen, spreading a fleece under themselves. Moreover, it is not customary among them to change their clothing with the seasons, but they wear a thick cloak and a rough shirt at all times. And they have neither bread nor wine nor any other good thing, but they take grain, either wheat or barley, and, without boiling it or grinding it to flour or barley-meal, they eat it in a manner not a whit different from that of animals.

(BV 4.6.15–20)

Procopius admittedly applied his own prejudices and cultural chauvinism to characterize the Moors, comparing their manners to those of animals. But the luxury-loving Vandals, while barbarians, too, had been weakened by Roman civilization – a stereotype directed by Tacitus against the Britons who were pacified after adopting Roman manners (Agr. 10.11). The Moors were the real barbarians: brave, hardened, fit for war, even if somewhat unkempt (Conant 2012: 263–70; on stereotypes, Woolf 2011).

As modern historians considering family forms and conflict within families in ancient North Africa, we, too, must create our own chronological and geographical limits. In our chapter, we want to cover a long chronological period, beginning with the first century BCE and incipient Romanization of the region and ending with the mid-sixth century CE, when the Byzantine general Belisarius destroyed the Vandal Kingdom (Steinacher 2016; Berndt and Steinacher 2008). More concisely, we will focus on three distinct stages: Roman North Africa, a Christianized North Africa, and finally Vandal North Africa. Each era offered distinct, developing customs and ideology, but also new forms of family conflict. Our particular focus will center on the correlation between family and property; and in Late Antiquity, on dynasties and power (for a detailed history, see Broughton 1929; Picard 1990; Lepelley 1998).

A challenge to this analysis, besides several methodological concerns, arises from the sources. These difficulties are spatial as well as temporal. North Africa encompassed an enormous and varied territory, with data scattered unequally throughout the space and time. The evidence also offers a complex and not always clear range of cultural contexts, not the least of which were the contrasts between urban and rural life. Bearing in mind, too, evidence is both literary (Apuleius, Tertullian, Augustine, etc.) and epigraphic (primarily the military camp in Lambaesis – see Janon 1973), we will limit our examination to a series of individual cases before drawing general conclusions.

Roman and Christian North Africa

As implied in the introduction, the history of Roman North Africa began with the creation of Africa vetus in 146 BCE, after the third Punic War and the destruction of Carthage. Yet the process of annexation of North Africa was not complete until the reign of the Emperor Claudius. Colonization and integration of Roman customs and laws did not begin in earnest before the first century CE. But Romanization would have a lasting effect, once thousands of Roman colonists and members of the Roman aristocracy started to settle in North Africa (on Romanization and Roman North Africa, see Broughton 1929; Picard 1990; Lepelley 1998: 79–84, 112–14; Brüggemann 2003; Schörner 2005; Matz 2005; on its development, Revell 2008; Hingley 2005; Ando 2000; Woolf 1998; Mattingly 1997). This process included the introduction of Italian familial customs and norms (Overbeck 1973).

In order to discuss family forms in Roman North Africa, it is necessary first to specify the meaning of the Roman word familia. As Saller observed some years ago (Saller 1984), the Romans used two different words: familia and domus. He noted that most Roman sources, especially Ulpian (Ulp. Dig. 50.16.195.1–4, esp. 2), defined familia in a strict legal sense as all personae in the potestas of the paterfamilias, either by nature or by law. This definition precluded extended and extra-household family, especially cognati. However, Saller demonstrated that only agnati were labeled familia; Romans used domus to describe more complex household and kinship relations. Domus could include a variety of family members, slaves (Mouritsen 2011), kinship groups including agnates and cognates, ancestors and descendants (Saller 1984: 342–3). Saller concludes, however, that neither familia nor domus come close to the modern meaning of the nuclear family. Complicating these definitions, more recent studies have shown that, in contrast to the evidence from epitaphs indicating a dominance of nuclear structures, many people lived in extended or multiple family households structures (Hope 1997: 113–14 and Bodel 2001: 38).

Analyzing family in the Roman periphery is controversial and is by no means settled (Huebner this volume; see also Saller 1994: 1–9; Rawson 2011: 1–12). That said, an evaluation of epigraphic sources shows a clear “Roman” gap in the marital age between women and men (Shaw 1987: 30–46). In the Western half of the Empire, young women tended to be married early, probably in their late teens, as was usual in Roman society (see Shaw 1987: figs. 1.4, 1.5). Most men seem to have married in their late twenties. As iustes nuptes were focused on reproduction, remarriage (notably of widows) was frequent. Accordingly, much of the scholarship has focused on the nature of marriage, household makeup, and their relationship to a possible “Mediterranean” model (Huebner this volume).

This raises a question for our interests: did Romanization destroy any kind of “African family model” or family attributes that were typical for the African periphery? We know of a variation on so-called Levirate or close-kin marriages in North Africa, for example, associated with Near Eastern practices and perhaps “imported” to North Africa as well from Phoenician colonization (see Apuleius below). We are also aware of the high respect accorded to elders (seniores). Especially in rural villages, the elders constituted sort of a family and political institution for social and regional affairs, whose roles seemed similar to municipal administration. This respect and authority survived the process of Christianization and the elders endured as a well-defined, influential body within African communities (Shaw 1982a: 207–26). Having said all this, however, evidence of an “African family model” is missing, and it is safer to suppose a wide variability of family models: nuclear and extended structures, Roman and indigenous forms (Cherry 1998: 156). A topography and environment full of contrasts, diverse economic and sociological conditions, the difference between urban and rural structures, and the distinctness of marginal and frontier zones undoubtedly placed limitations on Romanization and guaranteed the endurance of certain traditions.

We can, however, perhaps make some generalizations about Roman cultural penetration. North Africa was one of the most important agrarian regions in the Roman Empire and its population can rightly be considered largely agrarian. Towards the end of the third century, the African provinces became the main producer of cash crops like grain and olives (Gerhardt 2008: 652; Ruffing 2008: 837). The industrial sector, producing amphorae and pottery, was booming as well and dominated the Mediterranean market (Witschel 1999: 113–33, Ruffing 2008; for ports, Fischer 1993: 15, Bockmann 2013: 6, 64; for inland, Leitch 2011: 168–96, Mattingly and Hitchner 1995). This meant the rural regions and especially the marginal zones were cultivated and thus exposed to Roman patterns of life (Carandini 1983: 45–62; Stone 1998: 103–13; Brüggemann 2005: 202). Families of all social classes increasingly depended upon and were defined by landholdings and property, and the transmission of such property; the well-known career of the “Harvester of Mactar” is a case in point (CIL VIII: 11824 = ILS 7457; see Stone 1998: 106). Property was a safeguard for families and conflicts within them arose most frequently when it came to its transmission (e.g., CIL VIII: 212 and 213; Groupe 1993).

