 sj |
||
|
||
BS: Romans Discovered America?
|
|
|
Subject: BS: Romans? From: beardedbruce Date: 18 Dec 15 - 11:03 AM Ancient Sword 'Could Prove Romans Discovered America Before Columbus' http://news.yahoo.com/ancient-sword-could-prove-romans-discovered-115403473.html Looks like they need to look at that "shipwreck" |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Romans? From: Stu Date: 18 Dec 15 - 11:32 AM What have the Romans ever done for us? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Romans? From: GUEST Date: 18 Dec 15 - 11:47 AM Suddenly I remember the Time Team episode where the whole site turned out to be a hoax with genuine artifacts placed in the ground by the previous owner. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Romans? From: olddude Date: 18 Dec 15 - 11:48 AM Well there work with concrete was nothing short of amazing. I saw a great tv show. It was awesome |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Romans? From: Jack Campin Date: 18 Dec 15 - 11:50 AM Al-Qaeda doesn't call you lot "Romans" for nothing. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Romans? From: meself Date: 18 Dec 15 - 12:02 PM Now I'm not a journalist - but if I thought there was enough to this story to report it in the first place, I think I'd get a comment from someone with a little more attached to his name than "Investigator" (even if his name is 'Pulitzer'!). |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Romans? From: GUEST Date: 18 Dec 15 - 02:24 PM This, like a previously reported wreck containing jars, doesn't prove the Romans "discovered" America. Some ships may have accidentally arrived there. But, if they didn't get back and report their findings, the place wasn't exactly discovered in the usual sense. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Romans? From: Joe Offer Date: 18 Dec 15 - 02:41 PM Years ago, Katlaughing posted a song by Nancy Schimmel, daughter of Malvina Reynolds. Abby Sale's happy? archive made not of the song, too. 1492 marked the conquest of the Americas by Europeans, but not the discovery of anything. Thread #26214 Message #313939 Posted By: katlaughing 07-Oct-00 - 12:33 AM Thread Name: BS: Columbus Day Fiasco Subject: LYR ADD: 1492 by Nancy Schimmel
1492 |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Romans? From: Penny S. Date: 18 Dec 15 - 04:03 PM That guest was me - forgot that this computer randomly deletes me. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Romans? From: Greg F. Date: 18 Dec 15 - 05:43 PM Oak Island, huh? Obviously, the sword was dropped by the Knights Templar on the way to being buried in the "Money Pit". HOAX! As is the "Roman Ship" this idiot claims he found. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Romans? From: Steve Shaw Date: 18 Dec 15 - 08:37 PM Well I've wandered around Pompeii and Herculaneum and Stabiae and Pozzuoli and many Roman sites in Cyprus, north and south, too, and have been gobsmacked every single time. Not to speak of the amazing archeological museum in Napoli. Very subjective I know, but I don't give a damn. I love it! And the pizzas in Napoli...! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Romans? From: Rapparee Date: 18 Dec 15 - 08:54 PM Pommel looks Celtic. "Discovered" means finding something nobody else has, or at least you don't think they have. But like the songs says, the place wasn't empty. Once it might have been, but that was a loooooooooooong time ago. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Romans Discovered America? From: Joe Offer Date: 18 Dec 15 - 11:42 PM The trouble with the Roman ruins I've seen around the Mediterranean, is that they all look Greek - so the tendency is to credit it all to the Greeks. Looking at it another way, I think it's quite impressive how the Romans showed so much respect for the cultures that preceded them in the lands they conquered. I certainly didn't expect to find Roman ruins in Alexandria or Israel, but there they were. And many of the ruins in Asia Minor come from Roman times, although they appear to be Greek. -Joe- |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Romans Discovered America? From: Mrrzy Date: 19 Dec 15 - 12:32 AM Stu - LOL! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Romans Discovered America? From: GUEST,HiLo Date: 19 Dec 15 - 02:06 AM The Vikings were in the New World Four hundred years before Culumbus arrived. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Romans Discovered America? From: Mr Red Date: 19 Dec 15 - 07:36 AM discovered America doing what? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Romans Discovered America? From: Paul Burke Date: 19 Dec 15 - 08:30 AM "It changes all of our history on this side of the pond." It doesn't. It may be genuinely ancient, but if it spent 1500 years on the seabed and didn't rust away, it's bronze not steel. The Romans were an Iron Age culture and a bronze sword would have been as quaintly olde-worlde to a legionary as a longbow would be to a marine. And if it was in a scallop bed, it ought to be encrusted with aggregated seashells. And while it's perfectly possible, though rather unlikely, that a Roman ship could have crossed the Atlantic (given very good weather), they would probably have taken Columbus's southern route and landed in Cuba rather than Nova Scotia. The Vikings arrived there a few hundred years later, but that was because they were setting off from Greenland and already on the top, return part of the Atlantic currents and wind patterns. But let's accept that a Roman ship survived the Atlantic crossing, either by going right round the current or by going the easy way, then ignoring the West Indies, Florida, Georgia, the Carolinas etc (and even bypassed New York), and got wrecked on that inhospitable Northern island. To change anything at all about American history, they would have had to survive and have some influence, cultural or genetic, on the inhabitants they encountered. The Mikmaq language shows little evidence of this. Take the Declaration of Human Rights: Msit mimajulnu'k weskwijinu'ltijik alsumsultijik aqq newte' tett wkpimte'tmut aqq koqwajo'taqnn wejkul'aqmititl. Omnes homines dignitate et iure liberi et pares nascuntur. Ratione conscientiaque praediti sunt et alii erga alios cum fraternitate se gerere debent. Though the poor Roman sailors with their cargo of antique weaponry would have found either formulation utterly incomprehensible, I'll leave the reader to decide which one contained more words they woyuld have found familiar. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Romans Discovered America? From: Paul Burke Date: 19 Dec 15 - 08:52 AM Unsurprisingly, a superficial googling turns up that the "discoverer" of this artifact is a paid-up member of the Nutters' Club. There's a lot more where that came from, including JHP endorsing the idea that the Pyramid of Khufu is one of Joseph's granaries. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Romans Discovered America? From: Ed T Date: 19 Dec 15 - 09:38 AM "It wasn't easy looking dignified wearing a bed sheet and a purple cape." ― Rick Riordan If som I suspect they went there in the summer? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Romans Discovered America? From: Ed T Date: 19 Dec 15 - 09:40 AM If so, not som:( |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Romans Discovered America? From: Stu Date: 19 Dec 15 - 09:53 AM "Stu - LOL!" They've bled us dry. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Romans Discovered America? From: Greg F. Date: 19 Dec 15 - 09:59 AM Imagine The Bearded One believing & promoting something nonsensical for which there is no factual evidence. Who would have thought it possible! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Romans Discovered America? From: GUEST,Ed t Date: 19 Dec 15 - 09:59 AM "Advice to explorers everywhere: if you would like to recieve due credit for your discoveries, keep a detailed account of your journeys as Columbus did. On Septemeber 28, 1492, after four weeks at sea, he writes: Dear diary...I means journal. Yes, dear journal. That's what I meant to say. Whew. Anyway, we have yet to discover America, and the crew has become increasingly rebellious. I have decided to turn back if we have not spotted it by Columbus Day. Will write again later if not killed by crew." Cuthbert Soup, Another Whole Nother Story |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Romans Discovered America? From: GUEST,Ed t Date: 19 Dec 15 - 09:59 AM "Advice to explorers everywhere: if you would like to recieve due credit for your discoveries, keep a detailed account of your journeys as Columbus did. On Septemeber 28, 1492, after four weeks at sea, he writes: Dear diary...I means journal. Yes, dear journal. That's what I meant to say. Whew. Anyway, we have yet to discover America, and the crew has become increasingly rebellious. I have decided to turn back if we have not spotted it by Columbus Day. Will write again later if not killed by crew." Cuthbert Soup, Another Whole Nother Story |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Romans Discovered America? From: Bee-dubya-ell Date: 19 Dec 15 - 12:01 PM Even assuming all claims about the sword and the shipwreck are valid, and that the ship was not simply a windblown derelict, it's still incorrect to say anyone "discovered" anything. The ship sank, the crew died, the expedition was a failure. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Romans Discovered America? From: Rapparee Date: 19 Dec 15 - 02:52 PM I noticed the green on the sword and wondered about bronze. If bronze and if "real" the sword is a lot older that is stated. Personally, I'm very, very, very, very, very skeptical. If there is a ship let a team of experienced marine archaeologists do the work, because if it is Roman it's a fantastic discovery. I don't think it is anything of the sort. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Romans Discovered America? From: GUEST,Arkie Date: 19 Dec 15 - 03:20 PM This discussion has been interesting but far from complete on stories of ancient explorers reaching North or South America. There are also accounts of Phoenicians and explorers from Carthage reaching these shores. Local, to Stone County, Arkansas, songster, Jimmy Driftwood wrote a song about Saint Brendan, an Irish monk crossing the ocean before 600 AD. Brendan wrote an account of that journey that described crystal palaces, mountains spouting fire, and monsters with catlike heads. A modern day explorer built a boat matching the description of the one used by Brendan and encountered icebergs, volcanoes, walruses, and whales. Columbus supposedly had a copy of Brendan's maps. Of course there are skeptics. A version of St. Brendan's Fair Isle can be found on Youtube. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Romans Discovered America? From: Paul Burke Date: 19 Dec 15 - 06:52 PM The Brendan Voyage, Shaun Davey's composition and featuring Liam Og O'Flynn on pipes. There are skeptics, and sceptics. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Romans Discovered America? From: kendall Date: 19 Dec 15 - 07:06 PM Then again, there are those native Americans. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Romans Discovered America? From: LadyJean Date: 19 Dec 15 - 11:01 PM It is, I suppose possible that a Roman ship was blown off course and wound up on Nova Scotia. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Romans Discovered America? From: John on the Sunset Coast Date: 19 Dec 15 - 11:35 PM Joe Offer You got the rhyme and date all wrong. I distinctly remember it from Richard Armour's short history of America,"It All Started with Columbus," from when I was in 10th grade: To wit: In fourteen hundred, ninety-three, Columbus sailed the deep blue sea. Consider yourself corrected. JotSC PS-Mr. Rosenheimer, AmHist teacher, got it wrong also. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Romans Discovered America? From: Reinhard Date: 20 Dec 15 - 02:36 AM You can buy this Special commemorative sculpture bronze sword, handle roman statue for 75 Euros from eBay Italy. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Romans Discovered America? From: Bee-dubya-ell Date: 20 Dec 15 - 11:50 AM Mystery solved! It wasn't Romans! It was time traveling space aliens who bought the sword on Italian eBay for 75 Euros last week and then threw it in the ocean two thousand years ago! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Romans Discovered America? From: GUEST Date: 20 Dec 15 - 10:32 PM Not only Roman sailors got blown offshore- it happened to others. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Romans Discovered America? From: Paul Burke Date: 21 Dec 15 - 05:32 AM It's almost certain that many people got blown out into the Atlantic. The point is that there is no discernible evidence of any of them having any effect on any culture in either of the Americas, apart from a very tenuous trace of Vikings (used as a genberic term for seagoing Scandinavians) in Newfoundland, and a possibly rather more frequented presence on the islands north of the Canadian mainland, such as Baffin Island. The Vikings had very good ships, designed for Atlantic travel- though mostly sticking to the eastern seaboard where the best raiding territory was, they colonised the Shetlands, the Faeroes, Iceland and Greenland. And the only thing really stopping them colonising parts of America was lack of manpower because of the far richer pickings elsewhere- Ireland, England, France (they became the Normans), Russia, North Africa, Byzantium. When it came to colonial conflict, a few dozen people with iron age weapons didn't have a sufficient advantage over thousands with stone age weapons. It took thousands of gunpowder age invaders to create permanent colonies. Romans, Welsh, Phoenicians, Egyptians, Irish. Berbers etc. had boats designed for daytime fishing and coasting. They didn't carry water for the two to three months it takes to cross the Atlantic, let alone the problems of food and heavy seas. I think a lot of people imagine the Atlantic to be like the park boating lake, and not a lot bigger. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Romans Discovered America? From: Donuel Date: 21 Dec 15 - 09:03 AM ibid ! Welcome back b-bruce. Respectfully I always saw you as the ungiving anvil on which evolutionary facts and truths are forged. You are necessary often in your wrongness for us to see the rightness in an alternative perspective. Be there a method in your madness or just normal exploration, it works. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Romans Discovered America? From: Rapparee Date: 21 Dec 15 - 09:21 AM Quite so, Paul. I believe that the Sagas that tell of the first Viking voyage to "Vinland" state that the ship was blown off course and the "discovery" was accidental. The settlement in L'Anse aux Meadows was abandoned after a time; I suspect that it was looted for anything useful after the Vikings left and whatever was found was then scattered. I do not believe that a lost group of Welshmen wandered around North America and eventually fathered the Mandan tribe (or perhaps they were in North Carolina) or that a lot of other things that are claimed are true. I have seen and handled a coin, unimpeachably found in a barn in Ohio, which was unequivocally a tetradrachma from the time of Alexander the Great. However, neither I nor anyone else believed that Alex rampaged around the upper reaches of the Cuyahoga River. Nor do I believe that the well-attested-to Roman coin found at the bottom of a post hole here in Pocatello, Idaho indicates that a Roman Legion fought the Shoshone as they traveled the Oregon Trail. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Romans Discovered America? From: EBarnacle Date: 21 Dec 15 - 10:52 AM Even so, whether they were deliberately sailing West or at the mercy of a storm, various adventurers, including the Basques, did arrive alive. They may have been in terrible condition but they were alive. There is strong evidence that the Basques discovered the Grand Banks and were fishing there well before Columbus sailed. There is also evidence that the Chinese visited about 70 years before Columbus. You can find out more of this by referring to Samuel Elliot Morrison's "The European Discovery of America" as well as other texts. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Romans Discovered America? From: Greg F. Date: 21 Dec 15 - 10:53 AM You are necessary often in your wrongness for us to see the rightness in an alternative perspective. Necessary? Hardly. "Wrongness" of the Bearded type is patently obvious without having to be given endless servings of garbage. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Romans Discovered America? From: Paul Burke Date: 21 Dec 15 - 11:30 AM "There is also evidence that the Chinese visited about 70 years before Columbus." All of it made up from the whole cloth by one G Menzies, tripologist extraordinaire. The Basque discovery of Newfoundland preceded Columbus (if it did) by less than a hundred years. It followed a vast improvement in the suitability of European ships for Atlantic conditions, largely the result of framed, carvel- planked construction replacing "stitched" clinker construction. This in turn allowed ships to support the more advanced sail systems that allowed them more freedom to sail against the prevailing Atlantic wind and current systems. The Basques probably didn't accidentally discover the Grand Banks (if they did) by being blown there. They were using the new ship technology to exploit hitherto inaccessible fishing grounds, including Iceland (as were English fishermen). That would have taken them fairly naturally round the top of the currents to Labrador and Newfoundland- just as it did the Vikings. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Romans Discovered America? From: GUEST Date: 21 Dec 15 - 12:15 PM I discovered America in about 1988. It wasn't quite like the fictitious place Hollywood would have you believe but to be fair, no evidence of the Romans. They brought culture and class wherever they went. The America I saw served greasy pieces of chicken in a bucket. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Romans Discovered America? From: GUEST Date: 21 Dec 15 - 12:38 PM The America I saw served greasy pieces of chicken in a bucket. If you came from the UK that was probably an improvement. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Romans Discovered America? From: Greg F. Date: 21 Dec 15 - 12:49 PM The America I saw served greasy pieces of chicken in a bucket. As opposed to greasy pieces of plaice and potatoes in a newspaper? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Romans Discovered America? From: Paul Burke Date: 21 Dec 15 - 02:53 PM Plaice? Blasphemy. Silver hake. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Romans Discovered America? From: GUEST Date: 21 Dec 15 - 02:58 PM Yeah but you lot do it by choice. We used to do it by need and now occasionally by tradition. It tastes of food too. Col Sanders secret ingredient? Salt mixed with grease. Uurrgghhh. I suppose if you leave a bucket of greasy chicken long enough it might develop a culture. Something over there has to.. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Romans Discovered America? From: Greg F. Date: 21 Dec 15 - 05:31 PM Yeah, well, then there's mushy peas ..... |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Romans Discovered America? From: GUEST Date: 21 Dec 15 - 05:53 PM I make the best mushy peas in the world. The snag is, a lot of commercial places make them and they taste like peas. Not good. Soak dried marrowfat peas with the tablets dissolved overnight. Rinse and recook in salt and sugar water gently for about four hours. Got some soaking ready right now in fact. I make about 30 servings in a large stockpot at a time and freeze them in small freezer bags. Best with home made pie and mash. A bit of mint sauce on them doesn't hurt either. Fish dish? That'll be scallop, black pudding and mushy peas. At least one enterprising sod got a Michelin star for that idea. You see, stick to steaks. You can do them. Eggs benny, you are ok with that too. After that, everything goes downhill. McShit, KFC etc make us feel guilty for not trying harder in the war of independence. You obviously weren't ready. You still don't know how to use a knife and fork correctly. Not that your taste buds would get a better deal if you did. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Romans Discovered America? From: GUEST,Phil d'Conch Date: 21 Dec 15 - 07:00 PM Where is Erich von Däniken when you need him? Then again, Nero Claudius Drusus (12BC) did take a fleet of almost 1000 ships into the North Sea. Wouldn't be impossible for one to drag anchor out to sea or get "blown off course." Pesky Romans. btw there's an entire wiki of these things: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pre-Columbian_trans-oceanic_contact_theories btw2 More KFC in London than you can shake a drumstick at. One just down the way from the Natural History Museum. Mmmmm cultures! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Romans Discovered America? From: GUEST,Phil d'Conch Date: 21 Dec 15 - 07:06 PM Not apropos the subject however, two things to keep in mind on the so-called pre/post Columbian dividing line: 1. Generations: Roughly sixteen generations between the founding of the Icelandic colonies in Greenland-Newfoundland (sanctioned by the same Alþingi that governs Iceland today) and the arrival of Columbus in the Caribbean. It was a slave economy with the main export being walrus ivory, white gold in the Mediterranean. The Roman Catholic Church (sanctioned by, same-same &c) got its tithe for pretty much all those 16 generations. 