Proof Romans reached Mexico?
roypd...@my-deja.com
an article discussing claims by two anthropologists
that two anthropologists they have produced the first
reliable evidence that an artefact found in Mexico
is of Roman origin, and that it almost certainly arrived
in the New World before the Spanish. The object is a
black terracotta head that was first unearthed in 1933
in the Toluca Valley, approximately 65 kilometres west
of Mexico City.
To read the story online follow the link from the
controversial section on "Contacts between Ancient
Civilisations" in my web page on Mysterious Peru.
http://www.ex.ac.uk/~RDavies/inca/links.html
Roy Davies
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
Luis Vazquez
brought in by the Romans themselves, and not by a Spaniard who liked to
collect antiques? I'm curious.
Luis
chris chow
<bor...@swbell.net> wrote:
> What evidence do they offer to support the theory that the artifact was
> brought in by the Romans themselves, and not by a Spaniard who liked to
> collect antiques? I'm curious.
>
> Luis
i think they have found that it was in Mexico before the Spanish arrived,
they said it was in Mexico at least a few years before the Spanish
arrival...
one question:
1) is there any other evidence? if there was contact wouldn't we have
found something else by now?
Doug Weller
> his week's issue of the New Scientist there is
> an article discussing claims by two anthropologists
> that two anthropologists they have produced the first
> reliable evidence that an artefact found in Mexico
> is of Roman origin,
>
now, but I am very disappointed about the way they illustrate it with a head
which is NOT the one discussed in the article. Very bad journalism.
Doug
--
Doug Weller member of moderation panel sci.archaeology.moderated
Submissions to: sci-archaeol...@medieval.org
Doug's Archaeology Site: http://www.ramtops.demon.co.uk
Co-owner UK-Schools mailing list: email me for details
Bob Keeter
chow <chri...@SPAMtrash80.org.uk> wrote:
> In article <38A33614...@swbell.net>, Luis Vazquez
> <bor...@swbell.net> wrote:
Snippage. .
>
> one question:
>
> 1) is there any other evidence? if there was contact wouldn't we have
> found something else by now?
You really have got to define what you mean by "contact". The Vikings
had repeated "contact" with native North Americans for possibly several
hundred years. Viking artifacts (woven yarn, ship timbers, nails, and
even chain mail), have turned up at various points in eastern Canada
and of course there IS the Viking settlement in Labrador, but there is
no "overt" evidence of these visits except for these bits and pieces,
and Ive heard, at least one Viking shipwreck in Greenland made of N.
American timber.
If a Roman ship, commercial or war vessel, were driven to Mexico by the
storm track that pushes from the bulge of Africa, westwards, its very
conceivable that the ship, manned or unmanned, might end up drifting
around the Gulf of Mexico. If noone returned to Rome to report the
findings, there would obviously be no records there. If it were one or
at most a couple "castaways" there may only be a handful of artifacts
to find.
Regards
bk
Harvey Taylor
> > is of Roman origin,
> >
> This of course is not new. I don't know why the New Scientist has published this
> now, but I am very disappointed about the way they illustrate it with a head
> which is NOT the one discussed in the article. Very bad journalism.
>
Oh. Thanks for pointing this out Doug.
It had fooled me...
<chagrinned>
-het
---
"Assembly of Japanese bicycle require great peace of mind."
- Instruction manual mentioned by R. Pirsig
Harvey Taylor mailto:h...@despam.portal.ca http://www.pangea.ca/~het
SeeKeR
in Mexico where roman pottery was found under water. The bay was/is even
named the bay of jars. The thinking was a Roman ship was blown offcourse and
made it to Mexico before it finally sank.
Eric Stevens
wrote:
>
>roypd...@my-deja.com wrote:
>
>> In this week's issue of the New Scientist there is
>> an article discussing claims by two anthropologists
>> that two anthropologists they have produced the first
>> reliable evidence that an artefact found in Mexico
>> is of Roman origin, and that it almost certainly arrived
>> in the New World before the Spanish. The object is a
>> black terracotta head that was first unearthed in 1933
>> in the Toluca Valley, approximately 65 kilometres west
>> of Mexico City.
>>
>> To read the story online follow the link from the
>> controversial section on "Contacts between Ancient
>> Civilisations" in my web page on Mysterious Peru.
>>
>> http://www.ex.ac.uk/~RDavies/inca/links.html
>>
>What evidence do they offer to support the theory that the artifact was
>brought in by the Romans themselves, and not by a Spaniard who liked to
>collect antiques? I'm curious.
>
I've read of this before:
"Crucially, the head was excavated from the site by
professionals, says David Kelley, an archaeologist at the
University of Calgary in Alberta, Canada. "This was sealed
under three floors.
It's as close to archaeological certainty as you can get."
My recollection is that it was reported as being excavated from a
pre-Spanish site. I don't know how well that claim will stand up.
There should be a report somewhere.
Eric Stevens
There are two classes of people. Those who divide people into
two classes, and those who don't. I belong to the second class.
Bernard Ortiz de Montellano
chri...@SPAMtrash80.org.uk (chris chow) wrote:
> In article <38A33614...@swbell.net>, Luis Vazquez
> <bor...@swbell.net> wrote:
>
> > What evidence do they offer to support the theory that the artifact was
> > brought in by the Romans themselves, and not by a Spaniard who liked to
> > collect antiques? I'm curious.
> >
> > Luis
>
> i think they have found that it was in Mexico before the Spanish arrived,
> they said it was in Mexico at least a few years before the Spanish
> arrival...
>
> one question:
>
> 1) is there any other evidence? if there was contact wouldn't we have
> found something else by now?
There are several questions and prolems associated with this claim- which
is not new.
It is based primarily on circular logic with no independent variable. The
head is declared to be Roman on the basis of a stereotypical concept of
Indian physiognomy (łnonamerindian facial features˛) and impressionistic
stylistics. This identification łproves˛ that it is old.
Thermoluminescence does show that the head is old. Although the
measurement has a large standard deviation and a +/- of about 22% a
possible age range of circa 230 B.C. to A.D. 570 (after the fall or Rome)
so that this datum is not as convincing as it could be. This date, because
it is old, łproves˛ that this is a Roman head. Imagery and stylistics
might have been satisfactory in the 1930ąs because that was all that was
available, but they are not sufficient today. As it was, this head was
originally considered to be Etruscan rather than Roman and older than the
A.D. 200 proposed now. Beards are not unique in Mesoamerican
representations, for example the god Huehueteotl, the Old god of Fire is
often represented as bearded.
A second set of circular arguments is employed. The head is Roman
therefore the Romans had ships that got to the New World--- and--- The
Romans had ships that could get to the New World therefore the head is
Roman. This circularity is also invalid. Commenting on Heyerdahląs replica
Egyptian ship Atlantic crossing, Genovés [one of the authors of this paper
and a companion of Heyerdahl's] stated:
łIn trying to cross the Atlantic at its widest point in a papyrus raft, we
were not trying, in the least [italics in original], to prove that an
ancient Egyptian or Mesopotamian papyrus raft, actually crossed, the
Atlantic Ocean, hundreds of years ago in order to influence in a
fundamental way the development of the high Mesoamerican cultures (Genovés
1972: 19-20), and "The crossings of the Atlantic in themselves have not
proved anything in terms of concrete anthropology. (Genovés 1973)."
The autors never explain how a Roman head made in A D 170 came to be in a
burial in Central Mexico made about over a thousand years later around AD
1500. It is a pretty undistinguished piece of pottery and doubtfully an
important cult object. There are also no other traces of Roman influence
in Mesoamerica.
--
Bernard Ortiz de Montellano
Alex
chris chow heeft geschreven in bericht ...
>In article <38A33614...@swbell.net>, Luis Vazquez
><bor...@swbell.net> wrote:
>
>> What evidence do they offer to support the theory that the artifact was
>> brought in by the Romans themselves, and not by a Spaniard who liked to
>> collect antiques? I'm curious.
>>
>> Luis
>
>i think they have found that it was in Mexico before the Spanish arrived,
>they said it was in Mexico at least a few years before the Spanish
>arrival...
>
>one question:
>
>1) is there any other evidence? if there was contact wouldn't we have
>found something else by now?
I think there was a mention of a "bay of shards" somewhere where Roman
artifacts were repeatedly recovered.
Also, there's the depiction of what looks like a Pineapple - I saw this stuff
on the Discovery Channel, not that they have a track record for accuracy,
of course.
Alex
po...@aol.com
> <bor...@swbell.net> wrote:
>
> > What evidence do they offer to support the theory that
> > the artifact was brought in by the Romans themselves,
> > and not by a Spaniard who liked to collect antiques?
> > I'm curious.
> i think they have found that it was in Mexico before the
> Spanish arrived, they said it was in Mexico at least a
> few years before the Spanish arrival...
You got the gist of it, I think. The original poster did
not say that the head was brought in by the Romans themselves,
although that's the heading of this thread. What the post
said is that a Roman-made head found its way to the Americas
before the Spaniard arrival.
> one question:
>
> 1) is there any other evidence?
That depends on who you ask.
> if there was contact wouldn't we have found something
> else by now?
Perhaps.
Apparently, you never read books like, "America B.C."
There has been fringe groups of people for many years
who assert pre-Columbian visits to the New World from
the Old World.
You might want to look at the photos on my Web page,
listed under, "Kingdom Publications." Several years
ago, I visited a "well-known" site of this type. The
basic description of the site is that of a U-shaped
hill, about 800 feet from one side to the other, in
which the "U" has been carved by water flowing off
the top. The hill is in the middle of a desert floor.
In the gulley in the middle of the hill is a rock
the size of a small cabin or a living room. On the
downward side, someone has scratched the coating off
the rock, and inscribed ancient characters that have
been interpreted as the Ten Commandments from Exodus 20.
On top of the hill are many other artifacts, including
a depiction of a zodiac that indicates an eclipse dating
to about 200 BC.
The pictures I took don't exactly show it, but the
glare of the sun is quite intense. The sky was clear,
dry, blue and intensely-bright. The ground was dry.
There were dessert plants, and I even saw a butterfly,
but the desolation of the place was intense. The site
has been observed for decades, but no archeological
digs have been performed there, so far as I know. Most
professionals dismiss the site as a fraud; no one really
knows, though.
--
Richard Alexander
Richard's Electronic Kingdom
http://members.aol.com/pooua
Alex
Bob Keeter heeft geschreven in bericht <100220001756308734%bke...@netway.com>...
>If a Roman ship, commercial or war vessel, were driven to Mexico by the
>storm track that pushes from the bulge of Africa, westwards, its very
>conceivable that the ship, manned or unmanned, might end up drifting
>around the Gulf of Mexico. If noone returned to Rome to report the
>findings, there would obviously be no records there. If it were one or
>at most a couple "castaways" there may only be a handful of artifacts
>to find.
Taking this into account, isn't it obvious that West Africans would have
also sailed west, and have ended up in roughly the same region, namely
the mouths of the Amazon or Orinoco rivers, as described in Basil Davidson's
book?
Alex
Doug Weller
>
> I think there was a mention of a "bay of shards" somewhere where Roman
> artifacts were repeatedly recovered.
>
>
ballast from a later Spanish ship, might have been (so it is claimed) replicas
for a World's Fair. No extant evidence that I know of.
Doug Weller
> What the post
> said is that a Roman-made head found its way to the Americas
> before the Spaniard arrival.
>
>
I'm not taking credit for this, but it has been pointed out on a mailing list
that Columbus's 4th voyage from 1502 to 1504 carried him from Honduras to the
present Panama/Columbian border, and the later voyage by Pinzon and Solis in
1508 hugged the coast from the Yucatan up as far as Mexico city.
So even if the head is Roman (which of course is not certain so far as I know),
it is not the case that it could not have had a Spanish source.
Doug
chris chow
> > if there was contact wouldn't we have found something
> > else by now?
>
> Perhaps.
>
> Apparently, you never read books like, "America B.C."
> There has been fringe groups of people for many years
> who assert pre-Columbian visits to the New World from
> the Old World.
>
the problem about "fringe" books is that the line between true facts and
utter fantasy drivel is hard to find.
Eric Stevens
<dwe...@ramtops.co.uk> wrote:
>In article <38a3a611$0$40...@reader3.casema.net>, vand...@yahoo.com says...
>>
>> I think there was a mention of a "bay of shards" somewhere where Roman
>> artifacts were repeatedly recovered.
>>
>>
>Bay of jars. Supposed amphorae. Might have been a shipwreck, might have been
>ballast from a later Spanish ship, might have been (so it is claimed) replicas
>for a World's Fair. No extant evidence that I know of.
I would have thought that any half-way competent person could tell the
difference between Roman amphrae and anything used for ballast on a
Spanish ship. I would also expect that any event sufficiently recent
to involve a 'Worlds Fair' would have been documented and there would
be no "might have been" about it. How much of these explanations are
unsupported speculation?
Eric Stevens
>The pictures I took don't exactly show it, but the
>glare of the sun is quite intense. The sky was clear,
>dry, blue and intensely-bright. The ground was dry.
>There were dessert plants, and I even saw a butterfly,
>but the desolation of the place was intense. The site
>has been observed for decades, but no archeological
>digs have been performed there, so far as I know. Most
>professionals dismiss the site as a fraud; no one really
>knows, though.
Do they really want to?
Mike Cleven
Doug Weller wrote:
>
> In article <87unrh$fhu$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>, roypd...@my-deja.com says...
> > his week's issue of the New Scientist there is
> > an article discussing claims by two anthropologists
> > that two anthropologists they have produced the first
> > reliable evidence that an artefact found in Mexico
> > is of Roman origin,
> >
> This of course is not new. I don't know why the New Scientist has published this
> now, but I am very disappointed about the way they illustrate it with a head
> which is NOT the one discussed in the article. Very bad journalism.
I wondered about that too; a head like the one depicted is scarcely the
kind of thing someone would bury away; such an object is indubitably
Roman. I had to doublecheck to make sure it was a scientific magazine
site, and not an historical apocrypha one, when I saw that head picture;
I thought "why aren't they showing us the one that was found?".
chris chow
<iro...@bigfoot.com> wrote:
> which is NOT the one discussed in the article. Very bad journalism.
>
> I wondered about that too; a head like the one depicted is scarcely the
> kind of thing someone would bury away; such an object is indubitably
> Roman. I had to doublecheck to make sure it was a scientific magazine
> site, and not an historical apocrypha one, when I saw that head picture;
> I thought "why aren't they showing us the one that was found?".
well it doesn't claim to be the head, its just an illustration from stock
photo library, such things are common practice in the print industry.
maybe no photo of the real head was available, the alternative is to have
an unillustrated article, which the designers decided would be a bit too
boring.
