M. G. Corsini

 New Chronology, 2


August 21, 2013. All rights reserved




Aegean archaeology was dated by comparison with Egyptian one, Tell-el-Amarna of Akhnaton, Amenophis III son, about 1350 B.C. All archaeological excavations in the ancient world present a gap between 1200 and 750 approximately. Controversies between archaeologists are without basis and  wrongly were condemned  archaeologists of badly doing  their work if they found  contemporarily objects which, depending on a simple point of view, one can date them to the VIII or to the XIII century B. C. I have  started to prove that the Troy war happened about 1183 = 753, Eratosthenes dating and Romulus first kingship  year (We can suppose that coming from Troy he made his coup d’état founding Roman monarchy). Now it is obvious that someone is responsible    of    this gap. And we must search him in the past when chronologies were written. It is not difficult to have an idea of the plot, focusing  the Hellenistic period. With Alexander (IV century  B. C.) a big empire is submitted by  Greek speaking peoples. Greek scientists (Eratosthenes, 274-195 B.C.) and Greek speaking scientists  can be motivated to give to their Greek super-culture a prior position in comparison to the others. It is a simple problem of geopolitics. One governs many peoples the better with some expedients such as religion, culture, and a chronology which “proves” that the Greeks/Macedonians are not the last arrived and it is why they manage to  submit different very ancient peoples from Crete to Egypt, from Babylon to Persia. The    idea could spread in the mind of a priest, and obviously in the mind of a Greek speaking priest. Only a priest could forge a fake. One could think that they and whatsoever religion  were only born to do evil actions, such as   deforming history for politic/power reasons. Only under a cosmopolitan empire could chronology be faked without contrast, with the complicity of men of culture, willingly complying to the    will of the monarch.  This is I think the more recent possibility, but there is another possibility more ancient which do not exclude the last and on the contrary is a premise. We have here a Greek speaking priest too. If we search a common denominator we find Alexandria with a bibliotheca (cultural centre) where  the Bible was translated in Greek   so to be understood by Hebrews born out of  Jude (Jerusalem temple) and not knowing the Hebrew language. Since the first Roman empire, about XV century B.C., Greek (our Roman language) was the commonest language in the ancient world, the Lingua Franca, the English language of the time. So the forger of this  crime against humanity surely was a Greek speaking priest. My is not a very intelligent hypothesis, since only priests, doing nothing in their lives, eating without to work, have time to  waste and, we know, evil is working better where a man has nothing to do. Basing my judgment on my experience, I know only two peoples experts in fakes, who are, you would not tell, the two faces of the same false coin, Greeks and Hebrews (who are only from the Jude kingdom; Israel vanished under Assyrian empire).    It is a strange contradiction that the more interested in the New Chronology  are those who hope to demonstrate the historicity of the Bible. And I proved that this is a priori impossible in the sense that Bible is a propaganda not history book. But so doing they must conclude as I conclude, the fake of most part of the Bible. I cannot tell presently the origin of the divided kingdoms king lists. They seem real but it is only appearance. It is possible they were copied and adjusted  by other Near East kingdoms and lifted in the nobody’s land to make Israel a big nation.   In every case, if and when New Chronologists remark, like Velikovsky, see The Dark Age of Greece, the gap between 1200 and 750 B. C., they are perfectly right.  The solution of the problem  for me is simple, to lift 1200 to coincide with 750 and retelling the years consequently from 750 towards the beginning of history.  

But for the moment we must go back to grasp the why. Why Greek speaking and writing men, of culture, all over the world had the interest to be implied in such a fake.   The  Hellenic world knew the big power Rome was after the first (against the Hyksos, 1520) and before the second (against Egypt, Hittite and Syrian little kings, 1200, emblematically, the Troy war) world wars. I made a big patient work of many years and documents to grasp finally the power of Atlantis/Rome still living in the years of the first kings Romulus, Numa Pompilius, Tullus Hostilius and Homer, the royal poet.  And we find Plato (427-347 B.C.) who certainly knows!, who tells not the truth about Atlantis/Rome, not destroyed and still living, but he tells on the contrary won by the Athenians living about 10000 years B.C. and submerged in the Atlantic Ocean! Plato knew Aaron priests Bible and vice versa. The Aaron priests Bible is the first to begin with the “history” from the creation and from Adam and Eve,  the 10 kings before the Flood (from Adam to Noah) and 10 kings after the Flood (from Sam to Abram) etc. etc. They copied  here and there from some Babylonian  bibliotheca. I must remember that from my researches only Moses priests from Jeremy could (not had effectively; it is a possibility, even   a probability, they could) have a true religious tradition and their history went only back to the Hyksos king Jacob (about 1650 B.C.)  of whom we have scarabs with his name on. Aaron priests were men in search of a booty to put hands on and since they knew the power of Moses priesthood in Jerusalem, they wanted to copy them and take the power on the Jerusalem bank, what they managed to do about 400 B.C. Aaron priesthood wanted a long history for the Jewish people and now we sometimes  think of Adam and Eve speaking with Jahveh like the patriarchs of (our) Jewish mankind.  Plato  puts the strong and heroic Athens 12000 years  ago.   I have said that Greeks and Jews are the twin faces of the same false coin. They had interest in the cancellation of Roman first empire (of Atlantis) that is the damnatio memoriae of the Roman name. I discovered the truth thanks to Greek true historians but it is also true in general that ignorant or false, Greeks have done a great deal to manipulate and obscure the first Roman empire. In brief Romans became  Pelasgi  from Illyria who speak a some like  pre-Etruscan or proto-Etruscan language. Athenians, who speak Greek, protest to have a Pelasgic origin but probably would be the first to negate their descent from the “barbaric” Romans of Atlantis. Hebrews on the contrary let us detect the Roman origin of the Philistines and of the generals Saul and David who founded two little kingdoms little after the Troy war and before the Assyrian conquest of Palestine. But summing up  Greek and Hebrew interest was the  cancellation of the big Roman power who literally smashed Near East around 1200 B.C. So   now that we are here, why not cancel the Roman existence in Orient and double our (Greek and Jewish) existence? The total about 400/500 centuries is a long time but it is not simple to fake years and history without an opportunity. But the opportunity come out to the imagination  immediately, since the Troy war was the symbolic image of the Romans smashing Near East.    You cannot change dates and insert Greek and Hebrew history of big powers between 1200 and 750 B.C. The process of fake is the inverse. The opportunity was given by the double face of Odysseus the Troy winner and Romulus, about which we the Romans could no more grasp the identity with the previous.  How can you tell that Odysseus  (the real name of Romulus, from to hate, hostile) corresponds to Romulus (from Rome)? So in our chronology Romulus started from 753 B. C. while Greeks knew (under many variants) and teach us  the coming back from Troy of Odysseus (his name is Greek, and has the same etymology of Hostus Hostilius, that latest Latin  name of Romulus!) and  Aeneas, from a son of which Alba Longa would be founded  and a day  Rome, by two young noble Albans, so covering  the gap from Romulus (753-715) to  under cover  Odysseus/Romulus  (Troy war) by a substantially Greek origin Rome (now that Greek was only spoken by Greek peoples, while in Rome they spoke Latin, that is probably Sabin immigrants from the Apennines mountains + Greek = Latin).   Greece pretends to have kings of Sparta and archons of Athens lists going back to 1102 B.C. and 1069 B.C. respectively, while when you come to the real Greek history it begins with Greeks under the Persian empire. And similarly Hebrew history begins (from Judges/Canaanite kings helped by Romans charioteers  and Philistines/Romans about 1200 B.C.) but in reality  with  their being under Assyrian, Babylonian and Persian domination. Let us resume. The false Greek and Hebrew history implies a false Roman history of a 1200 to 750 years of the building of Alba Longa to the birth of Romulus (of the Palatine) and Remus (of the Greek inhabited  Aventine)  to show in some way Rome as a Greek  colony of Greece. While Rome was on the contrary the mother city of all Greek and Greek speaking Near East countries. Greece, Jude, Rome. But the fake must have been elaborated in a time in which Greek was widespread all over the world.

Manetho was a priest  from Heliopolis and wrote in Greek, his maternal language, Aegyptiaka (between 280 and 259) for Ptolmy II Philadelphous the founder of the bibliotheca of Alexandria in Egypt. Manetho is implied in the Hebrew history, so we can tell that Greeks, Hebrews and Egyptians especially in the III century B.C. are implied in the false chronology which influenced also the Near Eastern ones of Babylon, Assyria etc.     My approach to the problem is that I am ready to distrust Greeks and Hebrews (of which I have studied profoundly the “history”)  and consequently I can doubt about  Manetho’s history with regard to the XX, XXI and XXII dynasties. But since I do not have direct access to original epigraphic and archaeological data,  my judgement is a very generic one. First of all I notice the hint to a fake where we have a long series of Ramses kings after Ramses III (we must put Troy war under or prior to this king). Certainly some of them really lived but I would feel    better if we were certain of the existence of all of them, and on the contrary it is possible that we cannot prove the real existence of all (for my thesis that would be fine). What happened after the Libyans Sea peoples  invaded Egypt like Germans the second Roman empire? Probably they settled them in the boundaries of Egypt. It is possible that they were like independent or “federate” dynasties (outside the count of Egyptian ones)? The very problem is that these XXI and XXII, from 1070 to 754 B.C. (the XXIII is contemporary to XXII) kings from Tanis are immediately suspect of fake simply because they coincide temporarily with Greek and Hebrew “history” from Troy (1200) to Troy (750) B.C.  I have proved deeply that Homer writes in the second and third quarter of VII century. He speaks of Ethiopians not of Egyptians. And since he does, for his times, a true historical reconstruction, we can imagine that really Ethiopians existed at the time of Troy war. In effect the Sais  XXIV dynasty  of Tefnakht (727-720) and Bokchoris/Bokenrinef (720-715), contemporaries to the end of Romulus, is contemporary to XXV Ethiopic dynasty of Pi(ankh)y (747-716).     So my question is: Is it possible that in the fake was implied the same Manetho? It is sufficient he was conditioned by external chronologies Greek/Hebrew-centric. Hebrews were a Semitic nation and one expected they knew well the Near East history. Libyans are religiously similar to Hebrews and Herodotus stresses the common origin of Libyan Zeus/Amon and Zeus of Dodona from the Amon of the Egypt Thebes. I inferred from this in a previous work, in Italian, the conspiracy of what we can call the Libyans and Illyrians (the second stratus of Hebrews, that of Aaron priests Jahveh; the first stratus being that of  the Hyksos/Canaanite and Moses priests El/Elohim) in the invading of Egypt around 1200 B.C. (as a second wave provoked by the Roman attack).   Hebrew dynasties from the divided kingdoms onward go from Jeroboam (931-910) and Roboam (931-913) to… the Assyrian Tiglath-Phalasar III/Pulu (745-727) who conquests Babylon, Damask, while successively Sargon II conquests  Israel and Samaria its capital (722). The tribal structure of Israel in all its history proves that it was an Arabic/Canaanite nomads  under the tents coalition and that they had no practical history (all rare external “proves” of the existence of this or that Israelite/Jude king are plainly refused by contra-experts).   The preceding period from the Philistines/Romans to Saul and David (and Solomon who is a fake forged on the Trans-Euphrates V Persian satrapy, and probably on Sheshonq, 945-924) corresponds to the Roman war on Egypt, Hittite and little Syrian and Israel kings who lifted to the side of the Hittites. Here I have identified the battle of Afèq, the travel of Wenamun (Roman victory in sea and land),   Saul and David ex Roman generals (in a time in which generals are too confident in their power and found their own kingdoms; and the same is that Rome lose control of the Middle East; the Assyrians profiting to take the power in the region) in the roundabouts of the Troy war (750 B.C.).  Assyria appears to expand till the time of Tukulti-ninurta I (1244-1208) who reigns over Babylon, but at the death of this his successors abandoned the West regions (invaded by Aram peoples)  and     occupied themselves of Babylon independent since Adad-shuma-usur (1218-1189). By the Berosus (a  Bel priest from Babylon operating under Antiochus II, 261-246) Chaldaika (Babyloniaka), and the Canon of Ptolmy (100-178 A. D.), both in Greek, we know, for the time in question,  practically from the Assyrian Tiglath-Phalasar III/Pul of the Bible (745-727) and Nabu-Nasir (747-734) when   the Babylon dynasty after a long period (since 1250) under the Assyrians becomes independent. I think that these facts of tradition in se are sufficient to grasp the existence, and to request a more profound inquiry, of a void gap   from Mediterranean to Near East, that is the end of the Ancient World (a metaphorical big Atlantis). The archaeological (epigraphic) gap is the most visible, since here we grasp the difficult position of experts in the camp who make war each other to defend their theories and to protect themselves from stupid accuses of incapacity which like a boomerang hit who starts the quarrel. As a conservative in research (but I like to discover history, so I am a dearer too). I was contrary to the New Chronologies theories. And certainly the way in which Velikovsky and other presented their theories with the intermingling of catastrophic cosmic events or lifting here and there dynasties and pharaohs like a society game, disturbed me and finally stopped from  beginning a calm hearing to the  problem. My hypothesis that historic Odysseus/Romulus is the Troy horse from which clever Greeks inserted a false history to reach the  memory  damnation of the first Roman empire and in the same time to   build an inexistent primacy of Greek centric  countries at least since the time of Plato is a good one I think.

In my last researches on Atlantis/first Roman empire, I went to the conclusion of the present (at the kings of Rome  and Homer times) existence of  Atlantis, in decline, but still modern and efficient, not primitive like  the dominating Greek  tradition likes to show. Since many years I knew that Achaeans were Romans but this time I summed up many works of mines  in one and in a brief time I grasped  that Odysseus/Romulus had not destroyed Troy, on the contrary he freed the city from the Hittite predominance and    the Stele of Lemnus   (VI century) was in memory of this big man who freed Troy, in 750 B.C.  Only in this case we could understand the actuality of poems in Greek (that is in ancient Roman) language which record in Rome, a century later, the anniversary of  Troy freedom (Iliad, 649 B.C.) from the hands of Hittites, and the hero of this epopee, Odysseus (Odyssey, 675 B.C.), that is Romulus, Hostus Hostilius, who, in Roman tradition, was educated in Greek language (in fact Greek was our Atlantis language till the time of Tullus Hostilius).

Greeks and Hebrews thought that propaganda is the true goal of history, and they practiced it to create a background of history who made them Giants against all other… little young peoples. The panoply they put on them, they stole to the Roman people of Eternal Rome. They  have cancelled our Roman nomen (name) from ancient Titanic and Cyclopic history of Atlantis). The curious is that they stole our history in the same time of our Roman kings and our poet Homer, when Atlantis, who never died, was living as the biggest and richest “Greek” city (compare the Etruscan-Roman rich tombs with the poor Hesiod).


I study, with profit, universal history (more than civilizations), from the beginning, since I was a boy. So I know I can not be contradicted affirming that ancient Near Eastern history of the late bronze  is known principally and some times exclusively from Hebrew Bible sources. It is like to let a blind man takes you to visit a foreign country. The same is the Greek tradition stolen to Romans and rearranged frequently in other places.  



The bad sisters couple in Tanis (see the Ramses II stele called of the 400 years, you know? The 400 years Hebrew/Hyksos slavery under Egyptians concluded by the bad king Ramses II, who worshipped the same god Seth!, who chased them from Egypt; this stele was dedicated to Seth and celebrating the foundation of Awaris, the Hyksos capital!)  discovered/deepened the knowing of their  Hyksos (Canaanite) origins (and the same in Says of Neith/Athena, spring of Solon/Plato’s Atlantis, and Herodotus “histories”).

Very curious is that Chaim Herzog and Mordechai Gichon sustain the recovering of Solomon boundaries at the time of Jeroboam II (783-743; note its correspondence with the first king Jeroboam I at the beginning of the fake) and Ozia/Azaria (781-740), which would be the second gold age of biblical Israel! (pages 157-158 of the Italian edition). Unfortunately the kingdom just restored… is conquered by the Assyrians (p. 159 onward). Hebrew history like Greek one begins… and ends, when they are under Assyrian, Babylonian and Persian domination.

It is quite probable that David had designed to the succession his son Adonia.   David  is a bad Roman (frankly the most horrible man I met with in history! But now I can think to the manipulations by Aaron priests more than Solomon coup d’état), who corrupt the wife of the good general Uria the Hittite. This general may be connected with  Troy or a region in Anatoly, since in the “Greek” tradition David, I have discovered, corresponds to Preto, who orders Iobate/Ioab to kill Bellerofon/Uria, located in Lycia. David must confide in the cruel Ioab. It is not credible that he orders Solomon to kill Ioab (we have a duel similar to that of Oriazi and Quriazi under Tullus Ostilius, 2 Samuel 2, and one of these is Ioab; David cuts hands and feet  like pharaoh Horemheb and Odysseus, 2 Samuel 4; Ioab was too precious and obedient  serf for David who could not order his killing). The trustful Ioab was on the side of Adonia so I think this was the heir designed. Ebiatar of the Moses priesthood was confined in Anatot (and Jeremy comes from here). In reality there is a clear  manoeuvre of Nathan the prophet and Betsabea to put  Solomon on the throne (before the death of David; it is possible killing the king) having on their side  Benaià, chief of the royal guard (composed by Cerites and Philistines   warriors, that is principally Shardana who had a camp near Cere, Rome), and Zadoq the Aaron priest. And where we have a Aaron priests tradition it is a almost sure fake.   

Romans had  Jerusalem and Jude as a stronghold at least since the XV century. Romans were continuously behind their colony “kings”: procurators in Linear B tablets). Rezon/Razin of Damask (1 Kings, 11,23-25) was enemy of Solomon. Curiously this Rezon/Razin we find at the end of Damask kingdom, 732 B. C., under Tiglat-Phalasar III (2 Kings 16,9)! The Assyrian chronology like the Egyptian seems a fake. She  presents  Assyria expanding before the Troy war and suddenly reducing drastically, until   in 738 B.C. Tiglat-Phalasar III (Biblical Pul) invaded Syria and subjected to heavy     tribute Israel and Jude! Damask is submitted. Pekach of Israel is substituted by Osea. Sargon II submits Israel (fall of Samaria 722) and deports the so called 10 tribes of Israel. This is the true photography of the time of the Troy war, with the fall of the Hittites (who end in 1200 = 750), of Egypt, the complete destruction of Syria-Palestine and its foolish presumptuous little kings. All this period of time is concerned by Aram wars and Aram peoples come in history after and with the Troy war.    My chronology  only admits a brief dynasty in Jerusalem (presumably  descendant from Saul and David), from more or less Iotam (740-736; consider that Menahem of Israel, about 738 B.C., paid tribute to Pul/Tiglat-Phalasar, 2 Kings, 15,19) to the fall of Jerusalem etc. etc.


The Assyrian king Tiglath-Phalasar III, contemporary to Odysseus/Romulus, paint from the Till Barsip palace, on the Euphrates and near Harran.


I am perfectly sure of Roman history from Romulus down. I verified it studying it for many  years with the precious help of Dionysus of Halicarnassus and Homer.   I do not find the like certainty, the like history,  with a single Greek city, Sparta? Athens? Tell me one Greek city please. Rome is the Greek city we have the more ancient history. Ignorant modern Greek historians integrate Greek history with  Roman poetic “history” by Homer (VII century! But they think  Homer be more ancient!). It is ridiculous! Greek history begins properly only  with VI century, under Mede and Persian domination! (and Greeks had writing, and occupied themselves to… write Roman history! Of Romulus and Remus). Greek colonies are more ancient since they are grown up from the Greek speaking Roman cities (so called Myceneans) of the ex Atlantis empire!

A people can win wars  conquering empires like Romans or more simply build a good propaganda to conquer the empires of others. Greeks (see Platon for Athens, the Atlantis won by Athens!) and Hebrews (who won against Philistines!) used propaganda to create a background of false history who would terrorise in the future other peoples who met  Greeks and Hebrews. On the contrary they where very little and insignificant countries.   

The situation after the burning of Jerusalem (and the pseudo-first temple) by the Babylonians, and the building of the (second) temple, tells us of a country in which lived Arab peoples with Arab costumes. Think about Tadmor/Palmyra at the times of Odenatus, Zenobia and Vahaballath, III century A.D. Or the Nabatheans of Petra. In a first tentative to adjust things we can imagine that the history of the Hebrews from the divided kingdoms, that is from the raid of Sheshonq,  to 722  B. C., end of Israel (age of Romulus),  be of an Arabic people who lives under the tents, probably nomads.  All must admit that Hebrews do not  tell their history well, with precise relation to other big civilization chronology. On the contrary, making researches in Egyptian and Babylonian archives, they willingly omit to spell, or spell not correctly, the names of the kings and queens, like the stupid “Pharaoh” of Moses and Asenat/Ankhesenaten married by the criminal Joseph/Ey. That is a practice used by peoples who do not have a real history, and invent much part of it to seem ancient like other peoples around them and, better, pretend to be more ancient.  The reference to Assyrian kings begins with Tiglath-Phalasar III (744-727 B. C., Romulus age) and ends with Sargon II (fall of Samaria, 722, Romulus age).  

The war of Troy (750 circa) destabilises the region and gives strength to the Assyrians who emerge in the Near East and briefly conquer Israel (cancelling the “history” forged by the same, since Samaria falls in 722 B. C.! Last days  of Romulus), and determines the exodus of many Orientals who will participate to the growth of the Etruscans of Italy (heirs  in Upper Latium and Tuscany of the Roman/Atlantis people), and will give them an Oriental like aspect. By the way it is really possible that Retchenu/Ratchenu/Syria corresponds to Rasen(n)a, the name this people gave to himself.

Rome founded Troy and not vice versa (our tradition in our Greek language of the Athena Palladium). On the acropolis of Troy there was a statue of Athena, and  Troy  women in Iliad go to preach before it for the salvation of the city. Romans under Odysseus/Romulus will dedicate a statue to Athena after the victory.  So I must deduce that Odysseus is Romulus and only Romulus  could interest to the Romans, not only being, recently! (not 4 centuries before, no archaeological  object   existing from that time, presumably of the coming back of Eneas, to 750 B.C.; the same argument is the arriving of “Etruscans” in Tuscany from 1200 B. C. on, about which there is no apparent  proof, but they appears as soon as you put them in 750 B.C.!), he who freed Troy but also founded  monarchy.


There are too much mysterious things if we stay at the traditional chronology. All peoples who navigate from East to West from the tradition of Odyssey and the come backs (apparently 1200 B. C.), to the Greek colonies  and Orientals who settle in Etruria in VIII century, they are moving the same direction for 4/5 centuries and this is not plausible. Rome devastation of Orient was certainly furious, but to create a 4/5 centuries of desert, it is not likely.  


A  Sea people  warrior (1200 circa) with axe  from Enkomi, Cyprus, on the left. The iconography is  very similar to many war lords  like Aule Feluske (Pelasgus, see Philistines, Pelasgi) from Vetulonia, on the right,  reproduced on a stele of VIII-VII century on the Etruscan soil. If these war lords of Tuscany like Aulus Pelasgus  are the Sea peoples age,  we understand they come back from the Troy war in a limited space of time (Odysseus took about 20 years, but he was the last to come back), not in the course of 4/5 centuries! The possible objection is only a question of style, but in an age of crisis and many men falls this is quite possible, the barbarisation of a prosper civilization.    

But there is also another point. At the times of the Troy war Assyrians are in expansion while the Hittite are in decline. We have first Tukulti-Ninurta I (1244-1208) and after the Troy war Tiglat-Phalasar III (744-727). A false chronology is not lesser false if written on clay by Assyrians rather than on parchment by Hebrews or Greeks.


Troy war Shardana of 750 B. C. (1200 B.C.) from Mycenae.




The image is not good but perhaps you are able to see on this sandstone funerary stele from Tuoro sul Trasimeno (about 600 B.C.) a duel between two men like Aulus Pelasgus and like  we find in Iliad (ex. Menelaus against Paris/Alexander).


Bible is very reserved in telling us the truth because she is full of fakes. In every case the history is clear. Rome declared war on Egypt who under Ramses II had became allied with the enemy Hittite, and declared war also to the Hittites, and to the arrogant not trustable Syria-Palestine little kings, who allied themselves  to the enemy Hittite king. At the bulk of this was ideologically, symbolically,  the freedom of Troy from under the hands of Hittites. Romulus/Odysseus freed the city and destroyed Hittites and Egyptians, but the consequence was the expansion of Assyrians.



Viewing from this perspective I can imagine in the Troy war the participation of Assyrians with their helmets (so Troy like; remnants where found in the ruins of Lachish, see photos in the book of Chaim Herzog and Mordechai Gichon, Battles of the Bible, Greenhill Books) and war machines so Roman in their aspect, and so pertinent to Romans in general. Romans are who invented machines to through  stones and arrows. During the Roman generals period these make war against Israel tribes. Saul and Jonathan are perfectly Romans in their habits. They came out of the Roman army at the time of the decline of Roman power on Palestine and founded a little independent kingdom. David in the passing of time became a legendary figure like Herakles, so much of his history is not credible. David, who came out from the Roman army too, is not truly a Roman general. He is more similar to an outlaw.  



