falkor
-
Posts
98 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Static Pages
News
Blogs
Gallery
Events
Downloads
Posts posted by falkor
-
-
So isn't anyone even going to try to waffle their way through explaining the definition of various types of Roman Towns?? I would have expected caldrail "The King Of Waffle" to at least have a go, and at the same time evade the subject by mentioning Celtic villages.
-
London's tourists are not allowed to take photographs of Londinium's Amphitheatre remains in the basement of the Guildhall; explain that one! (and they charge for entry)
The world is corrupt, yet people happily obey petty rules when they are really being conned left, right and centre.
-
I want to start a topic, quoting numerous references from various books on Roman Britain, to show:
1) No book on the market can satisfactorily explain the definition of a Roman Town.
2) All the authors copy each other, using the same technical phrases (ie. "Chartered Towns"), leaving the reader confused between "locals" and "celts", whose settlements were replaced by Roman Towns.
3) Oppidum, Colonia, Civitas, Vicus, Municipium and other Latin words are used in a jumbled up fashion to avoid true definition and distinction between each one.
I am convinced that no author understands what a Roman Town is, and only writes about the subject purely for rhetorical reasons. Such authors include: Guy de la B
-
Also, do you think Richborough, Kent was a Town or just a Fort? Latest geophysical research indicates it was a Town or Major Settlement. Was the Amphitheatre associated with Richborough the civilian Town or Richborough the military Fort?
-
Based on your opinion or interpretation of the available archaeological evidence and known administrative structure of Roman Britain, how would you distinguish the following settlements?
DEVA VICTRIX Chester, Cheshire Major Settlement or Town?
ISCA SILVRVM Caerleon, Gwent Major Settlement or Town?
PORTVS SETANTIORVM Nr. Fleetwood, Lancashire Town or Major Settlement?
DVROVIGVTVM Godmanchester, Huntingdonshire/Cambridgeshire Town or settlement?
LVGVVALIVM (CARVETIORVM?) Carlisle, Cumbria Tribal Capital (Carvetii) or Town?
CORSTOPITVM / CORIOSOPITVM Corbridge, Northumberland Major Settlement or Town?
Braughing, Hertfordshire Town or Major Settlement?
Great Casterton, Leicestershire Town or Minor/Major settlement?
SITOMAGVS? Ixworth, Suffolk?
NOVIOMAGVS (CANTIACORVM) Crayford or West Wickham?, Greater London
BTW, some of the above also contained Forts. The last entry I do not expect anyone to be able to resolve, as I live near those sites, and latest research is more in favour of West Wickham.
-
Apart from Richborough, can you think of any Roman Forts in Britain (there were probably hundreds) that contained any of the following:
*Civilian settlement (square houses; not rectangular barracks or the like) inside or directly outside the walls?
*Shops inside or directly outside the walls?
*Tombs/burials directly outside the walls?
-
Thanks to the admins/moderators for sorting out my topic, though Caldrail's insulting Iron Age Hillfort post still exists.
"Romano-British" doesn't refer to Roman sites adapted from former British/Celtic sites or anything like that. Romano-British simply means that the population was mixed up with Britons and other Continental folk who were all Romanised. "Roman Britain" sounds like Italian people had replaced the population or something, but of course this is not true. Mainly the Roman army and some immigrants came to Britain to introduce new ideas, otherwise the majority of the population was natives like before. Therefore, a Basilica-Forum or Bath House might just as well have been built by a combination of Italian, Gaulish, North African (etc), but mainly British, builders.
-
Neil, this is not a question of "do Iron Age Hill Forts have association with the Romano-British" (of course they do!) or "how Roman are Iron Age Hill Fort sites?":
Type 1: Every location buried pottery is found a Romano-Brit has walked across the site, including in the vicinity of Stonehenge.
Type 2: Iron Age Hillforts and other sites constructed before the invasion and later occupied by the Romans (nothing now visible).
Type 3: A site that contained a monument built between 43 and 410 w/ VISIBLE REMAINS!
I have yet to visit the Basilica remains in Wroxeter as well as the Lincolnshire archway, and you guys are suggesting I visit an Iron Age Hillfort!? FUCK YOU!
-
Falkor, the British Hillforts referred to in various posts on this thread are contemporary to Roman sites, as I am sure you understand from the examples referred to, in which the inhabitants are clearly using Roman material goods or re-fortifying in late Roman times. It is fatuous to suggest that members of this forum would believe what you say about Stonehenge, and even allowing for the autistic license of seeing things in purely black and white terms, I believe you are aware that you are being mildly insulting.