Bob Keeter
<vand...@yahoo.com> wrote:
You cant dismiss the POSSIBILITY of many things. If in fact some small
group of undeniably Roman artifacts start being turned up in central
america in pre-Columbian contexts even the most dogmatic would
eventually have to concede that at least one Roman ship must have made
the trip (one way, possibly, but the trip nonetheless!).
IF, and this is the big IF, artifacts of undeniable west African origin
turn up in pre-Columbian contexts, you have a fact, even if some would
deny it. If the "proof" is material that "could be" west African or
that is obviously west African but only through a streach of
imagination could be firmly placed as pre-Columbian, you are left in
the same position as with the Romans. You have an interesting, and
depending on your point of view and personal interests, intriguing
THEORY.
Dont think that there is COMPELLING evidence for either a Roman visit
or west African visits quite yet. I would hold out a bit more for
eventually proving a Roman visit only because even a single Roman
trading vessel would provide a significant number of artifacts whereas
a west African fishing canoe might not leave much to show for its being
here after so many years. In many ways, the skepticism of science can
sometimes be frustrating when it doesnt move in the direction one would
prefer, but move it does, most recently with the downfall of the
"Clovis First" dogma. IF there is REAL evidence supporting a Roman,
Greek, Carthagian, Egyptian, or west African presence in central
America, EVENTUALLY the truth will come out and be accepted (in spite
of all of the theses on file that argue against it!).
Take care my friend!
bk
chris chow
<bke...@netway.com> wrote:
> Dont think that there is COMPELLING evidence for either a Roman visit
> or west African visits quite yet. I would hold out a bit more for
> eventually proving a Roman visit only because even a single Roman
> trading vessel would provide a significant number of artifacts whereas
> a west African fishing canoe might not leave much to show for its being
> here after so many years. In many ways, the skepticism of science can
> sometimes be frustrating when it doesnt move in the direction one would
> prefer, but move it does, most recently with the downfall of the
> "Clovis First" dogma. IF there is REAL evidence supporting a Roman,
> Greek, Carthagian, Egyptian, or west African presence in central
> America, EVENTUALLY the truth will come out and be accepted (in spite
> of all of the theses on file that argue against it!).
>
maybe the roman head was taken to mexico by west africans, now that would
be funny if it could be proven
po...@aol.com
... says the man posting to Usenet.
Imagine if just anyone could publish and promote their book.
Imagine if their were no publishing houses and book distributers,
only free stands on every street corner. Imagine if anyone
could say anything they desired to say, with absolutely no
way of examining what was said beyond the immediate printed
page. Now, imagine these books are introduced to every home,
and left for the individual to decipher as he will. What
kind of nation would we have after a generation? I guess
we will find out!
Forums for open debate are good, provided that the
participants and the audiance have the tools to deal
with the event appropriately. Otherwise, we get such
situations as juries awarding millions to bogus claim-
filers based on the testimony of quack doctors who
served as professional witnesses.
The danger we face today that wasn't so strong in the
past, "ignorant" age, is the bizarre bunch of philosophies
that so many now hold, such as the idea that nothing is
knowable, that all "facts" are merely matters of opinion
or perspective and that the majority determines what is
truth or right or good. Philosophy (and I will include
psychology here) is in the public realm based on making
good-sounding explanations and calling that reality.
Inasmuch as nothing is knowable or provable or good or bad,
there cannot be any further examination of a question
beyond what sounds likely to the hearer; the collective
body of humanity would instinctively choose what is correct.
Steve Schaper
>
> 1) is there any other evidence? if there was contact wouldn't we have
> found something else by now?
Without a substantial technological advantage, a single shipload would
probably not have had a huge cultural impact. It is amazing that even a
ceramic head would have been kept by the locals.
--
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
mailto:ssch...@uswest.net
http://members.delphi.com/sschaper/web/sschaper.html
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Steve Schaper
>
> the problem about "fringe" books is that the line between true facts and
> utter fantasy drivel is hard to find.
Trick is to see how well documented and reasoned they are. I find that
even mainstream paradigm works fall pretty short on that scale, on
occasion.
Bob Keeter
chow <chri...@SPAMtrash80.org.uk> wrote:
> In article <120220001017369720%bke...@netway.com>, Bob Keeter
> <bke...@netway.com> wrote:
>
Snippage. . . . . . .
>
> maybe the roman head was taken to mexico by west africans, now that would
> be funny if it could be proven
Not a chance, it was the polynesians fer-sure! Swapped some sweet
potatoes for that head with the East Indians, tossing in some maize for
the temple while the were at it! ;-)
At least now that we KNOW that the Romans were over here we can
understand how the Nazca lines got drawn so straight!
Hehehehehehehe!
Regads
bk
Doug Weller
chri...@SPAMtrash80.org.uk says...
words to that effect.
Bernard Ortiz de Montellano
chri...@SPAMtrash80.org.uk (chris chow) wrote:
> In article <120220001017369720%bke...@netway.com>, Bob Keeter
> <bke...@netway.com> wrote:
>
>
> > Dont think that there is COMPELLING evidence for either a Roman visit
> > or west African visits quite yet. I would hold out a bit more for
> > eventually proving a Roman visit only because even a single Roman
> > trading vessel would provide a significant number of artifacts whereas
> > a west African fishing canoe might not leave much to show for its being
> > here after so many years. In many ways, the skepticism of science can
> > sometimes be frustrating when it doesnt move in the direction one would
> > prefer, but move it does, most recently with the downfall of the
> > "Clovis First" dogma. IF there is REAL evidence supporting a Roman,
> > Greek, Carthagian, Egyptian, or west African presence in central
> > America, EVENTUALLY the truth will come out and be accepted (in spite
> > of all of the theses on file that argue against it!).
> >
>
> maybe the roman head was taken to mexico by west africans, now that would
> be funny if it could be proven
That would be funny. One set of claimants says the West Africans came 1200
B.C. 1200 years BEFORE the presumed date of the head. another set of
claimants says they Africans came in A.D. 1311 1100 years AFTER the
presumed date. No way to win
Doug Weller
>
> I would have thought that any half-way competent person could tell the
> difference between Roman amphrae and anything used for ballast on a
> Spanish ship. I would also expect that any event sufficiently recent
> to involve a 'Worlds Fair' would have been documented and there would
> be no "might have been" about it. How much of these explanations are
> unsupported speculation?
>
I don't understand why you have a problem with this.
I can't find the source for the suggestion that they were reproductions.
Problem is, no one seems to have seen them for a long time, no evidence of a
ship was mentioned, etc. The Bay of Jars stuff seems pretty much a non-starter
without something a bit more solid.
Eric Stevens
wrote:
>You cant dismiss the POSSIBILITY of many things. If in fact some small
>group of undeniably Roman artifacts start being turned up in central
>america in pre-Columbian contexts even the most dogmatic would
>eventually have to concede that at least one Roman ship must have made
>the trip (one way, possibly, but the trip nonetheless!).
I can imagine some die-hards insisting that they were brought back by
a ragt on its return journey. :-)
Eric Stevens
<dwe...@ramtops.co.uk> wrote:
>In article <G5qkOBfbIwZ2nT...@4ax.com>, este...@ip.co.nz says...
>>
>> I would have thought that any half-way competent person could tell the
>> difference between Roman amphrae and anything used for ballast on a
>> Spanish ship. I would also expect that any event sufficiently recent
>> to involve a 'Worlds Fair' would have been documented and there would
>> be no "might have been" about it. How much of these explanations are
>> unsupported speculation?
>>
>How do you tell that fragments of amphorae didn't get there as ballast?
>I don't understand why you have a problem with this.
But who said anything about fragments?
In any case, fromw where is a Spanish ship likely to find a load of
ballast with a high propotrion of smashed Roma amphorae?
I much prefer the explanation that a Spanish collector smasehed them
and dumped them at sea in a fit of pique.
>
>I can't find the source for the suggestion that they were reproductions.
>
>Problem is, no one seems to have seen them for a long time, no evidence of a
>ship was mentioned, etc. The Bay of Jars stuff seems pretty much a non-starter
>without something a bit more solid.
I quite agree. That's mainly why I believe it is too soon to start
speculating about all the reasons they aren't Roman.
Doug Weller
> On Sat, 12 Feb 2000 22:57:57 -0000, Doug Weller
> <dwe...@ramtops.co.uk> wrote:
>
> >In article <G5qkOBfbIwZ2nT...@4ax.com>, este...@ip.co.nz says...
> >>
> >> I would have thought that any half-way competent person could tell the
> >> difference between Roman amphrae and anything used for ballast on a
> >> Spanish ship. I would also expect that any event sufficiently recent
> >> to involve a 'Worlds Fair' would have been documented and there would
> >> be no "might have been" about it. How much of these explanations are
> >> unsupported speculation?
> >>
> >How do you tell that fragments of amphorae didn't get there as ballast?
> >I don't understand why you have a problem with this.
>
> But who said anything about fragments?
>
> In any case, fromw where is a Spanish ship likely to find a load of
> ballast with a high propotrion of smashed Roma amphorae?
Ah, now you know that there was a Spanish ship involved? As far as I know, no
remnants of a ship have been found. What do you know that I don't?
I don't know, around Ostia Antica?
> I much prefer the explanation that a Spanish collector smasehed them
> and dumped them at sea in a fit of pique.
So there are fragments?
> >I can't find the source for the suggestion that they were reproductions.
> >
> >Problem is, no one seems to have seen them for a long time, no evidence of a
> >ship was mentioned, etc. The Bay of Jars stuff seems pretty much a non-starter
> >without something a bit more solid.
>
> I quite agree. That's mainly why I believe it is too soon to start
> speculating about all the reasons they aren't Roman.
I've missed this then. Who's posted about reasons (plural, and more than 2
surely for 'all' to be applicable) for their not being Roman? And isn't it too
soon to speculate about anything at all to do with this? All you can say is
that some pottery, supposedly Roman amphorae, was reportedly found in the Bay of
Jars, supposedly from a shipwreck.
Eric Stevens
<dwe...@ramtops.co.uk> wrote:
>In article <CvClOKhYbfRLuvcn=WKCG3...@4ax.com>, este...@ip.co.nz says...
>> On Sat, 12 Feb 2000 22:57:57 -0000, Doug Weller
>> <dwe...@ramtops.co.uk> wrote:
>>
>> >In article <G5qkOBfbIwZ2nT...@4ax.com>, este...@ip.co.nz says...
>> >>
>> >> I would have thought that any half-way competent person could tell the
>> >> difference between Roman amphrae and anything used for ballast on a
>> >> Spanish ship. I would also expect that any event sufficiently recent
>> >> to involve a 'Worlds Fair' would have been documented and there would
>> >> be no "might have been" about it. How much of these explanations are
>> >> unsupported speculation?
>> >>
>> >How do you tell that fragments of amphorae didn't get there as ballast?
>> >I don't understand why you have a problem with this.
>>
>> But who said anything about fragments?
>>
>> In any case, fromw where is a Spanish ship likely to find a load of
>> ballast with a high propotrion of smashed Roma amphorae?
>
>Ah, now you know that there was a Spanish ship involved? As far as I know, no
>remnants of a ship have been found. What do you know that I don't?
I don't. But those who whish to attribute the amphorae to the ballast
of a Spanish ship must surely acknowledge the existence of a Spanish
ship. Or did the ballast find its own way over without the ship?
>
>I don't know, around Ostia Antica?
>
>> I much prefer the explanation that a Spanish collector smasehed them
>> and dumped them at sea in a fit of pique.
>
>So there are fragments?
God knows. Somebody seemed to imply that.
>
>> >I can't find the source for the suggestion that they were reproductions.
>> >
>> >Problem is, no one seems to have seen them for a long time, no evidence of a
>> >ship was mentioned, etc. The Bay of Jars stuff seems pretty much a non-starter
>> >without something a bit more solid.
>>
>> I quite agree. That's mainly why I believe it is too soon to start
>> speculating about all the reasons they aren't Roman.
>
>I've missed this then. Who's posted about reasons (plural, and more than 2
>surely for 'all' to be applicable) for their not being Roman? And isn't it too
>soon to speculate about anything at all to do with this? All you can say is
>that some pottery, supposedly Roman amphorae, was reportedly found in the Bay of
>Jars, supposedly from a shipwreck.
This is getting silly.
Alex referred to a "bay of shards" somewhere where Roman
artifacts were repeatedly recovered. Yet, when I make reference
(above) to "I much prefer the explanation that a Spanish collector
smasehed them and dumped them at sea in a fit of pique". You ask "So
there are fragments?".
Someone called Doug Weller wrote "Bay of jars. Supposed amphorae.
Might have been a shipwreck, might have been ballast from a later
Spanish ship, might have been (so it is claimed) replicas for a
World's Fair. No extant evidence that I know of". When I ask from
where is a Spanish ship likely to find a load of ballast with a high
proportion of smashed Roma amphorae?" another Doug Weller asks "Ah,
now you know that there was a Spanish ship involved? As far as I know,
no remnants of a ship have been found. What do you know that I
don't?". And then Doug Weller goes on to write that final paragraph
above this response.
My point is that, as I have already written, in the present state of
knowledge "it is too soon to start speculating about all the reasons
they [the remains] aren't Roman". Every time someone has put up
another spurious or hypothetical reason why the remains are not Roman
I have knocked it on the head, not because I believe the remains are
Roman, but because all attempts to explain the existence of remains
about which we know so little are presently without foundation.
Doug Weller
> On Sun, 13 Feb 2000 07:19:11 -0000, Doug Weller
> <dwe...@ramtops.co.uk> wrote:
>
> >In article <CvClOKhYbfRLuvcn=WKCG3...@4ax.com>, este...@ip.co.nz says...
> >> On Sat, 12 Feb 2000 22:57:57 -0000, Doug Weller
> >> <dwe...@ramtops.co.uk> wrote:
> >>
> >> >In article <G5qkOBfbIwZ2nT...@4ax.com>, este...@ip.co.nz says...
> >> >>
> >> >> I would have thought that any half-way competent person could tell the
> >> >> difference between Roman amphrae and anything used for ballast on a
> >> >> Spanish ship. I would also expect that any event sufficiently recent
> >> >> to involve a 'Worlds Fair' would have been documented and there would
> >> >> be no "might have been" about it. How much of these explanations are
> >> >> unsupported speculation?
