You are free to reproduce any of the text of this work for non-commercial purposes only, provided proper attribution, credit and citation is given to the author, any original contributor or source, and the RRRA. Where photographs and diagrams carry additional copyright details, this Creative Commons license does not apply.

Creative Commons Licence
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 2.0 UK: England & Wales License

a

Gazetteer

  ©RRRA, 2018

Home Gazetteer of Roads Margary's Numbering Itineraries & Sources Glossary/Biography RRRA Website
The Crossing from Gaul to Britain Iter I Iter II Iter III & Iter IV Iter V Iter VI Iter VII Iter VIII Iter IX Iter X Iter XI Iter XII Iter XIII Iter XIV Iter XV The Maritime Itinerary

The Antonine Itinerary - Iter 1

From Bremenio (High Rochester, Northumberland)

To Praetorio (Bridlington, East Riding of Yorkshire)

The Antonine Itinerary De situ Britanniae - an 18th Century Hoax The Peutinger Table The Ravenna Cosmography Ptolemy's Geography The Notitia Dignitatum

Pastscape Mon. No. 410937  (2017) Noviomagus http://www.pastscape.org.uk/hob.aspx?hob_id=410937 [accessed 17/9/17]

Pastscape Mon. No. 419935  (2017) Durolevumhttp://www.pastscape.org.uk/hob.aspx?hob_id=419935 [accessed 17/9/17]

Rivet, A.L.F. & Smith, Colin (1979); The Place-names of Roman Britain; B.T. Batsford Ltd., London

Rodwell, W., (1975); Milestones, Civic Territories and the Antonine Itinerary; Britannia, Volume 6, pp. 76-101.

Talbert, Richard J. A.  (2010); Rome’s World: The Peutinger Map Reconsidered, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge

Talbert, Richard J. A.  (2010); Peutinger Map: seamless whole, in color, with overlaid layers available online at http://peutinger.atlantides.org/map-a/; [accessed 11/9/17]

References:


Itinerary Text


Itinerary Distance


Modern name

Actual Roman Miles

Error

Margary route number

Comment


Londinio




London






Noviomago


m.p. x


Crayford

13

-3

1c



Vagniacis


m.p. xviiii


Springhead

8

-11

1c

Should read m.p. viii


Durobrovis


m.p. viiii


Rochester

9

0

1c



Durolevo


m.p. xiii


nr. Sittingbourne

?

?

1b

Should read m.p. xii


Duraruerno


m.p. xii


Canterbury

?

?

1b

Should read m.p. xiii


Ad portum Ritupis


m.p. xii


Richborough

13

-1

10



Itinerary total


m.p. lxviii







Itinera II, III, IV and the Peutinger table provide complete coverage of the route from London to the Kentish coast. Most of the place-names are known but there are still a few questions. Itinera III and IV both give the distance from London to Rochester as 27 miles, 2.5 miles short of the true distance of 29.5 miles, measured from the southern abutment of London Bridge. In Iter II, Noviomagus is given as 10 miles from London , and in the Peutinger table 17 miles from Rochester, again totalling 27 miles. East of Rochester, all three itinera agree on the distance from to Canterbury as being 25 Roman miles, although the actual distance is 28.3 miles. These shortfalls are a common feature of the itineraries, especially in Britain and one suggestion as to their cause is that distances were sometimes measured from the boundary of a “town zone” (Rodwell, 1975).  In this case there is an approximate 2.5 mile shortfall west of Rochester, 3.3 miles to the east of Rochester, although precise calculation when dealing with itinerary distances is impossible, due to the distances all being given in round miles. If we assume that Rodwell’s theory is correct, we should perhaps give both London and Canterbury an approximate Town Zone of 3 miles. When we do, the remaining distances work very well, as will be shown.

The site of Noviomagus (meaning New Market) has never been found but Iter II gives the location of Noviomagus as ten miles from London, so with the proposed Town Zone we need to look in an area on Watling Street 13 miles from London Bridge which leads to an area on or near the modern A207, about half a mile west of the R. Cray, near Crayford. Slightly raised ground, not too far from the river, makes perfect sense for a settlement and especially a market, although locating the site is now extremely difficult since most of the area is covered by modern development. Rivet was not so specific, but did conclude that Noviomagus must be near Crayford. Unfortunately, Pastscape (monument no. 410937) still bears an entry for Noviomagus at a Roman period settlement site a couple of miles south west of Dartford which used to be accepted as Noviomagus in the mid 20th century but it is simply too far from the road (2.5 miles) and the distances do not work. It should be discounted.

