Reconstructing the map of Roman Britain

[gilius]

How have historians and archaeologists managed to come up with a list of Roman Towns for Britain divided into status: Civitates, Colonia and Municipia? Considering maps for other provinces do not appear to have been published, I've had a go at reverse engineering the map of Roman Britain to see how it was constructed. If I am able to come up with the list of 21 towns using primary sources then it might be possible to apply that to any province that developed along the same lines of administration--notably Gaul and Germany.

 

So here's how I think they did it (not necessarily in this order and with parts of the puzzle being worked on simultaneously):

 

1) Come up with a list of Latin named settlements using the primary sources for Roman Britain:

*Ptolemies Geography

*Antonine Itinerary

*Peutinger table

*Latin authors, ie. Tacitus and others.

Extrapolating the above, you've then got something like what you get with the Barrington Atlas.

 

2) Identify the tribes of Iron Age/Roman Britain and their rough location in the British Isles

*Ptolemies Geography

*Latin authors

*Coin spreads (and in some cases pottery) from archaeological data

 

3) Identify the Tribal Capitals based on the above and below, matching them to modern locales using London as a reference:

*Ravenna Cosmography

*Archaeological remains

 

4) Identify the Municipia and Colonia using:

*Latin authors

*Inscriptions (usually from overseas)

 

 

The clever part is with the Ravenna Cosmography as it gives the Tribal suffixes for the settlements that were Tribal Capitals (below are all confirmed from Ravenna):

 

LONDON (Provincial Capital with unknown town status)

Londinium = "The settlement on the wide river" or "place belonging to a man called Londinios".

 

 

TRIBAL CAPITALS - CONFIRMED

 

CANTERBURY

Durovernum Cantiacorum = The Enclosed Settlement of the Cantiaci near the Alder Swamp.

 

CHICHESTER

Noviomagus Reginorum = 'new field' or new clearing of the Reg(i)ni.

 

SILCHESTER

Calleva Atrebatum = The Place in the Woods of the Atrebates.

 

WINCHESTER

Venta Belgarum = The Market Town of the Belgae.

 

CAERWENT

Venta Silurum = The Market Town of the Silures.

 

WROXETER

Viroconium Cornoviorum = The Town of Viroco of the Cornovii.

 

CAISTOR ST. EDMUND

Venta Icenorum - The Market Town of the Iceni

 

ALDBOROUGH

Isurium Brigantum = ?

 

EXETER

Isca Dumoniniorum = The Town of the Dumnonii by the river?

 

LEICESTER

Ratae Coritanorum = Fort...?

 

CIRENCESTER

Corinium Dobunnorum = unknown

 

 

TRIBAL CAPITALS - UNCONFIRMED

 

ST. ALBANS (later promoted to a Municipium)

Verulamium (Catuvellorum?) = ?

*This isn't mentioned in Ravenna, so presumably it's confirmed by the Latin authors?

 

CARMARTHEN

Moridunum (Demetarum?) = Sea...?

*Not given a tribal suffix in the Ravenna. Archaeoligists simply identify Carmarthen because it's the only place in that part of the British Isles that has produced archaeological remains worthy to be a town.

 

CHELMSFORD

Caesaromagus (Trinovantum?) = Caesar's Field

*Why do historians/archaelogists think this was a town? I have no idea yet, as I haven't researched it.

 

CARLISLE (OR AROUND OLD PENRITH)

Luguvalium (Civitas Carvetiorum?) = Town of Luguvalos

Epigraphic evidence for Civitas found from milestones in the Old Penrith area, so is most likely referring to Carlisle since it's a latin based settlement at the most important junction nearby where the evidence was found.

 

DORCHESTER / ILCHESTER

Durnovaria (Durotrigum?) = Site covered with fist-sized pebbles.

Civitas Durotrigum Lendiniesis = Town of the Durotriges by the swampy lake?

*Archaeologists guessed that Dorchester was a Tribal Capital even though the Ravenna doesn't give a suffix, but an inscription would point to Ilchester being the Tribal Capital, unless there was some confusion with the natives!? This remains unsolved, as there is no archaeological evidence to confirm one way or another.