> >> >>
> >> >How do you tell that fragments of amphorae didn't get there as ballast?
> >> >I don't understand why you have a problem with this.
> >>
> >> But who said anything about fragments?
> >>
> >> In any case, fromw where is a Spanish ship likely to find a load of
> >> ballast with a high propotrion of smashed Roma amphorae?
> >
> >Ah, now you know that there was a Spanish ship involved? As far as I know, no
> >remnants of a ship have been found. What do you know that I don't?
>
> I don't. But those who whish to attribute the amphorae to the ballast
> of a Spanish ship must surely acknowledge the existence of a Spanish
> ship. Or did the ballast find its own way over without the ship?
I'm lost again. We don't know if there was a Spanish ship involved. So far,
could be any ship any time since Roman amphorae were first made!
> >I don't know, around Ostia Antica?
> >
> >> I much prefer the explanation that a Spanish collector smasehed them
> >> and dumped them at sea in a fit of pique.
> >
> >So there are fragments?
>
> God knows. Somebody seemed to imply that.
Could be, again, lack of information.
> >> >I can't find the source for the suggestion that they were reproductions.
> >> >
> >> >Problem is, no one seems to have seen them for a long time, no evidence of a
> >> >ship was mentioned, etc. The Bay of Jars stuff seems pretty much a non-starter
> >> >without something a bit more solid.
> >>
> >> I quite agree. That's mainly why I believe it is too soon to start
> >> speculating about all the reasons they aren't Roman.
> >
> >I've missed this then. Who's posted about reasons (plural, and more than 2
> >surely for 'all' to be applicable) for their not being Roman? And isn't it too
> >soon to speculate about anything at all to do with this? All you can say is
> >that some pottery, supposedly Roman amphorae, was reportedly found in the Bay of
> >Jars, supposedly from a shipwreck.
>
> This is getting silly.
>
> Alex referred to a "bay of shards" somewhere where Roman
> artifacts were repeatedly recovered. Yet, when I make reference
> (above) to "I much prefer the explanation that a Spanish collector
> smasehed them and dumped them at sea in a fit of pique". You ask "So
> there are fragments?".
Thought you said no fragments. I don't know. I think there are claims for whole
jars, but I'm sure there must be fragments.
> Someone called Doug Weller wrote "Bay of jars. Supposed amphorae.
> Might have been a shipwreck, might have been ballast from a later
> Spanish ship, might have been (so it is claimed) replicas for a
> World's Fair. No extant evidence that I know of". When I ask from
> where is a Spanish ship likely to find a load of ballast with a high
> proportion of smashed Roma amphorae?" another Doug Weller asks "Ah,
> now you know that there was a Spanish ship involved? As far as I know,
> no remnants of a ship have been found. What do you know that I
> don't?". And then Doug Weller goes on to write that final paragraph
> above this response.
Ok, sorry, hadn't realised I'd written 'Spanish' ship.
> My point is that, as I have already written, in the present state of
> knowledge "it is too soon to start speculating about all the reasons
> they [the remains] aren't Roman". Every time someone has put up
> another spurious or hypothetical reason why the remains are not Roman
> I have knocked it on the head, not because I believe the remains are
> Roman, but because all attempts to explain the existence of remains
> about which we know so little are presently without foundation.
Yes. My point is that we should be knocking all speculation on its head. It's
interesting, but another one of those frustrating situations where claims are
made with no evidence we can find to back them up.
Bob Keeter
<este...@ip.co.nz> wrote:
> On Sat, 12 Feb 2000 10:17:36 -0500, Bob Keeter <bke...@netway.com>
> wrote:
>
> >You cant dismiss the POSSIBILITY of many things. If in fact some small
> >group of undeniably Roman artifacts start being turned up in central
> >america in pre-Columbian contexts even the most dogmatic would
> >eventually have to concede that at least one Roman ship must have made
> >the trip (one way, possibly, but the trip nonetheless!).
>
> I can imagine some die-hards insisting that they were brought back by
> a ragt on its return journey. :-)
>
>
> Eric Stevens
>
>
Some would even suggest that the Mayan priest conjured up the artifacts
in the middle of a human sacrifice as well! (Of course, I might not be
too worried about the scientific basis for that claim either!)
Speculation is great, it spurrs science even if only to point out the
flaws in one hypothesis or another! That does not mean that anyone
should / could / MUST confuse such speculation with facts! ;-))
Regards
bk
Bob Keeter
Weller <dwe...@ramtops.co.uk> wrote:
> >
> > But who said anything about fragments?
> >
> > In any case, fromw where is a Spanish ship likely to find a load of
> > ballast with a high propotrion of smashed Roma amphorae?
>
> Ah, now you know that there was a Spanish ship involved? As far as I know, no
> remnants of a ship have been found. What do you know that I don't?
>
> I don't know, around Ostia Antica?
>
> > I much prefer the explanation that a Spanish collector smasehed them
> > and dumped them at sea in a fit of pique.
>
> So there are fragments?
>
Lets see now. IF there were in fact fragments of Roman/Greek amphorae
found in a harbor or bay in Mesoamerica, what explainations COULD
occur.
THere is of course the "popular" idea that they might have been cargo
on a Roman trading vessel or warship that actually was on a "voyage of
discovery". A side theory is that this ship might have been blown off
course by a storm and pushed across the Atlantic, manned or unmanned as
a derelict.
There is another logic that says that these artifacts might have come
over in the ballast of primarily Spanish vessels that plied these
waters in the late 15th, 16th, 17th, and 18th centuries.
In the first case, UNLESS some other evidence than these supposed Roman
pottery fragments can be found, we are at a dead end. ANY theory can,
at least in principle, be advanced.
In the second case, lets think about it. Most of the harbors in use in
Spain between the 1400's and the 1800's were also active harbors during
Roman times. This means that there is a ready source and logical
"pedigree" for fragments of Roman amphorae in the sand and gravel
around Spanish harbors.
Now, what would be the purpose of sand or gravel ballast? If I
remember correctly, the permanent ballast for ships in this era was
usually large stones or blocks of stone secured in the lower holds of
the ships. (securing the ballast was essential to prevent shifts
during bad weather!). On the other hand, the permanent ballast in a
merchant ship was usually not really sufficient to fully stabilize a
ship. Some of the stability came from the cargo, or in the absence of
the cargo removable "ballast". Modern oil tankers do the same thing,
i.e. depend on their cargo of oil or a ballast of sea water for
stability! When the ship arrives at the port of origin for its cargo,
the temporary ballast goes overboard.
Now if a Spanish captian had dreged up a load of sand and pebbles in
Cadiz harbor or along the shore to ballast down for his trip to the new
world, and he had dumped that load of ballast into the sea when he was
loading with the loot from the new world, is it any wonder why there
might be some bits and pieces of some otherwise inexplicable items on
the bottom of the new harbor? ;-) Occam's Razor just might find some
application here!
Personally I think that if we look long enough we will inevitably find
some evidence of the Old World ancients in the new world (even if only
in the form of derelict "shipwrecks" or cast-away fishermen, but such
evidence will have to stand up to some very hard, very skeptical, but
at the same time, open-minded scrutiny before I will be willing to
accept it as more than conjecture.
Regards
bk
news_surfer
>
> Personally I think that if we look long enough we will inevitably find
> some evidence of the Old World ancients in the new world (even if only
> in the form of derelict "shipwrecks" or cast-away fishermen, but such
> evidence will have to stand up to some very hard, very skeptical, but
> at the same time, open-minded scrutiny before I will be willing to
> accept it as more than conjecture.
>
> Regards
> bk
You won't find much "open-minded scrutiny" in this news group, least of all
from Doug Weller!
Adrian Gilbert.
Anomaly
>In article <G5qkOBfbIwZ2nT...@4ax.com>, este...@ip.co.nz says...
>
>> I would have thought that any half-way competent person could tell the
>> difference between Roman amphrae and anything used for ballast on a
>> Spanish ship. I would also expect that any event sufficiently recent
>> to involve a 'Worlds Fair' would have been documented and there would
>> be no "might have been" about it. How much of these explanations are
>> unsupported speculation?
>
>How do you tell that fragments of amphorae didn't get there as ballast?
>I don't understand why you have a problem with this.
>
>I can't find the source for the suggestion that they were reproductions.
>
>Problem is, no one seems to have seen them for a long time, no evidence
>of a ship was mentioned, etc. The Bay of Jars stuff seems pretty much
>a non-starter without something a bit more solid.
I've been following this discussion for some time with much
interest. While the speculation is interesting, it seems that no one
has considered this from the point of the Romans. What many people
don't realize is that the Romans were a great a sea power as they were
a land power. They had many well-established sea lanes that they used
to travel distances that were unheard of in previous times. It is
known that they traveled down around Cape Hope in Africa, and along
the west coast. Many of these sea lanes were used by later explorers
on their journeys of discovery.
The Roman grain ship was a technological wonder in its day. A
massive vessel, they were almost 100' long, and 30' in beam. Capable
of carring a hundred tonnes of grain, voyages of hundreds of miles
without landfall wern't uncommon. They were the most massive ships of
their day, especially when you realize that the average size for a
cargo vessel of the time was 50' X 15'.
In many situations, these ships were used for other cargo duties.
When regular cargo was carried, it was contained in amphorae. These
were the packing crates of their day, and were used to carry
everything from wine, to spices, to oil and incense. They were made to
specific sizes, according to the law. This way, merchants knew how
much material they were getting without weighing each and every
amphora. Like any cargo ship, the cargo carried was also used as
ballast, in this case, the amphorae. When they were discharged, and
none were available to replace them, large stones were carried in
their stead. But amphorae were considered disposable, like cardboard
boxes today.
So, knowing all of this, it's quite possible that a Roman cargo
vessel could've been blown off course on its destination from north
Africa, and arrived in the New World. Upon finding themselves in a
strange new land, the crew would've taken pains to find out their
location. Any of the amphorae they emptied in the duration would've
been dumped overboard. This would be one account for the presence of
amphorae in the Bay of Jars. If the ship had sank there, the wood
would've been quickly consumed by toredos, although the bronze and
copper fastenings would still be there. I've read no account that any
of these were located at the site or not. It's known that the Romans
traded with primitive peoples, and if such a ship had actually made it
to Mesoamerica, it's likely this would've occured, and this may
account for the head found in Mexico.
Although this isn't the only account of Roman visits to the New
World. There is an account that they actually reached Galveston Island
in Texas. There is a local researcher down there (whose name escapes
me at the moment) who claims to have found Roman coins, and bits of
segmented armour. Although it's possible that these could've been
brought in by the Spanish, as ancient gold coins were still being
circulated as late as the 16th century.
While I realize that all this is sheer speculation, speculation is
the spark that many ideas have sprung that later proved to be true. In
any event, it's an entertaining exercise in mental gymnastics.
Regards,
Anomaly
Bernard Ortiz de Montellano
(Anomaly) wrote:
snip
> I've been following this discussion for some time with much
> interest. While the speculation is interesting, it seems that no one
> has considered this from the point of the Romans. What many people
> don't realize is that the Romans were a great a sea power as they were
> a land power. They had many well-established sea lanes that they used
> to travel distances that were unheard of in previous times. It is
> known that they traveled down around Cape Hope in Africa, and along
> the west coast. Many of these sea lanes were used by later explorers
> on their journeys of discovery.
I'm waiting breatlessly for EVIDENCE that the Romans circled Cape Hope!
Please provide a credible citation for this claim.
--
Bernard Ortiz de Montellano
Doug Weller
definite...@freeuk.com says...
> You won't find much "open-minded scrutiny" in this news group, least of all
> from Doug Weller!
>
>
you, and apologise if I've failed (which I guess might just barely justify this
canard).
Being open-minded obviously means different things to you than it does to me. To
me it involves keeping my brains in my head and using them to try to make sense
of things. I'm sorry if my pointing out that 1510 is not pre-Columbian, for
instance, makes me look close-minded, but the devil is in the detail. Which
upsets people, as they often don't want to look at the detail or at difficult
questions.
I have not, for instance, rejected the possibility of a Roman shipwreck or even
more than one. It's certainly not impossible SO FAR AS I KNOW. (I emphasise
that because I won't commit myself even that far about something I don't know
100%). But to claim there was one you need clear evidence. And to claim that
this tiny head was brought to the Americas from the Roman empire in 200 AD or
even later, survived in the Americas to be placed in this site between 1476 and
1510, needs pretty impressive evidence.
Now if it had been in a clearly sealed site pre- say 1450, ok. Can I remind
people that there are lots of claims for visits to the Americas earlier than
1492, claims that at the moment are not being brought forward as the possible
source of this head. How about a Basque shipwreck? :)
Doug
Doug Weller
> And that's why it is premature to start discounting the claims,
> whatever they finally turn out to be.
>
>
I'm still not clear. It is ok to speculate on a Roman shipwreck but not any
other possibilities? I'm saying that the claims should just be set to one side
as unfounded until there is more evidence.
Doug Weller
bor...@earthlink.net says...
> In article <38a6f8bf....@news.zebra.net>, ano...@zebra.net
> (Anomaly) wrote:
> snip
> > I've been following this discussion for some time with much
> > interest. While the speculation is interesting, it seems that no one
> > has considered this from the point of the Romans. What many people
> > don't realize is that the Romans were a great a sea power as they were
> > a land power. They had many well-established sea lanes that they used
> > to travel distances that were unheard of in previous times. It is
> > known that they traveled down around Cape Hope in Africa, and along
> > the west coast. Many of these sea lanes were used by later explorers
> > on their journeys of discovery.
>
> I'm waiting breatlessly for EVIDENCE that the Romans circled Cape Hope!
> Please provide a credible citation for this claim.
>
>
I never thought of the Romans as keen deep sea sailors, and indeed I've read
that they were anything but, but I am quite happy to be convinced otherwise
given sufficient evidence.
Doug Weller
>
> On Sun, 13 Feb 2000 20:23:06 -0000, Doug Weller
> <dwe...@ramtops.co.uk> wrote:
>
> >In article <XAWnOJUmlL=Df18qIh5MNP9cD=r...@4ax.com>, este...@ip.co.nz says...
> >> And that's why it is premature to start discounting the claims,
> >> whatever they finally turn out to be.
> >>
> >>
> >I'm still not clear. It is ok to speculate on a Roman shipwreck but not any
> >other possibilities? I'm saying that the claims should just be set to one side
> >as unfounded until there is more evidence.
