Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Were Celtic inscriptions found in USA?
#16
I, too, have been to "America's Stonehenge" Mystery Hill in Salem, NH. :roll: When I was there they had a man dressed up as Galileo with a neat wooden telescope, and we all got our picture taken with him...

The "sacrificial table" is probably just another example of early American lye-leaching stones.

There's a nice article here... "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence," says Runnels. "What I want to see at America's Stonehenge is a bronze ax of demonstrable European origin, in a form that was used in Europe 3,000 years ago, found in a sealed archaeological layer. These things together, in a published work, would show me that it is a genuine European Bronze Age find. I guess I'm just a stick-in-the-mud. I want to see real evidence."
Dan Diffendale
Ph.D. candidate, University of Michigan
Reply
#17
Well, the alien footprints in Arizona, New Mexico and Texas are real.
M. Demetrius Abicio
(David Wills)

Saepe veritas est dura.
Reply
#18
I think this article by our own Bill Thayer about an "Ogham inscription" in Manchester Kentucky is quite interesting, because it explains how erroneous statements are created.
Jona Lendering
Relevance is the enemy of history
My website
Reply
#19
Quote:There has been at least one Caucasian skeleton found(unfortunately unpublished yet) here in WV that dates pre-Columbus, and one small bronze cross. Add these discoveries with the debated Ogham in Wyoming County, several historians have suggested that Irish monks did indeed make it to this area.

Define 'Caucasian skeleton', this alone sound suspicious. And OF COURSE it's unpublished! That way, the author can make all sorts of claims but never has to back them up!

Irish monks - why not a Roman cohort, or a Phoenician trader? Not kidding here. or perhaps the Vikings made it a little further south? Madoc, the Celtic prince?
Robert Vermaat
MODERATOR
FECTIO Late Romans
THE CAUSE OF WAR MUST BE JUST
(Maurikios-Strategikon, book VIII.2: Maxim 12)
Reply
#20
Quote:Define 'Caucasian skeleton', this alone sound suspicious.
As far as I know, the Kennewick Man could be defined as Caucasian by his cheekbones etc. It's not impossible.

Quote:And OF COURSE it's unpublished!
Of course you are right: reports of unpublished finds ought to be ignored. On the other hand, bona fide finds like the Roman watchtowers west of Utrecht are also unpublished (mens sana qui mal y pense). But generally, I agree that we should not impressed by an unpublished Caucasian Skeleton.
Jona Lendering
Relevance is the enemy of history
My website
Reply
#21
Yes, and they wanted to do DNA testing on the bones. However, a US law (which was put in place before the Les Aux Meadows discovery) states that any pre-1492 human remains are automatically Native American.

Once declared Native American, Mr Kennewick couldn't be subjected to any more tests since it goes against NA beliefs.
[Image: dirttagline.jpg]
Gobae - The Blacksmith
aka Dan Crowther
Ancient Celtic Clans
Re: Living History Blog
Reply
#22
But to get the record straight, what evidence is there for pre-Columbian European settlers? I mean, really, straightforward, well-published facts? I know of Les Aux Meadows Vikings, and that's it. The Kennewick Man is certainly interesting, but essentially a mystery; and there is this little piece of terracotta, a bearded man, that is technologically and stylistically Roman, but was found in a Meso-American, pre-Columbian context (which in itself does not prove very much: more...). Have I missed something?
Jona Lendering
Relevance is the enemy of history
My website
Reply
#23
From what I've looked into on the subject, (and if the claims are real) I think that there is a lot of evidence to claim that Europeans have been in America before Columbus and the Vikings. I think most people in the field of research don't take the evidence seriously or don't look into it because there is so little to go by (a little inscription here and there, but they all add up), but I think this stuff should not be ignored. I read somewhere about how other civilizations believed the Phoenicians had a secret settlement outside of the Mediterranean, but I think the sources for that claim were a bit sketchy. I think it's very likely that the Phoenicians or even the Romans could have navigated the Atlantic and set foot in America, I mean just look at their acheivements in other fields. I think that the celtic inscriptions or ogham found throughout the east coast would be from celtic mercanaries travelling with the phoenicians. They certainly were capable to go there. I think that if they were to discover America they would probably keep it to themselves for economic gain and to cut out competition. I'll try to look more into the claim about the Phoenicians "secret settlement" to see wether its based on any truth, and try to gather up all the evidence in America for pre-viking explorers/settlers.
Dennis Flynn
Reply
#24
Oh yes I almost forgot.
Theres a museum set up at "America's Stonehenge" and it has displayed a good deal of stone inscriptions found at the site. A few of them were deciphered as Celtic symbols for the sun god I beleive? I can't remember what the others were of, and at the time I was skeptical so I didn't look at it as long as I should've. I think theres some ogham scripts there as well but I'm not 100%. But essentially the place is kind of like one big calendar with stones set up to mark the sun on the solstices and some point to certain constellations. They compared it with other neolithic stone circles and sights throughout europe, but also claim it has Phoenician and Celtic features, so I don't know what to think.
Dennis Flynn
Reply
#25
Anybody heard of this either?

http://www.econ.ohio-state.edu/jhm/arch ... allsoh.htm
Dennis Flynn
Reply
#26
Celtic mercenaries with roving Phoenicians?

Ogham is first attested in the 4th Century AD! Maybe these Phoenicians sailed over to the good ol' US of A, laid low for a millennium or so, then decided they wanted some megaliths and called up their good friends the megalith-building Celts and swung by Ireland to pick 'em up...
Dan Diffendale
Ph.D. candidate, University of Michigan
Reply
#27
lol now thats a theory!
Dennis Flynn
Reply
#28
...But Eric von Danikken said....oh, never mind. Confusedhock:
M. Demetrius Abicio
(David Wills)

Saepe veritas est dura.
Reply
#29
Quote:
Vortigern Studies:321ojr93 Wrote:And OF COURSE it's unpublished!
Of course you are right: reports of unpublished finds ought to be ignored. On the other hand, bona fide finds like the Roman watchtowers west of Utrecht are also unpublished (mens sana qui mal y pense). But generally, I agree that we should not impressed by an unpublished Caucasian Skeleton.

Vortigern/ Jona,

:wink: I am not trying to impress you, or trying to get you to bite here, and I am not trying to sell anything, only participating in the conversation.

This is the information I was told by the anthropologist who was on the dig when the skeleton was found. He was very confident that it was pre-Columbian, and not Native American.....ie Caucasian. I will leave it at that. Believe what you want. :wink:

We all know that discoveries are not immediately published. It takes decades sometimes before the information is released.
"...quemadmodum gladius neminem occidit, occidentis telum est."


a.k.a. Paul M.
Reply
#30
Quote:We all know that discoveries are not immediately published. It takes decades sometimes before the information is released.
Yes, of course, you are right. But I've grown very, very skeptical about unpublished reports: [url:2671ozih]http://www.livius.org/opinion/opinion0004.html[/url] describes the mechanism, which is not just over here in Holland. If you announce something Biblical in Israel, you can look forward to a miraculous multiplication of your funding. Every month, I award a prize to the most exaggerate claim; I will post on that tomorrow.
Jona Lendering
Relevance is the enemy of history
My website
Reply


Forum Jump: