EPHEMERIS NAPOCENSIS

XXI
2011
 ROMANIAN ACADEMY
INSTITUTE OF ARCHAEOLOGY AND HISTORY OF ART CLUJ-NAPOCA

EDITORIAL BOARD
Editor: Coriolan Horaţiu Opreanu
Members: Sorin Cociş, Vlad-Andrei Lăzărescu, Ioan Stanciu

ADVISORY BOARD
Alexandru Avram (Le Mans, France); Mihai Bărbulescu (Rome, Italy); Alexander Bursche (Warsaw,
Poland); Falko Daim (Mainz, Germany); Andreas Lippert (Vienna, Austria); Bernd Päfgen (Munich,
Germany); Marius Porumb (Cluj-Napoca, Romania); Alexander Rubel (Iași, Romania); Peter Scherrer
(Graz, Austria); Alexandru Vulpe (Bucharest, Romania).

Responsible of the volume: Coriolan Horaţiu Opreanu

În ţară revista se poate procura prin poştă, pe bază de abonament la: EDITURA ACADEMIEI
ROMÂNE, Calea 13 Septembrie nr. 13, sector 5, P. O. Box 5–42, Bucureşti, România, RO–76117,
Tel.  021–411.90.08, 021–410.32.00; fax. 021–410.39.83; RODIPET SA, Piaţa Presei Libere nr. 1,
Sector 1, P.  O.  Box 33–57, Fax 021–222.64.07. Tel. 021–618.51.03, 021–222.41.26, Bucureşti,
România; ORION PRESS IMPEX 2000, P. O. Box 77–19, Bucureşti 3 – România, Tel. 021–301.87.86,
021–335.02.96.

EPHEMERIS NAPOCENSIS

Any correspondence will be sent to the editor:

INSTITUTUL DE ARHEOLOGIE ŞI ISTORIA ARTEI
Str. M. Kogălniceanu nr. 12–14, 400084 Cluj-Napoca, RO
e-mail: [email protected]

All responsability for the content, interpretations and opinions

expressed in the volume belongs exclusively to the authors.

DTP şi tipar: MEGA PRINT

Coperta: Roxana Sfârlea

© 2011 EDITURA ACADEMIEI ROMÂNE

Calea 13 Septembrie nr. 13, Sector 5, Bucureşti 76117
Telefon 021–410.38.46; 021–410.32.00/2107, 2119
 ACADEMIA ROMÂNĂ
INSTITUTUL DE ARHEOLOGIE ŞI ISTORIA ARTEI

EPHEMERIS
NAPOCENSIS
XXI
2011

EDITURA ACADEMIEI ROMÂNE

 SUMAR – SOMMAIRE – CONTENTS – INHALT

STUDIES
VITALIE BÂRCĂ
he Fibulae in the North-Pontic Sarmatian Environment (1st Century – First Half of the 2nd
Century AD) ......................................................................................................................7

SORIN NEMETI
In circuitu tenuit … Dacia and Roman Geographical Knowledge ......................................37

FLORIN FODOREAN
Mapping the Orbis Terrarum: the Peutinger Map, the Antonine Itinerary and the Cartographic
Tradition of the Fourth and Fifth Century AD .................................................................51

FLORIN CURTA
Werner’s Class I C: Erratum corrigendum cum commentariis ...............................................63

ARCHAEOLOGICAL AND EPIGRAPHICAL NOTES

DAN AUGUSTIN DEAC
A Pharaoh Depiction from the Roman Province of Dacia ...............................................111

MONICA GUI
Evidence for Medical and Personal Care in the Case of the Roman Army in Dacia .........115

BORDI ZSIGMOND LÓRÁND, RADU IUSTINIAN ZĂGREANU

Auxilia from Olteni. Controversy and Interpretations .....................................................131

CORIOLAN HORAŢIU OPREANU

New Approaches to the Knowledge of the Military Tile Stamps from the Auxiliary Forts of
Dacia ..............................................................................................................................145

SORIN BULZAN, CĂLIN GHEMIŞ

Roman Period Brooches from Săcuieni Museum, Bihor County .....................................161

REVIEWS
ALEKSANDR SIMONENKO, IVAN I. MARČENKO, NATALI’JA JU. LIMBERIS, Römische
Importe in sarmatischen und maiotischen Gräbern zwischen Unterer Donau und Kuban, (Archäologie in
Eurasien 25), Verlag Philipp von Zabern Mainz, 2008, 629 p., 57 ig., 14 maps, 390 pl., ISBN 978-
3-8053-3954-4 (Vitalie Bârcă, Sorin Cociş) ..............................................................................171
Rome's World: the Peutinger map reconsidered, Richard J. A. Talbert, University of North Carolina,
Chapel Hill, In association with Tom Elliott, Assisted by Nora Harris, Gannon Hubbard,
David O’Brien, and Graham Sheperd with a contribution by Martin Steinmann, Cambridge
University Press, 2010. Hardback. ISBN 978-0-521-76480-3, 376 pages, 33 b/w illus. 1 table.
(Florin Fodorean) ......................................................................................................................185

SZABÓ ÁDÁM, Dáciai papság, Budapest, editura Opitz, 2007, 270 p. (I sacerdozi nella dacia ms.)
(Szabó Csaba)............................................................................................................................196

N. GUDEA, Castrul roman de la Feldioara. Încercare de monograie arheologică/Das Römerkastell

von Feldioara. Versuch einer archäologischen Monographie. Interferenţe etnice şi culturale în
mileniile I a. Chr. – I p. Chr./Ethnische und Kulturelle Interferenzen in 1. Jahrtausend v. Chr. – 1.
Jahrtausend n. Chr., Vol./Bd. 11, Ed. Mega (Cluj-Napoca 2008), 367 S., 28 + LXXIII Taf., 36 Abb. 
(Dan Matei) ..............................................................................................................................199

Abbreviations that can not be found in Bericht der Römisch-Germanische Kommission...........207

Guidelines for Ephemeris Napocensis ........................................................................................211

 MAPPING THE ORBIS TERRARUM: THE PEUTINGER MAP,
THE ANTONINE ITINERARY AND THE CARTOGRAPHIC
TRADITION OF THE FOURTH AND FIFTH CENTURY A.D.

