gilius

It seems the Romans founded about 5-10 colonies, otherwise administered most of it's Near Eastern Empire in a similar way to the Greek City State (polis) with client kings. Was the Roman frontier located mostly at the Euphrates, Tigris or somewhere in-between? Did Rome's Empire ever include Ctesiphon for more than a couple of years or any other towns/cities deeper into Iranian territory than those listed below? Roman prisoners of war apparently worked on building projects in Iran, including a pseudo Roman style city south of Ctesiphon known literally as "Better Antioch", though I can find no information on the Internet. SYRIA Germanicia/Germanicia Caesarea/Kahramanmara?/Germanikeia - Roman foundation Barbalissus/Barbalissos - rebuilt by the Romans near ruined Emar Arethusa/Antipatris/Tel Afek/Areth(o)usa - Roman foundation Danaba/Danova - Roman foundation Canatha/Qanawat/Kanatha/Gabinia/Septimia - Roman foundation Zenobia/Halabiya - probably founded by the Romans Antioch - Roman provincial capital founded earlier by the Seleucids Samosata - Seleucid foundation Zeugma/Seleucia - Seleucid foundation Cyrrhus/Hagioupolis/Nebi Huri/Mouhafazat of Aleppo - Seleucid foundation Alexandria Ab Issum/?skenderun/Alexandria Ad Issum - Seleucid foundation Hierapolis/Manbij/Hierapolis/Bambyce/Bambyke - Seleucid foundation Seleukeia Pieria/Seleucia Pieria/Palaeopolis/Hydatos/Potamoi - Seleucid foundation Apamia/Pella/Apamea - Seleucid foundation on earlier settlement of Pharmake Emessa/Homs/(H)Emesa/Nemesa - Seleucid foundation (possibly based on older Zobah) Caesarea Paneas/Banias/Caesarea Philippi - Seleucid foundation Hippos - Seleucid foundation Antaradus/Tartus/Antarados/Constantia - Phoenician foundation Tripolis/Tripoli - Phoenician foundation Doliche/Gaziantep/Antep - Hittite foundation Byblus/Byblos Europas/Europos/Europus/Jerabulus/Carchemish Beroea/Aleppo/Beroia/Bersera Resapha/Resapha/Sergiopolis/Resafa/Sergioupolis Palmyra Heliopolis/Baalbek/Col. Iulia Augusta Felix Berytus/Laodicea/Laodikeia en te Phoinike/Col. Iulia Augusta Felix Sidon/Col. Aurelia Pia Damascus Tyrus/Tyre Laodikeia/Laodicea/Latakia Epiphania/Hama/Amathe/Epiphaneia/Epitania Ptolemais/Ptolomaidam/Ptolomaide/Ake/Acre Nemrud Dagh/Mount Nemrud/Mount Nemrut - town or mountain necropolis? Chalcis/Chalcis ad Belum/Cani/Cahi/Qinnasrin Soura/Al Mansurah/??????? ?????, ??????? Raphanaea/Rhaphanaea/Raphaneai/Rafniye(h)/Rafanieh - town or Legionary Fortress only? Phaenae/Phaine/Aenos?/al-Mismiye Seriane (location unconfirmed) Aquae (...) 67 F2/Yavuzeli Thvrae ItMiller 768/Thurae `Heracome` 67 G2/near Kizilkaya Platanoi/

Check out this topic for discussion relating to Roman Cornwall: http://www.unrv.com/forum/topic/11767-roman-cornwall/ They need to be careful when mentioning "town"! Archaeologists should know better than to keep referring to every settlement they find as a "town"...

