Latin never was the spoken language in Rome/Pompeii

[Nick Weech]

I published this theory twenty years ago. Everybody in the Roman Empire spoke the languages they speak now (or anyway before the standardisation that always follows literacy). Therefore the people of Rome spoke Italian (or more specifically the Lazio dialect of Italian). The people of Pompeii something more like Napolitano. Sorry, dunno the exact technical terms.

Latin is an artificial phonetic rendering of Italian. It can be spoken, just as Esperanto can be spoken but not naturally. All graffiti would have to be in Latin because that was the only written language around -- apart from Classical Greek, another artificial phonetic language. Both Greeks and Romans got the technique from the Phoenicians. Hey, guess why they're called that?

I've found a lot of interesting related ideas on your AE site Mick ; of course well known here ...
http://www.applied-epistemology.com...www.applied-epistemology.com/phpbb2/index.php

 

[Mick Harper]

I'm curious about your research. Would you like to open a thread to present your ideas?

I wrote about it extensively in the 'old' Stolen History forum, and anyway have moved on since then, so I would be reluctant. It is all set out in The History of Britain Revealed [US title: The Secret History of the English Language] available for a penny on Amazon, though cheap at twice the price. Also this and related subjects are discussed on a daily basis here The Applied Epistemology Library :: Index

But I'm always happy to chew the cud in other people's threads.

 

[Deleted member 1432]

Latin is certainly tied to magic in general and I think that several other books, such as Morals and Dogma by Pike, report that Latin has always played a role in rituals. Also, for a dead language, it is a bit weird that pretty much all new inventions get a Latin/Greek name slapped on them.

That's a very interesting observation, one that I hadn't thought about before. All plants are given Latin names. Are the names of drugs also Latin? It's almost as if all the components of our reality have to be catalogued, defined and labelled in Latin. All of the new additions and inventions also have to be 'owned' by giving them Latin names, because it is an expression of ownership, like branding cattle. I suppose it follows then that to manipulate something in our reality, by the use of ritual magic for example, it needs to be done in Latin. Whereas to manipulate something outside of our reality it's normally done in Enochian.

The more I think about it the more it seems like a mark of ownership. Latin was / is not only used by the Church, but also the legal system, both of which are primarily concerned with ownership. It reminds me of the "hidden in plain sight" adage for some reason and also the story about how certain indigenous people believed that having their photograph taken would steal their soul. Perhaps Latin naming is the equivalent of the way they saw the photography process?

Apologies, thinking out loud really.

 

[GGuilliman]

The question has to be asked: Why all the deceptions?

Recurring catastrophes?

That's probably the most important question yeah. In this case I think the question can be narrowed down a bit to "why aren't we supposed to know the true language spoken in Pompeii at least"? Doesn't make it that much easier but still, I think we gotta get a conclusive answer to that and many other questions of this scope before we can make sense of why they are hiding a big portion of the truth. A pretty simple answer would probably be that, whatever the cause of these catastrophes may be, the fact they occurred is enough to severely depress the majority of most people alive. If a meteorite was to hit tomorrow and you were the ruler, would it be ethical to make that news public and would it make you evil if you decided to hide it from the people? I mean most people that look into the kind of stuff that gets posted on this forum and question the narrative in any way tend to become a little weird, such knowledge affects even those who seek it, let alone those who don't and are faced with it unexpectedly.

Morning GG, your notes on the Roman Empires response to Christianity is particularly important. What are your thoughts on the argument that the elite of the Empire planted false flags amongst the occupied territories esp today's Israel and Byzantine, and then proceeded to subvert and co-opt the Messianic sect ? The argument then goes that, once they convicted Christ, they morphed and included the early church into the state religion (esp Constantine), eventually integrating church and state (the Caesarian cult) into what is today The Vatican. Would be very interested to hear your thoughts on this. regards Goddo

Evening Goddo, glad you are interested! Personally I don't think the Roman Empire existed as we are told in the books, some very very major empire did exist but finding its name or a list of rulers is a difficult task. However when we look at the Vatican we should probably look at the Orthodox church since they indeed more or less claim what you write: the Orthodox consider themselves to be older than the Catholics and mention that the Catholics got subverted early on. And then you even got the Old Believers who claim that the current Orthodox church, both Russian and Greek, got subverted, so I think that someone at some point steered the churches in a pretty bad direction. I do think it is pretty difficult to find good sources related to what exactly this Caesarian cult of the Roman Empire was other than the worship of the Roman Emperor. With the amount of traditions that the Catholic church has from a bygone era, I would say that they added more to Christianity than just pope worship for instance. The eucharist in particular is something that has never been said to be part of Caesar worship and may have a different origin. Greetings, GGuilliman.

That's a very interesting observation, one that I hadn't thought about before. All plants are given Latin names. Are the names of drugs also Latin? It's almost as if all the components of our reality have to be catalogued, defined and labelled in Latin. All of the new additions and inventions also have to be 'owned' by giving them Latin names, because it is an expression of ownership, like branding cattle. I suppose it follows then that to manipulate something in our reality, by the use of ritual magic for example, it needs to be done in Latin. Whereas to manipulate something outside of our reality it's normally done in Enochian.

