Lately I have been interested in the gold happenings of the nineteenth century.
If men went crazy over finding gold in the Southern Hemisphere, what happened in the Northern Hemisphere?
Would there not have been a ‘gold rush’ there too?
Through pondering I came up with another possible reason for the Fall of Rome...
The theory is that the gold ran out, i.e. the Northern Hemisphere’s alluvial gold.
I cannot prove this but here are some questions to answer.
Why were the Romans so relentless?
Why were the Roman roads so straight and so well made?
Why were walls needed – across Scotland twice, also the Great Wall of China?
Could some of the desert be man-made?
Why were wild animals brought to Rome?
What was the Golden Fleece legend really all about?
Why is there a lot of evidence of gold but no how it was won, or have I missed something?
A stash of golden artifacts was found by Heinrich Schliemann at Troy, also many Egyptian artifacts are covered in gold leaf.
Many temples in India and Asia seem to be covered in gold. When had all that happened?
Also I saw a gold roof in Innsbruck. Then there are vague references to Irish gold, and Welsh gold.
There is even a place in Wales that means ‘gold’.
Has anyone thought about the timeline? The finding of the gold was probably done by slaves, with urgings from their masters,
regardless of human cost. Slaves were a third of the population then. Workmanship would have taken time to evolve to the
high standard found at Troy. Also wood would be required to smelt the gold, and going on today’s happenings, people are not
that interested in replacing trees taken… (Could that be the beginnings of the desert?)
Some of this appears to have happened before written records, i.e. in the Mesopotamia region. Walls kept out intruders or
anyone wanting to get the gold. And the caves, could they have been a means of getting at a gold seam or lead or two?
Rome was dependent on wealth gained from capturing new tribes and exploiting their lands. This seemed to stop when
Europe and Britain were fully explored, i.e. about the time when Rome ‘fell’. The Romans were not able to push south in Africa
because of the wild animals. Maybe bringing the animals to Rome was evidence they were having troubles. Wild animals had
become extinct in Europe [the lion gates were possibly a memorial to them], so were now a novelty. The first ones may have
been added to the amusements at the Colosseum and were so well received that more were brought. This also showed how
much opposition the Romans had to getting any gold from Africa. This also prevented them from discovering the Southern
Hemisphere, as you know...
The masters would have given up easily when only fragments and dust was left to find. There does not seem to be any
evidence of quartz stamping engines or machinery or underground workings except the odd cave, that I can see unless
their methods of crushing quartz, was different. The Incas in Peru have underground places. Were these a search for a
gold seam perhaps? Also I remember going into cave homes in Spain, another possibility...
China and India appear to have mined their own gold. Was that why the Chinese knew to keep looking long after everyone
had moved away from the diggings, both in Australia and New Zealand?
Then there is this relentlessness of the Romans who could outlast the locals by decades. They were under orders probably.
‘Do not come back without any gold’. The straight and well-made roads would mean no gold would be lost and as it was heavy it is quicker on straight roads as well.
It is possible some of the locals were amenable at first, and these were shown smelting skills, etc.
The Golden Fleece was probably smuggled by slaves. It would be heavy because gold is nineteen times heavier than water.
It would have come from a cradle rocked to trap gold dust and fragments from sluiced sludge. This also suggests that such a method is ages old.
So this is my theory concerning the gold. The Romans simply ran out of lands to explore. The geography was such that
Scandinavia was possibly not known of.
I have not referenced this as all the items are well-known. All I have done is read between the lines...
The INDEX works like a book index.
[It includes some surnames, as well as subjects.]
The number given refers to the section, then the chart within that section, e.g. 1.7 Archibald is Section 1 (or I) (Start Here), then Chart #7 (A Completed Ancestry Chart); also 6.7, One Family, or Two Families, is Section 6 (or VI) (Problem Solving), then Chart #7 (One Family, or Two).
I = 1
II = 2
III = 3
IV = 4
V = 5
VI = 6
VII = 7
VIII = 8
When tracing your family tree the lineal sequence BMBMB, i.e.
Birth, Marriage & Birth, Marriage & Birth, is important.
It is required for proof of lineage or ancestry, e.g. to a Founding
Father, or a particular ancestor re staying in Britain.
The sequence can start with yourself, i.e. your birth certificate or
details, then your parents’ marriage certificate or details.
Then, if your mother’s line, you will need her birth and her parents’
marriage certificates or details.
Then if her father (your Grandfather)’s line, then his birth and his
parents’ marriage certificates or details, and so on back in time.
In Church records it will be baptisms, etc.
Also BMBMB must especially be adhered to in the more difficult
searching beyond oral history. It
can be lost sight of as you delve in other records to help find the next birth
Remember that your ancestor’s name may not be unique, nor spelt
how you may expect, e.g. Isabella and Elizabeth could be the same person in
Scotland. The first one you find
my not be of your family. At least
two other records must confirm your findings, e.g. oral history +census +will,
or oral history +baptism +will, or baptism +census
Would your work stand up in a court of law?
Make sure you do not climb someone else’s family
The BMBMB lineal sequence is reversed when looking for descendants. However there is more choice, i.e.
where there are several children to choose from.
All family history is based on the Birth Marriage Birth Marriage
Birth lineal sequence. Happy hunting!
FAMILIES AND SURNAMES [IN THE CENSUS]
Until recently when a mother remarried her other children took the new husband’s surname. Two
examples in my family were Harry Mitchell born 1905, became Harry Napier from 1913. And Jim
McQueen also born 1905 became Jim Campbell from 1914.
In another case, Charlie Hale became Charlie Hughes, aged four in the 1881 census when his mother
remarried. His father was Richard Hale.
And this same Richard Hale aged 19 in 1861 census was found living with his Uncle John Robert Hale. In 1851 he,
Richard was with the same Uncle as eight year old Richard Westley.
Families in the larger cities at the time were prone to losing family members due to their not
understanding about hygiene, and overcrowding. Louis Pasteur’s discovering micro-organisms in
1870s eventually changed all that.
This also means that most of the time your family in the census is not going to look anything like it
does on the Family Group sheet.
HINT: A run or sequence of census [or directories or voting rolls/registers] is always worthwhile. e.g. 1851, 1861, 1871 etc
For other combinations of a family I refer you to the chart About Family under FAMILY 2.6
I first became interested in Genealogy/Family History in 1956 at the age of 14, when my Gran talked about her ancestors, and when she visited her cou-sins. I pursued my ancestry on my own until 1976 when I joined New Zealand Society of Genea-logists (NZSG). I am a Family History Centre helper, and use the PAF computer package, and tutor genealogy classes - using computers. I started researching for others in 1983. I produced a game, Ancestor Hunt, (with clues like a treasure hunt), 1981. Also, "The Wood Family Ancestry & Genealogy, 1981, and updated in 2012; also "Lee of Balmerino", 335-page family history in 1988. I received NZSG's Merit Award "for exceptional service" in 1987. I live in Wellington, New Zealand.