You still do not understand! If British Hillforts are contemporary to Roman sites then so is Stonehenge. Roman material goods are found EVERYWHERE! So we might as well say that my local field is a Romano-British site. Refortifying? Just forget it... Iron Age Hillforts are irrelevant. This is getting beyond a joke now.
Whilst haranguing people you will never meet from afar can be fun to some, I must remind you that members on this site use pseudonyms, and were they to give their real names, you might embarrasingly recognise the authors of some of the books you may have on your shelves. So, consider this when you lecture people with outmoded concepts, aggressive put-downs and statements like as 'A Roman Enthusiast Such As Myself'.You are somewhat deluded and living in a dream world. There's no way on God's earth that any person I've communicated with on this forum is an author of any book(s) on my shelf; I would bet
-
Incidentially, there's plenty of Roman character about hillforts simply because they were part of Romano-British life.
This is like recommending a Roman enthusiast like myself to visit Stonehenge because it was a part of Romano-British life "Oh wow, look at those tall standing stones! Imagine the Romano-British walking around it; I feel in my element right now. Amazing, what a splendid Romano-British site we have here...Stonehenge: the best Romano-British site to visit in the country!"
Get serious, guys! That is really bad brain. I get the impression Caldrail has never visited any historical site outside of Wiltshire, let alone one with a Romano-British character; I would already bet
-
...Although the ditches and earthworks associated with them do, and are among the most spectacular Romano-British sites in the country.
I gave the Richborough example (ditches in context with masonry walls), otherwise, on their own, I don't see how earthworks can be described as spectacular when there are remnants of towns, military buildings, amphitheatres, houses, bath houses, villas, bridges, temples etc. Do you think English Heritage would charge tourists to visit simple earthworks!?
I thought the point of this topic was to provide you with information on Romano-British sites to visit? Caldrail spent a fair bit of his own time doing exactly that.Barbury Castle - Iron age Hillfort (no visible Roman remains)
Bincknoll Castle - Iron age Hillfort and later site of motte and bailey castle (no visible Roman remains).
Blunsdon - another hill fort with nothing Roman in character.
Chiseldon - villas found in the area, but no longer visible.
Liddington Hill - another simple bulge in the countryside (nothing Roman about it).
Uffington Castle - Iron Age/Bronze Age Hillfort.
Northern Neil, I may have only read a few books, though I'm knowledgeable enough to know the difference between Iron Age and Roman. The only Roman sites in Wiltshire are:
1) Littlecote (Villa)
2) Rotherley and Berwick Down (settlements).
He has not once stated that hillforts are better than Roman towns - or that they belong to him, he has simply tried to recommend some sites he thought you might find interesting.Neil, the point is:
1) Caldrail keeps peddling his Celtic conspiracy theories on this Roman messageboard.
2) I have asked for good Roman recommendations, but this one troll is spoiling my topic with mediocre sites of an Iron Age nature.
Caldrail tends to use standard nomenclature for archeological sites - hence, providing you with examples of Romano British sites, as you requested.Nonsense (see above).
but I would say, that when comments get a little bit personal, and a little bit aggressive - ESPECIALLY in tandem with incorrect historical views, then that's when the moderators start to get a bit testy, and give warnings or worse. If you don't want to get a slapped botty, I suggest you edit some of the content of your last post before they get wind of it!If I want advice I'll ask for it! So if you want to contribute to this topic then please stick to recommending Roman sites that you know about personally, considering you haven't done too badly there; apparently, there are 13 Romano-British sites to visit in Yorkshire.
-
Wooden sites do not survive...
Hillforts...forget it. I got a big mound at the bottom of my road. I got hills all over the countryside I could look at; no interest in earthworks whatsoever unless in context with Roman masonry--such as the ditches outside and inside the walls of Richborough Roman Fort.
PS - if you intend displaying so many photographs in future, could you please do so as thumbnails?Sorry, its too much work. Easier just to display raw data, so people can view everything all in one go. Clicking multiple thumbnails to view full-sizes image is inconvenient--you will be there all day. Of course, loading everything at once can take up much bandwidth, though without going into too much detail I assume you are not still using 56K? However, whatever I say, you do not appear to be a logical man, and we seem to not share the same mindset about anything. You find Celtic interesting. I hate Celtic. You want to stare at large mounds. I am only interested in buildings... we are not on the same wavelength. You do not understand the point of this topic, yet others do and recommended good Roman sites to visit. You think your hillforts (probably created in prehistoric times) are more interesting to visit than former Roman towns in the context of this topic? Why am I even trying to understand your mentality............
