)ORULGD6WDWH8QLYHUVLW\/LEUDULHV

2019 Cosa and Portus Cosanus: Pirates, Politics, Vermin, or Vibrations? William Carter Jakeman III

Follow this and additional works at DigiNole: FSU's Digital Repository. For more information, please contact [email protected]

THE FLORIDA STATE UNIVERSITY

COLLEGE OF ARTS & SCIENCES

Cosa and Portus Cosanus:

Pirates, Politics, Vermin, or Vibrations?

By

WILLIAM C. JAKEMAN III

A Thesis submitted to the

Department of Classics in partial fulfillment of the requirements for graduation with

Honors in the Major

Degree Awarded:

Spring, 2019

______Associate______Professor Andrea De Giorgi____

______Associate______Professor Ronald E. Doel____

______Assistant______Professor Elizabeth Murphy____

Table of Contents

Abstract…………………………………………………………………………………………...1

Introduction………………………………………………………………………………………2

Historical Overview of Cosa and Portus Cosanus……………………………………………..5

Archaeology of Cosa and Portus Cosanus…………………………………………………….12

Roman Politics, Coups, and Civil Strife ……………………………………………………...17

Ancient Piracy and the Cilician Pirates……………………………………………………….23

Spartacus’ Cilician Pirates and Cosa………………………………………………………….30

Demise of the Cilicians and Piracy in the Mediterranean……………………………………36

Vibrations or Vermin?…………………………………………………………………………37

Conclusion………………………………………………………………………………………42

List of Figures…………………………………………………………………………………..48

Bibliography……………………………………………………………………………………50

1

Abstract

In the years 70-60 B.C. the Roman colony of Cosa encountered a devastating event, the subject of which has been debated for centuries. Three theories have cropped up in an attempt to answer the question: What caused Cosa’s destruction? The first theory involves pirates of that era, perhaps a sacking and pillaging of the town by raiding brigands. The second theory suggests an earthquake destroyed the town, killing most of its inhabitants. The third theory suggests a plague of vermin struck the town, bringing disease along with it. The position herein presents the theory of pirates as most plausible. Historical accounts indicate the presence of Cilician pirates during the Third Slave War between 73-71 B.C. The gladiator Spartacus led his slave army to the southern region of Italy, Calabria, and paid a fleet of Cilician pirates to cross the Strait of

Messina to Sicily. The Cilicians betrayed Spartacus and sailed away from Calabria instead.

Ancient historians do not account for where these pirates sailed to. Logically, they sailed northwest to the islands of Corsica and Sardinia to distance between themselves from the Roman armies of Pompey, Crassus, and Lucullus. The political instability of the Roman Republic leading into the 1st century B.C. also contributed to Cosa’s vulnerability. Such instabilities were direct consequences of the disruption of law perpetrated by Roman politicians Sulla and Marius in the 80’s B.C., as well as the social incoherence due to Rome’s Social War against some of its former Italian allies. This social and political chaos inhibited communications to and from Cosa, and the reallocation of most of Rome’s relief forces to the southern regions to fight Spartacus compromised the coastal and inland security of Etruria. Thorough research on alternative theories such as earthquakes or a plague of vermin are deemed implausible due to archaeological evidence of the economic history of Cosa’s harbor or port, Portus Cosanus, and newly discovered archaeoseismological evidence of thrust faults located in the immediate area. 2

Introduction

Cosa and Portus Cosanus both reside in the modern town of Ansedonia. This small town of one hundred residents is at the southern provincial line of the Province of Grosseto—one of many provinces which make up the region of Tuscany. Tuscan climate is arid, yet the soil is fertile enough for the production of grapes, olives, and grain. Due to the climate and geology of

Tuscany, extreme weather does not plague this region of Italy, which is good for crops and trade goods, be they raw materials or processed goods (such as wine, oils, etc.). Much of the climate of

Tuscany has not changed dramatically over the past two thousand years, and much of the same staples and goods made in Tuscany have remained untampered.1

Stretching far back to the dawn of the first Punic War, the ancient city of Cosa allows archaeologists to peer backwards through the window of time to 273 B.C. and analyze Roman society and methods of development during republican times. A “sister site” of Cosa, Portus

Cosanus was established not long after the foundation of Cosa, however it grew tangentially to the hilltop city with evidence of independent periods of growth.2 Acting as the city’s harbor and fishery, Portus Cosanus gave the nearby populace of Cosa a substantial amount of fish and hub for trade.3 It also possessed fresh water which the surrounding area and settlement needed. Vice versa, the town of Cosa provided the port with manpower, building materials such as stone and wood, a reliable production of amphorae and pottery, and trade goods such as olive oil, wine, and grains to export.4 A relationship which boosted both sites and brought them into their prime

1 Frank Edward B R E H R L Cosa I, History and Topography, 1951, pg. 5 2 A M MC J B EK G JP O EL W The Roman Port and Fishery of Cosa: a Center of Ancient Trade 3 Frank Edward Brown, C M R T, 1980, pg. 50-51 4 Frank E. B Cosa, the Making of a Roman Town, 1980, pg. 71

3 respectfully. With this in mind, the rise and fall of Cosa during the days of the Roman Republic should coincide with the rise and fall of its port, Portus Cosanus. Surprisingly, they do not coincide. It is the town’s destruction which raises questions concerning the development and survival of Portus Cosanus. Why was the port excluded from Cosa’s fate? Was it pirates who destroyed Cosa? How did Portus Cosanus finally fall?

Throughout the 1960’s and well into the mid 1970’s, Portus Cosanus was treated and excavated as a separate site.5 Growth between Portus Cosanus and Cosa are not as intertwined as one might think. Yet the fates of both are linked by the methods of men both fierce and cunning—from the Senate to the seas, the ultimate destruction and decline of both port and town originated in the early-1st century B.C. Stratigraphic analysis by archaeologist Dr. Frank Brown revealed a layer of carbon throughout many residential sites, indicative of a city-wide fire.6 Dr.

Brown is a revered member of the American Academy in Rome and was a distinguished

Mediterranean and Classical archaeologist of the 20th century. He started excavations on Cosa in the late 1940’s. Much of his research and publicized work is about Cosa stretching from his

1940’s excavations until his passing in the 1988. Excavation and analysis of these residences pinpoint the destruction to between 72 and 71 B.C.7 Concerning the exact date for Cosa’s first destruction, this window of time has been determined by Brown to be between 70 and 60’s B.C.

By asserting this destruction was caused by pirates, and in connection with archaeological data of abandonment and layers of carbon indicating a city-wide burning, the window of possibility for Cosa’s destruction can be focused down to between 72 and 67 B.C. Regarding the upper

5 A M MC J B EK G JP O EL W The Roman Port and Fishery of Cosa: a Center of Ancient Trade -63 6 Frank Edward B E H R L R C III T B F C Municipium, and Village", 1993, pg. 186, 189. 7 Grose, David Frederick, R. T. Scott, Jennifer Price, Katherine A. Larson, and John Huffstot. "The Hellenistic, Roman, M G C 4

parameter of 72 B.C., Brown’s “Cosa: The Making of a Roman Town” mentions carbon-dating analysis of the carbon layers, specifically of a residential house near the Forum, which dates to

72 B.C.8 As for the lower parameter, 67. B.C., both Roman historian Livy in his History of

Rome, and Dr. McCann in her “The Roman Port and Fishery of Cosa” mention that in 67 B.C.

Pompey led an incursion into the province of Cilicia in southern Anatolia.9 He defeated many

Cilician forces in his campaign and purged many pirate strongholds in the process.10 This purging wiped out most pirate havens and ports of origin. After this, Livy records a notable decrease in pirate activity throughout the Mediterranean as a direct consequence of Pompey’s actions. Therefore, 67 B.C would have to be the deadline parameter for when Cosa was destroyed by pirates.

In conjunction with written documents by ancient historians Plutarch and Livy, the presence of unchecked maritime rogues known as Cilician pirates presents a highly plausible cause for this destruction via sacking. It is unlikely that Cosa experienced seismic activity during the Roman Republic.11 Such seismic activity in A.D. 51 was documented when excavating

Portus Cosanus, coinciding with evidence found by Brown.12 Yet the port was not abandoned as was the town, so seismic activity being the leading cause appears unlikely. Civil unrest as a direct consequence of Lucius Cornelius Sulla’s dictatorship following an Italian “Social War” most likely affected the stability of Cosa’s region. Moreover, Cosa’s destruction can be linked to a pirate sacking through literary and contextual analysis of Plutarch and Livy accounts of an

8 David Grose, R. T. Scott, Jennifer P., Katherine L., John H., "The Hellenistic, Roman, and Medieval Glass from C 9 Nigel Pollard, R E 2016, pp. 16-17 10 Plutarch, Life of Pompey, Section 45 11 Maria Teresa Marabini M Cosa: The Italian Sigillata 12 David Grose, R. T. Scott, Jennifer P., Katherine L., John H., "The Hellenistic, Roman, and Medieval Glass from C 5 increase in pirate activity throughout the Tyrrhenian and Ligurian seas during the early 1st century B.C. This thereby strengthens the claim and makes it more plausible that pirates were to blame.

Politically, the climate of the 1st century B.C. paved the way for the rise of pirate menaces. The discussion and analysis of civil and political strife after the reign of Sulla shall provide further support for Cilician piracy and its connection to Portus Cosanus’ survival. The term “survival” is applied to the significance of Portus Cosanus’ exclusion from almost total destruction between 70-60 B.C. Subsequent to that time, the port did not continue to prosper as it once had throughout the previous century, i.e. the 2nd century B.C.13 The port encountered multiple economic disruptions originating from the city of Rome itself via the Sestii family.

Politics of the mid-1st century attributed to the wavering stability of Portus Cosanus, which accentuated the instability of the region on account of Cosa’s ruin.

Historical Overview of Cosa and Portus Cosanus

Prior to the First Punic War, the Romans interchanged their fighting between the

Samnites, Latins, and Etruscans.14 The Latin colonies to the south of Rome had either pledged fidelity or were conquered circa 340 B.C., establishing Roman control over the region of Latium.

Five decades later, Rome’s conflict with the Samnite tribes came to an end in the 290’s B.C.15

Only a decade later did Rome conquer Etruria, in which a swift trade deal followed, accompanied by the acquisition of confiscated Etruscan land in the southernmost province of

13 Ann M. McCann, J. Bourgeois, E.K. Gazda, J.P. Oleson, and E.L. Will. The Roman Port and Fishery of Cosa: a Center of Ancient Trade, 1987, pg. 171 14 H. H. Scullard, A History of the Roman World: 753 to 146 BC pg 26 15 Ibid 6

Tuscany16, which is now modern-day Ansedonia. This region would become the colony of Cosa and Portus Cosanus, later administrated by the governor of Tarentum, modern-day Taranto, Titus

Q. Flamininus during the turn of the 2nd century B.C.

“[Flamminius] won a good name, no less for his administration of justice than for his

conduct in the field. For this reason he was also chosen director-inchief of the

colonists sent out to the two cities of Narnia and Cosa.”

