AYŞEGÜL AKIN, Middle East Technical University Ankara – Turkey,

Faculty of Architecture, Graduate Program in Conservation of Cultural Heritage

TABULA PEUTINGERIANA AND REPRESENTATION OF CONSTANTINOPLE

Abstract:

This work focuses on Tabula Peutingeriana, also known as The Peutinger Map, a unique world
map drawn around 1200, the sample of Roman itineraria picta, illustrating the road network of
the Roman Empire and its surroundings with the inclusion of pictorial symbols marking cities
and other points of interests or landmarks. Among these symbols, there are representations of
three cities with human figures. The personification of the cities Constantinople, Antioch, and
Rome was realized through illustrations of their vignettes. In this study, Constantinople's
representation of Tabula Peutingeriana, bearing clues to the existence of the important symbol
of the Roman Empire.

Keywords: Tabula Peutingeriana, city vignettes, Column of Constantine

INTRODUCTION

In Rome, the act of traveling was part of the life of the citizens. Not only for pleasure, they
traveled around the world for trade activities, military purposes, for political reasons, and also
for the idea of exploring and learning about the developing world of the late antique period.
The highly sophisticated and complex road network of the Roman empire was making the act
of traveling easier. On the other hand, the developed road system in the empire had another
meaning. It is predictable that the most important ideas of an empire like Rome, which is large
and has lands from different parts of the world, are integrity and connectivity. As a reflection
of the ideas of "connectivity" and "integrity", the Roman Emperors placed emphasis on creating
an advanced road system that ran through all the cities of the empire. The idea of unity, aimed
with the introduction of an extensive network of roads, had both physical and abstract meanings.
It was both sustaining the idea of Pax Romana (Albu, 2014), and it was a means of
demonstrating the glory of the empire and the power of the emperor 1. In order to make this
complex system more understandable and usable by the citizens, it was essential to systematize
the road network.

To facilitate the act of traveling and guide the travelers on their roads, they made use of
itineraries and written documents acting as lists of destination points along a specific route,
with the indication of the distances between these sites (Albu, 2014). However, they were not
as functional as maps since they were only capable of encoding a single journey at a time. On
the other hand, maps supported the information with the visual representation of these routes
and included much more information. Also, they could show all the possible routes through the
Roman Empire. Tabula Peutingeriana is considered as an example of the illustrated maps,
itineraria picta (painted itineraries), where its actual function and the date of its original
construction are still a matter of debate. However, its illustration of cities, towns and significant
landmarks gives information about the dominance of these sites in the roman empire. Also, it
offers clues about the essential historical and architectural information that would satisfy the
needs of modern scholars. One of the well-known representations of it is the illustration of the
city of Constantinople. This representation has been one of the important sources of much
research since the column located next to the vignette is thought to be the Column of
Constantine, a part of which has been lost today.

1
For example, in order to show the centralized control of the road network, Augustus set the golden milestone
in the Roman forum, "the site where all roads ended." There was a link between the complex road network and
the imperium.
TABULA PEUTINGERIANA

Date and Possession and Origin

The copy of the prototype:

The Peutinger map is an outstanding world map drawn around 1200 and is considered a copy
of a Roman roadmap made for travelers of late antiquity (Albu, 2005). The original paper roll,
which was almost 6.7 meters long and 34 cm in height, was separated into smaller parts and is
now displayed in the Austrian National Library in Vienna. The map, which is known as the
copy of an earlier prototype, was known to have been discovered by Conrad Celtes in 1494.
This map was not published until Celtes' death. Celtes left the map to Kondrad Peutinger in
1508, and the map was named after this surname. The map remained in the Peutinger family
until it was sold in 1714. The authors investigating how this map came into the hands of Celtis
and thus Kondrad state that it is not possible to make a clear inference about where Celtis found
this map, but that it is possible that this map fell into her hands through theft (Talbert, 2010).

