Tabula Peutingeriana – Einzelanzeige

Vlmospaneta (Ulmo Spaneta)

Bačinci? [für Spaneta]; Tovarnik [für ‘Ulmo’]

Balkanraum nördlich

Ortsname ohne Symbol

5A3 / 5A4

schwarz

---

Spaneta (563,5); Ulmo (563,4)

‘Ulmo’ (21 B4), Spaneta (21 B4)

Ulmo, Spaneta

---

Kommentar (Talbert):
It would seem that Vlmo and Spaneta were really two successive road stations (as in ItBurd), which the mapmaker, or a copyist later, has merged into one; there are still two stretches for it, however. Possibly the two names became merged along the first of these stretches because of a copyist`s need to accommodate the initial two letters of INFERIOR; then, when the two names were merged, the distance figure for the first was simply dropped.
-> stretch to Sirmivm:
One stretch is drawn as two.

Miller, Itineraria, Sp. 446:
11, it. (Hi).
Ulmo, mansio Ulmo (Hi), Ulmi, Ulmos vicus (It bis), Ulmo (It bis); j. Tovarnik.
[10] (Hi).
Spaneta, irrtümlich mit Ulmo zusammengezogen, die Entfernung 10 fehlt; Spaneta (It), Spaneatis (Ra), mutatio Spaneta (Hi); j. Baćinće bei Kukojevce.
10.
In Ladjarak 1 Meilenstein: Ab Aquinco m. p. 225 (CIL III 6466 = 10652); 1 anderer (in Mitrovica) zeigt die Entfernung 15 (ib. 3705).
13^1 [1: Irrig 12 (Bt).].
Dazwischen mutatio Vedulia (Hi), Budalia (It - von Spaneta 8, ad Sirmium 8); j. Martinče.

Datierung (Barrington):
‘Ulmo’ - Roman, Late Antique (ItAnt 267.1; TIR Aquincum 115).
Spaneta - Roman, LAte Antique (TIR Aquincum 105).

Miller, Itineraria, Sp. 446.

RE: -

16.01.2025 15:18