It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

A Minnesota Mystery: The Kensington Runestone

page: 2
14
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 27 2007 @ 01:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by Jeremy032180 I guess what I'm trying to say is that you are correct, very correct, to demand more information and using existing information to formulate a hypothesis. I actually in the future will try to reflect on this before jumping the gun on like issues.


I can't honestly accuse you of jumping the gun. I have some training in archaeology and in historical research, and my greatest interests are on the fringes, because that's where the best stories are. I drive my mentor nuts, because he encounters so much hooey that his bravo sierra detector has the squelch turned up way high...yet he tells me great ghost stories from the field.

I've walked a site with an 'intuitive archaeologist', (google George McMullan) seen him go into a trance and consult...visit...whatever, with those gone before. I'm not gonna call him on that, and I still need to check out some info from that experience...but better men than me believed in him.

I've debunked a couple of historical legends, and in the end I didn't feel that I'd really accomplished much, so I refocussed my efforts into finding the truths that had been overlooked.

It's critical not to base one's scholarly landscape on other peoples' poor judgement...ie Barry Fell, etc, but ya gotta keep asking the questions and deny ignorance. Cheers!




posted on Aug, 27 2007 @ 04:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by dreamingawake
No doubt USA has a lot of these yet to be found. Possibly made people were here before the Natives.


Even if the runestone were real, it would have to be older than 10,000+ years to be 'before the Natives'.

Be very cautious about the runestone and similar fantastic artifacts. There's quite a bit of pseudoscience surrounding them. It doesn't help that every charlatan and mystic from the nineteenth century were 'finding' 'artifacts' all over the countryside. In reality, they were planting these artifacts.

It's not well known that modern archeology had its birth in North America. The Indian mounds of North America were studied in order to ascertain their origins, namely who built them. A long debate had raged in scientific and lay men's circles that the mounds were the work of everyone from the Romans to the Jews, but never American Indians. In the end, science discovered that American Indians built the mounds, and had been building mounds far longer than anyone had realized. The oldest mound complex in America is 1000 years older than Stonehenge. Watson Brake mound complex.

There's nearly three hundred years of scientific research devoted to North American pre-history. Science knows quite a bit about Ancient America and the people who were here hundreds and thousands of years ago. Today it's very difficult to pull off a hoax like Kensington Rune Stone or make grossly mistaken claims of Ogham writing on a cliff wall (ie: Berry Fell) today. Consider that archeology is still very active in regards to North American pre-history, and during this time there’s never been an ‘out of place’ object (ie: an object displaying a connection to the Old World) found at any valid, scientific dig site. Science and modern archeology has caught up with the hoaxers.

Why then would anyone plant a fake artifact? There were any reasons but one that continues to resonate was to 'claim' the land for a particular people. Before science learned the truth about the mounds there was a general consensus among the common American that the mounds were of Old World origin. A few planted fake artifacts or 'discovered' them in out of the way locations like Bat Creek Bat Creek Fraud in order to prove that the European settlers were reclaiming North America from the Indian. It’s an ugly truth, but the truth is seldom pretty.

This, of course, wasn't the only reason. Some were simple hoaxes created for any number of reasons while others were for personal gain and notoriety similar to the Piltdown man hoax.

Unfortunately there's been a resurgence in interest around these hoaxed artifacts by pseudoscientists. They see these artifacts as proof of their theories, even though the artifacts in question have been proven to be hoaxes. Do a little research on your own about these artifacts, consider the history during the time of the 'find', the dissenting opinion and do some digging into the credentials of your sources.

[edit on 27-8-2007 by Dr_Seto_Hut]

[edited for clarity, grammar]

[edit on 27-8-2007 by Dr_Seto_Hut]



posted on Aug, 27 2007 @ 04:51 PM
link   
reply to post by highfreq
 


I had to flag this for my Viking ancestors. I had believed this particular stone was genuine, but it is wonderful to see scientists taking a fresh look with the skills available now and coming to that conclusion.



posted on Aug, 27 2007 @ 06:39 PM
link   
Just wondering something, Vikings lived in the Uk, and many other people of different continents, and we have an abundance of metal detecting finds, from wherever they settled.
There are plenty of metel detectorists in America, they even go to way out places looking for gold, why have I not heard of any of these finding anything older than the Native Indians.
If vikings are thought too have lived or visited a known area, I would send out a team of detectorists.
Just a thought.



posted on Aug, 27 2007 @ 07:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by colz2000 There are plenty of metel detectorists in America, they even go to way out places looking for gold, why have I not heard of any of these finding anything older than the Native Indians.

