Maya researchers Astounded by Comalcalco Brick (Romans in Americas 1000's yrs before Columbus?)

Originally posted by Aliensun
I find a couple of problems with this report. First, the photographer quoted doesn't seem to be any authority on the subject. If he is, he seems to have made two drastic comments that a professional archaeologist definitely would not utter. In the same sentence he supposedly said "roman christian" and "thousands of years earlier than Columbus." Those two phrases both seem to be gross exaggerations about both origins and the time span, both key to understanding where the bricks originated.

I would also mention that a quick search on Steede does not produce any kind of peer-reviewed material. It does provide a link to a Mormon archaeology page...oh those jaunty Mormons who are still trying to legitimise their Johnny-come lately (or Joseph come lately...whatever) religion with reports of old whites in a new world.

If this guy is any good, he will publish amongst his academic peers. If not, he'll write a book.

Just asking though...all those breathless sooth-sayers who are anticipating our doom in 2012? Are the drinks on them on January 1, 2013 or will they just go back to their basements and reassess their calculations?

If the Chinese were to have had more influence into Rome , we may be taking of them rather than the Romans in Mayan culture . They did make attempts but was to far and other reasons . hmmm

en.wikipedia.org...

How hard is it currently to get info out of China ?

The increased interest into Mayan culture is all well and good from the doom and gloom of 2012 world ending . Not like we will see the full restoration on a big scale to happen when crashing through the jungle , sacred sites are a no no when outsiders come along . Need to know and the population to do it lacks in some places .

Imagine if we were in their position , would you want some strangers digging around in your tombs just because they were curious and had a history of not leaving what they found .

Originally posted by watchdog8110
If the Chinese were to have had more influence into Rome , we may be taking of them rather than the Romans in Mayan culture . They did make attempts but was to far and other reasons . hmmm

And this means what exactly?

The increased interest into Mayan culture is all well and good from the doom and gloom of 2012 world ending . Not like we will see the full restoration on a big scale to happen when crashing through the jungle , sacred sites are a no no when outsiders come along . Need to know and the population to do it lacks in some places .

They have little interest in reviving the old ceremonial centers which served a religion and elite which is no longer viable. They have about 8 million people who still ID themselves as Maya

Imagine if we were in their position , would you want some strangers digging around in your tombs just because they were curious and had a history of not leaving what they found .

Presuming you are a European we (Archaeologist) dig up your relatives on a daily basis. The problem is you don't know they are your relatives. The Maya tribes (about thirty) - if at all, are not associated with different ceremonial sites. Most do not object to the digging up of pagan sites, a few do but it isn't a major concern.

Originally posted by Hanslune

Originally posted by watchdog8110
If the Chinese were to have had more influence into Rome , we may be taking of them rather than the Romans in Mayan culture . They did make attempts but was to far and other reasons . hmmm

And this means what exactly?



You tell me what it would mean if Chinese had a greater influence into Rome ?

reply to post by watchdog8110


agreed, tell us more about this.

I didn't think of that angle.

I bet if there is any Chinese/Mongolian influence there it is long gone.... I would bet.

Well...this does seem to be a bit conviluted. The statements go against any known time line... for instance, a "Christian Roman" influence from a couple of thousand years before Columbus....there was no Christians that far before Columbus. Secondly, there was no recognized church in Rome before about 400ad...only about 1000 years before Columbus.

The Roman Empire didn't exist prior to 400bc...and that would be "a couple of thousand years" before Columbus.

On the other hand, I heard this story from a few years ago, and still believe it possible that there was a Roman Outpost for trade and exploration, but was abandoned as the Empire went into decline... much like the Vikings pulled out of the Great lakes area and Nova Scotia... and like the USA has pretty much abandoned landings on the Moon.

As to the Chinese influence... I believe it... compare the religious complexes of the mayans and Inca vs. the religious complexes of China...the steps and multiple layers of courts ascending to a squat pyramid type complex... and then surrounded by court yards and layers of outer walls with grand avenues....very similar indeed. In fact, while visiting Tiziman, Mexico this summer... we entered a local complex...and the thing that struck me was how much it resmbled the chinese complexes.

The more i read on this, the more unlikely it does appear (or i may just be changing my mind!). However, we now have evidence that we were capable of deep sea fishing from a period of 40,000 years ago. This in turn shows that at as a species we could travel the world at this time (or at least a few clever tribes could).

