In 1984, the Brazilian government passed a ban on underwater exploration along the entirety of its 4,600 mile coastline. Hundreds of shipwrecks would lie unexplored- and yet the legislation which outlawed these excavations was passed in secrecy.
On June 25, 1985, nearly a year after the law went into effect, the New York Times published a report on the ban. Printed with the mundane headline, “Underwater Exploring Is Banned In Brazil,” the article tells a fascinating story of controversy, espionage, and historical mystery in a fight between the Brazilian government and an American marine archaeologist named Robert Marx. Apparently, the site Marx was investigating was so dangerous to the Brazilians, not only was a nationwide ban enacted, the particular site in question was buried under tons of silt and sand.
Marx’s discovery, located in the Bay of Guanabara 15 miles from Rio De Janeiro, drew the ire of the Brazilian Church, politicians, economic leaders, and indeed, most Brazilians. Now most likely lost forever, the initial discovery mostly consisted of a number of jars- diving deeper, Marx would uncover what appeared to be the front of a wrecked ship. But before he could excavate the site, it was covered up in an effort to silence the possible conclusion that could be drawn from the discovery, if verified: The Ancient Romans had arrived on Brazilian shores over 1700 years ago.
In 1976, a Brazilian diver was searching for lobsters in the Bay of Guanabara when he stumbled upon 8 unusual looking jars. Dragging them back to shore, the diver figured he could sell them to tourists as curiosities- which he did, until he was arrested under the suspicion that the ancient looking jars might be stolen artifacts. Two of the jars remained in the diver’s custody, and the police sent them to experts at The University of Brazil- who quickly recognized the tapered bottoms and distinctive handles typical of amphoras- vessels used for storage in Ancient Roman times.
The story received some attention in the press, and would eventually catch the eye of an energetic marine archaeologist from the United States. Robert Marx began investigating shipwrecks in 1951. Participating in over 5000 dives over his career, he is widely considered one of the pioneers of underwater archeology. Marx had a longstanding interest in finding proof of European explorers reaching the Americas before Columbus- so when he heard of the jars, he packed his bags for Brazil, arriving in late 1982 to dive the Bay of Guanabara himself.
Marx would not be disappointed, finding roughly 200 jars in various states of disrepair, including several intact specimens. These were sent to Dr. Elizabeth Will, a classics professor and expert in Roman amphoras at the University of Massachusetts Amherst. Quoted by the New York Times in 1984, Professor Will said, “They look to be ancient and because of the profile, the thin-walled fabric and the shape of the rims I suggest they belong to the third century AD.” Fragments of the jars later underwent thermo-luminescence testing at the University of London, which determined their age could be even older- around 19 BC.
Marx returned to the site with sonar equipment to further investigate, and beneath the field of shattered pottery, he identified what appeared to be the hull of a ship which had shattered, likely from an impact with a large rock.
The rumored discovery of a Roman ship in Brazil became an international news story- and Marx returned home to the states to begin preparations for what would potentially be the greatest discovery of his career. Unfortunately, upon his return to Brazil, Marx found the site covered in tons of sand and silt, in addition to a new government ban on underwater exploration.
Virtually every voice of power in Brazil had rallied against Marx and his discovery- launching a media frenzy which turned public opinion fiercely against the American archaeologist. Re-writing a proud nation’s history is never easy- but it was especially difficult in the case of 1980s Brazil, which was ruled by an authoritarian military dictatorship at that time.
Pedro Alvares Cabral- the Portuguese explorer credited with the discovery of Brazil- was universally beloved by Brazilians, revered as a saint and a national hero. As a predominately Catholic nation with a tradition of pious faith, the idea that the country was not in fact discovered by Cabral, a Catholic nobleman, brought harsh words from the church. Rio’s bishop himself decried Marx’s blasphemous assertions- declaring that the mere suggestion of the pagan pre-Christian Romans discovering Brazil was heresy.
