Archaeologica.org

Thanks Michelle !
(for moving the discussion I stupidly started in the wrong thread!)

Has anyone any more up to date information on this strange tale?

Romans in Rio?
In 1976, diver Jose Roberto Texeira salvaged two intact amphorae from the bottom of Guanabara Bay, 15 kilometers from Rio de Janeiro. Six years later, archeologist Robert Marx found thousands of pottery fragments in the same locality, including 200 necks from amphorae.

Amphorae are tall storage vessels that were used widely throughout ancient Europe. These particular amphorae are of Roman manufacture, circa the second century B.C. Much controversy erupted around the finds because Spain and Portugal both claim to have discovered Brazil around 1500 A.D. Roman artifacts were distinctly unwelcome. More objectively, the thought of an ancient Roman crossing of the Atlantic is not so farfetched. Roman wrecks have been discovered in the Azores; and the shortest way across the Atlantic is from Africa to Brazil -- only 18 days using modern sailing vessels.
(Sheckley, Robert; "Romans in Rio," Omni, 5:43, June 1983.)
From Science Frontiers #28, JUL-AUG 1983. © 1983-2000 William R. Corliss

In the Imperial Period, the Roman North African province of Mauretania had a number of small ports along the Atlantic coast, Tingis and Lixus come to mind immediately. It is certainly well with the realm of possibility that a ship could have been blown westward in a storm and ended up off the South American coast.

However, there is no record of any regular commerce across the Atlantic nor of any "discovery" so it seems unlikely that they ever got back to tell their story.

Hi Minimalist.
Thanks for the informative reply!!
'The Bay of Jars'
The trouble with being a romantic (no pun intended!) is that I want to believe the 'Von Danikenesque' theories of exotic discoveries, but the cold and miserable old cynic in me keeps dragging me back to earth.
However, in this case I believe it is a FACT that these artifacts have been found off the coast of Rio.
How did they get there is the fun question?

I live a couple of miles from the entrance to Bosham Harbour (Home to the REAL King Canute!) and Chichester Harbour, the Roman accessway to Fishbourne Roman Palace.
http://www.sussexpast.co.uk/property/si ... site_id=11

Lying at the bottom of my fishtank is a chunk of very weathered, but dressed white marble that I found on the beach.
A piece of a sunken Roman ruin? Possibly?.. but far more likely to have been a lump of ballast used in the hull of a Roman, Saxon or Norman merchantman.
Is it just possible that the amphorae were simply part of the ballast of a 15-16th century Spanish or Portugese ship?
Does anyone know of any other wrecks where amphorae have been found that could have been ballast?

And..while I'm in megaboring mode!!
Before the railways arrived at my hometown in the mid 1800's, coal was delivered by coastal sailing ships and dragged up off the beach by teams of horses and wagons.
The problem for the coal merchants was that the ballast on the outward journey WAS the cargo..on the return journey the ballast would have been shingle, mud, seaweed, dead seagulls anything to stop the boat overturning, and totally worthless.
Not only that, but the loading and unloading of the worthless ballast would have cost money!!
As luck would have it, these ships went back to port with ballast that was worth 100 times more than the cargo of coal!
Under the sand where I found my shiny lump of Roman Pillar(?)...was/is a rich seam of Iron Pyrites (Fool's Gold'). A thriving seashore industry existed for the townsfolk of Bognor Regis before Puffing Billy and his mates finally rattled into the town!

I seem to remember Robert Marx wrote about Roman amphorae from Guanabara Bay in the book In Quest of the Great White Gods
http://www.rsoperations.com/Personnel/B ... Resume.htm

Thanks for the link effigy! Much appreciated!

Truth seems to be getting stranger than fiction?
We were also educated with another 'truth'. The fact that the Romans never made it to Ireland!
That nugget of Historical information also turned out to be a load of cobblers!
I think the 'Rio Romans' is certainly worth a TV documentary. Along with explorations of other Roman ruins & artifacts. Roman remains discovered in places they never visited! Ireland, East of the Danube, India etc. etc.

Does anyone know of any other wrecks where amphorae have been found that could have been ballast?

My understanding is that these ships were specifically designed to carry amphorae, upright, in racks so the contents would not spill out. Also, although I do not claim an exact knowledge of the economics of the ancient shipping industry it seems likely that a captain would look to maximize his profit by dropping off one cargo and picking up another to be transported to the next port of call.

I do seem to recall reading that there was a practice of using stones for ballast.

Min, Mike and eff....

This is a great discussion, please bring it over the the 'discussion' forum!

Thanks...

The Meddler....

Maybe he doesn't like the other Brits on the board?

Sorry!...It was me being a plonker!
I got so excited that some-one had replied to my ramblings that, I forgot this thread is 'The Guest-Book'

You may find this entertaining, Mike....particularly the first reply which seems fairly reasonable at first glance.

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1038045/posts

A. Wrong! It is now confirmed that a Roman ship reached Brazil around the year 19 B.C.! Here is the whole story …

Now...if only we can get Michelle to move this thread to the Discussion Forum because I don't think any of us peons have that authority.

I've just found this thread and perhaps you guys can explain something to me. As a retired engineer I have never been able to understand why anybody of sound mind could design such an apparently stupid container as an amphora. Am I missing something, apart from a few grey cells that is?

Digit wrote:I've just found this thread and perhaps you guys can explain something to me. As a retired engineer I have never been able to understand why anybody of sound mind could design such an apparently stupid container as an amphora. Am I missing something, apart from a few grey cells that is?

Do you mean the pointed bottom? Most cargo was transported by boat, so the pointed bottom allowed the merchants to just shove them down into sand or soft dirt in an upright position, and they would stay fairly stable.

Andy

The explanation I've always heard is that they were designed to fit into racks in the ships' hulls. Clay jars, standing next to each other on a sea voyage would bump against each other in the waves and crack if they were not securly held in place.

Even in the photo above, from Pompeii in the first century AD you can see quite a variation on the theme.

That too, but this is from wikipedia:

Most were produced with a pointed base to allow them to be stored in an upright position by being partly embedded in sand or soft ground.

If they were designed solely for racks, a better design would be to make them square-sided, for a better fit and stability. The rounded amphora shape is easier to make in mass quantities, and the pointed bottom is a design compromise. A very successful and popular one at that!

Andy