The early prototype

“(…)the only certain map, in any sense that we would recognize it, to survive from antiquity is
the celebrated Peutinger Table, although preserved in a medieval copy.” 2

As it was mentioned by Whittaker (2002), we know that today's version of the Tabula
Peutingeriana is a copy of the original. However, there are discussions about the date of the
earliest prototype of this Peutinger map. Even there are some discussions about the possibility
of it not being a direct copy but the copy of the copy. Regarding the date of the earliest prototype
of the map, there are two groups: some scholars support that the map was created in the 4th
century in Ancient Rome. At the same time, some of them claim that the original one belonged
to the Carolingian empire of the 7th century. In other words, some of the researchers working
on this subject said that there was an ancient archetype of it, while others argued that the original
map was a medieval map. According to the long-assumed and widely accepted view, the
original of this map was an ancient Roman road map made in the 4th century. To understand the
date of this map, several clues were taken into consideration. Dilke traced the archetype's
creation between ad 335 and 366 by using the cities depicted on the map—Rome,
Constantinople, and Antioch—as further indications of its origin (Dilke, 2011).

2
Crook, J. A., McKechnie, P., & Whittaker, C. R. (2002). Mental Maps: Seeing Like a Roman. In Thinking like a lawyer:
Essays on Legal History and general history for John Crook on his eightieth birthday (pp. 81–112). essay, Brill.
 Furthermore, from the shape of the map, it was claimed that the archetype was a papyrus roll,
and its parchment replica has perfectly sustained the original's shape after more than eight
hundred years (Albu, 2005). After this interpretation, the assumption that the 4th-century
archetype of the map existed was strengthened. Because papyrus was the preferred writing
material in Antiquity, and the fact that the original map was drawn on papyrus meant it had an
ancient origin. On the other hand, the other group of researchers says that there are better
arguments for a Carolingian original than for a Roman (Albu, 2005). They claim that it is critical
to understand that it was not meant to be used as a guide for navigation to strengthen their ideas
that this lost original was from the Carolingian era. They think that a map with several options
for one trip is not a travel map, as a traveler does not need many different itineraries to get from
one place to another. Moreover, they claim that it is not fit to be a travel map because of its
longitudinal form. According to Albu (2005), the map's dimensions render it inhospitable for
any travel but east to west.

They claimed, along with other arguments they offer to support their ideas, that this map
cannot have a travel map function, but that the map maker may have made it for display
purposes. Moreover, they claim that it is more possible to create such a large-scale and unique
map in the 9th century rather than in the fourth and fifth centuries. According to them,
considering how popular Roman geography was in the Carolingian world, it was not unexpected
that the Carolingians produced a Roman map. They proposed several possibilities by
considering that the maps are also signals of grand ambitions as they can be an object of political
propaganda. They claimed that it is possible to think that A Carolingian emperor could have
ordered a Roman map that was created using Roman itineraries to demonstrate his claim to
control New Rome. However, although the research supporting the medieval archetype
underlined important problems of the ancient origin idea, it is still not logical for a Carolingian
to put such an effort into learning the old names of the sites, even indicating non-existed places
in their old names, just to show the dominance over the Rome, which is not even their own
empire. On the other hand, it is crucial to think about the function of a traveling guide with such
inappropriate dimensions and layouts. The highly aesthetic appearance of the map may suggest
that the Peutinger Map was designed to serve a symbolic, ideological function rather than a
practical one. However, one may also claim that although its main idea of creation is not a guide
map, its network of routes could have been utilized for the practical purpose of planning
journeys (Salway, 2005).
The Content and visual elements of the map

