Notice: This is the official website of the All Empires History Community (Reg. 10 Feb 2002)

  FAQ FAQ  Forum Search   Register Register  Login Login

Ports of Rome, on the Tiber!

 Post Reply Post Reply
Author
opuslola View Drop Down
Tsar
Tsar
Avatar
suspended

Joined: 23-Sep-2009
Location: Long Beach, MS,
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 4620
  Quote opuslola Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Topic: Ports of Rome, on the Tiber!
    Posted: 28-Oct-2009 at 20:16
Research into the history of Rome and vicinity leads one to some strange conclusions, on occasion! One of those should include the history of the "Ports" that serviced Rome, on the Tibur / Tiber River!

But just what do we really know about Rome and it's ports?

The following strange "conclusion or supposition", occured whilst I was investigating "antique maps" of Ostia / Portus as well as the strange resemblance to a representation of this / these port(s)) as printed / etched by Braun & Hogenberg in 1588.   

This representation can be seen here;

http://historic-cities.huji.ac.il/italy/ostia/maps/braun_hogenberg_IV_53.html

Note that this port is shown as "new or fairly new, and is full of ships", etc. It is seen that especially wild looking ships including "duck headed ones!" are inclued. Also included is a gigantic statue and a (reported) replica of the great lighthouse in Alexandria!

Interestingly modern excavations have shown a reconstruction of this area that mostly agrees with the 1588 CE representation including a large aqueduct (coming from the hills near Rome), except that the sea (the Tyrrenean supposedly named after the Itruscans) is today, much further distant.

Now look at this representation of the area that was reportedly made in or about 1568 CE, or twenty years earlier than the Braun & Hogenberg representation!

http://www.swaen.com/antique-map-of.php?id=2641

If you do the comparison, you will instantly notice that the 1566-68 CE version shows no remains "extant" for the Portus of Trajan / Claudius, etc., that are shown in the 1588 CE representation!

But, the 1568 CE representation does show a fairly accurate view of the City of Ostia, and of what we can see (within the representation) , as either the, predecessor of the Portus, or the remains of it, or the reportedly older port?

We can merely see, what appears to be, only two connected lakes or marshes, with no remains extant, at least above ground.Just why would all remains, dissapear at this time?

Reading literature (concerning this area), I have found that certain popes (or one pope at least), who "supposedly" mined the ruins of usable stone for building projects in Rome proper.

One might well want to read the following;

http://encyclopedia.jrank.org/ORC_PAI/OSTIA.html

And from this site;

http://medievalarchaeology.unisi.it/NewPages/COLLANE/TESTIBAM/10/20.pdf

Where we read these words;

"Outside Rome, at Portus, perhaps the greatest port of the Late Empire, the initial
investigations led by Stefano Coccia and Lidia Paroli (this volume) reveal precisely the same story.

The great warehouses and waterways were falling into disrepair from the 6th century. By the age of
the Emperor Heraclius, just as in North Africa or Asia Minor (Haldon 1990: pp. 92-124), Rome, by
its own extraordinary standards, had virtually ceased to exist.

It is hard to comprehend.

"The picture though, is reinforced by the archaeology of Portus. Here, following the abandonment phase, is a conspicuous level of clean accumulation, a type of black earth deposit, containing a few amphorae; here and there, too, are traces of fireplaces. The port, if it outlived the demise of the metropolis, was reduced to a small area akin to the dramatic contraction of places like Ephesus (Foss 1979; Haldon 1990: pp. 108-114).?

The first phase of modern excavations leaves us in little doubt, that there is no Tyrrhenian version of "Dorestad" alongside Ostia Antica. The ripresa, as each of these modern excavators has shown in Rome and Portus, comes with the Carolingian age."

So, just what is "Dorestad?"

Is it this?;

http://books.google.com/books?id=TP9cAAAAIAAJ&pg=PA22&lpg=PA22&dq=dorestadt&source=bl&ots=Kxo3BgkTeU&sig=TDjWrk4Tcrm6nPtsrQb6Adcp3fc&hl=en&ei=T5hzSorxEtuPmAeSyK3BBg&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=8#v=onepage&q=dorestadt&f=falseInteresting
Huh?

The great Roman ports of Ostia / Portus seem to decline fairly quickly and almost nothing is found by archaeologists that can be dated until the beginning of the Carolinian age (at least that is what I understood the site to say)! This amounts to hundreds of years, yet, a very accurate rendition or representation of this port is created in or about 1588 CE?

Note that; No one in academia (it seems?) will consider that sea levels fell in both the Rome area (Portus) as well as in Ephesus Etc., instead we are always told about "silting!" As a matter of fact, the movement of sea levels along the Western Italian coast are usually considered to be of a geological / volcanic action whereas this action does not explain undersea constructs in the Levant and N. Africa, etc.

So, again we are left to consider the representations of this area as shown in the alleged years of 1568 and 1588 CE, (IE, both in the 16th century) make us have to make a few decisions.

One; was there a "portus" in or before 1568 CE?

Two; if so, why are not the remains shown on the 1586 map?

Three; if the port did not exist in 1568?, was it built later than 1568?

Four; if so, just whom were the rulers of Rome (both ecleselastical and others) between 1569 CE and 1587 CE?

And, under whom was the port built?

Five; if the port was built before 1568, and the history books tend to state that the port over in Ostia was basically abandoned, then why it Ostia proper shown on the representation?

Six; could the remains of Portus actually be there but under vegation, etc.?

Seven; just how did Braun & Hogenberg determine so accurately the make-up of Portus if it was not visible?, and did they have another source?

Eight; just what if the Portus was built between 1569 and 1588 CE?

Of course, if one follows the Fomenko Groups (FG) explanation(s), whereas the arabic letter (i) and its capital version (I) and even its sometimes version (j) or (J), as found in numerous places in both Latin and later versions of inscribed dates, it stands for Iesus or Jesus rather than 1000.

Then the dates 1566-68 and 1588, etc., only descirbe the time since the birth or death of Jesus or Iesus! The FG actually considers him (or rather variations of his life) to have existed only since about 1000 CE to 1153/4 CE or so.

Removing the "thousand" from the above dates, and considering that the times of Octavian and company to have only occured during the period of the 11th century CE (thus removing 1000 or so years from contemporary history) then there exists a correlation that cannot be denied. Thus 1566-1588 CE, becomes in contemporary or consensual chronology the 5th or 6th century CE! This all depends upon where in time you actually place either the death or birth of Christ, of course.

Now, I must discuss why this area is or was of such great importance. You must understand that the area or land across the Tiber / Tevere River was called Trans Tiber or more correctly Trastevere, and had great importance to the Romans, since it was not always in their grasp.

The following is from Wikipedia;

"In Rome's Regal period (753-509 BC), the area across the Tiber belonged to the hostile Etruscans: the Romans named it Ripa Etrusca (Etruscan bank). Rome conquered it to gain control of and access to the river from both banks, but was not interested in building on that side of the river. In fact, the only connection between Trastevere and the rest of the city was a small wooden bridge called the Pons Sublicius (Latin: 'bridge built on piles')." (But even the word "piles" has divergent meanings!)

"By the time of the Republic in 509, the number of sailors and fishermen making a living from the river had increased, and many had taken up residence in Trastevere. Immigrants from the East also settled there, mainly Jews and Syrians. The area began to be considered part of the city under Augustus, who divided Rome into 14 regions (regiones in Latin); modern Trastevere was the XIV and was called Trans Tiberim."


It is most interesting that the Jews and Syrians, "mainly" had taken up residence in Trastevere, or across the Tiber. The question is WHY? It even more interesting since the great sites of Christianity such as St. Peter's Basilica and the Basilica to John on the Janilicum Hill/ check spelling! were built on that side of the river!

From Wikipedia;

"The constitutional history of the Roman Republic can be divided into five phases. The first phase began with the revolution which overthrew the monarchy in 510 BC. The final phase ended with the revolution which overthrew the Roman Republic, and thus created the Roman Empire, in 27 BC. Throughout the history of the republic, the constitutional evolution was driven by the struggle between the aristocracy and the ordinary citizens."

Thus Rome was a Republic for about 500 years! Why would immigrants from the East (Jews and Syrians) come to Rome in or about 500 BCE?