The more I think about it the more it seems like a mark of ownership. Latin was / is not only used by the Church, but also the legal system, both of which are primarily concerned with ownership. It reminds me of the "hidden in plain sight" adage for some reason and also the story about how certain indigenous people believed that having their photograph taken would steal their soul. Perhaps Latin naming is the equivalent of the way they saw the photography process?

Apologies, thinking out loud really.

Yeah exactly, Latin names are slapped on top of everything that can be considered a major advancement of the human race that isn't occult. Everything science/policy related is in Latin for some reason. Drugs have straight up weird names ending on -vir, -lam and -pir, that is either nonsense or written in an unknown language. Could be food for thought, right? Maybe certain drug names are anagrams even. I think that the language in which something gets named indeed implies ownership or perhaps even a choice of audience. Think about it, if you write a certain kind of data in Norwegian, your target audience is likely the Norwegians. So if it is decided to write all important names in Latin, then who is the target audience of that?

About photography, I think that older people of all nations seem to dislike it for some reason yeah, such as my great-grandmother. It makes me wonder about the saying "those who are remembered live forever". Could it be that photographs erase all other clues about a dead person except for their looks? Like, if you remember the voice or the touch of a loved one, would a photograph erase those memories and replace them with the visual one alone? This is a topic that interests me a lot, it seems the ancient world does like statues of people but not photographs(I bet they could easily imprint whole pictures into their stone if they wished to). So why is a statue okay and a picture not?

Moreover, photographs nowadays are mandatory for identification purposes. Makes me think of that one verse where God told David to take a census, yet it turned out the devil actually said it. Why would the devil require a mortal to identify the citizens and why was it such a big deal in general in those verses, why couldn't he have gotten a rough estimate for himself if it was the information he cared about?

 

[Deleted member 1432]

"The earliest known specimen of the Latin language appears on the Praeneste fibula. A new analysis performed in 2011 declared it to be genuine "beyond any reasonable doubt" and dating from the Orientalizing period, in the first half of the seventh century BC.[3] Other Old Latin inscriptions dated to either the late Roman Kingdom or early Roman Republic include the Lapis Niger stone, the Duenos Inscription on a kernos vase, and the Garigliano bowl of Bucchero type."
Old Latin - Wikipedia

"beyond any reasonable doubt" - and yet the Praeneste fibula is a golden brooch that can't be carbon dated.

"The fibula was presented to the public in 1887 by Wolfgang Helbig, an archaeologist. According to some sources, Helbig did not explain how he had come to acquire the artifact at the time, although others state that the fibula "was first made known to the public in three short articles in the Römische Mitteilungen for 1887 where it is said to have been purchased in Palestrina by a friend of Helbig in the year 1871, or five years before the discovery of the tomb" – the tomb in question being the Bernardini Tomb whose treasure the fibula was later claimed to be a part of.

"In 1980 Margherita Guarducci, a leading epigraphist, published a book arguing that the inscription had been forged by Francesco Martinetti, an art dealer, and Helbig, who were known to have collaborated in shady dealings. Guardicci argued that the fibula's presentation in 1887, was a hoax perpetrated to advance the careers of both men. This was the most formal but not the first accusation of its kind: Georg Karo had said that Helbig told him that the fibula had been stolen from Palestrina's Tomba Bernardini."
Praeneste fibula - Wikipedia

"beyond any reasonable doubt" my ar- arm.

All of the other candidates for oldest Latin script are also on materials that cannot be carbon dated... and even if they were, could we trust it?

 

[dreamtime]

Great post, I have translated it for our german forum: In Rom und Pompeji wurde nie Lateinisch gesprochen

 

[busy.baci]

I agree with OP. Latin and Greek language were both invented as the language of the elites of those societies. They were eager to communicate within their ranks and not getting understood from the commons. This way they hide their agendas in plain sight and are looked upon as these all knowing elite-gods.

Latin is a highly regular language missing a lot of irregular verbs that are very common in a natural evolving language. Vulgar Latin was used by the Etruscans which were widespread in the Italic peninsula, so the elites used their language as the root basis and then added a lot of "-ium" endings to the words. The result is that Latin sounds highly regular, samey and monotonous.

The Etruscans were part of the Pelasgians and they spoke the old Albanian language or Shqip. It's really easy to explain Latin or Italian words by using Shqip.
For example:
lanterrna=lan+terr in Shqip lan(to wash), terr(darkness) meaning to wash the darkness away, to illuminate.
amicus(friendly)=a+mic/mik a(is), mik(friend)
Lucifer=luci+ferr luci(light), ferr(hell) meaning light from hell or in hell
there are more examples like this.

 

[GGuilliman]

"The earliest known specimen of the Latin language appears on the Praeneste fibula. A new analysis performed in 2011 declared it to be genuine "beyond any reasonable doubt" and dating from the Orientalizing period, in the first half of the seventh century BC.[3] Other Old Latin inscriptions dated to either the late Roman Kingdom or early Roman Republic include the Lapis Niger stone, the Duenos Inscription on a kernos vase, and the Garigliano bowl of Bucchero type."
Old Latin - Wikipedia

"beyond any reasonable doubt" - and yet the Praeneste fibula is a golden brooch that can't be carbon dated.

