# Settlements Layout



## Johnny Cosmo (Nov 8, 2011)

Does anybody know where I can find layouts and maps for settlements from the Anglo-Saxon Britian to the Early (or perhaps High) Middle Ages?


----------



## Devor (Nov 8, 2011)

You're going to need a book for that one.  If you do a google search you might see the same picture over and over.  What you're looking for are considered artistic reconstructions, so even a basic penciled layout will be copyrighted.

But you can find a book pretty easily on Amazon or a research library.


----------



## Johnny Cosmo (Nov 8, 2011)

> If you do a google search you might see the same picture over and over. What you're looking for are considered artistic reconstructions, so even a basic penciled layout will be copyrighted.



I'm not looking to use the layouts or maps in my own work, just to inform them my settlements.


----------



## Devor (Nov 8, 2011)

Johnny Cosmo said:


> I'm not looking to use the layouts or maps in my own work, just to inform them my settlements.



Right - but you won't find them online.


----------



## Johnny Cosmo (Nov 8, 2011)

Why not? I've found some already, so they are out there.


----------



## Devor (Nov 8, 2011)

Johnny Cosmo said:


> Why not? I've found some already, so they are out there.



Well I wasn't able to find any when I looked for my story, and the difference in the Atlas I picked up was huge.  Although I wasn't looking in Britain exactly.


----------



## Ravana (Nov 9, 2011)

Johnny: just out of curiosity… what did you find, and where? 

Normally, if asked a question like yours, I would have responded that the only way you would be likely to find anything you could use would be some combination of (1) amazingly fortuitous choices of search terms; (2) a lot more persistence than most people are willing to put into the task; (3) low standards; and/or (4) deception. But I won't prejudge the evidence… if such material is online, I'd find it useful myself–on the off-chance it doesn't duplicate anything in my library, at least.

I will add this to what Devor said: not only are most maps copyrighted, nearly all of them are reconstructions, often from textual sources–accurate land mapping simply did not exist at the times you're talking about (not even for cities, which are a lot easier to do than rural areas)–or are based on archaeological digs, which are often somewhat limited in value (for a variety of reasons, very few of which are the fault of the archaeologists). Or else they're outright speculative… to use a polite term for it.


----------



## Johnny Cosmo (Nov 9, 2011)

> (3) low standards;





> I will add this to what Devor said: not only are most maps copyrighted, nearly all of them are reconstructions, often from textual sources—accurate land mapping simply did not exist at the times you're talking about



I'm not looking for accurate maps, since I don't want to copy the layouts. Speculative is good for me because I just want an idea of where to put what, and an overall idea of what the view would be like.

Some that I think might be useful: Paris, Rome, York (can't find original source) this model of Salisbury (can't find original source), Stockholm (from a Swedish page about it's history), Lynn, a nice map of 'old' Exeter (post 1500 I think, but it's still quite useful), and a bunch similar to the rest I've listed here. I've got a folder of some of the best ones for reference, but I can't re-find their sources, so I'll just leave them out.

I'm looking for more of the same. Anyone?


----------



## Devor (Nov 9, 2011)

When I was looking I did find one that was pretty useful.

Birka.  And in 2D.

But really Johnny Cosmo, a good book is irreplaceable if you're looking for historical information.  I didn't realize the difference until I took a look.  The Osprey books, for instance, have phenomenal full color prints in the middle of them with footnotes explaining each rendition.  Other books have page after page of museum photos and reconstructions running from settlements to weaponry to clothing to trade, with detailed explanations of everything.  And there was a Libraries-Edition "Atlas" which had "spotlight" locations with a reconstruction of I think a dozen locations.  You can also find martial diagrams of swordplay techniques and play-by-play diagrams of historic battles and how the army formations changed throughout the day.

If you're pretty serious about your writing, Johnny Cosmo, at the very least take a look.


----------



## Foxmc (Nov 9, 2011)

Anyone ever try the British Musuem, British Library, or other sites like those for reference material including maps.


----------



## Johnny Cosmo (Nov 10, 2011)

> If you're pretty serious about your writing, Johnny Cosmo, at the very least take a look.



Forgive me if I'm being defensive, but I'm just not sure why people can only consider themselves serious if they have a book on settlement plans. Unless you're suggesting something more general, but then you assume I don't already have any. I'll quote my previous post:



> I'm not looking for accurate maps, since I don't want to copy the layouts. Speculative is good for me because I just want an idea of where to put what, and an overall idea of what the view would be like.





