Εμφανίζονται 9 τίτλοι με αναζήτηση: Πληροφορίες για τον τόπο στην ευρύτερη περιοχή: "ΑΝΚΟΝΑ Πόλη ΒΟΡΕΙΟΣ ΙΤΑΛΙΑ" .
ΑΝΚΟΝΑ (Αρχαία πόλη) ΜΑΡΚΕ
Ancona or Ancon (AnkoW: Eth. Ankonios, and Ankonites, Steph. B., Anconitanus:
the form Ancon in Latin is chiefly poetical; but, according to Orelli, Cicero
uses Anconem for the ace. case), an important city of Picenum on the Adriatic
sea, still called Ancona. It was situated on a promontory which forms a remarkable
curve or elbow, so as to protect, and almost enclose its port, from which circumstance
it derived its Greek name of Ankon, the elbow. (Strab. v. p. 241; Mela, ii. 4;
Procop. B. G. ii. 13. p. 197.) Pliny, indeed, appears to regard it as named from
its position at the angle or elbow formed by the coast line at this point (in
ipso flectentis se orae cubito, iii. 13. s. 18), but this is probably erroneous.
The promontory on which the city itself is situated, is connected with a more
lofty mountain mass forming a bold headland, the Cumerus of Pliny, still known
as Monte Comero. Ancona was the only Greek colony on this part of the coast of
Italy, having been founded about 380 B.C. by Syracusan exiles, who fled hither
to avoid the tyranny of the elder Dionysius. (Strab.) Hence it is called Dorica
Ancon by Juvenal (iv. 40), and is mentioned by Scylax (§ 17, p. 6), who notices
only Greek cities. We have no account of its existence at an earlier period, for
though Pliny refers its foundation to the Siculi (see also Solin. 2. § 10), this
is probably a mere misconception of the fact that it was a colony from Sicily.
We learn nothing of its early history: but it appears to have rapidly risen into
a place of importance, owing to the excellence of its port (the only natural harbour
along this line of coast) and the great fertility of the adjoining country. (Strab.
l. c.; Plin. xiv. 6.) It was noted also for its purple dye, which, according to
Silius Italicus (viii. 438), was not inferior to those of Phoenicia or Africa.
The period at which it became subject to the Romans is uncertain, but it probably
followed the fate of the rest of Picenum: in B.C. 178 we find them making use
of it as a naval station against the Illyrians and Istrians. (Liv. xli. 1.) On
the outbreak of the Civil War it was occupied by Caesar as a place of importance,
immediately after he had passed the Rubicon; and we find it in later times serving
as the principal port for communication with the opposite coast of Dalmatia. (Caes.
B.C. i. 11; Cic. ad Att. vii. 1. 1, ad Farn. xvi. 12; Tac. Ann. iii. 9.) As early
as the time of C. Gracchus a part of its territory appears to have been assigned
to Roman colonists; and subsequently Antony established there two legions of veterans
which had served under J. Caesar. It probably first acquired at this time the
rank of a Roman colony, which we find it enjoying in the time of Pliny, and which
is commemorated in several extant inscriptions. (App. B.C. v. 23; Lib. Colon.
pp. 225, 227, 253; Gruter, pp. 451. 3, 465. 6; Zumpt, de Colon. p. 333.) It received
great benefits from Trajan, who improved its port by the construction of a new
mole, which still remains in good preservation. On it was erected, in honour of
the emperor, a triumphal arch, built entirely of white marble, which, both from
its perfect preservation and the lightness and elegance of its architecture, is
generally regarded as one of the most beautiful monuments of its class remaining
in Italy. Some remains of an amphitheatre may also be traced; and numerous inscriptions
attest the flourishing condition of Ancona under the Roman Empire. The temple
of Venus, celebrated both by Juvenal and Catullus (Juv. iv. 40; Catull. xxxvi.
13), has altogether disappeared; but it in all probability occupied the same site
as the modern cathedral, on the summit of the lofty hill that commands the whole
city and constitutes the remarkable headland from which it derives its name.
We find Ancona playing an important part during the contests of Belisarius
and Narses with the Goths in Italy. (Procop. B. G. ii. 11, 13, iii. 30, iv. 23.)
It afterwards became one of the chief cities of the Exarchate of Ravenna, and
continued throughout the Middle Ages, as it does at the present day, to be one
of the most flourishing and commercial cities of central Italy.
The annexed coin of .Ancona belongs to the period of the Greek colony:
it bears on the obverse the head of Venus, the tutelary deity of the city, on
the reverse a bent arm or elbow, in allusion to its name.
