Talk:Londinium

Lingua Gallica / Gaulish?

Gaulish was the Celtic language spoken by the Gauls of what is now France, Belgium, etc.

There is no reason whatsoever to believe it was a commonly spoken language in Roman London. The local Celtic language was British or Brythonic: the ancestor of Welsh, Breton and Cornish. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.110.29.215 (talk) 06:11, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

Someone seems to have already removed whatever you were talking about, but Londinium would have been a hodgepodge of official Latin, provincial Brittonic, and Gaulish. Whatever the Belgae's version of Celtic was (and it either was Gaulish or some close kin of it), it may have been the primary language initially spoken by the inhabitants, given the success of the Belgic Catuvellauni in the area in the century between the Roman invasions. Beyond that, there would have been plenty of Gallic merchants from Gesoriacum and further afield. — LlywelynII 15:28, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

Name

Shouldn't the title of this article be returned to the name Roman London?

Also in the section for Populated places established in the 1st century it now lists Londinium and London both despite the fact that it is both the same place. Londinium is after all just the Roman language translation of London.70.178.153.27 (talk) 10:21, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

I agree that Roman London would be a more logical title however many (see below) seem to disagree. But Londinium is not the translation of anything. The Romans founded the city and Londinium was its name for centuries (except when they tried to call it Augusta for a while). TheMathemagician (talk) 10:27, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

Londinium is certainly a translation of something. It's not Latin for anything but [Celtic placename] and some Celtic placename was intermediate between the Latin and Old English names. That said, whatever that name was, it's much less common in English-language sources than the attested Latin one. — LlywelynII 15:54, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: move. -- tariqabjotu 01:00, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

---

Roman London → Londinium – No consensus on talk while back, one individual seemed to think that because there are articles named Anglo-Saxon London and Roman Britain, Londinium is not consistent. So he moved it. But Londinium is well known, and the WP:COMMONNAME for this topic. --Relisted. -- tariqabjotu 06:42, 29 June 2013 (UTC) Abductive (reasoning) 04:47, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

• Comment. I haven't formed an opinion about this, but (and I hope no one starts shouting about "other stuff") would offer Lugdunum and Mediolanum for comparison. Cynwolfe (talk) 16:35, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

• Comment It is not an easy question. I prefer using the Roman name, but I can think of some cases where that would be difficult (though this isn't one of them). As long as a redirect is in place (which it obviously is), is this a burning issue? Nev1 (talk) 20:29, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

Yes, it is a burning issue. It is very disconcerting for the reader to be redirected, and signals to them that there is something wrong with "Londinium". Abductive (reasoning) 05:30, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

Let me throw this out: there's a slight difference between Londinium and Roman London that has to do with scope. In some articles where Roman is used to modify a place name, it means "Roman-era", referring specifically to the history and culture of the place under Roman rule/influence. The Latin or Latinized name alone (as with Mediolanum) usually encompasses the full period under which the place was known by this name, which might range from the time when it entered history under its Latin/Latinized name (pre-Roman rule) through some time in the Middle Ages, when Latin names were still commonly used in official documents. The scope of this article seems to be just the Roman period. I'm not sure I agree that having Londinium as a redirect signals that something is wrong with the name, though since it's used a lot in the article it should probably be in bold in the first sentence as an alternate title, and not just a parenthetical. That still isn't an opinion either way. Cynwolfe (talk) 02:00, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose this is part of a series of periods in London's history. If we moved this to Londinium, then logically we would also have to have articles for Lundenwic and Lundenburgh and all of the other previous incarnations of the name. G-13114 (talk) 20:58, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

  You could equally argue it's part of a series of articles on Roman settlements, such as Mamucium, Deva Victrix, Camulodunum, and Viroconium Cornoviorum. I don't think the question should be "what pattern does this best fit into" but "is there a strong argument for one name over the other". Nev1 (talk) 21:06, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

  I doubt that Lundenwic and Lundenburgh are commonly known names. That is the metric Wikipedia follows. Abductive (reasoning) 05:30, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

