Where was Valentia Province in Britannia ?

[romanonick]

Thanks to everyone for a comprehensive series of responses on the above.
Another thought and just to satisfy my own curiosity - is there any connection between the Valentia in Brittania and presumably the much earlier one in Spain ? Is it coincidence that the names are the same - but have differing origins ?

Romanonick/Nick Deacon.

[Agraes]

The term for horn in Old British was 'bannu' not 'cornu.' Also in Brittany there is a region called Cornualle, and this 'Cornwall is not horn-shaped in the slightest. Also the native version of the name Cornwall is Kernow, which fits well with the pronunciation of Cornovii as "Kornowee-ee."

Cornwall and Cornouaille are both late names, and links are today disregarded by several modern historians.

First mention of Cornwall dates from 705, when Aldhelm of Malmesbury wrote usque diram Domnonium per carentem Cornubiam, so first recorded form is 'Cornubia'. Pierre-Roland Giot stated from this that it is hard to understand why someone from Malmesbury would dislike Domnonia and likes Cornwall - so probably a proof of either continental Domnonia or Cornouailles.

In 931 we have Cornwallas and in the XIth century Cornwallia.

For Cornouaille in Brittany;
In the Annals of Flodoard, we have Britanniam in Cornu Galliam in 919, and in 931 Brittones in Cornu Galliam.
The Life of St Magloire from the same period gives desertum Cornugallium, Cornubia, in Armorica regionis, Domnoniae et Cornubiae.

There is also the town of Plouguerneau in North Finistère, which name comes from
Plebs Cerniu accordingly to Bernard Merdrignac.


About the Irish, there is no problem with having them raiding Britain or beeing settled here and there, as they had very capable leaders such as Niall of the Nine Hostages. However it makes sens that they were also used by the Romans and afterwards by the Britons as auxiliaries, just as the Germanics were.

[Arturus Uriconium]

Although it's mostly been covered here, I thought this quote from the bookrags.com website worth an inclusion:

Another point is Ammianus' comment that the province was named by Valentinian as if celebrating a minor triumph (velut ovans). These minor triumphs were a Republican honour granted for unspectacular victories or defeats of slave revolts. A full Imperial triumph celebration would have been more appropriate for a defeat over the invading hordes and it is odd that the emperor was so restrained. One explanation is that full triumphs were never granted in victories over Roman citizens, the enemy had to be barbarian for a general to receive full honours. Possibly Valentia was a breakaway province.

It certainly looks from the evidence that there were already five provinces, one of which had been lost, and that that could be the Rheged/Coeling region. A region very important to get back because of the Wall. If it was what is now Wales then you'd want it back for the minerals, as well as pride. Same for Dumnonia. If it was north and west Wales, that now could in the hands of Irish or Goidelic speakers, then it could add to the Cunedag question.

But why list Velentia after Maxima Caesariensis in the Notitio if it's some out of the way province? Why is it not listed before or after Britannia Secunda? Have we got it totally wrong and it was actually somewhere northwest of London?

[Robert Vermaat]

But why list Velentia after Maxima Caesariensis in the Notitio if it's some out of the way province? Why is it not listed before or after Britannia Secunda? Have we got it totally wrong and it was actually somewhere northwest of London?

A good point. Not the 'out of the way', but the position in the list:

Occ.III:
PRAEFECTIS PRAETORIANIS PER GALLIAS

Britanniae

Provinciae, Britanniae V:
Maxima Caesariensis
Valentia
Britannia prima
Britannia secunda
Flauia Caesariensis.

Normally, a later creation is mentioned lower in a list. But here for some reason, Valentia is second. Odd. Until you look at the other chapters - a reason might be seen two chapters earlier, where Valentia occupies the same position due to the rank of the civil servant in command:

Occ.I:
NOTITIA DIGNITATUM OCCIDENTIS

Vicarii VI:
Vicarius Britanniae

Comites rei militaris VI:
Comes Britanniarum
Comes Litoris Soxonicum per Britannias

Duces XIII:
Dux Britanniarum

Consularii XXII:
Britanniae II:
Consularis per Maxima Caesariensis
Consularis per Valentia

Presidii XXXI:
Britanniae III:
Praesidis per Britannia prima
Praesidis per Britannia secunda
Praesidis per Flavia Caesariensis

This might be the reason: because of the province being led by a consularis, the position is the same in chapter 3. We see this repeated in the organisation of the Vicaarius:

Occ. XXIII :
VICARIUS BRITANNIARUM

Consularii
Consularis per Maxima Caesariensis
Consularis per Valentia
Praesidii
Praesidis per Britannia prima
Praesidis per Britannia secunda
Praesidis per Flavia Caesariensis

Again, the same listing: Maxima, Valentia, Britannia I, Britannia II, Flavia. I therefore conclude that the position of Valentia in the Notitia Dignitatum tells us nothing about the geographical location.