2. Roman Catholic Church: 1126AD Greenland ordained its first Catholic bishop. 1152 Diocese of Greenland, Iceland, the Isle of Man, the Orkney Islands, and the Faroe Islands made subject to Archdiocese of Nidaros, Norway. 1202-03 Greenland Bishop Árnason pilgrimage to Rome and audience with Innocent III &c up through the Hanseatic League (Holy Roman Empire) era. The Basque? Ignatius of Loyola, 'nuff said. And of course it was next door neighbor Isabella the Catholic (aka: I of Castile) who packed Columbus' lunch. The RCC had been keeping book on North America for almost four hundred years (13 great-grandfathers) before Columbus. Same song, different verse. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Romans Discovered America? From: EBarnacle Date: 21 Dec 15 - 07:31 PM Paul, I did not say that the Basques were blown there. I did say that more than a few were blown there. No one knows for sure how the first of them arrived but they were a major seafaring nation. As far as Menzies is concerned, other than pooh poohing his concepts you have not demonstrated that he is completely wrong. He may not be. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Romans Discovered America? From: Les in Chorlton Date: 22 Dec 15 - 05:13 AM I thought the digression to food had brought some sense to this thread but I guess not. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Romans Discovered America? From: banjoman Date: 22 Dec 15 - 06:15 AM America has always been there so it has never been discovered except by the first inhabitants. Nobody has mentioned the migration across the land bridge from Asia which brought the first peoples to the Americas. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Romans Discovered America? From: GUEST Date: 22 Dec 15 - 07:02 AM I tried to keep it on food. Snag is, some silly sod thinks greasy chicken in buckets and McShit constitutes food. Sadly, it appears, looking at retail parks and town centres, America has discovered here. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Romans Discovered America? From: GUEST,Phil d'Conch Date: 22 Dec 15 - 08:00 AM "America has discovered here." Haven't you refugees from the last haggis supper been following along? Not possible as there were obviously primitive, errrr... indigenous (albeit wimpy) fast food cultures thriving long before KFC got (t)here. Yanks have always been neo-colonials, at best. There are only two kinds of nations in this world. Those that have In-N-Out Burger, and those I wouldn't care to know. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Romans Discovered America? From: EBarnacle Date: 22 Dec 15 - 10:02 AM On reflection, clinker built vessels are as capable as carvel planked hulls. Consider that monocoque construction is the descendant of the lapstrake concept, owing its shape and strength to the joints between the planks rather than to the underlying rib framing. There are still lapped hulls being built today for sailing vessels. Having enjoyed a cruise in a Viking ship replica, I can attest to the fact that they operated on the modern concept of riding the surface rather than fighting the water as most modern, deeper hulled, vessels do. The vessel used for the attempted settlement of Vinland was a knarr, or cargo vessel, of that era and was more burdensome than the coastal vessels. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Romans Discovered America? From: GUEST Date: 22 Dec 15 - 10:41 AM Haggis is perhaps one of my favourite processed foods. I normally cook any meat from scratch but haggis is stunningly good. Ironic really, that what keeps the price down is that for years you weren't allowed to export it to The USA. Now that you can, I notice demand is outstripping supply and the price had increased. Bloody foreigners. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Romans Discovered America? From: EBarnacle Date: 22 Dec 15 - 12:36 PM No question, haggis is one of my favorite seasonal foods. furriners, indeed, I was born here. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Romans Discovered America? From: Ed T Date: 22 Dec 15 - 01:12 PM After many months at sea, America was discovered by Europeans. National lampoon discovered the moment in a "graphic" cartoon-beware, graphic content. Discovery of America graphic |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Romans Discovered America? From: Richard Bridge Date: 22 Dec 15 - 01:20 PM What Banjoman said. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Romans Discovered America? From: GUEST,Phil d'Conch Date: 22 Dec 15 - 06:55 PM Banjoman: America has always been there so it has never been discovered except by the first inhabitants." Just as the history of the Atlantic seaboard will not resolve itself into convient chunks to suit a contemporary meme, neither will the Pacific. "First people" Inuit culture crossed the Bering or points north almost two centuries after the Icelandic Alþingi's land grants. The Europeans lived in relative harmony with the preceding (now extinct) Thule culture for almost two centuries prior to that. Either way nobody coming from the west was at any time importing anything like the overarching management, accounting and communication systems of the Roman Catholic Church. No one "First Peoples" came close to navigating the North & South Atlantic; the Caribbean; and the Pacific as did the Catholic Europeans. Handwriting was, literally, on the wall centuries before the arrival of guns, germs, steel, ad nauseum. Ebarnacle: On reflection, clinker built vessels are as capable as carvel planked hulls." The largest North American war canoes were probably as capable as the smaller European vessels coastwise and inland amongst the colonies. The Scandanavians were not wedded to clinker hull design nor was carvel a Basque trade secret. In 1492 one of the largest ships afloat was the Hanseatic League's already thirty year old "Peter von Danzig" (51m.) The English "Grace Dieu" was even older and larger (built c.1420–1439AD, 66.4m; 1400 tons-2,750 tons.) By comparison Columbus' Niña was maybe 15m and 60 tons. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Romans Discovered America? From: GUEST,Phil d'Conch Date: 22 Dec 15 - 06:56 PM Address to a Haggis [Robert Burns (1759 – 1796)] Fair fa' your honest, sonsie face, Great chieftain o' the puddin-race! Aboon them a' ye tak your place, Painch, tripe, or thairm: Weel are ye wordy o' a grace As lang's my arm. The groaning trencher there ye fill, Your hurdies like a distant hill, Your pin wad help to mend a mill In time o' need, While thro' your pores the dews distil Like amber bead. His knife see rustic Labour dicht, An' cut you up wi' ready slicht, Trenching your gushing entrails bricht, Like ony ditch; And then, O what a glorious sicht, Warm-reekin, rich! Then, horn for horn, they stretch an' strive: Deil tak the hindmaist! on they drive, Till a' their weel-swall'd kytes belyve, Are bent like drums; Then auld Guidman, maist like to rive, "Bethankit" hums. Is there that o're his French ragout Or olio that wad staw a sow, Or fricassee wad mak her spew Wi' perfect scunner, Looks down wi' sneering, scornfu' view On sic a dinner? Poor devil! see him ower his trash, As feckless as a wither'd rash, His spindle shank, a guid whip-lash, His nieve a nit; Thro' bloody flood or field to dash, O how unfit! But mark the Rustic, haggis fed, The trembling earth resounds his tread. Clap in his wallie nieve a blade, He'll mak it whistle; An' legs an' arms, an' heads will sned, Like taps o' thristle. Ye Pow'rs wha mak mankind your care, And dish them out their bill o' fare, Auld Scotland wants nae skinkin ware That jaups in luggies; But, if ye wish her gratefu' prayer, Gie her a haggis! :::sniffle::: Is somebody slicing onions in here? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Romans Discovered America? From: GUEST Date: 23 Dec 15 - 05:08 AM My love is like a red red sheep's offal I do love a McSween, split open and packed into a baking tray, a layer of chopped spring onion or leek, covered with a layer of mustard mashed potato. Stuck in the oven and towards the end, grilled with a sprinkling of cheddar. I still remember at school being caught out by a question; what was the largest island before Australia was discovered? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Romans Discovered America? From: banjoman Date: 24 Dec 15 - 05:14 AM I was caught out with the same question. It could be argued that Australia is a continent not an island and that since the building of the Suez canal, Africa could be considered an Island. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Romans Discovered America? From: Paul Burke Date: 24 Dec 15 - 09:36 AM The Scandanavians were not wedded to clinker hull design nor was carvel a Basque trade secret. Of course not. The important thing is that frame- built construction was strong and rigid enough to take the strain of sailing closer to the wind, and in worse conditions, than shell- built boats could manage. This in turn allowed the use of multiple masts and more complex and powerful sail plans. The function of the frame in the ship is more important than the planking- you can have overlapping planking with or without a frame, and with or without plank- to - plank stitching. Edge to edge planking needs a frame however. Also, the use of a frame doesn't necessarily imply design for Atlantic voyaging. And the final development of the seagoing, framed, carvel built hull with more than one mast does seem to have occurred over a period of a hundred or a hundred and fifty years, along the Basque costline and neighbouring areas, and England was near enough to take part in that development. These ships enabled the Portuguese expansion along the African coast and eventually into the Indian Ocean. It also enabled the Basque, Breton and English fishing and whaling voyages that (probably) discovered the Grand Banks, and Columbus's voyages to "India" and more importantly the subsequent exploitation of the discoveries by Spanish adventurers. Does anyone know enough Portuguese etymology to say which way their word for 'oak' (carvalho) developed - was the tree named from the ship or the ship from the tree? But the important thing is that up to those developments no one had the technology to make much impact on the far side of the Atlantic, so much so that pseudohistorians desperate to populate preColumbian America with anyone except American Indians have to resort to forgery and tourist trinkets to push their claims. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Romans Discovered America? From: McGrath of Harlow Date: 24 Dec 15 - 09:44 PM One way of looking at it, the entire Old World - Asia, Africa and Europe - is an island. So is the New World, but a much smaller one. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Romans Discovered America? From: EBarnacle Date: 25 Dec 15 - 12:41 AM We still don't know how or why the Roman ship got where it was going. Although I don't know the story of the sword found there, I do know that a company here in the States sells [or did sell] bronze Roman swords. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Romans Discovered America? From: GUEST,JTT Date: 25 Dec 15 - 05:33 AM Tis the most discovered country that's ever yet been seen. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Romans Discovered America? From: Greg F. Date: 25 Dec 15 - 12:53 PM We still don't know how or why the Roman ship got where it was going. Or rather, IF it did, which is highly questionable to say the least. Evidence? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Romans Discovered America? From: The Sandman Date: 25 Dec 15 - 06:00 PM Someone has fecked it up anyway, AND IT WAS NOT THE RED INDIANS |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Romans Discovered America? From: GUEST,Phil d'Conch Date: 28 Dec 15 - 03:41 AM EBarnacle: "We still don't know how or why the Roman ship got where it was going." Most likely outcome is it didn't (another wreck, another expert:) http://en.unesco.org/news/shipwreck-not-santa-maria-unesco-experts-say |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Romans Discovered America? From: GUEST,Phil d'Conch Date: 28 Dec 15 - 03:47 AM Paul: "...was the tree named from the ship or the ship from the tree?" The ship is supposedly descended from Latin-Greek-Arab (Moorish generic 'qârib' for ship.) The weird thing is carvel planking should be 'pinho' (for pine.) The oak is in the framing, not the planking. "But the important thing is that up to those developments no one had the technology to make much impact on the far side of the Atlantic" A contemporary meme. Technology follows demand and cultural impact was not part of the Greenlander's metric. If the RCC had perceived its Holy Land or Prester John to be on the Davis Strait, Sigurd's sixty ships and 5,000 men could have easily sailed west not south in 1107AD. "so much so that pseudohistorians desperate to populate preColumbian America with anyone except American Indians have to resort to forgery and tourist trinkets to push their claims." Indigenous migrations don't belong in a discussion of deliberate exploration and discovery (neither do "Chariots of the Gods".) It's not even apples and oranges. It's peppermint and tuna. European Catholics were the first people to explore and feck up (or develop) ALL of the Americas. Native Americans on both continents failed to reciprocate. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Romans Discovered America? From: GUEST,Phil d'Conch Date: 28 Dec 15 - 04:00 AM Thing #1: Detailed knowledge of North America's existence and location at northern latitudes was commerce for sixteen (16) generations before Columbus. It was a profitable Roman Catholic Diocese. Fwiw one of the safest places for a Euro to be during their 14th century famines, plagues and wars. Thing #2: The (non-Hollywood) 1100-1300 Knights Templar and lesser known Teutonic Order were arguably the world's first multinational corporations. Native Americans had absolutely nothing like them to routinely manage information and technology across similar distances and subcultures. Trivia: Infante Henrique (aka: Henry the Navigator) was Grand Master of the Military Order of Christ, (14th century Portugal's Knights Templar 2.0) |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Romans Discovered America? From: Stanron Date: 28 Dec 15 - 11:36 PM Has anyone already mentioned St Brendan's leather boat? Columbus was aware of his story and Tim Severin built a replica and managed to sail it from Ireland to America. St Brendan, if he did make it to America, also made it back, indeed my understanding is that if you stick to the northern hemisphere getting back is easier than getting there. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Romans Discovered America? From: GUEST,Raggytash Date: 29 Dec 15 - 06:01 AM Tim Severin's book "The Brendan Voyage" is well worth the read. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Romans Discovered America? From: EBarnacle Date: 29 Dec 15 - 10:45 AM Last night, on Public Television, there was a story about the significant possibility that Carthaginian Celts were pushed out of Iberia by the Romans. Based on both genetic and archeological evidence, it is likely that they ended up in Brazil, where they disseminated through South America. This would support the hypothesis that the Romans or one of their contemporary cultures might have been the source of the wreck under discussion. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Romans Discovered America? From: Manitas_at_home Date: 29 Dec 15 - 11:36 AM But weren't the inhabitants of Carthage Punic? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Romans Discovered America? From: Les in Chorlton Date: 29 Dec 15 - 12:51 PM "Based on both genetic and archeological evidence, it is likely that they ended up in Brazil," Really - show us the "evidence" then |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Romans Discovered America? From: EBarnacle Date: 29 Dec 15 - 03:39 PM Les, I am merely pointing in the direction of what is reported, not sitting in front of the telly with a notepad in hand. Apparently, though, the data have been peer reviewed. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Romans Discovered America? From: Paul Burke Date: 29 Dec 15 - 04:11 PM Carthaginian Celts eh? Curiouser and curiouser. Afghan Maoris next, followed by Lancaster bombers on the moon. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Romans Discovered America? From: GUEST,Phil d'Conch Date: 30 Dec 15 - 01:44 AM Stanron: "my understanding is that if you stick to the northern hemisphere getting back is easier than getting there." Depends, east from L'Anse aux Meadows to Bergen is over two thousand miles but one would have waypoints along the route. A month is making good time. A slightly shorter route direct from Greenland was made several times a year in different eras, depending. On the other hand going west at the 65th parallel one may be completely out of sight of land for only about 20-25 hours. By keeping Snæfellsjökull, Iceland dead astern and sailing just north of west it's barely four days to the Skerries off Kulusuk, Geenland. The ancient eastern seaboard colony at modern day Tasiilaq is about another day coastwise. With clement weather the east crossing can actually be a bit of a let down for first-timers after the odyssean build up in their history texts. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Romans Discovered America? From: Stanron Date: 30 Dec 15 - 02:42 AM Perhaps I should have said mid-Atlantic rather than north. I was thinking predominantly west to east weather systems plus the Gulf Stream moving the water. I know that the Vikings could do the very north Atlantic route both ways as far as Greenland so America, after that was nothing. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Romans Discovered America? From: TheSnail Date: 30 Dec 15 - 06:39 AM EBarnacle is this the programme - Carthage's Lost Warriors? I found it through this - review. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Romans Discovered America? From: Les in Chorlton Date: 30 Dec 15 - 08:06 AM Xlnt Snail: "This was really terrible, and the only significant difference between this show and America Unearthed in terms of quality of evidence and the desire to find hidden white people in the Americas is that this show searched South America rather than North America, and its hero never claimed that there was a conspiracy trying to suppress his work." |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Romans Discovered America? From: GUEST,leeneia Date: 30 Dec 15 - 12:33 PM Somebody upthread used the word meme. I decided it's time I learned what a meme is. "1. an element of a culture or system of behavior that may be considered to be passed from one individual to another by nongenetic means, especially imitation. 2. a humorous image, video, piece of text, etc. that is copied (often with slight variations) and spread rapidly by Internet users." ========= It's a great word for wrangling. You can make it mean anything from the Ten Commandments to a picture of Daffy Duck. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Romans Discovered America? From: Paul Burke Date: 30 Dec 15 - 01:48 PM The idea of the meme was developed by Richard Dawkins (from an earlier idea, whose, I can't remember) to express the possibility that ideas can behave like genes- they can propagate in a suitable environment, they can mutate, and that like genes they can pass from one host to another without necessarily benefiting the host. Think of a virus gene in a human being. In fact the idea propagated well, and mutated quite a lot. It now has a life of its own that doesn't code for what Dawkins originally expressed. This not only illustrates brilliantly, if accidentally, his point, but also carries a bit of a warning about deliberate intervention in genomes. They do what they do, which isn't necessarily what we want them to do. It also means that we no longer have a word for the original Dawkins meme (though the idea is still valid). |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Romans Discovered America? From: GUEST,Phil d'Conch Date: 30 Dec 15 - 09:52 PM Leena: For you and you alone; Meme = Banana Oil. Careful or this could go "meta." Else: Memetics. In this context "contemporary meme" is shorthand for presentism, now and between the sixteen generations of Scandinavians. ie: What was true in c.980AD was barely true in c.1400AD and rarely true in 2015AD. So it is we who need to adjust perspective, not the dead folks. As applied to caravel/capacity: We retroactively & arbitrarily assign the responsibility (and blame) for North American development to the Europeans and further give it a singular priority to suit (Pre-Columbianism.) Ergo if it didn't happen immediately according to the 2015 meme it must have been a lack of pre-1492AD capacity/capability on the part of the Euros. Development is defined as negative cultural impact and cooexistence as as type of European failure. But for c.1100AD Catholics, bulk freight forwarding to and from the Middle East and the East had become such huge business it was a target for criminal elements along the trade routes. The Templars & other Orders responded by developing distributed credit and information systems to shift data in lieu of corporeal objects (eg: Letters of Credit v kilos of gold.) However these systems relied heavily on equally developed, bordering cultures at the other end (Orthodoxy to the East & Islam to the South.) The West was a cultural/technological/commercial vacuum simply not ready for prime time. Greenlanders were grown men and women living their own lives. They were free to blame it on the backward skræling and get around to fixing somebody else's problem when it suited their own priorities (embargo, climate change, famine, plague, crusade, etc.) A matter of preference not capacity since Catholics would believe it was the management and accounting systems they needed, the bulk commodities would sort themselves out in the free markets, of which Native Americans had none... yet. Those systems were the root cause of the cultural displacements that followed in their own times not the gross tonnages they made possible. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Romans Discovered America? From: Paul Burke Date: 31 Dec 15 - 05:25 AM Phil, that's all a bit incoherent. I really don't think the Templars had much to do with Greenland, and I don't think anyone else does. Even bishops didn't go there much (a bishop appointed for 98 out of 400 years, and the probability that several of them never even saw the place). Promissory notes would have been small use to Greenlanders, a boatload of hay would have been rather more use, if they could have got one there often enough. Six years of tithes at one go suggests a shortage of boats, not a plethora of wealth. We aren't, or weren't, discussing why the Catholic Church kept secret latifundia scrimshaw factories in Greenland (though it would be fascinating to see any evidence that they did). We started with a palpably fake "Roman" sword, and a discussion developed of why it took 5000 years from the beginning of seagoing navigation for Atlantic crossings to become commonplace (in either direction, and we could talk about the Pacific too). Note that "commonplace"- we're talking here about a step change (less than 30 years) from a possible blow-in every thousand years that left no trace, to a complete disruption of society for practically every inhabitant of a continent, thanks to a conveyor belt of ships carrying social, genetic, microbial, technological and linguistic change, and a corresponding worldwide ripple (or tsunami) effect back in the other direction. Including why you might eat an Indian takeaway with tomatoes, chili and potato in it. Perhaps something was true in 1400 that hadn't been true in 980, and that something was to do with ship technology (you can add gunpowder to that)? After all, something was true in 980 that was still true in 1400, and is still true in 2016, and that's the laws of physics. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Romans Discovered America? From: GUEST,Guest Date: 02 Jan 16 - 03:51 PM "After all, something was true in 980 that was still true in 1400, and is still true in 2016, and that's the laws of physics." That's not what he's talking about. HOW to burn a heretic at the stake never changes. That's your physics. WHY to burn a heretic at the stake changed from 980-1400-2015AD. That's morals and priorities. So you need to adjust your theory backwards to the other priorities, whatever they were?. Hope this helps. Phil & Paul: Okay so why didn't Islamic (Moorish?) ships come over sometime around Colummbus? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Romans Discovered America? From: EBarnacle Date: 03 Jan 16 - 01:44 AM Yes, Snail, that's the show. Unless the epidemiological and genetic evidence can be accounted for, it's still a theory. If you can demonstrate a valid reason for the theory to be wrong, other than "He's crazy," various of the arguments on this thread might hold more water. Even broken clocks are right twice a day. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Romans Discovered America? From: Les in Chorlton Date: 03 Jan 16 - 05:08 AM Call me a pedant on this but it's not a theory at all. It might be a hypothesis. It is a poor hypothesis with no supporting evidence so not really a hypothesis at all unless someone can come up with some evidence |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Romans Discovered America? From: Paul Burke Date: 03 Jan 16 - 09:21 AM "Okay so why didn't Islamic (Moorish?) ships come over sometime around Colummbus? " Moorish ships at that period were galleys- powered by sail when conditions were right, but mostly by oar. They didn't use the dhows of the Indian ocean (even there, trade was normally by coastwise hops). They had to be long (so you can get enough rowing manpower on board), low in the water (so the rowers can reach without the oars being too long and heavy), slender and shallow (so they aren't too heavy for the rowers to move), and you had to feed and water the rowers (you can't afford your power plant to break down mid- voyage), and that means the bigger the power unit, the bigger the fuel bunkers. In addition, they were shell- built which was excellent to keep down the weight, but not good for oceangoing strength in a big vessel, and has a definite limit on size. Note that they don't benefit from what Brunel realised at the start of the iron ship age- that if you scale up the ship, the volume goes up by the cube of the scale, whereas the drag only goes up be the square, because they can't scale width and depth as well as length because of the oar power. Sail powered ships have a different, smaller problem - they mass is cubed, but the sail area only squared- reducing agility and manoeuvrability. This was mitigated (much later than C's time) by adding more masts and more sails on each mast, culminating in the clippers and the three skysail yarder bound south round the Horn. The framed ship could be made strong enough to take it. So it's the same old same old, a conflict between the construction technology and the power requirements. And that's assuming the Moors ever thought it desirable to go there. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Romans Discovered America? From: EBarnacle Date: 03 Jan 16 - 10:19 AM Sorry, Les, it's a theory. If you don't accept the evidence as presented, that's your choice. In either case the data, such as they are, should be testable. Now, if you want something untestable, tell me how many angels can dance on the head of a pin. Paul, as someone pointed out earlier, canoes also are ribbed vessels, dependent upon ribs for their shape. Rather than making the issue one of mass [which is really an inertia issue] you should be looking at fluid resistance. It is possible to greatly increase mass while only minimally increasing resistance. Part of the reason for increasing the number of sails in the 19th century was that ship owners needed to make sails more handleable by the reduced crews they were willing to pay. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Romans Discovered America? From: Paul Burke Date: 03 Jan 16 - 10:50 AM "Rather than making the issue one of mass [which is really an inertia issue] you should be looking at fluid resistance." As I said, mass increases with the cube, drag by the square, all dimensions being proportional. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Romans Discovered America? From: TheSnail Date: 04 Jan 16 - 08:29 AM First, EBarnacle, I think you need to check up on the meaning of Theory in the scientific world. It is different from the use of the word in everyday speech. From Wikipedia - A scientific theory is a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world that is acquired through the scientific method and repeatedly tested and confirmed through observation and experimentation. I don't think Prof. Griffhorn's ideas quite satisfy that. Les is being generous when he says "It might be a hypothesis.". I don't think it gets beyond speculation. Against my better judgement, I watched the programme. Unless the epidemiological The programme itself says that TB was found at other pre-Columbian sites in South America. and genetic evidence There have been Europeans in South America for nigh on 500 years and the indigenous population have a significant amount of European genes, mostly from Spain. Gosh. If you can demonstrate a valid reason for the theory to be wrong, Not how science works, EB. It is up to the proposer of a hypothesis to make predictions that are subject to falsifiability. There are none. other than "He's crazy," Hmmm. Another interesting take on it. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Romans Discovered America? From: Les in Chorlton Date: 04 Jan 16 - 09:11 AM Thanks a lot TheSnail you saved me a lot of digging about. People outside science and for that matter outside of most academic study use the word and so the concept "theory" to mean any idea that may or may not have some kind of possibility of turning out to be right: "Their is a theory that many Indo-European languages have so much in common that they have a common root in a language spoken thousands of years ago. "Most languages in Europe, the Middle-East, and India appear to descend from a common ancestral language known to scholars as "proto-Indo-European," as set forth by William Jones and his work with Sanskrit." When Jones spotted the likenesses he was suggesting what scholars now call a hypothesis. After a period in which much study was carried out and much evidence collected it can rightly be called a theory. So a theory is a collection of evidence and ideas that hang together well, help to explain things and make predictions possible. The peopling of the planet is a fascinating story which is being revealed by detailed academic study of genes, archaeology and language. Sorry for be patronising EBarnacle but academic study leads to a deeper understanding. Suggestions built on almost no evidence at all are just a waste of time and a distraction. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Romans Discovered America? From: GUEST,HiLo Date: 04 Jan 16 - 01:06 PM This is not a suject I know a great deal about, so I do hope my question will be taken as coming from one who is just curious. It is assumed that people originally came to the western hemisphere over a land bridge in the far North. Then why are so many of the major archeological finds regarding early human habitations in the western hemisphere found in the far south of the hemisphere. If people came in through the North why do the sites not begin in the North. It is just that I have always wondered about that. Could people have come from the Pacific side of South America ? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Romans Discovered America? From: Les in Chorlton Date: 04 Jan 16 - 01:44 PM Good question HiLo. Hunter Gathers came round the 'top' all the evidence points to that. All the big sites containing large public buildings are found in central and south America they were built by farming communities. It is not possible to farm in the north. Farming did occur in the Mississippi Valley and large earthworks and such like were erected there. Jared Diamond has written a lot on this in Germs, Guns & Steel: Here Best wishes |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Romans Discovered America? From: GUEST,HiLo Date: 04 Jan 16 - 02:22 PM I have read Jared Diamond,s book and found it very interesting but not always convincing. I did read, many years ago, a book by Elaine Dewar called "Bones, Discovering The First Americans". She talked a lot about the sites in the Southern Hemisphere and asked the same question that also occurred to me. Thanks for your reply, I will now go back and have another look at both authors. Very interesting and informative thread, thanks. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Romans Discovered America? From: Les in Chorlton Date: 04 Jan 16 - 02:26 PM Pleasure HiLo, the other important point that JD makes and I completely forgot was the absence of decent grain plants in North America. No wheat, barley, rye or rice. It took people in central America a long time to selectively bread corn to the point where it was a staple. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Romans Discovered America? From: Keith A of Hertford Date: 04 Jan 16 - 02:43 PM Hunter gatherers leave little archeolog. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Romans Discovered America? From: Les in Chorlton Date: 04 Jan 16 - 02:57 PM True |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Romans Discovered America? From: GUEST Date: 04 Jan 16 - 03:08 PM They do tend to leave their y characters scattered around though, eh? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Romans Discovered America? From: Les in Chorlton Date: 04 Jan 16 - 06:53 PM Also true and language good & otherwise |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Romans Discovered America? From: Ed T Date: 04 Jan 16 - 07:50 PM ""All ancient and modern Native Americans possess mitochondrial (maternally-inherited) and Y-chromosome (paternally-inherited) lineages that are descended from those found in peoples of Siberia. They are not found in ancient or modern Europeans. Comparisons of bi-parentally inherited nuclear markers also show a close relationship between all Native Americans and Siberians, not Europeans."" Native American Ancentry from DNA analysis |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Romans Discovered America? From: EBarnacle Date: 04 Jan 16 - 11:28 PM Les, I believe the concept you a looking for is that is that either a theory or hypothesis should be capable of being tested. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Romans Discovered America? From: GUEST,Musket Date: 05 Jan 16 - 04:13 AM Are you sure Romans discovered America? You see, wherever they went, they left a bit of culture... 😎 |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Romans Discovered America? From: Les in Chorlton Date: 05 Jan 16 - 04:49 AM Well EBanacle "Les, I believe the concept you a looking for is that is that either a theory or hypothesis should be capable of being tested. " Very good point EB and I rather hope I had found that but what I was after was the use of the word theory by the people who gather evidence in the studiuos world that reveals most new knowledge. Best wushes |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Romans Discovered America? From: Lonesome EJ Date: 05 Jan 16 - 12:49 PM Bronze sword that spent 2000 years on the ocean floor? I doubt it would survive looking like the one in the pic. And the Romans were iron age folks, so it makes no sense. |