• Support In general I prefer the Roman/Latin names for all articles of Roman places; not only for Roman London. BTW: most non-English articles on Wikipedia are called Londinium. -- Udimu (talk) 05:31, 20 June 2013 (UTC)
• Support. I agree that Londinium is a commonly-used and appropriate title for this subject. ╠╣uw [talk] 09:40, 29 June 2013 (UTC)
• Comment Another reason for not moving it to Londinium, is that it was renamed Augusta some time in the 4th century [1][2]. I think it used to mention that in the article, but that seems to have been removed. G-13114 (talk) 13:38, 29 June 2013 (UTC)
• Support. We should use a name rather than a description, provided that there is a reasonably well-known name for the subject. See this ngram. Kauffner (talk) 20:54, 29 June 2013 (UTC)
• Support. A proper name should be always preferable. Reiftyr (talk) 10:17, 30 June 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose Article is about a period of history rather than a historical city name. Gem (talk) 13:01, 30 June 2013 (UTC)
• Support: WP:COMMONNAME per nominator. Precedent for having other Roman-era settlements at their Roman names. The example Anglo-Saxon names above are not Common Names and thus wouldn't generally be searched for, but if you wish those articles to be changed too then maybe make a Move Request accordingly, though be careful of WP:POINT. - Cheers, JCJ of Burwell (Talk) 09:21, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Nothing about its other ancient name?

After the defeat of Allectus, Londinium was said to have been renamed "Augusta", in honor of Constantius Chlorus. (Source: Shepperd Frere, Britannica.) The name stuck for some time, for Ammianus Marcellinus, writing in the 3rd quarter of the 4th C., refers to Roman London as "Augusta". I'm citing all this from memory, so confirm my sources before adding this to the article. -- llywrch (talk) 20:19, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

This is already briefly mentioned in the article. However, the reasons for the change of name are unknown. All explanations are pure speculation. With the name Augusta the city appears in several sources. best wishes -- Udimu (talk) 21:20, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

Better treatment and bolding. It almost certainly wasn't Augusta tout suite (too damned many of them), but we need a source for Augusta Britanniarum, Augusta Londiniensis, or whathaveyou. — LlywelynII 16:00, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

Pronunciation

There was a cite and always loathe to remove those, but WP:NOTDICTIONARY. There is nothing abnormal or difficult about pronouncing Londinium as LUN-DIN-EE-UM and we should just port that to the Wiktionary entry. The Classical Latin pronunciation would have been unusual (LON-DEEN-EE-OOM) but it's not particularly noteworthy in any sense: modern English speakers wouldn't say it that way, modern Latin speakers may not, and period Latin speakers probably had some Brittonic lilt. Leave it at Wiktionary or include a passage on Latin, British Latin, and English pronunciations in the #Name section. — LlywelynII 16:00, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

"Important Buildings"

It's rather nonsensical to lump all of them from various eras together as if they formed one atemporal city, particularly when only minimal information about dating and excavation is being addressed. We could use a section on currently extant remains (particularly those open to the public) and the old section could be redone with more information here or at a page like "buildings of Roman London". Really, though, I think it's better to address their creation when they were created; their excavation when they were excavated; extensive details at their dedicated pages; and their location by adding more to an already well-done map. — LlywelynII 00:22, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

Art

Some other art discovered in London include these guys, if anyone takes a liking: — LlywelynII 15:30, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

• 
• 
• 

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Londinium/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Dudley Miles (talk · contribs) 16:09, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

I will take this one. Dudley Miles (talk) 16:09, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

I am afraid this article is a long way from GA standard.