–Plutarch, Life of Titus Flamininus, Section 1

This new Tuscan land provided the city-state with an opportunity to create a colony and new port town for future economic and political endeavors.17 Rome’s expansion heralded the coming of a new power in the Mediterranean, along with an ever-growing population throughout her borders. Expansion has its benefits, and with expansion comes a tide of subjugated and assimilated peoples. Such increases in population placed pressure on food resources and stockpiles.18 The city of Rome relied on food imports to sustain and feed its population, however such imports were not enough to provide an ample cushion in times of crop famines. Expansion and acquisition of new territory for the development of farmland opened up the opportunity for colonization.

In such expansions, Rome had to maintain some sort of authority over her newly acquired cities, with laws and policies to accompany their subjugation. The colony of Cosa was established as a “Colony of Latin Law” whereby citizens of a “Latin colony” would experience an in-between civil status.19 Not having full Roman citizenship, yet not categorized as a non-

16 Frank Edward Brown, C M R T, 1980, pg. 5-6 17 Frank Edward Brown, C M R T, 1980, pg. 6 18 H. H. Scullard, A History of the Roman World: 753 to 146 BC pg 51 19 Frank Frost A A History and Description R P I -61 7 citizen, Latin colonies were given more rights under the law. Due to their far away stature they could not experience full legal Roman privilege.20 Such is the case with Cosa, for the city and port were founded by Roman citizens, but its distance from Rome presented difficulty for the use of full-fledged Roman legal rights and “Colony of Roman Law” classification. Civil rights such as trade with Rome’s denizens, marriage, and court appeals to Rome’s magistrates were allowed for citizens of Latin colonies, but the full privileges of Roman citizenship were left unfulfilled.21

However, the acquisition of Etruscan colonial farmland was not the sole cause for Cosa’s establishment. Rome and her holdings have previously been threatened by invading Gauls from the north, along with the presence of the Kingdom of Etruria. New colonies bearing the title

“Latin colony” were usually created in the process of securing a region and fortifying its people, resources, and travel routes.22 In such categorizations Cosa stood out among its peers as an essential maritime asset for travel and trade in the Tyrrhenian Sea. Mentions of Cosa as such an asset come primarily from ancient writers such as Plutarch in his “Life of Flamininus”, Suetonius in his “Life of Vespasian”, Sallust in his “The Histories”, and Livy in his “History of Rome”.

“Though so many generations have passed away, their names ought not to be

passed over in silence... on the Tyrrhenian Sea: Pontia, Paestum, Cosa… these

were the colonies by whose aid and succor the dominion of Rome was upheld…”

--Livy, History of Rome, “Scipio in Spain”23

Understanding that Rome required further food resource income to sustain its growing capital population, a larger factor concerning security could be deemed more of a priority. The

20 Frank F A A History and Description R P I

21 Frank Frost A A History and Description R P I -61 22 Nicholas K. Rauh, Merchants, Sailors and Pirates in the Roman World, 2007, pg. 205206. 23 Livy, History of Rome, Scipio in Spain, Book 27, Section 10. 8

conquering of the Latin tribes relieved and bolstered the security of Rome’s immediate neighborhood, which allowed the Senate to direct attention elsewhere, i.e. Carthage and the threat of northern invaders such as the Gauls.24 The establishment of Cosa addressed both of these concerns—not only did it allow the development of more farmland, but also the creation of a secure and fortified port town. Such an asset gave Rome a new potential shipyard and middle point between Ostia and the northern coastline of the Tyrrhenian Sea.25 New shipyards meant increased naval production, a factor that Rome severely lacked when compared to its rival,

Carthage.26

Shortly after the establishment of Cosa, Portus Cosanus was completed—it is theorized that construction of both sites overlapped each other, however more resources were allocated to accommodate the construction quotas and needs of Cosa before Portus Cosanus.27 This inevitably led to the increase in time required to complete work on the port, thereby making the town, Cosa, technically an “earlier” site than Portus Cosanus. After work was done with the sister sites, the First Punic War occurred in 264 B.C. between Rome and Carthage. The involvement of Cosa is uncertain, however the strategic positioning of Cosa and its port cannot be overlooked. Initially, Rome and Carthage battled for control over the island of Sicily. The end result was a Roman victory, with Carthage ceding Sicily to Rome. However, a mercenary rebellion gave issues to Carthage, who (ironically) called upon Rome for assistance—but at a cost. Rome agreed to help against the rebelling mercenaries, but with another ceding of

Carthaginian territory: Corsica. In relation to the two sister sites, Cosa and Portus Cosanus, the

24 H. H. Scullard, A History of the Roman World: 753 to 146 BC pg 113 25 Ann M. McCann, J. Bourgeois, E.K. G JP O EL W The Roman Port and Fishery of Cosa: a Center of Ancient Trade -162. 26 Dexter Hoyos T R N pg. 236. 27 Frank E. Brown, Cosa, the Making of a Roman Town, 1980, pg. 51. 9 island of Corsica is directly west of this colony. (See figure 1) The establishment of a nearby port closer than Ostia, i.e. Portus Cosanus, logically created an additional port of entry for travel and trade with Corsica.

Five decades later, the Hannibalic War ensues in 218 B.C.28 This time, Cosa and Portus

Cosanus experienced the war closer to Roman soil than the First Punic war. Fortunately for

Cosa, Hannibal traveled well north of the settlement, near Trasimene in central Italy.29

Figure 1 G M S W J M C Rome, Corsica, and Ostia.

According to Livy, when discussing Hannibal’s invasion of the Italian Peninsula and

Carthaginian naval presence in the Tyrrhenian Sea:

“Shortly afterwards a dispatch was handed in from the City, stating that some

transports which were carrying supplies for the army in Spain had been captured

28 H. H. Scullard, A History of the Roman World: 753 to 146 BC pg. 247. 29 Livy, History of Rome, F A D, Book 22, Section 4. 10

by the Carthaginian fleet near the port of Cosa.”

–Livy, History of Rome, “Fabius Appointed Dictator”, Book 22, Section 11

Cosa did not experience direct military intervention from either Rome or Carthage, yet its role fell into maritime use between 218 and 201 B.C. during the Second Punic War.30 After the interception and acquisition of Roman vessels destined for Scipio in Iberia, the consul drafted an army to embark and sail towards Cosa and protect the Italian coastline.

Following the Third and Final Punic war between 149 and 146 B.C., Cosa rose into a brief primacy, a golden age which was but a blink of an eye in the settlement’s life of hardships and stunted growth. Cosa’s prosperity would continue until its destruction between 72 and 67

B.C. During this short golden age, traffic into Portus Cosanus doubled along with the fortification and expansion of barracks, storage houses, contemporary fish tanks, and establishment of a breakwater wall.31 The destruction of Cosa between 72-67 B.C. most likely left a sour taste for the Senate and Roman people. Left in ashes, it was until Augustus Caesar’s rule that he ordered the rebuilding and recolonizing of Cosa.32 After Augustus’ rule, Cosa and

Portus Cosanus stagnated in trade and growth, fading away in necessity and no longer seen as a focal point for midway transits between Ostia and Arelate (modern-day Marseille) or Spain (for longer voyages).33 The Roman historian Suetonius mentions Cosa very briefly in his Life of

Vespasian as this future emperor’s childhood home. Even during Vespasian’s rule in A.D. 69 to

79, he often visited Cosa.

30 Ann M. McCann, J. Bourgeois, E.K. Gazda, J.P. Oleson, and E.L. Will. The Roman Port and Fishery of Cosa: a Center of Ancient Trade, 1987, pg. 23 31 Ann M. McCann, J. Bourgeois, E.K. Gazda, J.P. Oleson, and E.L. Will. The Roman Port and Fishery of Cosa: a Center of Ancient Trade, 1987, pg. 22-23 32 Brown, Frank E., Richardson E. H. and Richardson, L. jr. "Cosa I, History and Topography", 1951, pg. 20. 33 MC B G O W The Roman Port and Fishery of Cosa: a Center of Ancient Trade pg. 179 11

“[Vespasian] was brought up under the care of his paternal grandmother

Tertulla on her estates at Cosa. Therefore even after he became emperor

he used constantly to visit the home of his infancy, where the manor house

was kept in its original condition…”

–Suetonius, Life of Vespasian.

Although Suetonius mentions Cosa briefly, this source provides evidence for Cosa’s cultural relevancy in Rome’s early Imperial years. Contextually, Vespasian reigned between

A.D. 69 and A.D. and purportedly visited Cosa for his own nostalgia. This indicates the lack of growth, development, or change that Cosa could have undergone since Vespasian’s childhood in the 20’s A.D., i.e. “… where the manor house was kept in its original condition…”

The last historical account of Cosa comes from the early 5th century A.D. A Roman citizen and poet by the name of Rutilius C. Namatianus decided to visit the town of Cosa while traveling north from Rome.34 Namatianus found the town and port in ruin, likely forgotten by the declining Imperial government. The poet reported the town and port’s populace were non- existent with habitation mostly limited to rats and vermin.35 This suggests a plague, be it vermin or that of a pre-bubonic plague, may have been responsible for an earlier degradation and slow desertion of the area. Recent Cosa archaeological excavation evidence, however, indicates life did exist in some capacity during the town’s declination in the 5th and 6th centuries.36 Still useful geographically for travelers, these findings indicate Cosa’s final demise was painful and lengthy.

34 University of Chicago, Introduction to Rutilius Namatianus “ 35 University of Chicago, Rutilius Namatianus “ 36 Ibid 12

Archaeology of Cosa and Portus Cosanus

Cosa first began to experience excavations by Dr. Frank E. Brown in the early 20th century, between 1948 and 1954 with a brief respite, and continued excavations in Portus

Cosanus between 1965 and 1972. Such excavations were led and overseen by the American

Academy in Rome, with Brown as the lead director and archaeologist for the town of Cosa, and Anna Marguerite

McCann as the lead underwater archaeologist for Portus Cosanus.

During the later years of the excavations in Ansedonia, a split occurred between

Dr. McCann and Dr. Brown via Figure 2. Pictured: William Jakeman (Right) and Chandler Houghtalin (Left) workplace and partnership tensions. about to commence first of two dives in the waters of Portus Cosanus.

This schism led to differing treatments of the port and town excavations, inevitably classifying them as different “sister sites”. Because of this, publications and permit treatments separate the inclusiveness of combined archaeological efforts in uncovering Cosa and Portus Cosanus’ secrets. However, despite this inconvenience, progress and discovery have not ceased or slowed publications and or expeditions. In the summer of 2018 during the 2018 Cosa Excavations led by

Florida State University and Dr. Andrea De Giorgi, Dr. De Giorgi assisted in the scouting of the sea floor of Portus Cosanus with the help of two divers and excavation team members, William

C. Jakeman and Chandler Houghtalin. (See figure 2). 13

Archaeology of Portus Cosanus was treated and classified separately from the town.

