The Location of Durolevum

After cataloguing the numerous chance Roman finds in and around Faversham, as well as the results of the excavations between 1913 and 1932 in the half-mile (800m) or so west of Ospringe (which included a cemetery with 172 cremations and 74 inhumations), the Victoria County History came to the conclusion that the area was the site of Durolevum, although it acknowledged that the evidence of the two main geographical sources was contradictory.¹

However, the standard work on Roman place-names locates Durolevum "somewhere between Sittingbourne and Faversham, and since the missing two miles are most likely to have been lost on the outskirts of Canterbury, a site nearer to Sittingbourne, perhaps in the area of Snipeshill and Bapchild, is most probable".²

This article discusses the problem in the light of more recent research on 'town-zones'. In brief, Rodwell's concept of a 'town-zone'.³ has been refined by an analysis of the Antonine Itinerary coupled in particular with the evidence of town-charters and the location of town cemeteries, which indicate that 'large towns' (perhaps most easily defined here as those with charters) had a specific related area around their walls - or perhaps other perimeters of precisely one Roman mile⁴ (or a variable distance, pace Rodwell), while 'little towns' (vici) did not have such a zone. With regard to 'large towns', distances were measured from the edge of their town-zones.⁵ For example, according to Itinera VI and IX of the Antonine Itinerary the distance between Londinium and Verulamium was xxi R.miles, whereas the actual road-distance between the walls of the two towns is 23.1 R.miles. Additionally, Iter II lists Stonincis as being xii R.miles from Londinium and viiii Roman miles from Verulamium, thus indicating that the small settlement was a 'little town' lacking a town-zone, although allowing that distances may be measured from its perimeter.⁶

The place name Durolevum which has been interpreted as meaning the 'fort on the smooth-flowing river',⁷ is known only from the Ravenna Cosmography, the Antonine Itinerary and the Peutinger Table.⁸

The Ravenna Cosmography.

This document gives the place-name as 'Duralavi' in, by error a list of rivers; its position in the list might suit North Kent (108/37).

The Antonine Itinerary

The Itinerary is a collection of some 225 road routes (itineraries) across the Roman Empire and lists both the names of the stopping places and the distances between them. In the British section there are 15 itineraries, which by custom are given Roman numerals.

In his study of the Itinerary Rivet notes that not only are some of the place-names in the Itinerary corrupt, but also are some of the distances.⁹ He proposed 20 obvious and necessary amendments to the distances in the text, of which 14 relate to confusion between letters (10 cases concern v and x, and 4 concern ii and v). In addition, there are probably further amendments which should be made where i has been erroneously added or omitted.¹⁰

Iter III and IV record the distance between Rochester and Canterbury as xxv Roman miles as against an actual measurement of 26.7 Roman miles between the two town-walls. This discrepancy between the two measurements would indicate that both Rochester and Canterbury had a one mile town-zone.

On the other hand, Iter II places Durolevum xiii Roman miles east of Rochester and xii Roman miles west of Canterbury. These distances, apart from confirming the xxv distance in Iter III and IV, indicate that Durolevum lacked a town-zone.

When the distances of xiii Roman miles east from Rochester's town walls and xii Roman miles west from those of Canterbury are marked on a map, they straddle the small village of Green Street, which therefore should equate with the site of Durolevum. Unfortunately, there is a dearth of Roman material known from this area which could support the hypothesis of a roadside settlement of some substance, nor is there a river of some size which is implied in the place-name. One might also note that the great majority of Roman settlements are to be found on the banks of a river or stream.

The Peutinger Table Not only is the Peutinger table subject to the same sort of errors regarding reliability of its mileages as is the Antonine Itinerary, but also its western end was so badly damaged at some time in the past that only 16 place-names in eastern Britain survive; some of these have even been truncated by the damage.

The table places Durolevum midway between Rochester and Canterbury at a distance of vii Roman miles from each town. Rivet and Smith meet the inconsistent comparison between these figures and those of Iter II by suggesting that the difference is "presumably due to the common confusion of x with v and both mileages should be read as xii (or perhaps in one case as xiii)."¹¹

Discussion Between Rochester and Canterbury the only evidence for a Roman settlement of substance, which presumably Durolevum was for it to be included in the Iter., occurs in the Ospringe/Faversham area. Here, Faversham Creek, which is a navigable tidal channel today, links the town by way of the East Swale with the Thames; the 'smooth' part of the place-name, Durolevum, might be applicable to the creek.

If the various cemeteries along Watling Street can be held to indicate the western boundary (A on map) of the roadside part of the settlement, then the eastern boundary of a loosely-knit settlement might, arguably, lie just to the east of Preston (B on map). This straggling sort of settlement along a road is known from elsewhere, for example, Kenchester and Water Newton.¹² More locally there is of course the site of Springhead (Vagniacis) which also lies on the route to Londinium and which too had access to the Thames; Vagniacis stretches at least some 400m along Watling Street.¹³

These suggested parameters, which would also 'bracket' the extent of Faversham in the late Victorian period, may be used as start-points for measuring the distances to Rochester and Canterbury. The potential for the Faversham/Ospringe area to be identified with the site of Durolevum would allow for different amendments to be made to the Antonine Itinerary and Peutinger than those put forward by Rivet and Smith.

The table below shows in three groups the distances listed in the Itinerary and Peutinger; some actual measurements between town-walls and/or the parameters for Durolevum/Ospringe, and some suggested amendments to the received measurements. In the third group the acknowledged frequent confusion between x and v, and v and ii, as well as the occasional addition or omission of a i may be sited in support (see above).

Itinerary III Itinerary IV Peutinger Table Actual distances from town-walls Amended distances: Itinerary II Peutinger Table Durobrivae (Rochester) xxiv xxv Durolevum (Canterbury) vii vii It might be argued that the amended distances either side of Durolevum

It might be argued that the amended distances either side of Durolevum/Ospringe are a Roman mile short of that quoted in ltinera lII and IV, but these only cover the routes between Channel ports and London and therefore may be of early date, that is before Durolevum was developed; on the other hand, because Iter II mentions Hadrian's Wall, it must be of 2nd century date - or later.

To sum up, the concept of a one-mile town-zone together with a corrected reassessment of the distances between Durovelum and it neighbouring towns could locate that placename in the Ospringe/Faversham area, which has such a high density of Roman material.

References

1. The Victoria History of the County of Kent, Vol. 3 (1932) 93-35.

2. A. L. E. Rivet and C. Smith, The Place-Names of Roman Britain (1981) 162.

3. W. Rodwell, Milestones, Civic Territory and the Antonine Itinery' Britannia VI (1975) 76-145.

4. One Roman mile measures 1,480 metres, 1618 yards or 0919 Imperial mile.

5. N. Fuentes, 'Land Division in Roman London', unpublished dissertation. Institute of Archaeology, University of London, (1985) 34-36, publication of the one-mile town-zone concept is expected in 1991.

6. For a similiar excersize in Essex, see N. Fientes, 'Durolitum Found?' Essex j. Vol. 21 (1986) 18-21 and 'The Trinovantes and the Antonine Itinery' Essex j. Vol. 23 (1988) 21-23.

7. Rivet and Smith, op. cit. 351

8. The British sections of these documents are contained in Rivet and Smith.

9. Ibid 39.

10. Ibid 62.

11 Ibid 161.

12. S. E. Cleary, Extra Mural Areas of Romano-British Towns, B. A. R. 169 (1987) 100-101, 142-49.

13. W. S. Penn 'Springhead Map of Discoveries' Arch. Cant. LXXX (1965) 107ff, as amended by Britannia IX (1978) 472.

Nicholas Fuentes