"The fibula was presented to the public in 1887 by Wolfgang Helbig, an archaeologist. According to some sources, Helbig did not explain how he had come to acquire the artifact at the time, although others state that the fibula "was first made known to the public in three short articles in the Römische Mitteilungen for 1887 where it is said to have been purchased in Palestrina by a friend of Helbig in the year 1871, or five years before the discovery of the tomb" – the tomb in question being the Bernardini Tomb whose treasure the fibula was later claimed to be a part of.

"In 1980 Margherita Guarducci, a leading epigraphist, published a book arguing that the inscription had been forged by Francesco Martinetti, an art dealer, and Helbig, who were known to have collaborated in shady dealings. Guardicci argued that the fibula's presentation in 1887, was a hoax perpetrated to advance the careers of both men. This was the most formal but not the first accusation of its kind: Georg Karo had said that Helbig told him that the fibula had been stolen from Palestrina's Tomba Bernardini."
Praeneste fibula - Wikipedia

"beyond any reasonable doubt" my ar- arm.

All of the other candidates for oldest Latin script are also on materials that cannot be carbon dated... and even if they were, could we trust it?

These Palestinian archeologists or whoever was selling such trinkets for a small price must apparently all have been fools with no understanding of the place they inhabited right? Lol don't think so. And yeah carbon dating is quite bad, I think that if they made the narrative in the way that Romans mummified their dead that ordinary scientists would notice how bad this method. I imagine carbon dating in practice being the same as PCR tests, you send something to a lab and the science priests give you counsel.

Great post, I have translated it for our german forum: In Rom und Pompeji wurde nie Lateinisch gesprochen

Great, you have my thanks!

I agree with OP. Latin and Greek language were both invented as the language of the elites of those societies. They were eager to communicate within their ranks and not getting understood from the commons. This way they hide their agendas in plain sight and are looked upon as these all knowing elite-gods.

Latin is a highly regular language missing a lot of irregular verbs that are very common in a natural evolving language. Vulgar Latin was used by the Etruscans which were widespread in the Italic peninsula, so the elites used their language as the root basis and then added a lot of "-ium" endings to the words. The result is that Latin sounds highly regular, samey and monotonous.

The Etruscans were part of the Pelasgians and they spoke the old Albanian language or Shqip. It's really easy to explain Latin or Italian words by using Shqip.
For example:
lanterrna=lan+terr in Shqip lan(to wash), terr(darkness) meaning to wash the darkness away, to illuminate.
amicus(friendly)=a+mic/mik a(is), mik(friend)
Lucifer=luci+ferr luci(light), ferr(hell) meaning light from hell or in hell
there are more examples like this.

Nice post there, the ties of Albania to Italy are indeed worth researching. For example the Zogu house, the Venetians sharing history with the Albanians etc. is quite interesting since the origins of Albanian probably got erased on purpose as well, no way that such a complicated and intricate language pops up out of nowhere. Never knew about where the word for lantern comes from, official etymology says it comes from lampros/lamp in Greek but that makes less sense then. If you want to share more on Venice and Italy or your knowledge of how Shqip aids etymology, sure make a thread and I'd be interested in reading it!

 

[busy.baci]

If you want to share more on Venice and Italy or your knowledge of how Shqip aids etymology, sure make a thread and I'd be interested in reading it!

Of course. It will require some digging to find the references and a lot of translations from Shqip to English but it's doable. There are many authors that make the link between Pelasgian language and the Albanian (Shqip) language. The Pelasgians were said to be sea faring people of the Mediterranian area, but the research on them it is not clear on when and how for many authors, things get blurry.
I'll make a draft first and plan on expanding it on 3-4 levels, language, mythology, customs and of course my own speculation in the end of it.

 

[matematik]

Albania seems to have ended up being very diluted by the Ottoman empire. I think they introduced a lot of non-European blood from other parts of the empire, hence why Albania is now majority Muslim. Maybe this was done deliberately by the cabal to suppress/erase their history?

I also read that apparently most Albanian words today are of foreign origin, with Turkish being the largest component. So the core native Albanian vocab only continues to make up a small minority of words.

The other point I would make is that Albanians used to call themselves "Arbërians", and "Shqiptar" seems to be a much more modern term that only started to be used after the Ottoman invasion, maybe as late as the 18th century.

Maybe this reflects that Ottoman rule changed the fabric of the country so much that the new people/culture that emerged adopted a new identity?