McCann proceeded to excavate the sea floor with barges, pumps, and underwater vacuums to suck up the sand.37 During her excavations, she uncovered Portus Cosanus’ breakwater wall, five pier foundations, breakwater extensions, a springhouse, quarry, and multiple fish and amphora manufacturing centers. (See Figure 3)38

Dr. McCann categorized Portus Cosanus into an

“Old Port” and “New Port”.39 The natural coastline is identified as the “Old Port”, where Figure 3. Picture scanned and taken from McCann's fishing fleets and vessels would be built, stationed, Roman Port and Fishery of Cosa. Figure VII-9 Index. Plan of Portus Cosanus during the late second and early first centuries B.C. and moored.40 Protecting the “Old Port” was a large artificial breakwater wall of stone and concrete, multiple piers for mooring, and breakwater extensions. Such harbor constructions have been sampled and analyzed in the past decade to determine Figure 4. Scanned from McCann's "Roman Port and Fishery of Cosa". Sketching is by Claude Perrault (A.D. 1673) depicting the proposed process of creating underwater port structures, such as the breakwater wall and piers at Portus Cosanus.

37 Ann M. McCann, J. Bourgeois, E.K. Gazda, J.P. Oleson, and E.L. Will. The Roman Port and Fishery of Cosa: a Center of Ancient Trade, 1987, pg. 72 38 Ann M., Plan of Portus Cosanus during late 2nd BC F I VII-9. 39 McCann, Bourgeois, Gazda, Oleson, Will. The Roman Port and Fishery of Cosa: a Center of Ancient Trade, 1987, pg. 22-23 40 MC B G O W The Roman Port and Fishery of Cosa: a Center of Ancient Trade pg. 63-71 14

Roman concrete’s composition and secret for longevity. A few conclusions have been made, with sea water (See figure 4)41 theorized to be the primary catalyst for strengthening Roman concrete’s molecular crystalline structure.42 In these samples from structures such as Piers 1-2 and the breakwater wall, data concluded that these emplacements were constructed between the late 2nd century and early 1st century B.C., coinciding with the economic boom Portus Cosanus encountered.43 The “New Port” is a natural lagoon some 150m from the beach, as well as artificial canals widened and dug to increase efficiency and expand fish farms.

Prior to Cosa’s first destruction between 72-67 B.C., the settlement and port encountered a “golden age” of trade and prosperity44, despite social and civil conflict running rampant in Italy since the Punic

Wars. Productivity of the port boomed in the early 1st century

B.C., heralding a new maritime hub for trade and traffic alongside Figure 5. Scanned and taken from Dr. McCann's "The Roman Port and Fishery of Ostia.45 Archaeological evidence Cosa". Picture depicts the distribution of verified Sestius stamped goods originating from Cosa. Pg. 179.

41 Claude. P, L D L DA D V C E T N E F A D N E D F 42 M N T B A M C C 130-133 43 Ann M. McCann J B EK G JP O EL W The Roman Port and Fishery of Cosa: a Center of Ancient Trade -172 44 Ibid 45 Ibid 15 of this boom covers a wide variety of shipping amphorae, pithoi, wine jars, and stamped ceramics of Greco-Italic origin.46 The elimination of potential rivals, such as the Etruscans,

Latins, Italians, and Carthaginians, most likely allowed Cosa to postpone defense priorities and focused primarily on maritime and caravan trade. The Iberian sea route, a route traveled and known prior to Cosa’s conception, brought many merchants and business ventures to Cosa and

Portus Cosanus.47 Such wealth came from Rome via Ostia and from frontier sites such as Arelate

(Marseille) and Barcino in northeast Spain.48 (See figure 5)49 A consequence of this change in civil policy led to increased traffic, both maritime and land-based, which brought more business and demand for trade goods to Cosa and Portus Cosanus as seen via the dispersion of Sestii artifacts in figure 5. Such transactions increased the production of pottery, staple granary, oils, and wine. “The wealth that built the more prosperous farms of Cosa came… from [exports] of cereals, livestock and its products: oil and wine.”50 Many of these stamps have the insignia of the

Sestii family, a group of patricians originating in Rome. “The abundance of Sestius amphorae fragments suggest that the port of Cosa was likely the center of manufacturing and distribution of these jars, which firmly places Cosa as a key trading center during the late Republic.”51 Evidence of Sestius activity in and around Cosa is identified by two factors: a villa uncovered in the

1950’s near Cosa was identified by Dr. Brown to belong to the Sestii family.52 The second factor is evidence of a ceramic/amphorae factory at both the port and town of Cosa whose graffiti point

46 A M MC J B EK G JP O EL W The Roman Port and Fishery of Cosa: a Center of Ancient Trade -179. 47 Ibid 48 Ibid 49 Anna M., Distribution of verified Sestius stamps originating from Cosa, 1979, pg. 179 50 Frank E. Brown, Cosa, the Making of a Roman Town 51 McCann, J. Bourgeois, E.K. Gazda, J.P O EL W The Roman Port and Fishery of Cosa: a Center of Ancient Trade 52 MC B G O W The Roman Port and Fishery of Cosa: a Center of Ancient Trade pg. 179 16 to the Sestii as the proprietors.53 Such evidence goes as far back to the mid-2nd century B.C. during the early years of the port and town, and continues at the port between Cosa’s destruction and Augustus’ recolonization.

Under Rome’s newly reformed government headed by Augustus Caesar, recolonization of Cosa went underway with a fresh supply of Roman colonists to rebuild and repopulate the area. Up to this recolonization there is evidence of stamped pottery shards throughout the

Ligurian and Balearic coastlines, further proving that Portus Cosanus survived Cosa’s destruction. (See figure 5).54 As Cosa was being repopulated, architectural renovations and fortifications ensued—increasing the integrity of Cosa’s walls and towers. Renovation of Portus

Cosanus received little attention—this is evident based on the lack of descriptions by ancient historians concerning Portus Cosanus. Yet the need and importance of this midway port to the north faltered, and inevitably became obsolete. However, neither Cosa nor Portus Cosanus would experience the productive yet brief growth of trade and prosperity as it had prior to ~70

B.C.

After Cosa’s first destruction in the early 1st century B.C., production in Portus Cosanus did not cease. This continuation presents a “disconnect”, for activity appeared to persist at the port even though the town laid in ruins.55 Of course, there is enough evidence to indicate a drop in efficiency and production, but nevertheless ceramic production did not cease immediately after Cosa’s destruction.56 Such archaeological evidence is congruent with ancient historical

53 McCann, Bourgeois, Gazda, O W The Roman Port and Fishery of Cosa: a Center of Ancient Trade 1987, pg. 173-174 54 MC B G O W The Roman Port and Fishery of Cosa: a Center of Ancient Trade pg. 179 55 Ann M. McCann, J. Bourgeois, E.K G JP O EL W The Roman Port and Fishery of Cosa: a Center of Ancient Trade 56 Ibid 17 evidence that Portus Cosanus persisted in its activities and existence despite its sister site torn to ruin.57 In addition, the notion that an earthquake caused this destruction cannot be sufficiently supported.

Cosa’s second destruction in A.D. 51 has archaeoseismological evidence from Cosa’s fortifications and groundwork surveys which correlate with Dr. McCann’s excavations of Portus

Cosanus and the layer of ocean floor sediment of the same time period.58 Therefore, earthquakes which affect Cosa indirectly impact Portus Cosanus by the resulting tsunami.

Cosa and Portus Cosanus were left relatively unscathed for the following Imperial period, and it was a slow and hidden degradation into eventual abandonment. Shipping routes of Rome’s

Imperial period bypassed the need for coastal travel and cut through the Strait of Bonifacio between Corsica and Sardinia.59 In addition, trade in the Tyrrhenian Sea moved more south and westward on account of Egypt’s grain exports and Spain’s silver exports. Any allure to sea travel in the northern Tyrrhenian Sea fell, and such old sea routes would eventually become obsolete.

Roman Politics, Coups, and Civil Strife

Following the Punic Wars with Carthage, Rome expanded its’s outreach and acquisition of new provinces such as Sicily, Corsica, Sardinia, eastern and southern Spain, and finally North

Africa (Carthage). Foreign policies changed, and with such changes so did society’s integrity.

57 A M MC J B EK G JP O EL W The Roman Port and Fishery of Cosa: a Center of Ancient Trade -29. 58 A M MC J B EK G JP O EL W The Roman Port and Fishery of Cosa: a Center of Ancient Trade 59 MC J B EK G JP O EL W The Roman Port and Fishery of Cosa: a Center of Ancient Trade 18

The Italian peninsula has been largely subjugated by Rome and under Roman jurisdiction by the end of the 2nd century B.C.

Leading into the 1st century B.C., Rome birthed and housed many exceptional leaders and spokesmen. These great men were relatively “contained” within Rome’s social and legal system due to the nature of Rome’s government and laws, such as the Twelve Tables.60 A century and a half after Cosa’s founding, Rome encountered its first of three “Slave Wars”, dating to 135 B.C. and ending in 132 B.C. This first “Servile War’, as well as the second, were waged on the island of Sicily. The first war was instigated and led by two individuals: a Syrian and former slave,

Eunus, and a Cilician acting as Eunus’ military commander, Cleon. It was quickly suppressed by a large Roman army sent by the Senate and led by the current consul of that year, Publius

Rupilius.61

In the midst of this slave war back at Rome, Tiberius Gracchus attempted to introduce a bill which would reduce the amount of land patricians could own, thereby giving the plebian masses more representation through land usage. It was during Gracchus’ era that Rome slipped back into an elitist society reminiscent of Rome’s monarchial days.62 An increase in land ownership dominated by the patrician class of Rome left little land for the greater plebian populace to use, improve, and farm. Tiberius Gracchus was soon murdered during his first term in office as tribunus plebis by the Senate, and when his brother Gaius Gracchus attempted to finish and expand what Tiberius started he too was murdered by a mob instigated by the Senate.

All land reforms the Gracchus brothers passed were repealed by the aristocracy and patrician

60 Frank Frost Abbott, A History and Description R P I 1901, pp. 24 61 W. G. G. Forrest, T. C. W. Stinton, and Peter Green, "The First Sicilian Slave War 1962, pg. 88 62 Ap C W B “ 19 majority in the Senate. These repeals led to an increase in unemployment and poverty throughout the plebian class.63

Two decades later, the second of three slave wars occurred between 104-101 B.C., yet again on Sicily. After which in 91-88 B.C., a “Social War” ensued between Rome and her Italian allies, taking place only nine years after the Second Slave war. This “Social War” tore at the beams of trust supporting the integrity of Rome’s immediate neighborhood.64 Involving the expansion of various Italian cities to be counted equal in representation under Roman laws. The

Picentes, a group located on the northern Adriatic coast, were excluded from this opportunity for citizenship. Revolt instigated war between the Roman Republic and her long-standing Italian allies, lasting three years. Rome, although victorious, conceded to the demands of a few Italian cities to prevent the war from continuing.65

One century’s worth of political turmoil and internal strife wracked the Italian peninsula, birthing many exceptional great leaders and politicians in the process. Two figures, among many, born in the mid-late 2nd century include Gaius Marius and Lucius Cornelius Sulla. Marius, a political outsider compared to most of his peers, campaigned against Sulla, a patrician with a well-established lineage of political aristocracy. Politics in Rome had accentuated the class divide between patricians and plebeians, in addition to the disillusionment of the Italian countryside in accordance to Roman law and increase in rights fought during the “Social War”.66

Sulla was elected consul in 88 B.C., much to the dismay of Marius who rallied a “recall” of

Sulla’s command in the Senate, which prompted violence upon the Senate floor and spread to the

63 A C W B “ 64 A T H T C W B “ 34-35 65 A T H T C W B “ 35 66 H. H. Scullard, A History of the Roman World: 753 to 146 BC 20

Forum. Sulla fled Rome and gathered his supporters and veterans, and marched on the city. After driving Marius out, Sulla proceeded to pass reforms and laws targeting dissenters, political opponents, and Marius’ supporters. This was Rome’s first civil war, in which a second war happened shortly after Marius’ eviction, which resulted in another victory for Sulla. It was this second victory which established Sulla as Dictator, and during his terms in office he enacted multiple exiles, political assassinations, “proscription” lists for people he disliked and/or offended him, and passed laws in favor of his style of ruling.67 This “reign of terror” set the stage for the next few decades of civil strife and internal conflict. This inevitably created bureaucratic inefficiencies that impacted the regional security of southern Etruria such as Cosa and Portus

Cosanus, opening up that territory to raids and disruption of civil activities.