First comment is that the natives did no metalcraft...aside from hand-beaten copper...until the Europeans showed up. Smelting was their technology. There have been some flint cobbles discovered in the far north (Beringia?)...by Leaky, if I'm not mistaken...that created a debate as to whether or not they were 'retouched', but it is the rare archaeologist that buys into that one. Lee, as well, brought forth some flint he said had been worked by early man, but this too has been discounted. Still, ya never know. You have to take into account that a great deal of the continent was scoured by glaciers.

Now, as to Dr_Seto_Huts comments, I can agree with much except for the statement "there’s never been an ‘out of place’ object (ie: an object displaying a connection to the Old World) found at any valid, scientific dig site." I have to say that I've heard more than one professional mutter about OOP objects, but they don't like to be cited There is stuff out there that makes the pros nuts. They just don't wanna talk about it.



posted on Aug, 27 2007 @ 09:08 PM
link   
One of the "big three," History, Discovery, or National Geo channel (can't recall which), devoted a huge production to a show covering an alledged "European discovery of America," recently. It was based on a recent dig/find in Virginia, concerning 5 large Clovis type obsidian spear points. These points have tenatively been dated between 10-15,000 years. If anyone recalls the info please post it.
As for material that coinsides with the Kensington Stone era & possible Scandinavian/European related history, one need only to research the tiny isle of Bornholm, located in the Baltic sea. I know of at least one well researched book on the subject.
...ah yes, so long as irrefutable anomolies keep popping up out of the ground, & they will, we can send our kids to school, with the hope that some day, they themselves can help rewrite the history books.



posted on Aug, 28 2007 @ 10:51 AM
link   

Originally posted by DREAMING MAN
One of the "big three," History, Discovery, or National Geo channel (can't recall which), devoted a huge production to a show covering an alledged "European discovery of America," recently. It was based on a recent dig/find in Virginia, concerning 5 large Clovis type obsidian spear points. These points have tenatively been dated between 10-15,000 years. If anyone recalls the info please post it.


What you're looking for is what's known as the 'Solutrean/Clovis Connection'. While I didn't see the show, what I can say is that at that degree of antiquity, you're looking at technology because not a lot else survives.
Love is fleeting...stone tools are forever!
The kicker here is the Clovis Point...a fluted 'arrow head' (projectile point) and its resemblance to the European Solutrean Point. Other similarities go along with it...the associated tool kits, the Paleolithic time frame and the megafauna, settlement and resource extraction patterns.

You might be looking at low sea levels because so much water was locked up by the Ice Age, allowing Atlantic transit, but I think that's kinda slim. There's no definative answer yet, that I know of...common roots, that sort of thing, maybe. Google Solutrean Clovis Connection...see what you can find.

One more thing...if the points were obsidian, they ought to be able to trace the source.



posted on Aug, 28 2007 @ 02:47 PM
link   

First comment is that the natives did no metal craft..


Natives were the some of the first people to utilize metal for tools (Old Copper Culture ca. 6,000 years ago). Its true smelting wasn't known in North America until European contact, but metal work and 'metal craft' were far from unknown.

Examples include the Hopewell and Mississippian cultures. The Hopewell cold worked metals, their technological skill in this area was highly developed. Cold welding, riveting, annealing were all known and utilized. The Natives were also able to cut large sheets of copper into intricate patterns, how they did this is still a mystery. A variety of metals were utilized, most notably meteoric iron was used for tools, utilitarian and decorative items. The Hopewell had their own form of 'painting' on copper plates that utilized pigments and acids that would stain the copper surfaces creating designs and various colors.

Example of a Hopewellian rectangular plate

A Hopwell 'wand' in the form of a mushroom

Hopewell Cutout

A gallery of Hopewell art


There are plenty of metel detectorists in America, they even go to way out places looking for gold, why have I not heard of any of these finding anything older than the Native Indians.