Roman jurists were fully aware of this problem. Inheritance law, including precise guidelines how family properties should be transmitted within the family structure, takes up over 20 percent of the Digesta. The head of the family was responsible for ensuring continuity and financial stability, as well as for the protection of the family property (Lindsay 2011: 346–60; Gardner 2011: 361–76). The head of the family was either a bonus paterfamilias or a malus paterfamilias depending on his ability to avoid conflicts in organizing his will and heritage (Sen., Ben. 4.27.5; 4.39.2). Equal distribution to male and female heirs was a legal ideal, but Roman law was flexible in order to meet the specific needs and assured continuity of individual families. Significantly, “testamentary clauses banning alienation of property outside the family” were of primary importance (Saller 1994: 168).

Apuleius’ defense (Apologia) in the Roman provincial court at Sabratha around 158 CE, when he was accused of being a magician, is illustrative of these concerns (Hammerstaedt 2002: 9–19 for an overview). Born in the small African city of Madauros in the province of Numidia around 125 CE, he was the son of a wealthy family of Roman origin (23.1 and 24.9). His marriage to a rich and much older widow, Amelia Pudentilla, led to an accusation by his wife’s family, who claimed Apuleius had used magic to seduce her (1–4; see Gutsfeld 1992: 250–68; Mratschek-Halfmann 1993). But the accusation largely seems a pretext for expressing anger and fear of losing parts of the family property to an outsider (89.1–6; 90.1–4; 99.5; 101.3). The defense speech of Apuleius provides not only insight into the stemma of Aemilla Pudentilla’s family (see Appendix), but also issues of property transmission and Levirate marriage.

Aemilla Pudentilla was a wealthy young woman of noble origin when she married Sicinius Amicus in Oea (89.1–2). Her wealth consisted of many estates and other property she inherited from her father as his only heir (71.4; 91.6; 92.3). Around the age of 30, she became a widow with two sons – Sicinius Pontianus and Sicinius Pudens. Both sons came under the potestas of their grandfather (only known as Sicinius). As an ambitious father-in-law he put pressure on Aemilla Pudentilla to agree to marry one of her deceased husband’s brothers – Sicinius Clarus or Sicinius Aemillianus (68.4). Wishing to avoid family conflict and fearing that her sons could possibly lose their grandfather’s patrimony, she accepted an engagement with Clarus (68.3–4). However, this marital arrangement was never consummated. During the following years, Aemilla Pudentilla gained more independence – although she was under the legal guardianship (tutela mulieris) of Cassius Longinus –her sons received an inheritance from their grandfather. Aemilla, as a strong and self-confident woman, then met and married Apuleius, who was a friend of her son Pudens (73.9).

Several years later, her elder son, Pontianus, died unexpectedly, leaving behind a young widow, Herennia (73.6). Again, the father-in-law, Herennius Rufinus, wanted his daughter to remarry a close relation, in this case Pudens (97.5).

Both situations of intended remarriage plans by fathers-in-law reveal an interest in Levirate marriage, in spite of a Romanized society (Davies 1981, 1981a; Weisberg 2009). What kind of advantage did this practice offer to elite families, one strongly associated with Semitic patriarchal societies? Such unions served to strengthen family ties and alliances, especially in politically significant unions. In the specific cases of the Sicinii (98.2; 101.3) and Rufinius Herennius (77.1–4), the dowry, patrimony, and property of Aemilla Pudentilla would have been kept in the family (Corbier 2005: 271–7). Making these desires manifest was the main point of Apuleius’ defense speech. His stepson and main plaintiff Sicinius Pudens was pressured by his uncle Sicinius Aemillianus and possibly his father-in-law Rufinius Herennius to bring a lawsuit. Apuleius even claimed that the plaintiffs bribed a dubious witness, Iunius Crassus. Apuleius in sum turned this case of sorcery into a family battle over inheritance and wealth. We do not know if Apuleius, as he had claimed in his speech, disavowed his wife’s property and only the heirs of Aemilla Pudentilla inherited her considerable wealth (91.6; 100.1–3).

Apuleius’ case illustrates perhaps a common enough clash between family members of the African local elite. But we can find similarities among the humbler classes of North Africa. Two large stone plaques found at Aïn Merwâna discovered by Emile Masqueray in 1877 and recently examined by Shaw record a decree concerning a local irrigation scheme during the reign of Elagabalus (CIL VIII Suppl. 2:18587 = ILS II 5793; Shaw 1982). Unfortunately, only about a fifth of the inscription survives. It not only details information about an ancient irrigation system, but also how a small rural community with both Roman and non-Roman families (a distinction that must be based on nomenclature) transmitted wealth, property, and landholdings over generations and what strategies preserved patrimonies. Aïn Merwâna rests in the semi-arid lands of the southern Maghrib, 100 kilometers southwest of Cirta and 40 kilometers northwest of Lambaesis. Arid plains, lowlands, and the massive mountain Aurasius mons define the environment. In ancient times, this small settlement was known as Lamasba (Shaw 1982b: 62–8), probably established or colonized by Roman soldiers in the first or early second century CE. During Roman control, Lamasba had a large rural territorium of about 300 square kilometers.

The decree may have resulted from local conflicts regarding the irrigation system and water use, and the original text may have mentioned hundreds of local properties (Shaw 1982b: 62). But the surviving fragments still record 85 irrigation plots, presenting perhaps about half of the total number. Scholars have been able to generate a register of 43 full names plus three praenomina. Every entry has an identical structure: the name of proprietor, the size of property (represented by Shaw as “K,” a unique African measurement of land, approximately 16 square cubits; Shaw 1982b: 82), the dates of irrigation, and the total time of irrigation (Shaw 1982b: 72–81). Study of nomenclature and property holdings reveals what must have been typical practices of property transmission within families. Smaller landowners tended to hold land units in blocks contiguous to each other. In other words, ownership and location of ownership was closely connected to families and kinship ties (Shaw 1982b: 90). Of equal interest, a “Semitic” system of transmission, where the eldest son received twice the share of land as other heirs, is also in evidence.

Let us look at several examples. Five members of the Apuleii family and their property holdings are known (see Appendix): The heirs of Apuleus Faustinus held in common the plot 1.3 of 11 K. Two of his sons, Apuleus Africanus and Apuleus Rogatianus, possessed plots 1.4 and 1.5, immediately adjacent to their father’s plot 1.3, with 110K each. Apuleus Processus, likely the eldest son, owned plot 1.6 of 220K. Shaw suggested that Apuleus Africanus and Apuleus Rogatianus were joint heirs of 22 K and subdivided it into two equal plots. Only Apuleus Rogatus owned a property (plot 4.13 of 150K) beyond the family block, perhaps acquired by marriage.

