ROMAN URBAN TOPOGRAPHY in Britain and the western Empire

More documents

Recommendations

Info

References Salway: Geography and the growth of towns, with special reference to Britain 73
Crummy: Colchester: the mechanics of laying out a town Fig 56 The stages in planning the fortress at Colchester. The figures are ‘hypothetical’ (cf Fig 55) measurements in pedes monetales (1 pes monetalis = 0.295 m) 82 the angles and the poor execution of straight lines. However, the approach is essentially the same. These examples suggest that a similar system of planning may have been used at Colchester. Unfortunately it is not yet possible to detect the underlying strategy for the eastern grid. Here there are problems in determining the precise location of almost every street, and, more important, the insulae all vary in size and shape so that there is unlikely to be much repetition of dimensions. However, this is not the case with the fortress (Fig 55; in this plan the Roman foot is taken to equal 0.295m). Taking measurements east-west, the ground area of the fortress can be divided into six north-south strips 300 and 200 Roman feet across. The area east of the via principalis can be divided into two squares 650 feet across. In one of the ZOO-foot-wide strips lay the tribunes’ houses and the via principalis. At Culver Street the barracks and the two tribunes’ houses were 300 feet across, measured from the inside of the via sagularis. Thus the strategy of the planner can be summarized as follows (Fig 56). First he marked out on his plan, at an appropriate size, strips 300 and 200 feet wide. Then he set out the via praetoria and the via decumana, probably so that these were 60 feet across. (The exact widths are not certain.) At the same time he allocated a 50-foot-wide strip for the via principalis and marked off the northern and southern limits of the street system at a distance of 650 feet from the north and south frontages of the via praetoria and the via decumana. Thus the street plan of the fortress covered a theoretical area of 1360 by 1600 feet. The next stage involved delineating the minor streets. I have assumed that these were 20 feet wide, but with the exception of the via sagularis they could have been as much as 30 feet. The via sagularis has been excavated in two places and its width established at c 20 feet. Finally the building plots were marked out. Those for the tribunes’ houses mainly seem to have measured 140 by 150 feet, but there may have been store-blocks along the eastern frontage of the via principalis, in which case they would not have been the full 150 feet across, east-west. Probably the area south of the via decumana would have been occupied by ten barracks taking up 600 feet. If so, this would have left 30 feet for store-blocks at the north e n d - more if the via decumana was narrower than shown in Fig 55. If it is possible to detect a scheme such as this at the fortress at Colchester, then it should be possible to do the same elsewhere. At Gloucester, after studying Hurst’s plan of the fortress, hints emerge of a similar scheme there (Fig 57). Four strips seem to have been intended, three 300 feet wide and one 600 feet wide, the last being subdivided, perhaps as 240 and 360 feet. The outer edge of the via sagularis seems to have been 600 feet from the frontages of the via praetoria and the via decumana. The dimensions seem consistently on the large side, but perhaps if the original large-scale plan was examined, the measurements might turn out to be closer than they seem to the theoretical dimensions proposed here. It must be stressed that the measurements were taken from a plan published at a small scale, so that despite being given to the nearest foot they are very approximate. This qualification applies to all the plans in Fig 57. These should be regarded more as indicators of potential than fact. The 300- and 600-foot dimensions are very evident in
Page 1 and 2:
No 59 ROMAN URBAN TOPOGRAPHY in Bri
Page 3 and 4:
Copyright © 1985 Authors and Counc
Page 5 and 6:
Illustrations Fig 1 Miletus Fig 2 C
Page 7 and 8:
Introduction: the study of Classica
Page 9 and 10:
Introduction and the land divided i
Page 11 and 12:
Introduction Fig 3 Timgad: the colo
Page 13 and 14:
Introduction Fig 6 Lepcis Magna: th
Page 15 and 16:
Introduction xvi
Page 17 and 18:
Cunliffe: Aspects of urbanization i
Page 19 and 20:
Cunliffe: Aspects of urbanization i
Page 21 and 22:
PART II THE PLANNING AND BUILDING O
Page 23 and 24:
Dilke: Ground survey and measuremen
Page 25 and 26:
Page 27 and 28:
Page 29 and 30:
The mechanics of the building trade
Page 31 and 32:
Ling: The mechanics of the building
Page 33 and 34:
Page 35 and 36:
Page 37 and 38:
Page 39 and 40:
Page 41 and 42:
Page 43 and 44:
Who paid for public buildings in Ro
Page 45 and 46: Duncan--ones: Who paid for public b
Page 47 and 48: Duncan-Jones: Who paid for public b
Page 49 and 50: Civic Pride: a factor in Roman town
Page 51 and 52: Frere: Civic Pride: a factor in Rom
Page 53 and 54: Reece: Roman towns and their plans
Page 55 and 56: Reece: Roman towns and their plans
Page 57 and 58: Wacher: The functions of urban buil
Page 59 and 60: Casey: The Roman housing market leg
Page 61 and 62: Casey: The Roman housing market Evi
Page 63 and 64: Casey: The Roman housing market Rom
Page 65 and 66: Drinkwater: Urbanization in the thr
Page 71 and 72: Forum and Capitolium in the early E
Page 73 and 74: Todd: Forum and Capitolium in the e
Page 75 and 76: The quick and the dead: suburbs, ce
Page 77 and 78: Esmonde Cleary: The quick and the d
Page 87 and 88: Salway: Geography and the growth of
Page 89 and 90: Colchester: the mechanics of laying
Page 91 and 92: Crummy: Colchester: the mechanics o
Page 93 and 94: Salway: Geography and the growth of
Page 95: Salway: Geography and the growth of
Page 99 and 100: Crummy: Colchester: the mechanics o
Page 101 and 102: New streets for old : the topograph
Page 103 and 104: Jones: New streets for old: the top
Page 109 and 110: London in the 1st and early 2nd cen
Page 111 and 112: Perring: London in the 1st and earl
Page 113 and 114: Perring: London in the 1st and earl
Page 115 and 116: Marsden: London in the 3rd and 4th
Page 125 and 126: Barker: Aspects of the topography o
Page 131 and 132: Fig 81 Wroxeter: the area of excava
Page 133 and 134: probably from Viroconium, the robbi
Page 135 and 136: Forum Iuhi (Cividale) (Italy) 61a f
show all

ROMAN URBAN TOPOGRAPHY in Britain and the western Empire

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?