Divers discover Roman mosaic(smithsonianmag.com)
smithsonianmag.com
Divers discover Roman mosaic
https://www.smithsonianmag.com/smart-news/underwater-marble-floor-mosaic-discovered-off-the-coast-of-naples-180984772/
47 comments
I also recommend Ostia Antica. I think it was an easy 1 hour bus ride from downtown. It is a full port city, 1 mile long. You get a map and full reign to wander around it and explore the ruins, including the very cool public bath mosaic. Most of the time, we were the only ones in eyesight, so you really feel like you have the entire ruins to yourself.
> I think it was an easy 1 hour bus ride from downtown.
You can also take the Roma-Lido train. It's a quicker ride and more comfortable than a bus.
You can also take the Roma-Lido train. It's a quicker ride and more comfortable than a bus.
This seems to be the case a lot of places that’re dense with cool natural or historical sites. The most-famous sites are so crowded they’re hard to enjoy, while less-famous sites 80-120% as good have almost nobody at them (relatively speaking) so are actually way better to visit, even if they’re per se a little less impressive or important.
The outline of the submerged Roman port is visible on Google maps: https://www.google.com/maps/@40.8286245,14.0999983,1769m/dat...
I don't anything about "bradyseism", but I am having a hard time wrapping my mind around it. From the article: "Due to bradyseism, a geological phenomenon in which the ground sinks or rises due to pressure changes under the earth’s surface, the house ultimately fell into the Gulf of Pozzuoli."
How would this happen in such a uniform way, such that the precise configuration (and the flatness!) of the floor is preserved? Wouldn't this have been an uneven process that would have broken the floor apart?
It seems more plausible that this floor being underwater now is the result of a rise in sea levels. Can a geologist explain how a floor remains flat and a mosaic remains largely intact while sinking into the ocean?
How would this happen in such a uniform way, such that the precise configuration (and the flatness!) of the floor is preserved? Wouldn't this have been an uneven process that would have broken the floor apart?
It seems more plausible that this floor being underwater now is the result of a rise in sea levels. Can a geologist explain how a floor remains flat and a mosaic remains largely intact while sinking into the ocean?
If you visit Mycenae in Greece, there are notes for visitors there explaining why the Greeks built such a complex city in that location, which seems to have no particular importance today ... looking out from the city towards the sea is a large flat plain. Apparently, when Mycenae was built, almost all of that plain was underwater, and the city sat on the edge of the ocean. Same process, only in this case, a slow, steady uplift out of the sea rather than a descent into it.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xIpsQb5RtT4
Different phenomenon, but there's a bunch of hills in wales that have "island" names because they used to be islands in a bay. All the land in the bay was reclaimed in the early 19th century.
And the famous city of Ephesus moved several times because the port kept silting:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NrXd7UCuxsk, before it eventually became just completely landlocked and abandoned.
Different phenomenon, but there's a bunch of hills in wales that have "island" names because they used to be islands in a bay. All the land in the bay was reclaimed in the early 19th century.
And the famous city of Ephesus moved several times because the port kept silting:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NrXd7UCuxsk, before it eventually became just completely landlocked and abandoned.
I think you could watch some of the youtube videos the Professor Shawn Willsey has posted about the Icelandic volcanic activity over the last 6 months. As well as lots of cool stuff about the actual volcanoes and lava floes there is a lot of information about the magma chamber underneath the peninsula that is filling up and raising the land in a very measurable way. That's over a time scale of months. I think you'll see it's very plausible that over decades and centuries the level of land can change dramatically with respect to a the local 'base' level.
I understand that land can change levels over time due to magma. What is harder for me to understand is land doing so in a uniform way that maintains a flat floor and leaving intricate mosaic patterns intact. Especially when you take into account the earthquakes that would also be a part of a magma shift like that.
It's obviously possible, but hard to understand how the tensions would be spread evenly as the level raised up and down.
It's obviously possible, but hard to understand how the tensions would be spread evenly as the level raised up and down.
I know nothing about this specifically. To me, it makes sense if you think about just how big these fields are and how slow of a process it is. Changes that take place slowly over a large area are more likely to cause shifts that seem relatively flat at the scale of a house. Another way to say it: at the geologic scale, a tile mosaic may as well be a point on a plane. Unless there is a fault line at that exact position, I can see how the area would move up and down relatively uniformly.
What I’d like to know is how long of a process was it really to lose a city into the bay. It would have happened while people were around, so is there some kind of historical record?
What I’d like to know is how long of a process was it really to lose a city into the bay. It would have happened while people were around, so is there some kind of historical record?