[Arturus Uriconium]

Again, the same listing: Maxima, Valentia, Britannia I, Britannia II, Flavia. I therefore conclude that the position of Valentia in the Notitia Dignitatum tells us nothing about the geographical location.

Excellent stuff Robert and very helpful. But here's another question: why is it that Velentia would also have a Consularis the same as what is the major province, Maxima Caesariensis? What could be the reasons behind that?

[Robert Vermaat]

Your guess would be as good as mine I'm afraid.

[Arturus Uriconium]

Your guess would be as good as mine I'm afraid.

Fair enough.

Thanks.

[Graham Sumner]

Hi Robert & Mak

A good friend of mine Charles W. Evans-Gunther read your posts and thought you both might be interested in his view on the subject. He has asked me if I can post the following and would like to know what you think.

Graham.

On the Provinces of Britain by Charles W. Evans-Gunther

Having read J.C.Mann's article "The Administration of Roman Britain", (Antiquity Vol. XXXV, No.140, December 1961, pp. 316-320) I am sure that the positioning of the provinces of Britain is guesswork. The evidence for the positioning is based on information concerning the visit of Christian deleqates to the Council of Aries. The British section reads:
Eborius episcopus de civitate Eboracensi provincie Britannia. Restitutus episcopus de civitate Londiniensi provincia suprascripta ~ Adelphius episcopus de civitate colonia Londiniensium,
Exinde Sacerdos prespyter, Arminius diaconus.

Mann then connects these with the four provinces of Britain pointing out there must be a mistake in the third line. He links Eborius with York, Restitutius with London, suggests that "colonia Londiniensium" must be Lincoln (or possibly Colchester) and that it was likely Sacerdos and Arminius were representative of the absent bishop of Cirencester. The later city was the capital of Britannia Prima because of a monumental inscription found there. Mann goes on to suggest that London was the capital of Maxima Caesarensis because its governer has been made a consul, while other governers were praeses. He makes no mention of what is to follow and felt he was unable to locate Valentia.

The Rev. Arthur W. Wade-Evans divided Britian into the 5 Provinces known to have existed in the 4th century. These were Britanniae Prima, Britanniae Secunda, Flavia Caesarensis, Maxima Caesarensis and Valentia. Scholar base these on several lists but the positioning of them is unknown and today the present accepted Provinces come from the article by J.C. Mann, mentioned above. Wade-Evans, however, bases his positioning of these Provinces on evidence found in Liber de Jnvectionibus by Gerald of Wales (1205). Here is the quote which comes from a transcription from documents kept at the Vatican by William S. Davies for Y Cymmrodor, XXX, 1920, page 130:

Iuxta thomum einim Anacleti pape, sicut in pontificalibus Romanorum gestis et imperialibus conontinetur, directam Galliarum episcopis, iuxta statum gentilium ante Christo aduentum Britannia habuit prouincias numero v, Britanniam primam, Britannium secundam, Flauium, Maxiamiam, Ualentiam. Prima dicta est occidentalis pars insule, quies primum in ilia Britones, Bruto et Cornineo ducibus, applicuerunt, eaque primo a Cornineo et suis occupata est et inhabitata. Britannia secunda Cantia, quia secundo a Bruto et suis inhabitata fuerat. Tercia Flauia, loc est f/aua, que dicitur et Mercia, quasi mercibus habundans, cuius capud est Londonia. Quarta Maximia, id est, Eboraca, ab imperatore Maximo dicta. Quinta Ualentiana, ab tmperetore Ualente nuncupata, Albania sciJicat, que nunc abusiue Scotia dicitur ....

Prima was the western part of Britain, Secunda he places in the South-east of England - Kent, Flavia in the Midlands (Mercia) with its capital at London, Maxima had its capital at York, and Valentia beyond the latter in the area of modern day Scotland.