The opposition was not simply religious, and political complications from the discovery quickly came to light. Brazil had a sizable population of Italian immigrants, many of whom wished to become citizens. Rio was an especially attractive destination for ex-pats from across the globe, due to its natural beauty, temperate climate, and cosmopolitan nature. The Brazilian government enforced an exhausting and expensive citizenship application process- which could only be avoided by Portuguese citizens. Upon news of the Roman shipwreck, the Italian ambassador to Brazil notified officials that all Italian immigrants in the country should be given immediate citizenship, since it was in fact Italy, and not Portugal, who originally discovered the country. Of course, the Brazilian government had no interest in granting this request. Nonetheless, Italian immigrants staged demonstrations demanding citizenship.
With controversy swirling everywhere, the Brazilian government quickly stepped into action- labeling Marx a hoaxer and enacting the underwater ban. Although they have repeatedly denied the claim, it is believed that the Brazilian Navy was responsible for burying the site. Marx had worked with members of the Navy previously. As he said: “The Navy people I worked with told me the Navy had covered up the site to keep it from being plundered. They also said this thing is causing so much controversy, it’s better if you leave.” Other government officials told him, “Brazilians don’t care about the past. And they don’t want to replace Cabral as the discoverer.”
With virtually the entire country against him, Marx left Rio, abandoning his hope of proving ancient Roman contact with Brazil.
Of course, these jars alone, even if fully verified, would not make a particularly compelling case for a Roman presence in the Americas. It is very possible that an abandoned or wrecked ship could have floated on its own to the Americas. Yet this cache of jars represents only one out of hundreds of inexplicable ancient Roman artifacts in the new world.
The academic consensus insists the Romans did not undertake a transatlantic voyage, their ships were certainly sophisticated enough to withstand the journey- while not widely perceived as a sea-faring empire, roman ships possessed many design features hundreds of years ahead of their time. Warships would regularly ferry over 600 passengers across the seas to the Near East and Northern points in Europe; freighting ships could carry up to 1,200 tons of cargo, 10 times the holding capacity of Columbus’s Santa Maria. In fact, a ship with the ability to carry this much cargo would not be built again until the 16th century.
Up to 120 ships each year would trade goods between Roman ports in Northern Africa and India- sailing a distance of approximately 3500 miles. Rio’s Guanabara Bay lies 4300 miles from the southernmost point of the Roman Empire- which suggests a Naval journey to South America was certainly possible within the technological capabilities of the ancient Romans.
In North America, hundreds of Roman coins have been found near the Ohio and Mississippi rivers- with many more being discovered along the eastern seaboard and near the coast of Texas. In most cases, the coins were discovered at a depth that would be consistent with their age. Skeptics declare the coins must have been lost by collectors, but the consistency of their locations- always near major waterways, and never west of the Rockies- makes a good case for the coins to have been delivered by some seafaring means. Roman swords, artwork, pins, and more have been found as well, from both coasts of South America, and as far north as Nova Scotia. Two other Roman shipwrecks have been claimed as well, in Galveston Bay, Texas and Honduras, although neither are any more verifiable than the Brazilian discovery.
While these finds vary widely in their plausibility, the fact remains that the wreck in the Bay of Guanabara is part of a larger, if controversial, body of evidence. Additionally, shipwreck sites littered with amphoras found closer to the Roman’s home bear a staggering resemblance to the Brazilian find- with remarkable recent discoveries in Spain, Albania, and Cyprus presenting similar scenarios to the wreck in Rio’s bay.
Ultimately, the burden of proving an ancient Roman presence in the Americas lies with those making the extraordinary claim. History can not be re-written without an overwhelming consensus amongst academics and other authorities. A few outlying pieces of archaeological evidence are simply not enough. As witnessed in Brazil, changing history can create negative reverberations through an entire culture- causing controversy, fear, and outrage.
However, when evidence emerges which conflicts with popular religious or national beliefs, history has shown that this evidence can face harsh resistance at best, and even be subject to pure sabotage. Revealing the secrets of our ancient past through tiny fragments our ancestors left behind is challenging enough in any circumstances, let alone when the evidence is literally covered-up by powerful institutions threatened by the answers that may lie in these remnants of our past.