> I'm looking for more of the same.



I want a general idea of what building might go where and what else might be close to it. I'm more than happy to buy a book that I'll get full use out of, but I wasn't looking for a few layouts and a bunch of military formations, weaponry, swordplay diagrams, et cetera. And if I were to buy a book on each narrow topic I came too explore, I'd be spending a lot of money. As it happens, I'm not exactly a serious writer, which is the reason I'm not too bothered about being called out as having a lack of commitment by someone who hasn't read any of my writing. 

Sarcasm aside, I like some of the layouts/maps in my previous post. Does anybody know of anywhere I can find more?


----------



## Devor (Nov 10, 2011)

Johnny Cosmo said:


> And if I were to buy a book on each narrow topic I came too explore, I'd be spending a lot of money. As it happens, I'm not exactly a serious writer, which is the reason I'm not too bothered about being called out as having a lack of commitment by someone who hasn't read any of my writing.



I'm sorry, I didn't mean any offense Johnny Cosmo, and I did post the town of Birka for you.  If those maps are really useful for you, you could probably find more by typing in specific "TownName artistic reconstruction," if that's not how you found those.

I'm going to repeat, though, that you should look at a few books, but only because it's sound advice, the difference is vast, and there are other people who will read this thread who may need to hear that.  And I would've said exactly what you just said before I had taken a look myself, in fact I did this exact same search about six months ago, so please don't take any of this the wrong way.  To be extremely clear, I didn't mean to suggest that you had a lack of commitment or weren't serious about your writing, or that books meant you were serious, only that if you ARE serious - and it's just fine to not be - then you should at least take a look and see the difference between your available resources and decide for yourself what's worth it for your writing.


----------



## Johnny Cosmo (Nov 11, 2011)

The problem is, I _have_ looked at books, but I've not found anything specific enough. If anyone has a recommendation for a book that focuses on settlements (from say... the time of the Anglo-Saxon Heptarchy to the the end of the Early Middle Ages), I'd appreciate a link. As for refining my search terms, I seem to have had more success with vague searches.

Thanks for the link. The video is great (and should be very useful), but the images in the second link aren't really detailed enough for me.


----------



## Ravana (Nov 11, 2011)

Johnny Cosmo said:


> Sarcasm aside, I like some of the layouts/maps in my previous post. Does anybody know of anywhere I can find more?



Blaeu's Grand Atlas, though it's more focused on country maps than urban ones. And the urban ones are–sorry, but this is true–just as worthless as the ones you linked. The only one I thought was of any value at all was the model of Salisbury (which I suspect is the most speculative of the lot); all the rest show a few major buildings, a handful of major streets, and nothing else (labeling something "urban area" is _not_ especially informative). You can actually find much more detailed versions of the same cities, even online.

When I think of "settlement layout," I want to know such things as how large the buildings are, how many there are, how closely spaced, how the minor streets and alleys run.… A "general idea of what building might go where and what else might be close to it" I could have provided for you without any research–or maps: the buildings go wherever there was space to build them when they were built (or where something could be knocked down to clear that space), and absolutely anything might be close to them. Which is exactly how every map you'll find is going to look, unless you're looking at a city where a large section was planned and built at a go… which was rare. 

So, honestly, if you're content with what you've seen so far, you can stop researching, because everything else is going to look the same. 

If not… I do have a couple of texts that might prove useful; I'll take a look at them later and see if I can find anything online that matches (or at least reflects) their contents. Gotta go eat right now.


----------



## Johnny Cosmo (Nov 11, 2011)

> Blaeu's Grand Atlas



Blau's Grand Atlas of the 17th Century? A little late... as in, not the Middle Ages. Anything else? Also, I'm really not sure what you mean by 'just as useless'. Just as useless as not having a reference at all? Otherwise, what are they just as useless as?



> When I think of "settlement layout," I want to know such things as how large the buildings are, how many there are, how closely spaced, how the minor streets and alleys run.…



That sort of information can be found elsewhere. If I've got a book that gives a decent insight to the size and spacing of buildings, what's wrong with looking for a birds eye view of a few settlements to use in conjunction with that information?



> The only one I thought was of any value at all was the model of Salisbury (which I suspect is the most speculative of the lot); all the rest show a few major buildings, a handful of major streets, and nothing else (labeling something "urban area" is _not_ especially informative).