 

[Goddo]

Albania ... such a pivotal meeting ground / melting pot. From the Great Steppes of Asia, homerange of the nomadic Mongol tribes (perhaps later even the origins of the Hunnic tribes. From readings i've found, the VisiGoth / Vandal tribes (western/central Europe), actively sought marriage alliances with the ancient Albanian peoples. Always wondered WHY ? Your arguments above provide many of the answers. Perhaps the New Elites of Greece and Rome, used language as a means to subvert / divert power, prestige, influence ... AWAY from the older nobilities of Albania. PlayBook 101 of The Puppeteers is always ... Divide & Conquer ! (The English Crown used the same technique with the English Lang in all their colonies). Look forward to your comments and critique. regards

Albania seems to have ended up being very diluted by the Ottoman empire. I think they introduced a lot of non-European blood from other parts of the empire, hence why Albania is now majority Muslim. Maybe this was done deliberately by the cabal to suppress/erase their history?

I also read that apparently most Albanian words today are of foreign origin, with Turkish being the largest component. So the core native Albanian vocab only continues to make up a small minority of words.

The other point I would make is that Albanians used to call themselves "Arbërians", and "Shqiptar" seems to be a much more modern term that only started to be used after the Ottoman invasion, maybe as late as the 18th century.

Maybe this reflects that Ottoman rule changed the fabric of the country so much that the new people/culture that emerged adopted a new identity?

Albania ... such a pivotal meeting ground / melting pot. From the Great Steppes of Asia, homerange of the nomadic Mongol tribes (perhaps later even the origins of the Hunnic tribes. From readings i've found, the VisiGoth / Vandal tribes (western/central Europe), actively sought marriage alliances with the ancient Albanian peoples. Always wondered WHY ? Your arguments above provide many of the answers. Perhaps the New Elites of Greece and Rome, used language as a means to subvert / divert power, prestige, influence ... AWAY from the older nobilities of Albania. PlayBook 101 of The Puppeteers is always ... Divide & Conquer ! (The English Crown used the same technique with the English Lang in all their colonies). Look forward to your comments and critique. regards

 

[Safranek]

Some thoughts and the actual language(s) spoken by the common people of the time(s) in question:

1. When we say they spoke 'Greek', we must consider that what we now call 'Greek' is a derivation from what was initially called Minoan - Mycenaean (Linear A and B) only later to become Greek and any correlation it may have to the Scythian languages.

2. When we say Etruscan, we are in the same time frame as the Celts and if we look at Celtic languages we see an extremely wide range of theories and arguments. If we look at the maps of the Celtic home lands we can see that the Etruscan areas are included in some of them.

3. Latin has never been acknowledged as a generally spoken language, it seems to have been a language used by controllers for the displacement of the former languages.

Here's one example of how it happened in Hungary:

Appendix IX

Translation of the title: Decrees of King István I
Published in the yearbook of The Nyíregyháza András Jósa Museum 1969-71

This segment of the Yearbook deals with the Royal Decrees, crafted upon the suggestion of Pope Sylvester the Second concerning the burning and destroying of all books and manuscripts written in the Magyar and Székely runic characters.

András Vitéz, Canon of Rozsnyó and Supreme Judge of the counties of Gömör and Kishont, translated an important document in 1816, which he found in the Library of the Szilassy family. Its library number was: Vatican in 1000 IX. Cal. oct. Die festo lac. Ap. The following paragraph is a direct quotation from this document:

“An ordinance, which became law after the council members of King István I. had signed it, contains the following: Domonkos, Archbishop of Esztergom has published the following decree to be followed within the Magyar Christian Church and to be sent to Pope Sylvester at the same time: According to this decree, which came about at the suggestion of Pope Sylvester, that the ancient Magyar letters and carvings and the pagan mode of writing from right to left, which are used by the Magyars, Székelys and Kuns and also by the Magyar Christian priests, should be stopped and the Latin characters should be used instead. It is hereto ordered that the priests should be thought to use these characters and rewarded for doing so and should be forbidden to use the pagan writing, with the penalty of losing teaching and priestly positions and they should also pay a penalty of 20 gold pensas. Furthermore, all the writings, executed with the pagan script within the church and on the pages of prayer books, should be destroyed and changed to Latin. Furthermore, anyone who brings in a pagan script should be rewarded from one to ten denari. The pagan scripts so obtained should be destroyed by iron and fire, so that, with the destruction of these, the memory and the desire for the pagan religion should come to an end.”

This is the text of the decree by King István I. The writer of the article adds the following:

“We did not know anything about the fact that King István’s above law already dealt with the ancient Magyar letters and carvings which were also used by the Magyar Christian priests and the pagan writing system, the writing from right to left was decreed to be eradicated by iron and fire.

The Magyar people prior to the introduction of the papacy was a literate, well educated people. The priests used the Magyar method of writing, which was composed of ancient, ‘pagan’ script, although many people learned writing only after they had accepted Christianity.”

(These data came to our attention through Mr. Sándor Rácz Austria.)

Source: An Appendix of this article which I have yet to post.

A New View of the Arthurian Legends - Susan V. Tomory - 1/5

What I'd be interested in is similar information from other nations regarding how their original alphabet and language was 'attacked' by the Vatican, as I highly doubt the Hungarians were the only ones using writing in their original language around those times of 'Roman' conquest.

