Friday, April 26, 2024
Contact    |    RSS icon Twitter icon Facebook icon  
Unexplained Mysteries
You are viewing: Home > News > Archaeology & History > News story
Welcome Guest ( Login or Register )  
All ▾
Search Submit

Archaeology & History

Rome may be 200 years older than thought

By T.K. Randall
April 15, 2014 · Comment icon 12 comments

Rome may have been founded around 900 BC. Image Credit: CC BY-SA 3.0 Thalan
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.
Built from a type of limestone known as tufa, the wall, along with fragments of ceramics and grains, was unearthed during an excavation of a black stone shrine called Lapis Niger. Using modern dating techniques it has been determined that these date back to 900 BC, a full 200 years earlier than expected.

"Examination of the recovered ceramic material has enabled us to chronologically date the wall structure to between the 9th century BC and the beginning of the 8th century BC," said archaeologist Dr Patrizia Fortuni. "So it precedes what is traditionally considered the foundation of Rome."

Source: Telegraph | Comments (12)




Other news and articles
Recent comments on this story
Comment icon #3 Posted by marcos anthony toledo 10 years ago
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.
Comment icon #4 Posted by cormac mac airt 10 years ago
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
Comment icon #5 Posted by Child of Bast 10 years ago
Well, cormac, what's a few years? I mean the Hundred Years' War lasted more than. lol
Comment icon #6 Posted by cormac mac airt 10 years ago
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
Comment icon #7 Posted by Child of Bast 10 years ago
I agree.
Comment icon #8 Posted by paperdyer 10 years ago
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.
Comment icon #9 Posted by third_eye 10 years ago
Rome was not really built in a day I guess ~ ahhh well ... at least the eternal City is still around ~
Comment icon #10 Posted by Frank Merton 10 years ago
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.
Comment icon #11 Posted by Orcseeker 10 years ago
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.
Comment icon #12 Posted by PersonFromPorlock 10 years ago
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.


Please Login or Register to post a comment.


Our new book is out now!
Book cover

The Unexplained Mysteries
Book of Weird News

 AVAILABLE NOW 

Take a walk on the weird side with this compilation of some of the weirdest stories ever to grace the pages of a newspaper.

Click here to learn more

We need your help!
Patreon logo

Support us on Patreon

 BONUS CONTENT 

For less than the cost of a cup of coffee, you can gain access to a wide range of exclusive perks including our popular 'Lost Ghost Stories' series.

Click here to learn more

Top 10 trending mysteries
Recent news and articles