[33: These remarkable arrangements are clear, especially from the lists of Spanish places in Pliny, and have been well exhibited by Detlefsen (_Philologus_, xxxii., 606 f.). The terminology no doubt varies. As the designations _civitas_, _populus_, _gens_, belong to the independent community, they pertain _de jure_ to these portions; thus, _e.g._ there is mention of the _X civitates_ of the Autrigones, of the _XXII populi_ of the Asturians, of the _gens Zoelarum_ (_C. I. L._ ii. 2633), which is just one of these twenty-two tribes. The remarkable document which we possess concerning these Zoelae (_C. I. L._ ii. 2633) informs us that this _gens_ was again divided into _gentilitates_, which latter are also themselves called _gentes_, as this same document and other testimonies (_Eph. Ep._ ii. p. 243) prove. _Civis_ is also found in reference to one of the Cantabrian _populi_ (_Eph. Ep._ ii. p. 243). But even for the larger canton, which indeed was once the political unit, there are no other designations than these, strictly speaking, retrospective and incorrect; _gens_ in particular is employed for it even in the technical style (_e.g._, _C. I. L._ ii. 4233 _Intercat[iensis] ex gente Vaccaeorum_). That the commonwealth in Spain was based on those small districts, not on the cantons, is clear as well from the terminology itself as from the fact that Pliny in iii. 3, 18, places overagainst those 293 places the _civitates contributae aliis_; moreover it is shown by the official _at census accipiendos civitatium XXIII Vasconum et Vardulorum_ (_C. I. L._ vi. 1463) compared with the _censor civitatis Remorum foederatae_ (_C. I. L._ xi. 1855, comp. 2607).] [34: As the Latin communal constitution is unsuited for a community not organised as a town, those Spanish communities, which still after Vespasian's time lacked urban organisation, must either have been excluded from the bestowal of Latin rights or have had special modifications to meet their case. The latter may be regarded as having more probability. Inscriptions, even of the _gentes_, subsequent to Vespasian's time, show a Latin form of name, as _C. I. L._ ii. 2633, and _Eph. Ep._ ii. 322; and if isolated ones from this period should be found with non-Roman names, it must always be a question whether this is not simply due to actual negligence. Presumptive proofs of non-Roman communal organisation, comparatively frequent in the scanty inscriptions that certainly date before Vespasian (_C. I. L._ ii. 172, 1953, 2633, 5048), have not been met with by me in inscriptions that are certainly subsequent to Vespasian.] [35: The direction of the _via Augusta_ is specified by Strabo (iii. 4, 9, p. 160); to it belong all the milestones which have that name, as well those from the region of Lerida (_C. I. L._ ii. 4920-4928) as those found between Tarragona and Valencia (_ibid._ 4949-4954), and lastly, the numerous ones _ab Iano Augusto, qui est ad Baetem_, or _ab arcu, unde incipit Baetica, ad oceanum_.]