UM-Bot Posted April 15, 2014 #1 Share Posted April 15, 2014 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 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paranomaly Posted April 15, 2014 #2 Share Posted April 15, 2014 Maybe Rome was built on a ancient city and this is part of its remains. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Taun Posted April 15, 2014 #3 Share Posted April 15, 2014 Or it was built over top of an earlier 'fortified villa', not a town... But Paranomaly is probably right... 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
marcos anthony toledo Posted April 15, 2014 #4 Share Posted April 15, 2014 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cormac mac airt Posted April 15, 2014 #5 Share Posted April 15, 2014 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 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Keel M. Posted April 15, 2014 #6 Share Posted April 15, 2014 Well, cormac, what's a few years? I mean the Hundred Years' War lasted more than. lol Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cormac mac airt Posted April 15, 2014 #7 Share Posted April 15, 2014 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 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Keel M. Posted April 15, 2014 #8 Share Posted April 15, 2014 I agree. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
paperdyer Posted April 15, 2014 #9 Share Posted April 15, 2014 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SHaYap Posted April 16, 2014 #10 Share Posted April 16, 2014 Rome was not really built in a day I guess ~ ahhh well ... at least the eternal City is still around ~ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Frank Merton Posted April 16, 2014 #11 Share Posted April 16, 2014 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Orcseeker Posted April 16, 2014 #12 Share Posted April 16, 2014 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 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PersonFromPorlock Posted April 16, 2014 #13 Share Posted April 16, 2014 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
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 accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now