Post-Sulla, Rome was cracking at the seams. Her century-old laws no longer held sway over many of the great men to rise to prominence in the late and mid-1st century B.C. Truly.

Sulla and Marius during their civil war seemed to treat Rome’s laws as mere guidelines. Such laws appeared too “restrictive” to the aspirations Sulla and Marius. Heightened civil unrest from

Sulla’s reign led to changes in Rome’s constitutional framework.68 These changes led to the strengthened political presence and power of Rome’s equestrian class, further dividing and widening the gap between the aristocracy and plebian classes, and ultimately undermining a core value of Rome’s Republic, libertas or “individual liberty”.69 It is plausible that the political and legal legacy left by Lucius Cornelius Sulla and Gaius Marius tilled the political field for a new breed of men to rise to stardom. Figures such as Pompey, Crassus, Catiline, Cato the Younger, and Caesar would transform Rome at her core.

67 A T H T C W B “ 68 Frank Frost Abbott, A History and Description R P I 1901, pp. 60-66. 69 Ibid 21

But before these figures can achieve legendary status among Rome’s citizens, one more slave uprising will occur, and it will live on in infamy. The Third Servile War, or Spartacus’

Revolt, occurred on the Italian peninsula this time at a gladiatorial school near Capua. What initially was condemned to be a nuisance of bandit- like demeanor soon turned into a widespread fear for Rome’s denizens—a fear reminiscent of

Hannibal in the Second Punic War.70 After multiple victories led by Spartacus along with the increase of his army he became a notable power and source for attention on the Italian peninsula. Any coverage of the Mithridatic War happening in the Near East Figure 6. Taken from Wikipedia Commons, public domain for academic and educational diagrams. would have quickly switched to Spartacus and the Pictured is the theoretical paths, according to Plutarch, of Crassus and Spartacus' armies in early immediate threat to Rome. After Rome’s praetor 71 B.C. had been defeated and his legion routed by Spartacus, the Senate called forth the capabilities of any who were willing to take up the gauntlet. Crassus, a politician of noteworthy claim and public status, accepted praetorship and chased after Spartacus.71 (See figure 6)72 Those who would follow in the eve of the war’s end were Pompey and Lucullus. All eyes turned to the south to observe history in the making.73 Would the clever tactician Spartacus somehow defeat each army individually, as he did in previous years of the war? Or would this slave menace finally be crushed and peace would be restored to the peninsula? So many assets and “Roman celebrities”

70 Hunt, Peter. A G R “ . 71 P L C “ 72 Anonymous, Events of early 71 BC, 2014, Web Picture. 73 Livy, History of Rome, Preface to the Hannibalic War, Book 22, Section 11 22 were present in southern Italy that if something were to happen in the north, such as a settlement sacking or local tragedy, it would pale in comparison to the potential clash of the four armies.

Transgressions against Rome’s constitutional foundations affected the whole of Rome, and the state had become tied up with bureaucratic red tape as a result. Much of the Italian countryside, as a result of the Social War and Sulla’s dictatorship, situated the populace as paupers with little land to own. Economically the sister sites were not heavily affected by civil unrest throughout the Italian countryside.74 Cosa and Portus Cosanus’ fates were excluded from this poverty crisis primarily through their export-to-import ratio.75 Despite their leverage, a corrupt and fragmented bureaucracy can supersede such advantages by disabling the efficiency of one key factor in maintaining security of one’s civilization: communication. There is little mention of Cosa during the decade-long window between 70-60 B.C., despite this era of Roman history being one of the most well documented period by ancient historians. Events such as

Spartacus’ Slave Revolt, Mithridatic War, Pompey’s incursion into Anatolia, and the Catilinarian

Conspiracy were heavily discussed and documented… yet the destruction of one of Rome’s oldest colonies and maritime assets garnered little attention.

The political upheavals of early 1st century B.C. Rome are not the leading cause of

Cosa’s destruction. However, the politics of this century are a leading contributor to the town’s destruction. The lack of protection Cosa received during and immediately after its demise and the lack of attention contributed to Cosa’s vulnerability to attack and inability for relief communication. This was due, in part, to most of Rome’s bureaucracy in shambles due to the legacies left behind by the Social War and Sulla’s two civil wars with Marius. The Cilicians

74 F E B C T M R T 75 Ann M MC J B EK G JP O EL W The Roman Port and Fishery of Cosa: a Center of Ancient Trade 23 concluded with this logic, and circled their way to Cosa via travel to Corsica and then straight east to Cosa and Portus Cosanus. Plutarch admits to the increase of pirate activity on account of

Rome’s fracturing internal politics:

“Then, while the Romans were embroiled in civil wars at the gates of Rome,

the sea was left unguarded, and gradually drew and enticed them on until

they no longer attacked navigators only, but also laid waste islands and maritime

cities.”

–Plutarch, Life of Pompey, Section 24

Therefore, with Plutarch as a defining primary source in this context, political instability seen through the bureaucratic inefficiencies at the time made any policing difficult to uphold and sustain. For opportunists expanding their horizons and influence, any crack or hole in a nation’s security was enough to manifest an infection of sea-borne criminal activities and make way for an infestation.

Ancient Piracy and the Cilician Pirates:

The history of such a trade of brigands and sea thieves date back three thousand years.

One of the earliest documents of “piracy”, a clay tablet, was uncovered in Egypt dating to 1350

B.C. under the rule of Pharaoh Akhenaten.76 The descriptions of this clay tablet contain reports about raiding along the North African coast, most likely pertaining to the “Sea Peoples” of the

Bronze Age Aegean.

76 Edward F. Campbell, "The Amarna Letters and the Amarna Period.", 1960, pg. 5-12 24

Classification of ancient sea-faring brigands, such as the Cilicians, as “pirates” insinuates a similarity between classical and “Golden Age” pirates of the late 17th century. However, classical pirates do differ noticeably from New World Caribbean pirates. Such differences stem from the type of ethnic cohesion of groups of pirates, as well as how unsuitable a pirate’s homeland is. Pirate crews of the 17th century were ethnically diverse, with most crew members differing in nationalities.77 A pirate ship of this era sailing in the Atlantic, Ivory Coast, or

Caribbean, included men mainly of African or European descent.78 A motley crew comprised of

Englishmen, Spaniards, colonials, and slaves were the most common type of pirate crew.79 By contrast, “pirates” of classical Mediterranean antiquity sailed the sea as a crew of one common ethnic and cultural origin, i.e. Cilician or Illyrian. To summarize, 17th century pirates were cosmopolitan in nature, while classical pirates were homogenous.

What further deviates these two “pirate” classifications are the states of their homeland.

Due to the nature of Cilician lands, the coastline provided more support for agriculture, fishing, and suitable settlements. “Piracy” to the

Cilicians was as much of a trade to them as was fishing due to their southern location of Anatolia: Cilicia. (See figure

7)80 The harsh arid hills and mountains forced the Cilicians to depend on the sea Figure 7. Taken from "Wikipedia Commons", a public domain for survival. Agriculture was not as educational media library. Picture depicts Roman provinces during the Imperial period of Rome. Highlighted in yellow is Cilicia.

77 Larry Schweikart, and B. R. Burg. "Stand By To Repel Historians: Modern Scholarship and Caribbean Pirates, 1650-1725", 1984, pg. 223-24 78 Ibid 79 Larry Schweikart, and B. R. Burg. "Stand By To Repel Historians: Modern Scholarship and Caribbean Pirates, 1650-1725", 1984, pg. 229 80 Renato F., Império Romano c. 117 AD, 2014, Web Picture, Wikipedia Commons Archives. 25

efficient in Cilicia’s rocky terrain, thus the practice and trade of sailing and fishing became a

Cilician’s heritage and future. Though their trade and heritage are fishermen, the hardships and inconsistent food supply throughout the year forced many men into the trade of raiders and brigands.81

The Cilician’s rise to naval prominence did not originate early in their years, however.

Much of what contained these fishermen were the Greeks and Egyptians boasting their maritime might over the course of a millennia.82 Yet these ancient empires were waning in power as the looming shadow of Rome slowly eclipsed them. By the dawn of the 2nd century B.C., Carthage had allocated much of its naval forces west in the Sardinian, Ligurian, and Tyrrhenian seas to fight against Rome.83 What lingered in the east was a broken Seleucid empire and self-absorbed

Ptolemaic Egypt. After the defeat and destruction of Carthage, Rome was the only superpower left in the Mediterranean. Much of Rome’s naval fleet during the Punic Wars were comprised primarily of merchant crews and hired vessels.84 Rome’s naval production was not equal to that of Carthage, and therefore relied more on maritime mercenaries than national production to compete. The destruction of Carthage and her navy created a vacuum, for Carthage sailed the sea without much competition.85 This absence of a maritime power signaled a new era for freedom and dominance throughout the Mediterranean for pirates.

Rome restricted her navies to the Tyrrhenian and Adriatic seas, sending scouting fleets to the Illyrian and Ligurian coastline to quell the Illyrians, for they contributed to the problem of piracy as well. Rome’s post-Punic War navy became more akin to the Coast Guard, patrolling

81 A. W. Gomme, Ancient Piracy, 1924, pg. 127-28. 82 A. W. Gomme, Ancient Piracy, 1924. 83 Christa Steinby, "War at Sea in the Second Punic War, 2004, pg. 78-82. 84 Philip De Souza. Rome's Contribution to the Development of Piracy, pg. 76-77. 85 De Souza, Rome's Contribution to the Development of Piracy, pg. 78 26 the Italian peninsula and protecting trade routes vital to Rome. The lack of naval outreach meant the eastern seas of the Mediterranean were not “policed” and were subject to the rise of warlord tribalism. Raiding groups slowly organized themselves and consolidated their forces throughout the Aegean and Levantine Sea.86 Discussed by Plutarch, much of the eastern seas was a piratical bastion that could only be cracked by a force large, brash, and intelligent such as Pompey and his legions:

“There were also fortified roadsteads and signal-stations for piratical craft in

many places, and fleets put in here which were not merely furnished for their

peculiar work with sturdy crews, skillful pilots, and light and speedy ships;”

–Plutarch, Life of Pompey, Section 24

Fleets of brigands and raiders surged in the late 2nd century B.C., and most coastal communities were forcibly made into pirate havens due to the lack of government support.87 The internal conflicts that plagued Rome, which were previously covered in this paper, would have logically assisted in the divide and conquering of militarist and bureaucratic attention in maintaining security for Republican settlements and colonies such as Cosa. As for the Hellenistic states in the east, the Seleucid Empire, their weak government could not effectively suppress this rise and succumbed to supporting the Cilician’s pirate activities88, giving them equivalents to

“letters of marks”. This effectively made willing participants privateers. Seleucia assisted in enabling and increase of piracy into the Mediterranean waters accordingly. Such similar policies

86 A. W. Gomme, Ancient Piracy, pg. 128. 87 Plutarch, Life of Pompey, Section 26. 88 Plutarch, Life of Pompey, Section 24 27 were replicated in the Mediterranean by the Ottoman Empire and how they funded and supported the Barbary Corsairs in the 17th and 18th centuries A.D.