The reason why I think Maxima had a consul is because York had become an important military HQ in the later period. London, remember, still had the office of the vicarius.
I don't think Gerald or Wade-Evans should be ignored.

[PhilusEstilius]

I think another good read is "The Last Age of Roman Britain" by Edward Foord, indeed having read some of his accounts I would be inclined to put Valentia between the two walls in Northumberland.

[Robert Vermaat]

Hi Graham,

The position of the British provinces is a right puzzle! In his latest book, Roger White positions Britannia Prima in the West, being Cornwall and Wales (following Jones & Mattingly 1990 and Mann 1998). But he also shows 'solutions' of other scholars, who come to a different concusion. See for instance the solution of dr. Ingo Maier, who studied the Notitia Dignitatum, and thought that Valentia would be comparable to modern Wales: http://members.ozemail.com.au/~igmaier/map.htm

I am sure that the positioning of the provinces of Britain is guesswork. The evidence for the positioning is based on information concerning the visit of Christian deleqates to the Council of Aries.

I agree!
Aries? - I guess that's Arles.

Mann then connects these with the four provinces of Britain

I'm not sure if we can deduce that the ecclesiastical organisation of the British diocese would have to follow the civilian organisation of Britain.

Here is the quote which comes from a transcription from documents kept at the Vatican by William S. Davies for Y Cymmrodor, XXX, 1920, page 130

The full text is also online:
http://www.archive.org/stream/ycymmrodo ... t_djvu.txt

Prima was the western part of Britain, Secunda he places in the South-east of England - Kent, Flavia in the Midlands (Mercia) with its capital at London, Maxima had its capital at York, and Valentia beyond the latter in the area of modern day Scotland.
Yes, but how do we know that this 12th-c. edition does indeed go back on some source that accurate lists the provinces, and is not one of the first historical attempts to try and locate these provinces, as we are doing right now? :wink:

The reason why I think Maxima had a consul is because York had become an important military HQ in the later period. London, remember, still had the office of the vicarius.

I disagree. York had it's own importance because of the military command of the Dux Britanniarum, and would not necessarily have been important because of the presence of that military command.

[Arturus Uriconium]

“[Theodosius] restored to its former state a province which was recovered that he [Theodosius] had previously abandoned to enemy rule. This he did to the extent that it had a properly-appointed governor, and it was from that time onwards known as 'Valentia' by decision of the emperor.” (Ammianus, XXVIII. iii.)

So it has to be part of a province recently lost, which rules out the Gododdin region. Professor Birley in his book _The Roman Government of Britain_ believes that Britannia Secunda may have already been divided, possibly north and south as opposed to east and west, with the new part - whatever it was called - being renamed Valentia. Considering that Theodosius fought against Scotti and Attacotti (who could be a sept or lower class of the Scotti or the Deisi themselves?) it could point to the northwest below the Wall or, indeed, anywhere down the western seaboard to southwest Wales.

The other candidates are what is now Wales, or a part there-of, which then would have been Britannia Prima. This is because of a 16th century Breton document that says Brochmael was the king of Gualentius, the Latininized Breton version of Valentia.

The section on S. Sulian in the Lion Breviary of I 516 begins thus: Fuit igitur beatus Sulianus
Jilius Bromailli regis nobilissimi qui regnum Britanniae quod Gualentius dicitur suo quondam
tempore strenuissime noscitur g~be rnas s e(.T~h e blessed Sulian was the son of the most noble
king Bromaillus [sic Brochmael] who is known to have ruled most energetically the kingdom
of Britain which formerly in his day was called Gualentius [sic Valentia]). Gualentius is clearly
a Latinized Breton rendering of the name Valentia.

Ann Dornier (Britannia, Vol. 13, (1982), pp. 253)

The only Brochmael known is Brochmael Ysgythrog, as 6th century ruler of Powys. Ann Dornier forcefully argues that it’s possible that it is what was the northern half of Britannia Prima and the western half of Britannia Secunda became Valentia with the provincial capital at Chester, so being an answer to the Scotti threat.