I agree, but those few major building might be important. And again, other people's speculation is worth more than my own.



> You can actually find much more detailed versions of the same cities, even online.



That's exactly what I'm looking for... links would be much appreciated.



> So, honestly, if you're content with what you've seen so far, you can stop researching, because everything else is going to look the same.



I like them, yes. I wouldn't mind better ones though. I'm also of the opinion that more of the same isn't a bad thing...


----------



## Ravana (Nov 12, 2011)

Johnny Cosmo said:


> Blau's Grand Atlas of the 17th Century? A little late... as in, not the Middle Ages. Anything else? Also, I'm really not sure what you mean by 'just as useless'. Just as useless as not having a reference at all? Otherwise, what are they just as useless as?



Yes, that one. Realize that not much changed over those centuries, as far as the large cities went. (Also, many of the maps were copied from earlier ones, so the original might be as much as a century earlier. Which still doesn't put it in your desired time frame. Then again, the Paris map you link probably isn't, either: it can't be any earlier than about the turn of the 12th-13th centuries at oldest, considering what's on it. The map of Rome definitely isn't: look at the key. Though, again, most of it probably didn't change much in the time covered. Same for Lynn, and, yes, Exeter… about which more in a minute.)

"Just as useless" as the ones you have–which, to me, are just as useless as having no reference at all, because of what I said earlier: they don't actually tell you anything, as far as "layout" goes (they might clue you in on the occasional building type you hadn't considered at all). The town has a church, or it doesn't: you probably knew that. It has some form of fortified residence for its lord, or it doesn't: ditto. The two are likely to be in reasonable proximity to one another, since the same nobles will have been responsible for the construction of both, and they aren't going to want to bother weaving their way through muddy alleys between peasant hovels to get back and forth, but this isn't an absolute requirement: more depends on geography and building space. It has walls or it doesn't: if it doesn't have a fortified residence, you can probably discount the likelihood of walls. It has streets. 

In other words: you can put your town together any way you like, and you'd be able to find a precedent for it… therefore, the maps don't tell you a thing, so you may as well save your time, if that's all you wanted to know. 

I'm not attacking your taste in maps; if you find those useful, great. I'm just saying that you needn't bother with further research, if you feel those meet your present needs, because you won't learn anything more from looking at multitudes of maps with similar levels of detail. 



> That sort of information can be found elsewhere. If I've got a book that gives a decent insight to the size and spacing of buildings, what's wrong with looking for a birds eye view of a few settlements to use in conjunction with that information?



I'm tempted to respond that if you have a book that gives you that information, it's going to have maps at least as good as the ones you're taking the time to find on the internet. On the other hand, I know quite well that not all books have illustrations–I'd just expect those that dealt with such information to be among the ones that did, and would be unlikely to buy one that did not.



> I agree, but those few major building might be important. And again, other people's speculation is worth more than my own.



That rather depends on just how "speculative" they are.… 

Take the Salisbury diorama: I would imagine the major buildings are spot-on. (Actually, as far as I can tell, from looking at remaining foundations and ruins, they aren't, quite, though they're probably close enough. On the other hand, if they _aren't_ right, when the old foundations right next door, it approaches unforgivable–the diorama is in the _current_ cathedral. The reason I looked at all was because the cathedral in the diorama looked too modern to have been from the time period purported based on my recollections of English cathedral architecture; apparently not. Or at least the layout of the foundation wasn't.) But the rest of the town? I wouldn't bet on it. Might have looked something like that… or it might be someone's idea of an eye-pleasing distribution of standard house models.

Or take the "map" of Exeter: hah. That, and countless others like it, were intended to give people a general sense of where the major buildings were… and _everything_ else about them was completely fictitious: number and size of houses, yards, scale–if nothing else, no Medieval town had streets that wide. (While on the other hand, consider the placement and distribution of houses on that map, or the York one–or any similar one from the time period–to the ones in the Salisbury diorama: you'll see why I'm suspicious about the latter.) (One strike against Blaeu, by the way, is that he occasionally uses the same "map" for different cities… so you can't even be sure what you're looking at has anything to do with the city in question. Though I'm fairly certain he wasn't alone in that.)

Which goes back to the other thing I said before: accurate land mapping simply did not exist in the time period you want. Most mapmakers didn't even make an attempt at accuracy. 



> That's exactly what I'm looking for... links would be much appreciated.