• There is no source for the lead image and the note for it is unreferenced.
• The next map of Roman Britain has text so small that (on my screen) some of the text is illegible.
• According to Wikipedia rules, images of coins are copyright if taken from websites or copyright books.
• There are a number of "citation needed" markers. These should be dealt with before GAN.
• Some of the sources cited - e.g. refs 2, 3, and 16 - are original sources. This is original research.
• Notes should give the information needed, not refer to another note, particularly where no page numbers are given, as with note 8.
• Citation styles are erratic and inconsistent and erratic. Merrifield's London, City of the Romans is frequently cited, yet it is not in the list of references. It is cited in note 29 but details of the book are not given until note 40.
• The arrangement of books in the references section is erratic. They should be in alphabetical order of surname of author, which should be shown before the forename.
• The discussion of the origin of the name London is unsatisfactory. "Instead, the Latin name was probably based on a native Brittonic placename reconstructed as *Londinion." This is referenced to an 1889 work as endorsed by a 1911 work. This is far too dated. It is unclear how the 9th century History of the Britons is relevant to the origin over 800 years earlier. Modern discussions are by Schrijver and Coates (referred to in the notes and discussed in more detail in Etymology of London article). I have a copy of Coates' article which I can email to you if you wish.
• The section on location is unreferenced.
• The section on status has 2 "citation needed".
• The founding section has "citation needed" and the last paragraph is unreferenced.
• Roads section. The last part of the first paragraph is unreferenced and another "citation needed".
• Boudicca. The quote from Tacitus is WP:OR and the last comment that "no supporting archaeological evidence has been discovered" is cited to an 1878 source, which is far too old for such a statement.
• 1st century - another "citation needed".
• 2nd century - the 2st paragraph and most of the 3rd are unreferenced.
• London Wall - 2 more "citation needed" and the end of all 3 paragaraphs are unreferenced.
• Carausian Revolt - the last 2 sentences are unreferenced.
• 4th century - the last sentences in the 1st and 3rd paragraphs are unreferenced.
• 5th century - another "citation needed" and most of the first paragraph is unreferenced.
• There is the basis of a good article here, but it needs far more work, so I regret I have to fail it. Do nominate it again once the issues have been dealt with. Dudley Miles (talk) 13:37, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

Population figures

There is currently an edit war going on about whether the population of Londinium was 30,000 or 60,000 in AD100. Neither involved editor has bothered to discuss things on the talk page. I believe 60,000 is excessive. I don't have sources to hand, but a quick search found this: a "possible suggestion of a population in AD60/61, therefore, would be about 10,000; a population of about 25,000 – 30,000 in AD100/120 and, although the area in AD200 is calculated as being larger, property density was falling so a slightly smaller population of about 25,000 might be suggested for AD200". [3]. This has a source: "Londinium and Beyond: Essays on Roman London and Its Hinterland" from 2008, the chapter titled "The Population of Roman London" - locating it would stop the ongoing warring. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 21:33, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

Clarification needed

The phrase sentence: Although Londinium remained important for the rest of the Roman period, it appears never to have recovered fully from this slump, as archaeologists have found that much of the city after this date was covered in dark earth has been tagged as unclear. Can anyone please succinctly describe what is unclear? -- Paleorthid (talk) 21:18, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

A question for @Dinkytown:. Nev1 (talk) 01:29, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

Thanks @Paleorthid:, Thanks @Nev1: - The issue was the term "dark earth", which assumes has a specific meaning and subject. The page of dark earth also is not well written and unclear. Of course, earth is "dark", does that mean that the soil was not tilled? Was tilled? Waist debris? Runoff? Manure? etc. If an archaeologists says this, what does that mean and why is that important? The rest of the sentence was okay IMHO. Dinkytown talk 01:43, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

I think I understand the intended meaning. Note that the context prior is all about extensive permanent structures: forum and basilica were the largest north of the Alps. Construction stopped in the the second half of the 2nd century, after which (the layer of dark earth tells us that) Londinium had a stable settled population that failed to put up anything to write about fortification-or-big-structure-wise, but it had a population dense enough to cause dark earth formation. A more succinct rewrite should be workable. -- Paleorthid (talk) 03:45, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