This text is from: Dictionary of Greek and Roman Geography (1854) (ed. William Smith, LLD). Cited July 2004 from The Perseus Project URL below, which contains interesting hyperlinks
ΛΟΡΕΤΟ (Πόλη) ΜΑΡΚΕ
Laurentum (Laurenton, Strab. et al.; Lorenton, Dion. Hal.: Eth. Lurentinos,
Laurentinus: Torre di Paterno), an ancient city of Latium, situated near the sea-coast
between Ostia and Lavinium, about 16 miles from Rome. It was represented by the
legendary history universally adopted by Roman writers as the ancient capital
of Latium, and the residence of king Latinus, at the time when Aeneas and the
Trojan colony landed in that country. All writers also concur in representing
the latter as first landing on the shores of the Laurentine territory. (Liv. i.
1; Dionys. i. 45, 53; Strab. v. p. 229; Appian. Rom. i. 1; Vict. Orig. Gent. Rom.
13; Virg. Aen. vii. 45, &c.) But the same legendary history related that after
the death of Latinus, the seat of government was transferred first to Lavinium,
and subsequently to Alba; hence we cannot wonder that, when Laurentum appears
in historical times, it holds but a very subordinate place, and appears to have
fallen at a very early period into a state of comparative insignificance. The
historical notices of the city are indeed extremely few and scanty; the most important
is the occurrence of its name (or that of the Laurentini at least), together with
those of Ardea, Antium, Circeii, and Tarracina, among the allies or dependants
of Rome, in the celebrated treaty of the Romans with Carthage in B.C. 509. (Pol.
iii. 22.) From this document we may infer that Laurentum was then still a place
of some consideration as a maritime town, though the proximity of the Roman port
and colony of Ostia must have tended much to its disadvantage. Dionysius tells
us that some of the Tarquins had retired to Laurentum on their expulsion from
Rome: and he subsequently notices the Laurentines among the cities which composed
the Latin League in B.C. 496. (Dionys. v. 54, 61.) We learn, also, from an incidental
notice in Livy, that they belonged to that confederacy, and retained, in consequence,
down to a late period the right of participating in the sacrifices on the Alban
Mount. (Liv. xxxvii. 3.) It is clear, therefore, that though no longer a powerful
or important city, Laurentum continued to retain its independent position down
to the great Latin War in B.C. 340. On that occasion the Laurentines are expressly
mentioned as having been the only people who took no share in the war; and, in
consequence, the treaty with them which previously existed was renewed without
alteration. (Liv. viii. 11.) From thenceforth (adds Livy) it is renewed always
from year to year on the 10th day of the Feriae Latinae. Thus, the poor and decayed
city of Laurentum continued down to the Augustan age to retain the nominal position
of an independent ally of the imperial Rome.
No further notice of it occurs in history during the Roman Republic.
Lucan appears to reckon it as one of the places that had fallen into decay in
consequence of the Civil Wars (vii. 394), but it is probable that it had long
before that dwindled into a very small place. The existence of a town of the name
( oppidum Laurentum ) is, however, attested by Mela, Strabo, and Pliny (Mel. ii.
4. § 9; Strab. v. p. 232; Plin. iii. 5. s. 9); and the sea-coast in its vicinity
was adorned with numerous villas, among which that of the younger Pliny was conspicuous.
(Plin. Ep. ii. 17.) It is remarkable that that author, in describing the situation
of his villa and its neighbourhood, makes no allusion to Laurentum itself, though
he mentions the neighbouring colony of Ostia, and a village or vicus immediately
adjoining his villa: this last may probably be the same which we find called in
an inscription Vicus Augustus Laurentium. (Grater, Inscr. p. 398, No. 7.) Hence,
it seems probable that Laurentum itself had fallen into a state of great Aecay;
and this must have been the cause that, shortly after, the two communities of
Laurentum and Lavinium were united into one municipal body, which assumed the
appellation of Lauro-Lavinium, and the inhabitants that of Lauro-Lavinates, or
Laurentes Lavinates. Sometimes, however, the united populus calls itself in inscriptions
simply Senatus populusque Laurens, and in one case we find mention of a Colonia
Augusta Laurentium. (Orell. Inscr. 124; Gruter, p. 484, No. 3.) Nevertheless it
is at least very doubtful whether there was any fresh colony established on the
site of the ancient Laurentum: the only one mentioned in the Liber Coloniarum
is that of Lauro-Lavinium, which was undoubtedly fixed at Lavinium (Pratica).The
existence of a place bearing the name of Laurentum, though probably a mere village,
down to the latter ages of the Empire, is, however, clearly proved by the Itineraries
and Tabula (Itin. Ant. p. 301; Tab. Peut.); and it appears from ecclesiastical
documents that the locality still retained its ancient name as late as the 8th
century (Anastas. Vit. Pontif. ap. Nibby, vol. ii. p. 201). From that time all
trace of it disappears, and the site seems to have been entirely forgotten.
