Roman shield found in Armenia???

[Steve]

Hi, maybe someone here can help me with this.

I am trying to determine the truth or otherwise of a some information that is circulating amongst a number of websites dealing with a breed of cat called the "Turkish Van". In order to increase the prestige, and thus the saleable value of the "Turkish Van", the breeders of these cats are trying to link their breed with a long-established type of domestic cat found in the Lake Van area of Turkey (which historically was a part of Armenia). To do this, they are claiming that an image of a cat that resembles a "Turkish Van" appears on a Roman-period artifact found in the Van region. I believe the whole thing to be a blatant fabrication - but I would like the opinion of others.

For example the entry on Wikipedia (on a page written by a Turkish Van breeder) states "Turkish Vans have been living in their native Anatolia for thousands of years .... archeologists have found '...relics of an ancient battle during the occupation of Armenia by the Romans included armor and banners displaying an image of a large white cat with rings on its tail'." They get that quote from here: http://www.swimmingcats.com/vanarticle2.htm

Also, on this website: http://www.hayes-ent.com/pairodocs/standard.htm
we are told "The color pattern and semi-long hair was already established when the Romans conquered the area. 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."

The whole thing is vague, with no proper references (not that that seems to worry Wikipedia or the cat breeders). The "banner" cannot be a vexillum since only one has ever been discovered. "Louver" I presume is Louvre. Anyone know if such a shield could exist?

Of course, not a single Roman-period battle site has been excavated in Armenia. In fact – not a single battleground site has been identified. Even the location of the best-recorded one (fought in 69BC between the Roman general Lucullus and King Tigran of Armenia) remains unidentified.

Thoughts?

[Tarbicus]

Go to the Discussion tab at the top of the Wiki page and ask for references for the shield. There's already a big debate going on in the Discussion part of the subject, and it's been marked as controversial for what seems to be many reasons.
[url:2wus3zj3]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Turkish_Van[/url]

[quote] …archaeologists have found "...relics of an ancient battle during the occupation of Armenia by the Romans included armor and banners displaying an image of a large white cat with rings on its tail".

This is such a ludicrous statement that it is hard to know where to begin. What battle? When and where did it take place? When was it excavated? Sorry to break the bad news to you – but not a single battle site has been excavated. In fact, it is worse – not a single battleground site has even been identified. Even the location of best-recorded one (fought in 69BC between the Roman general Lucullus and king Tigran of Armenia) remains completely unidentified. And anyway, the Romans came nowhere near Lake Van. Do you know what these “bannersâ€

[Steve]

Actually, 90% of the talk page is myself, making legitimate points, and a "Turkish Van" cat breeder and her friend dismissing everything because they can cite websites produced by other Turkish Van breeders that are making the historical claims that I mentioned in my first post.

There are no references for the shield. But that is not important for Wikipedia. Truth seems to be actually of minor importance on wikipedia, what matters is verifiability - if 100 sources say, in identical words, that flying saucers exist, and one source says they don't, then as far a wikipedia is concerned the case for the existence of flying saucers is made. :wink:

[Robert Vermaat]

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:

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.

[Primvs Pavlvs]

After some research I came up with this photo of the cat on the Roman standard, and shield.

science.kennesaw.edu/~jdirnber/Bio2108/Lab/CatPhenotypes/sylvester.jpg

[caiusbeerquitius]

the case for the existence of flying saucers is made

Hah! I knew it!

[Steve]

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:

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.

[Steve]

the case for the existence of flying saucers is made

Hah! I knew it!

Wikipedia knew it first! :lol:

[Gaivs Antonivs Satvrninvs]

Paulus,
That's one Roman cat to reckon with.Great!

[Cornelius Quintus]

Avete omnes,

I'll try to follow Wikipedia's logic.

Personally, I just know about only one Roman helmet featuring mice decoration (The Ex-Axel Guttmann Collection AG 800).

All other helmets show a noticeable lack of mice.

Clear deduction: Roman military units must have been equipped with legions of cats... :roll:

BTW 'Turkish Van' - I googled. Did someone really expect that on a Roman scutum?

http://www.igougo.com/photos/journal_ph ... refRes.jpg

[TITVS SABATINVS AQVILIVS]

Paulus and Cornelius, thanks two good :lol: :lol: ...

Valete,

[Gaivs Antonivs Satvrninvs]

Heiko,
Turkish van :lol: :lol:
And frozen treats. Mouse-sicles !

[Gaius Julius Caesar]

So what is so special about Turkish Van's? Do the they drive on the left or right? P P

[Marcus Julius]

There are no references for the shield. But that is not important for Wikipedia. Truth seems to be actually of minor importance on wikipedia, what matters is verifiability - if 100 sources say, in identical words, that flying saucers exist, and one source says they don't, then as far a wikipedia is concerned the case for the existence of flying saucers is made. :wink:

The date range would have cast the die of doubt in my mind. One of the biggest problems with Wikipedia is the concept of allowing it to be filled by any self proclaimed expert. The second biggest problem is a combined lack of a disclaimer about this and the world's apparent acceptability of what is written in there.

There can be some decent references in there, but anything without a GOOD bibliography at the end is automatically suspect in my eyes.