ROMAN URBAN TOPOGRAPHY in Britain and the western Empire

More documents

Recommendations

Info

Crummy: Colchester: the mechanics of laying out a town Fig 57 Very approximate measurements of some fortresses: Gloucester (based on Hurst 1972, fig 5), Chester (based on Nash-Williams 1969, fig 15), Caerleon (based on ibid, fig 13), York (based on Whitwell 1976, fig 1), and Novaesium (based on Bonner Jahrbucher, 112-13 (1904), Taf 3). All the plans are approximately to the same scale and the figures represent measurements in pedes monetales (1 pes monetalis = 0.295 m) 83
Crummy: Colchester: the mechanics of laying out a town Fig 58 Colchester: the street system in its final form the plan of the fortress at York (Fig 57) which appears to be similar to that of Gloucester. The distance between the outer edges of the via sagularis, measured along the length of the fortress, was c 1532 feet, confirming that the major subdivisions here (left to right in Fig 57) were 600 plus 300 plus 600 feet excluding the via principalis. Its width is also derived from the 600-foot dimension. At Chester, from Petch’s plan, the street system of the fortress seems to have been conceived as being 1900 feet long and formed from strips 300,400, and 600 feet across (Fig 57). The intended width of the fortress is less clear, but as at Gloucester the via sagularis is about 600 feet from the via praetoria and the via decumana. Caerleon is more difficult, but seems to have been conceived as being 1600 feet long, formed from four strips 250 feet wide and two strips 300 feet wide (Fig 57). The width of each half of the fortress is unclear but is certainly in excess of 600 feet. Of all the fortresses Caerleon comes closest to Colchester in its layout and dimensions. Most of the other British fortresses - except Inchtuthil, which I have been unable to rationalize satisfactorily— appear to have been rather too irregular or are not well enough known for the planner’s scheme to be detected. At Novaesium, however, five strips 300 feet 84 wide and one strip 200 feet wide can be detected (Fig 57). The hypothetical dimensions are consistently slightly smaller than the actual dimensions, but the printed scale also seems slightly too small. This discrepancy is apparent when individual buildings are scaled off the large-scale plans included in the report. This example underlines the obvious fact that this kind of examination of towns and fortresses can only be undertaken effectively by the compilers of the plans concerned, since they have ready access to the originals and, more important, only they can know how accurate and reliable their plans are. A central conclusion of my previous paper (Crummy 1982a) was that if the street system of a settlement is accurately known then it ought to be possible to establish if it was a planned town or a reused fortress. In the light of the examples given above the difference between the two types of street systems does not seem so great. Whereas previously it was supposed that, unlike those of towns, the street systems of fortresses were planned around their buildings, now it appears that this was not so. However, the conclusion still holds good for places with very regular and uniform street grids - Orange, for example. No one would suggest that this town was not planned and, should proof be needed, measurements indicate that the plan was
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 97: 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

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?