The Etruscans were part of the Pelasgians and they spoke the old Albanian language or Shqip. It's really easy to explain Latin or Italian words by using Shqip.
For example:
lanterrna=lan+terr in Shqip lan(to wash), terr(darkness) meaning to wash the darkness away, to illuminate.
amicus(friendly)=a+mic/mik a(is), mik(friend)
Lucifer=luci+ferr luci(light), ferr(hell) meaning light from hell or in hell
there are more examples like this.

This is the kind of linguistic research that is needed, not only from Albanian, but also from Bulgarian (as per air_dance), Welsh, Russian, Magyar, German, etc., as they all seem to have derived from an ancient language that was likely more widely used than the current historical narrative admits. Presently, its offered up by linguist as the 'borrowing' of vocabulary when in reality it could be remnants of an ancient language.

Instead of attributing it to any of the current languages, we should be looking at what percentage of that ancient language(s) has survived in our modern languages (which seems to correlate with the amount of 'Latin' influence regarding a given nation).

 

[Goddo]

Hey everyone,

This is my first post on this forum although I did lurk here for a fair bit so I hope that I get the format of a usual message right.
If not then please let me know (below or in DMs) how I can follow certain conventions better!

Anyways, now for the main body of this post.

Literally all studies of the Roman Empire start off by assuming that Latin was the langauge not only spoken and written by Roman elites but also by Roman peasants. This is taken as a straightforward fact which goes without explanation in all books introducing high schoolers to history/Latin as well as in academic circles:

• "In perhaps his most significant reform, he divided the empire into the Greekspeaking East (Greece, Anatolia, Syria, and Egypt) and the Latin-speaking West (Italy, Gaul, Britain, and Spain)." M. Littell, World History: Patterns of Interaction, p.174 (Common Core book for American schools which regurgitates state-sanctioned propaganda).
• "This course is a first step in reading Latin, which was the language not only of ancient Rome, but also of science, culture, and more in Europe until the early modern era and is still in use today." Course introduction of "Latin for Beginners" offered by Harvard.

This ensures that sheep don't question the origins of the Catholic Church, the reason why many scientists such as Newton wrote in Latin or the origin of the ancient buildings.

There are however quite some reasons which can lead a researcher to question whether Latin ever was a language spoken by the masses and that while sticking as closely as possible to the official narrative (so we all know that periodic resets happen in history but let's pretend the academics are right about everything except the origin of Latin for the sake of argument). So let us also not question why original works of Roman origin vanished or introduce any other SH theory here.

First of all most written sources come from authors that occupied elite positions in Roman society and that is admitted by the narrative.
Examples of all famous authors being elites are Marcus Aurelius (Roman Emperor), Seneca (chief advisor to Emperor Nero) and Livy (nobility).

Also Ovid (high nobility and acquaintance of Emperor August), Virgil (becomes friend of Emperor August, perhaps nobility), Cicero (chief statesman) and Tacitus (nobility) didn't seem to be the ordinary folks you would find there on the streets or the "hoods" of Rome.
This is considered representative enough of the entire Roman society and apparently it is enough proof to the academics that the common man in Rome also knew how to speak this language and perhaps to read the works of these authors.

More than a thousand years later however Latin still seems to be in ubiquitous use among the nobility and royalty of Europe; think about Catholic clergy, scientists (Newton, Spinoza, Linnaeus, Copernicus) and the kings themselves (Charlemagne, Frederik II of Prussia and Ferdinand IV of Austria etc.) Correspondence between Jesuits and royals also frequently went in Latin and books addressed to kings were commonly written in Latin instead of the native language of the prince (e.g. Magnes Sive de Arte Magnetica by A. Kircher addressed to Ferdinand IV). Apparently kings liked to receive gifted books in Latin first and foremost. However peasants in all these countries didn't speak Latin: they spoke German, Spanish, French, Italian or Russian. Hence academics utterly fail to acknowledge that the language of aristocrats never was representative of the common people's language for the past 400 or so years and is a shitty proxy. And we just don't seem to have a single commoner who wrote anything worthy of preservation, e.g. there is no Roman J.K. Rowling whose works are immortalized in Western culture despite her being a commoner.

The bulk of the literature that "survives" from Roman antiquity seems to be either sophisticated poetry or historical writings. Where are however, if I may ask, material that was famous among the lower classes such as comedy, Roman theatre plays, smut or most importantly, books to learn Latin written by ancient Romans? There are anecdotal examples like the cooking book from Apicius or the smut from Petronius but it doesn't even come near 20% of surviving books even though books of this kind are the ones that define a culture and make up the bulk of a nation's literature. And why did the monks have no interest in copying the books that taught aristocratic/royal children to read Latin en masse? I don't think anything can teach the Catholic priests Roman better than such books and I would expect the Vatican to have ordered the collection of such children's books, if they existed.