Florin Fodorean*

Abstract: Beginning with the 1960s the science of cartography quickly developed due to the interest
regarding maps. Among these documents, those from ancient times (Greek and Roman maps) were in the
centre of attention of numerous historians. But still, so many questions appear and it is our intention to
answer some of them. How aware are we today about the Roman perception of their geographical space and
its representation trough maps? What type of geographical knowledge inherited the Romans from the Greeks?
Did Romans use this knowledge in their maps? Why did the Romans created itineraria instead of proper,
scale maps? Is the Peutinger map the only prove of the Romans linear perception of space? What ancient
literary sources tell us about maps? We will start from fundamental ideas about the Roman geographical
space. We will investigate how these issues were analyzed and interpreted in the modern literature.
Keywords: Roman cartography, Tabula Peutingeriana, geographical space, cartographic tradition,
itineraria.

1. Introduction
In 2005 Matthew H. Edney highlighted: “he study of the history of cartography
underwent substantial changes in the second half of the twentieth century. In 1960 it was
little more than a branch of map librarianship and connoisseurship, an antiquarian backwater
with relatively limited academic signiicance. Yet today, after a dramatic “paradigm shift” in
the 1980s, the history of cartography is a widely respected ield of study in the Anglophone
world. Scholars across the humanities and social sciences increasingly ind the study of maps
to be intellectually challenging and the interdisciplinary insights their study generates to be
academically rewarding”1. Modern historians have made, over time, considerable eforts to
understand Roman society. Essential subjects brought to our attention include fundamental
concepts regarding geography, the representation of space, infrastructure, travel and mobility in
the Roman Empire. Leaving behind old concepts that emphasized a “static” Roman world, we
are aware today that Romans understood perfectly the mechanism of power and control of their
huge territory. hey managed to initiate, develop and maintain a massive road infrastructure,
which created the possibility of communication. his is a strong point of their Empire. What
about the perception of geographical space?
Geographical space is relected in Roman cartography through several categories of sources.
Among them, Tabula Peutingeriana is the most famous. But the Romans used not only itineraria

*
Babeș-Bolyai University Cluj-Napoca, Cluj-Napoca, RO; e-mail: [email protected].
1
EDNEY 2005, 14–29.
Ephemeris Napocensis, XXI, 2011, p. 51–62
52 Florin Fodorean

picta, but also adnotata. Itinerarium Antonini Augusti is the representing document for this category.
hese documents were investigated and analyzed in books and articles so often, but there are still
unsolved issues. We will try to present them here and to answer some fundamental questions.

2. Modern historiography on roman cartography. he Peutinger map and new

ideas: Carolingian or Late Roman propaganda?
If we take a closer look to the main scientiic contributions concerning these aspects, we
can establish, in my opinion, three directions or three methods for approaching this subjects.
Some of the historians tried to demonstrate that Romans had a clear vision of their geographical
space, even if a ‘horizontal’ one and this vision can be relected in a quite large number of
ancient documents: maps, written itineraria, milestones, and other documents. Others agreed
with this type of scientiic discourse, but they sometimes manifested many reserves concerning
the Roman consciousness of space. Somewhere in the middle we can position a group of contri-
butions which regard with caution both of these approaches.
In 1985 Oswald Dilke published his famous book on Greek and Roman maps2. Two
years later, he contributed with several subchapters to he History of Cartography, vol. I3. Dilke’s
contributions are important, but in some points he exaggerated things, trying hard to prove
the mastery of Romans in map making. Among the most interesting examples to show the
traditions of Roman cartography, I will mention here several cases. In chapter 12, vol. I (he
history of cartography), Dilke presents and describes the “Maps in the service of the state: Roman
cartography to the end of the Augustan era”. He perfectly observed that mapping during Roman
times relected three main domains: road organization, land survey for centuriation, and town
planning. But, further on, trying to demonstrate that “such extant maps […] are nevertheless
only a tiny fraction of the numbers that were originally produced in the Roman period”, he
included a fake “map of Gaul”, named “a recent chance ind”. He associated this “map” with
Caesar’s Gallic campaigns. If fact, his description of this monument shows a total negligence: “A
block of local sandstone, with maximum length and width ifty-six by forty-seven centimeters
and thickness on average fourteen centimeters, was found in 1976 near the center of the Roman
camp of Mauchamp, between Juvincourt and the river Aisne, and is now at Brie Comte Robert.
It has apparently been worked with a chisel on the sides and will stand up with north roughly at
the top. If it is a map of Gaul, as the inder claimed, the western coastline is recognizable, while
the other sides could be thought to follow the frontiers of Gaul. hree holes made in a line could
represent the Gallic religious centers of Puy de Dome, Autun, and Grand.” So, the conditions
of the discovery are very unclear. And also its description, because Dilke did not analyze this
monument. He was pleased just to mentioned: “If it is a map of Gaul, as the inder claimed….”.
Kai Brodersen proved that this is a fake. He noted that there is a problem with the publication
date, because irst, the author Pierre Camus published in 1976, but, as a matter of fact, he did
the same thing two years before, in 19744.
he Peutinger map was subject to so many debates, that today one has the feeling that
almost all of the aspects concerning this document were solved5. Researchers and historians
2
DILKE 1985.
3
DILKE 1987, 201–257.
4
BRODERSEN 2001, 10.
5
ARNAUD 1988, 302–321; WEBER 1989, 113–117; BRODERSEN 2001, 7–21; SALWAY 2001, 22–66;
ALLEN 2003, 403–415; BRODERSEN 2003, 289–297; DALCHÉ 2003, 43–52; PRONTERA 2003; DALCHÉ
2004, 71–84; DALCHÉ 2008, 29–66; TALBERT 2004, 113–141; ALBU 2005, 136–148; SALWAY 2005, 119–135;
TALBERT 2005, 627–634; PAZARLI, LIVIERATOS, BOUTOURA 2007, 245–260; TALBERT 2007, 256–270;
TALBERT 2007a, 353–366; TALBERT 2007b, 221–230; ALBU 2008, 111–119; ELLIOT 2008, 99–110; TALBERT
2008, 149–156; TALBERT 2008a, 9–27; TALBERT, ELLIOT 2008, 199–218; PAZARLI 2009, 101–116.
 Mapping the orbis terrarum 53

