Norumbega: Washington Monument and the Roman Empire

ripvanwillie

Active member
Messages
18
Likes
102
#21
Agreed. Sure does look much smaller than it should be. At least it appears that way.

Here is another interesting thing. On the left is the original "unbuilt" design of the Washington monument. On the right is the monument which stood directly in front of the Reichstag: A Sculpture of Light Above Government. They were real creative back then.
I suppose we shouldn't expect more than a cheesy copy from someone who has never designed or built anything before.
I dunno about any of this. Those photos look a little odd. I'd guess that they were enforcing the foundation, but tough to be sure. I doesn't look like the kind of scaffolding for heavy building. I could see it as being there to add or remove something from the top, it looks like a peak for a rope or pulley at the top. I see no steps, ladders or walkboards for actually doing any work on it.

24 foot lengths may be about as long as you can order now, but over a hundred years ago they used longer lumber. The type of framing required it. In fact, one of the reasons for coming up with platform framing, was that 30,40,50 foot lumber was getting harder and harder to come by in the early 1900s.
You're skeptical of my work, that's good. I like your take on the scaffolding. I may be old, but I wasn't around back then to see what lumber they used, and I've never researched that history.
I stand by my measurements. They are accurate. Maybe someone else should measure it to get a second look. Photoshop has a really good measuring tool. The math is easy.
When one compares the scaffold image with an image of the finished first section, they appear about the same size. But when one looks at the objects in the field of view, it's easy to see that one is a photo of a significantly larger structure taken from further away.
The reference in the scaffolding picture is a horse drawn wagon, quite small. About the size of a car. In the second, we see houses adjacent to the monument, on both sides.


It's obvious to the naked eye. Compare the size of the wagon to the size of the house, then to the obelisk. How large would the wagon appear if it were parked next to the obelisk in the other image? And visa versa.
Since we know the size of the finished base to be 55 feet, it's easy to approximate the size of the houses.
The second image was clearly taken from a much further distance, hence the illusion of similar size.

On a side note, what the heck are those ramshackle houses on the left? They appear to be falling down. Only held up with 2X4's. Debris scattered all around them. Looks almost like a homeless camp.
 

whitewave

Well-known member
Messages
838
Likes
2,419
#22
  • Don't ask me about Alabama, I am clueless to that.
I think it has to do with each state contributing stones for the monument. I guess Alabama was first. You'd think Maryland might want to lead by example but seems it was Alabama.

See if you can figure out the mess in the image below. Are those Hussars supposed to be the Police?​

The number (or letter) preceding "844" is the only unclear (looks like deliberately erased) portion of this print but, if you look at the building in the upper right hand corner, you'll see that it reads IHS A.D.1840. And that looks to be more than a riot. There's a large army in the back upper center. Looks like with shields with "X's" on them and the natives have a freakin' cannon they're firing into the army. Is that a French army that has the plumes in their hats in the upper right corner? Can't imagine what the guy in the front center is picking up either. Looks like empty boxes but would you really stop to pick up empty boxes in the middle of a gun fight? There's also a strangely drawn woman? wearing a white dress in the center right that looks like she has an ax head for an actual head. I enlarged it and it does not look at all like a bonnet or head-covering.

I'm not a builder so I don't know why there would be holes/missing bricks at the bottom of the obelisk but by time of completion, they were filled in.

I think they were covering up the old obelisk. I feel this is a photo of the widening of the "stump," which was probably important to conceal what was inside; a 6 foot by 60 foot object from a prior civilization. Hence, the lack of urgency to finish the structure. If one were planning on building a 555 foot tall structure, logic tells us they would build a suitable foundation first. They wouldn't start with a skinny obelisk then build out. They'd start at the bottom with the needed dimensions at the base to support the entire height of the finished structure. First cover it up, then figure out what to turn it into later.
I think you hit the nail on the head.
 
Last edited:
OP
OP
KorbenDallas

KorbenDallas

Negotiator
Messages
2,987
Likes
9,704
#23
Here is another interesting depiction of George Washington. It was done in 1795.