Six members of the large landholding Germanii family, probably with Germanius Petronianus as the paterfamilias, are also well documented (among others; Shaw 1982: 89–90). His son Germanius Valentinus owned plot 4.7 of 664K. The heres of Petronianus held the adjacent plot 4.6 of 620K and Germanius Valens owned plot 4.5 of 609K. On scala 2 of the decree, we find further property holdings. Germania Castula, likely Petronianus’ daughter or wife, owned plot 2.12 of 803K. An identically named son, Germanius Petronianus, held plot 2.13 of 440K. Plot 2.14 of 440K belonged to Germanius Dentilianus. Germanius Valentinus also owned plot 2.16 of 430K. The Germanii family’s holdings were presumably enhanced by the marriage of Germanius Dentilianus to a daughter of the Dentilii family. The couple held plots 2.10 and 2.11. Both families together owned a collective property of 4,655K, possibly making them one of the biggest landholders in Lamasba.

Finally, in contrast to this type of property transmission, joint ownership and shared property by family members was also practiced. Fuficius Felix and Fuficius Priscianus held plot 2.9 of 360K in common. The same pair, brothers or close relatives, also owned plot 4.15 of 600K.

The remains of the irrigation scheme in Lamasba indicate typical patterns of property transmission in rural families: family blocks of property, intermarriage to strengthen property ties, the Semitic tradition of double privileging the eldest son, and overlapping family interest in property lots. These examples admittedly do not indicate conflicts over family inheritances. But the example of Apuleius suggests that similar problems must have existed in Lamasba as well.

Before discussing family and conflict in Vandal North Africa, it is necessary to make some remarks on possible influences of Christian ideology and behavior on family forms in North Africa. First of all, it has to be stressed that the North African periphery came in contact with Christianity very early. By the third century, African society became substantially Christian. Eventually the North African provinces would become the most Christianized areas in the Roman Empire (Löhr 2007: 40). Tertullian, writing around 200 CE, even claimed that Christians were the majority in the cities (Scap. 2). Although Tertullian might have exaggerated, the concentration of Christians in Africa seemed to be higher than anywhere else in the Roman Empire. An estimated 2,500 Christians out of a total population of 70,000 in Carthage in Tertullian’s day is a reasonable estimate (Bockmann 2013: 26; Rebillard 2013: 10). More concrete figures reinforce this: datable epigraphic sources are available from the third century CE. A large number of church sites have been identified (Brown 2012: 334). We know of almost 250 episcopal sees in North Africa by 300 CE. And at a conference in Carthage, held in 411 (admittedly made up of both Catholics and Donatists), 560 bishops participated (Leone 2007: 231–47; Löhr 2007: 9–51; Sears 2007: 17–21, 99–108, 120–3; Dossey 2010; Horbury 2013; Rebillard 2013).

Such a presence raises questions about Christian influence on family life and family forms in North Africa. In spite of its presence, however, the general consensus was that religion’s effect was negligible; Kyle Harper concluded “Christianity was more influenced by Greco-Roman structures than vice versa” (Harper 2012: 680). Despite this assessment, the influence on some aspects of family life was enormous, especially on the ideal of sexually exclusive marriages (although see Mus. Ruf., 12; Harper 2012: 680–4). This doctrine was espoused particularly by Chrysostom, but visible broadly in the homiletics of the Late Antique clergy. “The Roman model of marriage simply did not demand sexual exclusivity from men” (Harper 2012: 681) and this was the point where Christian norms and the moral standards of the Church actively sought to modify social behavior within the household.

We do not know if this pastoral campaign was completely successful, even in terms of changing attitudes. Augustine of Hippo, the best-known proponent of this issue in North Africa as a bishop, admitted that his own sexual impulses had led to his failure in his younger days (Conf. 2.1–33). At the age of 30, Augustine was urged by his mother to leave his concubine by affiancing him to a minor from a good family. While waiting for the girl to come of age, he continuously felt sexually restless and indeed took a second concubine to satisfy his lust (Conf. 6.15). Human urges and common practice undoubtedly remained a strong impediment to a new ideal.

Despite a limited area of impact, the Christian marriage ideal did have implications for the family that went beyond conjugal fidelity. When it comes to the “barbarian age” of Africa, it is important to keep in mind that they were Christians as well. And it appears very likely that the Moorish and Vandal elites were also more Roman than we have tended to think.

Family and Power I: The Family of Nubel, African Power Brokers in between Rome and the Desert

Two case studies will complete this overview on families in Roman North Africa by focusing on dynasty and politics. Moorish and Vandal families acted as regional power brokers in Late Antiquity.

Nubel, who had been the most powerful petty king, (regulus potentissimus), among the Mauritanian nations, died, and left several sons, some legitimate, others born of concubines (et legitimos et natos e concubinis), of whom Sammac, a great favourite of the Count Romanus, was slain by his brother Firmus; and this deed gave rise to civil discords, and wars.

(Amm. Mar. 29.5.2—trans. C. D. Yonge)

This is how Ammianus Marcellinus introduces the history of the power struggles in Africa during the 370s. But what role did Nubel’s family play? Was it a “real” family or is the topic of dynasty and kinship only a literary motif Ammianus, one used by other ancient authors? And was it significant that family, rather than a single individual, was engaged in a quest for influence and power? (see PRLE 1:237, 262, 340, 395–6, 566, 591, 633–4, 801; see also Modéran 2003: 482 and 511).

Let us begin with Nubel’s political and social identity. Being the father of two rebels opposing the Western imperial government, the historian described him as an African barbarian ruler. But Nubel’s full name was Flavius Nubel. Like many other soldiers serving the emperor in Late Antiquity, he proudly bore the name of the first-century Flavian imperial dynasty. Since Constantius I, the father of Constantine the Great, Flavian nomenclature had become quite common in military circles, even to non-Romans such as Flavius Odovacar or Flavius Theodericus (Wolfram 1997: 57–62). Nubel was a Roman citizen, a military commander (praepositus) of a regional cavalry unit in the northern regions of the Mauritanian province and apparently a devout Christian. Together with his wife Nonnica (Monnica), he commissioned a church at Rusguniae; and as a wealthy man, was able to equip this basilica with relics, including a purported piece of the True Cross (CIL VIII:9255; cf. Laporte 2004). The inscription from Nubel’s basilica reveals another detail Ammianus does not mention: Nubel’s father, Saturninus, was a comes and thus a high-ranking Roman officer as well. So Nubel’s family actually formed part of the Romano-African elite for several generations (Shaw 2011: 39 and n. 84; Drijvers 2007: 134–5; Blackhurst 2004 :64–5; PCBE I: 790; Duval 1982, v. 1:352, n. 167).

According to Ammianus, Nubel had seven children – six sons and a daughter. Two sons, Firmus and Dius bore Roman names, like their grandfather, Saturninus. But Sammac (Zammac), Gildo, Mazuca, Mascezel and Cyria bore Berber ones (Drijvers 2007: 135 and n. 18; Brett and Fentress 1996: 71–2). These were children of different women, although we only know of Nonnica. Nor do we know which sons were legitimate and which were not, but some of Nubel’s children’s mothers were concubines.

