Among other misrepresentations in the various articles claiming that ancient Romans invaded the New World, there's the one about the Roman shield boss that was reportedly found in Nova Scotia. The original Boston Standard article shows a photo of a Roman shield boss with a caption that reads "The Roman shield 'boss' which the report claims was found in Nova Scotia."
Image and caption from the Boston Standard article. It has already been pointed many times online that the shield boss shown is not from Nova Scotia. It's from Kirkham, Lancashire, England. It was discovered in 1792 and now resides in the British Museum (clicking on the link will take you to a page with the same image used in the story).
The mistake/misrepresentation (whether it was intentional or not I do not know) has been repeated in subsequent stories trumpeting the Nova Scotia "discoveries." Do any of these reporters who put their names on stories bother to check anything? My computer has this feature where I right-click on an image and it lets me search for the image on Google. I bet yours does, too. Try it!
The mistake/misrepresentation (whether it was intentional or not I do not know) has been repeated in subsequent stories trumpeting the Nova Scotia "discoveries." Do any of these reporters who put their names on stories bother to check anything? My computer has this feature where I right-click on an image and it lets me search for the image on Google. I bet yours does, too. Try it!
Images and caption from the Daily Mail story. The story in the Daily Mail (Ellie Zolfagharifard, 12/17/2015) uses the same British Museum image of the Kirkham shield boss (calling it "the Roman shield 'boss' found in Nova Scotia"), but this time the image carries a notice of copyright by Investigatinghistory.org. That's Pulitzer's outfit. So he's claiming ownership of an image of a shield boss presumably owned by the British Museum? That's ironic, since he threatened to sue me for re-using a portion of his sword photo, claiming that my use of the photo would deprive him of money:
". . . you are dealing with a rare museum artifact which a significant portion of the revenues of such artifact will come from the very photos you are using as they are added to text books, table books, research materials and other intellectual property."
Huh.
Whether there's a real "shield boss" or not I have no idea. If the "shield boss" is as convincing as the "Roman sword," it doesn't surprise me that Pulitzer substituted an image of a real one. Maybe the "shield boss" is really an old hubcap. Or a WWI helmet. Or a dog food bowl. Who really knows anymore.
Journalists could be helpful here. So far, they have really not been.
". . . you are dealing with a rare museum artifact which a significant portion of the revenues of such artifact will come from the very photos you are using as they are added to text books, table books, research materials and other intellectual property."
Huh.
Whether there's a real "shield boss" or not I have no idea. If the "shield boss" is as convincing as the "Roman sword," it doesn't surprise me that Pulitzer substituted an image of a real one. Maybe the "shield boss" is really an old hubcap. Or a WWI helmet. Or a dog food bowl. Who really knows anymore.
Journalists could be helpful here. So far, they have really not been.
RSS Feed