I therefore would not simply dismiss the fact that Romans may have landed in South / Central America. It would not even have had to be a fleet or such. For example, we know that ships were lost around Britain during the invasion and after through storms. It is possible that a ship was blown over the Atlantic - if it contained soldiers they could easily have set up for a life in a new world. They would have known how to get water, how to build, etc and could have then taught local tribes (who would have been astounded at the technological savvy of the Romans).

I just cannot dismiss this as a possibility although i probably should.

There was no Roman influence at Comalcalco. The bricks at Comalcalco are very different from Roman style bricks and the maker's marks do not exist. Think for a second, Steepe claims to have taken 1500 pictures of these bricks, yet not a single picture anyone can find of the Comalcalco bricks show these marks. Throw in the fact that the image that supposedly shows a comparison of marks comes from known pseudoscientists and you have a very clear cut case of someone telling a lie and it being picked up by "researchers" as the truth.

Originally posted by Xcalibur254
There was no Roman influence at Comalcalco. The bricks at Comalcalco are very different from Roman style bricks and the maker's marks do not exist. Think for a second, Steepe claims to have taken 1500 pictures of these bricks, yet not a single picture anyone can find of the Comalcalco bricks show these marks. Throw in the fact that the image that supposedly shows a comparison of marks comes from known pseudoscientists and you have a very clear cut case of someone telling a lie and it being picked up by "researchers" as the truth.

Well that definitely puts a different spin on it!

I just think though that theories such as this shouldn't be simply dismissed. We are an incredibly resilient species, for all of our weaknesses, particularly back in the day. Were they built by Romans? Probably not then. On the other hand, it is still possible that the brick making technique was taught to them by marooned Romans - although i will admit it is unlikely.

I just genuinely believe that the announcement last week of the 43,000 year old trawling nets (for deep sea fishing) totally opens up our understanding of the ancient world and also opens up many more possibilities that previously simply would not have been conceivable.

Originally posted by watchdog8110


And this means what exactly?


You tell me what it would mean if Chinese had a greater influence into Rome ?

....and why would we be concerned about that in this thread?? lol

reply to post by Flavian


The problem with a 'drift' scenario is that a coastal ship would never carry enough supplies; especially of water to have a crew survive. I was once part of a group at a conference that looked at the challenges a Roman era ship would have had trying to cross one, crossing the Atlantic intentionally, two accidently. We figure a drift would kill the crew as they wouldn't have carried enough water as they were use to stopping frequently however a merchant ship carrying wine might make it. A Roman ship that deliberately wanted to try to cross (I'm talking a merchant ship not a rowed warship) could have made it across but would have had difficulty getting back due to a lack of navigation skills and techniques.....and if they had a bit of luck and didn't try to cross during the hurricane season, or avoided running into one.

Originally posted by Hanslune
reply to post by Flavian

 

The problem with a 'drift' scenario is that a coastal ship would never carry enough supplies; especially of water to have a crew survive. I was once part of a group at a conference that looked at the challenges a Roman era ship would have had trying to cross one, crossing the Atlantic intentionally, two accidently. We figure a drift would kill the crew as they wouldn't have carried enough water as they were use to stopping frequently however a merchant ship carrying wine might make it. A Roman ship that deliberately wanted to try to cross (I'm talking a merchant ship not a rowed warship) could have made it across but would have had difficulty getting back due to a lack of navigation skills and techniques.....and if they had a bit of luck and didn't try to cross during the hurricane season, or avoided running into one.

How do you come to the conclusion that the Romans had a lack of navigational skills and techniques ?

Originally posted by watchdog8110

Originally posted by Hanslune
reply to post by Flavian

 

The problem with a 'drift' scenario is that a coastal ship would never carry enough supplies; especially of water to have a crew survive. I was once part of a group at a conference that looked at the challenges a Roman era ship would have had trying to cross one, crossing the Atlantic intentionally, two accidently. We figure a drift would kill the crew as they wouldn't have carried enough water as they were use to stopping frequently however a merchant ship carrying wine might make it. A Roman ship that deliberately wanted to try to cross (I'm talking a merchant ship not a rowed warship) could have made it across but would have had difficulty getting back due to a lack of navigation skills and techniques.....and if they had a bit of luck and didn't try to cross during the hurricane season, or avoided running into one.

How do you come to the conclusion that the Romans had a lack of navigational skills and techniques ?