I think I also understand the meaning, but I was hoping it could be more specific, such as the meaning of 'dark earth'; I assume as common household debris from settlement occupation, i.e. household waste, manure, non-farm byproduct of settlement occupation, etc. But why would 'dark earth' be important in this case? If Londinium was founded in 43AD, did the city have this dark earth continuously throughout the Roman and Medieval Period? Is it proof of continuous occupation because of the presence of this dark earth? Why was it proof that Londinium was a smaller city because of this dark earth (per the article)? The problem also is that the 'dark earth' page is not very clear, too much technical jargon, and - even though I am a History Major, I was confused by the description. Sorry for the trouble... Dinkytown talk 01:30, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

I made some additional clarifications to dark earth. Let see what happens... Dinkytown talk 01:41, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Londinium. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.jim-riddell.com/history/general/What+was+the+status+of+Roman+Londinium.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 20:26, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

David Sankey

The link is to a 19th US senator rather than the Museum of London chap it should be. Can a suitable redirect be added (and additions to the 'Sankey' disambiguation page). Jackiespeel (talk) 18:09, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

I have deleted the link as there is no article on this David Sankey. Dudley Miles (talk) 18:14, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

'Usual creative mis-assignment/linking process' There is a 'person page' on the web for the relevant DS which might be more appropriate. Jackiespeel (talk) 09:36, 8 June 2016 (UTC)

• I am not clear what you are suggesting. Links to external sources are forbidden in main text. They are only allowed in references. Dudley Miles (talk) 11:14, 8 June 2016 (UTC)

I was highlighting that material can be found on 'this' DS.

Can my accidental change be reverted - the Londonwiki and WP pages reversed on the screen. Jackiespeel (talk) 16:48, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

Possibly Chinese skeletons found in Roman cemetery

See[4] and [5] - which emphasises the 'possible'. Doug Weller talk 18:16, 25 September 2016 (UTC)

I do not have access to the first source, but the second seems to say that the results are far too tentative for a change to the Wiki article. Dudley Miles (talk) 19:01, 25 September 2016 (UTC)

Yes, see Talk:Sino-Roman relations#Some evidence for people of 'East Asian' ancestry living in Roman London. Doug Weller talk 19:34, 25 September 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Londinium. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150219043325/http://archive.museumoflondon.org.uk/Londinium/Today/vizrom/01+wall.htm to http://archive.museumoflondon.org.uk/Londinium/Today/vizrom/01+wall.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 18:22, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Londinium. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150220011843/http://www.roman-britain.org/places/londinium.htm to http://www.roman-britain.org/places/londinium.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150303114902/http://www.roman-britain.org/military/military_glossary.htm to http://www.roman-britain.org/military/military_glossary.htm
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://archive.museumoflondon.org.uk/Londinium/Today/vizrom/01%2Bwall.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 11:15, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

Use of the term "Seem" or "Seems to have".

This is poor writing style and indicates ambiguity or opinion. When I read this word or term in an WP article, I generally discount the whole thing. By my count, the word "seem" occurs 13 times in this article. That is Not Good. 98.194.39.86 (talk) 15:30, 1 July 2017 (UTC)

Feel free to improve. PepperBeast (talk) 01:49, 2 July 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Londinium. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130513125933/http://www.archaeologyuk.org/ba/ba5/BA5NEWS.HTML to http://www.archaeologyuk.org/ba/ba5/BA5NEWS.HTML

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 14:46, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Londinium. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080424072334/http://www.jim-riddell.com/history/general/What%20was%20the%20status%20of%20Roman%20Londinium.htm to http://www.jim-riddell.com/history/general/What+was+the+status+of+Roman+Londinium.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 12:21, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

A Cantiaci city?

@Janelletoner: I think that this is worth mentioning, but scholars disagree and we might wish to add that. See [6][7][8] and more. Doug Weller talk 19:17, 1 February 2018 (UTC)

Demographics - should we rely on Tacitus for a statement on demographics?

