INDEX
M.
G. Corsini
New Chronology, 3
September 8, 2013. All
rights reserved
My hypothesis is that Jude and Israel
were very little entities in Palestine.
In the Bible we hear about Tyre, Damask, Moab,
from which we have poor inscriptions, and few kings attested, and Egypt, Assyria and Babylon. Hebrew faked history can be divided
in two parts: from Jeroboam and Roboam (about 930 B.C.) to the fall of Samaria under Sargon II
(722 B.C.), and the prior faked history from the Exodus under Ramses II to
Solomon.
Hebrew history starts to be credible from Tiglath-Phalasar III (745-727)
on. Tiglath-Phalasar III in 732 B.C. subdued
Damask whose king was Razin.
At the beginning of this second faked part we have a king Razin of
Damask (1 Kings, 11, 23ss) at the time of faked Solomon. In the case in which we are before the same
Razin of Damask, all the “history” of Israel/Jude is a fake. When Hebrews were deported or
escaped in Babylon and Egypt they could create a history of his own having as coordinates the real but
generic existence of names of Near East kings whom they did not spell correctly
so to escape the accuse of fake. Staying
in Tanis (the ex capital of Libyan dynasties), Egypt, the followers of prophet Jeremy could be
the involuntary source (by the intermediate of Baruch the scribe gone to Babylon
after the death of Jeremy) of the fake of the more ancient Hebrew “history”.
Here they could read or obtain the
translation of the 400 years stele from which it resulted that Ramses II (about
1250 B.C.) celebrated the 400 anniversary of the foundation of Awaris capital
of the Hyksos (the Israelite, Mosaic tradition, Biblical Jacob, Hyksos pharaoh,
reigned about 1650 B.C., so 1650 – 1250 = 400), so they (the Aaron/Jahveh
followers of Ezekiel) invented a 400 years slavery of Hyksos/Hebrews under
Egyptians till they were expelled by Ramses II.
This is a disgusting fake, because
Hyksos were expelled by Roman pharaoh Ahmose at the end of XVI century.
Ramses II worshipped Seth, the Hyksos god, so could not have expelled Hyksos
(supposed to be Hebrews), since he had
the same religion.
The
peace-treaty in Accadian (diplomatic
language) exchanged between Ramses II and Hattusili III.
Ramses II (1279-1202 B.C.) is at the beginning of Troy
war! Ramses II (1279-1212) and
Hattusili III (1266-1236) exchange (1259 B.C.) copies of a
peace-treaty contrary to the interests
of Rome, since the Hittites were their enemies
particularly in the vital-interest Troy region. In this time Romans are behind the
Ahhiyawa/Achaeans and their king
(Polinikes), brother of Hetheocles. They were Roman procurators sent by Rome
Government (see Kreon/Powerful). And Rome starts
a desert storm war against Near East. In the meantime Troy
becomes under Hittite power so the war is symbolized by the freedom of Troy by Odysseus from Hittite hands. The
“Troy war” was not ten years
lasting, but many decades. I think that in the game did enter the Assyrians with
Tukulti-Ninurta I, who in his first
year of reign (1233) marched on Papanhi south of Issuwa, and conquered it. The
Hittite king Tudhaliya IV, in response, proclaimed the embargo, that is
prohibited Assyrians and Ahhiyawa to reach the Mediterranean
sea. In his 11th year of
reign (1223) Tukulti-Ninurta conquered Babylon
and took king Kastilias in chains to Assur. Tudhaliya IV assaulted
Tukulti-Ninurta at Nihiriya but the
last won and won also over 40 local kings hi was fighting. Before the death of Tudhaliya IV also Issuwa was subdued to Assyria. At this point we have the so called Sea
peoples who attack Near East for the first time under Merenptah/Mineptah
(1212-1202). They put all under iron (they are the Bible Philistines with iron
charts and armours) and fire. Hatti and his vassals of Karkemish and Ugarit
are under attack and suffer famine. Merenptah in his second year of reign
(1211) send great quantities of grain to Hatti (this proves the peace-treaty still be observed against the Roman
interests). Under Suppiluliumas II (1213-1190) Hattusa was destroyed by Romans
and the Hittite kingdom ended. I see well the freedom of Troy by Odysseus beneath this scenario,
before the fall of Hattusas. All Eastern
peoples were liars. I do not trust a word about the victory of Merenptah (and
Ramses III) against Romans. The dramatic proof is the invasion of Egypt by Libyan peoples (under Merenptah and
Ramses III) who will give life to the Tanis Libyan dynasties XXI and XXII. Probably these
dynasties (contemporary to the Hebrews kings starting from Salomon to
Tiglath-Phalasar III) must be considered apart
from, and contemporary to Egyptian chronology from about Ramses III to
the XXIV and XXVI Saite Egyptian dynasties. The general impression is that all
Near East falls in complete misery and recession: Can we call this Dark Age in
the sense that history continues with little or no archaeology documentation
and only chronicles (but chronicles may be false if not sustained by
archaeological proof)? Archaeological documentation cannot be a fake usually,
while chronicles can be faked (also if impressed on clay instead of parchment).