tried every possible explanation about the dating of this document. A new “trend” appeared in
the last 5 or 6 years: to consider that the map was created during the late Roman period or the
Carolingian period.
Emily Albu is convinced that the original document was created in the ninth century.
She speciies: “he Peutinger map is a map of the inhabited world from Britain to Sri Lanka,
drawn c. 1200 C.E. onto a parchment roll nearly seven meters long and 32 to 34 centimeters
high. Because it was created from Roman itinerary lists and features some 70,000 Roman miles of
Roman roads – with hundreds of Roman sites identiied by their Roman names and with mileage
between sites marked, mostly in Roman miles – historians of cartography have long assumed it
to be a copy of a Roman map. Recently I have suggested, however, that our medieval map had
a Carolingian prototype, clearly meant for display and not intended as a road map for ancient
travelers. Carolingian rulers had ample motivation for commissioning a map to display their
Roman imperial ambitions, while ninth-century scribes had the expertise and resources necessary
for creating an antiquarian work based on Roman itinerary lists”6. Unfortunately, Albu constructs
and sustains her argumentation using an incomplete analyzing method. She notices, for example:
“Let us begin with a few words about Roman and early medieval world maps. Speciically, why
do we see an explosion of world maps in the early Middle Ages after what appears to be a long
dry spell?”7 My question is: where is the “explosion” of these maps? To argue that the Romans
did not create maps, he uses the sceptisicm of Kai Brodersen regarding the existence of a map of
Agrippa. But the same Kai Brodersen, discussing the tradition of itineraria in the Roman world,
speciically explained the principle according to which the Romans created and used itineraries,
not scale maps8. He observes: “To sum up, all ive artifacts (I will mention myself here: 1. Ionians
coins from the fourth century B.C. with ‘geographical representations’; 2. the so-called ‘Map of
Gaul’, in fact, as Brodersen demonstrated, a possible fake; 3. a mosaic discovered in a third to
fourth century A.D. villa in Ammaedara, modern Haidra, in North Africa; 4. the representations
od regions in Notitia Dignitatum; 5. the Madaba Map), which have been adduced by scholars so
far as material evidence for a ‘Roman tradition of scale maps’, fail to prove the existence of this
tradition, and resorting to the ‘must have been’ variety of logic does not solve the problem of
how geographical knowledge was presented”9. Further on, he observes: “here is ample evidence
for the use of itineraries, not least in military action”10. Of these, he mentions: 1. a literary text
from Severus Alexander’s period, which speciically states that the dates of itinera were publicly
dispayed; 2. Itinerarium Antonini; 3. epigraphical lists of settlements and distances, discovered
in Allichamps, Autun, Junglinster, and Fedj-Souioud (Africa); 4. the so-called ‘stadiasmus’ from
Patara (Lycia); 5. the text of Vegetius (fourth century A.D.), with direct reference to itineraria
picta et adnotata; 6. the fourth century A.D. Vicarello goblets; 7. the vessel from Rudge Coppice,
near Froxlield in Wiltshire; 8. the vessel from Amiens – both list stations from Hadrian’s wall;
9. the third-century A.D. shield from Dura-Europos. To these, I would add (and, interesting,
Emily Albu did too): 10. the lost ‘map’ from Autodunum (Autun), dated ‘in the waning days
of the third century’11, mentioned by the orator Eumenius; 11. the collection of maps commis-
sioned in 435 A.D. by the emperor heodosius II. Obviously, these documents seem not enough
for Emily Albu to convince her on the tradition of itineraria in the Roman world.
he same “sceptical” Kai Brodersen, at the end of his article from 2001, concludes:
“…  geographical knowledge was organized, and presented, in itineraries. he risks of this
6
ALBU 2008, 111.
7
ALBU 2008, 111.
8
BRODERSEN 2001, 7–21.
9
BRODERSEN 2001, 12.
10
BRODERSEN 2001, 12.
11
ALBU 2008, 113.
54 Florin Fodorean

