What started as an unpromising archaeological site in central Italy could change our understanding of the fall of the Roman Empire.
A 13-year archaeological investigation of an “unpromising” site has revealed a bustling Roman town which continued to thrive until late in the 3rd Century AD, a period in Roman Italy normally associated with a state of stagnation and decline, according to the findings of an archaeological study published in new book Roman Urbanism in Italy.
These investigations revealed a Roman settlement “Interamna Lirenas”, likely home to 2000 people at its peak.
“The historical trajectory of Interamna appears to have significantly diverged from traditional narratives about the development of Roman Italy in the Imperial period, long-assumed to have been characterised by stagnation and decline,” the book chapter says.
Researchers used pottery analysis, magnetic and ground-penetrating radar surveys and targeted excavations to uncover evidence of river port, a roofed theatre, impressive bath complexes and hundreds of densely built houses lying beneath the surface of an otherwise nondescript field.
“We started with a site so unpromising that no one had ever tried to excavate it – that’s very rare in Italy,” said Dr Alessandro Launaro from the University of Cambridge and author of the study.
“There was nothing on the surface, no visible evidence of buildings, just bits of broken pottery. But what we discovered wasn’t a backwater, far from it. We found a thriving town adapting to every challenge thrown at it for 900 years.”
Underneath the surface, archaeologists identified a river port complex (complete with warehouse, temple and bath), a roofed theatre with capacity to seat 1500 people, three impressive bath complexes, market buildings and hundreds of densely built houses.
The pottery analysis together with other evidence indicates the town’s survived some 300 years later than the decline of Rome.
“The fact that this town went for a roofed theatre, such a refined building, does not fit with a backwater in decline. This theatre was a major status symbol. It displayed the town’s wealth, power and ambition.”
Launaro says: “Interamna Lirenas was strategically located between a river and a major road, and it was a thriving node in the regional urban network. It would have been valuable to Julius Caesar as he sought to consolidate support across Italy during the civil wars.”
It is amazing, isn’t it ?
The ancient Romans were pretty sophisticated. The fact that their opulence was based on slavery and violent, barbaric conquest, thus providing the template for King Charlie’s mob, the Portuguese, Germans, French, Spanish, Belgians and the rest of the blood-thirsty, gold-crazed colonials culminating in the Americans, and of course, the ecstatic, horrendous population extermination being carried out now by Israel.
Makes me wonder, G”)
It’s all a bit like the colonisation of our fair continent wouldn’t you say?
Yes Lizard,
it is a ‘bit’ like here in Australia but if you want to claim to be suffering as the Palestinians are or the American or Indian, Indians or the inhabitants of South America or Africa then you are obviously deluded. Aborigines have benefitted enormously then, and particularly as they do now.
Go talk to the Palestinians if you think you are being oppressed.
Cheers G”)
What a ridiculous and ineffectual diversionary tactic. How could you possibly infer from this that I see myself as suffering or oppressed? I, like the vast majority of Australians, live a very privileged life, precisely because of the riches of this land we inhabit.
Is it beyond your imagination that people can recognise injustice and seek redress without being personally affected? Or only if it’s not in your backyard where you might feel some responsibility?
What type of person can produce such self righteous outrage for every colonised population, except the ones on whose dispossession the non indigenous population thrives?
Here we go again, it’s the ‘magic soil’ theory again.
He’s just pointing out your continuing contradictions.
Do you think Ken needs a hand? I’m sure he’s perfectly capable of building his own straw man.
To battle the ones you build?
Non indigenous Lizardbreath ?
was born in Australia ..please explain..
Most Aboriginal people’s would openly
Speak of belonging to the land ..not owning
It ..!
You’re entitled to your own definition of “indigenous” Barrow, it makes little difference here.
It’s a bit hard to belong to the land when you’ve been driven off it. And I don’t think this concept meant an invitation for the colonists to help themselves , even though you love to throw it down like a coup de grâce.
White People belonged to the land once. It was referred to as ‘Feudalism’. You died where you were born.
No mate, you missed the point. I was pointing out his. And nothing about “magic soil” here. Just plain simple taking the soil from under their feet.
The point is Lizard,
Aborigines have benefitted enormously then, and particularly as they do now.
No other citizen has access to such enormous levels of government support and have been freed from lives of barbaric savagery with a life expectancy of less than thirty years, admittedly this has led to great hand-out dependency but this is largely a ‘cultural’ trait.
We all come from a “colonised population” and here, the indigenous population thrives.
Cheers,G”)
You could say that stuff about almost any indigenous group colonised by Western “civilisation”. Are native Americans similarly better off or the Inuit?
We’ve all benefited from the advances in technology, sanitation etc. that were not in existence when the invasions took place. Those with the power to snatch the best land and marginalise the rest have been in a much better position to take advantage.
You trot out these supposed “truisms”, totally ignoring history and the relevant comparative statistics, while offering nothing by way of support for your claims. All while you puff out your chest and rage against injustice elsewhere. Pathetic.
Those ‘colonisers’ had plenty of technology compared to the ‘natives’, and they invented plenty more. Your argument requires you to divorce White Men, from White Men achievements. You don’t get one without the other, and you can’t maintain that which you can’t build. Shouldn’t the land belong to those that can create the greatest benefit, for the most people, through that ownership? Or should it have been squandered for another 65,000 years?
Very deep and meaningful questions Christian. What determines “ownership” of land, or entitlement to the bounty it offers?
If you’re going to adopt some John Stuart Mill Utilitarian calculus of the greatest good for the greatest number, it might be a bit tricky in implementation. Who decides? What does it do to security of tenure?
