Updated news..The Gore homestead/mountain was sold in the fall of 22 for 580k, which was 50k below asking price...One of the oil shale drillers bought a huge track of land opposite them and put in a few drill pads which likely hurt the value...Spanish Hill info...Yes, despite recent posts here saying otherwise, Spanish Hill site is on the Chemung River, not the Susquehanna...They do come together a few miles south though..The Rosh family of Sayre has built a huge home on top of Spanish Hill..I know the whole area very well and have spent countless hours searching the river banks below...
Re: Susquehanna County, Pennsylvania Treasure.
Greetings Cannonman,
I will take that “probably” as worth much more than a “maybe” any day! Thank you, and by the way I enjoy your intelligent discussion of the matter. Don’t worry about insulting me if you disagree either, I do not take a disagreement as any kind of insult – and you have been reasoning with me, not like some fellows on these boards that simply want to toss barbs. You should see some of the letters I have received, as a result of a few articles I wrote on this subject – some were downright nasty! I don’t take it personal though if my “theory” does not sit well with someone – there are plenty of other ideas out there that I cannot agree with, and this does not make me think less of those who do support them.
You raised sound objections, among them that danged subject of the pyramids. They are a real sticking point with many people. I know, the “official” line is that they were developed independently, everywhere, and they even ran a several hour TV special a while ago, titled “Pyramids, Mummies and Tombs” to present that case. I have some real problems with this explanation of how we come to find pyramids scattered over so many diverse locations. For one, if this is the natural thing that human beings will do, as a matter of course, due to the structural limitations of working in stone, then we should find tribes in deepest Borneo, Alaska, Siberia, or in more “civilized” areas like Poland or Germany ALL either having already built pyramids or in the process of building them now – and they do not. The pyramids only appear in –certain- places, places which have some commonalities, and these factors are not found where we do not find pyramids. Stone as a ready building material is NOT a primary requirement, either, as one theorist insisted.
Let me explain another problem I have with the totally independent invention idea this way:
We find many pyramids in Egypt, and it can easily be shown how the Egyptians invented their pyramids, a progression from the moustaba (bench) tomb to stacked moustabas, (a stepped pyramid) to the true pyramid. It is possible that Egyptians were inspired to build their own pyramids after seeing the stepped pyramids of Sumer to the east, constructed of adobe bricks and called “ziggurats” but this point is not necessary to examine as we can show that the Egyptians invented their pyramids by a natural progression. They built their pyramids using their own materials and their own methods.
We find many pyramids in the ”land of gold” to the south of Egypt, Nubia, an African kingdom long in conflict and competition with Egypt but also with very close economic ties, we are not surprised. Nubia is heavily influenced by their contacts with their neighbor who borders them on the north, and even though their pyramids are built differently, using different materials and methods from the Egyptians, we have no doubt that the Nubians were inspired to build their own pyramids due to contact with Egypt. The IDEA was transmitted. The fact that their pyramids are built their own way shows us that they did not copy the Egyptians methods, but that they were inspired by Egypt should not be a question.
We then look across the Mediterranean sea and find pyramids in ancient Rome (I am sure that Cannonman is aware of this fact, but may be a surprise to many readers) and again, they are not identical with Egyptian models. They are built using Roman methods and Roman materials, but there is little doubt they got the inspiration to build them after seeing and / or hearing of the famous Egyptian pyramids. There is no evidence of independent invention, even though the greatest proportion of contact between Rome and Egypt took place via the sea, not over land. It is logical to conclude that the Romans were inspired to build their own pyramids, however no where near the impressive size of the Egyptian models, by contact with Egypt – even though this contact was largely by sea.
Looking farther afield, we find pyramids in China! They are different from Egyptian pyramids as well as Nubian and Roman, but again we find no evidence of independent invention here; no one doubts that China was in contact with the Roman empire and earlier with Egypt, so it is logical to conclude that they were inspired to build their own pyramids as a result of the visits of foreigners or travelers of their own returning with reports of the impressive Egyptian pyramids. The Chinese pyramids are built differently from Egyptian models, using different materials and different methods, but it is quite logical that they were inspired to build them due to contact with the places where they originated.
Even farther east, we find that there are pyramids in Korea! (Another place they are not well known of today) These pyramids are different even from those of neighboring China, and again built using different materials and different methods, but there is little doubt that they were inspired to build their own pyramids due to contact, as again there is no evidence of independent invention here either.
Then we cross a larger set of seas, and though these larger seas – oceans – have huge and powerful currents which naturally carry ships across them and back, along with “trade” winds that accomplish very much the same thing, even though we find a large number of pyramids in a large number of places, we are told that these MUST have developed independently. There is no evidence of independent invention here, and the materials used and methods as well are different from those used in Egypt, but if we assume there could not have been any contact whatsoever, they seem to have just started building pyramids by dreaming them up. There are startling similarities and parallels, such as the base size of the Great Pyramid in Egypt being virtually identical with the base size of the Pyramid of the Sun in Mexico, many Mayan pyramids were painted white and covered with hieroglyphics in red paint, just like the way Egyptian pyramids were once covered with white paint and hieroglyphics in red paint, but no matter – this is another of those sets of convenient coincidences. No matter that Egyptian pyramids are believed to have been tombs, and Mayan as well as South American pyramids were also tombs. Most American pyramids were truncated or flat-topped, which is identical to Punic pyramids in Sardinia and the Canaries, and no one doubts that the Carthaginians and Phoenicians were heavily influenced by Egypt, but this must be more coincidences. Of all the things that can be exchanged among cultures, ideas can travel the fastest and the farthest, and you find in ancient texts how non-Egyptian visitors to that land of wonders were literally awe-struck by the impressive pyramids. Such a sight would enthrall foreigners, and the reports of them spread like good news. It is no wonder that so many others chose to build their own pyramids, huge symbols of national power and pride.
I agree, the Mayans were quite advanced in many ways and certainly could have been capable of inventing Tyrian purple on their own, yet when independent invention takes place it is extremely common for there to be important differences in the process, if not the end product. The Phoenicians were not the only people who manufactured the famous Tyrian purple, but in every case where a different people is found in the business, such as the Greeks of Asia Minor, historians concede that they learned the complex and messy art from the Phoenicians. Yet when we find Mayans following the identical process to obtain the identical dye, it cannot have been from contact with the inventors of the dye, who were coincidentally the world’s finest seafarers in their day as well as explorers, this must be independent invention. There is no record in Mayan histories of their invention of this strikingly beautiful dye, but then most of their texts were destroyed by over-zealous priests who came with the Spanish conquistadors and saw the ancient books as the work of the devil, so there could have been a record at one time. However it is not only the Mayans we find in the Americas producing and using Tyrian purple dye, the process is found even in western Ecuador! Did they too, invent the dye independently, or are we now going to attribute this incidence to the Mayans? Even more coincidentally, the Mayan production of the dye does not predate (or closely match) the date of invention of it in Tyre in Phoenicia, rather the reverse is true. If it were not automatically to be dismissed as impossible because there could be no contact, even most historians would conclude that the Mayans must have learned the process from the Phoenicians, or from one of the peoples who learned it from them, like the Greeks.
Anyway I have no problem with your disagreeing with my theory on several grounds or at least with several “legs” of it; far from it, I had hoped to engage you and (once I learned that you were trained as an anthropologist) hopefully learn the areas of the theory which are most likely to be attacked by academics. I hope you don’t mind my picking your brain in the process! I find constructive criticism extremely helpful, and this exchange has encouraged me to get back to work on the book. I certainly do not take any reasoned criticism as some sort of a personal attack.
I don’t mean to come across as so anti-establishment. I have met some of the nicest folks who happened to be professors and doctors in their fields, who (to my delight) did have open minds. This was in private however, I would not wish to endanger their position by aligning with my pet theory publicly. Besides, to a large degree, the academics have it right. In fact, I am convinced that historians have most of history correct! At least 95 to 98 percent of it, my main problem is with the total isolation theory, that the Americas were utterly cut off from the rest of the world for thousands of years prior to Leif Eriksson and Columbus. The sheer number of accidental crossings of the Atlantic should point up the probability that it must have occurred in ancient times as well, for according to one of the experts there were no less than 14 to 18 –thousand- ships plying the Mediterranean sea alone at any given time prior to the fall of the Roman empire, with still more sailing outside that sea. The oceanic currents and prevailing winds will cause ships to cross the ocean un-intentionally. These powerful winds (especially when it storms) are what caused Bjarni Herjolfsson to find himself off the coast of North America in 986 AD, he did not put to shore so is largely forgotten by history, but he did tell of the new lands he saw to young Leif Eriksson. To the south, in 1484, French captain Jean Cousin found his ship blown across the Atlantic to what is today Brazil, but like Herjolfsson, he refused to go ashore so is only a footnote to history; in 1500 Portuguese captain Pedro Cabral, like Cousin, was sailing down the coast of Africa when powerful storms blew him across the Atlantic to Brazil, and he did go ashore. Then remember that this is the exact same way that Aristotle and Diodorus Siculus said that the Carthaginians discovered America, by accident, after being blown across the Atlantic by storms, while they were sailing down the west coast of Africa; in the very same place and very same way that it happened to Cabral and Cousin many centuries later, and even happens occasionally today.
Thank you Cannonman (and Jeff, Jose, Dekalb and those who have been following the discussion though not adding to the banter) for the opportunity to propose the theory here, I didn’t intend on pouring quite so much out but wanted to explain why I feel that the gold plates found by Smith are quite possibly something quite different from a religious text, and that much more could be found in that region. We don’t even know, for instance, if the gold plates found by Smith are what the “straggling” Indian was referring to as “treasure” – as has been pointed out, it seems difficult to believe that such a tradition could have been passed down by word of mouth alone over so many centuries. There is a solid report of a Spanish treasure being buried on a hill along the Susquehanna river to the west of this location (near Athens PA) which has not been found, though a cross and Spanish sword were recovered there – the treasure reported by the passing Indian may well have been something far more recent than ancient gold plates.
Anyway I have very much enjoyed the discussion with so many valid issues raised; as you can tell this is a pet project with me and a favorite subject to discuss. I hope you all have a great day, you have given me several now!
Your friend,
Roy – Oroblanco
“From the moment I picked your book up until I laid it down I was convulsed with laughter. Someday I intend reading it.” –Groucho Marx