The Nestor’s cup (720 B.C.) from Ischia/Pithecusa proves Troy tradition and Greek speaking in Italy, not that Iliad is VIII century or more ancient. Nestor was from Pile on the Ionian sea (face to Italy), and worshipped  Poseidon, the same Roman god. In his youth he lived in Rome where there were the Ceretes (or Curetes of Cures, a Sabin people), the Shardana warriors of Cere’s military naval basis. Like many other procurators all over the Near East, he was sent to Pile as procurator, that is king on Pile in the name and interest of Rome. Around 750 B.C. democratic alphabetic writing imported from Phoenicia  challenge and substitute Phaistos Disk and Linear B syllabic writing (lastly known from Pylos). This immediate innovation is plausible like Europeans who encounter  Arabs in the crusades and know ancient Greek philosophy, and like devastated regions loose their tyrants and become democratic and use a simpler writing. Culture spreads and is more  possible Homer, of whom and his predecessor Roman poets we will a day somewhere find works in Linear B and Phaistos Disk hieroglyphic.  Please ask you and answer. Where we find Homeric, “Greek” tradition (of Apollodorus  Bibliotheca, for example), “Greek” object of art and places of the most ancient age? In Italy, and especially in the roundabouts of Rome, naturally!    


That of David/Pretus  is the only case of ancient (“Greek” alphabetic) writing in Bible and Homer, at the time of Troy war. At the beginning of the so called divided kingdoms  Jude and Israel were enemies each other. I think that Jerusalem was a Roman stronghold against Israel (the barbaric Sea peoples disturbed by Roman invincible armada, came  from the Izreel plain). So Gibbeton (I do not find it in charts; but it was around Jaffa and the road to Samaria) was in the hands of Romans and was under siege by Israelites.  Evidently some Israelites were not of the idea to make war against Romans, so Israelite kings were killed (Nadab, Ela) and substituted by the killers (Baasa, Zimri). When Israelite knew Zimri had killed Ela, proclaimed king Omri, who abandoned the siege of Gibbeton. Zimri put the fire on the “palace” of Tirza and died burned. Omri “founded” the new capital Samaria. I think these lived under the tents as nomads like they proved to be in all the Israelite tribal history.         

Considering all Hebrew alleged “history” from the divided kingdoms on, I think it is a fake. I make the hypothesis that Aaron priests in Babylon put their eyes on an Arab community chronology, a “king” list of nomads living under tents, at the margins of Jerusalem as well at the margins of Egypt, like Germans at the time of second Roman empire. Priests are very ingenious to forge fakes, relics. You could tell that this is their first occupation in all religions. They have spread their devil works all over the history, so why    marvel us and, better, why do not presuppose their evil doing in everything regards them?

The king lists seem to have a credible history at their back, and it is why scholars have trusted on them. Historians must be aware of the possibility of a historic fail from 1183 to 753 B.C. circa and that between the two dates there is the land of no one. I chose      the Troy war date from Eratosthenes (274-195), director of Alexandria’s  bibliotheca, and the first  year of Romulus kingdom by Varro to simplify the first steps towards a New Chronology.       


The end



ATTENZIONE! Avete creato o avete intenzione di creare un sito con contenuti seri, scientifici, o cui comunque tenete particolarmente, sull’insieme,, Telecomitalia? NON FATELO! Tutti i miei lavori (frutto di anni di lavoro intenso) postati sul sito di questo GESTORE INFEDELE, XOOMER.IT:

sono stati rimossi insieme al sito stesso senza alcun preavviso e motivazione. Non pensavo minimamente che potesse accadere un’assurdità simile, ed è per ciò che il fatto mi ha colto di sorpresa. Quando me ne sono accorto e ho reclamato, la motivazione dei tecnici (perché solo da loro ho ricevuto risposta) è stata che non usavo il sito da tempo! Cioè non inserivo nuovi lavori… Queste teste di cazzo non capiscono che non sono io a dover frequentare il mio sito, ma gli utenti, voi,  che vi ci collegate e che in ogni tempo trovate lavori da consultare, per sempre. E pensare che questa storia da incubo iniziò quando mi arrivarono delle e-mail di Telecomitalia che  mi… pregava di postare i miei lavori su, e io stupidamente accettai.