gilius Posted August 3, 2011 Report Share Posted August 3, 2011 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": However, it needs to be stressed that the colonies and municipia do not represent the total sum of urban foundations in the period of Roman colonisation in Italy Fair enough, but then... ...fora, along with vici, castella, conciliabula, with rural markets of a similar nature (e.g. a conciliabulum... ...listing the other towns under a general category of oppida... In his latest book, other descriptions of towns by classical authors are also thrown into the mix: Praefecturae Pomerium Poleis 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: Sometimes the Antonine Itineraries provide clarification of the status of a specific fora: Forum Corneli on the Via Aurelia is labelled as a "civitas", whereas Forum Flaminia on the Via Flaminia is labelled as a "vicus" 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: Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest ParatrooperLirelou Posted August 20, 2011 Report Share Posted August 20, 2011 I'm interested.How long is this going on? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gilius Posted August 20, 2011 Author Report Share Posted August 20, 2011 (edited) I'm interested.How long is this going on? Let's say: till December 21st 2012! Edited August 20, 2011 by gilius Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Maladict Posted August 21, 2011 Report Share Posted August 21, 2011 Just a test to see if you're really serious. You might want to reconsider. Publication: CIL 06, 29844,046Province: Roma Place: Roma vicus Bu]blarius Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gilius Posted August 21, 2011 Author Report Share Posted August 21, 2011 Just a test to see if you're really serious. You might want to reconsider. Publication: CIL 06, 29844,046Province: Roma Place: Roma vicus Bu]blarius Hello mate, what vicus is that? Somewhere close to the capital? Shall I wait until you've put up a good handful before I send the first payment? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Maladict Posted August 21, 2011 Report Share Posted August 21, 2011 Sure, here are some more. That'll be Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gilius Posted August 21, 2011 Author Report Share Posted August 21, 2011 OK mate, we'll sort out a revised* payment after my wedding (Oct 3rd), as I have a quite a few overheads throughout the month of September (ring = Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.