George Washington is a marble bust portrait of George Washington, done in the style of a Roman emperor, by the Italian sculptor Giuseppe Ceracchi. It was created as part of a campaign by Ceracchi to build a larger monument to Washington. The bust was thought by many to be one of the most lifelike. It was later used as a model of Washington for works by other sculptors and engravers.
  • Ceracchi portrayed Washington in the style of a Roman emperor, with short wavy hair, wearing a toga, which is pinned by a rosette brooch.
  • The original work is inscribed on the back in Latin, "CERACCHI FACIEBAT PHILADELPHIAE, 1795" ("Ceracchi made this in Philadelphia, 1795").

Official story: In the spring of 1791, Ceracchi came to Philadelphia, then the seat of the United States government, in an attempt to get a commission from Congress for a "Monument designed to perpetuate the Memory of American Liberty" featuring an equestrian statue of Washington. While waiting for congressional action, he made bust portrait models of several of the founding fathers, such as John Jay, Thomas Jefferson, and Alexander Hamilton. Initially, Washington did not want to pose for the sculptor, but eventually did so in late 1791, early 1792. Ceracchi left for Europe in 1792, and then returned to Philadelphia in 1794. He then had Washington sit for him again to finish the bust from life in 1795.

And of course, it's the so-called "marble"...
 

dreamtime

Well-known member
Messages
341
Likes
1,751
#24
Something similar can be seen with the statue of King Ludwig I in Walhalla memorial - Wikipedia

Supposedely addd in 1890, it doesn't look similar to the other images of Ludgwig that survived. I wonder if he really built the Walhalla and the Ruhmeshalle (Munich) - Wikipedia

Maybe until 1700 or so the leaders were still running around in such robes, and the post-reset leaders simply renamed the artefacts, buildings, statues, etc.
 
OP
OP
KorbenDallas

KorbenDallas

Negotiator
Messages
2,987
Likes
9,704
#25
Maybe until 1700 or so the leaders were still running around in such robes, and the post-reset leaders simply renamed the artefacts, buildings, statues, etc
I share this opinion. Additionally it had to be pretty warm to run aroud in a bedsheet and sandals.

I do not see how else one can reasonably explain all these statues, as well as all of the sudden discoveries of the “ancient” statues in the 18-19th centuries.
 

sonoman

Well-known member
Messages
186
Likes
395
#26
some very interesting info about George Washington that may or may not fit in:

I grabbed The Life of George Washington by David RAMSEY - 1807 primarily for clues that George WASHINGTON was indeed killed early on in the Revolution. There are a few and if so, that WASHINGTON was replaced with Adam WEISHAUPT for the remainder of that individual's lifetime I cannot say so as fact. I had dismissed several allusions and lost them for supporting evidence but they caused the portrait of WASHINGTON in the Mason Museum to jump out of the case at me:
from George Washington's Vision & Pre-1800s Freemasonry

probably worth a read, just another sharp angle (perspective) to add into this mix. great thread KD!
 

whitewave

Well-known member
Messages
838
Likes
2,419
#28
Found this tidbit today about Norumbega written (allegedly) in 1500's.

*In the American City Norumbega, live a People that speak the same Language, and observe the same Customs with the Mexicans.

In this by-Corner are found also some Alavards, or Longobards, or Lombards, as they say. Now the Spaniards call that New Mexico because last discover'd, though indeed the old, cramm'd with People eight hundred years since: for the Mexicans of New Mexico do not lie so far Northerly, as to the North-west: for this Mexico lies in sight of California, which is believ'd to border on Tartary, or at least separated from it by a narrow Channel. But Norumbega (if ever such a Place was) must, according to the West-Indian Records, have been situate where a part of New France lies, now planted by the English: between which and New Mexico lies an almost unmeasurable vast Tract of Land. Mean while here is not the least sign of this City Norumbega to be found: neither do the In∣habitants dwell in Cities, but live in Tents, or moveable Villages, which change their Names as oft as their Governors. Moreover, the Norwegians could not get to this Norumbega by Land through Ysland and Groenland to Estotiland, because of the vast Bays, and great Midland-Sea, discover'd by the English in their North-western Discoveries; so that leaving Estotiland, it was altogether impossible for them to come to Norumbega.
link
 