>
> found in the company of a Roman wreck, were not found in the company
> of a Roman wreck, were carried across as Spanish ballast, were lost on
> the way to a world exhibition or were smashed and dumped in a fit of
> pique by a collector.
>
I assumed that was understood. I haven't made such claims. I've pointed to
them as part of the lack of knowledge and confusion over this. The whole thing
should be set aside pending some concrete information.
Dave Forth
>In article <38a6f8bf....@news.zebra.net>, ano...@zebra.net
>(Anomaly) wrote:
>snip
>> I've been following this discussion for some time with much
>> interest. While the speculation is interesting, it seems that no one
>> has considered this from the point of the Romans. What many people
>> don't realize is that the Romans were a great a sea power as they were
>> a land power. They had many well-established sea lanes that they used
>> to travel distances that were unheard of in previous times. It is
>> known that they traveled down around Cape Hope in Africa, and along
>> the west coast. Many of these sea lanes were used by later explorers
>> on their journeys of discovery.
>
>I'm waiting breatlessly for EVIDENCE that the Romans circled Cape Hope!
>Please provide a credible citation for this claim.
Wilber Smith? :-)
-- Dave
Bob Keeter
<definite...@freeuk.com> wrote:
> >
> > Personally I think that if we look long enough we will inevitably find
> > some evidence of the Old World ancients in the new world (even if only
> > in the form of derelict "shipwrecks" or cast-away fishermen, but such
> > evidence will have to stand up to some very hard, very skeptical, but
> > at the same time, open-minded scrutiny before I will be willing to
> > accept it as more than conjecture.
> >
> > Regards
> > bk
>
> You won't find much "open-minded scrutiny" in this news group, least of all
> from Doug Weller!
>
> Adrian Gilbert.
Im not sure that you read the phrase quite correctly. There needs to
be as much "open minded scrutiny" on BOTH sides of the issues. Hard
nosed pragmatism is usually best. IF the subject ceramic head does in
fact match up in style, material and date with Roman artifacts, THEN an
honest scientist will try to determine how it got there.
Ive seen LOTS of disparaging remarks with no better support than "it
must have been this way, or else all my theories are bunk"! That is
"closed minded scrutiny" only looking long enough to come up with SOME
remotely feasible explaination that allows one theory or another to
stand without contradiction. The unfortunate thing is that I see
arguements from BOTH sides that meet this criteria. On one side the
"diffusionist" argument is that Roman traders, West African fishermen,
Greeks, Cathargains, Phoenicians, Greeks, Celts, Basques, etc. MUST
have come to the New World before the Vikings or Columbus. On the
other side, there is a MAJOR reluctance to accept any evidence that the
theories that make for good theses might not hold water.
IF the head was burried under several clay floors that predate
Columbus, the "establishment" should sit up and take notice. IF the
head was excavated with reasonable care by professionals (as has been
stated elsewhere), AND the work of these professionals can not be
impuned by modern data, it would seem that simply casting doubts via
inuendo is pretty unscientific.
On the other hand, IF the pedigree can not be established within reason
(and remember we are not running any court of law!), just about any
explaination is "adequate" and the simplest explaination is that it was
packed across in ballast or as a good luck charm, or whatever during
the spanish conquest.
I dont know which might be true. I say, let the facts fall as they
may. However, NEITHER side should consider their pet positions to be
so cut and dried as to be immune to necessary changes brought about by
good science.
Personally, Id like to think the first case simply because it would
open up so much more territory for the possible investigations. Id
recommend that we all be aware of the possibilities but maintain a
clean definition of what is FACT and what is possibility.
Regards
bk
Bob Keeter
Bernard Ortiz de Montellano <bor...@earthlink.net> wrote:
> In article <38a6f8bf....@news.zebra.net>, ano...@zebra.net
> (Anomaly) wrote:
> snip
SNippage. . . . .
>
> I'm waiting breatlessly for EVIDENCE that the Romans circled Cape Hope!
> Please provide a credible citation for this claim.
>
Not exactly the "proof" you were asking for, but at least a couple of
the ancient sources cited are Roman even though the actual mariner was
Carthagian (Hanno, circa 500 BCE). Maybe someone substituted the
teller's nationality for the nationality of the traveler! Not often
that one finds Romans with much good to say about Carthagians and the
difference may not have stuck with the reader! ;-)
http://home.wxs.nl/~lende045/Hanno/Hanno.html
>
Also some discussion of Romans potentially visiting Zanzibar, but most
likely via the Red Sea. Frankly, unless there were clear evidence
otherwise, Id have to suspect most Roman artifacts found to the east of
the Cape might have come down from the Red Sea rather than around from
the west coast. Its not as if they did not know it could be done (see
above reference), probably just did not see the need! ;-)
http://www.zanzibararchives.net/people.htm
IMHO, it would seem that the Romans were seafarers by necessity as
opposed to the Phoeniceans, Carthagians and the Greeks who went to sea
simply because they could. The Romans had very impressive ships in the
grain trade, but to the best of my knowledge, the only evidence for
these large vessels is in the Mediterranean (Mainly between North
Africa and Italy).
Regards
bk
Bob Keeter
Weller <dwe...@ramtops.co.uk> wrote:
Snippage. . . .
> > I'm waiting breatlessly for EVIDENCE that the Romans circled Cape Hope!
> > Please provide a credible citation for this claim.
> >
> >
> You beat me too it. I think he is thinking of a somewhat earlier voyage!
>
Bet Hanno took a turn on that one as well.
> I never thought of the Romans as keen deep sea sailors, and indeed I've read
> that they were anything but, but I am quite happy to be convinced otherwise
> given sufficient evidence.
>
Yup. My impression as well. If Im reading the info on the Punic wars
correctly, the Romans beat the Carthagian fleets by using every trick
in the book to convert a naval engagement into an infantry battle, ala
the "Corvus" and a catapulted "grappling hook". Seems that their best
tactic was to lash the ships together and turn the Legionaires loose!
Except for short jaunts across the Med, I think that every Roman sea
captain's idea of a perfect day sailing ended with a snug campsite
ashore for the night! ;-)
Regards
bk
Eric Stevens
<dwe...@ramtops.co.uk> wrote:
>In article <o3imOKUP1uJ=BL2tkoNK...@4ax.com>, este...@ip.co.nz says...
>> On Sun, 13 Feb 2000 07:19:11 -0000, Doug Weller
>> <dwe...@ramtops.co.uk> wrote:
>>
>> >In article <CvClOKhYbfRLuvcn=WKCG3...@4ax.com>, este...@ip.co.nz says...
>> >> On Sat, 12 Feb 2000 22:57:57 -0000, Doug Weller
>> >> <dwe...@ramtops.co.uk> wrote:
>> >>
>> >> >In article <G5qkOBfbIwZ2nT...@4ax.com>, este...@ip.co.nz says...
>> >> >>
--- snip ----
>> I don't. But those who whish to attribute the amphorae to the ballast
>> of a Spanish ship must surely acknowledge the existence of a Spanish
>> ship. Or did the ballast find its own way over without the ship?
>
>I'm lost again. We don't know if there was a Spanish ship involved. So far,
>could be any ship any time since Roman amphorae were first made!
Of course we don't know! I've been saying that all along. That's why I
wrote "those who wish to attribute the amphorae to the ballast of a
Spanish ship ...".
----------- snip ----------
>Could be, again, lack of information.
Exactly.
--------- snip ---------------
>> Alex referred to a "bay of shards" somewhere where Roman
>> artifacts were repeatedly recovered. Yet, when I make reference
>> (above) to "I much prefer the explanation that a Spanish collector
>> smasehed them and dumped them at sea in a fit of pique". You ask "So
>> there are fragments?".
>
>Thought you said no fragments. I don't know. I think there are claims for whole
>jars, but I'm sure there must be fragments.
**I** didn't say fragments. Alex used the words 'shards'. Like you, I
have read of intact jars.
---------- snip ------------
>Yes. My point is that we should be knocking all speculation on its head. It's
>interesting, but another one of those frustrating situations where claims are
>made with no evidence we can find to back them up.
And that's why it is premature to start discounting the claims,
whatever they finally turn out to be.
Eric Stevens
Eric Stevens
<dwe...@ramtops.co.uk> wrote:
>In article <XAWnOJUmlL=Df18qIh5MNP9cD=r...@4ax.com>, este...@ip.co.nz says...
>> And that's why it is premature to start discounting the claims,
>> whatever they finally turn out to be.
>>
>>
>I'm still not clear. It is ok to speculate on a Roman shipwreck but not any
>other possibilities? I'm saying that the claims should just be set to one side
>as unfounded until there is more evidence.
So should be the claims that the jars were intact, were broken, were
found in the company of a Roman wreck, were not found in the company
of a Roman wreck, were carried across as Spanish ballast, were lost on
the way to a world exhibition or were smashed and dumped in a fit of
pique by a collector.
Eric Stevens
<dwe...@ramtops.co.uk> wrote:
>In article <rx6nOHCsOXrZB8CVO=CUQh3joE=P...@4ax.com>, este...@ip.co.nz says...
>>
>> On Sun, 13 Feb 2000 20:23:06 -0000, Doug Weller
>> <dwe...@ramtops.co.uk> wrote:
>>
>> >In article <XAWnOJUmlL=Df18qIh5MNP9cD=r...@4ax.com>, este...@ip.co.nz says...
>> >> And that's why it is premature to start discounting the claims,
>> >> whatever they finally turn out to be.
>> >>
>> >>
>> >I'm still not clear. It is ok to speculate on a Roman shipwreck but not any
>> >other possibilities? I'm saying that the claims should just be set to one side
>> >as unfounded until there is more evidence.
>>
>> So should be the claims that the jars were intact, were broken, were
>> found in the company of a Roman wreck, were not found in the company
>> of a Roman wreck, were carried across as Spanish ballast, were lost on
>> the way to a world exhibition or were smashed and dumped in a fit of
>> pique by a collector.
>>
>I assumed that was understood. I haven't made such claims. I've pointed to
>them as part of the lack of knowledge and confusion over this. The whole thing
>should be set aside pending some concrete information.
>
Well, you did respond to Alex's original post with an opening flurry
of fields for speculation:
"Bay of jars. Supposed amphorae. Might have been a shipwreck, might
have been ballast from a later Spanish ship, might have been (so
it is claimed) replicas for a World's Fair. No extant evidence
that I know of".
You then proceeded to discuss these speculations in subsequent
messages. I was the first person to say " ... I believe it is too soon
to start speculating about all the reasons they aren't Roman". It goes
without saying that it is too soon to start speculating.
Eric Stevens
wrote:
>In article <UjCp4.4435$s02.1...@nnrp3.clara.net>, news_surfer
><definite...@freeuk.com> wrote:
>
>> >
>> > Personally I think that if we look long enough we will inevitably find
>> > some evidence of the Old World ancients in the new world (even if only
>> > in the form of derelict "shipwrecks" or cast-away fishermen, but such
>> > evidence will have to stand up to some very hard, very skeptical, but
>> > at the same time, open-minded scrutiny before I will be willing to
>> > accept it as more than conjecture.
>> >
>> > Regards
>> > bk
>>
>> You won't find much "open-minded scrutiny" in this news group, least of all
>> from Doug Weller!
>>
>> Adrian Gilbert.
>
>Im not sure that you read the phrase quite correctly. There needs to
>be as much "open minded scrutiny" on BOTH sides of the issues. Hard
>nosed pragmatism is usually best. IF the subject ceramic head does in
>fact match up in style, material and date with Roman artifacts, THEN an
>honest scientist will try to determine how it got there.
>
--- excellent summary snipped ----
>Personally, Id like to think the first case simply because it would
>open up so much more territory for the possible investigations. Id
>recommend that we all be aware of the possibilities but maintain a
>clean definition of what is FACT and what is possibility.
I think part of the problem is that there are two kinds of people :-)
There are those who reach only two kinds of conclusions ("true" or
"false"), and those who reach three kinds of concluions ("true",
"false" or "don't know"). Despite my sig, I'm one of the second kind.
I have noticed that many arguments occur when two valued people meet
three valued people.
2V - You can't prove its true, so its false.
3V - We don't know whether its true or false so its 'don't know'.
2V - You won't accept that its false so you must be arguing that its
true. Where is your evidence? ... and so on.
There have been many bloodstained threads on this group where it would
have been much better to accept that something is in the "don't know"
category rather than trying to force it into one rigid 'true' or
'false' mould. At the moment, with this head, we in this group are
really in the "don't know" category but if we knew more about the
circumstances of its finding and the manner of its dating we would be
able to start reaching conclusions about the probability of its
presence indicating one thing or the other.
spam.killer
Bob Keeter wrote in message <130220002049297100%bke...@netway.com>...
Yes, the fleet was considered to be a decidedly inferior form of service.
The ship's captains or 'Trierarcae' were usually not themselves Romans, and
even the admirals ('Praefecti Classis') were frequently only freedmen. The
ordinary sailors were a more miscellaneous equivalent of the foreign levies
which the Roman army took great delight in hurling into battle first. The
lack of any effective weapon capable of striking from a distance (save
perhaps the sling and bow) leaves but two available tactics; ramming the
other ship, and boarding the vessel .which goes a long way to explaining
their partiality for the deck action.
Beagle..
Bernard Ortiz de Montellano
<bke...@netway.com> wrote:
> In article <bortiz-1302...@ip246.austin20.tx.pub-ip.psi.net>,
> Bernard Ortiz de Montellano <bor...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>
> > In article <38a6f8bf....@news.zebra.net>, ano...@zebra.net
> > (Anomaly) wrote:
> > snip
> SNippage. . . . .
>
> >
> > I'm waiting breatlessly for EVIDENCE that the Romans circled Cape Hope!
> > Please provide a credible citation for this claim.
> >
>
> Not exactly the "proof" you were asking for, but at least a couple of
> the ancient sources cited are Roman even though the actual mariner was
> Carthagian (Hanno, circa 500 BCE). Maybe someone substituted the
> teller's nationality for the nationality of the traveler! Not often
> that one finds Romans with much good to say about Carthagians and the
> difference may not have stuck with the reader! ;-)
>
> http://home.wxs.nl/~lende045/Hanno/Hanno.html
>
> >
>
> Also some discussion of Romans potentially visiting Zanzibar, but most
> likely via the Red Sea. Frankly, unless there were clear evidence
> otherwise, Id have to suspect most Roman artifacts found to the east of
> the Cape might have come down from the Red Sea rather than around from
> the west coast. Its not as if they did not know it could be done (see
> above reference), probably just did not see the need! ;-)
>
> http://www.zanzibararchives.net/people.htm
>
> IMHO, it would seem that the Romans were seafarers by necessity as
> opposed to the Phoeniceans, Carthagians and the Greeks who went to sea
> simply because they could. The Romans had very impressive ships in the
> grain trade, but to the best of my knowledge, the only evidence for
> these large vessels is in the Mediterranean (Mainly between North
> Africa and Italy).
