If you are trapped in ancient time, what would you take?

Richard Ballard wrote:

In article ,
"Bandicoot" writes:


Aspirin. And, in my case, ergotamine. The one modern thing
I'd really hate to be without. Otherwise, as a one time archaeologist,
I'd be having a ball.


Waterproof matches, Imodium A-D and a small salt shaker.
Overseas travel taught me that chronic dia rrhea can weaken
you so that you can't light a match. And without salt water
the Immodium A-D flows through you so quickly that it is
ineffectual.

I am not qualified to provide medical opinions, but I
survived chronic dia rrhea.


In that context, you left out a good supply of Charmin :-)

On Thu, 24 Jun 2004 11:02:17 +0000 (UTC), Sander Vesik
wrote:

In rec.photo.equipment.35mm Big Bill wrote:

And I would *NOT* use an almanac to be sure I was on the winning side
in a war - I'd use it to make sure I was no where close.
War was *really* hell back then.

That has only marginaly changed. But sure - not being anywhere near a
larger conflict would be good. Problem is, most of the "minor" ones
aren't really known about so its goingto be very hard to do either.

I think it was really worse, for all concerned.
Medical care was barbaric, to say the least.
Even the people who lived near the armys' paths lost out; the only way
to feed the troops was to forage, and paying for what was taken was
usually a nicety that simply didn't exist. And, if a region proved to
be a good provider ont he way *to* the battle (if a long way away) was
revisited on the way *back*, too. Something for the farmers to look
forward to, especially in regions that were's even part of the fray.

Bill Funk
Change "g" to "a"

On Thu, 24 Jun 2004 05:21:52 -0400, "Spectre"
wrote:

M1A1 Abrams, lots of Fuel and AMMO!!!

Strictly as a mental exercise, I would consider that terminal
overkill.
One ot two thousand years ago, there were no practical targets worthy
of that kind of firepower.
IMO, much better would be something along the line of an APC; much
more interior room (gotta put that fuel somewhre, as well as the photo
equipment), able to be operated by one person, an M-60 on the
ring/pintle is more than enough to intimidate any group of people of
the time period, and the APC will protect you as well as the M1A1 will
from whatever the locals can throw at you.

Bill Funk
Change "g" to "a"

On Thu, 24 Jun 2004 08:48:10 -0700, Big Bill wrote:

On Thu, 24 Jun 2004 05:21:52 -0400, "Spectre"
wrote:

M1A1 Abrams, lots of Fuel and AMMO!!!

Strictly as a mental exercise, I would consider that terminal
overkill.
One ot two thousand years ago, there were no practical targets worthy
of that kind of firepower.
IMO, much better would be something along the line of an APC; much
more interior room (gotta put that fuel somewhre, as well as the photo
equipment), able to be operated by one person, an M-60 on the
ring/pintle is more than enough to intimidate any group of people of
the time period, and the APC will protect you as well as the M1A1 will
from whatever the locals can throw at you.

How about a couple of lighters and some engineering books?


--
Matt Silberstein

Do in order to understand.

"Big Bill" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 24 Jun 2004 02:24:26 GMT, Phil Wheeler
wrote:



Phil Wheeler wrote:



Bandicoot wrote:

"skymuffins" wrote in message
...
[SNIP]

Use the history book to predict events here-and-there, so that
they know you're serious... Enjoy the world like a god!



Actually, all you need in most cultures and times would be an
astronomical
almanac. Predicting eclipses and so on would get you all the respect
you
needed.


Assuming you really knew the time and date.


The almanac idea might work. The history book might provide some
surprises. How well do we really know history that far back?

Phil

And I would *NOT* use an almanac to be sure I was on the winning side
in a war - I'd use it to make sure I was no where close.
War was *really* hell back then.


I didn't mean to be fighting - simply to avoid being in the country/tribe/
whatever that got conquered and enslaved/slaughtered/decimated whatever...



Peter

Bandicoot wrote:

"Big Bill" wrote in message
...

On Mon, 21 Jun 2004 17:48:42 +0000 (UTC), wrote:


Let's say, through the act of god, or whatever, that you've been
transported back through time for a few thousand years. Would
you've preferred that you have a digital camera? Or a film camera?

There are reasons that technological breakthroughs come when
they do; supporting technology must also be possible.

What would you do with any film you exposed? Did you also
backpack your chemicals? How would you *view* your pics?
Did you also pack in your papers? How about a darkroom?
With digital, how do you view the pics?

Even just getting *water* will be a problem; there's a reason
everyone drank beer & wine: the water was really bad.

I seriously doubt that film, if unprocessed would last to today,
*if* it were discoverd in some dig.


Best bet would be to stick it in a slow moving glacier.


A Compact flash card? It's
plastic; plastic lasts a long time, but not *that* long.



Some years back there was a debate about how to label high level radioactive
waste in ways that would appropriately warn people "Do not dig here or you
will die!" and would last the necessary 20,000 years. Language is not too
tricky: a skull and cross-bones suggests death to any human regardless of
cutural context - the problem is the material. Most things that really last
are also intrinsically valuable or useful. Gold - nah, people would
actively dig it up. Plastics wouldn't last long enough. Even glass makes
excellent flaked cutting tools, and who is to say that in 20 millenia man
won't be back to the stone age.

In the end someone had the sense to ask archaeologists, and the concensus
answer was pottery. Lasts easily for that length of time, and is not very
intrinsically useful: break it and there are no sharp edges, it can't really
be shaped in any worthwhile way. Make it rounded, so you can't build with
it. Bury enough at the site that they have no rarity value and that anyone
digging there will run into them, but not so many that they are worth
exploiting as a raw material (to ballast a boat, say, or to grind up to make
grog tempered earthenware.) I always thought this was a fascinating
exercise.

