Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-8ctnn Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-24T17:55:42.331Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The Origins of Some Major Romano-British Towns

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  09 November 2011

Philip Crummy
Philip Crummy
Affiliation:
Felicia, Ardleigh Park Corner, Colchester
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

A combination of excavation and study of accurately surveyed street systems of some Romano-British towns enables a distinction to be drawn between those with newly planned layouts and those founded on the sites of military fortresses. The aims of this article are to summarise very briefly, mainly by means of plans, the evidence for both types and to demonstrate how planned street-layouts can be detected.

Type
Articles
Information
Britannia , Volume 13 , November 1982 , pp. 125 - 134
Copyright
Copyright © Philip Crummy 1982. Exclusive Licence to Publish: The Society for the Promotion of Roman Studies

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 Crummy, P., ‘Colchester: the Roman fortress and the development of the colonia’, Britannia vii (1977), 65–105CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

2 Crummy, op. cit., 87; for the theatre see in this volume under ‘Roman Britain in 1981’.

3 Annals, xiv. 32.

4 Hurst, H., ‘Excavations at Gloucester, 1968–71: first interim report’, in Antiq. Journ. lii (1972), 24–69CrossRefGoogle Scholar ; C. M. Heighway et al., The North and East Gates of Gloucester forthcoming, CRAAGS monograph.

5 Jones, M. J., The Defences of the Upper Roman Enclosure, vol. VII. 1 in The Archaeology of Lincoln (CBA, 1980)Google Scholar.

6 Bidwell, P. T., The Legionary Bath-House and Basilica and Forum at Exeter, Exeter Arch. Reports 1 (1979); idem, Roman Exeter: Fortress and Town (Exeter Museums, 1980)Google Scholar.

7 Thompson, F. H. and Whitwell, J. B., ‘The gates of Roman Lincoln’, Archaeologia civ (1973), 129–207CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

8 Heighway et al., op. cit. (note 4); Britannia vi (1975), 273.

9 Jones, M. J. and Gilmour, B. J. J., ‘Lincoln, principia and forum: a preliminary report’, Britannia xi (1980), 61–72CrossRefGoogle Scholar ; Webster, G., ‘Legionary fortress at Lincoln’, JRS xxxix (1949), 67Google Scholar.

10 Hurst, op. cit. (note 4), 66-7; Heighway et al., op. cit. (note 4).

11 Bidwell 1980, op. cit. (note 6).

12 Crummy, op. cit. (note 1), 80-1.

13 Thompson and Whitwell, op. cit. (note 7).

14 Heighway et al., op. cit. (note 4); Britannia vi (1975), 273.

15 Bidwell 1980, op. cit. (note 6).

16 Crummy, op. cit. (note 1), 85.

17 Hurst, op. cit. (note 4), 66-7.

18 ibid., 66-7.

19 Bidwell 1980, op. cit. (note 6).

20 Bidwell 1980, op. cit. (note 6), 24.

21 Crummy op. cit. (note 1), 76-7 and in this volume under ‘Roman Britain in 1981’.

22 Jones and Gilmour, op. cit. (note 9).

23 Hurst op. cit. (note 4), 66.

24 Bidwell 1979 and 1980, op. cit. (note 6).

25 Crummy op. cit. (note 1), 85.

26 Webster, G., ‘A note on new discoveries at Viroconium (Wroxeter) which may have a bearing on Hadrian's frontier policy in Britain’, in Roman Frontier Studies (BAR International Series 71, 1980), 291–6Google Scholar.

27 For a short discussion about the possible significance of alignments shared by military bases and civilian settlements on the same site see Crummy op. cit. (note 1), 90-1.

28 F. G. Skinner, ‘Measures and Weights’, in C. Singer et al. (eds.) A History of Technology (1954), 777.

29 F. Haverfield, Ancient Town Planning (1913), 129.

30 G. C. Boon, Silchester: The Roman Town of Calleva (1974), 92-9.

31 Boon, op. cit. (note 30).

32 In FIGS. 5 and 6, although the measurements are given to the nearest Roman foot, such a degree of accuracy is impossible because of the scales of the plans used. In addition to errors introduced by variations in the Roman foot (i.e. ± 1 per cent), a further ±1 0 Roman feet should be allowed as approximate compensation for the scales of the plans.

33 If a Roman foot of 11·63 in. were assumed instead of 11·60 in. (still within the accepted range), then the correspondence between the actual and theoretical dimensions would be very close indeed.

34 In a recent article, some evidence taken to imply the use of the pes Drusiamis at Silchester, Verulamium and elsewhere has been reviewed and shown to be just as convincing in terms of the pes Monetalis. In favour of the pes Drusianus: Walthew, C. V., ‘Property boundaries and building plots’, Britannia ix (1978), 335–50CrossRefGoogle Scholar ; Frere, S. S., ‘Town planning in the Western Provinces’, Bericht der Romisch-Germanischen Kommission lviii (1977), 87–103Google Scholar. For the reassessment, Duncan-Jones, R. P., ‘Length-units in Roman town planning’, Britannia xi (1980), 127–34CrossRefGoogle Scholar. The interpretation of Silchester's street plan given in the present article (FIG. 5) considerably favours the case for the pes Monetalis since much larger margins of error would have to be assumed to rationalize the plan in terms of the pes Drusianus. The figures 395 and 285 in Duncan-Jones's Table I can be changed to 400 and 275 respectively, since the Silchester street plan appears to have been laid out in multiples of 25, not 5 standard Roman feet as he supposed. The figure 135 applies to an insula which appears to be secondary and was presumably laid out with the forum. More recently still, C. V. Walthew has perhaps weakened the case for the occurrence of the pes Drusianus in civil contexts by arguing that this measure was rare in military planning where the pes Monetalis was the unit normally used (‘Possible standard units of measurement in Roman military planning’ in Britannia xii (1981), 15–35Google Scholar ). Although of uncertain extent, the involvement of the army in civil building projects would make it surprising if the measures used in military contexts did not correspond to those used in civilian planning.

35 Frere, S. S., ‘The Roman forum and baths at Caistor-by-Norwich’, in Britannia ii (1971), 1–3CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

36 J. Wacher, The Towns of Roman Britain (1974), 278-9, fig. 65.

37 ibid., 377, fig. 82.