Finding these metal artifacts with a detector would be very difficult. The metallic items in question decay quickly in the acidic soil of the Midwest, NE and SE U.S. The few examples that have survived were recovered from mounds (either burial or ceremonial), caves and sometimes marshes and swamps (mostly in Florida).


Now, as to Dr_Seto_Huts comments, I can agree with much except for the statement "there’s never been an ‘out of place’ object (ie: an object displaying a connection to the Old World) found at any valid, scientific dig site." I have to say that I've heard more than one professional mutter about OOP objects, but they don't like to be cited There is stuff out there that makes the pros nuts. They just don't wanna talk about it.


I disagree. There have been no verifiable 'out of place' Old World objects found in the New World post Spanish contact save for the failed Viking settlement at L’Anse aux Meadows. To say that professionals find such things and 'don't want to talk about it' is implying some sort of conspiracy of silence.

A fantastic find must be verifiable and backed up with some rock solid evidence. If this criteria isn't met its going to be questioned and, considering the hoaxes and fakery of the past, rightly so. If a Roman coin were found in, for example, an Adena burial mound in proper context where a date could be established, then we'd have something. So far this hasn't happened. I doubt any archaeologist worth his salt would 'hide' such a find.

I'm not trying to be combative, but when proof of the fantastic can't be established, there always seems to be some kind of conspiracy hiding the 'truth'.

In short, anecdotal evidence of 'out of place' objects doesn't equal evidence. If you can point me to examples that prove me wrong, please do so, I'd be eager to see them.


[edited for content, grammar]



[edit on 28-8-2007 by Dr_Seto_Hut]

[edit on 28-8-2007 by Dr_Seto_Hut]



posted on Aug, 28 2007 @ 08:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by Johnny Cnuck
First comment is that the natives did no metal craft..



Originally posted by Dr_Seto_Hut Natives were the some of the first people to utilize metal for tools (Old Copper Culture ca. 6,000 years ago). Its true smelting wasn't known in North America until European contact, but metal work and 'metal craft' were far from unknown.

Gee...copper...why didn't I think of that?


There have been no verifiable 'out of place' Old World objects found in the New World post Spanish contact save for the failed Viking settlement at L’Anse aux Meadows.


Actually, much has been made of the fact that there was a Norse penny found in a sealed context in Maine...but there is an explanation and that's another story.


To say that professionals find such things and 'don't want to talk about it' is implying some sort of conspiracy of silence.

No, it means that there is stuff out there that they can't figure out, and that causes discomfort. However, I'll run them down and tell them you know better, ok? PhDs...whadda they know anyways?

No need for the cranky-pants here. Just saying that not everything ends up in 'American Antiquity'.

PS...Hopewell/Mississippean came north from Mexico so you have the influence of a socially complex culture and its attendent technology...my context is Southern Ontario which only had a flash of Mississipean, so copper tends to be from Lake Superior...which incidently has apparently turned up in Europe in a pre-Columbian time, based on molecular analysis. Another one of those OOP kinda circumstances which you deny. (and I'm looking for the citation)

Also...the original question referred to late paleo era...Mississippean climax runs into historic times. All I said was you ain't gonna find Clovis with a metal detector.

[edit on 28-8-2007 by JohnnyCanuck]



posted on Aug, 29 2007 @ 02:27 PM
link   

Actually, much has been made of the fact that there was a Norse penny found in a sealed context in Maine...but there is an explanation and that's another story.


I'm aware of the Goddard site, it's not a good example since it's been established that Vikings had visited Northern Canada. This isn't an 'out of place' artifact. Now if it were found in Indiana...


No, it means that there is stuff out there that they can't figure out, and that causes discomfort. However, I'll run them down and tell them you know better, ok?[quoteWhile you're there, how about gathering some info on these mystery objects and please post it here. I'd love to see them.

PhDs...whadda they know anyways?


Let's keep this civil please. I feel that my response to you was non-combative (I even said as much).


PS...Hopewell/Mississippean came north from Mexico so you have the influence of a socially complex culture and its attendent technology...


The consensus is that the Hopewell were a culture that developed with little outside influence from Mexico. To date, a strong culture-defining influence from Mexico has been an unproven theory.

As for Hopewellian metal technology, it's truly unique and all evidence points to this technology being developed in North America over a long period of time.

