Shkrime që u kam dërguar sot internetistëve
Bufi - simbol i diturisë
Owl of Wisdom: Illuminati, Bohemian Club, Schlaraffia, James Gordon Bennett Jr.
Pallas Athene (or Minerva to the Romans), the goddess of wisdom, honored the owl as her sacred bird. The owl was recognized as an emblem of penetrating sight and intelligence. It was considered to be a favorable omen if an owl was spotted on the battle field or at times of crisis. The Athenian silver tetradrachm bore the owl (Athene
noctua); and owls were protected and thrived in great numbers at the Acropolis of Athens (a temple dedicated to Athena).
Shih për më tepër te:
Falsifikime te Antikitetit - the Froni i Bostinit dhe Luftetaret prej terrakote etruske
The Boston Throne....an antique masterpiece...an undeniable partner of the famous Ludovisi Throne." F. Studnickza, 1911.
"The Boston Throne....is an unjustifiable modern fake." L. Curtis, 1959.
In 1887, The Ludovisi Throne, a three sided marble relief dating from the 5th Century BC, was discovered in Rome. Seven years later, when the Ludovisi Throne was purchased for a large undisclosed sum, a similar work appeared on the antique market. Touted as a counterpart to the now famous Ludovisi Throne, The Boston Throne was sold to the Museum Of Fine Arts, Boston, for 165,000 gold lire.
Since then, a heated critical debate has raged over the authenticity of the Boston Throne, questioning the function, meaning and origin of both "thrones". This presentation aims to collate and explore the various theories raised concerning the two sculptures, encouraging the viewer to consider the authenticity of the Boston Throne themselves, whilst illustrating the problems encountered in trying to evaluate a work of unknown origin.
The Case of the Etruscan Terracotta Warriors in the Metropolitan Museum of Art.
In late 1915 Gisela Richter, renowned expert on Greek and Roman antiquities at New York’s Metropolitan Museum of Art, received a letter from John Marshall, the Museum’s veteran purchasing agent in Italy, describing
a newly discovered life-size Etruscan warrior figure in terra-cotta which had been discovered in an Italian field. The
“old warrior” (he had a white beard and was emaciated, somewhat like, as one observer commented later, a Giacommetti sculpture) was soon followed by a massive four-foot tall terra cotta warrior’s head, and there was even talk of a greater treasure waiting to be found..
It was, of course, all fakery, carried out on a grand, almost “mythic” scale, a scale meant to make experts put aside all their nagging doubts and see the “Etruscans” as what they were not (namely, ancient). The white-bearded warrior and the massive head had been created by Riccardo Riccardi and Alfredo Fioravanti, two young
men of skill and a certain vision. Riccardo’s father and brothers had also specialized in historic pottery, but Riccardo was the true genius of the family. With his friend Alfredo he first created the anorexic, white-bearded warrior. The figure was modeled as one piece and then broken up into 24 fragments for firing, as the kiln was not
large enough to accomodate the entire figure. The warrior is missing his right arm for the simple reason that the two forgers could not agree on how to position the arm, so they compromised by breaking it off and discarding it.
Falsifikime te Antikitetit - Cili Parthenon është origjinali?
Shikoni këtu dy kopje te njëra - tjetrës, Partenonin e Nashvillit në Amerikë dhe atë të Athinës. Cili është origjinali, dhe cila është kopja? Frontoni në Nahvill është i plotë, ai i Athinës në Londër është jo i plotë. Ku e gjetën amerikanët vizatimin origjinal nga i cili nxorrën kopjen e plotë te frontonit te tyre ne Nashvill?
Kisha e Shën Madalenës ne Paris dhe Parthenoni në Athinë
Projekti i Kishës së Shën Madalenës ne Paris, që ju shikoni këtu si attachment, është porositur me 1757 dhe ndërtimi ka filluar më 1763.
Ndërsa matjet dhe vizatimet e para te sakta të Parthenonit të Athinës nga James Stuart dhe Nicholas Revett, të porositura për këtë nga Society of Dilettanti, Shoqata e Diletanteve, i bëhen të njohura publikut më 1787.
