Bob Brier Offers An Interesting Theory on King Tutankhamun's Death 
Author Message
 Bob Brier Offers An Interesting Theory on King Tutankhamun's Death

Quote:
>Subject:    Re: Bob Brier Offers An Interesting Theory on King
Tutankhamun's
>Death

>Date:       Thu, 06 Feb 1997 15:41:04 -0800


>One other thing.  If the big and little hills sailed off soon before the
>Trojan War (no later than 1100bce, and that's basically impossible) and
>arrived in northern Italy in sometime in their own lifetimes (no later
>than 1000bce but that's basically impossible), are you saying that Rome
>was built before 1000bce(although that's bascically impossible)?  Or is
>that what you meant by problems with the chronology that scholarship
>gives us?

Peter,

The mythological "founding" of Rome as dated to 21.April.753 goes back to
a date given by Varro.

In fact, however, as both Glyn Daniel (Enykopaedie der Archaeologie, 1996)
)
writes under "Palatin" (Paltium, Mons Palatinus, Collis Palatinus) and as
noted under Rome by even the Enc. Brit., there is evidence of
"Indo-European" (Enc.Brit.) and early "Iron Age" settlement there circa
1000 B.C. (this can easily be a bit earlier) - correpsonding to the
introduction of agriculture.
The Enc.Brit summarizes quite nicely under the rubric "Rome" that:
"The historical site of Rome on the famous seven hills - the Aventine,
Caelian, Capitoline, Esquiline, Palatine, Quirinal, and Viminal - was
occupied as early as the Bronze Age (c. 1500 B.C.), but continuous
settlement by Indo-European peoples did not take place until the beginning
of the 1st millenium BC. By the early 6th century BC a politically unified
regal city had emerged...."

Now who ELSE can these "Etruscans" possibly be other than these
Indo-Europeans? - obviously mixed with the urn-burial Villanova
civilization living there prior to that time.

Here is what Virgil writes in the Aeneid (Book VIII, Aeneas at the Site of
Rome, lines 314-336): "heac nemora indigenae Fauni Nymphaeque tenebant
gensque virum truncis et duro robore nata, quis neque mos neque cultus
erat, nee iungere tauros aut componere opes norant aut parcere parto, sed
rami atque asper vietu venatus ablebat. primus ab aetherio verit Saturnus
Olympo, arma lovis fugiens et regnis exsul ademptis. is genus indocile ac
dispersum montibus altis composuit legesque dedit, Latiumque vocari
maluit, his quoniam latuisset tutus in oris. aurea quae perhibent illo sub
rege fuere saecula: sie placida populos in pace regebat, deterior donec
paulatim ac decolor aetas et belli rabies et amor successit habendi. tum
manus Ausonia et gentes venere Sicanae, saepius et nomen posuit Saturnia
tellus; tum reges asperque immani corpore Thybris, a quo post Itali
fluvium cognomine Thybrim diximus; amisit verum vetus Albula nomen. me
pulsum patria pelagique extrema sequentem Fortuna omnipotens et
ineluctabile fatum his poswere locis, matrisque egere tremenda Carmentis
Nymphae monita et deus auctor Apollo."

This has been translated into English by H. Rushton Fairclough, revised
edition, Harvard University Press, Cambridge, Mass., 1966, as:
"In these woodlands the native Fauns and Nymphs once dwelt, and a race of
men sprung from trunks of trees and hardy oak, who had no rule nor art of
life, and knew not how to yoke the ox or to lay up stores, or to husband
their gains; but tree-branches nurtured them and the huntsman's savage
fare. First from heavenly Olympus came Saturn, fleeing from the weapons of
Jove and exiled from his lost realm. He gathered together the unruly race,
scattered over mountain heights, and gave them laws, and chose that the
land be called Latium, since in these borders he had found a safe
hiding-place. Under his reign were the golden ages men tell of: in such
perfect peace he ruled the nations; till little by little there crept in a
race of worse sort and duller hue, the frenzy of war, and the passion for
gain. Then came the Ausonian host and the Sicanian tribes, and ofttimes
the land of Saturn laid aside her name. Then kings arose, and fierce
Thybris with giant bulk, from whose name we of Italy have since called our
river Tiber; her true name ancient Albula has lost. Myself, from
fatherland an outcast and seeking the ends of the sea, almighty Fortune
and inevitable Fate planted on this soil; and the dread warning of my
mother, the nymph Carmentis, and Apollo's divine warrant, drove me
hither."

