Milestones, Civic Territories and the Antonine Itinerary

Abstract

The Antonine Itinerary has long been used by scholars as the principal source of place-names for Roman Britain. Most of the names it contains have been satisfactorily attributed to known archaeological sites with the aid of epigraphic evidence or the inter-settlement distances recorded in the itinera, or by the survival of the name in a recognisable form. It has generally been recognised that distances between any two given places are not always found to be consistent between the various itinera, and they frequently only approximate to the actual distance on the ground. Consequently, the Antonine Itinerary has never been used as a precision document, until Professor A. L. F. Rivet performed a valuable and long-needed service when he undertook the first detailed examination of the British section. Two side-issues of particular interest emerged from his study. First, that it is possible to recognise and correct at least some of the post-Roman scribal errors, greatly improving the accuracy and hence the usefulness of the Itinerary as a whole. Secondly, it was shown that there is an unexplained, but consistent shortfall (or ‘minus error’) in the majority of the distances quoted between any two adjacent places, and that in many instances the total for the iter falls seriously short of the total mileage for the journey in question, Since it is impossible to believe that the Roman mile was of differing length in different provinces, it must be concluded that measurements between towns, forts and even small settlements, were not taken from centre to centre, but from some point beyond the main area of occupation. Furthermore, the Itinerary shortfalls seem to vary in proportion to the size of town being approached.