Nubel served the emperor and was part of the Roman administration in Africa. In contrast, his son Firmus became – according to the Historia Augusta – a petty brigand, a latrunculus. The Roman sources tend to emphasize their foreignness; they keep quiet about the Roman part of their identity, depicting local leaders as fierce barbarians. As a barbarian usurper, he is not even characterized as a tyrannus; Firmus is only a local bandit (HA Quad. Tyr. 2.1–4; Blackhurst 2004: 59).

When Nubel died, a power struggle inside his family emerged and war broke out in the highlands of Mauretania. Firmus killed his half-brother Sammac (Amm. Marc. 29.5.13; CLE 1916 = ILS 3:9351), who had been supported by the Roman authorities (Shaw 2011: 39–40; Brett and Fentress 1996: 71–4; Blackhurst 2004: 61–2; Wickham 2005: 334). Subsequently, between 372 and 375, Firmus led an uprising against the Comes Africae Romanus (Drijvers 2007: 133, n. 10; Demandt 1968: 277–92). All Nubel’s sons fought with Firmus except Gildo, who stayed loyal to the Roman government – a decision that would late profit him. The reasons behind the revolt are not completely clear, as our sources are mainly interested in the affairs of the Roman state. But Firmus claimed loyalty to the state, accusing Romanus of tax fraud and having misused his authority. Ambassadors from both men petitioned Valentinian I at Trier. Romanus won more support at court and successfully cast Firmus as a lawless rebel. In the “rebellion” that followed, Firmus’ soldiers looted coastal cities (Amm. Marc. 29.5.1–4; Oros. 7.33.5; Epit. Caes. 45; Romanus: PLRE I :768). To make matters worse, Firmus’ troops may have acclaimed him as emperor in 372 (Amm. Marc. 29.5.20; Zos. 4.16.3; Drijvers 2007: 139–42; but cf. Bénabou 1976; Mattingly 1996; Shaw 2011: 45 and Kotula 1970; note similarities to Amm. Mar. 20:4:18).

Valentinian in response sent the magister militum Theodosius (father of Theodosius I, usually “Count Theodosius”) to Africa to suppress the rebellion. Firmus’ brothers, Dius and Mascezel, led a confederation of locals, the gens Tyndensium et Masinissensium, and engaged Theodosius’s forces. After a crushing defeat, Ammianus reports that only Mascezel was able to flee and survive; and he would play an important part in this African family drama more than two decades later. We are not informed what happened to Dius and may have perished, but Ammianus does not mention him again (Amm. Mar. 29.5.11–14).

Count Theodosius sent Gildo to support Romanus and began negotiations with Firmus. This proved unfruitful and a guerrilla war in the highlands of Mauretania followed. Firmus found new allies and a third brother, Mazuca joined his side, commanding the confederation of the Isaflenses, and with whom he could take refuge. But Mazuca, too, was killed and Theodosius had his corpse beheaded and displayed in the streets of the provincial capital, Caesarea. Shortly thereafter, Firmus was betrayed by Mazuca’s successor, Igmazen. He committed suicide and Theodosius had his victory. The African rebellion was over (Amm. Mar. 29.5.21–56; Oros. 7.36.4; Aug., Contra epist. Parm.i 1:10:16; for possible religious dimensions to this affair, Frend 1952: 73 and Shaw 2011: 45–6).

Despite Ammianus’ account, Firmus and Sammac were not simple Moorish princes, ruling in the mountainous hinterland of the African provinces. They were, like their father, Roman military commanders. They had access to military and state resources, including fabricae, storage depots, roads and the cursus publicus. This meant, among other things, that they knew how to disrupt the North African economy. The region’s products were critical to the cities of the Roman West. The uprising in the mountains and attacks of the coastal cities thus endangered the vital interests of the Western Empire. By 375, however, at least three of Nubel’s sons were dead. Sammac had been murdered by Firmus at the beginning of the struggles for power in Africa, Mazuca had died fighting Theodosius, and Firmus himself had committed suicide. Dius, too, probably did not survive the conflict with the imperial government. Only Gildo and Mascezel had survived.

The loyal Gildo would become a major player in regional and imperial politics by the end of the fourth century. After the rebellion, this son of Nubel received an immense patrimony confiscated from Firmus. Later, probably in 386, the emperor Theodosius I appointed Gildo comes Africae and magister utriusque militiae per Africam – count and master of both armies (infantry and cavalry) in Africa (CTh 9.7.9 (393)). These appointments were not only for his support. Gildo had taken the state’s side again in 388, when the usurper Maximus claimed Italy (Oros. 7.36; Redies 1998). Theodosius I had also used marriage to ensure Gildo’s loyalty and to consolidate peace in the African provinces: his daughter Salvina was married to Nebridius, the nephew of Theodosius’ first wife, Aelia Flacilla (Jer., Ep. 123.17.9; PLRE I:341, 620 and 799). North Africa merited consideration and its elite thus might hope for imperial connections. Such imperial matches would happen again in the following century, with the Vandal royal house linking itself more successfully and directly to the house of Theodosius.

As a result, the African provinces were ruled by Gildo with a high degree of independence, very much as the Vandal king Geiseric would do some 50 years later (Claud., De Bello Gild. 2.57; Shaw 2011: 46–7). Gildo’s foreign policy tended to pit the Western against the Eastern Empire. In the year following his promotion, the African comes’ opposition to Maximus worked to his advantage. But during another usurpation in the West in 393 and 394, Gildo initially allowed African grain deliveries to continue to Italy. No African units assisted Theodosius’ campaign against the pretender; Gildo remained neutral, awaiting the outcome of the civil war. The count used similar tactics against Theodosius’s heir, Honorius. Grain supplies desperately needed in Italy appeared erratically, causing food shortages in Italy and its capital. The master of Africa sold grain and other products to a broader Mediterranean market and became richer in the process (Claud., De Bello Gild. 2.17–8, 34, 241–52; Redies 1998).

Eventually, the court at Ravenna reacted. When Stilicho, the master of soldiers in Italy, prepared to invade Africa, Gildo declared himself to be a subject of the Eastern emperor, Arcadius. The Senate declared him a hostis publicus, an enemy of the state (Symm., Ep. 4.5; Blackhurst 2004: 65–70). Gildo’s brother Mascezel, who had previously supported Firmus’ rebellion, was sent to Africa to unseat and replace his brother. How he survived the 370 rebellion is unknown, but Mascezel seems to have become a loyal or at least a willing lieutenant of the Roman state. Agreeing to serve under Stilicho, Gildo responded by having his brother’s sons killed. He returned with a small force and was able to defeat Gildo near Theueste. The disloyal African comes was executed; Stilicho had Mascezel drowned immediately afterwards. Nubel’s line had ended (Claud., De Bello Gild. 2:390–1; Zos., 5.11.3; Oros. 7.36.4; Marc. Com. s.a 398; see Diesner 1962: 178–86 and Redies 1998).