So it seems that even the materials that the narrative connects to Romans only belong to a very small section of Roman society and that only select genres survived which (what a coincidence) seem to give very detailed accounts of Roman history. The narrative offers the following explanation regarding all of this:

• "Those who could read and write were wealthy elites; it was only because their families had enough money to pay for their education." https://www.thedailybeast.com/could-women-in-ancient-rome-read

Where are these shelves full of books used to educate these wealthy children then? And suppose that there is a very good reason for the vast majority of such books vanished without a trace. Why is there no early manuscript of the gospels in Latin which allowed some educated proto-monks or early church fathers to spread the faith throughout the Roman Empire? Because it does seem like Christianity was spreading like a wildfire among the lower ranks and even if they had no Bibles/gospels (first Vulgate Bible issued by St. Jerome in 383 A.D.), can we at least see some crosses or little markings indicated places where Christians gathered during the first few centuries after Christ? Why did Roman Emperors concern themselves with Christ from the onset of Christianity, yet fail to obtain a single copy of Christ's teachings for their own study? Potentially they could jail any apostle they want and let him write a gospel for himself and I think that the apostles would gladly have obliged to spread the Word directly to the Emperor. Yet the history of Christianity between 0 and 400 A.D. in Rome remains shrouded in mystery.

In addition, the main talking point of this essay would be the so-called "graffiti" found in Pompeii. Apparently, over 11.000 pieces of ancient Roman graffiti were found over there in Pompeii. However academics also count small etchings the size of a single line as a single piece of graffiti so let us examine a well-preserved and large example of this "graffiti":

View attachment 19072​

This here is a political graffiti written on the walls of Pompeii and other graffiti is reported to have been found near bars with more explicit texts (we will touch upon this later). The first oddity here is the lack of other scribblings over it: as we know graffiti tends to consist of multiple layers because regular punks write graffiti *on top* of another man's graffiti. Since this is a political graffiti urging folks to vote for some candidate we would expect to see at least some scribblings or maybe slurs from his political enemies at the very least. Surely one guy hired by the rival politician at night could have gone here and scribbled it over. But no, since someone posted that message at that wall no single Roman ever in Pompeii scribbled over it in Latin or wrote anything here. Look how neat these letters are, a modern day punk would feel invited to chalk something over these fancy regular letters. Indeed, let us look at a random example of modern graffiti that I believe to be representative of most graffiti:

View attachment 19073​

From this we can deduce certain principles of street art that would seem to me to also apply to Roman youngsters:

1. Graffiti has multiple layers and multiple kinds of sophistication: some here write with fancy white spray while others scribble something with black pen. Also people write over the art of their rival factions.
2. Graffiti uses abbreviations: take a look at any graffiti in your area. Short abbreviations and codewords dominate rather than full sentences and you can't understand what any of it means most likely.
3. Graffiti is often written in a different language than the spoken one: German graffiti is still 80% in English and so is Hungarian graffiti for instance.

Here I assumed that the nature of graffiti was the same back then as it is now. See the first pic related for modern graffiti that exhibits all these three characteristics (all graffiti is like that in populated areas)

However all graffiti in Pompeii uses no abbreviations/slang words that existed back then, rarely displays poor handwriting (if illiterate slaves try to scribble on the walls I think they cannot produce nice block letters) and is often mostly grammatically correct so that researchers can nicely read and analyze it! What a cohencidence right?

Graffiti found near a pub in Herculaneum makes even less sense to me when I think about it straight for a second:

View attachment 19074​

So drunk guys strolling out of a bar still manage to write in neat Roman letters? Heck their handwriting when drunk is better than mine when I'm sober lol. What I would expect to find near a bar/tavern would be less text and more nonsense/abbreviations that cannot be understood by scientists today (they can't even understand what modern graffiti means), as well as penis drawings and deliberate writing over already present graffiti. I mean, do these drunk guys find a piece of wall nearby that has no previous inscription on it? Where is the overlap?

Partial conclusion: This graffiti reeks of fakery and I think that TPTB really want us to believe that the languages that the city of Rome spoke throughout recorded history were mainly Italian and Latin. This need to plant false evidence likely indicates that something is indeed off with the way the historic timeline is presented to us by academics. Moreover, suppose we were the ones planting the evidence here. Would we fake this graffiti with the intent to raise the impression that Pompeii was a city that existed "in the Roman period" more than "2000 years ago"? No, I think that role is filled already by the presence of frescos' which "experts" claim are truly Roman, as well as that not a single high schooler is likely to question this fact if the books and professors simply state that Pompeii is an ancient city without providing much proof. Nothing in particular hinges on this graffiti, except for one thing: this forgery obfuscates the true language that was spoken in this city. So it seems that the question that we as truth seekers should be asking ourselves is not immediately "was Pompeii mudflooded?" but "what language did the inhabitants of this city speak?"