I'm not sure at all if this can apply to all radioactive
materials, but one method is to encapsulate the radioactive
material in very small quantities into small glass beads. This
keeps the material seperated enough that fission will not occur
naturally regardless of the quantity at any given spot, and also
allows for the wide dispertion of the material (say underground
in stable strata or on the ocean floor) without any harm to the
environment (this last bit about the ocean is questionable, to be
sure). Would a subduction fault be a good place for the disposal
of these beads ... suck them down into the mantle where they can
decay over time?

Cheers,
Alan


--
--e-meil: there's no such thing as a FreeLunch.--

On Thu, 24 Jun 2004 15:54:22 GMT, Matt Silberstein
wrote:

On Thu, 24 Jun 2004 08:48:10 -0700, Big Bill wrote:

On Thu, 24 Jun 2004 05:21:52 -0400, "Spectre"
wrote:

M1A1 Abrams, lots of Fuel and AMMO!!!

Strictly as a mental exercise, I would consider that terminal
overkill.
One ot two thousand years ago, there were no practical targets worthy
of that kind of firepower.
IMO, much better would be something along the line of an APC; much
more interior room (gotta put that fuel somewhre, as well as the photo
equipment), able to be operated by one person, an M-60 on the
ring/pintle is more than enough to intimidate any group of people of
the time period, and the APC will protect you as well as the M1A1 will
from whatever the locals can throw at you.

How about a couple of lighters and some engineering books?

Lighters might be an awe-inspiring thing!
Engineering books - well, I was an Army engineer, and the books would
have been useless back then. Of course, they dealt with things like
building airfields. :-)

I'm thinking that engineering books in general would leave you pretty
frustrated by requiring things you just couldn't get, including the
manpower.
I'm also thinking that going back in time and thinking you can alter
things in a major way just won't work, except if you just used
violence. The technology available would be so lacking compared to
what we have now that just about any project you cared to undertake
would be lacking tools or other items that just didn't exist, and
couldn't be fabricated. And even if all that was needed was manpower,
how would you get the locals to volunteer, when you couldn't talk to
them?
Even altering things in a minor way would be hard, because you
couldn't communicate the need, or concept.

If *I* were to go back in time, I'd be very sure I could get back.

Bill Funk
Change "g" to "a"

Big Bill wrote:

I'm also thinking that going back in time and thinking you can alter
things in a major way just won't work, except if you just used
violence. The technology available would be so lacking compared to
what we have now that just about any project you cared to undertake
would be lacking tools or other items that just didn't exist, and
couldn't be fabricated. And even if all that was needed was manpower,
how would you get the locals to volunteer, when you couldn't talk to
them?
Even altering things in a minor way would be hard, because you
couldn't communicate the need, or concept.


Watermill,windmill,still for water purefaction. More modern farming
methods. You don't bring 2004 tech with you. You bring 1504 tech with you.

Nick

"Nick Zentena" wrote in message
...
Big Bill wrote:

I'm also thinking that going back in time and thinking you can alter
things in a major way just won't work, except if you just used
violence. The technology available would be so lacking compared to
what we have now that just about any project you cared to undertake
would be lacking tools or other items that just didn't exist, and
couldn't be fabricated. And even if all that was needed was manpower,
how would you get the locals to volunteer, when you couldn't talk to
them?
Even altering things in a minor way would be hard, because you
couldn't communicate the need, or concept.


Watermill,windmill,still for water purefaction. More modern farming
methods. You don't bring 2004 tech with you. You bring 1504 tech with you.

Nick

Absolutely: what you want at any given time is the thing they would have
invented anyway not that much (relatively) later: so it is achievable, but
still a great step forward. What that is depends on what time you are at -
the secret of iron smelting would be pretty good in the late bronze age...


Peter

"Alan Browne" wrote in message
...
Bandicoot wrote:

[SNIP]



Some years back there was a debate about how to label high level
radioactive
waste in ways that would appropriately warn people "Do not dig here or
you
will die!" and would last the necessary 20,000 years. Language is not
too
tricky: a skull and cross-bones suggests death to any human regardless
of
cutural context - the problem is the material. Most things that really
last
are also intrinsically valuable or useful. Gold - nah, people would
actively dig it up. Plastics wouldn't last long enough. Even glass
makes
excellent flaked cutting tools, and who is to say that in 20 millenia
man
won't be back to the stone age.

In the end someone had the sense to ask archaeologists, and the
concensus
answer was pottery. Lasts easily for that length of time, and is not
very
intrinsically useful: break it and there are no sharp edges, it can't
really
be shaped in any worthwhile way. Make it rounded, so you can't build
with
it. Bury enough at the site that they have no rarity value and that
anyone
digging there will run into them, but not so many that they are worth
exploiting as a raw material (to ballast a boat, say, or to grind up to
make
grog tempered earthenware.) I always thought this was a fascinating
exercise.

I'm not sure at all if this can apply to all radioactive
materials, but one method is to encapsulate the radioactive
material in very small quantities into small glass beads. This
keeps the material seperated enough that fission will not occur
naturally regardless of the quantity at any given spot, and also
allows for the wide dispertion of the material (say underground
in stable strata or on the ocean floor) without any harm to the
environment (this last bit about the ocean is questionable, to be
sure). Would a subduction fault be a good place for the disposal
of these beads ... suck them down into the mantle where they can
decay over time?


The trouble with the beads is making sure no one finds them pretty and makes
them into jewellery. Remember Marie Curie and teh necklace she wore? Of
course they are only practical for low volume / high level waste (which is
just where they would be dangerous as trinkets). Ocean floor disposal deals
with that, but like you I wonder about its environmental impact.

The subduction zone idea ocurred to me as well - don't know if it has been
seriously considered but it does seem to be the ideal answer in so many
ways.



Peter