They were rather good in the enclosed Med but how were they at navigation in the Atlantic beyond the sight of land? Are you saying they had a way to come up with an accurate longitude?

Originally posted by Hanslune

Originally posted by watchdog8110

Originally posted by Hanslune
reply to post by Flavian

 

The problem with a 'drift' scenario is that a coastal ship would never carry enough supplies; especially of water to have a crew survive. I was once part of a group at a conference that looked at the challenges a Roman era ship would have had trying to cross one, crossing the Atlantic intentionally, two accidently. We figure a drift would kill the crew as they wouldn't have carried enough water as they were use to stopping frequently however a merchant ship carrying wine might make it. A Roman ship that deliberately wanted to try to cross (I'm talking a merchant ship not a rowed warship) could have made it across but would have had difficulty getting back due to a lack of navigation skills and techniques.....and if they had a bit of luck and didn't try to cross during the hurricane season, or avoided running into one.

How do you come to the conclusion that the Romans had a lack of navigational skills and techniques ?

They were rather good in the enclosed Med but how were they at navigation in the Atlantic beyond the sight of land? Are you saying they had a way to come up with an accurate longitude?

Since you were part of a group that looked at the same question of their travel , you should recall what the rest of the group proposed if it was then theorized of Romans coming to South America . If it wasn't theorized in the group , oh well .

reply to post by JohnnyCanuck


A friend of mine once said that every time the Mormons get into a theological (theo-illogical?) tight spot, they dig up another tablet.

I do have a book at home which has a photo of a classic Roman-style statue which the author says he and his crew fished out of the Gulf of Mexico.

I have read of other sorts of Roman artifacts found in Mexico, but this really isn't news is it? EVERYONE (well, just about...) was over here before Chris Columbus.

reply to post by Lazarus Short

every time the Mormons get into a theological (theo-illogical?) tight spot, they dig up another tablet.

And with that, I am off to bed.... LOLing all the way. love it.

reply to post by Hanslune


Ok i understand what you are saying but i actually do not think it is as relevant as you say. Look at the discovery in the Med in the last couple of years of the Roman galley complete with fish tanks - this in effect meant they could keep fish caught, thereby ensuring it does not 'go off'. This would in practice mean that much longer voyages could be undertaken.

Whilst the Romans were not renowned for their naval skills, they conquered an awful lot of places that were. In every other area, Rome learned from nations it absorbed. It would therefore be safe to assume that they also took maritime knowledge from nations.

Originally posted by watchdog8110


They were rather good in the enclosed Med but how were they at navigation in the Atlantic beyond the sight of land? Are you saying they had a way to come up with an accurate longitude?

Since you were part of a group that looked at the same question of their travel , you should recall what the rest of the group proposed if it was then theorized of Romans coming to South America . If it wasn't theorized in the group , oh well .

Yes, a ship going to or from the the Canaries might have made it/frifted to what is now Brazil if the crew survived the doldrums....but you didn't answer the question, are you claiming the Roman could do longitude?

Originally posted by Flavian
reply to post by Hanslune

 

Ok i understand what you are saying but i actually do not think it is as relevant as you say. Look at the discovery in the Med in the last couple of years of the Roman galley complete with fish tanks - this in effect meant they could keep fish caught, thereby ensuring it does not 'go off'. This would in practice mean that much longer voyages could be undertaken.

Whilst the Romans were not renowned for their naval skills, they conquered an awful lot of places that were. In every other area, Rome learned from nations it absorbed. It would therefore be safe to assume that they also took maritime knowledge from nations.

Yes that is what it means; now all you need to do is find where the Roman's created a robust deep sea transportation and navigation technology - then used it. As you noted they tended to use others at the ends of the empire to do their voyaging - as they did to India

Originally posted by Hanslune

Originally posted by watchdog8110


They were rather good in the enclosed Med but how were they at navigation in the Atlantic beyond the sight of land? Are you saying they had a way to come up with an accurate longitude?

Since you were part of a group that looked at the same question of their travel , you should recall what the rest of the group proposed if it was then theorized of Romans coming to South America . If it wasn't theorized in the group , oh well .

Yes, a ship going to or from the the Canaries might have made it/frifted to what is now Brazil if the crew survived the doldrums....but you didn't answer the question, are you claiming the Roman could do longitude?

Would like to hear your take on the the longitude since your having a knack of dissecting others opinions , you were in a group what if any notes taken would you care to share from their views here on the topic of Romans being there before Columbus .