Copy of 5th(?) century AD Roman Road Map

[Scipio Bristolus]

Probably an old story but it apparently doesn't go on display very often.


http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/7113810.stm

[Hibernicus]

It's reported to be a medieval copy of an earlier map. Is there an earlier map? No one knows.

Fraud? From the Middle Ages?

Imposible! .... :wink:

[Endre Fodstad]

I've never entirely bought the arguments put forward that claim the Tabula Peutingeriana absolutely cannot be a medieval forgery.

The standard argument is repeated in the article:
"But Mr Fingernagel says it is very different from other medieval maps and is clearly a copy of a much earlier document, dating back to the 5th century. In maps from the 12th or 13th century, Jerusalem, not Rome, was in the centre," he said. The interests of map makers in the Middle Ages were quite different. They don't show roads or rest stations, instead they show the holy places of Christianity". And the map contains other details which indicate the original probably dates back to the 5th century, including the city of Aquileia, which was destroyed in 452 by the Huns.

In rather strange (not to mention completely wrong) - T-O maps were indeed religious maps, but they are hardly the only medieval maps out there (by a long shot). It strikes me as odd that the head of the manuscripts department at a national library has never seen a Portolan map, an Itinerary, or a medieval Ptolemaic-style map (such as al-Idrisis famous one, that circulated widely in Europe during the high and late middle ages) or one of the many local maps daring from the period.

Aquileia had been rebuilt by the time this map was copied (or made?) - it was a patriarchal seat from the 10th century onward - it is far more interesting that it shows Pompeii, which by the 12-13th century (or indeed the 5th century theorized origin's time) was buried solidly. Many (I have not checked all of these) of the cities in the modern-day Netherlands that tend to provide the map's last possible dating had also been rebuilt by the 12th century, and people tend to forget that all those roman manuscripts that "appear" in the Renaissance had been copied for a reason in the middle ages (thus, the copier/forger could have access to information about the cities even if they were not rebuilt) - they didn't spend weeks copying manuscripts and scrolls just for the fun of it. Overall, I think the Levis (who strongly argued for the map to be a "real" copy back in the sixties) knew too little about medieval maps (or indeed the medieval world overall) for their arguments to hold water.

It is difficult to say whether it has been copied from a roman source or not. It greatly resembles a medieval Itinerary in style, down to the schematicism, rest stops hooks and small illuminations of lodging houses, only writ very large and clearly attempting to depict the Mediterranean world at the time of the roman empire.

I don't think there is any particular reason for why it would have to be a fraud - and indeed, even if I don't buy the usual set of arguments I have to say I'd consider it genuine unless any obvious anomalies pop up (such as cities founded in the 12th century) - at the very least it could be an approximation of a roman itinerary from sources the maker had access to that have been lost: if we cannot trust the medieval copyists we cannot trust the majority of our roman sources, after all!

[Robert Vermaat]

Hi Endre,

I don't think the issue is whether it was a Medieval copy - with medieval alterations. I think all realise that it's not a faithful detailed copy of an exactly similar-looking 5th-c. document. Medieval copyists are known to add details that were of interest to their particular audience, or alter imagery that they no longer understood. That might well account for some odd details here.

Some of the arguments behind a Medieval origin don’t match, however. Aquileia might have been rebuilt, but not as a city (it’s quite a metropolis on the map). Almost none of the places for The Netherlands shown on the map existed during the 12th c., either (who claims they had been??).

And were Medieval itineraries also drawn in the elongated manner of this map?

If it resembles a Medieval itinerary is not so much of a problem, the questions we should ask is if it looks like a (Late) Roman itinerary, or from what the Medieval itinerary was developed in the first place.

I’m by no means an expert in the TP or any other Roman mapping, but I think I recall that the distances between the towns and stations are numbered? And they seem to match the actual distances where we can check them from other (Roman) itineraries? Meaning there was indeed a Roman source behind this document, forgery or not?

However, if you are looking for a reason for a Medieval fake, the question should be what the forger had to gain. Most of the time, forged documents make claims. To my knowledge, the TP does not make any such claim.

