Talk:Coria (Corbridge)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is part of WikiProject Archaeology, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to archaeology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.

Coriosopitum is by no means the universally accepted name for Roman Corbridge and in fact has no greater claim than the old Corstopitum, favoured (to the point of being on road signs) until the last couple of decades of the 20th century. Andrew Breeze has even suggested Corsobetum, but he is in a minority of one on that. The Vindolanda tablets have more than one mention of Coria, which Rivet and Smith considered before opting for Coriosopitum, and that has gained wide modern acceptance (this whole mess is summarised in the latest edition of the Handbook to the Roman Wall, p.416). Given the dispute over the ancient name, an article about Roman Corbridge would be much better under the heading of, say, Roman Corbridge, which should mention this uncertainty and have disambiguation links pointing to it. The point of Wikipedia is surely objectivity and opting for one disputed name over another could be seen as compromising that.Mcbishop 17:11, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

On reflection, I think you're probably right. A reconstructed form may not be the best way to go. I chose it as it seems to be favoured by English Heritage in their guide. You could argue for Corstopitum on grounds of familiarity, but the Vindolanda tablets reference seems to be pretty definite. I have moved the article to Coria (Corbridge). However, if discussions conclude that even this is still too contraversial, the form to match other similar articles would be Corbridge Roman Town. Walgamanus 14:54, 4 February 2007 (UTC)