>
> Regards
> bk
I agree, there is no Roman involved. The claim concerns Hanno a Carthaginian.
Probably the foremost authority on ancient boats and mariners is Lionel
Casson. In 1991 [1959] * The Ancient Mariners* 2nd ed. Princeton:
Princeton University Presspp. 121-125 Casson discusses Hanno's voyage. He
points out that this short inscription describing the voyage has generated
tons of commentary. he summarizes as follows:
p. 125 <<Most commentators are convinced that Hanno succeeded in making
his way a considerable distance down the coast.....
Exactly how far did he get? Conservative commentators think that he
stopped short of the calms and heat of the Gulf of Guinea and pushed no
farther than Sierra Leone.... Othere, more bold, take him as far as
Cameroon... Finally there are the skeptics who feel that Hanno actually
got only a short way down the coast and that part of the voyage during
which his dramatic experiences took place... were added by armchair
geographers writing centuries later who attributed to Hanno their own
fantasies about the shape and nature of Africa incognita. As in the case
of the Phoenician circumnavigation of Africa we will never know for sure.
And, like that venture, Hanno's had no effect on subsequent history. Most
of the west coast of Africa was to remain outside of European knowledge
right up to the fifteenth century, when Prince Henry the Navigator
successfully pressed his captains to sail even farther south along its
shores.>>
So even Hanno's voyage is not a laydown fact, and certainly not around the
Cape of Good Hope. It is also relevant that, like all of the proposed
Pre-Columbian visits to the New World, even if true, it was irrelevant to
the subsequent history of the region. It also shows that it was a unique
voyage and that there were no regular fleets of Roman merchantmen sailing
in the Atlantic off the African coast to be <<blown off course>>.
Doug Weller
>
> Well, you did respond to Alex's original post with an opening flurry
> of fields for speculation:
>
> "Bay of jars. Supposed amphorae. Might have been a shipwreck, might
> have been ballast from a later Spanish ship, might have been (so
> it is claimed) replicas for a World's Fair. No extant evidence
> that I know of".
>
> You then proceeded to discuss these speculations in subsequent
> messages. I was the first person to say " ... I believe it is too soon
> to start speculating about all the reasons they aren't Roman". It goes
> without saying that it is too soon to start speculating.
>
>
but that was my point. We don't know, and won't know until we have more
evidence. I've said this several times. Bay of Jars should be shelved until we
get something new.
Eric Stevens
<dwe...@ramtops.co.uk> wrote:
>In article <ZUmnOBWeaqWwGV...@4ax.com>, este...@ip.co.nz says...
>>
>> Well, you did respond to Alex's original post with an opening flurry
>> of fields for speculation:
>>
>> "Bay of jars. Supposed amphorae. Might have been a shipwreck, might
>> have been ballast from a later Spanish ship, might have been (so
>> it is claimed) replicas for a World's Fair. No extant evidence
>> that I know of".
>>
>> You then proceeded to discuss these speculations in subsequent
>> messages. I was the first person to say " ... I believe it is too soon
>> to start speculating about all the reasons they aren't Roman". It goes
>> without saying that it is too soon to start speculating.
>>
>>
>Yes, I did all that. The last sentence was the key one. Maybe you were first,
>but that was my point. We don't know, and won't know until we have more
>evidence. I've said this several times. Bay of Jars should be shelved until we
>get something new.
All I can say is that if you had started - and stopped - with "No
extant evidence that I know of" we wouldn't have got into discussions
of speculations about Spanish ships etc. But, apart from that, I agree
with you. This is still "don't know" territory.
news_surfer
Doug Weller <dwe...@ramtops.co.uk> wrote in message
news:MPG.1311227c8...@news.btinternet.com...
all
> > from Doug Weller!
> >
> >
to
> you, and apologise if I've failed (which I guess might just barely justify
this
> canard).
>
apologise if I have given offence:-). I do note that on the subject of the
ancient Britons never having been called "Celts" in ancient times we are in
agreement. I thank you and acknowledge your support on this point in the
long-running arguments held about King Arthur last year. You must, however,
admit that your first instinct is nearly always scepticism when dealing with
reports of new discoveries? I understand that this is the nature of science,
to question everything and trust no-one but it can prove a real dampner on
other people's enthusiasms. Taken to extremes (not by you I hasten to add)
this attitude can be construed as bullying and rather frightening for
contributors to news groups. There are many youngsters who make tentative
postings to this newsgroup (often about pyramids, secret chambers and the
like) in the hope of receiving some encouragement. Usually they are already
nervous about entering an arena that is so public and when they are treated
like ignorant cretins their feelings get very hurt. I know that you
personally are careful in what you say and how you phrase things but some of
your peers aren't. This was the attitude I was being critical of. I guess I
used your name as one that immediately came to mind because in your role of
"moderator" you scrutinise every posting made and seem to contribute to
almost every thread. Please don't take this personally. Actually I quite
admire the way you seem to have an interest in everything and are nearly
always able to provide the consensus response to any point of deviation made
by heretics such as myself. Keep up the good work, it keeps us on our toes.
Adrian Gilbert.
Bob Keeter
Bernard Ortiz de Montellano <bor...@earthlink.net> wrote:
Snippage. . . . .
> So even Hanno's voyage is not a laydown fact, and certainly not around the
> Cape of Good Hope. It is also relevant that, like all of the proposed
> Pre-Columbian visits to the New World, even if true, it was irrelevant to
> the subsequent history of the region. It also shows that it was a unique
> voyage and that there were no regular fleets of Roman merchantmen sailing
> in the Atlantic off the African coast to be <<blown off course>>.
I have to definitely concede that Hanno's voyage is less than a proven
fact, but at least it has a bit more support than some of the other
conjectural "voyages of discovery". Would be nice if we could somehow
locate some of the many "overnight" stops along his route and settle
the issue, but then until we do. . . . . . .
As for the "regular fleets of Roman merchantmen, Ive got a feeling that
there may have been a bit more traffic than can right now be supported
by fact, particularly out of the Roman (ne Carthagian) ports in Iberia.
As Rome grew in wealth the novelty of goods from foreign places would
have drawn fortune hunters out of the Med. There are two ways to turn
at Gibralter. North you found the Gauls, Celts, Germans, etc. ; none a
real mystery to the Romans. Turn south and you found new territory and
new trade goods. Maybe there werent major trading fleets moving along
the bulge of Africa, but the Iberian (and even Carthagian!) captains
that conducted trade along the coast, at least to the equator, would
not forget these lucerative markets just because the fortunes of war
mand them Roman citizens.
I would humbly suggest that the Portuguese (and Spaniards) probably had
a pretty good "running start" on exploring the west coast of Africa
long before the classic "age of discovery" dawned.
Regards
bk
Hu McCulloch
A feature article from the Dallas Observer, for August 25, 1999, with
lots
of very interesting background on Romeo
[aka Roman] Hristov's search for and dating of
the Roman terra cotta head from a pre-Hispanic burial in the Toluca
Valley, about 40 miles W of Mexico City, is online at
<
http://www.dallasobserver.com/issues/1999-08-26/feature2.html/index_html?qs=1
>
Doug Weller has mentioned this here, but did not provide the above URL.
The DO webpage has two good photos of the head in question itelf, unlike
the _New Scientist_ website, at
< http://www.newscientist.co.uk/news/news.jsp?id=ns222537 >,
which has a photo of a Roman head, but not the one
that is the subject of the accompanying article!
An article in NEARA Journal vol. 28, #3&4 (Winter/Spring
1994), by Hristov, has two additional photos of the head,
from perspectives that show the distinctive sailor's cap
described (in German) by Robt Heine-Geldern as a
"Pylos".
An article by Hristov and 3 others that just came out in the Fall 1999
issue of _Ancient Mesoamerica_ (vol. 10 circa p. 207) reports a
new TL date of roughly 1800 BP, according to the Dallas Observer
article.
The head was found in 1933, and belatedly published,
by Jose Garcia-Payon, "Una
cabecita de barro, de extrana fisonomia," Boletin INAH [the
Mexican National Inst. of Anthro and History] Vol. 6, Oct 1961,
pp. 1-2. The DO article describes Garcia-Payon as one
of the founders of Mexican archaeology.
Anthropologist Robert Heine-Geldern, back in 1961,
stated that the head "unquestionably derives from the Hellentistic-
Roman art circle. The strongly distinctive Naturalism
argues for a date around 200 A.D." (my rough trans).
"Ein Roemischer Fund aus dem vorkolumbischen
Mexiko", _Anzeiger der Oesterreichischen Akademie der
Wissenschaften (Philosophisch-Hist. Klasse)_ #16, 1961, pp.
117-9. An English translation appeared in the Anthropological
J of Canada, vol. 5 (1967), 20-22. Note that the
new TL date hits Heine-Geldern's stylistic date on
the head!
-- Hu McCulloch
www.econ.ohio-state.edu/jhm/arch/outliers.html
Hu McCulloch
of webpages, which print out to about 22 hardcopy pages.
Be sure to click on the continuation buttons for the whole story!
-- HM
Doug Weller
[SNIP]
> IF the head was burried under several clay floors that predate
> Columbus, the "establishment" should sit up and take notice.
>
Remember, it was found associated with other items dated 1476-1510. I'm a bit
worried about the TL dating, will post more on that if I can back up my worries
at all.
[SNIP]
Doug
Doug Weller
definite...@freeuk.com says...
[SNIP]
> I guess I
> used your name as one that immediately came to mind because in your role of
> "moderator" you scrutinise every posting made and seem to contribute to
> almost every thread. Please don't take this personally. Actually I quite
> admire the way you seem to have an interest in everything and are nearly
> always able to provide the consensus response to any point of deviation made
> by heretics such as myself. Keep up the good work, it keeps us on our toe
>
Thanks Adrian for clearing this up. Let me clear up another thing. I'm
just another member (albeit now one of the older ones) of this
newsgroup. I'm one of the moderators of sci.archaeology.moderated, a
companion newsgroup. Here though I do take an interest in a lot, and
although I don't know about consensus I do try to provide a
counterbalance to Sitchin, Hancock, and dare I say it Gilbert from time
to time to show their 'sins of omission or commission'. :) I prefer to
do this without flames and appreciate the fact that with you this is
almost always possible.
Doug Weller
> A feature article from the Dallas Observer, for August 25, 1999, with
> lots
> of very interesting background on Romeo
> [aka Roman] Hristov's search for and dating of
> the Roman terra cotta head from a pre-Hispanic burial in the Toluca
> Valley, about 40 miles W of Mexico City, is online at
> <
> http://www.dallasobserver.com/issues/1999-08-26/feature2.html/index_html?qs=1
> >
>
pages.
http://www.dallasobserver.com/issues/1999-08-
26/feature2.html/printable_page
gives you it all in one printable page, as it says.
I'd like to see the paper on the TL dating, as I thought you needed a
soil sample as well (and of course since the deposit dates to 1476-1510,
surely that wouldn't be very helpful?)
Hu McCulloch
Doug Weller wrote:
> In article <38A837AD...@osu.edu>, mccul...@osu.edu says...
> > A feature article from the Dallas Observer, for August 25, 1999, with
> > lots
> > of very interesting background on Romeo
> > [aka Roman] Hristov's search for and dating of
> > the Roman terra cotta head from a pre-Hispanic burial in the Toluca
> > Valley, about 40 miles W of Mexico City, is online at
> > <
> > http://www.dallasobserver.com/issues/1999-08-26/feature2.html/index_html?qs=1
> > >
> > Doug Weller has mentioned this here, but did not provide the above URL.
> >
> Sorry about that, thought I had. As you say, it is the first of several
> pages.
> http://www.dallasobserver.com/issues/1999-08-
> 26/feature2.html/printable_page
> gives you it all in one printable page, as it says.
True, but it doesn't give you the photos of the head, which are
half the story. As I mentioned, be sure to click on the 3 continuation
buttons to get the whole story.
> I'd like to see the paper on the TL dating, as I thought you needed a
> soil sample as well (and of course since the deposit dates to 1476-1510,
> surely that wouldn't be very helpful?)
Good point -- TL often assumes the object has been in the ground since
it was fired. Ideally, soil samples should be submitted with the
object in order to ascertain its radioactivity. On the surface,
the radioactivity is different, but I'm not sure how
critical this really is. I notice the sample was carried by courier
to Germany in a special package. I'm told that air travel should be
avoided, since the lower atmosphere shields a significant amount
of cosmic radiation that can alter the apparent age. Also lead
shielding doesn't help much, since most lead contains trace amounts
of uranium. An article on the TL date was presented at a TL conference
in Australia in 1996, according to the Hristov and Genoves article.
Perhaps it discusses these nuances.
According to the Dallas Observer article, Hristov is still
living in Dallas, making ends meet as a construction worker
since "his term as a visiting scholar at Soutern Methodist University
recently expired, and he ... has been gently told to move on."
There can't be that many Romeo (or Roman) Hristovs in Dallas.
Perhaps you can get a copy from him.
Hu McCulloch
I had written,
> > Even the Ancient Mesoamerica article, in vol. 10 (1999), p. 207, that appears
> > to be the subject of the New Scientist article, has not yet reached Ohio
> > State's library. Has anyone actually seen it yet? The webpage is vague about
> > who its authors are. One is presumably Roman Hristov, but the "second
> > archaeologist" could be Santiago Genoves, David Kelly, Betty Meggers, or even
> > David Grove, for all we are told.
and Bernard Ortiz de Montellano replied:
> The University of Texas library is more efficient than Ohio State's. The
> second author on the paper is Santiago Genoves. I have a xerox of the
> paper.
Well, OSU isn't as far behind as I feared. We do have it after all, but only
received it on 1/27. The authors are Romeo Hristov and Santiago Genoves.
"Mesoamerican Evidence of Pre-Columbian Transoceanic Contact,"
Ancient Mesoamerica vol. 10 (Fall 1999), pp. 207-213.
It has two photos of the head, including a profile view that shows off the
"estrana fisonomia" and the "Pylos" cap much better than do the photos
in the Dallas Observer website at
http://www.dallasobserver.com/issues/1999-08-26/feature2.html/index_html?qs=1
do. (Be sure to click on all 3 continuation buttons)
Also a map, diagram, and photos of the Calixtlahuaca site, and references to
several Garcia Payon articles on the site, some of them published posthumously.