whitewave

Well-known member
Messages
838
Likes
2,419
#30
NOrumbegua,* lying between Nova Scotia Northward, and New England Southward, is so utterly not taken notice of by many as a distinct Province, that it might seem to be swallow'd up and lost in the two Countreys between which it lies, or at least to be thought a part of Virginia or New England (for Virginia largely taken is said to contain New England, Novum Belgium, and Virginia, especially so call'd) and that so much the rather, because the Bessabees, accounted by Sanson d' Abbeville an ancient People of New England, are written to have liv'd near the River Penobscot, which is reckon'd to be the same with Pemtegovet, or (as some will have it) Norumbegua, from which, or from a certain great City of that Name, the Country for fancy's sake must needs be denominated; but since most commonly we find it nam'd and treated of apart, it will not be improper to follow that method, carrying the Bounds of New England no farther Northward than the River Quinnebequi or Sagadahoc, and so determining the main part of this Countrey to that space between the aforesaid River and Pemtegovet,excepting a small Southerly portion upon the Banks of the River Chovacovet; so that it appears chiefly situate under the forty third Degree of Northern Latitude.

*As for the Towns or Cities of this Province, there is but a very uncertain account to be given, forasmuch as the pretended great City Norumbegua, from whence the Province should take its Appellation, is not acknowledg'd by any of the most authentick modern Writers, nor in any late Voyage or Discovery any mention made either of that or any other considerable Town or City. Dr. Heylin supposeth it to be no other than Agguncia, a poor little Village, that seems compos'd of a company of Hutts or Sheaves, cover'd with the Skins of Beasts, or the Barks of Trees. But the most favourable conjecture is, that it might haply be the ruines of an ancient town, which the natives call'd Arambeck, and had probably deserted it long before the arrival of the Europeans in those parts; however, it is not very probable that the Name of the Countrey should be deriv'd from this City, if ever there were any such, or from the River, which appears to have been term'd No∣rumbegua on purpose to make way for this derivation, whereas Pomtegovet is the ancient appelation that properly belongs to it; nor hath any modern one been apply'd to it but that of Rio Grande, by Buno in his Comment upon Philip Cluverius, upon what ground is hard to tell, since it is observ'd by Heylin and others, to be neither large, nor otherwise much to be commended, being Navigable not above twenty or thirty Miles, in respect of its many great Cataracts and Falls of Water, an In∣convenience with which many other Rivers of America are prejudic'd, and rendred impassable.

Before and about the Mouth of this River, which is judg'd to be about eight or nine Miles broad, lie many small Islands, or rather Hills, inviron'd with Water, the chiefest of which is by the French call'd La Haute Isle, from the high and Mountainous appearance of it to those that see it from afar off at Sea.

The aforemention'd Buno, though he names, as belonging to Norumbega, these several places, viz. Porto del Refugio, Porto Reale, Paradiso, Flora, and Angolema, from some obscure French testimonies, without particularising any Author, yet he afterwards confesses, that the Names given by the French, and those apply'd by the Spa∣niards, are so various and disagreeing, and breed such a confusion, that no Charts or Descriptions had concluded upon either.

As for those who will have Norumbega deriv'd from Norwegia in respect of a Colony brought thither from Norwey, if the Etymologie be not a little too much forc'd, the Invention may pass well enough till a better be found out.

*In this Countrey the temperature of the Air is not bad, nor the Soil unfruitful, if it were well cultivated, chiefly towards the Rivers, and where it is not either overgrown with Woods, or craggy with Hills and mountainous Rocks: neither are the Woods unprofitable, for they afford good Timber, and all kind of necessary and useful Wood, especially Beeches, Fir-trees, Wallnut-trees, and other Nuts: The Plains are very pleasant, and yield good Pasturage, onely the Maritime Coasts are so shallow and full of Sands, that the Sailing near them is accounted somewhat dangerous; and this may be imagin'd to be the reason that no Authors have yet met with any Ports or Havens belonging to this Countrey, which they have thought worthy their notice. link
 

Top