Archaeologica.org

stellarchaser wrote:
Dear Paul H.

obviously you're geologist with large knowledge, and I was reading your text here about alleged bosnian stone balls with great interest, and if it means anything to you, I learned a lot from that text.

But I have the feeling that for each picture you see from Visochica Hill, you post simmilar geological "example" allegedly proving it's not man-made.

What I want to say is that your arguments can be appliable to any square stone block found anywhere in the world and on any archeological excavations. As long that it's square, it can be natural, right? That proves nothing. Because it can be man made, too. And the opposite, of course.

If man is making square stones, and nature is making square stones (obviously they both do), there must be reliable and experienced scientist, or better to say science, who will determine what is man made and what is natural. And I believe it can be done only at the spot or through scientific analysis (of which you know much more than me of course). In other words, it's pointless to deny or confirm nature of these blocks before that analysis is done.

Well he pointed out that there are ripple marks on the square blocks at Visocica site, and that proves they're natural rocks. They could have been moved by someone and put on a terrace, yes, but the fact that the ripples stretch on adjacent blocks (er I don't know how to explain it in english hope you understand me) proves otherwise.

And yes, you can do science by looking at pictures, just ask an astronomist.

stellarchaser wrote: Now we seeing that they are getting some real archeological artefacts (monoliths with inscriptions, standing wall). So the story of Visochica is not that simple. As any other geological or archeological site. Although Barakat said his opinion, he also suggested that team of international geologists should examine Visochica site. El Hadidi said the same. And that is what we need there.

Serious team of experts who will determine nature of these blocks.

It is fairly known that the story of Visocica is not simple. That's just not a hill, there are roman and medieval ruins, maybe even older stuff. But by now the only proof of a pyramid is the shape of the hill.

Minimalist wrote:The Romans made round stone ammunition for use in their ballistas, as noted in these excavated at Petra. The Greeks also knew how to do this and depending on the size of the seige engine involved, some could get quite large.

This observation proves nothing. As far as I know, none of these stone balls have been found embedded in the local bedrock as posted pictures of the Bosnian stone balls have shown some to be. That Bosnian stone balls are founded embedded in bedrock seems to an importnat clue as to their origin, which is completely ignore at this time. For example:

1. http://www.piramidasunca.ba/news/040606/DSCF6901.jpg

2. http://www.piramidasunca.ba/news/040606/DSCF6900.jpg

3. http://www.piramidasunca.ba/news/040606/DSCF6895.jpg

4. http://www.piramidasunca.ba/news/040606/DSCF6887.jpg

If the stone balls were man-made, why would someone bother to carve a rounded counterpart in the bedrock to a stone ball as seen in the below picture?

5. http://www.piramidasunca.ba/news/040606/DSCF6886.jpg

However, if a stone ball was a concretion embedded in bedrock, it is natural that it would leave part of a rounded cavity when it was removed by either people or erosion.

Also, other pictures of the Bosnian stone balls show the fracture patterns seen in natural stone balls. Compare:

1. http://www.bosnianpyramid.com/images/Bo ... _Kugle.jpg

and 2. http://www.bosnianpyramid.com/images/Bo ... Bosnic.jpg

with "stone balls" from North Dakota at:

http://nd.water.usgs.gov/lewisandclark/ ... etions.jpg

It is interesting to note, that the North Dakota stone balls, which are "Cannonball concretions" and clearly of natural origin, have also been claimed by alternative archaeologists as being man-made. It seems like the same scientifically bankrupt argument, that nature cannot produce stone balls, is the primary basis for identifying both the Bosnian stone balls and the North Dakota cannonball concretions are man-made.

Yours,

Paul

Paul H. wrote:
It is interesting to note, that the North Dakota stone balls, which are "Cannonball concretions" and clearly of natural origin, have also been claimed by alternative archaeologists as being man-made. It seems like the same scientifically bankrupt argument, that nature cannot produce stone balls, is the primary basis for identifying both the Bosnian stone balls and the North Dakota cannonball concretions are man-made.

Yours,

Paul

Yeah, they have been claimed to be sail counterweights from the ships of that chinese explorer, Admiral Zheng He, or something like that. Maybe he went to Bosnia too . and New Zealand.

By looking at Paul's pictures you can see that the spherical stones in Bosnia are strikingly similar to the ones in North Dakota.

And again. I found about those concretion balls with some plain old googling and a bit of net surfing... I'm smarter than Dr. Barakat

It is fairly known that the story of Visocica is not simple. That's just not a hill, there are roman and medieval ruins, maybe even older stuff. But by now the only proof of a pyramid is the shape of the hill.

Maybe it would be a good idea for us to decide what we mean by a "pyramid". In my view, which is the definition of a pyramid in Wikipedia, the only proof of a pyramid IS its shape.

Obviously good people mean different things when they use the word so we shouldn't quarrel about what is "commonly" meant etc.

If anybody has a better definition for a pyramid then it might be helpful to post it.

Just pointing out that there are well known examples of round stone balls being man made and the area was a Roman colony for many years.

Mini - weren't the Romans excellent historians? Is there any evidence that you know of about a seige in this area?

Either they were or they got a Greek to do it for them. There were several wars between Rome and Illyria and if memory serves they had pretty well subdued the area by 150 BC. Again, going from memory, Appian's History is the primary source still extant for that. Later on, during the reign of Augustus, the Romans advanced and took Moesia, part of which may also be incorporated into modern Bosnia, although I'd have to study a map to be able to figure that out.

Titus Livius' history which was being written at the time should have covered that event but I don't recall offhand if that part of the work has survived.

Beagle wrote:

It is fairly known that the story of Visocica is not simple. That's just not a hill, there are roman and medieval ruins, maybe even older stuff. But by now the only proof of a pyramid is the shape of the hill.

Maybe it would be a good idea for us to decide what we mean by a "pyramid". In my view, which is the definition of a pyramid in Wikipedia, the only proof of a pyramid IS its shape.

Obviously good people mean different things when they use the word so we shouldn't quarrel about what is "commonly" meant etc.

If anybody has a better definition for a pyramid then it might be helpful to post it.

Er, you're right. A pyramid is a geometric shape. I meant a man-made pyramid.

Well, you do know your Roman history. Anyway, if the Romans were laying seige in that area they would have been silly to not have used some of those stone balls.

Nevertheless, they are obviously natural - as Paul was pointing out. I said earlier here that it was a tragedy that they were not in situ, as there may be archaeological knowledge lost.

*supper calling.

Wouldn't have needed a siege, just a legionary camp where the soldiers needed some busy work once the roads were built. The Romans understood logistics and were not above 'stockpiling.'

Thanks for the pix of the ballistas, Min.

Ironically, those ballistas don't appear to be as perfectly
spherical as the natural concretions. And they appear smaller than many of the natural samples from Bosnia and elsewhere.

I wonder why the Romans bothered to attempt to make the stones round at all, because at the low velocity at which they were probably fired, I don't see how there could have been much difference in the accuracy of a ball vs. an ugly rock.
Do you think that was busywork, or actually served a
"ballistic" purpose?

Had to fit in the channel so that it could be aimed.

http://www.dl.ket.org/latin1/gallery/mi ... lista_.jpg


Some were small....

http://www.legionsix.org/ballista%20089.jpg


some were not so small....


http://198.144.2.125/Siege/Photos/Full/tyingsling.jpg


Generally the Romans did not use their ballista and scorpions to batter down walls; they were designed to keep defenders away from the spot where the ramps and seige towers/rams were heading. They also used them on ships but again as anti-personnel weapons rather than trying to sink the ship.


Anyway, back to the main question, I'm not aware of any full-blown sieges conducted in Illyria/Moesia although it must have happened. The question would have depended on what sort of defenses the cities had. Generally, barbaric areas did not have big stone walls.

alrom wrote:

Beagle wrote:

It is fairly known that the story of Visocica is not simple. That's just not a hill, there are roman and medieval ruins, maybe even older stuff. But by now the only proof of a pyramid is the shape of the hill.

Maybe it would be a good idea for us to decide what we mean by a "pyramid". In my view, which is the definition of a pyramid in Wikipedia, the only proof of a pyramid IS its shape.

Obviously good people mean different things when they use the word so we shouldn't quarrel about what is "commonly" meant etc.

If anybody has a better definition for a pyramid then it might be helpful to post it.

Er, you're right. A pyramid is a geometric shape. I meant a man-made pyramid.

Yeah, I think that's what most people mean Alrom. I was in an earlier discussion though when it seemed that someone thought a pyramid made of regular soil was not a pyramid. There are so many ways that people refer to a pyramid that it gets confusing.

That's why I thought it would be nice if we were all talking the same language.

Minimalist - Roman history and Egyptology don't quite break into my top ten favorite of archaeology, but since we have you as a resident authority on Rome, we should probably open a Rome thread for Q&A and discussion.

I didn't know there were any big arguments about Roman archaeology. They were marvelous engineers who built with bricks and manageable size stones, they invented concrete which hardened underwater and they loved "arches."