There's a chronology from ancient North American cultures to the Hopewell. The Old Copper Culture, Glacial Kame and others show an evolution of artifacts, mound building and evidence of a similar religious outlook. Consider that corn, the hallmark of Mexican influence, didn't appear in the Hopewell context until the waning years of Hopewell existance. Before that the Hopewell had developed their own unique form of agriculture utilizing native plants such as goosefoot, sumpgrass and other native cultigens.

It seems to be true that the Mississippians were influenced by Central America, as evidenced by their many similarities and the fact that a 'long nosed god' Mississippian artifact was found in a Mayan cenote, but to say that Mexico was the only influence on North American culture disregards the overwhelming evidence of the complexity of Pre-Columbian North America.There's also the fact that there's no evidence of long term or high-volume trade with Mexico. Mexican artifacts in North America are extremely rare. D

In fact, there's some theories that North American culture (Watson Brake, Poverty Point) MAY HAVE had a strong influence on Mexico/Central America. In short, it's not a simple as pointing to Mexico as the seat/origin of North American culture--it's far more complex than that.


...copper tends to be from Lake Superior...which incidently has apparently turned up in Europe in a pre-Columbian time, based on molecular analysis.


Native copper is very unique, being extremely pure. Finding some of this unique metal in an pre-Columbian Old World is news to me. That's an amazing discovery! Of course, I'll need that citation.


Another one of those OOP kinda circumstances which you deny. (and I'm looking for the citation)


Please send me a paper or, at least, a link backing it up. When you find that paper or citation, you may want to also post it here:

www.hallofmaat.com

You're probably already aware of this site, if not I have a feeling it's right up your alley.

This is a forum for professional archaeologists and those who are interested in archeology and history. Well-known archeologists visit the forum regularly including a few experts in Pre-Columbian studies.


Also...the original question referred to late paleo era...Mississippean climax runs into historic times. All I said was you ain't gonna find Clovis with a metal detector.


The metal detector comment was meant for another poster, not you. Sorry for the confusion.

I'm looking forward to checking out that citation/paper concerning New World copper. Should be interesting.

[edit on 29-8-2007 by Dr_Seto_Hut

[edit on 29-8-2007 by Dr_Seto_Hut]



posted on Aug, 29 2007 @ 05:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by Dr_Seto_Hut

You have some idea of what's going on...not sure if the Dr. in your name is for real or not. Here's the deal...you can't hit me with absolutes .... "Nothing has ever been found..." and then tell me you aren't being combative. If you spend any time out in the field and haven't found anything that keeps you up nights, you are either most unfortunate or not paying attention. I'm an avocational, I work with pros, they talk, but they're not my stories to tell. Like I said, not everything ends up in American Antiquity. Also...skepticism is fine, but it's a




No, it means that there is stuff out there that they can't figure out, and that causes discomfort. However, I'll run them down and tell them you know better, ok


Let's keep this civil please. I feel that my response to you was non-combative (I even said as much).


PS...Hopewell/Mississippean came north from Mexico so you have the influence of a socially complex culture and its attendent technology...


The consensus is that the Hopewell were a culture that developed with little outside influence from Mexico. To date, a strong culture-defining influence from Mexico has been an unproven theory.

As for Hopewellian metal technology, it's truly unique and all evidence points to this technology being developed in North America over a long period of time.

There's a chronology from ancient North American cultures to the Hopewell. The Old Copper Culture, Glacial Kame and others show an evolution of artifacts, mound building and evidence of a similar religious outlook. Consider that corn, the hallmark of Mexican influence, didn't appear in the Hopewell context until the waning years of Hopewell existance. Before that the Hopewell had developed their own unique form of agriculture utilizing native plants such as goosefoot, sumpgrass and other native cultigens.

It seems to be true that the Mississippians were influenced by Central America, as evidenced by their many similarities and the fact that a 'long nosed god' Mississippian artifact was found in a Mayan cenote, but to say that Mexico was the only influence on North American culture disregards the overwhelming evidence of the complexity of Pre-Columbian North America and to disregard the fact that there's no evidence of long term or high-volume trade with Mexico.