NOTE: I am copying the text below from my talk page

"I don't know why you keep changing the demographic information on the Londinium page that I provide. I don't see how the BBC can be a more reliable source, than the publications of a historian like Tacitus, who lived during that time. I hope you have a good explanation to maintain that position. I wait your answer. Best regards BryceHarper34 (talk) 20:12, 24 November 2018 (UTC)

(talk page watcher) Hi, please read this and this. Tacitus is what we call a primary source, while Wikipedia goes with what reliable secondary sources state. Also, please note that age matters, as said in the first link i posted above. Happy editing.---Wikaviani ^{(talk) (contribs)} 20:21, 24 November 2018 (UTC)

I was going to say that and add that a source written around 98CE isn't going to work as a source for an overview of the demographics of Londinium. Doug Weller talk 20:31, 24 November 2018 (UTC)

I see that you are falling into a clear fallacy here. Because this is not a scientific or medical postulate. It's not a theory either. On the other hand, the information provided by the BBC is really a theory, therefore, it should not be taken as an absolute truth and as a reliable source. On the other hand, Agricola by tacitus, is a text written by someone who lived it in the first person. And for that reason it should not be taken as a "primary source", because Tacitus didn't theorize, he simply wrote what he saw. And for this particular reason, I consider that this is a more accurate source than a theory, such as is the information from the BBC. — Preceding unsigned comment added by BryceHarper34 (talk • contribs) 23:29, 24 November 2018 (UTC)

With all due respect, have you read the links provided above ? If you have not, please read 'em and refrain from aggressive behaviour like "I see that you are falling into a clear fallacy here" when you disagree with other editors. Also, Doug's remark about a 2000 years old writer sounds quite legit.---Wikaviani ^{(talk) (contribs)} 23:35, 24 November 2018 (UTC)

Yes, I read the links, and that is why I find the use of the information obtained by the BBC inadequate. Since it is a theory. Second, please avoid falling into a misunderstanding of the words, since I find no insult or aggression in the term "fallacy". Finally, I believe that if no information provided meets the requirements, it would be best to remove the information from the demographic section in the meantime, until a more viable source is obtained. And also, are you trying to tell me that the information obtained from a writer who lived during that time, is not a reliable source? But the information published by a television channel is a more reliable source? this makes no sense BryceHarper34 (talk) 01:23, 26 November 2018 (UTC)"

Can someone else please help this editor? It would be useful to find any followup from the discoveries described in the BBC report, which of course is not from a television channel. Thanks. Doug Weller talk 06:11, 26 November 2018 (UTC)

@BryceHarper34: No one said that you were insulting Doug or me, just said that your tone was quite aggressive. Anyway, please note that you're living during the 21st but this does not make you a reliable source for any event. The BBC has a historical department, this makes that source far more reliable than a 2000 years old source which fails to fit with WP:RS as me and Doug already told you several times.---Wikaviani ^{(talk) (contribs)} 07:52, 26 November 2018 (UTC)

@Johnbod:, perhaps you could point out the problem to this editor? This[9] is recent and says "The data for people coming from Germany, Italy and elsewhere on the Continent does correlate tothe inscription evidence from the settlement, and reflects what we know about the presence of the military and Imperial administra-tion in Londinium. The presence of migrant inhabitants throughout its history ensured that the settlement was a diverse and uniquesettlement from its foundation until its eventual abandonment inthe 5th century AD." Doug Weller talk 09:57, 26 November 2018 (UTC)

Dear friend This [10] is a simple theory, not proven. Therefore, it should not be taken into account as a reliable source of information. Quoting the other friend, who said, "please note that you're living during the 21st but this does not make you a reliable source for any event," which I totally agree with. But here we are talking about a historian and senator of Rome, who also was the son-in-law of the governor of Britain at the time Gnaeus Julius Agricola, and I am quite sure that he, being the governor of Britain, would know better than anyone else today the demography of the region he ruled. that's why I believe that his sources of information are absolutly better than a series of cartoons published by the BBC, which We all know, it has tendencies charged towards that side of the political spectrum. Which means that their publications lack objectivity, and therefore should be completely dismissed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by BryceHarper34 (talk • contribs) 11:19, 26 November 2018 (UTC)