Can anyone else figure out what makes caldrail tick? Maybe he will recommend good Roman sites if I ask for medieval sites or something?
-
-
Thanks for the other suggestions. Chester is somewhere in the middle of my list (saw a good documentary recently about Roman Chester). I didn't realise York had anything major to offer us Roman enthusiasts. Other than Wales, I think Wroxeter, which has the best evidence for continuous Romano-Christian settlement into the fifth/sixth centuries, is also in my Top 3 sites to visit. I'm looking for places with a mixture of buildings similar to Richborough (my favourite so far).
Caldrail, with all due respect, hillforts and other earthworks have no visible Roman masonry, therefore, aren't worth visiting. Other buried sites where things have been discovered in the past and subsequently backfilled are confined to libraries and museums. I'm only interested in visiting Romano-British sites with visible remains above the surface.
However, I do try to check out museums and local studies centres in-between visiting sites. The Corinium Museum in Cirencester probably has the best displays IMO:
http://www.rarekungfumovies.com/forum/images/Panorama1.jpg
http://www.rarekungfumovies.com/forum/images/Panorama2.jpg
http://www.rarekungfumovies.com/forum/images/Panorama3.jpg
http://www.rarekungfumovies.com/forum/images/Panorama4.jpg
http://www.rarekungfumovies.com/forum/images/Panorama5.jpg
http://www.rarekungfumovies.com/forum/images/Panorama6.jpg
http://www.rarekungfumovies.com/forum/images/Panorama7.jpg
-
Wales is my next destination, though I'm waiting to get into a good sleeping pattern first.
30/11/08: Greenwich - site of Temple
30/11/08: Greenwich - Time Team are pathetic
21/12/08: Silchester, Hampshire - defences of a Roman town that has never been built over, yet has turned to fields.
21/12/08: Silchester, Hampshire - remains of one of the entrances to the Amphitheatre that could hold between 4,500 and 9,000 spectators!
29/12/08: Cirencester - even though this was the second biggest Roman town in the country, only tiny sections of the town wall survive at minimal height!?
29/12/08: Cirencester - eliptical shaped Amphitheatre remains, albeit heavily banked up with no visible masonry.
10/01/09: Lympne Roman Fort - many of the walls have drifted to funny positions due to a landslide.
10/01/09: Lympne Roman Fort - remains of one of the gatehouses with some original wall facing.
-
-
Thanks for the replies, image links, and for pointing out that the Italian variations can be triangular. However, I still haven't been able to find out any technical information under any of the names given thus far. And I do think the British tiles are different to their Italian counterparts. I checked my book on "Buildings of Roman Britain", but the paragraph about tiles is extremely vague. The description of Roof tiles (tegulae etc) was much more comprehensive, though not the building material I am interested in (only tiles/bricks used for walls).
-
I'm trying to find out the Latin name of Roman tiles, and differentiate between two types I have seen in British and Italian remains.
These are typical of most Roman remains in Britain--particularly London and the Southeast. They give the impression of "thin orange brick" (rectangular).
Unlike thick orange brick used in modern day housing, fully exposed Roman tiles actually turn out to be square! The above photo was taken at Lympne, Kent, which was said to have connections with Gaul.
London again. You can see the same square terracota tiles. They are used throughout the entire width of a wall
Now look at these orange tiles! If you look carefully, they are actually rectangular, slightly thicker than the above 3 example, and provide only facing for the core. I have also seen these exact same type of "Roman bricks" used at Pompeii.
Now, I need to look back over my photo collection of Roman Britain to try and find parallels with the Italian type of brick. First thing that comes to mind: I think I've seen those bricks re-used in Saxon structures.
Can anyone please tell me the Latin names for both these building materials? Are they in fact looked upon as being different? Until now I never even noticed the difference. Nevertheless, both types are remeniscent of Romano style architecture--even in modern day structures such as Roman Catholic churches throughout Britain and the modern shops/apartments in the city of Rome (emulating ancient architecture).
Westminster Cathedral
-
I am reading the book Roman Britain: A New History, and during the late 1st Century, the author states something like this:
1) Roman army foritified Scotland but then dismantled all forts and withdrew.
2) Roman army built Hadrian's Wall.
3) Roman army fortified Scotland (again) and built Antonine Wall then withdrew (yet again).
But it doesn't state why the Roman frontier kept moving up and down before finally resting at Hadrian's Wall. Is anyone able to elaborate on what was going on in Scotland?