“The power of the pirates had its seat in Cilicia at first… but it took on

confidence and boldness during the Mithridatic war, because it lent itself

to the king's service.”

–Plutarch, Life of Pompey, Section 24

Until Pompey’s incursion into Anatolia and subsequent purge of Cilicia, pirate havens exponentially grew throughout the Mediterranean. The east was fraught with danger as there were no policing nations to contain and battle the surge of brigands.89 These pirates had no

“natural predator” to cull their numbers, and so they rose and populated the sea, eventually spilling into the Western Mediterranean.90

“For, you see, the ships of the pirates numbered more than a thousand, and

the cities captured by them four hundred… they attacked and plundered

places of refuge and sanctuaries hitherto inviolate...”

–Plutarch, Life of Pompey, Section 24

Most pirates at this time were Cilicians and therefore became synonymous with pirata in

Roman culture. Due to Rome’s “isolation” policy concerning extensions of naval involvement to the Far East, the Cilicians pirate menace eventually came to Rome’s shores and seas.91 They

89 Plutarch, Life of Pompey, Section 24 90 Ibid 91 P L P “ 28

grew bolder in each approach, testing Rome’s naval defenses with hit-and-run tactics as mentioned by Plutarch:

“But they heaped most insults upon the Romans, even going up from the sea

along their roads and plundering there, and sacking the neighboring villas…”

--Plutarch, Life of Pompey, Section 24

There is a villa a few miles inland from Portus Cosanus that belonged to the Sestii family.

Although this family was primarily stationed in Rome, this villa acted as a home base for any family member that oversaw the production and exportation of their products in both Cosa and

Portus Cosanus. It is very plausible that this villa could be included in Plutarch’s account of pirate activity throughout the eastern seaboard, and by connection the sacking of Cosa and occupation of Portus Cosanus by a fleet of pirates.

Jumping forward to the early 1st century B.C., the Mediterranean is rife with piracy and corsairs from the east.92 A single generation’s worth of brigands rose up from the vacancy of a national maritime superpower to pillage and plunder as they saw the need. The year is 75 B.C., the eastern frontier of the Roman Republic has expanded across Greece and into western

Anatolia. A key figure in changing the course of Roman history is, himself, changing course back to Rome after a tarried visit to Bithynia—a northern province of Anatolia on the Black

Sea—to study oratory. Plutarch recounts a well told and well known story concerning Caesar which involved the Cilicians and the bureaucratic state of Anatolia in the early 70’s B.C.:

92 A. W. Gomm A P, 1925, pg. 131-32 29

“…and then, on his voyage back, [Caesar] was captured, near the island

Pharmacusa, by pirates, who already at that time controlled the sea with

large armaments and countless small vessels.”

–Plutarch, Life of Julius Caesar, Section 1

Caught and kidnapped in the Aegean, the well-known story of Julius Caesar and the pirates occurred. The identity of these pirates is revealed by Plutarch to be the Cilicians, who quartered and ransomed Caesar for 38 days.93 Plutarch presents a clear insight to the militaristic and political status of the Eastern Mediterranean during the early 1st century B.C. He describes these pirates, the Cilicians, and their ilk as maritime masters of the Aegean and Levantine Sea, all well-armed and in command of many fleets.94 After Caesar’s ransom was met, his release allowed him to gather some manpower and assembled a small fleet from the Greek city of

Miletus on Anatolia, whereupon he attacked his kidnappers and imprisoned most.95 Caesar then went to the governor of Asia and praetor, Marcus Junius, to see to the punishment of the Cilician prisoners. In their discussion, Caesar saw it fit for the praetor and governor of this region to make an example out of the pirates, and perhaps later deal with the province of Cilicia itself.

Mundane bureaucracy poured out of the praetor’s mouth, and extended the time in which it would take to examine the case of Caesar’s kidnapping and punishment of the Cilicians. Caesar then circumvented the governor’s orders, took his former captors, and proceeded to crucify them—keeping to his promise he made to the pirates during his captivity.96 After these events,

Caesar sailed back to Rome and then to Rhodes to study oratory.

93 Plutarch, Life of Julius Caesar, Section 2. 94 Ibid 95 Plutarch, Life of Julius Caesar “ . 96 Ibid. 30

Spartacus’ Cilician Pirates and Cosa

For three years a third slave war rampaged in southern Italy, eventually crushed by the praetor Crassus in 71 B.C. Before Spartacus’ final battle with Crassus, Spartacus met with

Cilician pirates near Nuceria (Bruttium) who were sailing along the coast of Calabria. (See figure

8). Spartacus was on his way south to the Strait of Messina when he came across these pirates anchored nearby.97 Spartacus wished to use their ships as means of transportation over to Sicily, and in return a hefty reward in gold and spoils. Spartacus paid these pirates for the safe transportation of him and his army across the Strait of Messina over to Sicily to reignite tensions of the previous slave war which occurred there.98 Although the pirates were paid, they betrayed

Spartacus and left him on the Calabrian beach, as told in a source by Plutarch:

“But the Cilicians, after coming to terms with him and receiving his gifts,

they deceived him and sailed away.”

—Plutarch, Life of Crassus, Section 10.99

Why they betrayed Spartacus is unknown—some scholars speculate the Cilicians were bribed by the Roman Senate, however there is no evidence to support this. Where exactly they sailed, and in which direction, is not clarified by any ancient source. However, it is most likely this fleet of Cilicians sailed northwest to the island of Corsica.

97 P L C “ 98 A T C W B “ -118 99 P L C “ 31

To reiterate, Cosa’s destruction is theorized to be between the years 70-60 B.C., a decade-wide window of possibility. The carbon-dated samples of

Cosa’s carbon layer date to ~72 B.C. 100, which coincides within the time frame of the Cilician pirates’ presence in the Tyrrhenian Sea after their documentation and interaction with Spartacus. In addition, Pompey’s incursion into Cilicia and subsequent purging of pirate havens and fortresses in 67 B.C. eliminated the source of the majority of Figure 8. John van Wielink map of Bruttium/Calabria, T D W pirate traffic.101 Therefore the destruction timeframe www.archeologiapetelina.it. Focus is on the city of Nuceria, where Spartacus was betrayed by the pirates and encircled by Crassus. can effectively be narrowed down to a five to six year window, between 72-67 B.C. By connecting Spartacus’ Cilician pirates to the “pirate sacking” theory of Cosa’s destruction, my assertion is that this destruction occurred in the later months of the year 71 B.C.

Now to ask the question: why Cosa? What prompted these Cilician pirates to sack this

Roman colony? Why travel northwest and near Rome, risking an attack from Rome’s navy and armies? There are four factors that can answer these three questions. The first factor addresses the relevance of the Tyrrhenian Sea to coastal raiders. As mentioned prior in this paper, the ancient historian Livy in his History of Rome mentions Cosa during the Hannibalic war. A trade fleet was heading to the eastern coast of Spain to give aid to Scipio Africanus when it was

100 David F. Grose, R. T. Scott, Jennifer Price, Katherine A. Larson, and John Huffstot, "The Hellenistic, Roman, and Medieval Glass from Cosa", 2017. 101 P L P “ 30. 32 intercepted and captured in the waters of

Portus Cosanus by a Carthaginian fleet.102 This information addresses the existence of a sea trade route going from

Italy, most likely Ostia, to the Iberian

Peninsula. Cosa and Portus Cosanus is a natural midway point between Ostia and the northern region of Italy, and therefore Spain, for coastal travel. An

Figure 9. Source: ORBIS, Stanford University. Picture shown depicts established harbor in this midway point sea trade routes of the Western Mediterranean during the early Imperial period ~180 A.D. Highlighted area notes the mentioned presents a maritime relief to traveling Iberian trade route. sailors on long voyages, and therefore received much traffic in the later years after the Punic

Wars.103 This traffic strengthens pre-existing trade routes, such as this Iberian trade route, and presented ample supply of merchant vessels to plunder—to which there are multiple accounts of piracy plaguing this sea route. (See figure 9)104

The second factor addresses the status of Cosa and Portus Cosanus during the years prior to ~70 B.C. Cosa’s economy was booming and exports were at an all-time high for the port.

Cereals, oil, and wine exports brought prosperity to the region, increasing the wealth and quality of Cosa as well as enabling the expansion of Portus Cosanus into the natural lagoon behind the port.105 This golden age of Cosa and Portus Cosanus flooded the region with trade goods and

102 Livy, F A D Book 22, Section 11 103 A M MC J B EK G JP O EL W The Roman Port and Fishery of Cosa: a Center of Ancient Trade 1-62 104 ORBIS, Stanford University, Sea Trade Routes of the Roman Empire c. 180 AD, 2019. Web Picture. 105 A M MC J B EK G JP O EL W The Roman Port and Fishery of Cosa: a Center of Ancient Trade 1987, pg. 36-37 33 money, to which most of this wealth is lost during its recolonization in the Imperial period.106

Plutarch has already set the tone for pirates of this era to be bold and relentless when it came to plundering. Cosa would be an excellent target for raiders in this light—and the prospects of superb wealth can overcome perceived risks.

The third factor addresses the status of Cosa’s region and Rome’s inability for military relief towards the end of the Third Slave war. Cosa, due to its classification as a Latin colony, received fewer benefits as did towns classified a town of “Roman law”. Legally, Cosa was labeled a Latin colony despite its inception and foundation almost entirely comprised of Roman citizens.107 Military aid could still be given, however the response time that Rome allowed was less than that of a town of “Roman law” entirely due to its distance from Rome. By combining this knowledge with the circumstances of 71 B.C., Rome sent out the majority of its legions under Crassus to fight Spartacus which opened up the north to raiding attacks. In addition to this,

Pompey arrived from his conquest in Spain to “assist” Crassus in the quelling of Spartacus’ slave army, and Lucullus arrived from Greece sent by the Senate to aid Pompey and Crassus in the endeavor.108 Southern Italy at this point contained Pompey’s legions, Crassus’ legions, and

Lucullus’ legions. By aiding Spartacus, the pirates would draw attention to their activities and fleet presence which would mean their death and demise. Sailing south to the supposed meeting point with Spartacus in the Strait of Messina risked the possibility of getting involved with four huge armies, one of which had its navy recently docked. The most reasonable course of action

106 David Grose, R. T. Scott, Jennifer P., Katherine L., John H., "The Hellenistic, Roman, and Medieval Glass from C 107 Frank Frost Abbott, A History and Description R P I 1901, pp. 64. 108 A The Ci W B “ 118. 34

would be to sail in the opposite direction, West by Northwest, of this potential “battle of the four armies”.