Wikipedia discourages the use of primary sources under WP:RS, both because it is original research, which is forbidden, and because primary sources are often biassed and need assessment by modern experts. Tacitus lived at the beginning of Roman rule in Britain and cannot be cited for the whole period, and modern scholars who have the benefit both of writers such as Tacitus and archaeological excavation will have a better idea of the situation. I would however agree that the BBC is not the best source. Its writers are likely to be generalists, not experts on the period. Dudley Miles (talk) 12:08, 26 November 2018 (UTC)

Agricola left Britain for the last time in 85 AD, when the city was only in its 4th decade after founding. The statement about its population has no date assigned, but will be read as referring to its peak, beginning around 100 AD after Agricola was dead. The BBC will have based their statement on some academic work (and there is a lot on Roman London), and ideally we should be citing that. Johnbod (talk) 14:40, 26 November 2018 (UTC)

I've adjusted and expanded the whole section, improving the sourcing. Johnbod (talk) 18:45, 26 November 2018 (UTC)

I find the edition that Johnbod did, better. It seems more accurate and complete. But it still seems bad to me, that the BBC continue to be a source of information, as the other editor said. I think it would be better if bibliographical sources were put in, or a link to a scientific research. Since the link to the BBC information states that Britannia was multiethnic from the beginning, I suppose they refer to people from Africa and the Middle East. And as you say, since Tacitus and Agricola were present during the first stages of Londinium, and they didn't refer to people with ethnic characteristics of the Middle East and/or Africa. Therefore, the premise that londinium was multiethnic from the beginning seems wrong to me, at least on the part of these two ethnic groups. And in any case, the correct information would be to establish that these ethnic groups, arrived later to Londinium. — Preceding unsigned comment added by BryceHarper34 (talk • contribs) 23:02, 26 November 2018 (UTC)

Is this any better? Or this? Johnbod (talk) 01:05, 30 November 2018 (UTC)

I think this is way better than the old source. talk —Preceding undated comment added 14:44, 30 November 2018 (UTC)

Foundation date unsupported by reference

The article currently says: A timber drain by the side of the main Roman road excavated at No 1 Poultry has been dated by dendrochronology to AD 47, which is likely to be the foundation date.[43], with the reference https://archaeologydataservice.ac.uk/archives/view/no1poultry_molas_2007/. That reference does not claim that the date of the drain is the likely date of foundation of the settlement, it just says A timber drain of AD 47 beneath the main road is the earliest, securely dated structure yet known from Londinium. Inductiveload (talk) 10:38, 13 January 2022 (UTC)

Roman mosaic floor found at Southwark Street development site

I just came across this article [11] about a Roman mosaic which has been recently discovered. Thought it might be of interest to this article. G-13114 (talk) 21:49, 22 February 2022 (UTC)

i think it might be worth waiting a few months till proper research articles appear. There are many Roman mosaics from London. A new one will not change the general picture.Udimu (talk) 12:30, 23 February 2022 (UTC)

Roman churches

Dear Dudley, you have just deleted my contribution to the Londinium Wikipedia page without comment. I note you did not like my earlier contribution because of the reference to King Lucius. My second contribution did not reference Lucius. It solely referred to siting of St Peter above the potential shrine room in the London Basilica (Wheeler, 1934); the adjoining room (Room 13) under Gracechurch St - looking like a possible ante-room to a shrine room - discovered in the mid 19th century (Brigham 1990); the potential that the location may have been targeted subsequently for the erection of a christian church (Wheeler, 1934) - a not uncommon practice as you will surely know - and also the potential parallels with the Romano-British church adjacent to the Silchester Basilica (King,1983 and Petts,2015). My contributions were backed up by references to published scholarly articles. I am somewhat perplexed that this has all been deleted without comment. I put some effort into the research. As no one has dug under St Peter Upon Cornhill church the matter cannot either way be described as resolved. Furthermore, there is no other candidate yet identified in London as the church / seat of the Bishop of London, from at least 314 AD (e.g. Restitus, who attended the Council of Arles). The building you refer to a Tower Hill is indeed fascinating, but as you say, it dates from later (350-400AD). I also wonder if much of the building material for this later structure also came from the 2nd century basilica & forum (demolished around 300 AD). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Davebabsmith (talk • contribs) 23:07, 17 September 2022 (UTC)