-
Sure, but it is the most logical way of writing a history book. I mean, we have books on Roman London written just like my desired format outlined above. I gaurantee there must also be a similar book on Rome, even if it has less site plans with, instead, emphasis on smaller scale plans of the evolving city. Perhaps Maladict will know of such a book?
-
I checked both those books today. They look comprehensive and well illustrated (although they never had the Temple Of Isis), but they are presented in, like, a dictionary fashion. In other words, they are like a tourist's guide to Rome aimed at the historian. I am after a book with the same info, albeit presented in chronological order with a series of changing plans of the entire city (not plans of specific areas with different period buildings overlaid). Let me try and explain it logically based on what I would expect for different chapters:
Recommended Books - format
Chapter 1 - intro
Here's a map of all the buildings covered in the book.
Chapter 2 - Palatine Hill area
How the Forum area changed throughout the ages
Chapter 6 - Colosseum Valley
Colosseum with Nero's Palace and Trajan's baths overlaid.
Wanted book format
Chapter 1 - Rome origins
As you can see from the first map, settlement is mainly apparent in the Palatine Hill area, where Rome originated. There was no masonry buildings at this time, and no boundaries.
Chapter 6 - after Nero's fire
Nero's Palace built with lake + new buildings added to forum.
Chapter 7 - after Nero's reign
Colosseum replaced Nero's Palace. Some buildings of the forum were demolished; others rebuilt.
Obviously, I just made most of that up, but you can now get a better idea of what I am looking for--not a tourist guide but a proper evolutionary history.
-
Thanks for your recommendations, guys! I'll be following this up pretty quickly...
-
I'm looking for a good, possibly achaeology based, book on the ancient city of Rome--highly illustrated--describing and showing how Rome rose from the hills, to when it contained Nero's Palace and the giant lake, followed by the era that is represented by Google Earth etc. I expect the book to contain information on the many ancient monuments in Rome--surviving and demolished--with building dates. Does such a book exist?
-
I thought the subject of Ancient Egypt--with its many new books that find their way to the shelves each year--was far more popular than Ancient Rome. Ancient Egypt seems to have a fascination with women--not just men--because of the various Queens (besides the Pharaohs). Egypt seems to stimulate something else in women, which is altogether more mysterious. Also, Tutankhamun was certainly bigger business than Hadrian this year.
However, I uploaded two documentaries recently:
Seven Wonders Of Ancient Egypt (2004)
Seven Wonders Of Ancient Rome (2004)
The latter had 100 initial downloads, whilst the former had only 50. Also, the Colosseum is the number one world travel icon--ranked above even the pyramids.
So in terms of the entire population, what subject would you say is more popular?
Definition of a Roman Town in Britain
in Tartarus
Posted · Edited by falkor
This is the best I can do based on the various books and secondary sources; most are extremely vague and raise more questions than answers. Authors do not reveal their sources; they waffle; they write in a rhetorical fashion; they are evasive and avoid true definition and distinction between other settlements in the same context.
Without even wasting time trying to prove the second part of my previous paragraph, here is what I have managed to come up with in simple terms (except where quoted):
BEFORE THE ROMAN INVASION OF BRITAIN (Pre-AD 43)
oppidum (oppida)
Pre-Roman tribal/territorial centre(s). (Architecture did not exist at this time)
AFTER THE ROMAN INVASION OF BRITAIN (Post-AD 43)
CITY
colonia (coloniae)
Settlements of legionary veterans, adapted from former legionary fortresses.
-Colchester
-Lincoln
-Gloucester
municipium Latinum AKA Romanum
Generally formed from an existing native township that had adopted Roman ideas.
-St Albans
-London (possibly)
civitas (civitates)
New Roman settlements created "as new areas were given over to civilian control, and as allied rulers died and their territories annexed. The existing tribal groupings provided the framework for the new system of administration."
"Generally, the place picked for the purpose was close to the tribe's pre-Roman social, religious or political centre, and often--as at Cirencester--on land originally appropriated as an army base to supervise this in the conquest period. Accordingly, while these settlements took a local indifenous toponym, the tribal name was added to show its status as administrative centre of the civitas: hence Venta Silurum, 'Market of the Silures' (Caerwent)."
"Rome's active involvement in forming the urban centres of the civitates seems restricted to establishing a basic street-grid, as at Silchester, centre for the Atrebates."
-Cirencester
-Caerwent
-Leicester
-Silchester
TOWN
vicus (vici)
Contained a lack of planning and public buildings.
