Talk:Pre-Columbian trans-oceanic contact theories

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Recent Roman contact claims[edit]

First, this isn't a news article and we shouldn't be responding immediately to newspaper stories, which often in any case either get things wrong or give incomplete coverage - their role is to sell papers, not to publish scientific findings, remmber. The sword stuff is just nonsense, there are similar swords available elsewhere, eg on ebay.[1] The Roman shield boss was discovered in 1792 in England.[2] Of all the Oak Island claims, this has less credibility than most and at least at the moment I don't think it belongs. See also [3]and [4].

The "Ancient Artifact Preservation Society"[5] is just another fringe group, sponsored in part by the Mormon Wayne May. His magazine reflects an LDS perspective also.[6].

A bit more on J Hutton Pulitzer, who seems to be the man behind all of this. He's the inventor of the CueCat. Another Colavito post.[7] Here's some of his self-published material on Amazon.[8] He is certainly a good publicist. Doug Weller talk 10:23, 24 December 2015 (UTC)

Pulitizer is litigious so please be careful. But I can quote him about the sword. At one of his websites he wrote " The sword has an ancient ocean navigational device built into it which causes the sword to point true north. Such magnetic qualities are only found in authentic items of antiquity, not cast iron or manufactured stone replicas." He even linked to our article True north. But of course magnets point to the North Magnetic Pole. Doug Weller talk 11:15, 24 December 2015 (UTC)

There is also a reference to a Roman shipwreck. Do we have any information on this? That would be harder to dismiss.Royalcourtier (talk) 23:22, 25 December 2015 (UTC)
Mention but no evidence, see[9]. I've seen several websites say there's no known shipwreck near Oak Island but he claims there is. Doug Weller talk 10:09, 26 December 2015 (UTC)
The Oak Island tv program announced the sword wasn't Roman. Doug Weller talk 17:59, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

South America[edit]

Vvven added: Some researchers speculate that certain petroglyphs of South America it relating to symbols of writing at style of the runes, eg Nazca Lines in Perú,[1] in Brazil, Paraguay and Tucuman and Córdoba (Argentina), such vestiges are untranslatable in any native language, but similar to Viking languages, of which deducted a contact between the Scadinavians and local populations. Although such assumptions are not accepted by some other archaeologists.[2][3]

It has also considered other runes found in North America (eg Kensington runes or Oklahoma runes) it were allegedly made by descendants populations of Scandinavians.[4]


  1. ^ Incas y sus símbolos
  2. ^ Mariana Accornero Artistic expressions of the indigenous peoples of the Americas. Córdoba 2007
  3. ^ Miguel Ángel Scenna, "Antes de Colón", Universitary publisher of Buenos Aires, 1974, page 79.
  4. ^ Valerii Ivanovich Guli?aev Pre-Columbian travels to the Americas: myths and realities University of Texas. Pub. Abya-Yala, 1992 pages 186 et seq.

I removed it and Vvven is arguing that the sources are acceptable (except for the website). "Valeriĭ Ivanovich Guli͡aev is from the Institute of Archaeology of the Russian Academy of Sciences, is one of the sources that suppor this theory, other one as Mariana Accornero is a author of books specialized towards the artistic manifestations of the Indigenous of the Americas, and the latter Miguel Angel Scenna (1924-1981) was an renowned Argentinian historian "He published many books and articles, among which stand out for its impact. He was a regular contributor to the magazine Everything is History, directed by Felix Luna, where he published many articles. He was considered a moderate member of the revisionist trend.". some even could be more valid resources than other many in the hiphotesis sections in the article-"

I'm asking for quotes from these authors to make sure what they actually say. I don't understand what the University of Texas refers to in the reference which says "Valeriĭ Ivanovich Guli͡aev Pre-Columbian travels to the Americas: myths and realities University of Texas. Pub. Abya-Yala, 1992 pages 186 et seq." Hopefully Vvven can explain this. Doug Weller talk 18:05, 23 January 2016 (UTC)
Also, are theses views significant? I can't find any sources mentioning these authors connected with these views. Are there other reliable sources? Articles are meant to present "all of the significant views that have beenpublished by reliable sources on a topic." - done in accordance with WP:NPOV "Neutrality requires that each article or other page in the mainspace fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in the published, reliable sources.[3] Giving due weight and avoiding giving undue weight mean that articles should not give minority views or aspects as much of or as detailed a description as more widely held views or widely supported aspects. Generally, the views of tiny minorities should not be included at all, except perhaps in a "see also" to an article about those specific views. For example, the article on the Earth does not directly mention modern support for the Flat Earth concept, the view of a distinct minority; to do so would give undue weight to it."
So how prominent are these views "in the published, reliable sources." Doug Weller talk 18:44, 23 January 2016 (UTC)