In the latest in a line of books by Ray Laurence, Gareth Sears and co., on Roman Towns/Cities, they are purporting to provide the first "Handbook To The Roman Town/City" (in the West). For such an incomprehensible, incomplete, muddled waffle of a work, they certainly have a cheek making such a claim, and if anything, are misinforming the public with a vague, erroneous and inaccurate descriptions of Roman Towns/Cities. >The City in the Roman West, c.250 BC-c.AD 250 Concentrating mostly on classical authors as the gospel truth and leaving out Civitas (notwithstanding 2 brief mentions out of context) is a big mistake and greatly undermines their work and what useful info there is in the book, namely the evolution of the City of Rome, Regional Centers, Fora, and info on public buildings with published town plans. There are many problems with this book, but I will only highlight some of them rather than delve too much into them: *Not enough discussion about Greek and Estruscan influence on town foundation. *Repetitive evolutionary descriptions of Roman colonies disjointed inside the main text. *Introduction of technical latin legal terms without definition, i.e. aedileship (some however do get explained a few chapters into the book) *Quotes from previous publications taken as truth without any checks made for validity, i.e. 400 towns in Italy. *impression given that all Colonia in Italy were for retired veterans, but fail to mention that the empire was expanding and founding colonia in conquered territory freed up by the military (and not just for them). *East (including Greece) ignored as being different due to towns already having been established by previous empires. *Very vague descriptions of markets in towns. *No mention of "high-level" town administration, ie. who collected the taxes and how the territories was subdivided (actually into vici), but does mention ""low level" administration (ordo and below). Here's the big problem: *Amalgamation of Roman settlement descriptions and legal/latin terms (official and unofficial)--all categorised as being towns without any comparison--might even brainwash an unsuspecting student into thinking all settlements in the Barrington Atlas are no less than towns! This problem goes back to Laurence's 1999 work The Roads Of Roman Italy, and The Citiy In The Roman West is like a larger version of one chapter of the former, albeit further expanded by waffle. The chapter in question is "Town Foundation in Roman Italy 300-30 BC": Fair enough, but then... In his latest book, other descriptions of towns by classical authors are also thrown into the mix: Pomerium, being the territorium of a town. Laurence is seemingly not confused by all these terms he's come across in classical works, but takes them literally as being an official type of town, relaying them to the public as factual categories when really they are a fancy collection of uncollaborated pigeon holes; Ray really doesn't know what he's talking about! Ray nearly found his way when researching his earlier book, but failed to take the hint: Perhaps I'm wrong to criticise Ray Laurence and co.? Therefore, I'll put my money where my mouth is: I'll offer cash rewards via Paypal for any translated inscriptions you can provide inside this topic from Italian towns mentioning *any* of these Latin words:

>The City in the Roman West, c.250 BC-c.AD 250 This book has made me very angry!!! It purports to be the new "Handbook to the Roman Town/City" (for the West), but only mentions "Civitas" twice!? I have emailed all 3 authors, but none of them have any backbone.

Do you think photography in Roman museums should be allowed? Quite a lot of them ban the use of cameras; for example: *Vindolanda *Carlisle (British Museum artefacts only) *British Museum (special exhibitions only, i.e. Hadrian)

I think the guidebook is refering to the cross hall of the Principia. Although probably correct, it is still an assumption, as I believe their is no direct evidence that cross halls were used in this manner. Although cross halls in legionary fortresses were probably large enough to fulfil this role, IMHO the cross halls of auxilliary forts may be a bit on the small side. I don't think the remains are in the right place to be the Crosshall/Principia. I think the guidebook is referring to a completely different building. I will check again later to confirm, but the building in question is pretty much in the corner, behind the granaries, away from the middle.

The Birdoswald guidebook states that one building within the fort (with visible remains) was a Drill Hall. Is there any other examples of this building type from Romano-British forts or could they be mistaken in their identification?

Herculaneum a municipium!? interesting... thanks.

Picked up a new doc from http://boundary.de/ @ Vindolanda yesterday; can't wait to watch it!!! The one on the Limes was superb...

This was rubbish... would have been better if he actually visited the Parthian capital, Ctesiphon (not Persepolis)

Does the book mention if Herculaneum was a town (colonia or municipia) or village (vicus) if known/unknown?