Laurentum seems to have, from an early period, given name to an extensive
territory, extending from the mouth of the Tiber nearly, if not quite, to Ardea,
and forming a part of the broad littoral tract of Latium, which is distinguished
from the rest of that country by very marked natural characteristics. Hence, we
find the Laurentine territory much more frequently referred to than the city itself;
and the place where Aeneas is represented as landing is uniformly described as
in agro Laurenti; though we know from Virgil that he conceived the Trojans as
arriving and first establishing themselves at the mouth of the Tiber. But it is
clear that, previous to the foundation of Ostia, the territory of Laurentum was
considered to extend to that river. (Serv. ad Aen. vii. 661, xi. 316.) The name
of ager Laurens seems to have continued in common use to be applied, even under
the Roman Empire, to the whole district extending as far as the river Numicius,
so as to include Lavinium as well as Laurentum. It was, like the rest of this
part of Latium near the sea-coast, a sandy tract of no natural fertility, whence
Aeneas is represented as complaining that he had arrived in agrum macerrimum,
littorosissimumque. (Fab. Max. ap. Serv. ad Aen. i. 3.) In the immediate neighbourhood
of Laurentum were considerable marshes, while the tract a little further inland
was covered with wood, forming an extensive forest, known as the Silva Laurentina.
(Jul. Obseq. 24.) The existence of this at the time of the landing of Aeneas is
alluded to by Virgil (Aen. xi. 133, &c.). Under the Roman Empire it was a favourite
haunt of wild-boars, which grew to a large size, but were considered by epicures
to be of inferior flavour on account of the marshy character of the ground in
which they fed. (Virg. Aen. x. 709; Hor. Sat. ii. 4. 42; Martial, ix. 495.) Varro
also tells us that the orator Hortensius had a farm or villa in the Laurentine
district, with a park stocked with wild-boars, deer, and other game. (Varr. R.
R. iii. 13.) The existence of extensive marshes near Laurentum is noticed also
by Virgil (Aen. x. 107) as well as by Martial (x. 37. 5), and it is evident that
even in ancient times they rendered this tract of country unhealthy, though it
could not have suffered from malaria to the same extent as in modern times. The
villas which, according to Pliny, lined the shore, were built close to the sea,
and were probably frequented only in winter. At an earlier period, we are told
that Scipio and Laelius used to repair to the seaside on the Laurentine coast,
where they amused themselves by gathering shells and pebbles. (Cic. de Or. ii.
6; Val. Max. viii. 8. § 4.) On the other hand, the bay-trees (lauri) with which
the Silva Laurentina was said to abound were thought to have a beneficial effect
on the health, and on this account the emperor Commodus was advised to retire
to a villa near Laurentum during a pestilence at Rome. (Herodian. i. 12.) The
name of Laurentum itself was generally considered to be derived from the number
of these trees, though Virgil would derive it from a particular and celebrated
tree of the kind. (Vict. [p. 148] Orig. G. Rom.. 10; Varr. L. L. v. 152; Virg.
Aen. vii. 59.)
The precise site of Laurentum has been a subject of much doubt; though
it may be placed approximately without question between Ostia and Pratica, the
latter being clearly established as the site of Lavinium. It has been generally
fixed at Torre di Paterno, and Gell asserts positively that there is no other
position within the required limits where either ruins or the traces of ruins
exist, or where they can be supposed to have existed. The Itinerary gives the
distance of Laurentum from Rome at 16 M. P., which is somewhat less than the truth,
if we place it at Torre di Paterno, the latter being rather more than 17 M. P.
from Rome by the Via Laurentina; but the same remark applies to Lavinium also,
which is called in the Itinerary 16 miles from Rome, though it is full 18 miles
in real distance. On the other hand, the distance of 6 miles given in the Table
between Lavinium and Laurentum coincides well with the interval between Pratica
and Torre di Paterno. Nibby, who places Laurentum at Capo Cotto, considerably
nearer to Pratica, admits that there are no ruins on the site. Those at Torre
di Paterno are wholly of Roman and imperial times, and may perhaps indicate nothing
more than the site of a villa, though the traces of an aqueduct leading to it
prove that it must have been a place of some importance. There can indeed be no
doubt that the spot was a part of the dependencies of Laurentum under the Roman
Empire; though it may still be questioned whether it marks the actual site of
the ancient Latin city. (Gell, Top. of Rome, pp. 294 - 298; Nibby, Dintorni di
Roma, vol. ii. pp. 187 - 205; Abeken, Mittelitalien, p. 62; Bormann, Alt Latin.
Corographie, pp. 94 - 97.)