Or can we call this 400/500 years a
space without history? I know that my
theory may be wrong (this time I admit to have been hazardous since the
beginning, but the fact is that the
archaeological problem pointed out by Velikovsky is a real one and in my mind
this is the case in which archaeology must
prevail on possibly faked written chronicles.
I find very important the expansion of Tukulti-Ninurta I Assyria
corresponding with the expansion under Tiglath-Phalasar III (745-727; Romulus age) who conquered Babylon. The generic comparison of warriors
dated in about 1200 B.C. Troy war and warriors dated about 750 Romulus age could
be not decisive since immigrants in Italy came in every time. The curious is
that apparently they come in these two wages. Why? Why they come at the
beginning (came backs, to Italy!, from which they sailed, after the Troy
war) of the 400/500 years apparently without history and at the end (war lords
who will colonize Tuscany and Venice, Italy
from the two seas)? The impression is that if we put together the two ends of
history we have the Roman fleet which
starts from Pyrgi, Cere, Ostia to the Levant, destroys
Hatti, Egypt, Syria-Palestine, frees Troy and return home. Not in 20 years like Odysseus, but in
many travels go and return, in a space of
less than a century. Odysseus has
the same etymology of Hostus Hostilius, the real name of Romulus
(from Rome; who founded Rome;
it is not true, since Rome on Capital hill
existed probably at least about 1600 B.C.; Romulus made a coup d’état and founded
only monarchy). If Odysseus does not correspond to Romulus it is possible that Odysseus was an
ancestor of Hostus Hostilius/Romulus and Tullus Hostilius, third Roman king. So
Homer would have written Odyssey and Iliad for (the third) Roman king Tullus
Hostilius, about the heroic freedom of Troy
(a Roman city, nobody can deny it) by his ancestor Odysseus. The fact that in every case Rome freed Troy
and Homer was our poet in VII century signifies that we had culture and writing
(Phaistos Disk, Linear B and alphabetic writing) in Dark Age too, but being so
ancient the Troy freedom, I think Romans celebrated it so many times in the
past (from 1200 circa) to be now an annoying argument. It would be different if
Romulus were Odysseus/Hostilius, who freed Troy about 753 B.C.
(corresponding about 1200 B.C.). I have said that Homer (or an ancestor of his)
wrote in Iliad a passage about the war of Romulus
against Titus Tatius king on Capital hill/Rome (transformed in the attack of
Hector against Greek ships). And in
Odissey Odysseus against the pretenders is the replica of Romulus against the usurpers of his kingdom
on Laure-Lavin. At that time Rome had two
magistrates for kings (see the two Penates; Romulus and Remus, Amulius and Numitor, the Consules, etc. etc.