 

BROUGH-ON-HUMBER (OR NORTH FERRIBY?)

Vicus Petuaria (Parisorum?)

Here's the most interesting one!!!!! Again, if something isn't in the Ravenna then it's pretty much unconfirmed--nothing more so than this place! This leads me to suspect that maybe not all Tribal Capitals were actually Towns? Perhaps some Tribes only had a vicus (village) as their center? This calls into question many things.

 

 

How do we know *any* of the tribal capitals above were actually towns? The only way to confirm this 100% in my eyes:

*Archaeological remains of a Forum-Basilica or proper street grid with a collection of other public building remains.

*Inscriptions of town names with a Civitas prefix.

 

 

[GhostOfClayton]

I should just say a little bit more about Brough-on-Humber, since it's on my patch. We know Petuaria is Brough-on-Humber and not North Ferriby from two main pieces of evidence. The first is that Cade's Road/Ermine Street (the main Roman Road to York and Newcastle) runs straight into the remains of a Roman Fort in Brough, but principally, the town is actually named on a dedication stone for a Roman theatre found in Brough.

 

There are plenty of Roman town names that we know, and your reasoning looks sound, especially if we add in the occaisional find like the dedication stone mentioned above (see how I segued nicely between the two?) We should also mention etymology (e.g Lincoln = Lindum Colonina).

 

But it should be added that there are Roman place names that we don't know the location of. For example the birth place of St Patrick was Banna Venta Berniae. There are some pretty convincing guesses as to where that is, but nothing concrete.

Edited February 11, 2011 by GhostOfClayton

[gilius]

but principally, the town is actually named on a dedication stone for a Roman theatre found in Brough.

Please could you share your source for this information? Even if this is the Tribal Capital, the vicus prefix would imply that it was not a Civitas, so it's unlikely a Forum-Basilica will be found. And a theatre on it's own doesn't make a town.

 

should also mention etymology (e.g Lincoln = Lindum Colonina).

I don't think that kind of study has been needed for coming up with the big towns; Lincoln is known to be a Colonia simply from an inscription:

"237: the existence of a colony at Lincoln is also stated on the altar erected at Bordeaux by M. Aurelius Lunaris in 237 (see York below). JRS xi (1921), 102 (1)"

 

I would be surprised if Bath doesn't turn out to be a Colonia after further excavations! It's just too grand....

Edited February 11, 2011 by gilius

[GhostOfClayton]

Also, to add to the list of sources, there's the Rudge Cup, the Staffordshire Moorlands Patera and the Amiens Skillet (covering Hadrian's Wall). These, when taken along with the Ravenna Cosmography and Antonine Inventory, highlight how little we know for sure. There are wide variations in spellings leading to some very different interpretations, and it is unknown if these are transcription errors, names changing over time, etc. Some names change totally. Is this an error, a name change, or two places close together?

 

You mentioned the Peutinger Table. I'm not sure if that is all we know of the Cursus Publicus network, or it there are other survivng records.

[GhostOfClayton]

Please could you share your source for this information?

 

Hmm . . . as you can imagine, it's a pretty well known fact in the archaeological community around here - it's quite a find. So, haven't got a source to hand. However, just entering "Excavations Brough on Humber" into Amazon returns a number of candidate works.

 

I don't think that kind of study has been needed for coming up with the big towns;

 

I use it merely as an example of how etymology can help in providing supporting evidence - it can never be a primary method of establishing a Roman place name.

[Melvadius]

I would only add that in much of the literature on the topic there is no clear agreement on defining what public buildings will occur in every instance or indeed what constitutes a 'town' and in which period. It is a well attested fact that many well established and populous 'towns' had few if any public buildings while others had numerous examples for a minimal population.

 

On your other related topics we have extensively covered the fact that both the assignation of names to locations and their classification has occured over several hundred years in multivarious publications utilising a wide variety of sources. Yet despite this there are notable exclusions from our knowledge base which have never been fully resolved.

 

If you have a particular location you wish to research then your best course of action would seem to be to find a good Classics library and see what published etymological, archaeological inscriptional or other material they hold on the site which could possibly relate to its name.

