Jump to content
Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -

Roman Sword discovered off Oak Island


bubblykiss

Recommended Posts

If you'd like to date it: http://www.calgaryco...m/hub_china.htm

Thanks. I was looking at that same site earlier but couldn't find it other than it was Ching. Got it this time though if I'm reading it right. Reign of Emperor Sheng Tsu, 1662 -1722, which makes it way older than I thought it was.

Edited by Oniomancer
  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The article mentions that the sword is 1500 years old which would have placed the find during the late Roman period and possibly even the Eastern Roman empire time. The Roman empire was inclusive of many sea goings peoples like the Greeks and Phoenicians. Its quite possible that a trading expedition was blown off course and into the North America's.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have to agree that the sword looks a lot like a replica, and not an actual Roman sword. You'd think if it had been exposed to sea water that whole time it would show some serious erosion, not just discoloration.

It doesn't appear to have any runnel at all, and is cast of one piece. This would be a child's toy after the introduction of iron and steel swords.

...yeah i think you're right. The sword looks more ornamental than a military issued Roman sword. Mind you the article mentions that the sword is a thousand years before Columbus which would mean that at that stage Roman swords had developed beyond the short Gladius. Roman swords became longer by that time. So maybe this was a dagger.

Edited by Harry_Dresden
Link to comment
Share on other sites

If this was about the time the Vikings were visiting North America, the sword was probably brought by a Viking.

That Viking might have bought the sword or taken it from a defeated Roman soldier before leaving on the voyage.

Revisiting the site and looking for other artifacts could clinch the question. If mostly Roman artifacts were found at the shipwreck, it was probably a Roman ship. If mostly Viking artifacts, probably Viking.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hutton is a proven con man. I have followed the Oak Island group before there was this show, they all have proven this sword to be fake. You can buy them off ebay. Do NOT listen to Hutton, he is a complete fraud/moron. He has been voted off the island by Rick and Marty. But you guys should have guessed that he was a fool by the cloths he wears in the show. I mean who in the hell wears that crap? An idiot con man pretending to be an archaeologist, that's who.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

My gut says the sword is a plant and a fake and somebody is being taken for a ride here.

As for Atlantic crossings from the Mediterranean between 0-1300 AD: I hate to label anything as impossible. Humans are clever and adventurous monkeys and It's certainly possible that attempts were made to see how far the ocean went west. Even though most ships were not designed for such a voyage that doesn't mean the technology to build more seaworthy vessels for long journeys didn't exist. The Mediterraneans were a sea faring people. I'm not saying it happened, I'm just saying it's not that far-fetched.

Having said that, the fact that there is little to no documentation of these voyages leads me to believe that if it was attempted it rarely succeeded and even then it wasn't feasible for any state to sponsor an attempt at settlement.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Let me set the history straight. The Romans were at the time unexcelled in shipping and imported vast amounts of things from all over the Mediterranean. Also, their navies easily defeated Carthage.

The notion of Carthaginian sea superiority was true only during the First Carthaginian War. After that the Romans contracted with Corinth to build them a fleet and they defeated the Carthaginian fleets hand down, to the extent Hannibal had to conduct a land war.

Still, this was limited almost entirely to the Mediterranean. The only way an artifact could be found as reported would have been via trade, goods passing from hand to hand, but what the route might have been beggars the imagination.

Not the only way ;

The artifact could have been bought off the internet

1.jpg

http://romanofficer.com/PermcolC.html

'jazzed up ' a bit

2189413342_zps6gla1eg6.jpg

and dropped in the pit ....

.... then 'found' ;)

\

Edited by back to earth
  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes, we do need to say more.

Well, I need to say more :)

Apparently the props required nowadays for such 'documentaries' dont even have to have an unknown origin. Their target audience is now so strong, nothing can shake their faith !

Reminds me of when I went to see this Egyptian Exhibit owned and put on travelling display by some Christian group. Wow ! What they were trying to make out of things !

At one stage I ignored the do not touch sign as I just had to pick up and look at a ceremonial cup tagged as ancient Egyptian. I turned it over and it had an old worn paper label on the bottom that said ' Madam ( cant remember) 's of Hollywood ' with a Hollywood address. It was plaster as well, probably from a shop that sold old movie props.

It was an interesting 'artifact' though ... maybe even from 'The Ten Commandments' or 'Ben Hur' (it looked like that vintage ) .

Edited by back to earth
Link to comment
Share on other sites

If this was about the time the Vikings were visiting North America, the sword was probably brought by a Viking.

Maybe the Viking bought it off the internet ?

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, I need to say more :)

You sure do...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

My gut says the sword is a plant and a fake and somebody is being taken for a ride here.