So Romulus was
still living and actual in the Roman culture. Perhaps these passages were
written for the celebration of Romulus’
coup d’état (749 B.C.) beginning the monarchy. Homer was not born at the
time but as a boy he could hear the
stories of Romulus
narrated by his youngest companions of arms. Homer wrote for Numa Pompilius
(second Roman king) and Tullus Hostilius. The Iliad with the Horse full of
Roman soldiers who by night opened the doors of the city and capture it, is
another thing if Romulus Hostilius/Odysseus is the hero, and we comprehend that
they dedicated to him also the Odyssey.
In 649 B.C. (Romans celebrated the saecula/centuries with
“Olimpic” games, every … 1249, 1149, 1049, 949, 849, 749,
649 and so on) for the centenary of the
freedom of Troy
Homer wrote the Achilles’ Rage, the bulk of Iliad. The commissioner was
Tullus Hostilius, third Roman king, descendant of Romulus, first king. After the Troy war Romulus was
worshipped as a hero in the shape of a Penate, armed with shield and spear in Lemnos (comp. the Stele of Lemnos, VI century B.C.,
in Lemnian language, similar to Etruscan). The inscription mentions the city of
Focea, with Lemnos in the area dominated by Troy. Romulus
is sead death in the Tiber city at 54 years
old. Now if the Stele of Lemnos is connected with Romulus,
what has Romulus with the Troy
region to do? He went from Rome to Troy or came to Rome from Troy?
At first I could not grasp the
connection of Romulus with Troy since nobody tells us, so I supposed that
Romulus was a Lemnian language priest in the Atlantis/Roman last empire, having
right to the government (he was able to know the will of the gods; so I taught
of a two magistrates, one military, Titus Tatius for example, and one priestly,
Romulus; and I think the same today, but now I think they changed periodically
their functions; Romulus/Odysseus was probably the dux of the Roman army
against Orient). After having grasped the bulk of my ten years researches in various fields, I finally
thought to the possibility that
Romulus/Odysseus caught Troy.
My translation of the
Silvius/Hylaios/Romulus Lemnos’ Stele
Transcription: Front
A: aker tavarsio / vanala3ial seronai
morinail / holaies naphoth / siasi
marasm av 3ialkhveis avis /
evi3tho seronaith sivai. Side B:
holaiesi phokiasiale seronaith evi3tho toverona[l?] / romh aralio /* sivai eptesio arai tis phoke
*/ sivai avis sialkhvis marasm avis romai.
Translation:
A: Aker Tavarsio / gave (the stele) as a funerary gift / * the
seventh year he resided in
Phokea. */ (A. T. the) nephew of Hylaios
(Silvius), / dead (at the age of)
fifty-four years. / at the service of Ephaistos (Vulcan) lived. B: To Hylaios of Phokea / serf of Ephaistos Tyberinos / in Rome, / at fifty-four
years old dead in Rome.
I
think now the part between asterisks has been added afterwards, and so in a odd
position, but refers to Aker Tavarsio. So I lifted it in the right position in
translation.
The Palladium tradition speaks of the founding of Troy by Romans. Pallade
Athena was born in the Triton sea, that is the Thirrhenian sea or better the
Tiber/Triton river who reverse itself in the Thyrrhenian sea. All our
traditions were robbed to us by Greeks,
since our literature was in “Greek” and we exported it in Crete, Greece
etc. but at the time of Tullus Hostilius we started to have a public literature
in Latin (Greek changed in Latin trough Sabin influence) so will come the time
Romans do not more write, speak an understand Greek language. And do not bother
to ancient Roman empire being occupied to
build a new empire. Our tradition (think of Apollodorus
Bibliothec) was changed in Greek
tradition. Now the existence of 400/500 years of non-history (of the Greek made
fake) is confirmed by the false history
put by Greeks before Romulus and from Romulus to the Troy war won by Odysseus
(in the meantime transformed in a Greek hero). The time space between 1200 B.C.
and 750 B.C. is a time probably faked in all antiquity from Rome
to Babylon!