 

I suppose the real question is why you think that there can be any public interest or value in trying to determine 'missing' names in Gaul or Germany from your suggested approach.

 

As has already been pointed out 'names' for locations can change over time and in many cases at best may only survive in a very fragmentary or corrupt format from a single phase of use. I would have thought that if you had a particular location you wished to determine a name for that a rigerous check of what was already known about the site would need to be carried out through European rather than English language sources.

 

Apart from anything else simply guessing a name for a location is open to no end of academic challenges

[gilius]

I would only add that in much of the literature on the topic there is no clear agreement on defining what public buildings will occur in every instance or indeed what constitutes a 'town' and in which period.

Every town should at least have: Forum-Basilica, Bath-house and temple. Most towns were founded following the invasion and lasted right the way through to the end of the Roman occupation. A couple of towns were founded a bit later, but they still lasted till the end once established.

 

It is a well attested fact that many well established and populous 'towns' had few if any public buildings while others had numerous examples for a minimal population.

In thase case, you must be talking about "small-towns", which are more like modern villages. If you are talking Civitates, Municipia or Colonia then they were all populous.

 

I suppose the real question is why you think that there can be any public interest or value in trying to determine 'missing' names in Gaul or Germany from your suggested approach.

It's not that I am trying to determine missing names. A proper map of Roman Gaul and Germany (and pretty much every other province outside of Britain) has, for some strange reason, never been published? I don't know if the work has been attempted, but inside hundreds of French and German books I have checked there isn't a single map that shows what Colonia and Municipia existed that are known to historians and archaeologists, though there are listed examples of a select few in various publications (I cannot read French/German though).

 

Right now there is over 1,000 towns in Britain, but almost 2,000 years ago there was only around 21! At the heart of every region in England divided by the Tribal Civitas boundaries were the capitals; the whole of Roman Britain was administered from the towns. The towns is what makes Roman history the most unique part of British history, since the Romans brought Architecture and Civilisation to my country--showcased primarily from rich and prosperous towns. When the Roman occupation ended so too did civilisation, and many Roman roads that were arteries for towns at their most important junctions became covered over and replaced by new field systems. Silchester and certain other towns were not even built on and still became buried. When we look back at Roman history in Britain, we are looking back to an Atlantis. There is no better place for anyone interested in Roman history to visit than the town of Pompeii. The towns are what made the Roman Empire, and they provide the perfect overview for any student of the subject. What you learn about one province can be applied to another province in most cases. We know in prosperous towns during the Roman times travellers would come across a public hall and market square at the center of a town, surrounded by temples, arches, bath-houses, fountains (castellum divisiorum). Likewise, if they travel to portugal they will find the same things: ampitheaters, circuses. Right now I know if I travel to Bangkok I will find a McDonalds, KFC and Burger King, but I don't know if there will be a Starbucks? I can guess what else might be in a big city like Bangkok even though I've never been there before, and so on, and so forth...

[Bryaxis Hecatee]

well in Brussels, Belgium, capital town of Europe and Belgium you would not find a Starbucks (though one is slated to be openned soon I think), you would not even have found a Starbuck in all of Belgium 5 years ago... I'm not even sure we'd have that many, if any, KFC or Burger King here, due to the battle between McDonald and Quick, the homegrown international giant. Also if you look at McDonald in Brussels and in Trier (Germany) you'll see that while the Belgian one is close to the US model, including the garrish facade and the bad food, the German one will only provide you with the horrible edible material (well the edible qualification might not stand to close examination, but that's something else...) : the fa

[gilius]

I don't agree with the 2nd part of the last post. I think some Civitates had to make do with an alternative building arrangements for administration if their Basilica was incomplete or had been demolished/destroyed, or there was a dark age in the town history. However, exceptions aside, every Civitas, Coloniae and Municipium in the West would have had a Forum-Basilica otherwise it must be a vicus (small-town) instead (I know it wasn't like that in the East). Even when the Romans began constructing Waldgirmes inside Germania, a Forum-Basilica was one of the first buildings built there, even though the town never lasted for more than a few years. Money/tax was the most important thing, so there is clear administrative patterns across the Infrastructure of the empire, so it is easy to make predictions.