Possible explanation: Given the limited data at our disposal, the best we can do is to assume that Latin played the same role back then as it does now, namely that it is an elitist language used by clergy, aristocracy and the like. This pattern where the elites like to learn an additional language has been going on for quite a while as for example French later on became supposedly the language used by the elites from France all the way to Russia and even deeper (due to reasons outlined here and in other Napoleon-related posts). So what did the average commoner in Rome speak? I can think of three possibilities in particular, one of which is my favourite:

1. Greek: There is much evidence, some of which is admitted by the narrative, for the existence of a very large Greek-speaking underclass in Rome. Such evidence consists of the letters of Paul to the Romans being written in Greek and the narrative even admits that Greek was the second most spoken language after Latin. However the explanation for this is essentially that the Romans embraced some kind of globalism and took on a Greek identity (Hellenisation). Personally, I don't believe this evidence is strong enough as little efforts are made to show why the Greek culture somehow strangled and overshadowed the previous Roman identity to this degree. Moreover, this evidence is easily rejected by the other theories posted on S.H. regarding our poor understanding of the ancient times. So in my view this is the explanation that would stick the closest to the narrative but it is still a pretty poor one overall. Also, the narrative already more or less admits that Greek was a major language so it would not be something worth concealing with all that fake graffiti and books.
2. Etruscan: These Etruscans are supposed to have had a pretty big finger in the soup early on in the empire, with the Tarquins being the last kings of Rome before it became a Republic and Emperor Otho being an Etruscan. As they were supposed to have been mostly traders and seamen, one could speculate that the Etruscan language never disappeared from the Roman streets. Also, if we somehow draw a parallel between the Roman Empire and the kingdom of Israel(may make another post about this in the future), then the Etruscans seem like the Canaanites: a more advanced nation of idolaters with a Phoenician alphabet that got invaded and eventually overcome by a nation (Romans/Israelites) led by one man (Aeneas/Moses) out of a dangerous territory (Troy/Egypt). While this parallel is food for thought for some other time, I would argue that the Etruscan language is virtually extinct at the present time, thus implying that it likely was not the most popular one. Moreover I have some doubts about the existence of these Etruscans since pretty much all artifacts are in the possession of the ancient Italian noble bloodline Farnese. Instead of hiding these artifacts and thus erasing any trace of the true language of Rome, they let their collection circulate so that everyone can learn a thing or two about these Etruscans which seems to have the opposite goal of the faked graffiti. The Farnese family is incredibly important in my opinion; their bloodline ends with Elisabeth Farnese, a kind of dominatrix queen, which is said to have emasculated the Spanish king. Interestingly enough, a strong female lead by the name of Lady Farnese is present in Miura's Berserk manga and I think that this was a hint at Berserk having masonic significance/information about true history. Makes me wonder if Miura's death was a coincidence...
3. German: This language here makes the most sense to me as a candidate for Rome's street language. The reason for this is that the Germans call their language Deutsch, meaning "of the commoners" (Wikipedia). Hm, what people would call their own language lower or common? At the very least this implies that Germans acknowledged the presence of an "uncommon" language... Now Germany itself is quite connected to Rome, for instance through the Holy Roman Empire which is based in Germany instead of Rome according to the narrative. Moreover, the Catholic Church is frequently called Roman, yet Germany before Protestantism would arguably be the largest Catholic faction in Europe. So does "Roman" here refer to the Church being based in Rome or in the Holy Roman Empire (Germany)? If the two were interchangeable then I think it is valid to reason that there was lots of culture exchange between Rome and Germany, meaning that German flowed into Rome from Germany or the other way around. In any way this would explain why scientists living in Germany publish their papers in Latin and would also imply that the Holy Roman Empire was likely either "the Roman Empire" or at least the two were way closer in time than the narrative tells us. Threads such as these indeed imply that something about Germanic origins has been expunged from history as the official narrative also implies that while the Romans were building some fancy buildings, the Germans were essentially behaving like monkeys and living in the mud. This clearly doesn't make the slightest sense as I would expect Germans and Italians to always be roughly equal in terms of civilisation when left to their own means. Furthermore, I wish to conclude by saying that the reason they want us to believe that Romans spoke Latin is because the Holy Roman Empire where German was spoken gets distinguished from the original Roman Empire. For findings of German graffiti or German artifacts in Pompeii may imply that whatever empire was present there, it is likely the one that is referred to as Charlemagne's, thus erasing over 1k years from the official timeline. This would however be fully consistent with other findings on this site.

Let me guys hear your thoughts about this theory and what the most spoken language in Rome was according to you!
And again, let me know if I formatted this post well!

Key Issue raised here is how The Puppeteers have used / continue to use ... language as THE BARRIER TO ENTRY ... the great unwashed must be kept away from knowledge which will empower, e.g legal systems, the church (as THE GATEKEEPER), pharma-medico mafia, in our age InfoTech now also deploys tech jargon (the Latin of 21st C) to keep the herd OUT.

I've found a lot of interesting related ideas on your AE site Mick ; of course well known here ...
http://www.applied-epistemology.com...www.applied-epistemology.com/phpbb2/index.php

Any thoughts on the role played by Carthage in this saga ?

 

[Mick Harper]

This is all much too convoluted. Albanians speak Albanian just like they always did. They have the usual loan words from whoever happens to be ruling them at any given time, is all. Hungarians speak Magyar on the same basis. Alphabets... yes, that's a different matter.

When we say they spoke 'Greek', we must consider that what we now call 'Greek' is a derivation from what was initially called Minoan - Mycenaean (Linear A and B) only later to become Greek

Isn't it easier to say that Greeks always spoke the Demotic Greek they speak today and Minoan Greeks, Mycenaean Greeks and Classical Greeks invented various phonetic versions and wrote it in various phonetic alphabets? That's what the evidence, such as it is, shows.