The family’s property, however, did not survive and was confiscated by the state. The house of Nubel’s immense wealth fascinated the contemporary writers. It was so extensive that a special comes Gildoniaci patrimonii was created. Such a title meant this officer was responsible only to the emperor (CTh 7.8.7 (400), 9 (399), 9.42.16 (399), 19 (405); Not dig. occ. 12.5). When the Vandals arrived in Africa in 429, Geiseric confiscated this patrimony and quickly became the richest and most powerful man in the African provinces.

Brent Shaw in particular has doubted Ammianus’ account of Nubel’s offspring. Although he concedes that Firmus and Gildo could have been blood siblings, he regards it as more probable that the term “brother” in this case indicated “a fictive kinship relationship between them” (Shaw 2011: 37–8, note 80; Shaw 1997). There is precedent to suggest Nubel’s “sons” may very well have been unrelated by blood: Ammianus may have adapted the tale of King Micipsa (who died in 118 BCE) as a literary model to depict contemporary African affairs. Micipsa had been survived by two natural sons, Adherbal and Hiempsal, and by his adopted nephew, Jugurtha, who was no blood relation. When King Micipsa died, Jugurtha murdered Hiempsal and Adherbal fled to Rome (Lintott 1994: 29–31; Whittaker 1996: 593–6). Ammianus may have recycled this trope of family to describe the political realities of his own day. Whether “real” or not, however, family mattered, whether it be a model drawn from classical authors like Sallust or a biological reality.

Family and Power II: Power Struggles in the Vandal Royal House

For the Vandals, since the time when they gained possession of Libya, used to indulge in baths, all of them, every day, and enjoyed a table abounding in all things, the sweetest and best that the earth and sea produce. And they wore gold very generally, and clothed themselves in the Medic garments, which now they call ‘seric’, and passed their time, thus dressed, in theatres and hippodromes and in other pleasurable pursuits, and above all else in hunting. And they had dancers and mimes and all other things to hear and see which are of a musical nature or otherwise merit attention among men. And the most of them dwelt in parks, which were well supplied with water and trees; and they had great numbers of banquets, and all manner of sexual pleasures were in great vogue among them.

(Proc., BV 4.6.5–14)

Victor of Vita and Procopius, our main sources concerning the Vandals, commonly employed the motif of Roman versus barbarian in their narratives (Steinacher 2013: 469–74). The bishop Victor did this in defense of the Catholic Church and Procopius to justify the Justinian’s war. But Procopius accused the Vandals (in contrast to the Moors) of acting like wealthy Roman aristocrats. And indeed, Richard Miles and Andrew Merrills have paralleled such sentiments in recently describing the Vandal aristocrat Arifridos as “a late Roman dandy”, buried in the basilica of Thuburbo Maius (Merrills and Miles 2010: 83; see Steinacher 2016: 270–72).

It is true that the Vandal elite replaced Africa’s ruling senatorial and curial classes in the fifth century and many behaved like members of the region’s traditional aristocracy. The royal family of the Hasdings appropriated the imperial domains in Africa as well as many senatorial estates. But how Geiseric specifically changed the land tenure system and the basic economic and social conditions of the region remain matters of debate (Goffart 2010; Modéran 2012; Tedesco 2012; for its relation to marriage and marriage law, see Steinacher 2014 and 2016: 164–66). And whatever changes the king put into place, Geiseric managed to accumulate enough property to enable his family to become “major players” in the Mediterranean from the mid-fifth century until the kingdom’s demise in the 530s.

Part of Geiseric’s success depended on actively involving all of his sons in organizing this newly acquired property. After a rebellion of Vandal nobles in 442, no external power threatened the royal family. But Geiseric’ son Huneric (reigned 477–84) had powerful rivals among his own relatives. After Geiseric got rid of his competitors within the army, the family itself became the battleground for power struggles in the Vandal Kingdom. Part of this shift was due to imperial connections. When Geiseric had attacked Rome in 455, he brought back Licinia Eudoxia, widow of Valentinian III, and her daughters, Eudocia and Placidia, to Carthage. The elder daughter Eudocia was married to Huneric (Steinacher 2016: 198–200; Eudocia: PLRE II:407–8). The match gave Huneric and his son Hilderic (reigned 523–33) a much stronger political presence and authority than a mere “barbarian” king.

Huneric initially had an opportunity to be accepted by both his Vandal and North African subjects – and even by the Catholic Church. His persecution of Manichaeans met with approval from Nicene Christians; it was, after all, what was expected of a pious ruler. After 24 years, he permitted the ordination of a Catholic bishop in Carthage. Such efforts had little impact upon the Vandal elite, however, and may well have been met with resistance. Victor notes executions within the royal family and the exile of others. Huneric’s brother Theoderic died in exile and his wife and son were killed. The Arian patriarch Jucundus was burned in public because he had served as Theoderic’s advisor at court; many nobles close to Theoderic were also persecuted – some burned alive and others more simply executed. Huneric also exiled Godagis, the son of his younger brother Genton. Victor reports that Huneric even deprived Geiseric’s comitatus, a group of his father’s closest advisors, of all power (Steinacher 2013: 470; Vict. Vit. 2.2–6, 12–16; see also Merrills 2010: 143–5; Merrills and Miles 2010: 74–7; Howe 2007: 56–78; Courtois 1954: 16–7; Costanza 1964: 223–41; Costanza 1980: 230–68).

But there may have been a more concrete reason for these events. Huneric had also tried to convince North Africa’s Catholic bishops to support a change in Geiseric’s succession order in favor of his son, Hilderic, and this probably facilitated the internal turmoil. Victor of Vita stressed that the violence within the royal family and the leading circles of the Vandals was explicitly motivated by Huneric’s dynastic goals. The king’s desire for his own son to follow him broke with Geiseric’s rule of agnatic seniority in matters of succession.

It may be, however, that Victor associated succession issues with this royal purge in order to gloss over broader resistance to the royal house and Huneric’s rule. Securing the position of his son might have been only of secondary importance. Victor’s interest in the violence within the royal house and the Vandal aristocracy was intended to highlight the barbarity and cruelty of Huneric and his followers. But by casting Huneric’s political activities as dynastic pretensions violating the constitutio of Geiseric, Victor also managed to present the king as an illegitimate ruler even under the rules of Vandal governance (Steinacher 2013: 470; Merrills 2010: 143–8). After all, in the end, Huneric did not prevail: his nephew Gunthamund acceded to the throne. Other circles within the Vandal elite prevailed and the followers of Huneric’s policy may have been persecuted themselves (on possible followers, see Claude 1974: 34, cf. Merrills 2004: 145–62).

Conclusion

We have tried to connect two related, but different phenomena with one another: families and dynasties. The latter combines family patterns of kinship, marriage, and the transmission of wealth with political power. The case studies presented here – spanning a broad time period between the first century BCE and the sixth century CE, and crossing social, political, and class distinctions – demonstrate similar patterns and concerns within North African society. In particular, we have focused on families and their troubles in maintaining the integrity of familial properties, as well as an analogous dynastic concern in gaining and/or defending political supremacy in a transforming Roman world.