The next stage on Iter II is Vagniacis which is not known from any other document. If the distance of 19 miles were correct, then the only possibility would be that the itinerary made a detour to a site somewhere near Maidstone along a road that is not known, then from Maidstone to Rochester along RR13. This may be possible, but seems unlikely as the straight line distance to Maidstone would be about 22 Roman miles, three miles too far. Rivet and Smith assumed that the xviiii measurement is a copying error (Rivet & Smith 1979, p.161), and should be simply viiii, and place Vagniacis at the known Roman period settlement at Springhead (TQ6177 7247). It is now marked as such on Ordnance Survey maps. This is still very slightly problematic, as the true distance from the most likely site of Noviomagus is about 8 Roman miles, not nine, and it is probable that a further error in copying crept in which added an extra “i” (see final paragraph of account of Iter II), possibly an accidental transfer of the distance for the next stage.  The distance from Springhead to Rochester is 8.7 Roman miles, very close to the stated nine miles, so locating Vagniacis at Springhead is fairly safe.

The Roman town of Durobrivae stood on the east bank of the R. Medway in what is now Rochester, with the main Roman road (Watling Street RR1) running through its heart, and is included in Itinera II, III, IV and the Peutinger table. Iter II gives Durolevo as the next stage some 13 miles further on. Durolevo is omitted from Iters III & IV although in the Peutinger table the distances are clearly corrupted being only “vii” with another “vii” to Canterbury, totalling 14 miles, whereas the actual distance is 28.3 miles, measured from the town walls (not the 27 miles quoted in Rivet & Smith). Durolevo should therefore be about 13 miles from Rochester, placing it on or just beyond the eastern edge of modern Sittingbourne. Whilst there is no known settlement in this general area, the numerous Roman finds from the town, including several cemeteries, are suggestive of a substantial settlement, although the focus of known Roman occupation is slightly to the north west, which would make the distance closer to 12 miles from Rochester, rather than 13. From there, the distance to the putative town zone of Canterbury would be about 13.3 miles, so the distances in the itinerary are slightly out. A simple explanation would be that a copyist transposed the distances for the two entries. Sittingbourne, therefore, is a much better fit than the other frequently quoted contender for Durolevo, at Ospringe, SW of Faversham. The confirmed evidence for occupation at Ospringe is not really suggestive of a large settlement, unlike that at Sittingbourne, and the probable site (Pastscape, Mon. 419935) is 18 miles from Rochester which cannot be explained by any straightforward error of transmission. On balance, identification of Durolevo as a settlement now beneath northern Sittingbourne seems most likely.

All four documents move on to Canterbury (Durovernum Cantiacorum), after which Iter II goes on to Richborough, Iter III to Dover, and Iter IV to Lympne. The distance for Iter II to Richborough is given as twelve miles, one mile short of the true distance of thirteen miles, with the distance on Iter III to Dover given as 14 miles, which is two short. Lympne, on the other hand, is correct at 16 miles. These variations in accuracy of distance are impossible to explain by a town zone around Canterbury which was of a regular radius. If a town zone is actually the reason for the shortfalls in distance, then we must conclude that it was irregular, extending as much as two miles out to the north west and south east, but only a mile eastwards toward Richborough and hardly at all to the south toward Lympne.


Itinerary Text


Itinerary Distance


Modern name

Actual Roman Miles

Error

Margary route number

Comment


Item a Londinio ad portum Dubris, m.p. lxvi sic (also, from London to the port of Dover, 66 miles thus)


Dubobrius


m.p. xxvii


Rochester

30

-3

1c



Durarveno


m.p. xxv


Canterbury

28

-3

1b



ad portum Dubris


m.p. xiiii


Dover

16

2

1a



Itinerary total


m.p. lxvi








Itinerary Text


Itinerary Distance


Modern name

Actual Roman Miles

Error

Margary route number

Comment


Item a Londinio ad portum Lemanis, m.p. lxviii sic (also from London to the port of Lympne, 68 miles thus)


Durobrivis


m.p. xxvii


Rochester

30

-3

1c



Duraruenno


m.p. xxv


Canterbury

28

-3

1b



Ad portum Lemanis


m.p. xvi


Lympne

16

0

1a



Itinerary total


m.p. lxviii








Entry written and compiled by Mike Haken, last updated: 11 November 2017