Excavation of Rome: archaeologists are silent

KorbenDallas

Negotiator
Messages
4,019
Reactions
15,688
A few minutes of image searching produced many interesting images pertaining to the excavation of Rome. Where did the dirt come from? This is one of those questions, our contemporary archaeologists will never answer truthfully. As a matter of fact they appear to be avoiding the issue altogether. Who cares where tens of feet of dirt in a relatively contemporary city came from, when they have very important discoveries to make:
Excavation of Rome
Apparently, the excavation of Rome originally started closer the end of the 19th century. At the direction of Benito Mussolini it really picked up between 1938 and 1942. Below is the mix of the excavation images of Rome covering two centuries. Obviously these are not all available photographs, but the presented set is sufficient to demonstrate the scale of some recent tragedy.

What do you think happened to the occupants of the buried Buildings? Where is this event mentioned in our history? These images demonstrate that the discipline of archaeology was corrupted to the level where they choose not to investigate issues like this.

Excavation_Rome_17.jpg

This image above demonstrates that in some places Rome was buried under 45-50 feet of dirt. Will we ever find out what happened?

Excavation_Rome_1.jpg


Excavation_Rome_2.jpg


Excavation_Rome_3.jpg


Excavation_Rome_4.jpg


Excavation_Rome_5.jpg


Excavation_Rome_6.jpg


Excavation_Rome_7.jpg


Excavation_Rome_8.jpg


Excavation_Rome_9.jpg


Excavation_Rome_10.jpg


Excavation_Rome_11.jpg


Excavation_Rome_12.jpg


Excavation_Rome_13.jpg


Excavation_Rome_14.jpg


Excavation_Rome_15.jpg


Excavation_Rome_16.jpg


Excavation_Rome_18.jpg


Excavation_Rome_19.jpg


Excavation_Rome_20.jpg


Excavation_Rome_22.jpg


kd_separator.jpg



KD: I understand that some of you have seen these images before, but there are a few who did not. The following questions pertains to both categories:
  • When do you think this event happened?
  • What do you think was the cause of the catastrophe?
Another thing to consider is the timing of the excavations. Personally, I find it highly suspicious that for over 15 centuries people did not put a shovel to the vast majority of the historical sites.
 

Ice Nine

Well-known member
Messages
738
Reactions
3,089
It had to have come from above because everything seems to be intact.

All I do know is that everything I see, world wide, being dug out is covered with overburden that looks like what comes from a volcanic eruption and/or subsequent lahars. Whether it be the Mustang Caves, Cappadocia or Rome or Gobekli Tepe. It's the same volcanic tuff with large rock fragments or welded tuff (like in Cappadocia).

So anyway my point is in regards to Rome, it's been covered by volcanic activity at some point, much like the majority of the Earth seems to have been, because everything we are digging out is covered in the same stuff. This could have buried Rome no problem.
60 feet deep.jpg019056.jpglahar.jpgwelded tuff.jpg

Here is the underground portion of the Coliseum and it looks a lot like the Rome that is being dug out, the brick work is almost the same. Is the Rome being dug out the same age as the Coliseum, which is supposed to have been built in 70-80 AD. Who knows, but interesting, similar looking bricks.

rome-underground-14.jpg
 
Last edited:

Timeshifter

Well-known member
Messages
333
Reactions
1,024
We are taught at school about the laying of layers over 1000s of years :) lol, however in my Blaenavon post Here , it can be seen how easily humans have covered their buildings in recent past.

Theres no argument that Rome was buried, Louis Braille can see that, but the mainstream would still have us believe the build up of layers over x amount of years bull.

My guess, quite recent (few hundred years) posdibly man-made or rather caused, perhaps as a side affect of wars.

And the remaining powers that be, invent these pathetic 1000s of years narratives, to stop us thinking recent, and the questions which that reality throws up.
 
OP
KorbenDallas

KorbenDallas

Negotiator
Messages
4,019
Reactions
15,688
Can we explicitly rule out that Rome wasn't purposely buried?
As in how? If we are talking with a shovel and a horse cart, than I think we can.

The entire world has identical instances. Here is Moscow, for example. Main stream does not publish stuff like this, and our pseudo-historians and fake archaeologists stay away from these topics.

buried_moscow_3.jpg


buried_moscow_2.jpg


buried_moscow_61.jpg


buried_moscow.jpg


buried_moscow_1.jpg


Easter Island
It really does not matter where we go, the stuff is pretty much the same everywhere.

easterisland3.jpg

kd_separator.jpg

It appears that the real picture of this world is very similar to the below image.

buried_cities.jpg
 

trismegistus

Well-known member
Messages
256
Reactions
1,367
One of the things I recall Graham Hancock discussing in an interview was that Gobleki Tepe was explicitly buried by humans at some point in time. I don't think he speculates where or how, AFAIK.

I am not saying he is right by any means, it doesn't seem like his interests tend to involve anything after 10k years ago or so (according to normal timelines, of course).

Like how our civilization has torn down or destroyed many beautiful buildings in our recent past - did a past civilization do something similar to bury the remnants of the previous civilization? I mean, it seems like we dug up the ruins primarily using shovels and carts - is it so hard to believe that's how they were buried in the first place?

I will admit I have no answer as to how they would have transported the dirt to accomplish this, but I don't think it is completely out of the realm of possibility.
 

Ice Nine

Well-known member
Messages
738
Reactions
3,089
Yeah who knows, but I have a hard time envisioning a wheel barrow brigade burying a city. So many places the buried city has gone undetected for who knows how long and then somebody notices their basement goes on down a lot further than they ever imagined, the buried city always seems to be a big surprise. Which leads me to the conclusion that it had been buried for a lot longer than the locals could remember.
 
OP
KorbenDallas

KorbenDallas

Negotiator
Messages
4,019
Reactions
15,688
One of the things I recall Graham Hancock discussing in an interview was that Gobleki Tepe was explicitly buried by humans at some point in time. I don't think he speculates where or how, AFAIK.
Hancock, Cremo, von Daniken and Co. make similar type (fantasized) claims for a living. Some of the non-sense they say, especially about dates is laughable. They claim, claim and they claim some more. They play with things similar to 400 million year old hammers, ancient astronauts, this "Forbidden Archaeology" concept and masses love it. Cremo with his 30-40 millions of years for mankind based on some Sanskrit texts and what not - what texts, and when did we "discover" those texts?

400_million_year_old_hammer.jpg

The result of their work is fairly obvious. I am not saying that there is anything wrong with making money, but people buy what sells, and you sell what TPTB allows you to sell.
  • Graham Hancock net worth: Graham Hancock is a British writer and journalist who has a net worth of $2 million
  • Erich von Daniken net worth: Erich von Daniken is a Swiss author who has a net worth of $30 million.
These researchers claim to go to the field and do all sorts of things outside of their study room. I have been to multiple sites and all you see there is the exact same stuff you see on the most of the photographs, accompanied by the same narrative. It's not like you go to some Machu Picchu, or Egypt, and get shown things nobody is allowed to see.

Apologies to all the followers of the above individuals, but it does not take much to say something like "according to some ancient texts some advanced creatures came to Earth 375,000 years ago." I have a lot of follow up questions to these claims, which are probably for a different thread, but they will never get answered. If it sounds like I'm calling the above individuals out with their dates, well I am.
kd_separator.jpg

Ok, sorry for the rant here. Let's go to our Gobleki Tepe site.
  • Göbekli Tepe is an archaeological site in the Southeastern Anatolia Region of Turkey approximately 12 km (7 mi) northeast of the city of Şanlıurfa. The tell has a height of 15 m (49 ft) and is about 300 m (980 ft) in diameter. It is approximately 760 m (2,490 ft) above sea level.
  • The site was first noted in a survey conducted by Istanbul University and the University of Chicago in 1963. American archaeologist Peter Benedict identified lithics collected from the surface of the site as belonging to the Aceramic Neolithic, but mistook stone slabs (the upper parts of the T-shaped pillars) for grave markers, postulating that the prehistoric phase was overlain by a Byzantine cemetery. The hill had long been under agricultural cultivation, and generations of local inhabitants had frequently moved rocks and placed them in clearance piles, which may have disturbed the upper layers of the site. At some point attempts had been made to break up some of the pillars, presumably by farmers who mistook them for ordinary large rocks.
Apparently it was dated using radiocarbon method to 10th-8th millennium BC.

The area was pretty populated in 1570 for example, and this "Gobleki Tepe" appears to be our contemporary name we gave this place. Who knows what it was called back in the day. May be the place is on the below map. It will require some research, but they could date it to 2k or 6k or whatever... this stuff is not verifiable. I think the place is under 600 years old.

As far as Hancocks's claim that people buried this Gobleki Tepe place. Well, I'm pretty sure he has to have an access to some secret texts, or to a time machine, for where such information comes from beats me.
 

trismegistus

Well-known member
Messages
256
Reactions
1,367
I just want to be clear I am playing devil's advocate here - - if this stuff ever gets anywhere near a mainstream discussion it is inevitable these questions will come up. Personally, volcanic ash and/or soil liquefaction (something large enough to cover up to 30-50 feet of burial but low impact enough to not destroy the structure) seems the most likely culprit here, hence the silence from archeologists.

I don't want to risk devolving this thread into a Hancock debunking debate, but I have read a lot of his material and most of his dating either comes from hypothesis from archaeologists (notoriously unreliable) and from charting astrological cycles. The latter is really the only type of dating worth considering at this point. All of that to say that I am not as fully on board with Hancock's timelines as I used to be years ago - - I think he leaves a lot to be desired. That said, using the wealth he has generated from his works is not really proof of anything in my eyes.

If we were to assume that much more advanced machinery existed 100-200 years ago then it may not have been shovels and horsecarts that buried these cities.
 

Timeshifter

Well-known member
Messages
333
Reactions
1,024
Arh, they know everything, they now even have a scale model, 35 years in the making...

'The model can be viewed today in the Museum of Roman Civilisation in Rome, Italy.

It is so useful because it helps a lot of academics visualise Rome to aid their studies and gives a lot more context to famous structures, like the Colosseum, which we are used to seeing as stand alone buildings'

Source

plastico_di_roma_imperiale.jpg


 

EmmanuelZorg

New member
Messages
10
Reactions
18
I know at the beginning of the 19th Century there was a renewed interest in Greco-Roman styles. Maybe the pope was just trying to keep up with, and to some extent feed the appetite of the masses?

It does seem curious how it could be seen as new and trend setting in 1804. ‘Rediscovery’ is such a interesting thing. Was it really a rediscovery of something ignored and marginalized, or was it a new discovery with enough energetic excitement behind it to dig our massive amounts of earth that was hiding secrets?
 

Beanieboo111

Member
Messages
19
Reactions
33
May be not entirely rhetorics.

There was an Italian architect Leon Baptista Alberti who was hired by an Pope Nicolas the 5th because of the great construction projects the latter had in mind. The Pope appreciated the talent and mind of Leon-Battista Alberti and made him his closest adviser on architecture . It was planned to complete the reconstruction of the Vatican and the construction of a new temple on the site of the dilapidated old basilica of St. Peter.

The projects of Nicholas V remained projects, and, unfortunately, no traces remained of them, but this was the first initiative to implement the construction program on which Italy’s best forces worked over the next two centuries. Alberti’s participation in the planning of Vatican probably made him that there was an urgency to write a book on architecture . It was by the 1450's that the writing of “Ten Books on Architecture” took place. According to contemporaries, Alberti in 1452 read his architectural treatise to Nicholas V.

In the the book The Seventh Treatise Alberti. Its full name is “Book of Seventh, which deals with the decoration of sanctuaries.”

Immediately, the name of the first chapter “Regarding the walls of the city, the temples and the basilica's are dedication to the gods." causes a shock. It is strange that the adviser on architecture of the Pope and an active partner in the planning of the restructuring of the Vatican uses the word "god" in the plural. However, when reading a treatise, there is a feeling that it seems that for the author the contemporary to him architectural context doesn't exist. Nowhere in the treatise do we find a hint that Alberti was friends with Brunelleschi, author of the dome of the Florence Cathedral of Santa Maria del Fiore. Neither this dome - an amazing and innovative construction for its time - nor the cathedral itself, nor even the city of Florence does Alberti mention ANYWHERE in his treatise. For the most part, the treatise is a description of how it was built, how the "ancients" were guided, and with what aesthetic approaches. In other words, for the author of the treatise, no architecture, except ancient, is worthy of mention, and his own recommendations are based solely on ancient examples and standards.
Alberti who was hired by Pope in his book, on how to arrange temples, mentions Christ or at least something related to him (crucifixion, resurrection, ascension) ZERO times. Does not mention christianity, and makes strange references to religious practices of the time incongruent with what we expect of Catholic religion. When speaking of the ancient statues, Alberti states that he does not know which material they are made of. He then goes on to propose the materials to be of precious nature but not gold or silver. And so on... Very strange book. Potentially revealing of the realities of those times.
 

Beanieboo111

Member
Messages
19
Reactions
33
@Beanieboo111, the history of Vatican along with its army of Popes needs to be questioned extensively.

This is a very interesting piece of info. Thank you.
Indeed. Any tangible sources on history of papacy are dated back only to 15th century I believe. Nothing prior exists. It appears that Catholic Church, with help from Selliger, has antiquated itself, for specific purposes.
 

BStankman

Well-known member
Messages
609
Reactions
2,823
Another Piranesi showing the arches...
View attachment 25881

Campo Vaccino. Paysages et ruines de Rome. [Vesme 819-831] (series)1646.
View attachment 25879
Campo Vaccino

TThe Grand View of Rome. Published by Giuseppe Vasi in 1765
View attachment 25880
Giuseppe Vasi's 1765 Grand View of Campo Vaccino

Alexandria Gazette 1816
20616

20617

20618

20619


Alexandria gazette, commercial and political. (Alexandria [Va.]) 1812-1817, May 28, 1816, Image 2

20620
Rome fell into decay and was overrun by armed black eyed herdsmen that looked like tartars between 1791 and 1813?
Amazing find.
 

Top