The fourth and final factor specifically addresses “why Cosa?” Southern Italy became a hotspot filled with Roman legions with the allocation of Pompey, Crassus, and Lucullus and their respective legions of ~40,000 men each.109 Consequentially, this opened up the north to the possibility of raiding, and Spartacus’ Cilician pirates most likely came with the same conclusion.

Hearing tales of Cosa’s prosperity and growth, the diversion of Spartacus gave the pirates enough of a window to slip in and sack the city. The lack of a military presence in the north would have boosted the boldness of the Cilicians to accomplish this task.

However, they could not attempt a forthright approach in such a scheme, for if they traveled along the Italian coast they would have passed Pompey and his army as well as Ostia, which would have heralded alarms and suspicion as to the pirate’s motives. If they traveled south to the Strait of Messina, Spartacus would have spotted their presence and logic would dictate their intended path be southward, perhaps back home to the Eastern Mediterranean or to

Northern Africa. At the same time, a fleet of legionaries led by Senate-appointed commander in the Third Mithridatic War, Marcus Terentius Lucullus, landed in Brundisium.110 Lucullus’ fleet had docked and were in intercept range of any hostile fleets in either the Adriatic or Ionian Sea.

If the Cilician pirates had no plans to sack Cosa or any town along the Tyrrhenian coastline, a voyage back east sailing south through the Strait of Messina would incur a possible chase by

Lucullus’ fleet. The allocation of four large armies and a fleet created a dominating presence,

109 A T C W B “ -118. 110 P L C “ . 35 one which the pirates could not compete with. The best course of action would have been to travel northwest to the islands of Sardinia and Corsica.

The inhabitants of Corsica were rebellious by nature, and had resisted subjugation and colonization by Greeks, Phoenicians, Carthaginians, and post-Punic Wars Rome.111 Corsican inhabitants, both inland and coastal, were staging revolts and rebellions throughout the interior of the island fighting against Roman rule.112 These civil revolts and disturbances were costly to

Rome’s treasuries and military containment, wasting Rome’s time and money.113 The reception of a one who held a common enemy with the

Corsican populace is highly plausible, and harboring enemies of Rome—for a LUCULLUS COSA price—heralded a new haven for piracy in the Tyrrhenian Sea. As stated prior in POMPEY this paper, Corsica in relation to the BRUNDISIUM settlement of Cosa and Portus Cosanus Meeting are topographically across from each w/SPARTACUS other, west-east. By eliminating the possibility of southern travel, Spartacus’

Cilician pirates had to sail northwest to avoid the conflict surrounding Magna Figure 10. Taken from www.geology.com. Picture depicts the regions and I D S C pirates circa 71 B.C. by William C Jakeman.

111 Ian B. Thompson, "Settlement and Conflict in Corsica", 1978, pg. 263-64. 112 Ian B. Thompson, "Settlement and Conflict in Corsica", 1978, pg. 264. 113 Ibid 36

Graecia and Calabria. Figure 10 depicts my proposed path for the pirates in their route from

Bruttium, to Corsica, and finally across to Cosa.

Demise of the Cilicians and Piracy in the Mediterranean

Pirate activity continued after the destruction of Cosa along with increased activity seen in the Tyrrhenian and Ligurian seas.114 The pirate menace had fully appeared at Rome’s front door, and finally between 68-67 B.C. attention had been given to this new threat.115 Pompey, who had by this point finished a campaign in Spain, destroyed a fleeing remnant of Spartacus’s army in 71 B.C. With Rome’s interior now secured from threats, at least for the moment,

Pompey directed his attention to the pirates that were eluding justice in Rome’s seas.116 Much of what follows is heavily documented by Plutarch in his “Life of Pompey”:

“Against these Pompey intended to proceed in person with his sixty best

ships. He did not, however, sail against them until he had entirely cleared

of their pirates the Tyrrhenian Sea, the Libyan Sea, and the sea about

Sardinia, Corsica, and Sicily, in forty days all told.”

–Plutarch, Life of Pompey, Section 26.

Pompey opened up a new campaign, made possible by Lucullus’ victories in the Third

Mithridatic War.117 His aim was to attempt to annihilate the source of these pirates and bring peace to the Mediterranean where the Roman navy could not. Knowing of Cilicia and the recognition of piracy as being synonymous with the Cilicians, Pompey marched east to Anatolia

114 N K R M “ and Pirates in the Roman World, 2007, 115 P L P “ 116 P L P “ 117 Ibid 37 where he would campaign to regain lost territories from revolts and incursions from native rebels.118 In 67 B.C. Pompey came into the region of Cilicia and laid siege to the numerous forts and emplacements which had grown over the last century. In each battle Pompey fought, he won against the pirates.119 The war soon became one-sided, and many Cilicians saw an irrefutable end to their pirate empire. Pompey was merciful, though, as droves of pirates either surrendered or were captured. His “purging” of Cilicia was more of a massive post-war relocation and recolonization project to restructure this new Roman frontier.

“…all the power of the pirates by sea and land which had been overthrown.

Among these peoples no less than a thousand strongholds had been captured,

according to the inscriptions, and cities not much under nine hundred in

number, besides eight hundred piratical ships, while thirty-nine cities had been

founded.”

--Plutarch, Life of Pompey, Section 45.

Vibrations or Vermin?

Pertaining to the destruction of the hill city of Cosa, the history and archaeology of the port, Portus Cosanus, can help in determining the true demise of the Roman colony. From Brown and McCann’s findings, three theories arose and gained support within the academic community.

This section will address the theories of earthquakes and plague (either disease or of vermin).

118 P L P “ 119 Ibid 38

The first to be addressed is the earthquake destruction theory.

This theory claims that the town of

Cosa between 70-60 B.C. suffered an earthquake.120 Such an event would have shook the foundations of

Cosa’s walls and buildings to the ground, thus killing the inhabitants and causing massive destruction and possible fires in the aftermath. This Figure 11. Taken from Wikipedia Commons, work by Swiss geologist Woudloper. Picture depicts the fault lines of the Alpine Mountains and theory is not entirely impossible, for Mediterranean Basin; picture cropped to focus the western Mediterranean. R C T F there are many examples of ancient societies and settlements leveled due to natural disasters such as earthquakes. This theory is instead implausible and largely fails to convince due to contradicting evidence from Portus Cosanus. The origin for this earthquake theory comes from

Cosa’s second destruction occurring in A.D. 51121 Archaeoseismological evidence indicates a sizable earthquake hitting the region, with data confirming these conclusions through the analysis of Cosa’s fortifications and seismic history.122 As seen in figure 10 (above) there are multiple fault lines surrounding the Italian peninsula due to the African plate pushing northward against the Iberian and Eurasian plates. There are two thrust faults in the Tyrrhenian Sea—one of which is under the island of Corsica, directly west and in close proximity to Cosa and Portus

120 Elizabeth Fentress, John Bodel, T. V. Buttrey, Stefano Camaiani, et al., "Cosa V: An Intermittent Town, Excavations 1991- 2003, pg. 49-55; Stephen L. Dyson, "The Excavations at Le Colonne and the Villa Culture of the Ager Cosanus", 2002, pg. 221-24. 121 Elizabeth Fentress, John Bodel, T. V. Buttrey, Stefano Camaiani, et al., "Cosa V: An Intermittent Town, Excavations 1991- 2003, pg. 49-55 122 Stephen L. Dyson, "The Excavations at Le Colonne and the Villa Culture of the Ager Cosanus", 2002, pg. 221-24. 39

Cosanus. A quick description of thrust vaults: these faults are generally considered to be the reverse of what most fault lines are. Normal fault lines create subduction zones where the oceanic crust slips beneath continental crust, and with thrust faults it’s the opposite.123 According to a 2017 research study by Dr. Gabuchian of the California Institute of Technology, thrust vaults violently split open and then immediately close during an earthquake. This abrupt movement are additional causes and creators of tsunamis.124

As stated prior, archaeoseismology date Cosa’s structural and fortification fractures to

A.D. 51. McCann’s excavations of Portus Cosanus uncovered storage houses, improved fishery farms, an amphorae manufacturing plant, and a vineyard under a large layer of oceanic sediment.125 This evidence indicates the port was destroyed by a large tsunami, thus the layer of sediment covering multiple buildings. Further research of this layer of sediment provided a time frame for when the port was covered, which coincides with the time period of Cosa’s earthquake in A.D. 51126 Relating this information back to Cosa’s first destruction, if there was an earthquake that occurred between 70-60 B.C., there would have to be evidence suggesting the possibility of seismic evidence to support a time frame that such an event occurred.127 Moreover, through Dr. McCann’s analysis of Portus Cosanus’ strata there would have been evidence of previous sedimentary layers and coverings. The absence of this data implicates that no tsunamis or earthquakes impacted Portus Cosanus prior to A.D. 51128 Therefore, if there was an

123 Vahe Gabuchian, E E T T E R M O F 2017. 336-339. 124 Ibid 125 A M MC J B EK G JP O EL W The Roman Port and Fishery of Cosa: a Center of Ancient Trade 126 Elizabeth Fentress, John Bodel, T. V. Buttrey, Stefano Camaiani, et al., "Cosa V: An Intermittent Town, Excavations 1991- 2003, pg. 49-55 127 Maria Teresa Marabini Moevs, "Cosa: The Italian Sigillata", 2003, pg. 23; 128 Grose, David Frederick, R. T. Scott, Jennifer Price, Katherine A. Larson, and John Huffstot. "The Hellenistic, R M G C 40 earthquake that occurred previously, there would be both seismic and sedimentary evidence entirely due to the fact that the nearby thrust fault under Corsica would have created a tsunami, like it did in 51 A.D. To conclude with these findings, an earthquake destruction theory is not entirely impossible due to evidence of it occurring albeit much earlier, however it can be rendered implausible due to insufficient evidence to account for both seismic and stratigraphic evidence.

Now to address the second of three destruction theories, vermin and plague. This theory claims that Cosa’s destruction between 70-60 B.C. was caused by an infestation of rats and rodents leading to a disease outbreak. Although some six centuries later, some academics believe the origin of this theory has roots in the descriptive ventures of the poet Rutilius in the early 5th century A.D., mentioned earlier in this paper. His descriptions of Cosa come from his De reditu suo, a story and collection of accounts he made while journeying from Rome to Gaul.129 The port was practically nonexistent and decayed, forcing Rutilius and his party to sail to Porto Ercole in the modern municipality of Monte Argentario.130 These descriptions paint an ugly and sad picture of the once important colony, and in fact are the last recordings and mention of Cosa until the early 20th century.

In 24 B.C., after Cosa’s reestablishment by Emperor Augustus, the town and port encountered many hardships and times of famine throughout the middle and late-Imperial Era of the Roman Empire, eventually becoming “deprived of its identity in the Middle Ages.”131 There were multiple periods of desertion from the town, and with each followed repopulation efforts to

129 University of Chicago, Introduction to Rutilius Namatianus “ 130 Ibid 131 Ann M. McCann, J. Bourgeoi EK G JP O EL W The Roman Port and Fishery of Cosa: a Center of Ancient Trade 41

revivify Cosa during Emperor Caracalla’s reign. The vermin destruction theory has enough ground to be considered for Cosa’s later decay, perhaps in tandem with the Antonine Plague of the 2nd century or the following Plague of Cyprian in the 3rd century. It is plausible that an infestation of vermin, bringing about a sickness, hit Cosa during the 3rd and 4th centuries A.D.

