ROMAN URBAN TOPOGRAPHY in Britain and the western Empire

PART I PRE-ROMAN
Aspects of urbanization in northern Europe Barry Cunliffe
The theme of urbanization is one which has generated a
very considerable literature among geographers (Herbert
& Thomas 1982). In view of the central importance of the
subject this is only to be expected. What is more
surprising is the large area of general agreement that exists
about the processes and meaning of urbanization, especially
in more recent publications, and the fact that many
archaeologists dealing with urban themes appear to be
largely ignorant of it. The geographer’s prime concern is
with the processes leading to the creation of urban
complexes and the systems which maintain them. Most
archaeologists, on the other hand, seem to concern
themselves with urban form and the typology of the
physical manifestations of urbanization - city walls,
basilicas, and bath buildings, for example. While by no
means decrying this latter approach - which, properly
synthesized, can be of great value in providing a very
necessary chronological perspective - one is left with the
feeling that many archaeologists are content to examine
the city as an artefact when what they should be doing is
using their particular skills to study it as the material
manifestation of socio-economic and socio-political systems.
In order to redress the balance a little, let us begin
not with the specific but with the general.
Urban settlements are the result of the coming together
at a particular location (or within a defined area) of a group
of functional activities required in the service of the
community. As Mark Jefferson (1931, 227) put it more
than 50 years ago, ‘Cities do not grow up of themselves,
countrysides set them up to do tasks that must be
performed in central places. ’ The concept of the city as a
‘central place’ (the term was first used by Jefferson) was
soon taken up by Christäller (1933) and others in the
1930s. Using southern German evidence Christäller developed
the now well-known model of the city as a regional
service centre, a model which has found some popularity
among archaeologists in recent years (Hodder & Orton
1976). Various implications embedded in this broad
definition need to be spelt out a little more fully. Implicit
are three assumptions:
a
b
c
that complex societies require foci (in place and time) at
which certain social, economic, religious, and political
functions are enacted
that the coming together of these foci, within a
circumscribed territory, marks the first stage in urban
genesis
that the degree of intensification of the service function
carried out at such a place will give rise to styles of
urban settlement which differ both functionally and
physically
It follows that in some areas it may be possible
a continuum from pre-urban to fully urban.
change, however, will vary from region to region: a
catalyst may cause sudden acceleration, while alien urban
forms may be imposed as the result of invasion. These are
themes to which we shall return.
So far we have concentrated on functions, but functions
usually manifest themselves in form and it is this which
gives urban settlements their tangible quality. In physical
terms a city is composed of an agglomeration of functional
nodes - cultural, administrative, economic, residential
- each frequently recognizable by its distinctive
architectural form. These are bound together within a
spatial system - the city plan. But vital to the definition of
‘urban’ are two other characteristics: a well-defined
relationship with a productive hinterland and the existence
of developed mechanisms for long-distance communication
.
Structures and their spatial arrangement, regional
settlement patterns, and trade are all matters well within
the scope of archaeological investigation. So too is the
creation of a chronological perspective. In theory, then,
there is no inherent reason why the archaeological study of
urbanization should not share the same methodology as
that developed by the geographer to the mutual benefit of
both disciplines. Without a broadly based theoretical
background, however, archaeological studies are in danger
of becoming sterile.
Mediterranean urbanism
Perhaps the most dramatic model for Mediterranean
urbanism is provided by Athens, where the well-defended
strongpoint of the acropolis provided a natural focus for
development. The region was settled as far back as the late
Neolithic (before 3000 BC), and throughout the 3rd and
2nd millennia the intensity of occupation increased, the
acropolis eventually becoming a fortified Mycenaean
palace. The transition from Mycenaean monarchy
through Dark Age chieftainship to aristocratic rule,
though not attested in any detail, is echoed in signs of
continuous occupation. It was during this time that the
disparate communities of Attica came together to create a
unified state with Athens at the head. This coming
together (synoikismos) thrust upon the territory of Athens
the demand for a range of centralized services which, by
the 6th century BC, we find being institutionalized in
architecture. Within the fortifications of the acropolis the
old shrines were replaced by two Doric temples, a group of
treasuries, and a propylon (all destroyed by the Persians in
480 BC), while to the north-west, in the time of the
lawgiver Solon, a large area was designated the city square
(agora) and was cleared of domestic buildings.
to recognize The new agora, replacing a smaller assembly space close
The rate of to the entrance to the acropolis, served a variety of
1