Legaliteti i heqjes se skulpturave te Partenonit
Diskutimi i mëposhtëm mbi Legalitetin, ligjshmërinë e heqjes se skulpturave te Partenonit nga ana e Lord Elgin dhe dërgimi i tyre ne Londër është në fakt një çështje qe shtron pytje mbi autenticitetin e atyre skulpturave dhe te vete Partenonit. Shikoni me kujdes keto dy piktura te viteve 1762 dhe 1802. Frontoni ne te dyja pikturat nuk eshte i njejte, dhe ne vitin 1802 ai eshte me i plote ne krahun e majte se ne ate te djathte, gje qe eshte e pamundur. Pedimenti ne te dyja pamjet eshte shume i shkaterruar, ne fronton nuk kishte mbetur gje per te vjedhur. Megjithese piktura e dyte ka disa shkalle per t'u ngjitur, ekzistojne versione te tjera sipas te cilave skulpturat jane gjetur ne nje salle brenda struktures se Partenonit. E gjithe kjo zhurme per skulpturat e frontonit te Partenonit nuk behet kot, ato jane figura qe jane krijuar mbeshtetur mbi Perrallen e Bukur per te cilen na flet edhe Petro Nini Luarasi.
As the Acropolis was still an Ottoman military fort, Elgin required permission to enter the site, including the Parthenon and the surrounding buildings. He allegedly obtained from the Sultan a firman to allow his artists access to the site. The original document is now lost, but an alleged translated copy made at the time, written in Italian, still survives. Vassilis Demetriades, Professor of Turkish Studies in the Department of History and Archaeology of the University of Crete has argued that "any expert in Ottoman diplomatic language can easily ascertain that the original of the document which has survived was not a firman", whereas its actual authenticity has been seriously challenged.
The document was recorded in an appendix of an 1816 report of a parliamentary committee. The committee had convened to examine a request by Elgin asking the British government to purchase the marbles. The decision was to buy them and hand them over to the British Museum. The Parliament report claimed that the document in the appendix was an accurate translation in English of an Ottoman firman dated in July 1801. In Elgin's view it amounted to an Ottoman authorization to remove the marbles. The committee was told that the original document was given to Ottoman officials in Athens in 1801, but researchers have so far failed to locate any traces of it despite the fact that the Ottoman archives still hold an outstanding number of similar documents dating from the same period. Moreover the parliamentary record shows that the Italian copy of the firman was not presented to the parliamentary committee by Elgin himself but by one of his associates, the young clergyman Rev. Philip Hunt. Rev. Hunt, who at the time resided in Bedford, was the last witness to appear before the committee and claimed that he had in his possession an Italian translation of the Ottoman original. He went on to explain that he had not brought the document with him, because, upon leaving Bedford, he was not aware that he was to testify as a witness. The English document in the parliamentary report was filed by Hunt, but the committee was not presented with the Italian translation purportedly in his possession. William St. Clair, a contemporary biographer of Lord Elgin, claims to possess Hunt's Italian document and "vouches for the accuracy of the English translation". In addition, the committee report states on page 69 "(Signed with a signet.) Seged Abdullah Kaimacan". But the document presented to the committee was "an English translation of this purported translation into Italian of the original firman", and had neither signet nor signature on it, a fact corroborated by St. Clair. The lines pertaining to the removal of the Marbles allowed Elgin and his team to fix scaffolding, make drawings, make mouldings in chalk or gypsum, measure the remains of the ruined buildings and excavate the foundations which may have become covered in the [ghiaja]; and "…that when they wish to take away [qualche] pieces of stone with old inscriptions or figures thereon, that no opposition be made thereto". The interpretation of these lines has been questioned even by non-restitutionalists particularly the word qualche, which in modern language is translated as some. According to non-restitutionalists, further evidence that the removal of the sculptures by Elgin was approved by the Ottoman authorities is shown by a second firman which was required for the shipping of the marbles from the Piraeus.