Most likely raise of sea level? Anecdotally, I am originally from the south of Italy and at different stages both my father and grandfather mentioned to me that the seashore was much further away than the current one with the one my father recalled midway between the one my grand father remembered and the one we have now.
> It seems more plausible that this floor being underwater now is the result of a rise in sea levels
Ah yes, the "it must be climate change" response. We've been "boogey booed" into thinking that is the first and most likely cause any time we see an environment change... to the point where some people are unwilling or unable to accept the world is a constantly changing environment, even without human intervention.
Is it really hard to believe if a significant sized piece of land sinks, that things on top might just sink in-place too? You can look at concrete pads and foundations to see this in practice every day. We can also see more sudden and dramatic examples with sinkholes (caused by underground erosion of limestone and similar).
Ah yes, the "it must be climate change" response. We've been "boogey booed" into thinking that is the first and most likely cause any time we see an environment change... to the point where some people are unwilling or unable to accept the world is a constantly changing environment, even without human intervention.
Is it really hard to believe if a significant sized piece of land sinks, that things on top might just sink in-place too? You can look at concrete pads and foundations to see this in practice every day. We can also see more sudden and dramatic examples with sinkholes (caused by underground erosion of limestone and similar).
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bradyseism
Seems like a very slow process that happens on a wide scale and deep underground.
Seems like a very slow process that happens on a wide scale and deep underground.
The key bit in that article is this:
> caused by the filling or emptying of an underground magma chamber
In this case, the magma chamber underlies the entire area of the Phlegraean Fields. As more or less magma enters the chamber, the ground in the area slowly moves up or down.
> caused by the filling or emptying of an underground magma chamber
In this case, the magma chamber underlies the entire area of the Phlegraean Fields. As more or less magma enters the chamber, the ground in the area slowly moves up or down.
Slightly off topic but that site is everything that is wrong with mobile websites. Incredibly short snippets of text intercut with ad after ad, the ads pop in late making the text jump around, a pop up asking me to sign up for some stupid thing, and finally less than thirty seconds into reading it the page is obscured by some loading spinner that I do not have time to wait for so I navigate away. How stupid this all is.
I know there are perfectly reasonable explanations, but I still find it fascinating and slightly mysterious that so many Roman structures are buried underground and/or underwater.
It's crazy to think that there's a whole geologic strata of Roman artifacts.
It's crazy to think that there's a whole geologic strata of Roman artifacts.
Pretty cool find, though I'm not sure I'd describe it as "mesmerizing."
I'm also not sure if I would describe it as a mosaic, but Britannica disagrees with me ("opus sectile, type of mosaic work in which figural patterns are composed of pieces of stone [...] cut in shapes to fit the component parts of the design"), so I guess I have to defer to its opinion...
The algorithm gets bored, demands new forms of hyperbole in headlines.
All I wanted to know in that article was the depth and distance to shore
> During the late Roman Empire, rulers like Julius Caesar
Caesar didn't rule in “late” Roman Empire — in fact, he didn't get to see the empire at all, since the first emperor was his successor, Augustus.
Caesar didn't rule in “late” Roman Empire — in fact, he didn't get to see the empire at all, since the first emperor was his successor, Augustus.
Even if we'd argue that the Republic was an empire before it was the Empire (which we probably should for other reasons), Rome probably at the earliest became an empire in the 300s BCE (and that is probably stretching it), and probably stretched to the 400s CE (if we ignore the eastern half). But even by that count, around 1 CE would at best be the "middle Roman Empire", hardly late by any calculation.
Yes! But the rest of the sentence is equally wrong:
> During the late Roman Empire, rulers like Julius Caesar and Nero
Nero died in 68 AD: early Roman Empire. In fact he was only the 5th Roman emperor.
> During the late Roman Empire, rulers like Julius Caesar and Nero
Nero died in 68 AD: early Roman Empire. In fact he was only the 5th Roman emperor.
These pop-sci and pop-history articles do things like this a lot. Sometimes it feels like the days of reliable scientific journalism are behind us.
Telling apart roman republic, principate and dominate is middle school stuff. Surely, we can expect that level of knowledge from a pop-sci journalist?
The Roman Empire is in fact dead. Much like the late Mark Twain - rumors of both being dead in 2024 are in no way exagerated.
Yeah, Caesar was just Caesar, the emperors from the dynasty he founded continued to use his name, and then the emperors from following dynasties "adopted" his name as a title (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Caesar_(title))
While the Roman emperors attached "Caesar" to their names and eventually they were frequently referred as the current "Caesar", the official title of their function was "imperator", hence "emperor".