Otherwise it would not be necessary to add
history to Rome,
if it was a hut city founded by primitive pastors living with sheep not too
different from Polyphemus. Instead the Greek centred legend tells of Aeneas, a
Troy prince who after the fall of the city goes in search (of the Great
Mother/Italy, that is the Land from which Troy was founded: Virgil, Aeneid) of
a new land in which to live, and his son Ascanius founds Alba Longa and a day
two noble princes from Alba Longa,
Romulus and Remus will found Rome. Thanks to Dionysius of Halykarnass I could
understand that this was a Greek fake. For example the “good”
grandfather Numitor was in reality the
bad one and kicked out Romulus and Remus to
found a new city.
Remus did not exist and was invented to represent the Greek community. Laure-Lavin
was not the mother-city of Alba Longa, since the
gods refused to transfer themselves to Alba
Longa and in the night returned to Laure-Lavin.
Aeneas is sometimes connected directly
to Romulus as
his grandfather. Aeneas comes from Troy
on ships full of soldiers. So we must
think at the come back of Odysseus/Hostilius on ships full of Shardana
warriors, the praetorian guard of Romulus.
The fake begins with Tanis, capital of the
Libyan dynasty XXII. After Ramses III (XX dyn.) Egypt falls in chaos. It is
interesting that Deir el-Medina declines during the XIX and XX dyn. And was
abandoned in the course of XXI dyn. Taharqa of XXV dyn., built there a chapel
in honour of Osiris and Saites a tomb for the Divine Worshipper
Ankhnesneferibra. My hypothesis is that XXI to XXII (parallel XXIII) Libyan
dynasties be not necessary a fake but a mistake by Manetho or its
interpreters, who included in the Egyptian dynasties chronology foreign independent kingdoms like boundary
German tribes under the Second Roman Empire. So these Libyan dynasties would be
parallel and contemporary to Egyptian ones.
Saul and David were two Roman generals who created very little kingdoms
of her owns. It is curious that Saul the
Roman general is taken as founder of Israel from which came the enemies,
and David the enemy as king on Roman Jerusalem. Jerusalem was Roman since the Egyptian
domination. Romans governed behind the Egyptians. Rama (“hill”) was
a city founded by Romans with the same name of Rome. A second Rome. Priests like to forge fakes. It is impossible that Jahveh
priests (like Samuel) had a power upon Roman generals. They received orders
only from the “Senate” — see Kreon (Powerful, Roman
king, procurator, on Boeotian Thebes), in the Phaistos Disk, 1350 B. C.,
something like *Kreyanes, which passing in Oriental dialects becomes Philistine
*Serenes(?), a title, Seren (it seems English Sir), given to the chiefs ― of Rome, and in every case at the
time they worshipped Poseidon/Semitic Dagon, not Juppiter, Jovis/Jahveh
imported probably by Romulus.
Israel was ever fighting for his independence. Saul of
Benjamin was 100% Roman general. David
(who cut the head of Goliath and took it to Jerusalem, 1 Samuel 17, 51-54)
served under Philistines, so if he was not of Roman citizenship he was a Roman
dressed warrior (note that 2 Samuel 21, 19 tells that Elhanan son of
Jaare-Oreghim from Bethlehem killed Goliath from Gath). It is possible that the heads of the traitors
(they rebelled themselves to Roman government) Saul and his three sons where
put in the temple of Dagon… in Jerusalem (1 Chronicles, 10,10; in
Jerusalem was also a temple of Astarte to match with 1 Samuel, 31,10; note that the corpses where
left in the battle camp as tells rightly 1 Chronicles, so the corpses of Saul
and his sons appended to the walls of
Beisan of 1 Samuel is not credible; you think the frightened Hebrews
would go and pull down the corpses? I do not; neither I think that Romans did
such things to Romans, except for cutting the heads). 1 Samuel is not coherent with 2 Samuel. In
the first Saul kills himself Roman stile falling on his sword. In the second
aided by an Amalekite. David here and in
his elegy, and always, shows his
racist and cruel, and coward and homosexual
temperament only to cover his envy towards Saul. In fact he was not present at the
battle of Gilboa in which died heroically Saul and his sons. At this time
Romans where victorious over their powerful rebel officers. David is a squalid
bronze face, a whitened sepulchre Pharisee,
would be a before time
Machiavelli’s Prince, if he had courage. He sweeps over the death of Saul and his sons but
nevertheless he fights against the son of Saul, king of Israel,
Is-Baal. I think that Israel
and Jude were independent kingdoms since the beginning. So we understand that
David was enemy of Saul and surely commissioned the murder of Is-Baal becoming
for the first and only time king of all Israel. The separation of the two
tribal constellations is proved by the rebellion of Absalom, Amasa and Sheba for
an independent Israel.