method are small (you might admittedly fail to realise that there is more then one city on an
island), the gains, however, great: an itinerary allows you to plan travel and transport from A to
B successfully, and it is this method which was adopted throughout antiquity. Simply itineraria
adnotata are enough if there is only one route, but if there is a choice of routes to be taken, the
ideal is – from the irst century BC Artemidorus papyrus to the London Tube diagram – an
itinerarium pictum”12.
And, if I am here and already have mention: the same “sceptical” Kai Brodersen specii-
cally outlines the existence of a tradition of these itineraria starting with the irst century B.C.,
based on the data ofered by the papyrus of Artemidorus. Further on, her method of analizing
certain details of the map indirectly eludes other data. Salway stated in a study from 2001, and
before him Arnaud:
“…the cities destroyed by Vesuvius in AD 79 manage to coexist with the Constantinian
St Peter’s. […] Also in discord with the fourth-century features is the inclusion of routes for trans-
Danubian Dacia (VII 3 – VIII 3) and the eastern half of the Agri Decumates (III 5 – IV 1). his
variegated nature makes the attempt to date the whole on the basis of the omission, inclusion
or highlighting of any particular location a fruitless exercise. Moreover, as Arnaud observed, the
chronological variety of the data relects not the work of layers of subsequent redactors but rather
the diferences in the dates of the sources used by the cartographer for each region”13.
And, to end this subchapter dedicated to this aspects, I would like to quote what
Tønnes Bekker-Nielsen wrote in his review14 to the book where Emily Albu published her article
(Richard J. A. Talbert, Richard W. Unger (ed.), Cartography in Antiquity and the Middle Ages:
Fresh Perspectives, New Methods. Technology and Change in History, v. 10.   Leiden/Boston:  Brill,
2008): “Emily Albu, however, argues for her hypothesis that the prototype was created as late as
the early ninth century in the scriptorium of Reichenau abbey, and furthermore, that the surviving
copy (= Codex Vindobonensis 324) was likewise produced in Reichenau on the Bodensee, not
in Colmar on the Rhine. Albu's theory has been rejected by most scholars, in this volume, by
Talbert (p. 21) and Dalché (pp. 47–49), whereas Elliott (p. 101) refuses to commit himself. It
is diicult, indeed, to see how the monks of ninth-century Reichenau would have found the
information required for a vast compilation such as the TP, or why they should take a detailed
interest in the geography of, e.g., Cyprus or Egypt. Precisely the question of local interest is
adduced by Albu in support of her theory: among the mountain ranges of the TP, only two--the
Vosges and the Black Forest – are identiied as silvae and embellished by vignettes of trees. Yet
this argument cuts both ways. If it is accepted that the trees on the TP are a scribe's attempt
to depict his immediate surroundings, then the special interest in the Vosges and the Black
Forest points to Colmar on the Rhine, rather than Reichenau on the Bodensee, as the place of
origin of the present Codex. With his characteristic attention to detail, however, Konrad Miller
has pointed out (Itineraria Romana [1916], pp. xlvi-xlvii) that some of the trees in question
resemble cypresses, palms or umbrella pines, none of which are found in the Rhineland. his
observation – which is not discussed by Albu – suggests that the hilltop vegetation is merely a
pictographic gloss for the word silva, added by a scribe who was not familiar with the trees and
forests of the temperate zone, and was content to insert the kind of subtropical vegetation found
in his Mediterranean homeland”.
A very accurate response for this (I would name it) “fantasy theory” came from Patrick
Gautier Dalché15. In this well documented contribution, Dalché investigates “les rapports de
la cartographie antique et de la cartographie médiévale”, which are, according to him, “une
12
BRODERSEN 2001, 19.
13
SALWAY 2001, 44.
14
he review is available at: http://bmcr.brynmawr.edu/2009/2009–06–07.html.
15
DALCHÉ 2008, 29–66.
 Mapping the orbis terrarum 55

question de l’histoire culturelle et intellectuelle qui n’est pas encore clairement résolue”16. He
rejects the solution proposed by Albu, even if the Carolingian period was a time of renovatio
imperii, therefore the emperors searched as models former Roman values. Emily Albu is content
only to write, at a certain point: “it is reasonable to expect Carolingian scribes to have known
many more itineraries than we do”17. I ask: why it is reasonable to expect such thing? Just to prove
a theory? his statement is just like that mentioned by Brodersen in his article from 2001. He
notes that often the researchers state that Romans “must have had” scale maps. Obviously, as he
showed, this is false. he was a total misconception regarding the Roman “map”. To demonstrate
that Romans were only interested in mapping the settlements and distances, Brodersen gives a
very suggestive example: the London tube diagram. He describes the story of Henry Beck, who
suggested in 1931 the replacement of all scale maps indicating the public transport with diagrams,
showing the routes as lines intersecting in angles of 90 or 45 degrees. Initially, such idea was
rejected, but two years later was adopted. Since then, as we all know and see today, all countries
use this system for subways or tramways. Now, back to Dalché and his response to Emily Albu’s
theory. he irst question he asks is: “Où les créateurs carolingiens auraient-ils trouvé le type de
vignette représentant les villes – qui a clairement son origine dans l’iconographie romaine – si
ce n’est sur un document cartographique antérieur? Comment le canevas général aurait-il pu
être établi ex nihilo, sans indications précises sur les rapports de contiguïté topographique entre
les régions que pouvait seule fournir une représentation igurée totalisante – et donc une carte
antérieure?” Further on, in the Carolingian period, with its entire Christian ambience, was not
such a good idea to create a “map” in which one writes “antea dicta Hierusalem modo Helya
Capitolina”? Finally, in this stage, we mention what Dalché observed: “nous avons des preuves
raisonnables de l’existence d’une cartographie romaine, malgré les vues systématiques formulées
çà et là; nous n’avons, en revanche, aucune preuve des intentions de Charlemagne en matière de
‘’propagande,” et les exemples de l’ “art cartographique” à l’époque sont inexistants ou douteux.
Il est donc rationnel, jusqu’à plus ample informé et jusqu’à ce que des preuves ou des indices plus
nombreux et plus conséquents aient été apportés, de douter que la Tabula Peutingeriana soit une
création carolingienne, et de continuer à la tenir pour une création antique”18.
Now let’s move forward with our discourse. In the centre of it we place the word “propa-
ganda”. After the “fantasy theory” of Emily Albu, another one using the same concept of propa-
ganda appeared. In 2010 Richard Talbert, professor at the University of North Carolina at
Chapel Hill, published a book about the Peutinger map19. Before, he published several articles
concerning diferent aspects of the Peutinger map. In this book, he discusses: 1. he surviving
copy: history, publication, scholarship, 10–72 (chapter 1); 2. he surviving copy: the material
object and its palaeography, 73–85 (chapter 2); 3. he Design and Character of the Map, 86–122
(chapter 3); 4. Recovery of the Original Map from the Surviving copy, 123–132; 5. he Original
Map, 133–157; 6. Conclusion: the map’s place in classical and medieval cartography, 162–172.
hese are followed by nine appendixes: Appendix 1. Latin Text Appended to the 1598 Engraving
of the Map, 173–174; Appendix 2. English Translation of J. Kastelic, “Vodnikova kopija Tabule
Peutingeriane (trans. Gerald Stone)”, 175–178; Appendix 3. Relections of Vodnik’s copy of von
Scheyb’s Engraving, 179–180; Appendix 4. Vodnik’s Latin Summary of Heyrenbach’s Essay
(National Library of Slovenia, Ljublijana, MS 1443), 181–188; Appendix 5. Miller’s recon-
struction of the Map’s Western End, 189–192. he next three appendixes refer to the database
created by Talbert20.
16
DALCHÉ 2008, 29.
17
ALBU 2005, 138.
18
DALCHÉ 2008, 50.
19
TALBERT 2010.
20
he database is available at: http://www.cambridge.org/us/talbert.
56 Florin Fodorean