As you know, Nazareth (where Jesus lived), was a satellite village (vicus) of a Roman Town 4 miles away, Sepphoris (Latin: Diocaesarea), where mosaics among other things have been unearthed by archaeologists. It's likely that Diocasaerea is where Jesus worked as a Carpenter or traded there. Since this important settlement does not appear in the Antonine Itineraries or Peutinger Map (see below), what sources have scholars used to determine it's existence as a town?

They don't show all settlements (we've got the Barrington Atlas for that), but I would expect them to show all Colonia and Municipia. This work was completed a long time ago for Roman Britain, but all the other countries seem behind in terms of Roman scholarship. I was reading a book called Cities of Roman Africa, which is so vague it's untrue, and of course there is no proper town map available. You know there is a big difference between a town and village/vicus (small town) or stopping station? London didn't naturally develop into a big Medieval settlement; it was officially re-founded as a town/burgh by Alfred the Great in 886 with it's own Guild and town hall (Guildhall), otherwise it would have been against the law for so many people to be trading in that spot. Likewise when London was a Roman town it would have had an administrative hierarchy--the nearest settlements (vici) had none! It's blasphemous to show towns and villages on the same map without differentiating the status between them where known IMO; it's ignorance at it's highest form!

Unfortunately the above map may still be incomplete as it's missing a number of colonies shown in the other maps. Also, all the above sources are missing Forum Alieni as well as other towns like Falerri Novi, so I guess we could be passing the 200 mark and getting closer to the 400?

That map is unique so it must have it's own name... I'll see if I can track down the guidebook to the galleries, though this map probably is well known in isolation. There can't be too many sources with "Forum Alieni".

Other than that the answer is actually in the picture? It mentions that it's from a gallery of maps from inside the Vatican, but any ideas on the name of this individual map?

Does anyone have any info on this Roman town? Was it a proper Roman town? Also, any ideas what this map is? http://estensi.altervista.org/Forum_Alieni_Ferrara.JPG

Besides the Britannia sections has any research been carried out and published, online or offline, in terms of identifying and matching place names? http://www.tabula-peutingeriana.de/tp/ia.htm http://www.tabula-peutingeriana.de/tp/rc_i.htm

Check this out...

BINGO! It's an absolute miracle that I've found this map after searching for 5 hours... I can confirm that town maps of Roman Italy are *extremely rare* compared with, say, Iberia, Gaul and Britain. c.L = coloniae Latinae c.c.R = coloniae civium Romanorum sonstige Stadt = "other City" The above terms are not even mentioned in the book "Cities of Roman Italy", which leads me to suspect that the author (Guy D. L. B.) doesn't know the basics when it comes to this subject. Was Herculaneum not a town then? Only a "small-town"/village? I wonder how accurate the map is, as there might be a few towns missing still...

I'm cancelling the hotel booking now... any other good sites to visit in Yorkshire, with *visible* remains of course...?

((((((( That's not what I wanted to hear!

I'm going to check out Brough tomorrow (or Sunday), but not sure what, if anything, can be seen there?

When there are layers of tiles/brick at not-so-regular intervals, say, every 5-6 layers of flint or ragstone, then they are there for structural reasons--to even out the next layer for added masonry. However, when the tile courses are so regular, or as at Rome, with only brick and tiles, then it's purely decorative. The mint wall and jewelry wall are of a different type of Opus vittatum mixtum with more layers of stone and fewer layers of tiles (though it's a shame this type of wall decoration has no strict definition or sub-types). To me, the decoration at Faversham is unique in Britain with no parallel. Even parallels to Rome are difficult to find (Billingsgate Bath-house in London and a reservoir in Colchester to name a few buildings built entirely of tiles). Please take another look at the comparison pics above and note: 1) Thickness of the bricks/tiles 2) Thickness of the facing stonework 3) Regularity of the brick/tile courses (1:2) Can anyone post a wall pic from a different Romano-British site that looks distinctively anything like the above?

The style is called Opus vittatum mixtum A and I do not think there is any other known sites in Britain that has this style? What do you think? Was this an important settlement? Faversham: http://www.cambridge...TPPlace545.html Pompeii: http://www.cambridge...PPlace1476.html