When we say Etruscan, we are in the same time frame as the Celts and if we look at Celtic languages we see an extremely wide range of theories and arguments. If we look at the maps of the Celtic home lands we can see that the Etruscan areas are included in some of them.

Are these the 'Celtic' languages that once covered most of Europe, disappeared for no particular reason, only to pop up in west Wales, northern Scotland, and bits of Ireland and Brittany? Come on, please.

 

[Goddo]

This is all much too convoluted. Albanians speak Albanian just like they always did. They have the usual loan words from whoever happens to be ruling them at any given time, is all. Hungarians speak Magyar on the same basis. Alphabets... yes, that's a different matter.


Isn't it easier to say that Greeks always spoke the Demotic Greek they speak today and Minoan Greeks, Mycenaean Greeks and Classical Greeks invented various phonetic versions and wrote it in various phonetic alphabets? That's what the evidence, such as it is, shows.


Are these the 'Celtic' languages that once covered most of Europe, disappeared for no particular reason, only to pop up in west Wales, northern Scotland, and bits of Ireland and Brittany? Come on, please.

... so then can't we simply argue that we all speak some sort of Indo-Aryan dialect ? Really short, sweet and to the point

This is all much too convoluted. Albanians speak Albanian just like they always did. They have the usual loan words from whoever happens to be ruling them at any given time, is all. Hungarians speak Magyar on the same basis. Alphabets... yes, that's a different matter.


Isn't it easier to say that Greeks always spoke the Demotic Greek they speak today and Minoan Greeks, Mycenaean Greeks and Classical Greeks invented various phonetic versions and wrote it in various phonetic alphabets? That's what the evidence, such as it is, shows.


Are these the 'Celtic' languages that once covered most of Europe, disappeared for no particular reason, only to pop up in west Wales, northern Scotland, and bits of Ireland and Brittany? Come on, please.

So then can't we simply argue that we all speak some sort of Indo-Aryan dialect ? Too short, too sweet, too, to the point ??

 

[Mick Harper]

So then can't we simply argue that we all speak some sort of Indo-Aryan dialect ?

You are assuming there ever was an Indo-Aryan dialect. The whole Indo-European theory is based on history and politics, not linguistic analysis. Ever wondered at the coincidence that the British in India would discover, hey whaddyaknow, Sanskrit is related to English? But even assuming there is an Indo-European family of languages, it cannot be denied that right now the people living in western Europe speak various languages and they must have come from somewhere. And that many of them have too many resemblances not to be closely related.

Now you can start linguistic analysis. Just be comparing them. But not by bringing in weird a-typical (or unknown) languages like Latin or Pelasgian or Indic.

 

[Goddo]

You are assuming there ever was an Indo-Aryan dialect. The whole Indo-European theory is based on history and politics, not linguistic analysis. Ever wondered at the coincidence that the British in India would discover, hey whaddyaknow, Sanskrit is related to English? But even assuming there is an Indo-European family of languages, it cannot be denied that right now the people living in western Europe speak various languages and they must have come from somewhere. And that many of them have too many resemblances not to be closely related.

Now you can start linguistic analysis. Just be comparing them. But not by bringing in weird a-typical (or unknown) languages like Latin or Pelasgian or Indic.

So many of these discussions on language are purely theoretical, and attempts to assist us to make some sense of our Tower of Babel. If only paper and papyrus kept alittle better and weathered the test of time, perhaps we'd have a better idea. This for sure, people use language as a power tools.

 

[Mick Harper]

So many of these discussions on language are purely theoretical

You are too pessimistic though, yes, linguists are forever coming up with theories from data that just is not there.

If only paper and papyrus kept alittle better and weathered the test of time, perhaps we'd have a better idea.

I can't agree. They keep only too well. Linguists always assume that what is written on them is what people spoke. Before c 1300 AD this was never the case.

This for sure, people use language as a power tools.

Never seen that. Everybody I know uses it to talk to one another.

 

[heretolearn]

This speak of latin makes me wonder. If latin is a magical language or infact an evil language. One specifically designed for binding or control either through naming or through decree. Is logography the counterance to it? Did the ancient egyptians and even the cunieform writing mesopotamians actually write in these ways because a language such as latin was present and logography was the only way to write without any fear of obfuscation or hidden meaning? can glyphs have dual meaning in the same way for example as some english words and leagalease have?

 

[matematik]

Are these the 'Celtic' languages that once covered most of Europe, disappeared for no particular reason, only to pop up in west Wales, northern Scotland, and bits of Ireland and Brittany? Come on, please.

The "Celtic" languages are isolates and not Indo-European in my opinion, because so many of their features are completely atypical of IE languages such as VSO word order, complex consonant mutations, broad/slender consonant distinction, verbs often conjugated by altering the start of the verb rather than the end, they have many IE loan words but the core native vocab shows little affinity with IE. None of these features exist in pretty much any other IE language.

Academia only classifies them as IE languages to fit the theory of a much wider Celtic culture in Europe, it's part of their agenda.