It will take me a while to digest the article and decipher
the direct quotes (in Spanish) from Garcia Payon.
-- Hu McCulloch
www.econ.ohio-state.edu/jhm/arch/outliers.html
Dave Dodson
discussion but I would like to remind everyone (quite probably
unnecessarily) that TL dating gives an approximate (I don't know the
precision level here) date of manufacture only and has nothing to do with
the dating of the artefact in the particular site. Not having seen the item
"in the flesh" so to speak, the photos definitely show, in my opinion, a
Roman-Greek style head. This doesn't mean that Romans or Greeks carried it
there or that it was placed in situ even close to its date of creation. Am I
correct so far? Given the size of the artefact, it could easily have been
someone's "good luck charm" or a "remembrance gift" or any one of a hundred
reasons for a member of an early Spanish exploration group to have been
carrying it. What concerns me most about this whole find is the lack of
specific information regarding the reasoning behind the authors' claim that
it must date to the period 1476-1510AD. I did not see, what I would consider
to be, sufficient discussion in their presentation to nail this claim down
firmly.
Dave D
Doug Weller <dwe...@ramtops.co.uk> wrote in message
news:MPG.131265887...@news.btinternet.com...
> In article <130220001950364727%bke...@netway.com>, bke...@netway.com
says...
>
> [SNIP]
> > IF the head was burried under several clay floors that predate
> > Columbus, the "establishment" should sit up and take notice.
> >
> Remember, it was found associated with other items dated 1476-1510. I'm a
bit
> worried about the TL dating, will post more on that if I can back up my
worries
> at all.
>
> [SNIP]
C. Jason Harris
[snip]
> carrying it. What concerns me most about this whole find is the lack of
> specific information regarding the reasoning behind the authors' claim that
> it must date to the period 1476-1510AD. I did not see, what I would consider
> to be, sufficient discussion in their presentation to nail this claim down
> firmly.
>
> Dave D
Hristov & Genovés (1999:210) cite that date range from Payón who is
cited in Marquina 1951. I would think that one ought to check out
Payón's original work to find out what he actually said.
For further references see:
Hristov, Romeo & Santiago Genovés
1999 Mesoamerican Evidence of Pre-Columbian Transoceanic Contacts.
Ancient Mesoamerica 10(2):207-213.
--
C. Jason Harris
Department of Archaeology
University of Calgary
Calgary, Alberta, Canada
T2N 1N4
(403) 220-8190
(403) 282-9567 fax
harr...@ucalgary.ca
http://www.ucalgary.ca/~harriscj/mayaglyphs
Dave Forth
>Except for short jaunts across the Med, I think that every Roman sea
>captain's idea of a perfect day sailing ended with a snug campsite
>ashore for the night! ;-)
The Galley was the luxury pilgrim cruise option for this reason.
-- Dave
Doug Weller
>
> Doug, is anyone questioning the TL dating? I may have missed that
> discussion but I would like to remind everyone (quite probably
> unnecessarily) that TL dating gives an approximate (I don't know the
> precision level here) date of manufacture only and has nothing to do with
> the dating of the artefact in the particular site.
>
as I thought that you normally test an adjacent soil sample as well, and
that wouldn't help much in this case. I've been told there can be
problems with TL and terracotta, but I know it's used with terracotta.
Martyn Harrison
wrote:
>In article <MPG.13106b47f...@news.btinternet.com>, Doug
>Weller <dwe...@ramtops.co.uk> wrote:
>
>
>Now if a Spanish captian had dreged up a load of sand and pebbles in
>Cadiz harbor or along the shore to ballast down for his trip to the new
>world, and he had dumped that load of ballast into the sea when he was
>loading with the loot from the new world, is it any wonder why there
>might be some bits and pieces of some otherwise inexplicable items on
>the bottom of the new harbor? ;-) Occam's Razor just might find some
>application here!
Very lucid theory, I'm with that for the time being.
Martyn Harrison
<definite...@freeuk.com> wrote:
>Doug Weller <dwe...@ramtops.co.uk> wrote in message
>news:MPG.1311227c8...@news.btinternet.com...
>> In article <UjCp4.4435$s02.1...@nnrp3.clara.net>,
>> definite...@freeuk.com says...
>> > You won't find much "open-minded scrutiny" in this news group, least of
>all
>> > from Doug Weller!
>> Thanks Adrian, personal insults are always nice. I've tried to be polite
>to
>> you, and apologise if I've failed (which I guess might just barely justify
>this
>> canard).
>I am not usually rude to people and didn't really mean to be here. I too
>apologise if I have given offence:-).
Nice to see an apology. There's not enough of them around here...
>long-running arguments held about King Arthur last year. You must, however,
>admit that your first instinct is nearly always scepticism when dealing with
>reports of new discoveries? I understand that this is the nature of science,
>to question everything and trust no-one but it can prove a real dampner on
>other people's enthusiasms. Taken to extremes (not by you I hasten to add)
>this attitude can be construed as bullying and rather frightening for
>contributors to news groups. There are many youngsters who make tentative
>postings to this newsgroup (often about pyramids, secret chambers and the
>like) in the hope of receiving some encouragement.
I think there are various points of view for that. What you say is
correct from a single point of view, but makes the assumptions:
1) that people should be encouraged to post what is usually nonsense
dredged from some popular but wrong book. Some may argue that
discouragement is more useful.
2) that naive youngsters posting drivel should be allowed, even
encouraged, to persist in believing the drivel.
3) that factual refutation is bullying, whereas what I would call
bullying tends to happen when the person in dispute with a rational
explanation has started trying to put down the others, and happens
from both sides (more properly termed "a fight" rather than the
bullying of weaker folk by a stronger one - we're all equally strong
in a text to text forum, although weaker arguments tend to fall by the
wayside.)
I would say that the sceptical stance adopted by, say, 75% of the
forum, is more an evolved response to "debates" about secret chambers
and hidden artifacts, plus the whole gamut of "interesting ideas" that
repeat periodically.
Larry Elmore
> > difference between Roman amphrae and anything used for ballast on a
> > Spanish ship. I would also expect that any event sufficiently recent
> > to involve a 'Worlds Fair' would have been documented and there would
> > be no "might have been" about it. How much of these explanations are
> > unsupported speculation?
> >
> How do you tell that fragments of amphorae didn't get there as ballast?
> I don't understand why you have a problem with this.
I suppose they could have gotten there as ballast, though I do question how
likely it would've been for a lot of amphorae shards and a few whole
amphorae to get mixed in with ballast. Broken statuary I can easily imagine
since I thought ballast was almost always in a form that would be relatively
easy to remove from the ship later, such as stones. I find it difficult to
believe that it was commonly dredged off the bottom of a harbor -- what an
unholy mess to later unload! (I could see sandbags used when necessary) How
likely would it be to do some dredging like that in the shallows of Cadiz
harbor, and come up with such a concentration of artifacts well over a
thousand years after they were deposited? AFAIK, no colonial-era artifacts
were found or recovered from the site, which would be odd if the amphorae
were merely ballast on a Spanish or Portuguese vessel.
> I can't find the source for the suggestion that they were reproductions.
>
> Problem is, no one seems to have seen them for a long time, no evidence of
a
> ship was mentioned, etc. The Bay of Jars stuff seems pretty much a
non-starter
> without something a bit more solid.
At least one of the shards was reportedly TL-dated at the Univ. of London
~1981, and was found to be 2000+-100 years old, IIRC. The marine growth on
them was all local species. I haven't found a solid source for the TL
dating, though.
Dr. Harold Edgerton (MIT) performed a 3-day survey of the site in December
1982, using sub-bottom-profiling sonar. The following is purported to be an
excerpt from his report (which I'm now trying to locate and verify):
"Two buried targets were located below the seafloor which produced sonar
records such as can be expected to result from the disintegration of ancient
wooden ships. If these two targets are indeed part of a Roman sailing ship
it would appear that after hitting the dangerous high pinnacle of rock, the
ship broke into two or more pieces. The largest piece (target one) drifted
off to the north-northeast before submerging, which could be expected since
the prevailing wind blows from the southwest. The smaller section (target
two), which might be the stern of the ship, slipped off the pinnacle top and
slid down the south side of the rock [where most of the finds were made].
The scatter pattern of the amphorae sherds suggests that this occurred. The
fact that intact amphorae have been found on the surface of the seafloor
over the top of both buried targets indicates that the targets may possibly
be a Roman ship. However, there is always the possibility that both targets
are more recent shipwrecks and that the amphorae were deposited over the
targets by tidal currents or when snagged in fishing nets. A proper
excavation of the site may resolve the matter."
Reportedly, Dr. Elizabeth Will of the Department of Classics at the Univ. of
Massachusetts reports that the amphorae are Roman and date from the 3rd
Century A.D., and studies of the clay used has determined that they came
from Kouass (Zilis, or Dehar Jedid) on the Atlantic coast of Morocco. A Dr.
Michel Ponsich, who has excavated at Kouass, reportedly agrees. I have no
solid cites for this yet, so don't take this as proven, by any means.
Unfortunately, it's an emotional issue in Brazil and all attempts to get
permission to do further work at the site have been impossible to get.
Shortly after Dr. Edgarton's survey, the Brazilian navy buried the site with
a dredge to "protect" it, so if permission is ever forthcoming, it will be
much more difficult to do anything than it was previously. All in all, a
disgusting situation.
Larry
C. Jason Harris
[snip]
> On p. 211, top left, of Hristov and Genoves, _Ancient
> Mesoamerica_ Fall 1999, the authors first say that
> the sample was too small for thermoluminescenCE dating,
> but then go on to say that they got a thermoluminescenT date
> instead. (caps added for emphasis). Is there such a distinction, or
> does this not make sense? (Neither author is a native speaker
> of English, and this shows through in awkward phraseology
> occasionally.)
>
> -- Hu McCulloch
> www.econ.ohio-state.edu/jhm/arch/outliers.html
The actual quote is:
"The small dimensions of the head made it extremely difficult to take
enough of a sample to date it by either thermoluminescence or
radiocarbon with a mass accelerator. As an alternative solution,
Günther Wagner {personal communication} suggested the thermoluminescent
age test, which, although less accurate than routine dating, required a
sample of only 100-150 mg of drilling powder that was taken from the
broken part of the neck without affecting the artistic value and the
integrity of the figurine." (Hristov & Genovés 1999:211)
Thank you for pointing this out, Hu. What these authors are apparently
saying is that dating the head is difficult (but not impossible) for
lack of material, without destroying the object. Why he considered
using AMS ("radiocarbon with a mass accelerator") is beyond me
considering you cannot radio carbon date pottery (ceramic or terracotta)
unless it has a high volume of organic material incorporated in it
(which it usually does not). That is why archaeologists have employed
TL dating to pottery in the first place. I guess one could use this as
an indication that Hristov didn't know what he was talking about in the
first place (at least as far as dating techniques goes). In any event,
I think these authors are trying to establish a line of reasoning for
why they chose TL dating (presumably because of the small sample
required rather than the total lack of applicability of radiocarbon dating).
To answer your question, as far as I know "thermoluminescence" dating
and "thermoluminescent age test" are one and the same thing. The only
reference to details of this date are given to be in Schaaf et al which
I have ordered to look at. However, I am not particularly confident
that this reference will have the detail I am seeking considering it is
the abstracts and programs of the Eighth International Conference on
Luminescence and Electron Spin Resonance Dating, and not the papers
themselves. Hristov and Genovés don't even provide page numbers for
their article, meaning that I have to order the whole volume rather than
just the single article which will take longer.
While we are on the subject of dating, I would like to point out that TL
dating is notoriously poor for terracotta due to the low firing
temperatures and the heterogeneity of the material. Additionally,
Payón's date range (Hristov & Genovés 1999:210) for the burial in which
the head was found is quite suspect because:
A) our chronological control of the Aztec pottery used to arrive at
that range is not good enough to establish such a narrow range;
B) Payón did *not* specialise in Central Mexican Archaeology and
probably did not know the material well enough himself to reach a secure conclusion;
C) According to Geof McCafferty, who excavated extensively at Cholula,
Payón was not above "creative reporting" when it came to sealed floor
contexts (at least with regard to Payón's Cholula excavations).
In sum, we have an enigmatic object, collected by an unreliable
excavator, that has been dated with an unreliable method after seventy
years in who-knows-what storage conditions. All in all this situation
is a very long way from convincing evidence of Pre-Columbian
transoceanic contact by Romans.
C. Jason Harris
[snip]
>
> Later Spanish colonists might have brought along their collections of
> antiquities in order to "live in style" in the New World. But the early
> conquistadores were interested in grabbing loot, not in impressing one
> another with their collectables.
[snip]
The head, being less than 3 cm round, is precisely the kind of object a
16th century Spanish sailor would have in his pocket as a good luck
charm or family keepsake. One can easily posit a situation where such a
sailor set ashore for supplies on any of the early expeditions, met with
locals, traded one trinket for another and so on until the head ended up
in somebody's grave. Of course there is as much evidence for such a
scenario as there is that a Roman sailor dropped the head off during
some early voyage. In that case I would suggest that the unlikelihood
that suggested Roman sailors were lugging around "their collectibles" is
equal to that of later Spanish deck hands.
Doug Weller
> Is there any evidence at all of Spanish trade items reaching the Valley of Mexico
> before Cortes in 1519? Surely there are numerous pre-Conquest but post-1492
> sites there that have been excavated. If not, the Valley of Mexico, and a
> fortiori the Toluca Valley and Calixtlahuaca, was "pre-Hispanic" until
> Cortes.
>
Hu, I don't understand what you are asking for here. You seem to be
arguing that the absence of evidence for such trade items makes it more
likely that the object came over much earlier than its deposition in
some undocumented voyage?
This request for evidence of organised Spanish trade is a red herring.
Lack of such organised trade doesn't preclude someone having had the
head for some reason -- I'm sure you can think of some -- and trading
it/losing it etc.
I've snipped the rest as it basically repeats the same argument about
trade goods, which is just a distraction fromt the point that there is a
definite possible European source for this head during the very short
time span during which this supposedly was deposited.
BTW I was also struck (as was Jason) by the comment on size being a
problem for radio-carbon dating. I can't see any archaeologist with the
most basic knowledge of dating methods would have considered AMS in this
case.
Dave Forth
>That seems to be key. I -know- of no reason why a Roman tin-trading ship
>might not have been caught in a storm and wrecked in the New World, but
>association with age of discovery materials raises a lot of questions on
>this particular find.
