Carpentoracte
CARPENTORACTE (Carpentras), a town of Gallia Narbonensis, mentioned only by Pliny (Plin. Nat. 3.4), who calls it Carpentoracte Meminorum: the Memini would therefore be between the Cavares and Vulgientes. Carpentras is in the department of Vaucluse. NE. of Avignon. There is a Roman triumphal arch at Carpentras, situated in the highest part of the town. Some time back it was built up in the kitchens of the palace of Bichy, but it is said that it is now set free. It is not known when or on what occasion this arch was erected. Antiquities found at Carpentras are mentioned by Caylus (vol. 8. p. 252, pl. 72).
Ptolemy (Ptol. 2.10) mentions the Memini, and a place called Forum Neronis. The Memini are otherwise unknown. It seems unlikely that these obscure people--who, if they were really a distinct people, must have had a very small territory--should have had two towns; and it is not easy to explain why Ptolemy should not mention Carpentoracte. The probable conclusion seems to be that Carpentoracte and Forum Neronis are the same place. D'Anville, however, supposes Forum Neronis to be Forcalquier, relying on a small resemblance of name; and Walckenaer (Géog. &c. vol. 2. p. 219) thinks that the conjecture which tends to fix Forum Neronis at Mornas is preferable to that which fixes it at Forcalquier. C arpentoracte kept its name to the sixth century of our acra, which is an argument against it being identical with Forum Neronis. At Vénasque, a village about two leagues south of Carpenters, there are some remains of a Roman temple. This place also is probably within the limits of the Memini. There is also cited an inscription, Col. Jul. Meminorum, which may belong, to Carpentras, or to some other place of the Memini.
Strabo (p. 185) speaks of two streams which flow round πάλιν Καομάρων καὶ Οὐάρων. a passage which has caused the critics great difficulty. Groskurd (Trans. Strab. vol. 1. p. 319) changes καὶ Οὐάρων into Καρπένταρον or Καρπεντάρωνα. It is obvious that καὶ Οὐάρων is only Καουάρων written over again, and divided into two words. It is not likely that Strabo would thus speak of a city without naming it, and we may therefore conclude that in place of καὶ Οὐάρων there should be the name of the city; but the emendation of Groskurd is not, accepted by the writer of this article.
[G.L]