It is hardly necessary to notice the attempts which have been made
to determine the site of Pliny's Laurentine villa, of which he has left us a detailed
description, familiar to all scholars (Plin. Ep. ii. 17). As it appears from his
own account that it was only one of a series of villas which adorned this part
of the coast, and many of them probably of equal, if not greater, pretensions,
it is evidently idle to give the name to a mass of brick ruins which there is
nothing to identify. In their zeal to do this, antiquarians have overlooked the
circumstance that his villa was evidently close to the sea, which at once excludes
almost all the sites that have been suggested for it.
The road which led from Rome direct to Laurentum retained, down to a late
period, the name of Via Laurentina (Ovid, Fast. ii. 679; Val. Max. viii. 5. §
6.) It was only a branch of the Via Ostiensis, from which it diverged about 3
miles from the gates of Rome, and proceeded nearly in a direct line towards Torre
di Paterno. At about 10 miles from Rome it crossed a small brook or stream by
a bridge, which appears to have been called the Pons ad Decimum, and subsequently
Pons Decimus: hence the name of Decimo now given to a casale or farm a mile further
on; though this was situated at the 11th mile from Rome, as is proved by the discovery
on the spot of the Roman milestone, as well as by the measurement on the map.
Remains of the ancient pavement mark the course of the Via Laurentina both before
and after passing this bridge. (Nibby, Dintorni, vol. i. p. 539, vol. iii. p.
621.) Roman authors generally agree in stating that the place where the Trojans
first landed and established their camp was still called Troja (Liv. i. 1; Cato,
ap. Serv. ad Aen. i. 5; Fest. v. Troia, p. 367), and that it was in the Laurentine
territory; but Virgil is the only writer from whom we learn that it was on the
banks of the Tiber, near its mouth (Aen. vii. 30, ix. 469, 790, &c.). Hence it
must have been in the part of the ager Laurens which was assigned to Ostia after
the foundation, of the colony; and Servius is therefore correct in placing the
camp of the Trojans circa Ostiam. (Serv. ad Aen. vii. 31.) The name, however,
would appear to have been the only thing that marked the spot.
This text is from: Dictionary of Greek and Roman Geography (1854) (ed. William Smith, LLD). Cited August 2004 from The Perseus Project URL below, which contains interesting hyperlinks
ΑΝΚΟΝΑ (Αρχαία πόλη) ΜΑΡΚΕ
or Ancon (Ankon). A town in Picenum, on the Adriatic Sea, lying
in a bend of the coast between two promontories, and hence called Ancon, or an
“elbow.” It was built by the Syracusans in the time of the elder Dionysius, B.C.
392. The Romans made it a colony. It possessed an excellent harbour, completed
by Trajan, and was one of the most important seaports of the Adriatic.
This text is cited Oct 2002 from The Perseus Project URL below, which contains interesting hyperlinks
The most important port in Picenum, founded by Syracusans in 387 B.C.
on the site of important Picene and Villanovan settlements, and the only Greek
colony in this part of Italy. The city stands on a promontory, the easternmost
spur of Monte Conero (in. Cunerus), in an arc around an excellent natural harbor
artificially improved. The city was taken over by the Romans ca. 268 B.C.; after
Philippi and Actium there were deductions of colonists, and the city was inscribed
in the tribus Leinonia. It had a flourishing Mediterranean commerce under the
Republic and became under the Empire the principal port of Roman traffic with
Dalinatia. Trajan undertook improvement of the harbor, notably a new mole, to
which an arch bears witness. The city was ultimately destroyed by the Goths after
a long struggle.
The most important remains are those of the elegant arch of Trajan
of Hymettos marble (A.D. 115), light and graceful in design. Its inscription (CIL
IX, 5894) is preserved and the original stair descending to the seashore. There
are also well-preserved remains of an amphitheater, and substructions of a Greek
temple lie under the cathedral in a situation that commanded a panoramic view.
This was presumably dedicated to Aphrodite (Catull. 36.13; Juvenal 4.40). The
fortifications of the acropolis and the walls of the town on the sea side can
be traced with gaps and uncertainties; various ancient buildings, especially horrea
in the vicinity of the port and houses higher in the city, have come to light
from time to time; and Picene, Hellenistic, and Roman necropoleis have been located
and explored.
Antiquities from the province have been assembled in the Museo Nazionale
delle Marche. The most important materials are the numerous tomb groups, ranging
from Picene graves of the 9th c. down to the Roman period, and including the tombs
of Fabriano.
L. Richardson, Jr., ed.
This text is from: The Princeton encyclopedia of classical sites,
Princeton University Press 1976. Cited Nov 2002 from
Perseus Project URL below, which contains bibliography & interesting hyperlinks.
Λάβετε το καθημερινό newsletter με τα πιο σημαντικά νέα της τουριστικής βιομηχανίας.
Εγγραφείτε τώρα!