Tabula Peutingeriana is a map with the dimensions of 6.75 meters long and 0.35 meters
height, representing the Roman road network, with the cities and other locations along roads
indicated by small pictorial symbols created for each of them. The representation of 550 towns
and cities and over 3500 other points of interest or landmarks form the composition of this map
with the complex road network, cursus publicus. The red line passing through all roads was
used for the representation of roads. The estimated lengths of the roads and distances between
cities were also indicated on the map. Also, the notes were indicated on the map as a guide to
the reader, giving information about the land properties and the roads. It can be inferred from
the analysis of content, some regions were missing in the map, like Morocco, the Iberian
Peninsula, and the British Isles. Accordingly, it can be understood that several parts of Tabula
Peutingeriana were lacking. The lost parts of the map are known to be reconstructed by Konrad
Miller in 1898 (Talbert, 2010). When the proportions of the map and its visuals, it can be seen
that it was distorted, especially in the east-west direction. As indicated by Salway (2005), the
distortions in the base map may not be done to represent how any Roman imagined the world.
According to the paper, they are more likely the result of a thoughtful aesthetic rationalization
and an approach of adjusting the initial map to the papyrus roll. Also, the hierarchy between
the symbols was indicated by the scale differences. The vignettes of the represented cities were
on larger scales in three cities, Rome, Constantinople, and Antioch, for example, to show their
dominance and importance in the Roman empire. Also, these cities were highlighted further by
being the only cities illustrated through personifications. Also, the prominence of these three
cities with dominating vignettes led the scholars to date the original map to the months between
September 365 and May 366 CE as they claimed that these personified vignettes were used as
a tool in the representation of imperial residences in particular periods in the history of the
Roman Empire (Albu,2014). On the map, we may also see the different representations of the
buildings and architectural elements. Other than the representation of tychai of these three
cities, smaller vignettes and pictorial symbols were used to illustrate other cities, buildings, or
other architectural elements of history. As it was listed in the paper written by Kochanek (2019),
several lighthouses were illustrated in Tabula Peutingeriana. The lighthouses of different cities
were represented with the vignettes. Some of these were the lighthouses of Chrysopolis,
Alexandria, Ostia Antica, and Aquileia (Fig. 1). There are some similarities and differences
according to the characteristics of the regions where these lighthouses were located, as it was
discussed by Kochanek (2019).
 Fig.1: Chrysopolis, Alexandria, Ostia Antica, and Aquileia Lighthouses
(Tabula Peutingeriana, OeNB, Vienna)

Also, there were representations of temples with rectangular and pitched building depictions
maintaining the use of orthogonal projections (Fig. 2). These representations were called
temples because of the existence of the labels attached to them. However, there are several
discussions questioning whether these icons were really made to show temples. That’s why
researchers categorize this type as “temple-like buildings”.

Fig.2: Three examples of temple vignettes

(Tabula Peutingeriana, OeNB, Vienna)

Moreover, there were some categories of vignettes depicted in pseudo-axonometry. Horrea,

warehouses (as it was claimed by Prontera in 2003), and aquaes, referring to mineral springs
or baths, were represented with this style.

Fig.3: Examples of horreum and aquae vignettes

(Tabula Peutingeriana, OeNB, Vienna)

Furthermore, there are only two ports represented with vignettes on the Tabula Peutingeriana:
the port called Fossis Marianis and that of Ostia (Fig.4). Although the form of the port icons
was similar in both of them, a circular building in oblique projection, Port of Ostia was depicted
in more detail as a type of with the inclusion of a lighthouse and piers to the scene (Levi and
Levi,1978)

Fig.4: Port of Fossis Marianis and Ostia

(Tabula Peutingeriana, OeNB, Vienna)

VIGNETTE OF CONSTANTINOPLE IN TABULA PEUTINGERIANA

As it was discussed in the article, among the other representations, the vignettes of the three
cities were more dominant. Representation of the cities Rome, Antioch, and Constantinople
through their personifications contain only human figures on the map. Among them, the most
emphasized visual was the representation of the city of Constantinople (Fig.5). The difference
of this representation, on which many studies were conducted, was the possibility that it might
contain the clues necessary for the completion of a currently missing structure.

Fig.5: Vignette of Constantinople

(Tabula Peutingeriana, OeNB, Vienna)
The elements of the Vignette

The vignette from Tabula Peutingeriana consists of two related parts: a figure sitting on the
throne pointing at a monument, on top of which there is a naked statue. The personification of
Constantinople was done by the illustration of the tyche, the ancient and traditional “fortune”
representing the city [1]. Tyche is sitting on a throne with the left arm open and holding a shield
and the right arm raised to point out a monument. The monument that is highlighted by the
Tyche is identified by most of scholars as the column of Constantine. On the other hand, other
groups of researchers, following the hypothesis of H. Thiersch, claim that the vignette of
Constantine did not include a column but a schematic representation of a lighthouse with a
statue on top of it. Among the several reasons why they claimed that it was a lighthouse, one of
them was referring to its form. Levi and Levi supported the same idea by referring to its form
resembles to representations of lighthouses in Tabula Peutingeriana.