his database provides essential information about the map like nobody did it before.
he irst section presents the “Peutinger Map Names and Features (links with Map A), with
Commentary and User’s Guide (= Appendix 7)”. Appendix 7 of the book is the User’s Giude
to the Database and Commentary, 196–200. Clickable links refer to: 1. Features and notices
(Complete list by grid square, complete alphabetical list of all the settlements from Tabula,
names and notices in red ink, complete list by reference number). hese are followed by the lists
by feature type (network names, no symbols – complete alphabetical listing; networked symbols,
named; networked symbols, unnamed; unnamed of illegible features; isolated names; isolated
symbols, named and unnamed; islands; mountains; peoples; regions; rivers; special features and
notices; water, other than rivers). hen, we have the symbol classiication. hese are classiied
according to the method used by Levi in 1967. Talbert presents no less than 181 symbols.
Every symbol is clickable and one can see the information regarding the other settlement with
the same vignette. he next link of the database is Map A. Appendix 8 in the book (“User’s
guide to Map (A) and Overlaid Layers”, 201–202) provides the description of this map. What
is, in fact, this map? It presents the whole Peutinger map digitized. he layers present all the
elements of the map: coastline (blue), grid framework, grid labels, island numbers, lakes, area
(blue ill), lake and marsh numbers (blue), mountains, brown outline, mountain numbers,
names of mountains, peoples, regions, display capitals (black and red), open water lettering
(violet), river courses (blue), route linework (red), routes – conjectural restoration of missing
linework (bright red), route stretches with no distance igure (orange), route stretches with
no start marked (yellow), routes – one stretch drawn as two or more (black), symbols. In the
section entitled “Map B” we ind two columns. One illustrates, one by one, the 11 segments irst
published in 1881. he second column presents the same segment, as they are originally kept
today. he most spectacular is the section entitled “Maps C-F”, according to appendix 9 from
the book (“User’s Guide to the Outlining of Rivers and Routes on Barrington Atlas Bases (C-F),
with Associated Texts: (a) Antonine Itinerary (ItAnt). Text with Journeys Numbered as on Map
E, and (b) Bordeaux Itinerary (ItBurd) Text with Journeys Lettered as on Map F”). in fact, this is
an archived database, downloadable, together with a ArcReader Trail version. One can actually
see the whole documents mentioned mapped as a whole in the programme, with all the routes
and settlements. he inal section presents the plates from the book.
As we saw, the book is well documented, and this database is extremely important for
any cartographer who writes about the Peutinger map and the other sources. But, still, three
aspects are questionable in Talbert’s book: 1. his opinion regarding the Eastern part of the
Roman Empire represented in Tabula; 2. the context and purpose of the map; 3. its data. In the
following, I will approach each of these aspects.
In the attempt of explaining why the Eastern part of the map contains much scarcely
information comparing to the Western part, Talbert writes: “By this stage the mapmaker may
have found himself under pressure to meet an inlexible deadline for delivery of the map.
Completeness and accuracy had never been his primary concerns. Moreover, he sensed that
the lands east of the Roman Empire and the routes there would receive the least attention or
scrutiny from viewers. He may also have anticipated that these lands would in any case lie
outside most viewers’ range of vision in the context for which the map was intended. Altogether,
therefore, at this end of the map he was prepared to lower his customary standard of work,
shrewdly wagering that he would not be called to account for the lapses”21.
his explanation is not solid. First, one should observe that what Talbert stated about the
mapmaker, that “completeness and accuracy had never been his primary sources” is totally false.
Every region of the empire is detailed represented (excepting the East) and I would not have the

21
TALBERT 2010, 112.
 Mapping the orbis terrarum 57

space here to mention the numerous regional studies regarding roads, in which the researchers
used accurate data contained in the document to reconstruct the Roman road system. he next
mistake of Talbert refers to the importance / unimportance of the Eastern regions: “he sensed
that the lands east of the Roman Empire and the routes there would receive the least attention
or scrutiny from viewers.” his totally contradicts what the same Talbert states at page 149, in
the subchapter where he discusses the context and purpose of the map. He writes: “Altogether
it is no surprise, therefore, that the Peutinger map should project Roman world rule, nor that
this sway should be projected as far as India and Sri Lanka”22. So, if this map was for propa-
ganda, why not represent in detail the whole world known by the Romans, including details
about the East too? Further on, as we see above, Talbert thinks that the viewers of the map
would not be interested to see the Eastern parts. How is that? Talbert explains that the map was
displayed in Diocletian’s palace in Spalatum (modern Split). He even presents (igure 6, page
149) a draw suggesting how one should imagine this display system: in a semicircular space,
where the central place is a statue on a throne, with a globe in its right hand, symbolizing the
orbis terrarium. Back of this statue, on a wall, Tabula was displayed. So, why should one not be
interested in the East, as long as the map occupies, according to Talbert’s hypothesis and draw,
a central place in this reconstruction?
I would like to state something else here. he East is so poor represented, irst, because
of the lack og geographical knowledge concerning this area. hese regions were so “exotic”, that
numerous ancient literary sources use diferent descriptions of them. hey were inhabited by
Amazons, or Hyperboreans. Mattern observes and presents this phenomenon: “he tendency
to truncate and flatten the northern regions continue as one progresses east. Roman ships had
sailed only as far as the “promontory of the Cimbri,” modern Denmark. he Romans did not
know the nature of Scandinavia (which Pliny describes as a large island in the ocean, HN 4.96)
or of the enormous territory that is now Russia. Even Europe north of the Danube tends to
be flattened and compressed. Strabo writes that the river divides eastern Europe approximately
in half 7.1.1), and Agrippa recorded that “this whole tract from the Ister to he [northern]
ocean is 1,200 miles in length and 396 miles in width to he river Vistula from the deserts of
Sarmatia” (HN 4.81). he territory farther east, in the region north of the Black Sea and around
the Caspian Sea and beyond, was unexplored. It was populated with Amazons, Hyperboreans,
and the mythical Rhipaean Mountains. A tendency existed-for example, in Ptolemy’s work-to
exaggerate the size of the Palus Maeotis, making it stretch far to the north; to place the ocean not
very far beyond that; and to perceive the entire region north of the Black Sea as eternally snowy,
impossibly cold, barely habitable”23.
he second problem is related to the context and purpose of the map. Talbert notes:
“It can seem more than coincidence that the choices made for the map’s presentation should so
efectively reinforce the ideals of Diocletian’s Tetrarchy. As rulers, the Tetrarchs strove to demon-
strate the special importance that they attached to the city of Rome itself ”24. he same Talbert
states: “While fully acknowledging the absence of suicient unequivocal indicators, I prefer to
regard the production of the original map as a Roman initiative that postdates the organization of
Dacia as a province in the early second century and predates Constantine’s sole rule, his conident
promotion of Christianity, and his foundation of Constantinople in 324. Within this span of
two centuries, the map could be associated with, say, the emperor Philip’s millennium celebra-
tions at Rome in 247, or with Severan rule; but such linkages seem hardly compelling. Rather, in
my estimation the map’s design and presentation match best the preoccupations of Diocletian’s
Tetrarchy (c. 300); these are treated in the discussion of the map’s context and purpose (142–157).
22
TALBERT 2010, 149.
23
MATTERN 1999, 54.
24
TALBERT 2010, 149.
58 Florin Fodorean

