{"title":"Listing settlements and distances: The Emona-Singidunum road in Tabula Peutingeriana, Itinerarium Antonini and Itinerarium Burdigalense","authors":"F. Fodorean","doi":"10.2298/STA1767095F","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Our contribution is focused on the analysis and interpretation of several pieces of historical data regarding the Emona–Singidunum road along the Drava River, from three important ancient documents: Itinerarium Burdigalense sive Hierosolymitanum, Tabula Peutingeriana and Itinerarium Antonini. The key question of this study is: can the Bordeaux itinerary bring more light to the question of the sources of these ancient documents? If so, which method should be used to prove this? Therefore, we decided to compare data from the Peutinger map and the Antonine itinerary with those contained in the Bordeaux itinerary, by discussing a sector of the Aquileia–Viminacium road, more precisely, the route between Emona and Siscia. The objective was to see if there are resemblances or differences between these documents. After this comparative analysis of the three ancient sources, we reached some general conclusions and observations concerning these documents. The most important observation is that the structure of the Bordeaux itinerary along the Emona–Singidunum route reveals a careful planning of the main Roman road infrastructure during the 4th century A.D. (corresponding to the reorganisation of the official state transport, cursus publicus) and before this time. Why did the pilgrim choose the Emona–Poetovio–Sirmium–Singidunum road (along the Drava River), which measures 398 miles, instead of the Emona–Siscia–Sirmium–Singidunum road, along the Sava River, which is shorter (approximately 340 miles)? We suppose the answer is based on the full understanding of the infrastructure along the Drava River. This road could provide better travelling conditions for those officials who travelled using cursus publicus. However, we think the answer is based on another important issue. Using the official transportation system, the pilgrim chose the ‘official’ road.","PeriodicalId":36206,"journal":{"name":"Starinar","volume":"1 1","pages":"95-108"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2017-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"1","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Starinar","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.2298/STA1767095F","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"Arts and Humanities","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1
Abstract
Our contribution is focused on the analysis and interpretation of several pieces of historical data regarding the Emona–Singidunum road along the Drava River, from three important ancient documents: Itinerarium Burdigalense sive Hierosolymitanum, Tabula Peutingeriana and Itinerarium Antonini. The key question of this study is: can the Bordeaux itinerary bring more light to the question of the sources of these ancient documents? If so, which method should be used to prove this? Therefore, we decided to compare data from the Peutinger map and the Antonine itinerary with those contained in the Bordeaux itinerary, by discussing a sector of the Aquileia–Viminacium road, more precisely, the route between Emona and Siscia. The objective was to see if there are resemblances or differences between these documents. After this comparative analysis of the three ancient sources, we reached some general conclusions and observations concerning these documents. The most important observation is that the structure of the Bordeaux itinerary along the Emona–Singidunum route reveals a careful planning of the main Roman road infrastructure during the 4th century A.D. (corresponding to the reorganisation of the official state transport, cursus publicus) and before this time. Why did the pilgrim choose the Emona–Poetovio–Sirmium–Singidunum road (along the Drava River), which measures 398 miles, instead of the Emona–Siscia–Sirmium–Singidunum road, along the Sava River, which is shorter (approximately 340 miles)? We suppose the answer is based on the full understanding of the infrastructure along the Drava River. This road could provide better travelling conditions for those officials who travelled using cursus publicus. However, we think the answer is based on another important issue. Using the official transportation system, the pilgrim chose the ‘official’ road.
我们的贡献集中在分析和解释关于沿着德拉瓦河的Emona-Singidunum道路的几段历史数据,这些数据来自三个重要的古代文献:Itinerarium Burdigalense sive Hierosolymitanum, Tabula Peutingeriana和Itinerarium Antonini。本研究的关键问题是:波尔多之旅能否为这些古代文献的来源问题带来更多的启示?如果是这样,应该用什么方法来证明呢?因此,我们决定通过讨论aquilia - viminacium道路的一部分,更准确地说是Emona和Siscia之间的路线,将Peutinger地图和Antonine路线中的数据与波尔多路线中的数据进行比较。目的是看看这些文档之间是否有相似或不同之处。经过对这三种古代文献的比较分析,我们对这些文献得出了一些一般性的结论和观察。最重要的观察是,沿着Emona-Singidunum路线的波尔多路线的结构揭示了公元4世纪(对应于官方国家交通的重组,cursus publicus)和此之前罗马主要道路基础设施的精心规划。为什么朝圣者选择了长度为398英里的埃莫娜-波托维奥-西尔米姆-辛迪努姆路(沿着德拉瓦河),而不是沿着萨瓦河的埃莫娜-西西亚-西尔米姆-辛迪努姆路,这条路更短(大约340英里)?我们认为答案是基于对德拉瓦河沿岸基础设施的充分了解。这条路可以为那些使用公共道路的官员提供更好的旅行条件。然而,我们认为答案是基于另一个重要的问题。使用官方交通系统,朝圣者选择了“官方”道路。