Try this. I ran a search for Svetlana Balabanova on Google and came up with this.
http://www.scientificexploration.org/js ... _kehoe.pdf
Holocaust in America?
Moderators: MichelleH, Minimalist, JPeters
-
Minimalist
- Forum Moderator
- Posts: 16034
- Joined: Mon Sep 26, 2005 1:09 pm
- Location: Arizona
And,
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pre-Columb ... act#Romans
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pre-Columb ... act#Romans
Egyptian mummies
A few tests on samples from Egyptian mummies have occasionally reported traces of drugs only found in the Americas in antiquity, such as tobacco and coca. These findings have been dismissed by the vast majority of Egypotologists and other historians as the result of modern contamination or some other error in the process, as the results have not been verified by other scientists. Because so far none of the species of coca that curently grow outside of South America has ever been shown to contain cocaine, if these tests turn out to be accurate the question of how the Egyptians obtained cocaine must be raised.
[edit]
Romans
In 1933, at Toluca Valley (72 kilometres west of Mexico City), a small ceramic head, depicting a bearded European face, was found. Termed the "Calixtlahuaca Head," it was found in a cement floor in a building that was abandoned in 1510, nine years before the Spaniards arrived. In 1961, Austrian anthropologist Robert Heine-Geldern studied the head, declaring that it fit Roman schools of art from the 2nd century CE. In 1999, thermoluminescence tests were carried out on a small ceramic head, dating it to some time between 870 BC and AD 1270 - thus, although not proving it came from the Roman era, proving it was pre-Columbian.
In 1963, what appeared to be Roman coins were discovered in New Albany, Indiana, across from Louisville, Kentucky.[3] All but two have vanished; the remaining ones appear to depict Roman Emperors Claudius II and Maximinus. More recently, what appear to be Roman coins from the same period have been found on the other side of the Ohio River. The coins were found buried under the ground in what might have been a disintegrated leather pouch.
In 1975, two intact amphorae were recovered from the bottom of Guanabara Bay, 15 kilometers from Rio de Janeiro, Brazil. Six years later, archeologist Robert Marx discovered thousands of pottery fragments in the same locality, including 200 necks from amphorae. The amphorae have been analyzed to have been of Roman make from the 2nd Century BC. Additionally, Guanabara Bay has been known locally as the "Bay of Jars" since at least the 18th century, suggesting that amphorae have been discovered there since at least then.
In one of the preserved houses of Pompeii, there is a mosaic of what may be a pineapple - a fruit native to the New World. (Pineapples are so named because they look like pinecones - a common motif in Egyptian and Greek art.)
-
Rokcet Scientist
Sure, Gordon, according to 20th century standards you are quite right of course.the_historian wrote: Why? Google didn't write the article in the first place. The "author" is supposedly a professional journalist, so he supposedly had to meet academic standards to get his qualifications. You don't pepper an article with quotes and references without providing a means for people to go and look them up for themselves, should they feel like it.
However, this happens to be the 21st century in the 3rd millennium. Things are different now, or hadn't you noticed?
Last edited by Rokcet Scientist on Fri Feb 03, 2006 6:58 am, edited 1 time in total.
-
Rokcet Scientist
"You don't pepper an article with quotes and references without providing a means for people to go and look them up for themselves, should they feel like it."
Should you feel like it you can 'go and look them up for yourself' by simply copying and pasting ANY or ALL of those peppered quotes and references into Google (or any other search engine of your choice). You'll collect MILLIONS of researchable sources! Come on, Gordon, how many footnotes do you want? Ain't there enough in that article to keep you going for a life time if you chose to? As a history undergraduate surely you can ask your own questions? And find the answers where YOU want to find them? Or do you need to be led by the hand, down the garden path...?
That's not what this old geezer was taught what science was.
Call me old-fashioned!
Should you feel like it you can 'go and look them up for yourself' by simply copying and pasting ANY or ALL of those peppered quotes and references into Google (or any other search engine of your choice). You'll collect MILLIONS of researchable sources! Come on, Gordon, how many footnotes do you want? Ain't there enough in that article to keep you going for a life time if you chose to? As a history undergraduate surely you can ask your own questions? And find the answers where YOU want to find them? Or do you need to be led by the hand, down the garden path...?
That's not what this old geezer was taught what science was.