If we stay to the Bible they were always in war each other. There was
never a Israelite united kingdom (of Israel and Jude). There was never a
Israelite kingdom, since from Tiglath-Phalasar III to Sargon II, we have the
end of Samaria (722 B.C.) and pseudo Israel
kingdom. This presuppose (if the king list is authentic) a parallel Israelite
kingdom like a parallel Libyan kingdom.
On the contrary a little life for Jude is possible. Unfortunately it
seams that Judeans begin to worship Jahveh when they are at their
end under Babylonian domination (fall of Jerusalem in 587 under Nabucodonosor II).
Solomon is a pure fake based on XXII dyn. Libyan tradition of Tanis.
We know well that Egyptians never gave a daughter of them to a foreign king. So only a Libyan woman
could be given as wife to “Solomon”, whose story is that of an
insignificant king of the desert. Think only about the visit of Shaba Queen. Who was Shaba queen? A no one. Different
would be if a big king of the time, from Babylon
or Assyria or Egypt
went to visit Solomon. Priests are clever and
trick you with enchanted words. The fabulous Solomon kingdom was
invented on the Persian Trans-Euphratene, V
satrapy, that is Arabia, where Jerusalem
was amongst other Arabic cities and peoples of different religion. The
Israelite and Jude dynasties are probably substantially of Arabic desert
sheiks, parallel and very similar to Libyan ones. There are about 325 km from Tanis
to Jerusalem,
which we could consider the external margins of the Arabic nation.
The designed heir king was from many indices Adonia, not Solomon (see 1 Re 2, 15: “you know that I had right
to the throne”; it was the complot of some of the court, especially the
prophet Nathan, to give it to Solomon). Solomon made a coup d’état with
the help of priests who at the time in Egypt too (also amongst the
Libyans!) were called prophets (also
Minos/Jude/Abram and his son Ay/Joseph were Egyptian prophets), and with the
help of mercenary Roman troops from Cere (now Cerveteri, under Roman control), Ceretes and Peletes, under
Benaia (under Joab they were on the side of David). I think they were in origin
Shardana from Sardinia. We can see that always
win the party they sustain. So till now Rome kips (possibly) control of Jerusalem. I think it possible that Atlantis
(that is first Roman empire) ships from Tartessos in Spain took to
“Solomon” goods from the Americas.
The “history” of Israel
and Jude is well faked by clever priests, but why we find so few inscriptions
of Phoenicia and Syria, even Moab
and Edom, and nothing about
so big kingdoms like Israel
and Jude? For a time from Ramses II to
Tiglath-Phalasar III? I could not be
sure of Phoenicia and Syria history, why would I believe in Israel and Jude
one?
Different is the case of Assyrian inscriptions: Here I must treat
Egyptian and Assyrian chronology. Manetho, we know, was criticized by Hebrews
and ought to find in Egyptian history traces of Hebrew one. Probably in those
times of decline history was quite bad known and always priests try to submit
history to religion. It is possible that influenced by Hebrews protests and in
a time (III century B. C.) in which Greek (by Macedonians kings) overwhelmed
culture, Alexandria of Egypt (where Hebrews
translated the Bible in Greek) became a fake centre creating the predominance
of Greek culture peoples. With a big history
behind it was simple to
understand the present big empire. So
it is possible Manetho considered the Libyan dynasties subsequent to XIX and XX
till Ramses III dynasties and not contemporary and independent from the
Egyptian, who continues with the Saite (XXIV) dynasty (Romulus age).