Land ownership and property transmission serve as a universal link between Roman African families, rich and poor, over approximately six centuries. That said, there is neither a genuine African family model nor even an identifiable dominant model for any one period. Roman and native forms appear side by side; despite Roman rules of succession, for example, native African practices like Levirate marriage continued. Admittedly, our sources must restrict these conclusions.

Each era’s examples, however, made manifest common family concerns. Apuleius’s marriage to a wealthy widow highlighted the potential threats to a patrimony and the transmission of property with the appearance of an interloper. His case raised typical fears about inheritable property and the directions a conflict between members of a local African elite family could take. Even wealthy families might depend on both small and large landholdings. As with Egypt, Sicily, and Sardinia, North Africa was one of the important agrarian regions of the Roman Empire; families tried to ensure continuity and financial stability there, in part by concentrating and re-concentrating their property within closely knit kin groups.

By the third century, African society not only became largely Christian, but also an important center for religious activity and thought. Christian authors, especially Augustine of Hippo, forged a new doctrine and ideology of marriage at variance with traditional moral and legal views, to say nothing of the relations between women and men. At the same time, the most basic principles of private law related to inheritance and the status of heirs remained unchanged. Custom, religious imperative, and Roman jurisprudence all centered around the integrity of the family and its continuation from one generation to the next.

Lastly, the Moorish and Vandal dynasties of the fourth, fifth, and sixth centuries were central in the power struggles that transformed the Roman world in Late Antiquity. They were Christians and often more Roman than we tend to think. But family mattered to them, whether it be a literary fiction or a historical fact. It is more likely than not that Nubel’s “sons” were powerful African political figures, only depicted as brothers by Ammianus, where family was used as a convenient template to present complex political realities. In the case of the new elite, the Vandal royal dynasty, the power struggle was presented as a conflict between different branches of this family and shaped the political history of the age. Whether Moorish princes or Vandal kings, however, the integrity of a family’s assets and the passage of those assets from one generation to the next remained part of a larger, collective North African concern.

Appendix

Chart of the family relations after Apuleius Apology, where Sicinius Clarus and Sicinius Pudens trying to arrange a remarriage and Sicinius Aemilianus putting pressure on Sicinius Pudens to accuse Apuleius.

Family properties in Lamasba (only those who are used in the text) after CIL VIII Suppl. 2 18587

Family ApuleiiPlotnumberSize
Heirs of Apuleus Faustinus1.3117 K
Apuleus Processus (eldest son?)1.6220 K
Apuleus Rogatianus1.4110 K
Apuleus Africanus1.5110 K
Apuleus Rogatus4.13150 K
Family Germanii
Germanius Petronianus2.13420 K
Germania Gastula2.12803 K
Germanius Dentilianus2.14440 K
Germanius Valentianus2.16430 K
4.7664 K
Heirs of Germanius Petronianus4.6620 K
Germanius Valens4.5609 K
Family Dentilii
Dentilius Senex2.10300 K
Dentilius Maximus2.11340 K
Joint ownership
Fuficius Felix (and) Fuficius Priscianus2.9360 K
Fuficius Felix (and) Fuficius Priscianus4.15600 K