Granted, the connections identiied can be no more than subjective, and hence this dating of the
original map deserves to be treated with as much caution as any other”25. Going further with his
idea that the map was designed to serve for propaganda, Talbert writes: “he central placement
of Rome on the map asserts the city’s symbolic value in the eyes of the Tetrarchs. So, too, by
extension, the symbolic importance of Italy, Rome’s heartland, is promoted by the generous
amount of space it occupies on the map, while in reality under the Tetrarchy it, in turn, lost
its privileged status and was divided into ‘regions’ (regiones)”26. he same idea is argued again:
“Rome’s importance is upheld, and the unity of the empire’s rule reinforced, by the map’s giving
no special proeminence to the new Tetrarchic capitals. Equally, the bewildering proliferation of
names for the new array of smaller provincial units is ignored in favor of retaining the fewer, more
familiar and more reassuring old names for provinces”27. Finally, he concludes: “Ultimately there
can be no proof of the Peutinger map’s context or its purpose; for lack of evidence, both must
remain matters of conjecture. Even so, in my estimation the long established view that regards
the map as little more than a route diagram for use in making or planning journeys unduly
relects modern preoccupations rather than Roman ones”28.
I have to raise some questions here. If the Tabula was created during Tetrarchy, at
300 A.D., how can we explain the presence of the name Constantinople on it? Constantinople
was built over six years, and consecrated on 11 May 330. Commemorative coins that were
issued during the 330s already refer to the city as Constantinopolis (see, e.g., Michael Grant,
he climax of Rome, London 1968, 133). Old St. Peter's Basilica was the fourth-century church
whose construction was initiated by Constantine between 326 and 333 A.D. If the map focused
on showing Rome’s importance, why to expose it at Split (Roman Spalatum) and not in Rome?
Or Constantinople?
Another issue is related to two observations presented by Talbert. Once, he notes that
“travel by land over great distances within the empire, and even far beyond it to the east, is
presented as demonstrably feasible and safe. As contemporary viewers of the map would know
well, the Tetrarchs prided themselves on their tireless traveling – most of it by land routes – in
the course of duty to which their rhetoric at least set no geographical limit”29. he, he notes:
“Seen through Roman eyes, the route network becomes only part of a cartographic reassertion
of the long-standing claim to domination of the known world made by Rome’s imperial rulers”.

3. Itinerarium Antonini
Between the irst complete, scientiic publication of Itinerarium Antonini (1929)30 and
the last one31 (2006) more than three quarters of a century passed and numerous studies were
published32. he Antonine Itinerary is a much debated document. For someones it derives from
Agrippa’s map, for other it is a itinerary followed by emperors, or instrument of annona militaris.
he Antonine itinerary represents the only large collection of Roman itineraries to have come
down to as in written form. Around 2740 settlements are mentioned in the document. he
document is compiled of individual itineraries or regional sub-collections of varying dates. he
same method was used to create Tabula. Salway noted that: ‘Few areas are untouched by the
network of routes described. However the description of central Balkans and most notably, given
25
TALBERT 2010, 135–136.
26
TALBERT 2010, 150.
27
TALBERT 2010, 150.
28
TALBERT 2010, 155–157.
29
TALBERT 2010, 152.
30
CUNTZ 1929.
31
LÖHBERG 2006.
32
ARNAUD 1993, 33–49.
 Mapping the orbis terrarum 59