Sorry I did not notice that your second edit was different. I will look again. Dudley Miles (talk) 07:57, 18 September 2022 (UTC)

User talk:Davebabsmith. I have looked at your edit and I am unclear how strong the case is that there was a church under Cornhill. The first part is cited to Wheeler in 1934. This is not a reliable source as archeology has moved on so much since his day. You then discuss a basilica in Gracechuch Street but it is not clear to me whether you are referring to the same building. You describe it as a church but does Brigham specifically say that it was a church? Brigham is a reliable source, so perhaps you could delete Wheeler and base your comments on Brigham.

The next paragraph on the Tower Hill building - not your work - cites a mix of reliable and doubtful sources. The best one is Sankey, but his article is difficult to access. Rory Naismith in Citadel of the Saxons cites him for the comment that the building could have been a cathedral or a tax gathering barn. Dudley Miles (talk) 13:41, 18 September 2022 (UTC)

You are correct that we don’t know if there was a roman era church under St Peter's. I agreed with this in my contribution by saying that only an archaeological exploration can answer the question. However, your webpage mentions St Peter's in the 4th century section, and so I think it is reasonable that the arguments for a Roman origin are considered. There is more to it than the Lucius story.

I am not sure what you mean by Wheeler not being a reliable source as archaeology has moved on so much. Wheeler’s unique contribution was the observation that some basilica’s of the period (such as Silchester) had pagan shrine rooms, and if London’s basilica had one, then St Peter's sat directly above it. Furthermore that a Roman era church may subsequently have been deliberately erected on the site, and this could have been the basis for later medieval stories. Later publications all repeat this observation e.g. Marsden, (1987, p68); Merrifield (cited on page 68 of Marsden…”a christian church could have been established in the basilica….and later adapted as the church of St. Peter. This might account for the later medieval tradition….(of) King Lucius), and Knight (2008).

Wheeler’s work was based on a close study of previous finds.  It is interesting to note that other conclusions that Wheeler reached; such as the basilica having two phases, and the forum laying to the south of the basilica, have subsequently been shown correct (Marsden, 1987, pp7-8).

Brigham’s contribution (1990, p91) was to endorse Wheeler’s theory of an existence of a shrine room. He did so by observing that a room (room 13, e.g. the one under Gracechurch St) which lay next to the possible shrine room; “was given a tessellated floor at a raised level. This suggests that the room may have had a higher status than normal, possibly acting as an antechamber for the aedes” (eg shrine room).

I have not addressed the issue of King Lucius. Regardless of the arguments for and against, medieval Londoners considered St Peter's to have early Roman roots, in a way that the other three medieval churches built on the foundations of the basilica-forum did not. As Wheeler and Merrifield suggest, its positioning over the potential shrine room mean there may be cause for this. As Knight (2008) points out, it’s not just the church, but also the high altar which sits directly above the shrine room.

In addition, as I mentioned, Silchester likely had a pre-Constantine Roman church by its basilica (King, 1983), (Petts, 2015), and furthermore there is no other known candidate for the church in Roman London which must have existed in 314 when the Bishop of London attended the Council of Arles.

I am sorry, I am not sure how to answer your question about the ‘church’ and basilica’ in regards to Brigham as I can’t see the original text I wrote. Modern Gracechurch Street runs through the middle of the basilica. This was shown on the map of St Peter's super-imposed on the basilica and forum I uploaded the first time, but which you deleted.

Incidentally, the basilica was enormous; 169m long – longer than St Paul’s cathedral (158m). If you combine the other three sides of the forum it was the largest basilica-forum not only in Britain, but also on the Continent. Indeed, larger than Trajan’s forum in Rome (Philips, 1977, p41). It must have been a remarkable sight.

I am aware that the Tower Hill building might also be a barn. It’s a fascinating conundrum. Perhaps the alternate use should be referenced on the Wikipedia page?