Hence, Virgil states quite clearly how Rome was founded and it fits with
the evidence, dated to ca. 1000 BC and perhaps a few hundred years prior
to that.

I have recently posted material to the Nostratic list showing how the
Etruscan documents are in fact Indo-European and that the script looks
like Latvian as written by someone who just learned it (much like how
German scholars wrote Latvian down without knowing the language in the
modern period). In fact, Tacitus (Annals, XI,14) relates that the
Etruscans learned to write from Demaratus of Corinth - recall that Corinth
also plays a role in the saga of Tutankhamun - and the Latins from Evander
of Arcadia.

Look also at my web site on the Etruscan Bronze Liver of Piacenza
http://www.***.com/ ;expak one not letter L

LATIN and LATIUM had to come from SOMEWHERE, did it not - and the original
urn-culture there, the Villanovans, were NOT them. So, whoever came there
after that must have been the founders of Rome, and these are the
Etruscans.

In fact, Herodotus tells us that the LYDians were brought by their leader
Tyrsenos/Tyrsenoi to Rome and we know that the Lydians spoke an
Indo-European language.

The LYDian language on the other hand - "shares many common features with
Hittite, Luwian and Palaic - Indo-European languages which existed, let us
say 1500 BC, so there is a problem here in the dating of the Lydians.

This becomes quite apparent when we consider that Croessus, the last king
of Lydia, is said to have ruled until 546 BC - when the Persians under
Cyrus overran his empire. But the scholars - for some reason unknown to me
- date the Lydian empire to a start circa 7th century BC, only 100 to 150
years previous.

This  makes the Lydian empire one of the most short-lived empires in
history. The current dating is in fact quite incredible since their king
Croessus was "fabled" for his wealth. How did he amass such fabulous
riches in this period? Rich relatives? Not only that, in that short period
of time, the Lydians  found time to be the first people "to mint coins"
and to "establish retail shops". Hey, where were these bright people
beforehand?

In fact Croesus is probably equivalent to Tyrsenus - who probably fled the
Persians.
Croesus is probably also equivalent to the legendary Phrygian king Midas
(another fabulously but legendary wealthy king - where Phrygia borders on
Lydia and both are near to Troy) who legend states bathed in the Pactolus
River (near Sardis - LYDIAN capital) which gave this stream its alluvial
gold. And, indeed, Croesus is probably also identical to the legendary
wealthy king Priam, the last king of Troy.

But according to Herodotus, the Lydian Tyrrhenians under the leadership of
Prince Tyrsenoi had left Lydia just prior to the outbreak of the Trojan
War (History, I, 94). So we have here a chronological problem of about 600
to 700 years.

The Trojan war of course - on the basis of archaeology - must have
occurred around 1100 BC, since the archaeological record shows that Troy
was uninhabited from ca. 1100 BC to 700 BC - apparently having been
destroyed in that Trojan war.

So, chronology looks like the problem. Otherwise, the stories told by the
ancients all fit together in the puzzle nicely.

 - Andis



Fri, 30 Jul 1999 03:00:00 GMT
 
 [ 2 post ] 

 Relevant Pages 

1. Bob Brier Offers An Interesting Theory on King Tutankhamun's Death

2. Tony Dipaolo knows blank re Bob Brier's conclusions

3. Info about Bob Brier

4. An interesting link about the King's Causeway

5. OT Offering Original Kook Theory

6. >>*WHY BOB BRIER'S DEAD WRONG ABOUT TUT - PART I*<<

7. >>* WHY BOB BRIER'S DEAD WRONG ABOUT TUT - PART I *<<

8. >>* WHY BOB BRIER'S DEAD WRONG ABOUT TUT - PART II *<<

9. >>* WHY BOB BRIER'S DEAD WRONG ABOUT TUT - PART II *<<

10. >>* WHY BOB BRIER'S DEAD WRONG ABOUT TUT - PART II *<<

11. Theory for mass deaths roils Mexico


 
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software