Historical background and previous research

According to Livy (Ab urbe condita 40.37–38, 41; Foster Reference Foster1989), Rome forcibly resettled approximately 47 000 Apuan Ligurians from the Magra and Vara valleys to Samnium in two relocation events in 180 and 179 BC (Figure 1). In Pliny’s Natural History (HN 3.105; Rackham Reference Rackham1938), the deportees later appear as the Ligures Baebiani within the Augustan Regio II administrative district; an appellation conferred for the consul Marcus Baebius Tamphilus, who organised their transfer.

Figure 1.

Ligurian deportation to Samnium (figure by S. Lehnig).

The resettlement area had formerly been confiscated from the Samnites (Taurasini) in 298 BC and incorporated into Rome’s ager publicus. To facilitate the relocation, Rome provided financial assistance and a commission to oversee the distribution of land among the deportees (Ab urbe condita 40.38).

Pliny’s reference suggests that the Ligurians were divided into two communities: the Ligures Corneliani and Ligures Baebiani. The precise location of these new settlements remained uncertain until 1817, when an inscription (CIL IX 1466) was discovered at Macchia di Circello. This dedication by the Ligures Baebiani to the benefactor of a bath provided the first epigraphic confirmation of their presence in the region. Excavations conducted in the 1980s (Johannowsky Reference Johannowsky and Caiazza2004) uncovered a temple, two bath complexes, a street lined with tabernae (single-room shops or stalls) (Figure 2a) and ceramic evidence from the second century BC to the fifth century AD. Beneath the temple, erected in the second century BC, lay an earlier Samnite sanctuary. Female votive figurines were found in the temple area (Figure 3). A study integrating field survey and epigraphy framed the community as an example of how Rome reshaped rural and urban structures in the interior of Italy (Patterson Reference Patterson1988). A detailed understanding of the settlement’s layout and chronological development remains incomplete and forms the basis for addressing the aims of the UPROOTED project.

Figure 2.

Area excavated during the 1980s: 1 & 2) baths; 3) temple area; 4) street with tabernae (figure by S. Lehnig & N. Babucic).

Figure 2 Long description

Panel A: Aerial view of an archaeological site with labeled structures. The site includes four main areas: 1) baths, 2) baths, 3) temple area, and 4) street with tabernae. The structures are outlined in black, indicating previously exposed areas. Panel B: Inset map showing the location of the archaeological site within a larger region. The inset map provides a broader context for the site’s placement.

Figure 3.

Terracotta votive head of a female figure wearing a veil or helmet (figure by S. Lehnig & C. Hartl-Reiter).

Geomagnetic investigations

Building on the results of the 1980s excavations and the analysis of satellite imagery and vegetation marks (Guacci Reference Guacci2016), magnetic survey of a 5ha area of land largely unaffected by modern construction has produced the most extensive map of the settlement to date (Figures 4 & 5). Although its initial extent remains unknown, an archaeological survey defined its maximum development as 14ha. So far, no evidence for defensive walls has been detected. A principal street axis extends north-westwards from the excavated area and can be traced for over 90m in the magnetic map, matching the course of a historical transhumance route toward Saepinum, visible in 1954 aerial photographs (Figure 6). Along this axis, rectangular buildings (approximately 75 × 25m) exhibit internal subdivisions reminiscent of higher-status atrium-houses. The same street crosses the settlement’s centre with baths, tabernae and a temple, and continues south-east, toward Apulia. Water for the baths and settlement likely derived from a groundwater vein. A nearby well, still used until the 1980s, attests to the long continuity of this source. Two parallel linear anomalies running north–south likely represent drainage channels. South of the excavation, a second street axis toward Beneventum can be traced for over 140m. It is partially interrupted by a large rectilinear building (80 × 60m) whose layout suggests a public complex, perhaps a (livestock) market. Its placement, directly intersecting the main southward route, indicates deliberate channelling of movement through a central economic-administrative zone. In all directions, the map shows dense built structures: wall foundations, street segments, channels and potential industrial features. Rectilinear anomalies indicate stone-built foundations; small, circular, high-intensity anomalies represent thermoremanent signatures of ovens or kilns. Combined magnetic and surface evidence suggests stone foundations supporting lighter superstructures.

Figure 4.

Area investigated through magnetic survey (figure by N. Babucic).

Figure 4 Long description

A geomagnetic survey map of a settlement area. The map includes several key elements: Magnetic survey areas are outlined in blue, deep ploughed or cultivated fields are marked in green, modern infrastructure is indicated with pink lines, and modern wells are shown as blue dots. Vegetation is marked with green circles. The map covers a region with a mix of agricultural fields and modern structures. The survey areas are spread across different sections of the map, with notable concentrations of modern wells and vegetation in specific areas. The map provides a detailed overview of the geomagnetic survey conducted in the settlement area.

Figure 5.

Results and interpretation of geophysical survey (figure by N. Babucic).

Figure 6.

Aerial photograph (1954). The course of the transhumance route (tratturo) corresponds to that of the settlement’s main road (figure by N. Babucic, S. Lehnig & Aerofototeca Nazionale).

A strategically placed settlement between Saepinum and Beneventum

The site’s characteristics closely parallel other central Campanian vici, notably Aequum Tuticum (De Benedittis Reference De Benedittis2010). Mosaic-decorated baths, a temple and a market building suggest local prosperity, and it is likely that the settlement’s position along a major trade route, approximately a day’s journey from Saepinum (30km) and Beneventum (26km), allowed it to develop into a semi-urban centre. The selection of this location was almost certainly strategic. The resettlement likely served a dual purpose: it cleared land for new colonies in Liguria (Luna and Luca), while simultaneously promoting the economic development of Samnium.

Whether the resettlement relates to possible Roman-Samnite conflicts in the region during the second century BC is still unclear. The 1980s excavators emphasised the absence of third-century BC ceramics, inferring that the Samnite population had been expelled prior to the Ligurian arrival (Johannowsky Reference Johannowsky and Caiazza2004). Given revised typo-chronological sequences of black-gloss pottery (Di Giuseppe Reference Di Giuseppe2012), this earlier conclusion requires reassessment, and it cannot be excluded that Samnites were allowed to remain in the region. The prolonged period between the presumed confiscation of Samnite land (298 BC) and the Ligurian settlement (180 BC) may suggest limited Roman interests and intervention in the area until 180 BC (Roselaar Reference Roselaar2010).

Future research

Excavations will further clarify the settlement’s chronology, spatial organisation and status. The project will assess how this forcibly resettled community differed from other regional settlements, as well as other historical cases of forced relocations, to show whether Roman resettlement policies followed consistent patterns or were adapted to specific strategic contexts. A key component will be a (re-)evaluation of the ceramic assemblage to determine whether Samnite populations remained in the region before and at the time of the Ligurian arrival, thereby shedding light on possible reasons for the settlement of the Ligurians in conquered Samnite territory. Excavations in domestic areas will investigate daily life, diet and material culture, with particular attention given to the persistence of Ligurian identity beyond the retention of the ethnonym in epigraphy and its negotiation with Roman and possible Samnite influences.