In fact, there's some theories that North American culture (Watson Brake, Poverty Point) MAY HAVE had a strong influence on Mexico/Central America. In short, it's not a simple as pointing to Mexico as the sea/origin of North American culture--it's far more complex than that.


...copper tends to be from Lake Superior...which incidently has apparently turned up in Europe in a pre-Columbian time, based on molecular analysis.


Native copper is very unique, being extremely pure. Finding some of this unique metal in an pre-Columbian Old World is news to me. That's an amazing discovery! Of course, I'll need that citation.


Another one of those OOP kinda circumstances which you deny. (and I'm looking for the citation)


Please send me a paper or, at least, a link backing it up. When you find that paper or citation, you may want to also post it here:

www.hallofmaat.com

You're probably already aware of this site, if not I have a feeling it's right up your alley.

This is a forum for professional archaeologists and those who are interested in archeology and history. Some big names in the field visit the forum regularly including a few experts in Pre-Columbian studies.


Also...the original question referred to late paleo era...Mississippean climax runs into historic times. All I said was you ain't gonna find Clovis with a metal detector.


The metal detector comment was meant for another poster, not you. Sorry for the confusion.

I'm looking forward to checking out that citation/paper concerning New World copper. Should be interesting.

[edit on 29-8-2007 by Dr_Seto_Hut]



posted on Aug, 29 2007 @ 09:07 PM
link   
Reply to Dr_Seto_Hut

You know, we can argue theory till the cows come home, but here's the deal.

I know some people...they have some problematic items. They don't talk about it much because they are paid to have the answers. No conspiracy of silence. You seem to know some stuff...surprised you feel the need to argue this point.

The copper citation...I recall it because it was a big deal to me. The challenge is to track it down and I will certainly go for it and send it to you asap.

I'm aquainted with both the Hall of Maat and the Eastern Agricultural Complex, and I'll save the debates about theory for Arch-L. I'm going to suggest that if you are professionally involved in Archaeology, you'd be either at the beginning or near the close of your career. Recent grads are too focussed, old hands are too jaded...youngsters won't admit they think Indiana Jones is cool...oldsters forgot they once thought so.

Point is that if you're too tightly wrapped, you miss the cool stuff. Like I said about George McMullan...donno how serious I'd take him but Norman Emerson sure did. Either way...walking a couple of sites with him was pretty darn interesting even if the science wasn't too good. I demand the science, but I don't let it drown out the sound of a story well told, nor does it deter me from looking for the kernel of truth within said myth. Remember too, we're talking about a field where if you don't understand what a thing is, it can easily be accommodated by calling it a 'ritual object'...and that's what they do.

And incidently, to take it all full circle, I was looking at the Kensington Runestone references in the Hall of Maat, and what I found were rebuttals of the original data used in debunking the stone. And what started out as a hard-line attitude for me softened. I'm gonna suggest you look to the fringes...that's where the fun is, but you can still think horses, not zebras.



[edit on 29-8-2007 by JohnnyCanuck]



posted on Aug, 30 2007 @ 04:29 AM
link   
reply to post by JohnnyCanuck
 


Telling stories is good but listening to a story can be just as interesting. That story is what the evidence telling us. Speculation can be a useful tool at times but it becomes a problem when the unsubstantiated interferes with the facts or interferes with the story being told.

If the verifiable proof is there, if it makes sense, then it can't be ignored.

As for the fringes...I've been here for awhile. There's quite a bit of dead ends and put ons to wade through, but I've found enough to keep me coming back.



[edit on 30-8-2007 by Dr_Seto_Hut]



posted on Aug, 30 2007 @ 10:15 PM
link   
It would seem as if the opinion about this subject is very diversified. I personall think the stone is genuine. Of course I don't have any scientific evidence to back up this claim, but for some reason I don't think this is a hoax.
There is so much history of the ancient world that was lost to fires and empirical conquest , that the probability of an alternate history could possibly exist. Not to mention that societies and cultures such as the Vikings/Norse men past on alot of there history via word of mouth. Either through songs or stories. Through time it would only make sense that some of these stories could have been lost to time or the secrets died with certain individuals.
I personally never heard of the stone in Minnesota. I live in Northern Iowa so relatively speaking the site the stone was found is close. Latter on this summer we(my wife and kids ) plan on going up to that part of Minnesota. Hopefully We can check it out while up there. . Thanks for all the replies . I like alot of you , plan on doing some more extensive research into this matter.



posted on Sep, 1 2007 @ 12:59 AM
link   

Originally posted by JohnnyCanuck
...but if you're gonna rewrite the history books, you have to be sure of every step.


ok ... my problem with this is ... if the history books have such a high chance of being wrong ... shouldn't they be wiped clean? Instead of writing assumptions ... just write what we know. Instead of teaching as fact, teach as ... to the best of our knowledge, but we have no idea, HONESTLY.