“..What prompts us to consider this monument as a lighthouse rather than a column […] is the
fact that it presents from bottom to top those same constituent elements, namely the base and
the sections of decreasing width, which we have already found them present in various
representations of lighthouses(...) [2]”

Moreover, to explain the existence of the statue on top of this monument, they claimed that it
resembles the lighthouse of Alexandria, which is a very weak idea according to me since the
statue that we see in the vignette of Constantinople is much more elaborate and detailed when
we compare with the other lighthouse examples. According to the other studies on this element,
this was a representation of a column, which is more acceptable in my opinion. The most
important clue came from the statue and monumentality of this structure. This assumption was
accepted by most of the scholars, and Tabula Peutingeriana became one of the most important
traces of this column, which is not in a complete form today.

Representation of Column of Constantine in Vignette

The column of Constantine is a monumental column, a centerpiece of the forum of Constantine,

known to be an honorary column ( Arslan, 2016). It was originally almost in 37 meters with a
shaft of seven drums on a marble pedestal located on a platform of five steps (Bardill, 2012).
According to Bardill (2012), the capital, which previously crowned the column and supported
the statue and assumed to be in Corinthian style, has lost; it may have been harmed when it
fell in 1106. In place of the original one, masonry capital was added by Manuel I Komnenos,
which is also visible in its today’s situation (Arslan, 2016). Also, its base was changed with the
interventions done in 1779. The original form of the base is known through the drawings of
various artists (Fig.7) and the excavations undertaken around the column in 1929-1930 (Bardill,
2012).

Fig.6: Column of Constantine in 2010 Fig.7: Drawing of Column

(Bardill, 2012) (Bardill, 2012, Drawing by anonymous German artist.)

On the other hand, there is a lack of sources about the original bronze statue once located on
top of the Column of Constantine. Its existence is known by the written sources, and also
appearance was more or less explained in these texts. Although the written information
provided information about the original statue of the column and its bronze statue that made it
able to reconstruct the original status, there were some problems with the information provided
by these texts, and the accuracy of the reconstruction's bronze statue was questionable (Bardill,
2012). At this point, the tabula Peutingeriana was used as an essential source, causing the
accuracy of the bronze statue of the reconstructed column to be questioned. Although there
were discussions about whether the visual was showing this column or not, with the supporting
information provided by the scholars as it was mentioned in this paper, the majority of the
researchers accepted that the vignette was showing the Column of Constantine. On the map,
the column was depicted as a naked statue without any headgear. However, in the
reconstruction, the statue wore a radiated crown. The absence of the radiating crown in the
tabula Peutingeriana was explained by two possibilities: the rays of Constantine's crown rose
vertically and were therefore not visible from a distance, or as supported by the Barness (2011),
the statue had no radiating crown at all (Bardill,2012). Also, the proportion difference between
the reconstruction and the Peutinger map vignette is visible. On the other hand, since the
proportions were not depicted exactly in almost all vignettes of the Peutigner Map, it is possible
to have these types of differences. The absence of the statue's crown on the map is not related
to the map's misrepresentation or lack of detail. In my opinion, there is a real representation of
the bronze statue of that period in the Peutinger Map. It is unreasonable to assume that a drawing
detailed enough to show the orb in the statue's hand ignores the existence of the crown, whose
presence would significantly alter the appearance of the column.