What would convince you to give up your vast hectarage to some of the teeming millions on the planet who might be in greater need of it? Or prepared to utilise it more efficiently?
These decisions would appear to depend on the oversight of some form of world government – the UN maybe? – that those attracted to conspiracy theories tend to keep warning us about.
If you’re talking about the conquerors, the Brits broke their own property laws and had to invent Terra Nullius . But we’ve been there before haven’t we and your interesting translations of Latin.
Regardless of whether it was determined that others were more deserving of your land, should those who throw you off just leave you homeless, with no compensation, to survive on the streets? Imagining of course that those streets don’t speak your language, recognise your skills and see you as profoundly inferior and devoid of rights?
Wouldn’t be very civilised would it?
Those who brought their ample technology also brought diseases, bigotry, indifference and callousness. And btw, many of some of the very useful stuff has been discovered/developed by women – especially since they’ve been given a bit more of a go.
Very long and plentiful questions, Liz.
The Adam Smith calculus of the invisible hand, arbitrates, without human intervention, the most efficient allocation of resources for the minimisation of human unease. Like wise, Darwinistic principles allocate territory to the best adapted creatures.
If Australia had been connected to the Eurasia land mass, the Aboriginals would have ceased as a people, thousands, if not tens of thousands of years ago, either by being subsumed or simply eliminated, as the majority of peoples have been. By 1770, the Aboriginals and their culture were anachronistic, and only existed due to their isolation. They were not made homeless, as they had no homes to begin with, and no possibility of ever having any, nor running water, nor protection from famine, nor countless other deprivations. They are currently being subsumed, not eliminated.
As for the rest of your questions, which allude to a ‘potential lack of fitness’ of White People in general, that is a topic I talk about here, or at least attempt to, constantly. However, people who are programmed to be bigots, perceive White people discussing the challenges to their specific ethnic group, and the possible mitigation strategies, as somehow ‘hateful’ and ‘evil’ etc, even though it is the equivalent of that said by Aboriginals, Chinese, Israelis, Palestinians….every other ethnic group. Immigration, cultural subversion, being demonised, Marxism/Post-modernism, and all the other threats to my ethnic group I discuss, easily answer the remained of your questions, and then some.
Without drawing this out ad nauseum Christian, I don’t think you can mix discussions of economic theory, technological advancement and moral philosophy, with a Darwinian survival of the fittest advocacy.
There is an element of Darwinism in the concept of free market capitalism, but there’s also much contradiction in that capitalism depends on concepts of rights to inviolable ownership.
You need also to make a distinction in justifying the taking of land in terms of the greater good (moral philosophy) and justification in terms of might is right Darwinianism. Don’t straddle the fence and shift according to the narrative.
Nothing here having a go at your ethnic group, just your lack of coherence. Another straw man. And btw, I don’t think straw men do “battle” – they have no 🎾 🎾.
You must have felt challenged by those questions Christian as you have followed
the pattern of becoming more tangential, bizarre and defensive of imagined victimisation.
I don’t believe you would be happy with Darwinian survival of the fittest rule, constantly fending off attempted incursions on your property and well being. How much civilisation and technological advancement could occur in those conditions?
Most moral philosophers start with the premise of this evolutionary influence on human behaviour and develop theories about the best societal systems to manage the chaos and foster wellbeing and happiness.
You attempt to justify the dispossession of First Nations people, originally with this higher order thinking of moral philosophy – fairness, greater good. When challenged on this you introduce the Darwinian justification as though that’s what should prevail. Don’t straddle the fence, falling to one side or the other as the narrative demands.
Adam Smith? Yes capitalism has elements of a Darwinian world but also depends heavily on societal strictures that enforce an inviolable right to private property.
There is nothing here that denounces your ethnic group. Another straw man.
Confected offence and outrage is the last refuge of the scoundrel?
Oops! The hazards of clearing your browser history!
And with that triggered screed/s, I am claiming ‘Quod erat demonstrandum’! Thank you ladies and gentlemen, and good night, drive safe.
The only thing that triggers me is reading bs. I wish it didn’t.
As a reader of Roman History, both Eastern and Western, I fail to see what this “major” discovery this site reveals that is new. It was previously known that the town survived until the 600’s.
It is well known that cities and towns in the Western Roman Empire survived after the invasions from the North, especially in Italy, Gaul, and Spain.
The Eastern Roman Empire survived almost another 1000 years after the last Western Emperor to be recognised by the (senior) Eastern Emperor died in 480.
The Western Empire fell due to third-world refuge migration. Calling it an ‘invasion’ is racist. They were fleeing the Mongol attack on their homelands. The Romans simply couldn’t adapt to the multiculturalism brought by the Vandals and Visigoths. The Eastern Empire fell due to its ‘Islamophobia’. It all kinda seems familiar today somehow.
Why is it racist “calling it an ‘invasion'”?
The European Union has the same problem today, but apparently ones is a racism if one accurately refers to it as a ‘Rape-ugee Invasion’ or ‘Immigration Jihad’. Apparently, it is irrelevant what instructions maybe in what religious texts, nor what the leaders of such invading communities may openly say on camera. We all know only White People ever invade anywhere, and/or deploy deception, regardless of anything any history book says, even those written by not-White-Peoples. But we don’t have time to discuss the need for increased diversity in White Countries at the moment, as we are too busy attempting to expand a theocratic genetically homogenious ethno-state in the Middle East for God’s chosen non-White People. Because every ethnic group deserves its own country, even the Palestinians, unless proven fair skinned, in which case, ‘Fuck you bigot, you’re literally Hitler!’. That’s all I meant.