Archaeologist Élvio Sousa of the Center for the Study of Modern and Contemporary Archeology (CEAM) on the Portuguese island of Madeira has released a statement calling the alleged discovery there of three Templar skeletons and a 'crucifixion nail' dating from the Roman era "a fantasy." CEAM conducted archaeological work on the site from 2004 to 2006.
Sousa calls the new reports "sensationalist" and speculates that the nail is a common building nail from the modern era. He concludes that the supposed discovery is "pure imagination, without accuracy and
scientific credibility."
For more on the dubious circumstances behind the find and the imaginary "country" in which it took place - actually an old fort whose owner has declared a nation - please read my article from March 3.
The statement from CEAM is as follows.
Subject: Roman Relics (Board) found in Madeira (Forte São José).
The news published yesterday in England, on the assumed Roman relics
found in archaeological excavations carried out at Fort São José,
erected in the eighteenth century, at Funchal Port, Madeira, requires
the following statement from the Scientific Council of CEAM:
1. Considering the scientific archaeological work done by CEAM at Fort
São José (2004-2006), is manifestly false the news of the discovery of
Roman objects, especially in an area (dig) that corresponds with the
excavated area.
2. This dig identified, to the bedrock, objects dating from the
eighteenth, nineteenth and twentieth centuries, although there are
some traces that can date back to the seventeenth century.
3. The news of the findings of Romans relics is a "fantasy," even more
ridiculous by the sensationalist news of a wooden box (incredibly
preserved, near the sea, over two thousand years), with three
skeletons and three swords.
4. The nail that illustrates the news, if discovered inside the fort,
it is just an object used in residential constructions during the
early Moderns times (seventeenth and eighteenth centuries). Many nails
like this were found in the excavations (2004-2006). Equally, the
references to skeletons are also a creation, to give emphasis to the
mythical theory.
5. This view is supported by the British archaeologist and expert at
Roman archeology Brian Philp (Kent Archaeological Rescue Unit) who has
been following the present study of archaeological materials in
partnership with the Scientific Council of CEAM.
6. In conclusion: this is a pure imagination, without accuracy and
scientific crediblity. We are not familiarized with Mr Christopher
Macklin and Bryn Walters and we do not recognize in them, any
authority in the findings within this Military construction.
Élvio Sousa
Élvio Duarte Martins Sousa is an archaeologist and researcher at the
Faculty of Humanities, University of Lisbon, Portugal.
Specialist in early modern archeology, with a Masters in Madeira Archeology.
Comments
THANKS FOR ALL THIS INFORMATION
Sounds like professional jealousy to me. He didn't find it so it can't be true.
The Romans, (among others!), crucified hundreds-of-thousands...
If one finds DNA, ('human'?/'Deity's?), and it is the correct style/age, etc., how does one even attempt to assign this nail to a particular crucifixion?
There are a lot of reasons why organized monotheisim is fading into obscurity, and allegation that a given artifact, (a nail, in this case), is connected to a particular myth/religious belief-event, (a human got crucified, then made 'post-mortem' apperances), requires more then normal levels of evidence, ALREADY a serious obstacle to these episodes of faithlessness.
The discredited Shroud of Turin remains an item of archeological significance even though it isn't remotely old enough to be what it claims, (a biblical-age burial shroud).
Do religious leaders emeshed in lies, ('condoms don't protect agains STD's', Liar: Benedict-16), fail to realise the overwhelming credibility issues they have to face if they're to
reclaim blinded hordes?
The Shroud of Turin actually has not yet been discredited. The origional carbon dating has come under intense scrutiny over the last few years due to the microscopic contamination of the Shroud. Now do I believe that it was the Shroud of Christ, probibly not. But saying that I think it should be reevaluated again using appropriate methodology so there are no questions. This same method should be used on any artifact in question.
If you believe in the bible, the world is only 8,000-12,000 years old, thus carbon dating has to be flawed.
The archaeologist is correct. A crucifixion nail was not 4" long. They were 8 to 12" long, thicker and often specially molded and carried by the quatornio (the crucifixionj team). The sale of "relics" from the Holyland was big business in Palestine and every common building nail became a crucifixion nail, thousands that were used to crucify Jesus.
Rick,
There is nothing in the Bible which states that the world is only 8,000-12,000 years old. This is pure assumption. The Earth is as old as the oldest creation. It was created "in the beginning." There is no scripture which says that it was created when this iteration of man was created. Pure assumption on your part.
Also, there are problems with carbon dating.
Got something to say?
Examiner.com is looking for writers, photographers, and videographers to join the fastest growing group of local insiders. If you are interested in growing your online rep apply to be an Examiner today!