Fig.8: Reconstruction of Column of Constantine Fig:9: Column of Constantine in

(Bardill, J. 2012, Reconstruction of the Tabula Peutingeriana
imperial statue and the column by Tayfun Öner) (Tabula Peutingeriana, OeNB, Vienna)
CONCLUSION

In this paper, an in-depth analysis of the Tabula Peutingeriana was conducted by utilizing
various written and visual sources. The Tabula Peutingeriana, which is considered to be the
only surviving map of the road network of the Roman Empire, was examined in order to gain
a better understanding of the infrastructure and geography of the Roman world during that time
period. Through the examination of the vignettes, notes, and road network, it becomes clear
that this map provides an invaluable insight into the Roman Empire and its perception of itself.
The features of the Tabula Peutingeriana, which have generated numerous discussions,
including its dating, origin, content, and function, were examined through a detailed analysis
and interpretation of information from various sources.

As a visual source, the Tabula Peutingeriana is an extraordinary tool for understanding the
ancient cities of the Roman Empire. The map is adorned with over 550 vignettes that depict
various aspects of the Roman world, such as cities, towns, and landmarks. These vignettes
provide a wealth of information about the geography, infrastructure, and culture of the Roman
Empire, making it an essential tool for historians and scholars studying this period of history.
The notes attached to the road network and vignettes provide explanatory written information
about the properties of the land and the characteristics of the roads. More dominant and detailed
figures were illustrated with the tool of personification in this map. One of the main cities
depicted with personification, Constantinople, took part in the Peutinger Map. As it was
discussed in the paper, the vignette of Constantinople is an important visual source for us to
understand lost parts of an important monument, the column of Constantine, and to criticize the
existing reconstruction visuals and models. This map, which we are not sure was drawn to
provide information or guide during the period, has become an important source of information
today and has caused ongoing discussions.
REFERENCES
Albu, E. (2005). Imperial Geography and the Medieval Peutinger Map. Imago Mundi, 57(2),
136–148. http://www.jstor.org/stable/40233992

Albu, E. (2014). The Medieval Peutinger Map: Imperial Roman Revival in a German Empire.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. doi:10.1017/CBO9781107444997

Bardill, J. (2012). Constantine, Divine Emperor of the Christian Golden Age. Cambridge
University Press.

Cioffi, R. L. (2016). Travel in the Roman World. Oxford Handbooks Online. doi:
10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199935390.013.110

Crook, J. A., McKechnie, P., & Whittaker, C. R. (2002). Mental Maps: Seeing Like a Roman.
In Thinking like a lawyer: Essays on Legal History and general history for John Crook
on his eightieth birthday (pp. 81–112). essay, Brill.

Dilke, O. A. W. (1970). [Review of Itineraria Picta: contributo allo studio della Tabula
Peutingeriana (Studi e materiali del Museo dell’impero Romano 7), by A. Levi & M.
Levi]. The Geographical Journal, 136(3), 490–491. https://doi.org/10.2307/1795276

Janni, P. (1987). O. A. W. Dilke, Greek and Roman maps, London, Thames and Hudson,
1985: Recensione. C.H. Beck'sche.

Kochanek, P. (2019). Vignette of Constantinople on the "Tabula Peutingerianana". The

Column of Constantine or the Lighthouse.

Salway, B. (2005). The Nature and Genesis of the Peutinger Map. London: Routledge.

Talbert, R. J. A. Elliott, T. Harris, N. & Steinmann, M. (2010). Rome’s world: the Peutinger
map reconsidered. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Trell, B. L. Levi, M. & Levi, A. (1983). La "Tabula Peutingeriana". The Classical World,
76(4). 250. doi: 10.2307/4349463
Yoncacı Arslan, P. (2016). Towards A New Honorific Column: The Column Of Constantine
In Early Byzantine Urban Landscape. METU JOURNAL OF THE FACULTY OF
ARCHITECTURE, 33(1), 121-145. doi:10.4305/metu.jfa.2016.1.5

Whittaker, C. R. (2002). Mental Maps: Seeing Like a Roman. In 2314119512 1579748631 J.

A. Crook & 2314119513 1579748631 P. McKechnie (Authors), Thinking like a lawyer:
Essays on Legal History and general history for John Crook on his eightieth birthday
(pp. 81-112). Brill.