Although there are several places which might be properly considered, the weight of evidence
seems in favour of Chester. It has been pointed out that by the early third century at the latest
the civil settlement of Chester had acquired independent status It was probably the civitas
capital of the Deceangli; and by the fourth century the civitas of the Deceangli may have
absorbed that of the Cornovii, thus increasing Chester's administrative importance.ls There
is a growing body of archaeological evidence that in the late Roman period Chester was more
than just a legionary base with a modest civil settlement: there was clearly a very prosperous
civilian population living to the west and south of the fortress; and there is the possibility
that in the west at least this area was bounded by a defensive perimeter, marked by the circuit
of the medieval west wall. This would bring it into line with such places as York and Lincoln.
Moreover, there are hints from post-Roman sources that Chester may have been a late/
sub-Roman ecclesiastical metropolitan, and therefore by definition a provincial capital.
Finally, the fortress of Chester may have been of greater military importance in the late period
than has hitherto been thought (see below, pp. 257-8), and this may have been a contributory
factor in the choice of Chester as the provincial capital of Valentia.

Ann Dornier (Britannia, Vol. 13, (1982), pp. 255)

...and she has this to say on the consular issue:

Why and in what context would a second consular province have been considered necessary
or desirable, and why Valentia? Several possibilities present themselves. First it may have had
something to do with the imperial ego. If the creation of Valentia was the work of Constans
in 343 and if it was originally called Constantia after him, it may have been given consular
status at its inception, befitting for a new province named after the victorious emperor.
Alternatively, if originally equestrian, its elevation may have gone hand in hand with its renaming
after the reigning emperor(s) in 369, perhaps as a way of underlining how great was
the imperial victory in recovering the province. Secondly, military considerations may have
been the important factor...

Ann Dornier (Britannia, Vol. 13, (1982), pp. 257)

If she's right it could explain the movement of Cunedda as we've discussed elsewhere. If he was 'hired' by Valentia he could have started in the north (as one source has him fighting at Carlisle) and making his way down the western seaboard and ending in North Wales, rather than just been sent there. Britannia Prima or Demetia could have then called on his assistance once he was there, hence Cunedda's Hill in Dyfed?

Another candidate, I believe, is that this was a new name for the diocese itself.

There is that matter of the 6th province named later by Polemius Silvius (Laterculus II) as Orcades (Orkneys).

Mak hock:

[Urselius]

Wasn't Lot the king of Lothian (Manau - Votadini), in the Arthurian legends also the ruler of the Orkneys? That always puzzled me, given that the two regions are far apart and there were a couple of hostile Pictish kingdoms inbetween.

[Arturus Uriconium]

Wasn't Lot the king of Lothian (Manau - Votadini), in the Arthurian legends also the ruler of the Orkneys? That always puzzled me, given that the two regions are far apart and there were a couple of hostile Pictish kingdoms inbetween.

I believe this is because of a Norwegian of a similar name, as Lot was also supposed to be a disputed king of Norway. The son of Thorfinn Skull-Splitter (what a name!) was Liot who became Jarl of Orkney in the late 10th century.

[Nathan Ross]

I've become quite interested in this question recently, and I thought I may as well tack some thoughts onto the end of this very old thread!

From the discussion above, it seems clear that Valentia was somewhere in the north (as it had been devastated by barbarians c.AD367-70, and subsequently recaptured) and was quite a sizeable province, with a high-ranking Consularis governor, rather than just a little corner of Wales or Cumbria, perhaps. My guess would be that the jurisdiction of the Consularis per Valentia to some extent mirrored the command of the Dux Britanniae, just as the Consularis per Maxima Caesariensis probably included the command of the Comes Litoris Saxonici.

The Verona List of c.AD312 has only four provinces in the Diocese of Britain, however. So 'Valentia' (or whatever it used to be called) must have been formed after that, or was perhaps a subdivision of an earlier province.

Of these four provinces, Britannia Prima and Britannia Secunda would appear to be the oldest, and probably followed the Severan division of Britain into Superior and Inferior (as we see elsewhere - e.g. Germania or Belgica).

So at some point (perhaps under Diocletian), the Severan Superior/Inferior division was renamed Prima and Secunda, and later still (early in Constantine's reign, perhaps, going by the 'Flavia' title?) these two were further subdivided to create the two Caesariensis provinces. The northern province of the four, probably centred on York, would then be subdivided again at a subsequent date - and it was this subdivision that was then renamed Valentia.

So the development of the Diocese of Britain might have looked something like this:

   

Does that look plausible?

[Longovicium]

Hi Nathan,

I am attracted to the location of that sub-division and wonder if the known military building work attributed to Come Theodosius falls entirely within your outline of 'Valentia'? If that building work is then I think it adds weight to this outline.