Despite the controversial firman, many have questioned the legality of Elgin's actions. A detailed study by Professor David Rudenstine of the Benjamin N. Cardozo School of Law concluded that the premise that Elgin obtained legal title to the marbles, which he then transferred to the British government, "is certainly not established and may well be false". Rudenstine's argumentation is partly based on a translation discrepancy he noticed between the surviving Italian document and the English text submitted by Rev. Hunt to the Parliament. The text from the committee report reads "We therefore have written this Letter to you, and expedited it by Mr. Philip Hunt, an English Gentleman, Secretary of the aforesaid Ambassador" but according to the St. Clair Italian document the actual wording is "We therefore have written this letter to you and expedited it by N.N.". In Rudenstine's view this substitution of "Mr. Philip Hunt" with the initials "N.N." can hardly be a simple mistake. He further argues that the document was presented after the committee's insistence that some form of Ottoman written authorization for the removal of the marbles was provided, a fact known to Rev. Hunt by the time he testified. Thus, always according to Rudenstine "Hunt put himself in a position in which he could simultaneously vouch for the authenticity of the document and explain why he alone had a copy of it fifteen years after he surrendered the original to Ottoman officials in Athens". In two earlier occasions Elgin stated that the Ottomans gave him written permissions more than once, but that he had "retained none of them." Hunt testified on March 13 and one of the questions asked was "Did you ever see any of the written permissions which were granted to [Lord Elgin] for removing the Marbles from the Temple of Minerva?" to which Hunt answered "yes" adding that he possessed an Italian translation of the original firman. Nonetheless he did not explain why he had retained the translation for fifteen years, whereas Elgin, who had testified two weeks earlier, knew nothing about the existence of any such document.
In contrast, Professor John Merryman, Sweitzer Professor of Law and also Professor of Art at Stanford University, putting aside the discrepancy presented by Rudenstine, argues that since the Ottomans had controlled Athens since 1460, their claims to the artifacts were legal and recognizable. Further, that written permission exists in the form of the firman, which is the most formal kind of permission available from that government, and that Elgin had further permission to export the marbles, legalizes his (and therefore the British Museum's) claim to the Marbles. He does note though that the clause concerning the extent of Ottoman authorization to remove the marbles "is at best ambiguous" adding that the document "provides slender authority for the massive removals from the Parthenon... The reference to 'taking away any pieces of stone' seems incidental, intended to apply to objects found while excavating. That was certainly the interpretation privately placed on the firman by several of the Elgin party, including Lady Elgin. Publicly, however, a different attitude was taken, and the work of dismantling the sculptures on the Parthenon and packing them for shipment to England began in earnest. In the process, Elgin's party damaged the structure, leaving the Parthenon not only denuded of its sculptures but further ruined by the process of removal. It is certainly arguable that Elgin exceeded the authority granted in the firman in both respects".
Akademia franceze e Mbishkrimeve
Mbase ndokush prej jush nuk e ka degjuar, por ne kohen e Risheliese Akademia e pare Franceze quhesh:
Akademia e Mbishkrimeve dhe Letrave te Bukura.
Perse iu dha kaq rendesi Mbishkrimeve sa qe te krijohej nje Akademi e tere ne France e cila punen e saj do t'ia kushtonte Mbishkrimeve (te monumenteve, mbi varre, tubat e ujrave te zeza, tjegullat, shkallaret, gjithcka qe "kishte prodhuar antikiteti" !!!).
Francezet edhe sot fusin hundet kudo, vec per te mbajtur gjalle genjeshtren e Madheshtise se kombit te tyre !!!!
Sic shihet nga keto faqe, edhe Napoleoni ka qene antar i Institutit te Frances, dhe me kete cilesi, tashme si Perandor i Frances ai gjeti kohe per te ngritur ne Egjipt Insitutin e Egjiptit. Eshte Egjipti vendi ku Napoleoni porositi te fallsifikohej Rozeta e famshme, qe tani e kane anglezet, e vetmja deshmi (e rreme, sigurisht) ku jepet nje tekst ne dy gjuhe pseudo te vjetra, ne greqisht dhe ne ate egjiptiane.
Te tere perandoret dhe mbreterit jane te perlyer ne Historine e Fallsififikimeve te Historise. Pa kete perlyerje asnje mbret nuk qendron dot asnje dite ne fron.
 From Çlirim Xhunga
Date Fri, Mar 20, 2009 at 11:18 AM
Subject Shkrime qe u kam derguar sot internetisteve