References

  1. Ando, C. 2000. Imperial Ideology and Provincial Loyalty in the Roman Empire. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.
  2. Asheri, D. A. and L. A. Corcella. 2007. A Commentary on Herodotus: Books I – IV. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
  3. Bénabou, M. 1976. La résistance africaine à la romanisation. Paris: Éditions la Découverte.
  4. Berndt, G. M and Steinacher, R., eds. 2008. Das Reich der Vandalen und seine (Vor-)geschichten. Vienna: Verlag der Österreichischen Akademie der Wissenschaften.
  5. Blackhurst, A. 2008. “The house of Nubel: rebels or players?” in A. H. Merrills ed., Vandals, Romans and Berbers: New Perspectives on Late Antique North Africa. Aldershot: Ashgate: 59–75.
  6. Bockmann, R. 2013. Capital Continuous. A study of Vandal Carthage and Central North Africa from An Archaeological Perspective. Wiesbaden: Reichert Verlag.
  7. Bodel, J. 2001. Epigraphic Evidence: Ancient History from Inscriptions. London and New York: Routledge.
  8. Brett, M. and Fentress, E. 1996. The Berbers. Oxford: Blackwell.
  9. Brown, P. 2012. Through the Eye of a Needle: Wealth, The Fall of Rome, and the Making of Christianity in the West, 350–550 AD. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
  10. Broughton, T. 1929. The Romanization of Africa Proconsularis. Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press.
  11. Brüggemann, T. 2003. Römer, Nomaden, Christen. Staat und Gesellschaft im spätantiken Nordafrika (3.–5. Jh. n. Chr.). Diss. Jena: Jena University Press.
  12. Brüggemann, T. 2005. “Romanitas und Latinitas als Träger römischer Herrschaft in Nordafrika” in G. Schörner ed., Romanisierung – Romanisation: Theoretische Modelle und praktische Fallbeispiele. Oxford: Archaeopress: 201–17.
  13. Carandini, A. 1983. “Pottery and the African economy,” in P. Garnsey ed., Trade and Ancient Economy. London: Chatto & Windus: 145–62.
  14. Picard, C. 1990. La civilization de l´Afrique romaine. 2nd edn. Paris: Études augustiniennes.
  15. Cherry, D. 1998. Frontier and Society in Roman North Africa. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
  16. Claude, D. 1974. “Probleme der vandalischen Herrschaftsnachfolge,” Deutsches Archiv, 30.2: 329–55.
  17. Conant, J. 2012. Staying Roman. Conquest and Identity in Africa and the Mediterranean 439–700. Cambridge Studies in Medieval Life and Thought. Fourth Series 82. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
  18. Costanza, S. 1964. “‘Uuandali-Arriani’ e ‘Romani-Catholici’ nella historia persecutionis Africanae provinciae di Vittore di Vita. Una controversia per l’uso del latino nel concilio cartaginese del 484,” Oikoumene. Studi paleocristiani pubblicati in onore del Concilio Ecumenico Vaticano II: 223–41.
  19. Costanza, S. 1980. “Vittore di Vita e la historia persecutionis Africanae provinciae.” Veterum Christianorum 17: 230–68.
  20. Corbier, M. 2005. “Family and kinship in Roman Africa,” in S. Dixon ed.,The Roman Family in the Empire: Rome, Italy, and Beyond. Oxford: Oxford University Press: 255–85.
  21. Courtois, C. 1954. Victor de Vita et son œuvre. Algier.
  22. Davies, E. W. 1981. “Inheritance rights and the Hebrew Levirate marriage. Part 1,” Vetus Testamentum 31: 133–44.
  23. Davies, E. W. 1981a. “Inheritance rights and the Hebrew Levirate marriage. Part 2,” Vetus Testamentum 31: 257–68.
  24. Demandt, A. 1972. “Die Feldzüge des älteren Theodosius,” Hermes, 100: 81–113.
  25. Demandt, A. 1968. “Die afrikanischen Unruhen unter Valentinian I,” in H. J. Diesner, H. Barth and H. D. Zimmermann eds., Afrika und Rom in der Antike. Wissenschaftliche Beiträge der Martin-Luther-Universität Halle-Wittenberg. Halle: Martin-Luther-University Press: 277–92.
  26. Diesner, H. J. 1962. “Gildos Herrschaft und die Niederlage bei Theueste (Tebessa),” Klio 40: 178–86.
  27. Dossey, L. 2010. Peasant and Empire in Christian North Africa. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.
  28. Drijvers, J. W. 2007. “Ammianus on the revolt of Firmus,” in J. den Boeft ed., Ammianus after Julian: The Reign of Valentinian and Valens in Books 26–31 of the Res Gestae. Mnemosyne Supplementa 289. Leiden: Brill: 129–58.
  29. Duval, Y. 1982. Loca sanctorum Africae. Le culte des martyrs en Afrique du IVe au VIIe siècle vols. 1 and 2. Collection de l’École Française de Rome 58. Rome: École Française de Rome.
  30. Fischer, H. 1993. “Zu Problemen von Stadt und Stadtentwicklung im Römischen Reich während des 3. Jahrhunderts,” in G. Bülow and K. Johne eds., Gesellschaft und Wirtschaft des Römischen Reiches im 3. Jahrhundert. Berlin: Akademie-Verlag: 135–85.
  31. Frend, W. H. C. 1952. The Donatist Church. A Movement of Protest in Roman North Africa. London: Oxford University Press.
  32. Gardner, J. F. 2011. “Roman horror of intestacy?,” in B. Rawson ed., A Companion to Families in the Greek and Roman Worlds. Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell.
  33. Gerhardt, T. 2008. “Die Städte,” in K. Johne ed., Die Soldatenkaiser. Krise und Transformation des Römischen Reiches im 3. Jahrhundert n. Chr. (235–284). 2 vols. Berlin: Akademie-Verlag: 691–712.
  34. Goffart, W. A. 2010. “The technique of barbarian settlement in the fifth century. A personal, streamlined account with ten additional comments.” Journal of Late Antiquity 3.1: 65–98.
  35. Groupe de recherches sur l'Afrique antique. 1993. Les Flavii du Cillium. Étude architecturale, épigraphique, historique et littéraire du mausolée de Kasserine (CIL VIII, 211–16). Rome: École Française.
  36. Gutsfeld, A. 1992. “Zur Wirtschaftmentalität nichtsenatorischer provinzialer Oberschichten: Aemilia Pudentilla und ihre Verwandten,” Klio, 74: 250–68.
  37. Hammerstaedt, J. 2002. Apuleius: De magia. Darmstadt 2002: Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft.
  38. Harper, K. 2012. “Marriage and family in Late Antiquity,” in S. Johnson ed., The Oxford Handbook of Late Antiquity. Oxford: Oxford University Press: 667–714.
  39. Hingley R. 2005. Globalizing Roman Culture. Unity, Diversity and Empire. London: Routledge.
  40. Horbury, W. 2013. “Jewish and Christian origins in Roman Africa,” in C. K. Rotschild and J. Schröter eds. The Rise and Expansion of Christianity in the First Three Centuries of the Common Era. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck: 51–74.
  41. Hope, C. A. 1997. “The find context of the Kellis agricultural account book,” in R. Bagnall ed., Reading Papyri, Writing Ancient History. London and New York: Routledge: 5–16.
  42. Howe, T. 2007. Vandalen, Barbaren und Arianer bei Victor von Vita. Studien zur Alten Geschichte 7. Frankfurt: Verlag Antike.
  43. Huß, W. 1996. “Afrika 1. Begriffsgeschichte, 3. Römische Provinz,” in Der Neue Pauly 1, 217–23.
  44. Janon, M. 1973. “Recherches à Lambèse,” Antiquités Africaines 7: 193–254.
  45. Kotula, T. 1970. “Firmus, fils de Nubel, était-il ursupateur ou roi des Maures?” Acta Antiqua Academiae Scientiarum Hungaricae 18: 137–46.
  46. Laporte, J.-P. 2004. “Les armées romaines et la révolte de Firmus en Maurétanie césarienne,” in Y. Le Bohec and C. Wolff eds. L'armée romaine de Dioclétien à Valentinien Ier: actes du congrès de Lyon (12–14 septembre 2002). Collection du Centre d'Études Romaines et Gallo-Romaines N. S. 26. Paris: De Boccard: 279–98.
  47. Leitch, V. 2011. “Location, location, location: characterizing coastal and inland production and distribution of Roman African cooking wares,” in D. Robinson and A. Wilson eds., Maritime Archaeology and Ancient Trade in the Mediterranean. Oxford: Oxford Centre for Maritime Archaeology: 169–96.
  48. Leone, A. 2007. “Christianity and paganism, IV: North Africa,” in A. Casiday and F. W. Norris eds., Constantine to c. 600, Part 2. Cambridge: Cambridge Univ. Press: 231–47.