Well how about:
1. We have no evidence the Romans went in for rowing down the west coast
of Africa, prevailing blow to the west from there, its a head wind
further north.
2. The ship assuming adequate seamanship would not have had any sail
rigged so you would need a mighty blow. How many ships do we know of
that have ever been blown from Africa to Brazil? None?
3. After reaching the Brazilian coast, well battered, it has to get to
Mexican coast.
Not very likely? One in a few million chance?
-- Dave
Yuri Kuchinsky
: In article <38AB161C...@osu.edu>, mccul...@osu.edu says...
:> Doug is technically correct that any date after 1492 is not,
:> strictly speaking,
:> "pre-Columbian." However, in 1510, when Calixtlahuaca
:> was conquered by the Aztecs and abandoned, the Toluca Valley
:> was still purely _pre-Hispanic_, so this is a better term for
:> what is claimed about this Roman head.
: I'd think that would be still misleading.
You might be the only one who is being mislead in this case, Doug. But
this is probably because you really want to be...
: The point is there is nothing impossible about the head having been
: inthe possession of someone on one of these voyages before it ended up
: in the deposit where it was later found.
: And if you allow the possibility of Mexican trade with Brazil, you have
: Pinzon's visit there in 1500.
Technique of denial # 10. Wouldas couldas.
10. If it might have been then so it was. Overload your posts with
wouldas and couldas. Postulate a lot of improbable events to explain
troubling evidence that doesn't fit the existing paradigm. Also known as
the logical fallacy of special pleading.
Regards,
Yuri.
Yuri Kuchinsky -=O=- http://www.trends.ca/~yuku
The world is made up, for the most part, of fools or knaves, both
irreconcilable foes to truth; the first being slaves to a blind credulity,
which we may properly call bigotry, the last too jealous of that power
they have usurped over the folly and ignorance of the others -- which the
establishment of the empire of reason would destroy -- George Villiers
Yuri Kuchinsky
:> Is there any evidence at all of Spanish trade items reaching the Valley of Mexico
:> before Cortes in 1519? Surely there are numerous pre-Conquest but post-1492
:> sites there that have been excavated. If not, the Valley of Mexico, and a
:> fortiori the Toluca Valley and Calixtlahuaca, was "pre-Hispanic" until
:> Cortes.
:>
: Hu, I don't understand what you are asking for here. You seem to be
: arguing that the absence of evidence for such trade items makes it more
: likely that the object came over much earlier than its deposition in
: some undocumented voyage?
Seems reasonable to me.
: This request for evidence of organised Spanish trade is a red herring.
So if there's no such evidence, then it's a red herring? And if there
were such evidence, automatically, instead of a red herring, this would
have been front and center as the ULTIMATE evidence proving that the
artifact is explainable as Spanish importantion!
Doug's double standard is plain here.
: Lack of such organised trade doesn't preclude someone having had the
: head for some reason -- I'm sure you can think of some -- and trading
: it/losing it etc.
Technique of denial # 10.
10. If it might have been then so it was. Overload your posts with
wouldas and couldas. Postulate a lot of improbable events to explain
troubling evidence that doesn't fit the existing paradigm. Also known as
the logical fallacy of special pleading.
: I've snipped the rest as it basically repeats the same argument about
: trade goods, which is just a distraction fromt the point that there is a
: definite possible European source for this head during the very short
: time span during which this supposedly was deposited.
I like this "definite possible" try. Nice, touch, Doug. In real life, of
course this is a definite red herring this time. Ancient Roman artifacts
strike me as the most unlikely colonial trade goods for the Spanish...
I'll begin taking your theory seriously, Doug, if you produce for us
just one known and confirmed case of the Spanish using ancient Roman
artifacts as colonial trade goods.
Special pleading fallacy for sure.
Yours,
Doug Weller
> Doug's double standard is plain here.
>
>
[SNIP]
>I'll begin taking your theory seriously, Doug, if you produce for us
>just one known and confirmed case of the Spanish using ancient Roman
>artifacts as colonial trade goods.
Why should I? I'm not even making such a claim. Jason Harris has already
responded to this, suggesting it could have been a good luck piece.
Yuri Kuchinsky
: On Sun, 13 Feb 2000 11:36:04 -0500, Bob Keeter <bke...@netway.com>
: wrote:
:>In article <MPG.13106b47f...@news.btinternet.com>, Doug
:>Weller <dwe...@ramtops.co.uk> wrote:
:>
:>
:>Now if a Spanish captian had dreged up a load of sand and pebbles in
:>Cadiz harbor or along the shore to ballast down for his trip to the new
:>world,
Doug is betraying his ignorance here. Sand was normally not used as
ballast, because ballast had to be often removed as the ship went in for
repairs, and stones are a lot easier to remove than sand. So stones were
usually used for ballast.
I recall Doug using this same lame theory before to explain Roman coins
in America. It seems like any time post-Columbian sailors wanted to get
some ballast they always hit upon ancient artifacts. Must have been
their luck... or maybe Doug has such a rich imagination?
:>and he had dumped that load of ballast into the sea when he was
:>loading with the loot from the new world, is it any wonder why there
:>might be some bits and pieces of some otherwise inexplicable items on
:>the bottom of the new harbor? ;-) Occam's Razor just might find some
:>application here!
You should be talking about Occam's Razor, Doug. Someone as incompetent
as you can so easily hurt yourself with it...
: Very lucid theory, I'm with that for the time being.
I guess it's a serviceable little theory. Custom designed to fit
uncomfortable evidence awkwardly into the useless old paradigm...
Regards,
Doug Weller
says...
> On 20 Feb 2000 21:15:54 GMT, Yuri Kuchinsky <yu...@clio.trends.ca>
> wrote:
>
> >In sci.archaeology Martyn Harrison <the...@cwcom.net> wrote:
> >: On Sun, 13 Feb 2000 11:36:04 -0500, Bob Keeter <bke...@netway.com>
> >: wrote:
> >
> >:>In article <MPG.13106b47f...@news.btinternet.com>, Doug
> >:>Weller <dwe...@ramtops.co.uk> wrote:
> >:>
> >:>
> >:>Now if a Spanish captian had dreged up a load of sand and pebbles in
> >:>Cadiz harbor or along the shore to ballast down for his trip to the new
> >:>world,
> >
> >Doug is betraying his ignorance here. Sand was normally not used as
> >ballast, because ballast had to be often removed as the ship went in for
> >repairs, and stones are a lot easier to remove than sand. So stones were
> >usually used for ballast.
Yuri shouldn't be in such a rush to attack me. That quote is from Bob
Keeter. And it isn't Bob who is ignorant, as Eric shows:
> Sand was frequently used. One of the most popular swimming beaches in
> Wellington harbour (New Zealand) is composed entirely of sand used for
> ballast. On the other hand, a number of the older houses/cottages in
> the suburb of Devonport (Auckland) were built with bricks used as
>
Thanks Eric. I've just been reading, coincidentally, about English ships
dropping ballast with Roman pottery off the coast of northern Florida.
I'll try to find out more.
Bob Keeter
<yu...@clio.trends.ca> wrote:
> In sci.archaeology Martyn Harrison <the...@cwcom.net> wrote:
> : On Sun, 13 Feb 2000 11:36:04 -0500, Bob Keeter <bke...@netway.com>
> : wrote:
>
> :>In article <MPG.13106b47f...@news.btinternet.com>, Doug
> :>Weller <dwe...@ramtops.co.uk> wrote:
> :>
> :>
> :>Now if a Spanish captian had dreged up a load of sand and pebbles in
> :>Cadiz harbor or along the shore to ballast down for his trip to the new
> :>world,
>
> Doug is betraying his ignorance here. Sand was normally not used as
> ballast, because ballast had to be often removed as the ship went in for
> repairs, and stones are a lot easier to remove than sand. So stones were
> usually used for ballast.
>
USUALLY I have to struggle to prove a point in this forum (tends to be
a hard room to play!), but for once...... PROOF! "Game, Set and
Match!" If you had bothered to check the thread a bit more closely,
the ignorant comment that you pin on Doug is MINE! All mine! And Im
proud of it! In this case, IGNORANCE is . . . . well, if not bliss, at
least an opportunity to enter the fray. My suggestion contained the
small word IF, implying not that using beach or harbor sand was the
common practice, simply a possibility. Your retort contains the word
NORMALLY, indicating not just the possibility, but also that even if
not typical, it was done.
> I recall Doug using this same lame theory before to explain Roman coins
> in America. It seems like any time post-Columbian sailors wanted to get
> some ballast they always hit upon ancient artifacts. Must have been
> their luck... or maybe Doug has such a rich imagination?
>
> :>and he had dumped that load of ballast into the sea when he was
> :>loading with the loot from the new world, is it any wonder why there
> :>might be some bits and pieces of some otherwise inexplicable items on
> :>the bottom of the new harbor? ;-) Occam's Razor just might find some
> :>application here!
>
> You should be talking about Occam's Razor, Doug. Someone as incompetent
> as you can so easily hurt yourself with it...
>
Occams little artifice is a sharp instrument, even if its normal "meat"
is the soft, ill-supported, and aromatic material most of us use to
green up our lawns in the spring. If you want to insult someone, at
least make sure that you insult them based on their own comments.
OOOPs, why bother constraining ones diatribes or ones theories with
absolutely irrelevant things like facts!?!?!?!?
> : Very lucid theory, I'm with that for the time being.
>
> I guess it's a serviceable little theory. Custom designed to fit
> uncomfortable evidence awkwardly into the useless old paradigm...
>
> Regards,
>
> Yuri.
PERFECTLY comfortable as I see it. Want a shave? 8-)
Chao
bk
Eric Stevens
wrote:
>In sci.archaeology Martyn Harrison <the...@cwcom.net> wrote:
>: On Sun, 13 Feb 2000 11:36:04 -0500, Bob Keeter <bke...@netway.com>
>: wrote:
>
>:>In article <MPG.13106b47f...@news.btinternet.com>, Doug
>:>Weller <dwe...@ramtops.co.uk> wrote:
>:>
>:>
>:>Now if a Spanish captian had dreged up a load of sand and pebbles in
>:>Cadiz harbor or along the shore to ballast down for his trip to the new
>:>world,
>
>Doug is betraying his ignorance here. Sand was normally not used as
>ballast, because ballast had to be often removed as the ship went in for
>repairs, and stones are a lot easier to remove than sand. So stones were
>usually used for ballast.
Sand was frequently used. One of the most popular swimming beaches in
Wellington harbour (New Zealand) is composed entirely of sand used for
ballast. On the other hand, a number of the older houses/cottages in
the suburb of Devonport (Auckland) were built with bricks used as
ballast. Mind you, there were not too many of those. To further
confuse the issue, French men of war used to use river gravel as
ballast. They didn't want it too coarse as they wanted to be able to
bury their dead in it while at sea.
Eric Stevens
There are two classes of people. Those who divide people into
two classes, and those who don't. I belong to the second class.
Bernard Ortiz de Montellano
<este...@ip.co.nz> wrote:
Thanks for the correction. However, it is usually a waste of time to
respond to good old "ad hominem Yur.i"
--
Bernard Ortiz de Montellano
Ned Latham
> yu...@clio.trends.ca says...
----snip----
> > I'll begin taking your theory seriously, Doug, if you produce
> > for us just one known and confirmed case of the Spanish using
> > ancient Roman artifacts as colonial trade goods.
>
> Why should I? I'm not even making such a claim. Jason Harris has
> already responded to this, suggesting it could have been a good
> luck piece.
Are the Spanish known to have used ancient Roman artifacts as good
luck pieces?
--
Ned ++++++ Democracy means "the people rule".
To reply, cut out my nose and make the met a net.
Yuri Kuchinsky
: On 20 Feb 2000 21:15:54 GMT, Yuri Kuchinsky <yu...@clio.trends.ca>
: wrote:
:>Sand was normally not used as
:>ballast, because ballast had to be often removed as the ship went in for
:>repairs, and stones are a lot easier to remove than sand. So stones were
:>usually used for ballast.
: Sand was frequently used. One of the most popular swimming beaches in
: Wellington harbour (New Zealand) is composed entirely of sand used for
: ballast.
So how many Roman artifacts they found on this beach, Eric?
Even if sand was used occasionally for ballast, this was likely to be
pure sand from the sea or river shore, where the presence of ancient
artifacts is highly unlikely. Ancient artifacts are usually found in
dirt, which was not used for ballast.
Best,
Yuri.
Yuri Kuchinsky -=O=- http://www.trends.ca/~yuku
"No theory is too false, no fable too absurd, no superstition too
degrading for acceptance when it has become imbedded in common belief" --
Henry George
Yuri Kuchinsky
: I've just been reading, coincidentally, about English ships
: dropping ballast with Roman pottery off the coast of northern Florida.
: I'll try to find out more.
Do try to find out more, Doug. Sounds like an interesting canard.
Yuri.
Yuri Kuchinsky -=O=- http://www.trends.ca/~yuku -=O=- Toronto
For every credibility gap, there is a gullibility fill
Yuri Kuchinsky
: If you had bothered to check the thread a bit more closely,
: the ignorant comment that you pin on Doug is MINE! All mine!
You're welcome to it, Bob.
Yours,
Yuri Kuchinsky
:> Doug's double standard is plain here.
:>
:>
: Ah, good to see old 'ad hominem' Yuri is back.
: [SNIP]
:>I'll begin taking your theory seriously, Doug, if you produce for us
:>just one known and confirmed case of the Spanish using ancient Roman
:>artifacts as colonial trade goods.
: Why should I? I'm not even making such a claim. Jason Harris has already
: responded to this, suggesting it could have been a good luck piece.
It also could have been planted by the Aliens!
Yuri.
Yuri Kuchinsky -=O=- http://www.trends.ca/~yuku
Re: Loose company preferred by Heretics. Ungodliness the effect of their
teaching -=O=- It has also been a subject of remark, how extremely
frequent is the intercourse which heretics hold with magicians, with
mountebanks, with astrologers, with philosophers; and the reason is, that
they are men who devote themselves to curious questions. "Seek, and ye
shall find," is everywhere in their minds. Thus, from the very nature of
their conduct, may be estimated the quality of their faith. In their
discipline we have an index of their doctrine -=O=- Tertullian -=O=- THE
PRESCRIPTION AGAINST HERETICS, Ch. 43
Yuri Kuchinsky
: ----snip----
:> > I'll begin taking your theory seriously, Doug, if you produce
:> > for us just one known and confirmed case of the Spanish using
:> > ancient Roman artifacts as colonial trade goods.