As for Atlantic crossings from the Mediterranean between 0-1300 AD: I hate to label anything as impossible. Humans are clever and adventurous monkeys and It's certainly possible that attempts were made to see how far the ocean went west. Even though most ships were not designed for such a voyage that doesn't mean the technology to build more seaworthy vessels for long journeys didn't exist. The Mediterraneans were a sea faring people. I'm not saying it happened, I'm just saying it's not that far-fetched.

Having said that, the fact that there is little to no documentation of these voyages leads me to believe that if it was attempted it rarely succeeded and even then it wasn't feasible for any state to sponsor an attempt at settlement.

It is 99% likely in my opinion that there were sailings to the Americas by one of the old world civilizations. Unless it is smoking gun type evidence however, it will be difficult to prove. The odd OOPART or random glyph here and there cannot be definitive proof. A trading settlement or colony unearthed would seem the best bet.

The Phoenician circumnavigation of Africa in 1200 BC was documented, and even that is questioned by some scholars.

Pytheas the Greek claimed to have sailed 7 days northwest of Britain to Iceland 'where the sea congealed'. Prevailing academic opinion is that he actually sailed to Shetland, which is Northeast of Britain. If Pytheas did sail to Iceland it would be impossible to prove realistically. Could be he went to the Faroe Islands and mistook them for Iceland based on British local knowledge. Even the Faroe Islands would be quite a feat for the age.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

And I agree with Thorvir Hrothgaard, I too got several ancient coins (like one of Alexander The Great) and if I buried it in my backyard in Australia - who knows to what

strange conclusions 'scientists' and archaeologists may jump to.

Besides all of that, The Roman Empire had extensive contacts with Germanic and other Nordic Tribes.

Anyone of those could have gotten hold of a Roman Sword and sold it to a Viking, who then dropped it

in Vineland (America) - just to confuse later generations. :-)

Edited by Hartmut
  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I read this about where Hutton got the artifact.

http://www.andywhiteanthropology.com/blog/j-hutton-pulitzer-the-boy-who-cried-smoking-gun-artifact

First is the provenience. It's kind of a shaggy dog story, not unlike that associated with Cinmar biface:

"Pulitzer explained: “Some years ago, a man and his son were scalloping off Oak Island, which sees them hang rake-like object off the back of their boat. When they brought this up, the sword came up with it.

They thought they were going to get into trouble due to restrictions in Nova Scotia which made all private shipwreck diving for treasure outlawed. So they freaked out about it.

The father kept it for decades, and when he died it went to his wife, then his daughter. Then when she died many years later it went to her husband. It was he who came forward to the island and said ‘I think you should know about this and where it was found.'"”

So best case scenario it changed hands four times. When was it actually found? By whom? Where?

So I looked up the Canadian law on shipwrecks and I found the current law is from 2001. So it seems weird to me that the man who dragged it up died decades later, then his wife died, then his daughter had it for years. So we're looking at about 30 years, or so. Yet the law is from 15 years ago?

In my reading about it (admittedly briefly) it seems that the 2001 law was put in place to stop exactly this kind of thing, and that before the 2001 law, it would have been "finders keepers".

There is a previous 1990 Treasure Trove Act, but as far as I can tell, that pertains to objects of precious metals found on land, and does not mention the ocean/sea at all. Even 1990 would be only 25 years, but might just barely fit with what Hutton describes as the history of the sword.

Regardless, I think it is all made up..... :yes: :yes:

If there's a History Channel at that time...yes.

Maybe they should change the name to the Pseudo-Historic Crap Channel?

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Regardless, I think it is all made up..... :yes: :yes:

I am positive an old world civilization made the crossing from the Mediterranean over to the Americas, and perhaps real evidence may yet be found, but not here. This sword 'find' is based on heresay evidence without context of any kind. Impossible to verify.

It would be like future archaelogists finding a Big Mac wrapper discarded by a tourist inside a pyramid and attributing the building of it to Saint Ronaldus McDonaldus.

Hard to believe these so-called 'scholars' give this sword credence.

I don't think made-up. Just cringeworthy facepalm-stupid self professed 'experts' who don't even understand the seafaring capabilities of different ancient civilizations.

Or the idiocy of theorizing about an artifact irresponsibly without consideration of context.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I am positive an old world civilization made the crossing from the Mediterranean over to the Americas, and perhaps real evidence may yet be found, but not here. This sword 'find' is based on heresay evidence without context of any kind. Impossible to verify.

What makes you so positive that this thing happened?

For me, I wouldn't be surprised if there was an accidental crossing of old world civilizations to the new world, and that the hapless sailors didn't survive it. But anything other than that....no. At least no evidence of such a thing.

It would be like future archaelogists finding a Big Mac wrapper discarded by a tourist inside a pyramid and attributing the building of it to Saint Ronaldus McDonaldus.

Hard to believe these so-called 'scholars' give this sword credence.