I can understand, there is no reason to change one fallacy for another, but, it is a discredit to science to teach so much like it is truly proven, when it is really just theories that have netted a statiscally positive result.

I lost belief in science a while ago. I realized it was made up by a bunch of people who can be wrong, or have devious motives. Not all, but people's true colors most of the time aren't too pretty when money and/or fame is involved. Lack of evidence doesn't equal proof, and it seems that there was a lot of basing of 'fact' on the lack of evidence.

Are these runestones real? I don't know, but I reserve the possibility of it being so. I would say statistically ... the chances are most of what we think to be true now, will be way off in the future. People have probably been around much longer than we assume, and have been more places longer than we can currently prove. I think most of the real evidence lies on the ocean floor, since most larger communities develop near shorelines ... and the shorelines were much farther out in the past. Working with the ocean floor probably doesn't make it easy ... so ... another ice age would most likely be necessary before we can truly research the past of civilization ... even then a lot of evidence would be ruined ... i won't get into the possible technical devices they could have had ... that is another topic altogether.

What I am getting from the responses, is that this is being pushed off as 19th century country-wide hoax? Since these stones have been found in several states, well, it is possible. Amusing if it is true ... some board people to study ancient script and learn how to write it, then travel the country carving stones with messages and dropping them off in remote places, some of them not to be found in their time. Though, I guess the one that said, when we came back, they were red with blood and dead ... could be someone from the civil war times, or something like that maybe ... who knows, maybe an explorer or an american had a fetish for writing in foreign languages.

Anything is possible in the crazy world we live in.



posted on Sep, 1 2007 @ 01:17 PM
link   
It is belived that they were killed by Native American Indians.

Here is a link to the museum.

jfy

www.runestonemuseum.org



posted on Sep, 1 2007 @ 08:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by Dr_Seto_Hut Mexican artifacts in North America are extremely rare.

Quickly, here...I'm still in search of the aforementioned copper citation. I think on most counts we actually agree...but I will take issue with the above statement on the basis that we have well-defined cultural imports from Mexico...most notably maize culture and the development of the 'Three Sisters', or MesoAmerican Agricultural Complex. IMHO, mound culture, climaxing in the Missisippean, is another Mexican import, and it made it up to Serpent Mounds, in Ontario.

Artifacts? What would you import aside from obsidium, perhaps coral and other exotics and, just off the top of my head, they aren't that rare.If you require a follow-up, I'll look.



Originally posted by FreeThinkerIdealist

Originally posted by JohnnyCanuck
...but if you're gonna rewrite the history books, you have to be sure of every step.


ok ... my problem with this is ... if the history books have such a high chance of being wrong ... shouldn't they be wiped clean? Instead of writing assumptions ... just write what we know. Instead of teaching as fact, teach as ... to the best of our knowledge, but we have no idea, HONESTLY.

It's often said that history is written by the victor, which is why revisionism is such a popular industry. What I'm saying is if you're going to challenge the status quo, you need to be certain of what you're saying so that the next person that comes along can base their research upon a solid foundation. There's also that somewhat hackneyed, yet true phrase...How can you know where you're going if you don't know where you've been?


I lost belief in science a while ago. I realized it was made up by a bunch of people who can be wrong, or have devious motives.


This is why our scientific method is based upon provable, repeatable principles, and peer reviewed as well. If you can't prove it...well then, you don't wanna bet the farm, do you? Sure, you don't want to base your all your science upon Big Pharma...but it's nice to know the execs can go to jail if they need to.

Anything is possible in the crazy world we live in.