Julius Caesar has refused the title "imperator", for reasons of public image, even if de facto he had the same power as an "imperator", i.e. the power to give commands that must be obeyed by anyone else.
All his successors possessed the title of "imperator", so they are correctly referred as Roman "emperors".
Julius Caesar has refused the title "imperator", for reasons of public image, even if de facto he had the same power as an "imperator", i.e. the power to give commands that must be obeyed by anyone else.
All his successors possessed the title of "imperator", so they are correctly referred as Roman "emperors".
Which is irrelevant when you explicitly name Julius Caesar.
Fun fact to whip out at parties but not applicable here
Fun fact to whip out at parties but not applicable here
I had to stop reading and double-check the source of the article. Come on, Smithsonian...
[deleted]
The Smithsonian should be ashamed!
Augustus IS Julius Caesar, he quite literally inherited the name (and all of his great uncle's property).
The full quote is this:
>During the late Roman Empire, rulers like Julius Caesar and Nero owned homes in the town, which was known as a destination that aristocrats flocked to for drinking, parties and general hedonism.
Gaius Julius Caesar Augustus (aka Octavian) not only gained his great uncle's original property, but he invested quite heavily into property and other public works in Baiae with other emperors doing the same. Baiae was very much an "imperial city" and it definitely kicked off with Octavian.
The city gained much of its notoriety (or negative connotation for extravagance) as time went on.
And the sentence says "like", as in "hey reader, here are these two pretty familiar names who are not only relevant to the city itself, but also can give you an idea of the type of elite class we're talking about." It's a pretty succinct way of putting it and while reinforcing multiple points at once.
So it's not wrong. If you're going to be pedantic, at least be correct.
The full quote is this:
>During the late Roman Empire, rulers like Julius Caesar and Nero owned homes in the town, which was known as a destination that aristocrats flocked to for drinking, parties and general hedonism.
Gaius Julius Caesar Augustus (aka Octavian) not only gained his great uncle's original property, but he invested quite heavily into property and other public works in Baiae with other emperors doing the same. Baiae was very much an "imperial city" and it definitely kicked off with Octavian.
The city gained much of its notoriety (or negative connotation for extravagance) as time went on.
And the sentence says "like", as in "hey reader, here are these two pretty familiar names who are not only relevant to the city itself, but also can give you an idea of the type of elite class we're talking about." It's a pretty succinct way of putting it and while reinforcing multiple points at once.
So it's not wrong. If you're going to be pedantic, at least be correct.
Well, no. "Julius Caesar" with no other qualifier is Julius Caesar, even if other rulers also used the name. Otherwise it would be difficult to differentiate them.
Well yes, that's quite literally how it worked. When Octavian was adopted he literally became Gaius Julius Caesar and technically lost the "Octavianus" part of his former name; roman names did not work like our modern day names.
The article is well constructed for its intended audience without getting into largely irrelevant details about the story.
It's accurate and purposeful. It's certainly not incorrect by any measure.
The article is well constructed for its intended audience without getting into largely irrelevant details about the story.
It's accurate and purposeful. It's certainly not incorrect by any measure.
That's how it worked then (for Romans), but it's not how it works now. So when the writer refers to Julius Caesar without any other qualifications, he refers to the adoptive father of Octavian. It's a minor nitpick though, hardly worth bringing up, but it is correct.
edit: as someone else observed, none of these were part of the late Roman Empire. Octavian and Nero lived in the early Roman Empire, and Caesar lived during the last years of the Republic.
edit: as someone else observed, none of these were part of the late Roman Empire. Octavian and Nero lived in the early Roman Empire, and Caesar lived during the last years of the Republic.
>That's how it worked then (for Romans), but it's not how it works now.
Unfortunately you don't get to flip a switch arbitrarily and choose when to be pedantic to make an irrelevant point.
>The article is well constructed for its intended audience without getting into largely irrelevant details about the story.
Unfortunately you don't get to flip a switch arbitrarily and choose when to be pedantic to make an irrelevant point.
>The article is well constructed for its intended audience without getting into largely irrelevant details about the story.
Nero isn't from the the late Roman Empire either.
And you're reading a popsci article by a freelance journalist. Stick to the actual important topic instead of going "akschually" _WHILE_ being incorrect.
Exactly, and Augustus was the first Roman emperor!
That's about as accurate as saying that John Adams and John Quincy Adams were the same person rather than father and son.
They didn't have roman names.
Most importantly though, since the city was abandoned at roughly the same time, it's still an intact city, so you see how everything was connected, rather than just a ruin here and a temple there. You see it as a complete entity.