I've got the books, not the links, but I may be able to get you started. Though a lot depends on what you mean by "settlement": so far, you've only mentioned large towns and cities… which represented the minority of settlements.

The most accurate plans are going to be found from archaeological digs at long-abandoned sites. A couple of thoroughly-excavated villages are:

Feddersen Wierde (Germanic, to 5th century)
Wharram Percy (Yorkshire, beginning 8th century)

(Both appear in the Harper Collins _Past Worlds Atlas of Archaeology_.)

Thoroughly-excavated… and boring, or at least would be if they didn't show two completely different ways of setting up one-horse towns. The German one is more interesting; the English one, you could have made up yourself, from having driven through any similar municipality today. 

There are some reasonably good recreation views of Caerleon during the time it was a Roman camp with associated village–which is how a lot of English settlements got their start; so, while those may be a bit early, you might find something useful in them. They're easy enough to find online. Again, though, the "town" part is more likely to be speculative. (The fort part is not: it's exactly how the Romans built every single one of their legion forts. Talk about well-documented.…) 

At the other end of the time spectrum, you might look at some of da Vinci's maps–which are rich in detail, and if anybody was going to make a mathematically correct map, it was him. His map of Imola is wonderful; not sure how many other city maps he did. On the other hand, his maps of the Italian countryside look just like any other map from the time period… which should tell you something about how difficult this was, and/or how little the people for whom they were being made cared about geographical accuracy.

You ought to be able to locate some surprisingly good (for the time) maps of London… at least as long as you don't mind starting in the 1500s. Much earlier, not so sure; I kind of doubt it.

And believe it or not–that's the complete take of maps I thought might be useful to you out of ten atlases of history or archaeology I checked, along with a couple books on the rise of cities or city structures. Everything else… is just what I said: more of the same, endlessly repeated. Either "maps" that show a couple roads, one or two major buildings, and otherwise-unmarked "urban areas," or paintings and woodcuts that are more decorative than not. (Of the latter, there are hundreds, so if you want more, I'm sure you'll have no difficulty locating them. There's a great one of Augsburg in 1521, if you want to appreciate the art value of the thing.) Which is why I was surprised when you said you were finding material online. It isn't that it isn't available online (though some of the better ones still may not be), so much as that it doesn't exist, period.

You might do just as well to look for aerial photos of older European towns built in constrained geography–such as the hilltop ones that still dot central and southern France. Some of them look like they haven't changed much since long before Blaeu went into business.


----------



## Devor (Nov 12, 2011)

Johnny Cosmo said:


> The problem is, I _have_ looked at books, but I've not found anything specific enough. If anyone has a recommendation for a book that focuses on settlements (from say... the time of the Anglo-Saxon Heptarchy to the the end of the Early Middle Ages), I'd appreciate a link. As for refining my search terms, I seem to have had more success with vague searches.
> 
> Thanks for the link. The video is great (and should be very useful), but the images in the second link aren't really detailed enough for me.



I'm afraid I don't have a book link for you.  The search I was running was specifically on Vikings, and the book which had the most detail about settlements was a library-edition at NYU where my wife works.  It had a half-page "spotlight" on each settlement mixed in with the history and warfare and information about their clothing.  They wouldn't let me check it out, and I don't even remember the name so I don't know if there's another in the series.  I do have a book on my desk with maps of small towns and villages which they've excavated from the time period I was looking for, but again, Vikings.  The Birka video was the only useful settlement thing I was able to find online, and of course the second link was just to give you a quick bird's-eye-view of what the video is showing.

As Ravana mentioned, a lot of cities haven't changed very much.  Paris for instance was burned and rebuilt, and walking around much of the city, the architecture and layout of that reconstruction still stands.  In Prague, the city was never sacked, and if you walk around the architecture is very eclectic, buildings were built at random points in history of the style of the day, whenever they tore down the one standing before it.  The layout itself hasn't changed much.  Zoning laws are often in effect to preserve the historical layout of some of these cities, and thousands of buildings are preserved as world heritage sites.  Maybe if you googled some of these cities you might find a modern map with information about how the city has changed over time.

Leonardo Da Vinci did just about the first reasonably accurate city map, the Italian town of Imola, in the 1500s.  It's a little past your period but I think it's more detailed than any of the maps I've seen yet, even more than most reconstructions which are sometimes timid and broad because they're speculative.  We have only three maps by Da Vinci, and the other two are landscape.  I think that's the best you're going to get.

That's pretty much all I know about the subject.


----------