  49. Lepelley, C. 1998. Rome et l´intégration de l´Empire. Tome 2, Approches regionals du Haut-Empire romaine. Paris: PUF.
  50. Lindsay, H. 2011. “Adoption and heirship in Greece and Rome,” in B. Rawson ed., A Companion to Families in the Greek and Roman Worlds. Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell: 346–60.
  51. Lintott, A. 1994. “The Roman Empire and its problems in the late second century,” in A. Crook, A. Lintott and Elizabeth Rawson eds., CAH3 9: The Last Age of the Roman Republic, 146–43 BC. Cambridge: Cambridge Univ. Press: 16–39.
  52. Löhr, W. 2007. “Western Christianities,” in A. Cassiday and F. W. Norris eds., Constantine to c. 600, Part 2. Cambridge: Cambridge Univ. Press: 9–51.
  53. Mattingly, D. J. 1995. Tripolitania. London: Batsford.
  54. Mattingly, D. J. 1996. “From one Colonialism to another: imperialism and the Maghreb,” in N. J. Cooper and J. Webster eds., Roman Imperialism: Post-colonial Perspectives. Leicester Archaeology Monographs 3. Leicester: School of Archaeological Studies, Univ. of Leicester: 49–69.
  55. Mattingly, D. J. (ed.) 1997. “Power, discourse, and discrepant experience in the Roman Empire,” Journal of Roman Archaeologoy Supplements 23. Oxford.
  56. Mattingly, D. J. and R. B. Hitchner. 1995. “Roman Africa: an archaeological review,” Journal of Roman Studies, 85: 165–213.
  57. Matz, S. 2005. “Die Centuriation/Limitation der Provinz Africa – ein Beispiel für Romanisierungsprozesse im Imperium Romanum?” in G. Schörner ed., Romanisierung – Romanisation. Theoretische Modelle und praktische Fallbeispiele. Oxford: Archaeopress: 187−200.
  58. Merrills, A. H. 2004. “The perils of panegyric: the lost poem of Dracontius and its consequences,” in A. H. Merrills ed., Vandals, Romans and Berbers. New Perspectives on Late Antique North Africa. Aldershot: Ashgate: 145–62.
  59. Merrills, A. H. 2010. “The secret of my succession: dynasty and crisis in Vandal North Africa,” Early Medieval Europe 18.2: 135–59.
  60. Merrills, A. H. and Miles, R. 2010. The Vandals. Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell.
  61. Modéran, Y. 2003. Les Maures et l’Afrique romaine. IVe–VIIe siècle. Bibliothèque des Écoles françaises d' Athènes et de Rome 314. Rome: École française de Rome.
  62. Modéran, Y. 2012. “Confiscations, expropriations et redistributionsfoncières dans l’Afrique vandal,” in P. Porena and Y. Rivière eds., Expropriations et confiscations dans les royaumes barbares: une approche régionale. Collection de l’École Française de Rome 470. Rome: École Française de Rome: 129–56.
  63. Mouritsen, H. 2011. “The families of Roman slaves and freedmen,” in B. Rawson ed., A Companion to Families in the Greek and Roman Worlds. Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell: 129–44.
  64. Mratschek-Halfmann, S. 1993. Divites et praepotentes. Reichtum und soziale Stellung in der Literatur der Prinzipatszeit. Stuttgart: Steiner.
  65. Overbeck, M. 1973. Untersuchungen zum afrikanischen Senatsadel in der Spätantike. Frankfurter althistorische Studien 7. Frankfurt: Lassleben.
  66. Rawson, B. 1991. Marriage, Divorce and Children in Ancient Rome. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
  67. Rawson, B. 2011. A Companion to Families in the Greek and Roman Worlds. Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell.
  68. Rebillard, E. 2013. Christians and Their Many Identities in Late Antiquity, North Africa, 200–450 CE. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.
  69. Redies, M. 1998. “Gildo,” Der Neue Pauly, 4: 1071–2.
  70. Revell, L. 2008. Roman Imperialism and Local Identities. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
  71. Ruffing, K. 2008. “Die Wirtschaft,” in K. Johne, ed. Die Soldatenkaiser. Krise und Transformation des Römischen Reiches im 3. Jahrhundert n. Chr. (235–284). Berlin: Akademie Verlag: 817–41.
  72. Saller, R. 1994. Patriarchy, Property and Death in the Roman Family. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
  73. Saller, R. P. 1984. “Familia, domus, and the Roman conception of the family,” Phoenix, 38: 336–55.
  74. Saller, R. P. and Shaw, B. D. 1984. “Tombstones and Roman family relations in the principate: civilians, soldiers and slaves,” Journal of Roman Studies 74: 124–56.
  75. Schörner, G., ed. 2005. Romanisierung – Romanisation. Theoretische Modelle und praktische Fallbeispiele. Oxford: British Archaeological Reports.
  76. Sears, G. 2007. Late Roman African Urbanism. Continuity and Transformation in the city. Oxford: Archaeopress.
  77. Shaw, B. D. 1982a. “The elders of Christian Africa,” in P. Brind´Armour ed., Mélanges offerts à R. P. Étienne Gareau. Ottawa: Editions de l'Université d'Ottawa : 207–26.
  78. Shaw, B. D. 1982b. “Lamasba: an ancient irrigation system,” Antiquités africaines 18: 61–103.
  79. Shaw, B. D. 1987. “The age of Roman girls at marriage: somereconsiderations,” Journal of Roman Studies 77: 30–46.
  80. Shaw, B. D. 1997. “Ritual brotherhood in Roman and post-Roman Societies,” Traditio 52: 327–55.
  81. Shaw, B. D. 2011. Sacred Violence: African Christians and Sectarian Hatred In the Age of Augustine. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
  82. Shaw, B. D. and Saller, R. P. 1984. “Close-kin marriage in Roman society,” Man 19: 432–44.
  83. Steinacher, R. 2013. “Who is the Barbarian? Considerations on the Vandal royal title,” in W. Pohl and G. Heydemann eds., Post-Roman Transitions: Christian and Barbarian Identities in the Early Medieval West. Cultural Encounters in Late Antiquity and the Middle Ages 14. Turnhout: Brepols: 437–85.
  84. Steinacher, R. 2014. “Vandalisches oder römisches Recht? Betrachtungen zu Recht und Konsens im vandalischen Nordafrika am Beispiel der Verfolgungsgeschichte Victors von Vita,” in Verena Epp ed., Recht und Konsens im frühen Mittelalter. Konstanzer Arbeitskreis für Mittelalterliche Geschichte. Vorträge und Forschungen. Sigmaringen: Thorbeck.
  85. Steinacher, R. 2016. Die Vandalen. Aufstieg und Fall eines Barbarenreiches. Stuttgart: Klett-Cotta.
  86. Stone, D. L. 1998. “Culture and investement in the rural landscape. The North African bonus agricola,” Antiquités africaines 38: 103–13.
  87. Tedesco, P. 2012. “Sortes Vandalorum: forme di insediamento nell’Africa post–romana,” in P. Porena and Y. Rivière eds., Expropriations et confiscations dans les royaumes barbares: une approche régionale. Collection de l’École Française de Rome 470. Rome: École Française de Rome: 157–224.
  88. Treggiari, S. 1991. Roman Marriage. Iusti Coniuges from the Time of Cicero to the Time of Ulpian. Oxford: Clarendon Press.
  89. Weisberg, D. E. 2009. Levirate Marriage and the Family in Ancient Judaism Lebanon. Waltham: Brandeis.
  90. Witschel, C. 1999. Krise, Rezession, Stagnation? Der Westen des römischen Reiches im 3. Jahrhundert n. Chr. Frankfurt: Marthe Clauss.
  91. Witschel, C. 2001. “Neue Forschungen zur römischen Landwirtschaft,” Klio, 83: 113–33.
  92. Whittaker, C. R. 1996. “Roman Africa: Augustus to Vespasian,” in A. K. Bowman, E. Champlin, and A. Lintott eds., CAH3 10: The Augustan Empire, 43 BC–AD 69. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press: 568–618.
  93. Wickham, C. 2005. Framing the early Middle Ages. Europe and the Mediterranean 400–800. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
  94. Wolfram, H. 1997. The Roman Empire and its Germanic Peoples. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.
  95. Woolf, G. 1998. Becoming Roman. The Origins of Provincial Civilization in Gaul. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
  96. Woolf, G. 2011. Tales of the Barbarians: Ethnography and Empire in the Roman Roman West. Malden, MA: Wiley-Blackwell.
  97. Zimmermann, K. 1999. Libyen. Das Land südlich des Mittelmeers im Weltbild der Griechen. Vestigia 51, Munich: C. H. Beck.

Note