Call me old-fashioned!
-
Guest
verification and validation
People do make mistakes in what they say.
They make mistakes in how they interpret the work of others.
Those that come after need to be able to follow up what is said by checking references. If the information is to be useful its necessary to assure oneself that the source really says what someone else says it does.
It may be the 21st century, but the above requirement has not changed.
What has changed is that there is much more information available to people today than yesterday. And on the web a lot of that information comes without any basis being provided for determining where it comes from. Because so many people are posting information to the web there is an increased risk that bad information will be accepted and passed along.
Without knowing the source of information you can't evaluate its value.
It is even more important today than ever to provide good citations for key information. Otherwise, readers have no way of checking to see if the source a) really said what its purported to have said (verification), and b) what it says is factual/accurate (validation).
Not everything that is written on the web is accurate. Usually any inaccuracy is innocent. Unfortunately, sometimes that inaccuracy is deliberate. One of the ways that we use to assess problems with information provided (on the web or otherwise) is whether the author can or will provide his sources. Usually, when there is no problem with the information, the author will provide the sources. When they won't, you have to wonder whether its because they a) can't ---maybe they don't actually have the reference, or b) because the reference doesn't exist, or c) the reference doesn't actually say what they said.
It is unfortunately true that all of the above occur on the web with considerable frequency.
Bill
[quote="Rokcet Scientist"][quote="the_historian"]
Why? Google didn't write the article in the first place. The "author" is supposedly a professional journalist, so he supposedly had to meet academic standards to get his qualifications. You don't pepper an article with quotes and references without providing a means for people to go and look them up for themselves, should they feel like it.[/quote]
Sure, Gordon, according to 20th century standards you are quite right of course.
However, this happens to be the 21st century in the 3rd millennium. Things are different now, or hadn't you noticed?[/quote]
They make mistakes in how they interpret the work of others.
Those that come after need to be able to follow up what is said by checking references. If the information is to be useful its necessary to assure oneself that the source really says what someone else says it does.
It may be the 21st century, but the above requirement has not changed.
What has changed is that there is much more information available to people today than yesterday. And on the web a lot of that information comes without any basis being provided for determining where it comes from. Because so many people are posting information to the web there is an increased risk that bad information will be accepted and passed along.
Without knowing the source of information you can't evaluate its value.
It is even more important today than ever to provide good citations for key information. Otherwise, readers have no way of checking to see if the source a) really said what its purported to have said (verification), and b) what it says is factual/accurate (validation).
Not everything that is written on the web is accurate. Usually any inaccuracy is innocent. Unfortunately, sometimes that inaccuracy is deliberate. One of the ways that we use to assess problems with information provided (on the web or otherwise) is whether the author can or will provide his sources. Usually, when there is no problem with the information, the author will provide the sources. When they won't, you have to wonder whether its because they a) can't ---maybe they don't actually have the reference, or b) because the reference doesn't exist, or c) the reference doesn't actually say what they said.
It is unfortunately true that all of the above occur on the web with considerable frequency.
Bill
[quote="Rokcet Scientist"][quote="the_historian"]
Why? Google didn't write the article in the first place. The "author" is supposedly a professional journalist, so he supposedly had to meet academic standards to get his qualifications. You don't pepper an article with quotes and references without providing a means for people to go and look them up for themselves, should they feel like it.[/quote]
Sure, Gordon, according to 20th century standards you are quite right of course.
However, this happens to be the 21st century in the 3rd millennium. Things are different now, or hadn't you noticed?[/quote]
-
stan gilliam
they came to america
I am a newcomer to this forum, but I have followed the daily news updates
for a couple of months now. I am an amateur student of archeology and art history.
What has struck me over thse months is how EVERYTHING is being re-evaluated. The migration theories, the oldest or first of anything you can name being pushed further back. THe discoveries in places that seem to have been neglected (?) by explorers, such as the Balkans, Vietnam, .....perhaps because of political instability and economic considerations in those areas.
At lot has changed since I graduated from college in 1968....I never heard of the megalithic culture on Malta, for example, and the Chinese terra-cotta
army was unknown. The Chinese voyages of discovery of the 14th century were unknown to me, as well.
THis isn't a peer-reviewed, scholarly forum, though I am glad there are
some professionals who take the time to chime in....but let's lighten up a bit and enjoy the discussion. If it wasn't inherently "controversial" or at least deeply challenging, why would anyone want to waste time on these
matters? We can expect disagreement, but why go ballistic?
I guess my ultimate question of the past is something like "How did we
(whoever we are) get to be the way we are?"
I have to go to bed now. Happy holidays, everyone!
for a couple of months now. I am an amateur student of archeology and art history.
What has struck me over thse months is how EVERYTHING is being re-evaluated. The migration theories, the oldest or first of anything you can name being pushed further back. THe discoveries in places that seem to have been neglected (?) by explorers, such as the Balkans, Vietnam, .....perhaps because of political instability and economic considerations in those areas.
At lot has changed since I graduated from college in 1968....I never heard of the megalithic culture on Malta, for example, and the Chinese terra-cotta
army was unknown. The Chinese voyages of discovery of the 14th century were unknown to me, as well.
THis isn't a peer-reviewed, scholarly forum, though I am glad there are
some professionals who take the time to chime in....but let's lighten up a bit and enjoy the discussion. If it wasn't inherently "controversial" or at least deeply challenging, why would anyone want to waste time on these
matters? We can expect disagreement, but why go ballistic?
I guess my ultimate question of the past is something like "How did we
(whoever we are) get to be the way we are?"
I have to go to bed now. Happy holidays, everyone!
-
Minimalist
- Forum Moderator
- Posts: 16034
- Joined: Mon Sep 26, 2005 1:09 pm
- Location: Arizona
You're certainly right about the effects of political considerations, Stan. One aftermath of the 1967 Six-Day War was to give a whole generation of young Israeli archaeologists access to the West Bank. As a result of their digs and surveys they have concluded that the nation of Israel arose there in the late 13th century. Without that conquest the world might well have gone on thinking that "bible history" was history instead of pious wishful thinking.
-
Rokcet Scientist
Re: reply
"The contents of internet search engines are about as reliable as the weather, unless they're moderated and peer-reviewed."
I think that's defined as a classical generalisation. And about as useful.
But if you like that kinda thing, I'll play. Here's one for ya:
If you don't sift through the rubble, you won't find the gems.
"If I can't find a reliable source for a reference, it's no good to man or beast."
Start trusting your own judgment, instead of relying on others for guidance.
I think that's defined as a classical generalisation. And about as useful.
But if you like that kinda thing, I'll play. Here's one for ya:
If you don't sift through the rubble, you won't find the gems.
"If I can't find a reliable source for a reference, it's no good to man or beast."
Start trusting your own judgment, instead of relying on others for guidance.
-
Rokcet Scientist
Re: reply
[quote="the_historian"]So it's hardly a "classical generalisation".
Anyway, I'm done here............[/quote]
Gordon,
not only do you still have a lot to learn in history, your language skills can use a refresher course too:
if you "heard that remark about search engines from every single professor [you've] ever had...", THAT, in itself my boy, defines the quintessence of "classical generalisation".
Let me lay it out for you: 'every' = general, 'professor' = classical.
But I have to admit you are correct about one thing though: you're done here, indeed.
Have fun and good luck.
Anyway, I'm done here............[/quote]
Gordon,
not only do you still have a lot to learn in history, your language skills can use a refresher course too:
if you "heard that remark about search engines from every single professor [you've] ever had...", THAT, in itself my boy, defines the quintessence of "classical generalisation".
Let me lay it out for you: 'every' = general, 'professor' = classical.
But I have to admit you are correct about one thing though: you're done here, indeed.
Have fun and good luck.
-
Minimalist
- Forum Moderator
- Posts: 16034
- Joined: Mon Sep 26, 2005 1:09 pm
- Location: Arizona
To get back on topic, I appreciate it when someone takes the time to cite their sources. The internet is now a fact of life and it has to be used with some care.
A report of UFOs is less convincing from www.aliensarehere.com than it is from www.scientificamerican.org.
That's a fact of life and it was no different in print media. Anyone could publish a book and it is necessary to determine the agenda of the author before evaluating their evidence.
A report of UFOs is less convincing from www.aliensarehere.com than it is from www.scientificamerican.org.
That's a fact of life and it was no different in print media. Anyone could publish a book and it is necessary to determine the agenda of the author before evaluating their evidence.