:>
:> Why should I? I'm not even making such a claim. Jason Harris has
:> already responded to this, suggesting it could have been a good
:> luck piece.
: Are the Spanish known to have used ancient Roman artifacts as good
: luck pieces?
Ned,
In Doug's world everything is possible and even likely that serves his
faith. He always had some New Age leanings AFAIAC, and an extremely rich
imagination as well.
Techniques of denial #10. If it might have been then so it was. Overload
your posts with wouldas and couldas. Postulate a lot of improbable
events to explain troubling evidence that doesn't fit the existing
paradigm. Also known as the logical fallacy of special pleading.
Best,
Yuri.
Yuri Kuchinsky -=O=- http://www.trends.ca/~yuku
"No theory is too false, no fable too absurd, no superstition too
Doug Weller
> In Doug's world everything is possible and even likely that serves his
> faith. He always had some New Age leanings AFAIAC, and an extremely rich
> imagination as well.
>
for saying anything goes. And because I have called Yuri a True
Believer, he takes that and tries to turn it against me.
Sorry Yuri, I have no faith, except perhaps in the inevitably of your
vendetta against me. Not surprising that the first thing you did in
returning to these newsgroups is attack me.
Yuri knows I have never had any New Age leanings. This is just another
example of the way he twists things.
Doug Weller
> : dropping ballast with Roman pottery off the coast of northern Florida.
> : I'll try to find out more.
>
> Do try to find out more, Doug. Sounds like an interesting canard.
>
Doug Weller
> :> Doug's double standard is plain here.
> :>
> :>
> : Ah, good to see old 'ad hominem' Yuri is back.
>
> : [SNIP]
>
> :>just one known and confirmed case of the Spanish using ancient Roman
> :>artifacts as colonial trade goods.
>
> : Why should I? I'm not even making such a claim. Jason Harris has already
> : responded to this, suggesting it could have been a good luck piece.
>
>
>
of a serious discussion?
Steve Schaper
> ssch...@uswest.net (Steve Schaper) wrote:
>
> >That seems to be key. I -know- of no reason why a Roman tin-trading ship
> >might not have been caught in a storm and wrecked in the New World, but
> >association with age of discovery materials raises a lot of questions on
> >this particular find.
>
> Well how about:
>
> 1. We have no evidence the Romans went in for rowing down the west coast
> of Africa, prevailing blow to the west from there, its a head wind
> further north.
If you would have read my post, you would have clearly seen that I was
talking about Roman tin expeditions to Cornwall, not the African coast.
I am not seaman, I don't know if the currents can be such that a ship
beyond the pillars of Hercules on its way to or from Cornwall could
conceivable be caught by a storm and eventually, quite probably sans
crew, now deceased, wash up in the New World. I do know that logs from
the Americas occasionally made it to Europe, but the Atlantic Conveyor
would tend to do that.
Steve Schaper
>
> It is a bit worrisome. On one hand, if an entire "ship load" of Roman
> (or carthagian or greek or phoenecian or egyptian) artifacts did get to
> the New World, why are we left argueing over one rather insignificant
> head. On the other hand, if such a treasure trove of foreign artifacts
> were "cast ashore", the New World is a rather large place and the
> density (artifact per sq mile) would be EXTREMELY low. One might even
> imagine that these oddities could have been traded around as gifts and
> instruments of diplomacy (sort of like todays pandas!).
>
Indeed! Perhaps even winding up in the tomb of a king, as this one did.
Do I consider it likely? Well, not terribly. Do I consider it
impossible? No, that seems as absurd as hyperdiffusionism.
Steve Schaper
> Bob Keeter <bke...@netway.com> wrote:
>
> >Except for short jaunts across the Med, I think that every Roman sea
> >captain's idea of a perfect day sailing ended with a snug campsite
> >ashore for the night! ;-)
>
> The Galley was the luxury pilgrim cruise option for this reason.
> -- Dave
"A three-hour tour" ;-)
--
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
mailto:ssch...@uswest.net
http://members.delphi.com/sschaper/web/sschaper.html
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Hu McCulloch
I wrote Gunther Wagner to get a copy of the TL report on the Calixtlahuaca
head, and got the following reply, which he graciously allowed me to quote
here. (Unfortunately, I had trouble getting the formatting to paste over
from e-mail to my newsgroup editor, but I think you can figure out
who is writing what below.) As you can see, he writes that Hristov
and Genoves overstated the precision of the date, and concludes that
"The TL date is of only little use in the debate about the head's
origin." You'll do best to read the messages from the bottom up, in
their chronological order.
-- Hu McCulloch
Date: Mon, 21 Feb 2000 18:29:06 +0100
To: Hu McCulloch <mccul...@osu.edu>
From: "G.A. Wagner" <G.Wa...@mpi-hd.mpg.de>
Subject: Re: Calixtlahuaca TL date?
Dear McCulloch,
since I do not have a copy of the Ancient Mesoamerica article by Hristov
and Genoves I do not know which report (with a TL date as 1780 +/- 400
BP) they cite.
As far as I remember, at some time Dr. Peter Schaaf (Geophysics, UNAM)
may have discussed with us internally a TL date as 1780 +/- 400 BP (1
sigma). In the case of poor TL age-plateaus such value depends crucially
on the TL glow-curve temperature at which the intensity is read. Due to
the methodological problems we had with this sample, we decided to
calculate an TL age-range rather than an age-value with definite error
limits and chose finally the apparent TL age-range from 730 years to 2880
years. None of these values were published by us, and R. Hristov and
Genoves neither asked me for permission nor were authorized by me to
quote a 1780 +/- 400 BP value.
I herewith give you my permission to post
my replies on the newsgroups (including sci.archaeology).
Yours,
Gunther Wagner
At 09:56 21.02.00 -0500, Hu McCulloch wrote:
>>>>
<excerpt>Dear Dr. Wagner,
Thank you for your prompt reply. I am sorry to learn
that Mr. Hristov has overstated the precision of
your test.
In the Ancient Mesoamerica article, Hristov and
Genoves report your TL date as 1780 +/- 400 BP. Assuming
the 400 is the standard error, a 95% confidence interval
would make the head at least 980 years old. The range
you give in your letter to New Scientist is centered
near 1800 BP, but seems to imply a somewhat larger
standard error of 540 years, which starts to make the
younger limit barely pre-Hispanic. Was the figure 400
not in your report, or was there a misunderstanding on
their part as to its relevance?
Could I have your permission to post your replies
on the newsgroups (including sci.archaeology) that
have been discussing this artifact?
Sincerely,
J. Huston McCulloch
At 03:20 PM 2/21/00 +0100, you wrote:
>>>>
<excerpt>Dear Dr. McCulloch,
thanks for your note.
Actually, until last week I was not aware of the aricle by Hristov and
Genoves in Ancient Mesoamerica. I just found a reference to it in New
Scientist and reacted promptly as you can see from my enclosed letter to
New Scientist. If you have further questions in this matter do not
hesitate to contact me.
Yours,
Gunther Wagner
"Sir (New Scientist):
In the contribution entitled <italic>Did Roman sailors shake hands with
ancient Mexicans?</italic> (New Scientist, issue of 12 February 2000, p.
7) the Max-Planck-Institute of Nuclear Physics in Heidelberg is mentioned
in connection with the thermoluminescence (TL) analysis of the allegedly
Roman head found in the Toluca Valley. It was said that we were able to
estimate that this terracotta head was fired 1800 years ago. This
statement is not correct.
A couple of years ago drilled powder of this head was submitted by
anthropologist R. Hristov and geoscientist Dr. P. Schaaf (at that time
both of them were associated with UNAM, Mexico City) to our laboratory in
order to test it by thermoluminescence dating. For methodological reasons
one can apply only an "authencity TL test" to such drill powder,
resulting in larger uncertainties than in proper TL dating. However, even
when applying this "authenticity" procedure to the sample powder, major
difficulties were encountered since the material did not pass the
so-called plateau-test. We finally concluded, that the figurine gives an
apparent TL age range from 730 years to 2880 years. Although this result
does not disprove the alleged Roman manufacture date it certainly cannot
be used in support of the statement that the terracotta head "was fired
1800 years ago". Actually, this thermoluminescence result is only of
little use in the debate about the head's origin. In the past I had
communicated this conclusion to Mr. R. Hristov.
Sincerely yours,
Gunther Wagner"
At 14:59 20.02.00 -0500, Hu McCulloch wrote:
>Dear Dr. Wagner,
> An article by Hristov and Genoves in _Ancient
>Mesoamerica_ (Fall 1999, pp. 207-13) cites a conference
>paper by yourself with Schaff, Zilles and Hristov,
>entitled "TL and Pre-Columbian Contacts in Mesoamerica,"
>apparently containing the details of the 1780 BP TL
>date on the Roman head from the Toluca Valley reported
>by Hristov and Genoves. Is this available online, or
>is there a way you could e-mail it to me? There has
>been a lot of discussion of this new article on
>sci.archaeology, crossposted to sci.archaeology.mesoamerican,
>under the subject "Proof Romans Reached Mexico?"
> Thanks in advance for your help.
>J. Huston McCulloch
>Economics Dept.
>Ohio State University
>1945 N High St.
>Columbus, OH 43210 USA
>www.econ.ohio-state.edu/jhm/arch/outliers.html
>mccul...@osu.edu
Prof.Dr. Günther A. Wagner
Forschungsstelle Archäometrie
der Heidelberger Akademie der Wissenschaften
am Max-Planck-Institut für Kernphysik
Saupfercheckweg 1
D-69117 Heidelberg
Fon +6221 516289
Fax +6221 516633
Bitte neue eMail-Adresse beachten: G.Wa...@mpi-hd.mpg.de
</excerpt><<<<<<<<
Eric Stevens
wrote:
>In sci.archaeology Eric Stevens <este...@ip.co.nz> wrote:
>: On 20 Feb 2000 21:15:54 GMT, Yuri Kuchinsky <yu...@clio.trends.ca>
>: wrote:
>
>:>Sand was normally not used as
>:>ballast, because ballast had to be often removed as the ship went in for
>:>repairs, and stones are a lot easier to remove than sand. So stones were
>:>usually used for ballast.
>
>: Sand was frequently used. One of the most popular swimming beaches in
>: Wellington harbour (New Zealand) is composed entirely of sand used for
>: ballast.
>
>So how many Roman artifacts they found on this beach, Eric?
I haven't a clue. I have no idea of the origin of the sand or the
ships which carried it.
>
>Even if sand was used occasionally for ballast, ....
You first said none was used. Now you try to minimise the quantity. In
this case there tens of thousands of tons of sand have been dumped. It
has formed a sandy beach one quarter of a mile long which gives many
metres of sand under foot from the lands edge to well below the low
tide level. Its also stayed there for more than a century. Not a
trivial amount.
> ... this was likely to be
>pure sand from the sea or river shore, where the presence of ancient
>artifacts is highly unlikely.
It depends upon from they dredged it and how. There is a surpriing
amount of rubbish (read 'artifacts') in the bottom of most harbours.
>Ancient artifacts are usually found in
>dirt, which was not used for ballast.
Eric Stevens
Bernard Ortiz de Montellano
wrote:
> I wrote Gunther Wagner to get a copy of the TL report on the Calixtlahuaca
> head, and got the following reply, which he graciously allowed me to quote
> here. (Unfortunately, I had trouble getting the formatting to paste over
> from e-mail to my newsgroup editor, but I think you can figure out
> who is writing what below.) As you can see, he writes that Hristov
> and Genoves overstated the precision of the date, and concludes that
> "The TL date is of only little use in the debate about the head's
> origin." You'll do best to read the messages from the bottom up, in
> their chronological order.
> -- Hu McCulloch
Thank you Hu for getting us this information.
What is clear is 1) that the dating is worthless as proof of the head
being made in Roman times since Dr Wagner says that the dates they got
ranged from 930 B.C. to A.D. 1220; 2) That this was communicated to
Hristov by Dr. Wagner; 3) knowing this, he nevertheless, probably to make
his speculation worth publishing [ since I know he was turned down at
least once], he made up a date of 1780 +/- 400, which he never
communicated to Dr. Wagner and never got Wagner's permission to publish.
(BTW the data belong to the person who did the measurements and this is a
great breach of academic standards.
To me this illustrates the nature of Hristov's academic and professional
integrity. No doubt Kuchinsky disagrees- anything goes as long as you are
fighting the "Great Archeological Conspiracy" now joined by "the Mexican
Government's Conspiracy." :-).
--
Bernard Ortiz de Montellano
Bernard Ortiz de Montellano
I have written Dr. Wagner suggesting that he write a letter to *Ancient
Mesomerica* where the original paper by Hristov and Genoves appeared so
that they may publish a retraction.
C. Jason Harris
>
[snip]
> Indeed! Perhaps even winding up in the tomb of a king, as this one did.
No evidence that the tomb was of a king. Doubtless a grave of some
nobility; a king? perhaps not.
[snip]
--
C. Jason Harris
Department of Archaeology
University of Calgary
Calgary, Alberta, Canada
T2N 1N4
(403) 220-8190
(403) 282-9567 fax
harr...@ucalgary.ca
http://www.ucalgary.ca/~harriscj/mayaglyphs
Yuri Kuchinsky
: wrote:
:>In sci.archaeology Eric Stevens <este...@ip.co.nz> wrote:
:>: On 20 Feb 2000 21:15:54 GMT, Yuri Kuchinsky <yu...@clio.trends.ca>
:>: wrote:
:>
:>:>Sand was normally not used as
:>:>ballast, because ballast had to be often removed as the ship went in for
:>:>repairs, and stones are a lot easier to remove than sand. So stones were
:>:>usually used for ballast.
:>
:>: Sand was frequently used. One of the most popular swimming beaches in
:>: Wellington harbour (New Zealand) is composed entirely of sand used for
:>: ballast.
:>
:>So how many Roman artifacts they found on this beach, Eric?
: I haven't a clue.
Well, here we have a perfect opportunity to test this (weird) theory
that **any ancient artifacts ever** have been transported in ballast and
can be a significant factor in archaeology. And it seems like the
confirmation is lacking.
Oh well...
: I have no idea of the origin of the sand or the
: ships which carried it.
Yuri.
Yuri Kuchinsky in Toronto -=O=- http://www.globalserve.net/~yuku
Academic politics is the most vicious and bitter form of
politics, because the stakes are so low -=O=- Wallace Sayre