You must really read;

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roman_Republic

But, now back to the Ripa Etrusca (Etruscan bank). Note that the Etruscans were eventually defeated and pushed well away from the N. bank of the Tiber River. You will notice here;

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Etruscan_civilization_map.png

The limits of the Etruscan expansion circa 750 BCE, as is currently thought, and you would think that, memories of them would have faded considerably by 1566 CE, or so? Let us again look at our map of the area East of Rome near and around Ostia;

http://www.swaen.com/antique-map-of.php?id=2641

Notice the area called "Isola", it is reported to have been a man made island (isola). You might well notice the line of cannon lining the channel leading to the sea or Mare Toscana, where two fortresses guard the entrance. Note that this channel is spanned by just one bridge. Compare this to the 1588 rendition;

http://historic-cities.huji.ac.il/italy/ostia/maps/braun_hogenberg_IV_53.html

Again go back to the 1566-68 representation whereby the entire area North of the Tiber / Tevere River, and the man made channel North of the Isola, seems to be named TOSCANA!

Perform a little word search of Toscana and you might well recognize that the Sea is named the same and it seems to stand today for TUSCANA or Tuscany, as well as having within it the word or at least the letters of the word, "OSCAN!"

Tuscany it seems is an inland area of Italy!

What is wrong here?

It seems the sea is called the "Toscana" and leaving off the "t", it becomes "Oscana." If you believe our historians, Toscana is the same as Tyrrhenian, as "in the Sea of", or more correctly, it seems the Sea of the Etruscans or the Sea of the Toscans, etc.!

What does Wikipedia have to say about the "Oscans?"


"The Osci, which may also be referred to by the names of Opici, Opsci (for the fertility goddess, Ops), and Obsci (Oscans or Opicans in English) were historic inhabitants of Southern Italy dwelling in Northern Campania and ultimately settling in the border region between Latium and Campania. They also competed with the Etruscans for possession over Campania.
Antichus, who was generally regarded as Thucydides' source for western history, later identified this tribe with the Ausones (Aurunci) who had been conquered and scattered into Campania and elsewhere by the Sabelli. The Oscan name survived through this scattering because the language that they spoke was called Oscan as well."


Oh, I see it, the Oscans (from southern Italy, maybe Uscans?) competed with the Toscans / Tuscans? from northern Italy! Or, did I miss something? (One must note that "os" can also refer to "south!" or maybe more correctly "Africa?", see; hamman / hammon / / hammam / ammon, etc. http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Encyclopaedia_Biblica/Mashal-Mede ; see "Os Hamman", http://marrakech.costasur.com/en/hammam.html , of course "Os" can also mean "mouth, opening or port / portus, etc. http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=Australia , or http://www.surnamedb.com/surname.aspx?name=Ost The possibilities are varied, from "os" or "ost", etc., one can arrive at Aus(st), as in Australia, and Austria, and Ostrogoths, etc. as well as
bones! or a place to dry / roast hops!, "Oast", from which, I suppose we get a part of our English word "roast?")

But let us go a little further and read this;

http://digilander.libero.it/toponomastica/etruria.html

Hmm? And;

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Etruria

So at the above sites we see how Toscan / Tuscan / Tuscana / Eturia, etc., became (allegedly) a group also called the Tyrrhenians, and the sea, on Italy's Western coast, became called the Thyrrhenian Sea!

But, again, I refer back to our 1566-68 representation of the area around Rome, Ostia and Portus, whereby all of the land North of the Tiber River was written as Tuscana and the Mare (or the Sea) was the Sea / Mare Toscana! Why would it be called so in the 16th century CE?

Note, in our ca. 1588 representation I find some Latin or maybe Vulgate Latin words, but the sea itself is not apparently identified as either the Tyrrhenian or the Toscan! If any of you have a talent for this form of Latin could you translate the following?

"Os portus orientem uer fus", or maybe "sus?" And this;

"Os portus, orientem uersus (or uerfus?), fargum (or largum?) cannas quinquaginta"

Via Portensus
My words from above are copyright@Ronald L. Hughes, 2002-2012
For the readers of my post;


Find out which pope mined portus (for its marble, etc), and remember to discuss which map came first!



Regards,
http://www.quotationspage.com/subjects/history/
Back to Top
 Post Reply Post Reply

Forum Jump Forum Permissions View Drop Down

Bulletin Board Software by Web Wiz Forums® version 9.56a [Free Express Edition]
Copyright ©2001-2009 Web Wiz

This page was generated in 0.063 seconds.