the density of settlement, southwestern Asia Minor is particularly patchy. In contrast in the
western half of the empire only western Gaul is so poorly treated, which suggests the compiler’s
location was somewhere in the western provinces’. I am not sure that this is a solid argument
to state the compiler’s origin. It rather depended on how he managed to gather together the
regional collections of itineraries and on how he thought about the method for presentation of
this data. In same areas the same province is traversed several times. he compiler has provided
some orientation for the reader by inserting titles containing names of provinces. he problem
is he has not done it in a consistent manner.
he provincial sections of the document are: I. PROVINCIAE AFRICAE (2,1):
Mauretania-Numidia-Africa-Tripolitania-Cyrenaica-Aegyptus (1,1–78,3); II. SARDINIA.
ITER SARDINIAE (78,4); III. CORSICAE (85,4); IV. SICILIAE (86,2); V. ITALIAE (98,2):
Italia-Noricum-Pannonia-Moesia-Thracia-Bithynia-Galatia-Cappadocia-Syria-Palestina-
Aegyptus (98,2–173,4); VI. ITER THRACIAE (175,1); VII. Cappadocia-Syria (176,3–
217,4); VIII. Moesia-hracia-Bythinia (217,5–231,7); IX. ITER DE PANNONIIS IN
GALLIAS (231,8): Pannonia-Noricum-Raetia-Gallia; X. ITER PER RIPAM PANNONIAE
A DAURONO IN GALLIS (241,1–2): Pannonia-Noricum-Raetia-Germania; XI. Raetia-
Noricum-Pannonia (256,4–265,3), DE ITALIA PER HISTRIAM IN DALMATIAM (265,4):
Pannonia-Dalmatia-Italia, ITER...PER MACEDONIAM ET THRACIAM (317,3–4): Italia-
Epirus-Macedonia-hracia, DE THRACIA IN ASIAM (331,1); XII. ITEM DE DALMATIA
IN MACEDONIAM (337,3); XIII. DE ITALIA IN GALLIAS (339,6): Italia-Gallia-Germania;
XIV: DE ITALIA IN HISPANIAS (387,4), DE HISPANIA IN AQUITANIA (453,4), DE
AQUITANIA IN GALLIAS (461,1); XV. ITER BRITANNIARUM (463,3).
225 Roman roads are described in the document. Only in Pannonia, the Antonine
Itinerary mentions 210 settlements. As proved before, the document contains data beginning
with the Severan period until the fourth century A.D. it is though strange that Dacia is not
included. For the moment, my explanation is that using, mainly, late sources, the compiler
decided not to write distances from this province.
he problem with this document is the average value of the distances, which is quite big
(20, 25, 30 miles), comparing with the distances from Tabula. So, it seems that the Antonine
Itinerary used diferent sources comparing with Tabula. Or maybe those sources presented
journeys realized in some moments by oicials of the state, so they had the possibility to cover
longer distances.
Another interesting thing is related to the number of the settlements mentioned in
Tabula, the Antonine Itinerary and Ptolemy. In Tabula, 2168 settlements are mentioned. he
Antonine Itinerary contains circa 2740 settlements. In comparison, Ptolemy lists circa 6300
settlements. It seems that Ptolemy had more accurate, rich sources. But a general idea remains:
both documents seem to present, as main feature, the roads. And this presentation was realized
in the easiest way possible, through written and painted itineraries.

4. Some concluding remarks

hese two important documents of late Roman period are, fundamentally, diferent.
he Peutinger map had, as sources, military itineraria which were not updated, only compiled as
a whole map. he distances from the Peutinger map are much smaller comparing to those from
the Antonine itinerary. his state is provable, according to my researches so far, for Pannonia,
Moesia, or Britannia. he Antonine itinerary lists journeys, based, probably, on sources from
imperial archives of cursus publicus. So, in my opinion, what Salway wrote in 2005 is hard to
prove: “Although opinions difer about the immediate sources of its information, it is now
generally agreed that it is a private production, not any sort of oicially commissioned survey
60 Florin Fodorean

put together from government archives”33. If this work was order by a private, how should we
explain the richness in information of the document? Both were compiled, but the sources were
not updated. But the sources are diferent. For example, the Peutinger map marks in Pannonia 4
roads: 1. Vindobona – Tauruno (the limes road); 2. Carnunto – Petavione; 3. Emona – Sirmium
– Tauruno (along the Sava river); 4. Emona – Mursa – Tauruno (along the Drava river).
To conclude, the Peutinger map was compiled using diferent sources. his is why we
see, on the same map, Constantinople, Pompeii or Roman Dacia. he sources, those regional
itineraria, rely, in my opinion, on the irst military maps created by the Roman army. For
Pannonia, the Peutinger map rather relects an early stage of the existence of the roads in
this area, with key settlements such as Poetovio, Emona. Or, it was these roads that were irst
controlled by the Roman army, and subsequently surveyed and mapped. As for the Antonine
itinerary, the compiler used late sources, gathered from state archives and relects the journeys
and distances between the facilities provided by the transport state.

REFERENCES
ALBU 2005
EMILY ALBU, E. ALBU, Imperial Geography and the Medieval Peutinger Map. In Imago
Mundi 57, 2005, 136–148.
ALBU 2008
E. ALBU, Rethinking the Peutinger Map. In R. J. A. Talbert, R. W. Unger (eds.), Cartography
in Antiquity and Middle Ages: Fresh Perspectives, New Methods (Leiden 2008), 111–119.
ALLEN 2003
T. J. ALLEN, Roman Healing Spas in Italy: he Peutinger Map Revisited. In Athenaeum 91,
2003, 403–415.
ARNAUD 1988
P. ARNAUD, L’origine, la date de rédaction et la difussion de l’archetype de la Table de Peutinger,
Bulletin de la Société Nationale des Antiquaires de France, 1988, 302–321.
ARNAUD 1993
P. ARNAUD, ’L’Itinéraire d’Antonin: un témoin de la littérature itinéraire du Bas-Empire’. In
Geographia Antiqua II, 1993, 33–49
BRODERSEN 2001
K. BRODERSEN, he presentation of the geographical knowledge for travel and transport in
the Roman world: itineraria non tantum adnotata sed etiam picta, in Travel and Geography in
the Roman Empire, ed. by Colin Adams and Ray Laurence (London and New York, Routledge,
2001), 7–21.
BRODERSEN 2003
K. BRODERSEN, Die Tabula Peutingeriana: Gehalt und Gestalt einem ’alten Karte’ und ihrer
antiken Vorlagen, in D. Unverhau (ed.), Geschichtsdeutung auf alten Karten: Archäologie und
Geschichte, Wolfenbütteler Forschungen 101 (Wiesbaden 2003), 289–297.
CUNTZ 1929
O. CUNTZ, Itineraria Romana I: Itineraria Antonini Augusti et Burdigalense (Leipzig 1929).
DALCHÉ 2003
P. GAUTIER DALCHÉ 2003, La trasmissione medievale e rinascimentale della Tabula
Peutingeriana, in Tabula Peutingeriana. Le antiche vie del mondo (ed. by F. Prontera), Florence,
Leo S. Olschki, 43–52.
DALCHÉ 2008
P. GAUTIER DALCHÉ, L’héritage antique de la cartographie médiévale: les problèmes et les
acquis, in R. J. A. Talbert, R. W. Unger (eds.), Cartography in Antiquity and Middle Ages: Fresh
Perspectives, New Methods (Leiden 2008), 29–66.
33
SALWAY 2005, 182.
 Mapping the orbis terrarum 61

