Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 1
UM-Bot

Rome may be 200 years older than thought

13 posts in this topic

New archaeological evidence has suggested that Rome was founded two centuries earlier.

Legends say that Rome, one of the world's oldest cities, was founded by twins Romulus and Remus in 795 BC, but now archaeologists have discovered the remains of an ancient wall that seem to date back to a time before then.

Read More: http://www.unexplain...er-than-thought

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
 

Maybe Rome was built on a ancient city and this is part of its remains.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Or it was built over top of an earlier 'fortified villa', not a town...

But Paranomaly is probably right...

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Or could it back the Aeneid story to some extent since this would push the date of the founding of the city to the date of the city to the fall of Troy.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

While an interesting find apparently the writer of the original article can't subtract since 900 - 795 = 105 years and not "a full 200 years" as claimed.

cormac

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, cormac, what's a few years? I mean the Hundred Years' War lasted more than. lol

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, cormac, what's a few years? I mean the Hundred Years' War lasted more than. lol

One would expect the writer of an article discussing an archaeological find to be more accurate than evidenced. Sadly this isn't always true.

cormac

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I agree. :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

While an interesting find apparently the writer of the original article can't subtract since 900 - 795 = 105 years and not "a full 200 years" as claimed.

cormac

Well the 795 BC was recorded by legend. It seems 700 BC was expected. At least that's the way I read it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Rome was not really built in a day I guess ~ ahhh well ... at least the eternal City is still around ~

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My understanding had been that active volcanism in the area had prevented earlier settlement. Of course a lot depends on the timing of the volcanism.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The Etruscans came to mind as I read this. Are they too late in this timeframe at that level of construction? I haven't properly looked into history for years now.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Cities happen for reasons, and if there's city there now there was probably a city (or at least a large town) there before, too. It's not like cities were any novelty in 1000 BCE.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 1

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.