Assyria probably was forced likely to follow this chronology but curiously
in 1223 Tukulti-Ninurta I (1233-1197) destroyed Babylon
and took his king, the god Marduk, and part of population to Assyria. Similarly Tiglath-Phalasar III (Romulus age) in 729
took Babylon
and became his king with the name of Pulu. From now on Greece had a (for me
completely faked) history going back to the Troy war won by Odysseus lifted
from Rome to Ithaca, a ignoble apart land in the Adriatic
area of so called Pelasgi (a non-Greek language people). Rome,
occupied in recreating an empire had too little time to write history and to
read it. Clever Greeks told us our
history before Romulus, that is the coming
back of Aeneas (see Aeneus founder of
Calidon/Rome) from Troy
in flames and the founding of Alba
Longa by his son Ascanius. From Alba
Longa a day would come Romulus and
Remus of noble descent and found Rome.
Summing up all my researches I realised the possible identity Odysseus 1200
circa (some traditions made him linked with Rome)/Romulus, about 753 B.C.
So in the hands of clever Greeks our Odysseus (we were the first to speak Greek
and imported it in Greece, Crete, etc.) was split in two and the same fact of
Troy war was put 400/500 years before its real time, the time of Romulus,
creating 400/500 years of dark archaeological
history (where Greek speaking and culture-centred peoples — from Greece to Babylon ― put if my theory is right, about 400/500 years of false history to
appear more ancient).
So we the Roman people of Atlantis, who subjugated all Mediterranean sea
and Near East at the end of XVI century (about
1070 B.C. New Chronology) and who destroyed them (Egypt, Hatti, Syria-Palestine)
about 1200 (753 circa New Chron.) were put out of history. The consequence of
Roman invasion was the expansion of
Assyrians. Greeks and Hebrews were and felt them as the twin faces of the same
(false) coin. Nevertheless they (Solon) in Sais capital of XXIV and XXVI
dynasties heard probably about the true story of Atlantis but (Platon) falsely modified it to make Athens a
big power and obscure the actual existence
of Atlantis Rome (in decline but still living), merging Atlantis in the
Atlantic Ocean (a true damnatio memoriae). Athens is nothing in the Homeric poems and
little thing in the Mycenaean/Roman age. Our Thyrrheni of the three sacred
isles (Italy/Ausonia, Sardinia and Sicily)
became Adriatic Pelasgi of non Indo-European, pre-Greek language, while
in the Bible it is more simple to identify Philistines (and Benjamin
tribe) with Romans (they speak a
Greek-like language, worship
Poseidon/Dagon, have legions of 3000 men and 300 chariots, their battle symbol is the wolf, their
marriages are under the aspect of taking away the girls). Now it is obvious that our chronology is not
perfect so we must take with care the destruction
of Babylon by
Tukulti-Ninurta I in 1223 B.C. This fact could be connected to the conquest of Troy by Romans. The
Hittite king Tudhaliya IV (1236-1215) seems contemporaneous to the Troy war. So under Merenptah (1212-1202) we have the
first wave of the Roman
Sea peoples against Egypt, Hatti and Syria-Palestine.
It is here that Troy
is taken by Romans while Hatty is completely destroyed. Under Suppiluliumas II
(1214-1190). We can take 1200 B.C. as the approximate date of Troy
conquest by Romans. That is 753 B. C. approximately.
This is only a proposal. Final solution can only come from single sectors
of research which confirm from all points of view (Assyrian, Babylonian, Hatti,
Greece, etc. etc.) somehow these picture, that is fakes in various Near East
chronologies and king lists.
The End
ATTENZIONE!
Avete creato o avete intenzione di creare un sito con contenuti seri,
scientifici, o cui comunque tenete particolarmente, sull’insieme
Xoomer.it, Virgilio.it, Telecomitalia? NON FATELO! Tutti i miei lavori (frutto
di anni di lavoro intenso) postati sul sito di questo GESTORE INFEDELE,
XOOMER.IT:
http://xoomer.virgilio.it/corsinimg
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
Xoomer.it, e io stupidamente accettai.
INDEX