Well, pretty near, it seems, but I'm betting even our buddy John Lear wouldn't go to Mars without a space suit and oxygen...he has his opinions, but without knowing the science, who's gonna take the chance?



posted on Sep, 2 2007 @ 10:17 AM
link   
reply to post by highfreq
 




PUZZLING "RELICS" DUG UP IN ARIZONA STIR SCIENTISTS
===============================================================
Purport To Chronicle The Arrival Of Roman Jews There In 775 A.D.
----------------------------------------------------------------
[New York Times, December 13, 1925


Have you heard of Calalus? An interesting find showing that Roman/Jewish
settlers lived in the Tucson Arizona area, in a city they called Calalus. Scientists
were in debate as to the dating, however the testing and translations and all placed it at 700 to 900 AD, at least 500 years before Columbus got lost looking for India. Just google the term "calalus", and you will find many interesting stories. Even the Smithsonian got involved with it. I would love to know where the actual relecs and original photos ended up. No doubt in a warehouse somewhere.



posted on Sep, 6 2007 @ 10:58 AM
link   
There are some things that fall through the proverbial "crack in the floor." Our good Dr_Soto's comments about professionals not letting things get lost & their worth of salt really was a turn off to me. I almost replied to him about an object found in Alabama years ago, but I failed too. However, I feel that I should step up to bat now, following the previous post.

Location: Jackson, Alabama. Time: 1986-87 approx. Sceen: Before internet. Hometown newspaper: The South Alabamian. A man by the name of Troy Spence found a small coin in his garden in the area of Rabbit Creek near Jackson. Mr. Spence sends the coin off to a UNIVERSITY within the State of Alabama. Those wonderful Professionals study the coin & make a FIRM decission as to it's origins... Place: Judea. Time: Roman occupation, during the period of a Jewish Revolt led by some guy named Bar Lav "something or other." Maybe 66AD or later, there abouts. One of the finest examples of any such coin of it's kind in the world. Did we hear about it on the bloody news...CNN...pre FOX News period? Of course not. It made the local newspaper in the town of Jackson. But that's it. Point Period. Ho hum, yawn. Sleepy time. NO PROFESSIONAL worth their salt came forward to say one blinking thing! NO ONE worth their salt! And yet who's to say just how on earth the coin came to be in the ground where many Indian artifacts have been found near this Rabbit Creek. Oh there was speculation that Hernando Desoto's men/priests brought it into the region, as Mabilla has been said to be nearby. Oh crikee, do you know just how remote some of the land is in that area?

My point? We really do not know what the heck happened beyond our great great grandfather's days when no one could read & write. They were too busy trying to survive. It's very amazing indeed that anyone could take the time to leave behind any artifacts for future generations to ponder.
Sometimes I wonder just how much it takes to convence a judge, jury & gallows full of professionals that there is more at hand in these cases, when all the while the evidence is in the palm of a child's hand.



posted on Sep, 6 2007 @ 11:33 AM
link   

Originally posted by DREAMING MAN...A man by the name of Troy Spence found a small coin in his garden in the area of Rabbit Creek near Jackson.... it's origins... Place: Judea. Time: Roman occupation, during the period of a Jewish Revolt led by some guy named Bar Lav "something or other." ...NO PROFESSIONAL worth their salt came forward to say one blinking thing! ...And yet who's to say just how on earth the coin came to be in the ground where many Indian artifacts have been found near this Rabbit Creek.


I can address this one for you, DM. For a professional to make any kind of comment, he/she would have to see exactly the context that the artefact came from. This coin would have to have come out of a sealed site, with at least two solid, incontrovertible dating methodologies, by a reputable professional, for it to have been given any consideration as a precolumbian artefact. This is as it should be, as well...the obvious answer here is that somebody dropped/planted it in modern(ish) times. What I would do is test the site further using proper procedures.


My point? We really do not know what the heck happened beyond our great great grandfather's days when no one could read & write.

Precisely! That's why in the Americas, archaeology is generally taught as an aspect of Anthropology...prehistory becomes prior to about 1500 when Europeans and rumours of them, and trade goods started to percolate in from the coasts. History and pre-history, in this context, referring to the written word. Much of the past is rebuilt using patterns of human behavior.

But if you're going to rewrite history on the basis of an artefact...it's gotta be a fer sure, and the bar is placed really high. Like they say...you hear hoofbeats, think horses, not zebras.















new topics

top topics



 
14
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join