DILKE 1985
O. A. W. DILKE, Greek and Roman Maps (London 1985).
DILKE 1987
O. A. W. DILKE, Maps in the Service of State: Roman Cartography to the End of the Augustan
era, in he History of Cartography, Vol. 1. Cartography in Prehistoric, Ancient and Medieval
Europe and the Mediterranean, ed. by J. B. Harley and David Woodward (Chicago and London,
University of Chicago Press, 1987), 201–211; Roman Large Scale Mapping in the Early Empire’
in he History of Cartography, Vol. 1, 212–233; Itineraries and Geographical Maps in the Early
and Late Roman Empires, in he History of Cartography, Vol. 1, 234–257.
EDNEY 2005
H. MATTHEW EDNEY, Putting “Cartography” into the History of Cartography: Arthur H.
Robinson, David Woodward, and the Creation of a Discipline. In Cartographic Perspectives
51, 2005, 14–29.
ELLIOT 2008
T. ELLIOT, Constructing a Digital Edition for the Peutinger Map, in R. Talbert, R. Unger
(eds.), Cartography in Antiquity and the Middle Ages. Fresh perspectives, new methods (series
Technology and Change in History, vol. 10) (Leiden, Boston 2008), 99–110.
LÖHBERG 2006
B. LÖHBERG, Das ”Itinerarium provinciarum Antonini Augusti”. Ein kaiserzeitliches
Strassenverzeichnis des Römischen Reiches: Überlieferung, Strecken, Kommentare, Karten
(Berlin 2006), Bd. 1. Textband Bd. 2. Kartenband.
MATTERN 1999
S. MATTERN, Rome and the Enemy. Imperial Strategy in the Principate (Berkeley 1999).
PAZARLI, LIVIERATOS, BOUTOURA 2007
M. PAZARLI, E. LIVIERATOS, C. Boutoura, Road network of Cretein Tabula Peutingeriana,
in e-Perimetron, vol. 2, No. 4, 2007, 245 – 260 (www.e-perimetron.org).
PAZARLI 2009
M. PAZARLI, Mediterranean islands in Tabula Peutingeriana, in e-Perimetron, vol. 4, No. 2,
2009, 101 – 116 (www.e-perimetron.org).
PRONTERA 2003
F. PRONTERA (ed.), Tabula Peutingeriana. Le antiche vie del mondo (Florence 2003).
SALWAY 2001
B. SALWAY, Travel, itineraria and tabellaria, in Travel and Geography in the Roman Empire,
(C. Adams, R. Laurence ed.) (Londra/New York 2001), 22–66.
SALWAY 2005
B. SALWAY, he Nature and Genesis of the Peutinger Map. In Imago Mundi 57, 2005, 119–135.
TALBERT 2004
R. TALBERT, Cartography and taste in Peutinger’s Roman Map, in Space in the Roman World.
Its Perception and Presentation (Münster 2004), 113–141.
TALBERT 2005
R. J. A. TALBERT, Rome’s Marble Plan and Peutinger’s Map: Continuity in Cartographic
Design, in F. Beutler, W. Hameter (eds.), Festschrift Ekkehard Weber, Althistorisch-Epigraphische
Studien 5 (Vienna 2005), 627–634.
TALBERT 2007
R. TALBERT, Author, Audience and the Roman Empire in the Antonine Itinerary, in
Herrschen und Verwalten. Der Alltag der Römischen Administration in der Hohen Kaiserzeit
(herausgegeben von Rudolf Haensch und Johannes Heinrichs), 2007, 256–270.
TALBERT 2007a
R. TALBERT, Konrad Miller, Roman Cartography, and the Lost Western End of the Peutinger
Map, in Historische Geographie der alten Welt. Grundlagen, Erträge, Perspektiven. Festgabe
für Eckart Olshausen aus Anlass seiner Emeritierung (herausgegeben von U. Fellmeth, P. Guyot
und H. Sonnabend) (Zürich-New York 2007), 353–366.
62 Florin Fodorean

TALBERT 2007b
R. TALBERT, Peutinger’s Roman Map: the Physical Landscape Framework, in Wahrnehmung
und Erfassung geographischer Räume in der Antike (herausgegeben von Michael Rathmann),
2007, 221–230.
TALBERT 2008
R. J. A. TALBERT, A Forgotten Masterpiece of Cartography for Roman Historians: Pierre
Lapie’s Orbis Romanus ad Illustranda Itineraria (1845), in H. M. Schellenberg et al. (eds.), A
Roman Miscellany: Essays in Honour of Anthony R. Birley on His Seventieth Birthday (Gdansk
2008), 149–156.
TALBERT 2008a
R. TALBERT, Greek and Roman Mapping: Twenty-First Century Perspectives, in R. Talbert,
R.  Unger (eds.), Cartography in Antiquity and the Middle Ages. Fresh perspectives, new
methods (series Technology and Change in History, vol. 10) (Leiden, Boston 2008), 9–27.
TALBERT, ELLIOT 2008
R. TALBERT, T. ELLIOTT, New Windows on the Peutinger Map of the Roman World, in
Placing History. How Maps, Spatial Data, and GIS are Changing Historical Scholarship (ed. by
A. K. Knowless; digital supplement edited by Amy Hillier). Esri Press, 2008, 200–218.
TALBERT 2010
R. TALBERT, Rome’s World: the Peutinger Map Reconsidered (Cambridge 2010).
WEBER 1989
E. WEBER, Zur Datierung der Tabula Peutingeriana, in Labor omnibus unus. Festschrift für
Gerold Walser (edited by H. Herzig and R. Frei-Stobla) (Stuttgart 1989), 113–117.