[Endre Fodstad]

I think you misunderstand. I do think it is a medieval copy of a roman original (primarily for the reasons I wrote of below - why would they want to fake it? It's not like it is the Donation of Constantine...). I just don't find many of the arguments commonly used to prove that particulary strong; the best "proof" for me is simply that I see no reason for it to be a forgery - the Levis' set of geographical arguments are, IMHO, far weaker than that.

Some of the arguments behind a Medieval origin don’t match, however. Aquileia might have been rebuilt, but not as a city (it’s quite a metropolis on the map). Almost none of the places for The Netherlands shown on the map existed during the 12th c., either (who claims they had been??).

It's been a while since I read the essay on the subject, but Blerick/Blariacum was extant as a town along with its sister city on the other side of the river. Tongeren was also a 12th century town. There are also traces of a settlement at Cuij/Ceuclum, and at Voorburg.

12th century Aquileia was large enough to support a cathedral and a patriarchal seat....plus, its ancient origin and size were known in the 12th century, after all. And as you say, a forger could have access to a number of sources himself, if he felt inclined for some reason to fake a roman map.

(one could of course also subscribe to the alternate opinion on the map in regards to the netherlands: http://web.inter.nl.net/hcc/Gbm.Delahaye/peutkrt.htm lol: ...if one was of that inclination.)

And were Medieval itineraries also drawn in the elongated manner of this map?

That's typically exactly how they were drawn - a connected series (or several series) of cities, lodgings, towns or geographical waypoints with distances drawn in; in codices they tend to be vertical, but there are horizontal ones as well; that's why I said it looked like an Itinerary "writ large".

[Robert Vermaat]

I think you misunderstand. I do think it is a medieval copy of a roman original (primarily for the reasons I wrote of below - why would they want to fake it? It's not like it is the Donation of Constantine...). I just don't find many of the arguments commonly used to prove that particulary strong; the best "proof" for me is simply that I see no reason for it to be a forgery - the Levis' set of geographical arguments are, IMHO, far weaker than that.

Oh , my apologies for misrepresenting you. I knew your opinion because you stated that, but you also presented so many arguments for a forgery that I wanted to react to those.

Some of the arguments behind a Medieval origin don’t match, however. Aquileia might have been rebuilt, but not as a city (it’s quite a metropolis on the map). Almost none of the places for The Netherlands shown on the map existed during the 12th c., either (who claims they had been??).

It's been a while since I read the essay on the subject, but Blerick/Blariacum was extant as a town along with its sister city on the other side of the river. Tongeren was also a 12th century town. There are also traces of a settlement at Cuij/Ceuclum, and at Voorburg.

Sure, but all or most of the ones (still or again) showing a settlement, none are comparable. Medieval Aquileia was a smallish town, totally overshadowed by its successor Venice. By the 12th c. Voorburg was empty, Cuijck a village, Tongeren I don't know. You could mention Nijmegen, Maastricht, Utrecht of course, they were substantial in the 12th c.
But of the two roads through The Netherlands, few places existed in that time.

Along the northern route:
Lugduno (Brittenburg?) - under the sea, Pretorium Agrippine (Valkenburg Z-H) – a village, Matilone (Roomburg bij Leiden) – insignificant village, Albanianis (Alphen a/d Rijn) – substantial settlement with a church, Nigropullo (Zwammerdam) – small village, Lauri (Woerden) – first castle, Fletione (Vechten? Utrecht? Hoge Woerd?) - nothing, Levefano – washed away, Carvone (Kesteren) – a swamp, Castra Herculis (Meinerswijk?) – nothing there.

