Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: blam
I don't see any reason in the article to think that this was the original city...just because it's 33 hectares?

And VI to III cent BC would be too late for Aeneas' settlement...?

4 posted on 04/07/2006 11:16:41 AM PDT by Siena Dreaming
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]


To: Siena Dreaming

Just so. Rome was probably founded about 753 BC.

And according to The Aeneid, Virgil landed at the mouth of the Tiber 333 years before the founding. Three years to the building of his son's little city, 33 years to Alba Longa, and 333 years to Rome.

Which means that this city should date back considerably earlier. Maybe there are older ruins underneath, as at Troy?


7 posted on 04/07/2006 11:42:56 AM PDT by Cicero (Marcus Tullius)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson