01-24-2007, 08:46 PM
Quote:I like Van cats very much, their eyes especially, but no Roman artwork has ever show a cat that can be identified as especially a Van cat. Van cats, angoras and eastern mediterranean cats show much that makes them similar. Until we find Roman imagery of swimming cats, or cats with different coloured eyes, I say the claim is silly.
I love this one:
Quote:It appears that one Roman legion adopted the image as their battle standard as it is found on a Roman shield, dated AD 75-387, which is now found in the Louver Museum, Paris.1 - Never seen a Roman battle standard with a cat on it.
2 - dated AD 75-387. What an idiot came up with that dating??hock:
3 - Louver museum. Can't the even get the name of a world famous museum right? :wink:
I'd say, don't waste any energy on this. Only stupid people take this seriously - you won't convince them because they already believe this. Best leave the stupid to their ways and move on with more worthwhile things in life.
I know, it is utterly silly, especially that date! But obvious sillyness doesn't stop a claim being accepted on wikipedia.
Trouble is that wikipedia seems to be becoming the first stop for people to go to to find out stuff. There was a photo gallery on msn a couple of days ago with a lot of cat pictures, beginning with a Van Cat, (a real one from Turkey, not the "Turkish Van" which are different) and part of the accompanying caption was taken from the Wikipedia entry and so the cat was msrepresented as a "Turkish Van". OK, it's just an entry about a cat, and not of huge importance, but still ...such blatant lies shouldn't go unchecked.
BTW, There will be a lot of cat photos, complete with eyes, at vancat.org in a week or so.
