Hostname: page-component-8448b6f56d-c47g7 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-19T05:34:56.634Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

A note on the Peutinger Table and the fifth and ninth iters

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  24 September 2012

Extract

It seems possible to reconcile these two authorities without much difficulty. A good deal depends upon the order in which the Peutinger stations are read, but here the Iter helps.

Type
Research Article
Copyright
Copyright ©O. G. S. Crawford 1924. Exclusive Licence to Publish: The Society for the Promotion of Roman Studies

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

page 137 note 1 See Royal Commission on Hist. Mons. Inventory, Essex. 11, p. xxix.

page 137 note 2 Ibid. III, 140.

page 137 note 3 It is quite clearly an ‘n’ on Peutinger, but the confusion of ‘u’ and ‘n’ is common, and we may refer to the alternative readings Calunio and Caluuio, Gallunio and Galluuio, Sandonio and Saudonio, Panouius and Panonius, Daunoni and Dannom, Sarua and Sarna, Coguvensuron and Coguveusuron, all from the Ravenna lists; Combretonio and Combretouio (Conbretouio, Compretouio), from the Antonine Itinerary; and the certain error of Lemauio (for Lemanio) in the Peutinger Table itself.

page 138 note 1 Cf. Royal Commission on Hist. Mons. Inventory, Essex, 111, p. xxviii.