Would you like me to draft a revised paragraph with references? If you share with me my last contribution, I can adapt it. Davebabsmith (talk) 20:50, 23 September 2022 (UTC)

Discussion moved from User talk:Dudley Miles. Davebabsmith you can look at past versions of the article by clicking on 'View history' at the top of the Londinium article. If you want to do a new draft that is fine. It would be helpful if you do it here on the talk page so that other editors can comment and a consensus can be reached. Dudley Miles (talk) 21:19, 23 September 2022 (UTC)

Current text:

"The location of Londinium's original cathedral is uncertain. The present structure of St Peter upon Cornhill was designed by Christopher Wren following the Great Fire in 1666 but it stands upon the highest point in the area of old Londinium and medieval legends tied it to the city's earliest Christian community."

Then add suggested new text:

"However, the east end of St Peter's and its high altar, is also positioned above the area where some basilicas of the period had a pagan shrine room (also known as an aedes). Wheeler proposed that a christian church might have been established on its site and that this accounted for the later medieval legends.

St Peter upon Cornhill church and location above London Roman Forum

The possible existence of the shrine room is supported by nineteenth century excavations under Gracechurch Street, immediately adjacent to the church's eastern end. These unearthed an adjoining room covered in yellow panels with a black border, 'with a tessellated floor, suggesting it may have had a higher status than normal, possibly acting as an antechamber for the aedes or shrine-room'. The alignment of the church is close to the lines of the basilica, being off by just two degrees and it is feasible for the understructure to have utilized the dry solid 2nd century basilica wall fabric for support.

If St Peter's was built in the roman era, it would make the church contemporaneous to the potential Romano-British church at Silchester, similarly built adjacent to the Roman Basilica and most likely pre-Constantine in age.

London certainly had a christian community in AD 314 when its Bishop, Restitutus attended the Council of Arles. This community must have had some meeting place, and apart from St Peter's no other location has yet been proposed, either in antiquity or in the modern era.

Some caution may be exercised in this respect however. Other research suggests it very rare for early english christian churches to be founded in pagan temples, and that when temples were turned into churches, this occured later, in the late sixth century and onwards. Contemporary historians seem to be more confident that early english christian churches met in private homes, and that some roman villas also converted rooms to dedicated places of christian worship. " Davebabsmith (talk) 20:17, 26 September 2022 (UTC)

As no one has replied in over a month, I propose uploading this into the main wikipedia page. Alternatively is there a recommended time limit for feedback on comments before a new section can be uploaded to the page? Davebabsmith (talk) 17:03, 27 October 2022 (UTC)

TLDR, but just to say that "it [was] very rare for early english christian churches to be founded in pagan temples,[6] and that when temples were turned into churches, this occured later, in the late sixth century and onwards" is generally true elsewhere, for example in Rome. By this time the former associations of the sites had probably died down. Johnbod (talk) 17:48, 27 October 2022 (UTC)

Johnbod is far more expert than me on this subject, so I will just add a few copy edit suggestions. 1. "English", "Roman" and "Christian" should be capitalised. 2. Wheeler is a dated source but you show that his views are still at least partly accepted. It would be helpful to add the later endorsement when you cite him. 3. You have too many short paragraphs and I suggest merging some of them. 4. I think it would be helpful to readers to add your sources to the references and just have short citations in the notes. 5. Comments such as "Some caution may be exercised" and "seem to be more confident" are too coloquial. It would be better to use more formal language. Dudley Miles (talk) 11:54, 1 November 2022 (UTC)

Thanks. Suggestions appreciated. I have amended the text accordingly. The only suggestion I have not incorporated is point (4) - e.g. short citations in the Notes and moving the main citation to References. This is because the sheer number of Notes - 139 in total. Scrolling down to the references below takes some time. Given this I believe it much easier and quicker for the reader to see the entire citation in the Notes section, rather than having to scroll down to the References. Davebabsmith (talk) 21:40, 17 December 2022 (UTC)