Along the southern route:
Foro Adriani (Arentsburg in Voorburg) – sub-zero agricultural land, Flenio - empty, Tablis (Hoogeloon?) – a castle, Caspingio (unknown), Grinni(bu)s (Rossum or Oss) – just a village, Ad duodecumum (at the 12th [milestone]) – unknown or empty land, Ceuculum (Cuijk) – a village with a new church, Blariaco (Blerick bij Venlo) – a small settlement, Catualium and Feresne (two unknown places), Atua(tu)ca (Tongeren in Belgium) – small town, Cor(t)ovallio (Heerlen) – a first castle.
Both towns called Trajectum (Maastricht as well as Utrecht) strangely enough are not mentioned either! Both were forts and while one could assume that Utrecht had ‘fallen off’ a damaged copy, this would not be possible with Maastricht. During the 12th c., of course, both were important towns.

My argument is that while a handful of places would have been known to a 12th-c. traveller, by far the most places would be either gone, empty land or tiny villages, with only some a small castle or a church. To a Medieval traveller, a road along these places no longer existed and as a map this part would be nonsense.
For a map of possible modern places: http://www.brucop.com/millennium/nederl ... gkaart.jpg

(one could of course also subscribe to the alternate opinion on the map in regards to the netherlands: http://web.inter.nl.net/hcc/Gbm.Delahaye/peutkrt.htm lol: ...if one was of that inclination.)

If one were, one would read the biggest load of b****cks ever written about Roman history. I can refute most of their claims (and have done so), while they can't substantiate most of theirs. :twisted:

And were Medieval itineraries also drawn in the elongated manner of this map?

That's typically exactly how they were drawn - a connected series (or several series) of cities, lodgings, towns or geographical waypoints with distances drawn in; in codices they tend to be vertical, but there are horizontal ones as well; that's why I said it looked like an Itinerary "writ large".

Ah, OK. I knew such maps from late Medieval English examples, but not from earlier ones. [/quote]

[Endre Fodstad]

Voorburg didn't exist? I need to go demand an explanation from a certain someone.

Anyways, that was a detour. Cities not extant in the 12th century on the map are not really, logically, an argument against a forgery - they are just an argument against a bad forgery. I'm not sure I really represented any arguments in favor of the map not being a copy of an original; I did, however, feel that the arguments that the Levis (and the guy in the link) presented as evidence against forgery didn't hold up. And that really doesn't cut it - instead of making scientific-sounding noise, they could just state that there doesn't appear to be any reason to distrust the authenticity of the copy.

[Robert Vermaat]

Voorburg didn't exist? I need to go demand an explanation from a certain someone.

Well, Arentsburg didn't. Maybe Voorburg did, and later spread across the Roman site. lol:

Anyways, that was a detour. Cities not extant in the 12th century on the map are not really, logically, an argument against a forgery - they are just an argument against a bad forgery.

Indeed. We agree there. But if someone would argue that all the places on the Peutinger maps again existed in the 12th c., that's the answer.

I'm not sure I really represented any arguments in favor of the map not being a copy of an original; I did, however, feel that the arguments that the Levis (and the guy in the link) presented as evidence against forgery didn't hold up. And that really doesn't cut it - instead of making scientific-sounding noise, they could just state that there doesn't appear to be any reason to distrust the authenticity of the copy.

My thoughts exactly. They would do better to look up similarities and possibilities how Roman maps influences Medieval maps...

[Endre Fodstad]

Indeed. We agree there. But if someone would argue that all the places on the Peutinger maps again existed in the 12th c., that's the answer.

I think the only "proof" of a forgery would be that 12th century locations appeared on the map that did not exist there in the 5th century...and even then that would not necessarily mean it was just not a detail added by the copyist in error.

My thoughts exactly. They would do better to look up similarities and possibilities how Roman maps influences Medieval maps...

Ah, but that would require them to reconsider the very established popular opinion that Europe rebooted itself back into the stone in 476 AD instead of, as at many tend to look at it these days, that there was a lot of technological and cultural continuity between late antiquity and the middle ages, rather than an abrupt break (as opposed to the loss of urbanization and centralization caused by the fall of the western empire, in which there is a clear break).

[edit] Plus, it would require the National Library curator in question to actually know something about medieval maps.

[Hibernicus]

It's nice to be set straight!
Check this: online image of the Peitinger Map
clickable to enlarge!

http://www.euratlas.net/cartogra/peutinger/index.html