Rutilius, however, presents another approach to the reasoning of Cosa’s abandoned state of repair in addition to the vermin and mice infestation. From a more political perspective, the decay of coastal settlements were due to the invasions by the Ostrogoths and Visigoths and their disruption of road travel and maintenance.132 From a practical standpoint, the destructions of

Cosa can be attributed to these invasions. Cosa was cut off from its inland neighbors when the sea routes changed making Portus Cosanus’ significance more obsolete.133 By examining more of Rutilius’ descriptions of Cosa and further accounts of desertion and abandonment from ~80

B.C. and onward into Caracalla’s reign, it seems more and more likely that the Cosa’s immediate region encountered periods of extreme drought.

Yet it must be deemed implausible to account for Cosa’s first destruction in the early 1st century B.C. Cosa’s economy at this time was booming, with trade flowing into the port and export business surging and taking root within the town.134 The argument that vermin were the cause of Cosa’s first destruction flies in the face of contrary evidence concerning Cosa’s economic prominence at that time. An infestation of vermin presents the topic of disease and a pre-Justinian Plague outbreak during the Roman Republic. This would have literary and archaeological evidence pertaining to a decrease in production and efficiency throughout the

132 University of Chicago, Introduction to Rutilius Namatianus “ 133 Ann M. McCann, J. Bourgeois, E.K. Gazda, J.P. Oleson, and EL W The Roman Port and Fishery of Cosa: a Center of Ancient Trade 7-58. 134 A M MC J B EK G JP O EL W The Roman Port and Fishery of Cosa: a Center of Ancient Trade 42

town and port’s manufacture centers, to which there is none prior to ~70 B.C. In addition to this, the wealth accumulation through Cosa’s trade exports would incentivize the elimination of excessive vermin for the protection of crop fields from which Cosa’s economy stemmed from.

The first destruction of Cosa in 72-67 B.C. due to disease transfer to humanity, such as smallpox or measles is implausible. Implausible due to the state of repair, the economy, and lack of literary evidence for disease outbreaks occurring during the later Roman Republic. Carriers of disease causing plagues do not find a comfortable habitat in a tidy, orderly, and cleanly atmosphere of which Cosa was enjoying in 72-67 B.C.

Conclusion

Cilician pirates sacked and destroyed the Roman colony of Cosa sometime within the early 1st century B.C. In this destruction, activity did not entirely cease in Portus Cosanus, although production of goods did noticeably diminish. The Cilicians spared Portus Cosanus from annihilation due to the port’s convenient location in relation to nearby trade routes, as well as the sheltered nature of the port itself. When moored at the piers near shore, the artificial breakwater wall and “inner sanctum” natural lagoon transformed a fishing dockyard to a convenient shipyard. In addition, the inherent value of a sheltered port provided easy access to occupying forces for raiding the Iberian trade route. This made it an excellent trade hub for merchants travelling in the Tyrrhenian and Ligurian seas, and therefore an excellent region for ambushing unsuspecting merchant fleets.

By correlating Dr. Frank Brown’s data analysis of Cosa’s carbon layer through the excavation of multiple residences, the upper parameter of Cosa’s destruction falls into the year

72 B.C. during the Third Servile War. The lower parameter for this timeframe is 67 B.C. when 43

Pompey amassed a large fleet of his best ships and cleared the Tyrrhenian Sea on his way to

Anatolia and Cilicia, sieging many pirate havens and fortresses in the process. By the end of 67

B.C., Pompey had subjugated the Cilician populace and destroyed countless pirate fortifications, ending the “pirate empire’s” dominance throughout the Mediterranean’s water. The specific year which Cosa’s destruction most likely falls under is 71 B.C. This date encountered the climax of

Spartacus’ slave rebellion. The south of Italy held four armies, and all began to converge in

Calabria signaling a potentially massive conflict and end to the war. Before the final battle between Crassus and Spartacus, the gladiator met and spoke with Cilician pirates to propose a deal: transportation to the island of Sicily to reignite the flames of the previous slave revolts.

Their meeting place for this embarking would be at the Strait of Messina. The pirates betrayed

Spartacus and sailed off, leaving him to his fate. Where they sailed off to is not specified, however the possibility that they sailed northwest is strong. The islands of Corsica and Sardinia were not yet compliant with Roman law and subjugation which provided havens for pirate groups to safely dock, avoiding Roman jurisdiction.

Spartacus’ Cilician pirates sailed northwest to these islands and lingered around Corsica.

The ancient historian Plutarch admits that the Cilician pirates were bold enough in their primacy to raid the villas and coasts of the upper regions of the country. This account implies that towns such as Cosa were subject to such raiding. Plutarch’s admittance of piracy present in the

Tyrrhenian Sea further supports the notion that Spartacus’ Cilician pirates were planning, or in the process of, raiding Roman coastal villages. Neither Crassus nor Spartacus saw pirates in the

Strait of Messina, and Lucullus’ fleet in Brundisium had the maneuverability to intercept hostile fleets in the Ionian Sea which rendered southward travel for pirates too risky. Therefore 44 westward/northwestward travel deemed the safest and best course of action to avoid attracting the attention of the three Roman giants marching towards Spartacus.

Cosa’s economy at the time was flourishing, and wealth was pouring into Cosa’s estates.

Sestii enterprises in exporting storage amphorae and ceramic vessels worked hand-in-hand with the agricultural enterprises of Cosa bringing in cereals, olive oil, and wine as luxury grade goods for merchants to buy and transport all along the Iberian trade route. Cosa’s defenses were not as admirable during Augustus’ reconstruction, yet they still provided some defense. But such focus on defenses trailed off after Rome’s win against Carthage and securement of the Italian peninsula. Civil policies of Cosa transitioned into the expansion of Portus Cosanus and farmland attributed to growing grapes, olive trees, and grains. The early 1st century B.C. was Cosa’s peak and golden era of prosperity and growth. Their success contrasted heavily with many of their neighbors, highlighting their regional wealth and inadvertently making themselves a target for raiding brigands. Why Cosa’s economic status contradicted with much of the surrounding countryside can be accounted for two reasons. The first is, as mentioned, the settlement’s positioning along the Iberian trade route as a natural midway point for merchants to dock up. The second is the political climate which rendered many Italians as paupers throughout the countryside. The civil and political strife after Rome’s Social War and Sulla’s reign of terror affected society’s internal integrity and cohesion which most likely inhibited communication between settlements. The vulnerability of Cosa made it a solitary island cut off from the help of

Rome, especially when comparing its economic status to most of the Italian countryside. What once might have been a growing and hard-to-get fruit became a low-hanging juicy delicacy for any who had to gall to pick and ravish. First century B.C. politics hindered the security of

Rome’s coasts, despite its long-running policies of relegating its navy to coastguard duties. 45

An additional contributing factor to why these Cilician pirates attacked Cosa concerns the political state of Rome leading into the 1st century B.C. Due to Rome’s maritime policies of

“isolationism” and refusal to police the eastern Mediterranean, the vacancy and vacuum of a naval powerhouse allowed the expanse of naval warlords to combine forces and become a seaborne empire dominating the Aegean and Levantine seas. The defenses of communication were weakened by the fractured state of Italian cities under the banner of Rome. Bureaucracy can work only to an extent if the laws never waver. Yet during the Social War, Rome imposed new bills and laws to incorporate some Italians into full citizenship while blatantly excluding most.

The revolt against these laws and decisions prompted the Social War, and although Rome was victorious in most battles, Rome caved and met the demands of the Italian cities. Marius discredited the election of Sulla and threw him out of Rome and his office through “mob rule”.

Sulla retaliated by amassing an army and taking his position back, causing civil war. His reinstatement prompted a “hit list” for those that disagreed with him, offended him, or were rivals/competitors that threatened his office. All these during the civil wars of Sulla and Marius shook the foundations of law and order, which birthed corruption within Rome’s bureaucratic and legal systems. As such, any given attention to border security is lessened to account for the threat and presence of Spartacus, Pompey, Lucullus, and Crassus facing off in the south.

The Cilicians knew these weaknesses and prodded at Rome’s defenses as they grew in power. They used the distraction of Spartacus to avoid the full attention of either Rome or

Pompey, and consequentially snuck west circumventing Ostia, sailing to the islands of Corsica and Sardinia—thereafter sailed directly into the bosom of Portus Cosanus. Any relief forces were allocated in the south against Spartacus, thus leaving the north vulnerable to raiding. There isn’t much evidence, if any at all, that account for Portus Cosanus harboring a defense fleet to oppose 46 such an incursion. Therefore without much opposition the Cilicians sailed into the port relatively unopposed, save for a possible guard regiment, and pillaged Cosa above as their fleet sat unopposed and unthreatened due to vacant relief forces from Rome.

It is unlikely that Cosa’s destruction was caused by either an earthquake or plague of vermin. If Cosa was struck by an earthquake, which was confirmed to happen in A.D. 51, the thrust fault under Corsica’s east coast would activate, quickly opening and closing as a result.

This fast and abrupt action would have disturbed the sea creating a surge which then would transform into a tsunami. Cosa is directly east of this thrust fault, and with the coastline parallel to the fault’s trajectory line a tsunami would directly impact Portus Cosanus with devastating results. Such evidence was proven through Dr. McCann’s excavations of the port, dating that destruction and layer of ocean sediment on top to the 50’s A.D., correlating with the archaeoseismological evidence of the A.D. 51 earthquake. Following the logical follow up,

Portus Cosanus would have had evidence, be it seismological or archeological, of this disaster. In addition, production of Sestii materials would have ceased and trade activity in the port would dip to zero. It is not impossible for this event to have occurred, but it can be rendered implausible due to lack of material, seismological, and archaeological evidence.

The vermin theory of Cosa’s destruction between Dr. Brown’s timeframe of 70 B.C. and

60 B.C. is also implausible. Cosa during the later imperial period of Rome encountered many hardships pertaining to population crises and uncertain abandonment causes. Such causes I have theorized to be a combination of regional poverty due to Portus Cosanus’ fall into obsoletion, an infestation of vermin highlighted by Rutilius, and perhaps regional droughts. But these are all for

Cosa’s demise and abandonment centuries after the destruction focused and discussed in this paper. To claim that an infestation of vermin, with the possibility of bringing about disease, 47 brought about a sudden destruction of Cosa conflicts with conclusions made by Dr. Brown stating that Cosa’s wealth brought about more wealth to itself, expanding and improving farms which were the source of this wealth. A populace would not allow an infestation of vermin to take over their livelihoods and threaten the stability of their farms. However, even at the root of this argument its origins stem from Rutilius’ detailing of Cosa—which state that from a distance the city was in ruins, as if it had been in this state for many years prior to his visit. Therefore, vermin can be a contributing factor to the demise of Cosa in its later years under the empire, but cannot be the primary cause for destruction.