"The term vicus defined a settlement with no autonomy in Roman law and subject to a chartered community or military base, whatever its own size."
"Large villages, providing local market facilities."
-Water Newton (contained a mansio)
-Old Carlisle
-Brough-on-Humber
QUESTIONS
1) What historical or archaeological evidence do we have that towns and cities in Roman Britain were officially defined based on the above system?
2) In terms of building layout, if archaeology shows that a town or city strictly meets the criteria for one of the above types, is it safe to assume the settlement officially held and matched this status?
3) Which type of towns or cities were likely to contain a Basilica-Forum? Can we say for certain that a town containing these most important of public buildings were of a certain type or status (and vice versa)?
4) Which type of towns or cities were likely to have a local amphitheatre? Apparently, such arenas have been discovered in 2 rural villages of Roman Britain, so might these villages--given more excavations--prove to be towns or cities?
5) Which type of towns or cities were likely to have been later fortified with walls?
6) Did oppida refer to Barbarian, Romanised or both types of pre-Roman settlements?
7) Did coloniae contain only Roman citizens, or citizens from other parts of the Empire? Also, does the "legionary veterans/Roman citizens rule" apply only to the initial settlement period after the invasion, or strictly throughout the Roman occupation of Britain?
8) Were coloniae always adapted from legionary forts or might they have been adapted from auxiliary forts? In fact, it must be asked, might some coloniae have begun life as a planned gridded settlement without any former fort association on or near the site?
9) What is the difference between a municipium Latinum and civitas? The best definitions I can find are not dissimilar.
10) The best definitions of vici are rather vague, considering one such interpreted settlement contained a mansio, and many other cities lack a regular street grid, so can any strict rules be applied to distinguish it? Indeed, how can a Roman town be distinguished from a major settlement, stopping station or small village/minor settlement?
11) Could there be any other official town types missing from the definition list? What is a conventus civium Romanorum?
12) Could Roman towns and cities, officially in the past or unofficially in the present, be defined under a different, more reliable, system?
13) Apparently, there were 110 urban communities in Britain during the Roman occupation, so where were they??? Based on historical and archaeological evidence, have all the known towns and cities been listed in any published sources?
14) Based on your opinion or interpretation of the available archaeological evidence and known administrative structure of Roman Britain, how would you distinguish the following settlements?
DEVA VICTRIX Chester, Cheshire Major Settlement or Town?
ISCA SILVRVM Caerleon, Gwent Major Settlement or Town?
PORTVS SETANTIORVM Nr. Fleetwood, Lancashire Town or Major Settlement?
DVROVIGVTVM Godmanchester, Huntingdonshire/Cambridgeshire Town or settlement?
LVGVVALIVM (CARVETIORVM?) Carlisle, Cumbria Tribal Capital (Carvetii) or Town?
CORSTOPITVM / CORIOSOPITVM Corbridge, Northumberland Major Settlement or Town?
Braughing, Hertfordshire Town or Major Settlement?
Great Casterton, Leicestershire Town or Minor/Major settlement?
SITOMAGVS? Ixworth, Suffolk?
NOVIOMAGVS (CANTIACORVM) Crayford or West Wickham?, Greater London
BTW, some of the above also contained Forts. The last entry I do not expect anyone to be able to resolve, as I live near those sites, and latest research is more in favour of West Wickham.
15) Also, do you think Richborough, Kent was a town or just a fort? Latest geophysical research indicates it was a town or major settlement. Was the Amphitheatre associated with Richborough the civilian town or Richborough the military fort?
16) Do cities or towns with a known Latin name (from road routes etc) indicate, or provide hints, about its status or type as defined above?
I see the above as the ultimate test for anyone who claims to know anything about Roman Britain. Publishing writings on the subject of history should never be about showing off, playing games, or trying to confuse the reader; it should be a genuine move to share information in an unbiased, honest nature, by spreading knowledge and understanding in the most efficient way.
Forget I am your worst enemy, if anyone out there can answer at least half of these questions in a clear and comprehensive manner, providing total clarification where needed, then you will have my utmost respect, appreciation and gratefulness, and I promise I will never criticise this forum or any member ever again!
GIVEN THE FACT THAT ALL BOOKS ON ROMAN BRITAIN ARE SADLY INADEQUATE, CAN THE TRUE DEFINITION OF ROMANO-BRITISH TOWNS AND CITIES BE SETTLED FOR THE FIRST TIME, ON UNRV??? EMOTIONS ASIDE, COME ON, GUYS! YOU CAN DO IT!! I KNOW YOU CAN!!!