|
Those mega hotels must go on top of the archeological sites because otherwise some dirty idolaters might worship them.
|
#
?
Dec 10, 2015 14:54
|
|
I CANNOT EJACULATE WITHOUT SEEING NATIVE AMERICANS BRUTALISED!
|
|
| # ? May 11, 2024 13:04 |
|
|
Grand Fromage posted:The Chinese calendar is only used for the dates of holidays and astrology bullshit. It literally never ever comes up otherwise. Few pages back but in Taiwan I gotta do lots and lots of stuff with R.O.C. years. Banking, government paperwork, contracts, whatever. I'm surprised to hear that's not true in China. Basically, if not for the internet I would probably not use the Christian year count a majority of the time. Good news is that Chinese culture seemed to already divide the day into 12 periods (which can be halved) and have a base 10 number system so the other time things weren't as much a problem. Months and days are simply ordinal numbers and not named after various gods. It owns secular bones. Modest Mao fucked around with this message at 12:36 on Dec 11, 2015 |
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2015 12:09
|
|
|
That must be a pain in the rear end. I have absolutely no idea what the Chinese calendar year would be, it's never come up. I wonder where they also got the twelve hours from. For us that traces back to Sumeria, it's entirely possible it does for China too. Every number base system, as far as I know, is assumed to be counting on body part based so 10, 20, 12, 60 all make sense. I suppose twelve hours could come from that.
|
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2015 12:16
|
|
|
The whole day is 12 time periods, not the whole of daylight on an equinox (or whatever). You probably know 小時 is the translation of 'hour'. Want to know why it's 小(little)? It's half of the traditional unit of time. Why were there twelve of those? I would have to use google so I guess you can do that too. edit: Also the Chinese calendar starts with the declaration of the republic - 1911. So it's year 104 now, not too hard to calculate. edit2: humans are weird https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chinese_units_of_measurement#Time Modest Mao fucked around with this message at 12:36 on Dec 11, 2015 |
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2015 12:31
|
|
|
Did you know Cyrus the Great is the only non Jew/Israelite in the Hebrew Bible to be referred to as a Messiah?
|
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2015 15:19
|
|
|
Top Hats Monthly posted:Did you know Cyrus the Great is the only non Jew/Israelite in the Hebrew Bible to be referred to as a Messiah? 
|
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2015 15:53
|
|
|
Zopotantor posted:Did you also just listen to the latest Hardcore Histories podcast? No actually  ! I'll check it out though for sure!
|
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2015 06:46
|
|
|
 I saw this today and had to share. The seal on Tutankhamun's tomb, before it was opened in 1922. Intact for several millenia.
|
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2015 09:40
|
|
|
If you haven't read it, Howard Carter's book about the discovery and opening of the tomb is amazing. That combined with a really good coffee table book on the tomb that has quality photos is really helpful to imagine just what it was like. I went to the Tutankhamun exhibit when it was here in Canada a few years ago and it was amazing just to get a sense of how intricate some of the things are. It's all well and good to see a photo of one of the tiny canopic sarcophagi but to see it in person and look at the engravings on the inside that pictures don't show? That's amazing. They even had the golden knife from the mummy-wrappings, and a radiograph showing where each amulet was. So cool.
|
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2015 15:45
|
|
|
So it turns out the Romans sailed to the Americas after all, according to new and completely indisputable evidence http://www.bostonstandard.co.uk/news/local/startling-new-report-on-oak-island-is-set-to-rewrite-history-of-the-americas-1-7118097
|
|
#
?
Dec 17, 2015 19:20
|
|
|
FightingMongoose posted:So it turns out the Romans sailed to the Americas after all, according to new and completely indisputable evidence I was about to post this and ask if it was as complete bullshit as it looks. It's conceivable to me that some Roman ship on its way to the British Isles or something went way off course. It wouldn't be contact in that they would have never gotten back, but to me at least it seems possible. A lot of their 'evidence' on this seems like they're taking the most favorable possible explanation for a lot of different things though.
|
|
#
?
Dec 17, 2015 19:30
|
|
|
It's an interesting story but I think the dude is just rushing to his own explanation for it being Romans by making the evidence they have fit that narrative. The whole thing about the local native American tribe having Levantine DNA is nonsense too.
|
|
#
?
Dec 17, 2015 19:46
|
|
|
That does not look at all like any of the surviving Roman swords I've seen, although I haven't seen that many. Ceremonial sword or not, the hilt looks totally wrong. Anything to do with Oak Island sets off my bullshit alarm.
|
|
#
?
Dec 17, 2015 19:54
|
|
|
I've never heard of Oak Island so I looked up the wikipedia page, and ya, now I think the story is total bullshit. 3 Theories 3.1 Pirate treasure 3.2 Spanish naval treasure 3.3 Marie Antoinette's jewels 3.4 Shakespeare manuscripts 3.5 Rosicrucian vault 3.6 Knights Templar treasure 3.7 Freemasonry artifacts 3.8 Ark of the Covenant 3.9 Viking ship 3.10 Natural sinkhole
|
|
#
?
Dec 17, 2015 20:00
|
|
|
Anything Oak Island-related is a conspiracy and probably a scam.
|
|
#
?
Dec 17, 2015 20:22
|
|
|
The way he photographs the sword on a newspaper really swayed me tho.
|
|
#
?
Dec 17, 2015 20:23
|
|
|
euphronius posted:The way he photographs the sword on a newspaper really swayed me tho. I imagine that was to date the picture (as opposed to his using a picture that could have been taken any time since the advent of color photography).
|
|
#
?
Dec 17, 2015 20:32
|
|
|
quote:“That’s how they poo-poo having to talk about it,” Pulitzer says. “But it’s a pretty blatant Roman artifact. The knee-jerk reaction was to think somebody put that sword there. It was found incredibly close to Oak Island in water only 25ft deep. But if you dropped that rare collectors’ sword overboard, wouldn’t you dive down to get it?” No? 7 meters in the ocean is pretty loving deep, especially if it's cold out and you don't have a wet suit or anything. This whole thing is retarded.
|
|
#
?
Dec 17, 2015 21:00
|
|
Yes, it's like a lava lamp.
|
There are about 2700 Miles of nothing but open ocean between any possible Roman port and Oak Island. Open-ocean sailing was a pretty immature technology until after 1000, so I really doubt this is legit.
|
|
#
?
Dec 17, 2015 21:23
|
|
|
One way trip up to Greenland and going down the ne coast of NA is plausible I guess.
|
|
#
?
Dec 17, 2015 21:30
|
|
|
The secret of the Oak Island mysteries is it's a hole that sucks in people's money and sanity.
|
|
#
?
Dec 17, 2015 21:41
|
|
|
quote:“But it’s a pretty blatant Roman artifact. The knee-jerk reaction was to think somebody put that sword there. It was found incredibly close to Oak Island in water only 25ft deep. But if you dropped that rare collectors’ sword overboard, wouldn’t you dive down to get it?” I love it when people focus on countering the least likely possible alternative explanations/arguments. He could have just as well have said "No, the sword couldn't have been dropped there by birds, because the birds that would be attracted to that shade of metal aren't nesting there at that time of year". That wasn't the alternative explanation people were going to come up with. I mean yeah, I don't think many people would have jumped to the conclusion that some modern antique collector was sailing around, LARPing with his Roman sword, then just happened to drop it there and left because he couldn't be bothered to retrieve it. More likely, what people are going to think is that the sword wasn't actually found there at the time claimed, perhaps that it was planted there in support of this hoax, or that it isn't what he says it is. As it stands, those all sound like lots more likely explanations.
|
|
#
?
Dec 17, 2015 22:17
|
|
|
Yeah I doubt the lady who gave it to them even exists. What a load of poo poo.
|
|
#
?
Dec 17, 2015 22:24
|
|
|
Yeah I totally believe that some dude found it years ago and hung onto it because he was terrified of running afoul of the law. If he was really freaked he would have just dumped it again. "Some guy found this here , no really" isn't exactly the sort of provenience you base big theories on. That said I don't find the actual idea of some Roman era fisherman getting swept out to sea implausible. What I do find implausible is the idea that they would have a ceremonial sword on board. That poo poo would both be expensive and useless on any kind of fishing or trading vessel. I have no doubt that shot like that happened plenty. I just suspect it didn't leave any record or evidence that behind to attest to it.
|
|
#
?
Dec 17, 2015 22:27
|
|
|
LingcodKilla posted:Yeah I doubt the lady who gave it to them even exists. What a load of poo poo. He shouldn't expect to find the treasure of Oak Island just because some watery tart threw a sword at him.
|
|
#
?
Dec 17, 2015 22:28
|
|
|
homullus posted:He shouldn't expect to find the treasure of Oak Island just because some watery tart threw a sword at him. I think he threw the sword at the watery tart.
|
|
#
?
Dec 17, 2015 22:29
|
|
|
Cyrano4747 posted:That said I don't find the actual idea of some Roman era fisherman getting swept out to sea implausible. What I do find implausible is the idea that they would have a ceremonial sword on board. That poo poo would both be expensive and useless on any kind of fishing or trading vessel. "The report details a number of Mi’kmaq petroglyphs (carved images) on cave walls and boulders along riverbanks in Nova Scotia. Some of these images, first discovered in the 1800s, depict what Pulitzer’s team believe to be Roman legionnaires marching with their swords - and Roman ships." So they're postulating it was a Roman military galley, not a trading or fishing ship. Which despite being much more photogenic, is almost certainly not possible.
|
|
#
?
Dec 17, 2015 22:35
|
|
|
Dude the picture clearly shows them with no shoes and under full legion size so that's bullet proof fact that they ate their own shoes before eating the weakest in order to make land fall.
|
|
#
?
Dec 17, 2015 23:30
|
|
|
Obviously it's Quinctillius Varus having fled the continent in shame after Teutoburg. "give me back my legions" said Augustus, "nah bro I'm off to discover America, hope I don't drop my sword!" A true fact that happened. The evidence is right there!
|
|
#
?
Dec 18, 2015 00:09
|
|
|
it was a legion on the way to attack Atlantis but they got horribly lost
|
|
#
?
Dec 18, 2015 03:19
|
|
|
Jamwad Hilder posted:it was a legion on the way to attack Atlantis but they got horribly lost The aliens thought they could find their way from where they were dropped off but were sorely mistaken.
|
|
#
?
Dec 18, 2015 03:24
|
|
|
Jamwad Hilder posted:it was a legion on the way to attack Atlantis but they got horribly lost They didn't have the sailing know-how to make it around the horn to Bolivia. Making landfall on the East Coast and marching down was much more likely to succeed and they could throw together some client states on their way.
|
|
#
?
Dec 18, 2015 04:37
|
|
|
uPen posted:They didn't have the sailing know-how to make it around the horn to Bolivia. Making landfall on the East Coast and marching down was much more likely to succeed and they could throw together some client states on their way. That's why so many states have Latin mottoes.
|
|
#
?
Dec 18, 2015 04:49
|
|
|
Tao Jones posted:That's why so many states have Latin mottoes. Holy poo poo... E Pluribus Unum... Did Romans found the United States itself!?! 
|
|
#
?
Dec 18, 2015 04:55
|
|
|
Thump! posted:Holy poo poo...  Does this look like something a bunch of British colonists would build to you?
|
|
#
?
Dec 18, 2015 05:19
|
|
|
Tao Jones posted:That's why so many states have Latin mottoes. And why New Jersey is still corrupted by Roman mafiosi.
|
|
#
?
Dec 18, 2015 08:19
|
|
|
The Romans knew their ships sucked so much they were terrified to be out of sight of land, they didn't cross the loving Atlantic. You can go a long, long way without losing sight of land--Roman ships getting to China is entirely plausible--but not across that ocean. There's a reason nobody crossed it before the Vikings, literally the best sailors in Europe's history to that point. Now, if you found actual proof that I'm wrong, that would be awesome. That's why you know conspiracy theorists are idiots. "They're suppressing it! They don't want you to know!" Literally every classicist I ever knew through my education would be bouncing off the walls with excitement if someone genuinely found a Roman shipwreck in the Americas. Grand Fromage fucked around with this message at 11:11 on Dec 18, 2015 |
|
#
?
Dec 18, 2015 11:08
|
|
|
Grand Fromage posted:The Romans knew their ships sucked so much they were terrified to be out of sight of land, they didn't cross the loving Atlantic. You can go a long, long way without losing sight of land--Roman ships getting to China is entirely plausible--but not across that ocean. There's a reason nobody crossed it before the Vikings, literally the best sailors in Europe's history to that point. Roman sailors sailed routinely on open seas and didn't need to have land on sight. And their trading vessels were more seaworthy than than the ships that Columbus or the Vikings used. Most likely no Roman set foot on America and if some trading or fishing vessel accidentally got there, they didn't come back. Hogge Wild fucked around with this message at 12:12 on Dec 18, 2015 |
|
#
?
Dec 18, 2015 12:09
|
|
|
Hogge Wild posted:Roman sailors sailed routinely on open seas and didn't need to have land on sight. And their trading vessels were more seaworthy than than the ships that Columbus or the Vikings used. Most likely no Roman set foot on America and if some trading or fishing vessel accidentally got there, they didn't come back. Can you go into more detail? I don't know a ton about Roman ships, but from their writing and other behavior Romans seemed to be huge fans of not going anywhere near the ocean if they had a choice.
|
|
#
?
Dec 18, 2015 12:24
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 11, 2024 13:04 |
|
|
Grand Fromage posted:Can you go into more detail? I don't know a ton about Roman ships, but from their writing and other behavior Romans seemed to be huge fans of not going anywhere near the ocean if they had a choice. Weren't 'Roman' sailors usually Greek once Greece became part of the Republic? Greeks were still pretty good at the whole sailing thing.
|
|
#
?
Dec 18, 2015 12:29
|
|