Therefore, concluding all of the evidence laid prior covering the topic of pirates, politics, vermin, and vibrations, Cosa’s destruction appears clear. Portus Cosanus serves to be a filter through which claims and evidence can be fact-checked and cross-examined. Without Portus

Cosanus, the fate of Cosa may very well still be speculation. The two sites grew tangentially to each other, yet not entirely relying on each other to survive. This is self-evident due to continued

Sestii activity post-Cosa destruction of 71 B.C. With the port’s continued existence in light of the fact that its sister site, Cosa, laid in ruin, it can be deemed plausible and irrefutable that a pirate attack is the likeliest cause for Cosa’s destruction. By combining the data from Dr. Brown and

Plutarch’s documentation of Pompey’s war against piracy, the timeframe of Cosa’s destruction can be narrowed down to between 72 B.C. and 67 B.C. The presence of Spartacus’ Cilician pirates in the Tyrrhenian Sea, as well as Plutarch’s admittance to piracy prevalent in the same waters of Cosa—these specific pirates are the perpetrators that are to be identified as the pirates which sacked the colony of Cosa and briefly occupied Portus Cosanus.

48

List of Figures

Figure 1. William J., Cosa’s geographical relation to Rome, Corsica, and Ostia, 2019, Google Maps

Screenshot, taken by William Jakeman.

Figure 2. William J., Dive #1 in Portus Cosanus, 2018, Phone Picture, Pictured: William Jakeman

(Right) and Chandler Houghtalin (Left).

Figure 3. Ann M., Plan of Portus Cosanus during Picture scanned and taken from McCann's

“Roman Port and Fishery of Cosa” in the Figures Index as figure VII-9.

Figure 4. Claude. P, Figure 1, 1675, Taken from “Les Dix Livres D’Architecture De Vitruve

Corrigez Et Traduitz Nouvellement En François Avec Des Notes Et Des Figures”, 2nd ed.

Figure 5. Anna M., Distribution of verified Sestius stamps originating from Cosa, 1979, Scanned and

taken from Dr. McCann's "The Roman Port and Fishery of Cosa".

Figure 6. Anonymous, Events of early 71 BC, 2014, Web Picture, Wikipedia Commons,

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Third_Servile_War#/media/File:CrassusSpartacus.png.

Figure 7. Renato F., Império Romano c. 117 AD, 2014, Web Picture, Wikipedia Commons,

https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Provinciaromana-Cilicia-pt.svg.

Figure 8. John van W., Map of Bruttium/Calabria, 1995, Web Picture, www.archeologiapetelina.it.

Figure 9. ORBIS, Stanford University, Sea Trade Routes of the Roman Empire c. 180 AD, 2019,

Stanford University, https://alison-morton.com/2018/09/16/ostia-antica-and-its-importance-in-

roman-sea-trading/, *Additional editing overlaying original picture done by William C. Jakeman.

Figure 10. Anonymous, Italian provinces, 2017, Web Picture, www.geology.com.

*Additional editing overlaying original picture done by William C. Jakeman. 49

Figure 11. Wouldloper, Carta tettonica dell'Europa meridionale, 2010, Wikipedia Commons,

https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Tectonic_map_Mediterranean_IT.svg. *Additional

editing overlaying original picture done by William C. Jakeman.

50

Bibliography

"Etymology of Pirate." English Words of (Unexpected) Greek Origin. February 18, 2009. Accessed

January 26, 2019. https://ewonago.wordpress.com/2009/02/18/etymology-of-pirate/.

Abbott, Frank Frost, 1901, A History and Description of Roman Political Institutions. pp. 24-260,

Library of Congress, Web PDF.

Appian, The Histories, “The Civil Wars”, Book 1, Section 2, Accessed February 9, 2019.

http://penelope.uchicago.edu/Thayer/E/Roman/Texts/Appian/Civil_Wars/1*.html.

Appian, The Histories, “The Civil Wars”, Book 1, Section 7, Accessed February 12, 2019.

http://penelope.uchicago.edu/Thayer/E/Roman/Texts/Appian/Civil_Wars/1*.html.

Appian, The Histories, “The Civil Wars”, Book 4, Sections 34-35, Accessed February 14, 2019.

http://penelope.uchicago.edu/Thayer/E/Roman/Texts/Appian/Civil_Wars/1*.html.

Appian, The Histories, “The Civil Wars”, Book 11, Section 95. Accessed February 14, 2019.

http://penelope.uchicago.edu/Thayer/E/Roman/Texts/Appian/Civil_Wars/1*.html.

Appian, The Histories, “The Civil Wars”, Book 14, Sections 117-118. Accessed February 15, 2019.

http://penelope.uchicago.edu/Thayer/E/Roman/Texts/Appian/Civil_Wars/1*.html.

Brown, Frank E., 1951, Richardson E. H. and Richardson, L. jr. "Cosa I, History and

Topography." MAAR 20, pp. 5-113. JSTOR, JSTOR.

Brown, Frank E., 1980, Cosa, the Making of a Roman Town, pp. 1-75.Ann Arbor: University of

Michigan Press.

Brown, Frank Edward, Emeline Hill Richardson, and L. Richardson, 1993, "Cosa III: The Buildings

of the Forum: Colony, Municipium, and Village." Memoirs of the American Academy in Rome,

37: pp. 2-298 51

Campbell, Edward F., 1960, "The Amarna Letters and the Amarna Period." The Biblical

Archaeologist, no. 1, pp. 2-22.

De Souza, Philip, 2008, “Rome's Contribution to the Development of Piracy.” Memoirs of the

American Academy in Rome. Supplementary Volumes, vol. 6, pp. 71–96. JSTOR, JSTOR.

Dyson, Stephen L, 2002, "The Excavations at Le Colonne and the Villa Culture of the Ager

Cosanus." Memoirs of the American Academy in Rome no. 47, pp. 209-28. JSTOR, JSTOR.

Fentress, Elizabeth, John Bodel, T. V. Buttrey, Stefano Camaiani, et al., 2003, "Cosa V: An

Intermittent Town, Excavations 1991-1997." Memoirs of the American Academy in Rome.

Supplementary Volumes 2, pp. 2-69, JSTOR, JSTOR.

Forrest, W. G. G., T. C. W. Stinton, and Peter Green, 1962, The First Sicilian Slave War. Past &

Present, no. 22, pp. 87-93. JSTOR, JSTOR.

Gabuchian, Vahe, et al., 2017, “Experimental Evidence That Thrust Earthquake Ruptures Might

Open Faults.” Nature, vol. 545, no. 7654, pp. 336–339.

Gomme, A. W., 1925, “Ancient Piracy.” The Classical Review, vol. 39, no. 5/6, pp. 127–

128. JSTOR, JSTOR.

Grose, David Frederick, R. T. Scott, Jennifer Price, Katherine A. Larson, and John Huffstot, 2017,

"The Hellenistic, Roman, and Medieval Glass from Cosa." Memoirs of the American Academy in

Rome. Supplementary Volumes 12 pp 1-247. JSTOR, JSTOR.

http://penelope.uchicago.edu/Thayer/E/Roman/Texts/Rutilius_Namatianus/Introduction*.html

Hoyos, Dexter, 2010, “The Roman Navy”, The Classical Review, New Series, no. 2, pp. 226-515.

Hunt, Peter. Ancient Greek and Roman Slavery. Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons, 2017.

Livy, History of Rome, Preface to the Hannibalic War, Book 22, Section 4. Accessed February 11,

2019. http://www.uvm.edu/~bwalsh/romciv/Hannibal.html 52

Livy, History of Rome, “Fabius Appointed Dictator”, Book 22, Section 11. Accessed February 12,

2019. http://www.uvm.edu/~bwalsh/romciv/Hannibal.html

Livy, History of Rome, “Scipio in Spain”, Book 27, Section 10. Accessed February 12, 2019.

http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/txt/ah/livy/livy27.html

Martin, Nicholas, 2015, Towards a Better understanding of Ancient and Modern Cement and

Concrete, The Classical Outlook 90, no. 4, pp. 130-133., JSTOR, JSTOR.

Moevs, Maria Teresa Marabini, 2003, "Cosa: The Italian Sigillata." Memoirs of the American

Academy in Rome. Supplementary Volumes 3: pp. I-170. JSTOR, JSTOR.

McCann, A. M., J. Bourgeois, E.K. Gazda, J.P. Oleson, and E.L. Will., 1987, The Roman Port and

Fishery of Cosa: a Center of Ancient Trade, Princeton: Princeton University Press.

Rauh, Nicholas K., 2007, “Merchants, Sailors and Pirates in the Roman World.” International

Journal of Nautical Archaeology, vol. 36, no. 1, pp. 205–216.

Plutarch, The Parallel Lives, “Life of Crassus”, Section 10. Accessed February 26, 2019.

http://penelope.uchicago.edu/Thayer/E/Roman/Texts/Plutarch/Lives/Crassus*.html

Plutarch, The Parallel Lives, “Life of Titus Flamininus”, Section 1. Accessed February 26, 2019.

http://penelope.uchicago.edu/Thayer/E/Roman/Texts/Plutarch/Lives/Flamininus*.html

Plutarch, The Parallel Lives, Life of Julius Caesar, Section 2. Accessed February 27, 2019.

http://penelope.uchicago.edu/Thayer/E/Roman/Texts/Plutarch/Lives/Caesar*.html

Plutarch, The Parallel Lives, Life of Julius Caesar, Section 3. Accessed February 27, 2019.

http://penelope.uchicago.edu/Thayer/E/Roman/Texts/Plutarch/Lives/Caesar*.html

Plutarch, The Parallel Lives, Life of Pompey, Section 24. Accessed February 27, 2019.

http://penelope.uchicago.edu/Thayer/E/Roman/Texts/Plutarch/Lives/Pompey*.html 53

Plutarch, The Parallel Lives, Life of Pompey, Section 26. Accessed February 27, 2019.

http://penelope.uchicago.edu/Thayer/E/Roman/Texts/Plutarch/Lives/Pompey*.html

Plutarch, The Parallel Lives, Life of Pompey, Section 30. Accessed February 27, 2019.

http://penelope.uchicago.edu/Thayer/E/Roman/Texts/Plutarch/Lives/Pompey*.html

Pollard, Nigel, 2016, "Roman Empire”. pp. 6-180. The Encyclopedia of an Empire, JSTOR, JSTOR.

Scullard, H. H. A History of the Roman World: 753 to 146 BC. 4th ed. London: Routledge, 1980.

Steinby, Christa, 2004, "War at Sea in the Second Punic War.” Ancient Society 34 77-114, JSTOR,

JSTOR.

Suetonius, The Lives of the Twelve Caesars, Life of Vespasian, Section 2. Accessed February 27,

2019.

http://penelope.uchicago.edu/Thayer/E/Roman/Texts/Suetonius/12Caesars/Vespasian*.html

Schweikart, Larry, and B. R. Burg, 1984, "Stand By To Repel Historians: Modern Scholarship and

Caribbean Pirates, 1650-1725." The Historian 46, no. 2, pp. 219-34. JSTOR, JSTOR.

Thompson, Ian B, 1978, "Settlement and Conflict in Corsica." Transactions of the Institute of British

Geographers, no. 3, pp. 259-73. JSTOR, JSTOR.

University of Chicago, Introduction to Rutilius Namatianus, Accessed March 19, 2019.