I don't think made-up. Just cringeworthy facepalm-stupid self professed 'experts' who don't even understand the seafaring capabilities of different ancient civilizations.

Or the idiocy of theorizing about an artifact irresponsibly without consideration of context.

Or merely made-up. What makes you think that this isn't a hoax?

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

What makes you so positive that this thing happened?

According to prevailing scientific theory, monkeys crossed the Atlantic on makeshift rafts, this has been prevailing anthropological opinion since at least the 70s, when I learned about it in school. This makes the archaeological argument that humans could not have possibly crossed the Atlantic in the ancient world laughable.

http://phenomena.nationalgeographic.com/2015/02/05/when-monkeys-surfed-to-south-america/

http://news.discovery.com/animals/south-american-monkeys-may-have-come-from-africa-150213.htm

http://www.natureworldnews.com/articles/12506/20150204/south-american-monkeys-from-africa.htm

Or merely made-up. What makes you think that this isn't a hoax?

Too little information to make a determination, either way.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

36 million year old fossils of monkeys have been found in South America.

That's called evidence.

We have no evidence at all for humans coming across the Atlantic.

Nobody says they couldn't have. No body says they didn't.

What is said is that we have no evidence for it.

Harte

  • Like 5
Link to comment
Share on other sites

According to prevailing scientific theory, monkeys crossed the Atlantic on makeshift rafts, this has been prevailing anthropological opinion since at least the 70s, when I learned about it in school. This makes the archaeological argument that humans could not have possibly crossed the Atlantic in the ancient world laughable.

http://phenomena.nat...-south-america/

http://news.discover...rica-150213.htm

http://www.naturewor...from-africa.htm

Too little information to make a determination, either way.

There's a difference between small animals floating across on makeshift "rafts" and humans crossing in boats that were not built for ocean voyages. Humans need a lot more food than monkeys, and if there was a shipwreck situation they likely wouldn't have taken their ceremonial weaponry with them. I'm not saying it didn't happen, I'm saying that you're too confident that it DID happen, considering the lack of evidence supporting it.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I thought old world monkeys and new world monkeys had been shown to be genetically different to the point of millions of years of evolution between them?

I expect if given several million years, modern humans would have eventually crossed over into the Americas. But like Harte said, there isn't any good evidence of this happening before the Vikings did it.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

What is said is that we have no evidence for it.

I expect if given several million years, modern humans would have eventually crossed over into the Americas. But like Harte said, there isn't any good evidence of this happening before the Vikings did it.

I already stated in a previous post there is no evidence yet of humans in the ancient world making the crossing. I am merely stating that I am confident some will eventually be found. Based on the anthropological monkey evidence, I don't expect monkeys had the technology to make the voyage while humans did not. Hence my confidence that it is just a matter of time until evidence is found.

There's a difference between small animals floating across on makeshift "rafts" and humans crossing in boats that were not built for ocean voyages. Humans need a lot more food than monkeys, and if there was a shipwreck situation they likely wouldn't have taken their ceremonial weaponry with them. I'm not saying it didn't happen, I'm saying that you're too confident that it DID happen, considering the lack of evidence supporting it.

True, humans need more food than monkeys. But then again, humans already had the technology to prepare food for ocean journeys, dried and pickled fruit and vegetables & fish, cakes and biscuits, etc. They also had the technology to fish even on the voyage.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I already stated in a previous post there is no evidence yet of humans in the ancient world making the crossing. I am merely stating that I am confident some will eventually be found. Based on the anthropological monkey evidence, I don't expect monkeys had the technology to make the voyage while humans did not. Hence my confidence that it is just a matter of time until evidence is found.

True, humans need more food than monkeys. But then again, humans already had the technology to prepare food for ocean journeys, dried and pickled fruit and vegetables & fish, cakes and biscuits, etc. They also had the technology to fish even on the voyage.

True, but the Romans did not possess transatlantic vessels. As such, if they ended up in North America it would probably have been by accident, which would suggest that they likely would not have been properly provisioned. Again, I'm not saying it couldn't happen, I just think there are an awful lot of "ifs" between Romans in Europe and swords in Nova Scotia.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

True, but the Romans did not possess transatlantic vessels. As such, if they ended up in North America it would probably have been by accident, which would suggest that they likely would not have been properly provisioned. Again, I'm not saying it couldn't happen, I just think there are an awful lot of "ifs" between Romans in Europe and swords in Nova Scotia.

As I stated previously, I don't believe whatsoever that the sword nor the claim is authentic. I think if there was a voyage, it would be the Phoenicians/Carthaginians from one of their West African colonies directly to South America, or possibly the Azores to the Carribean, whether on purpose or by accident (ie, blown off course). Either on the North Equatorial or South Equatorial current.

Monkeys didn't possess transatlantic vessels either I should point out. Yet monkeys somehow managed to make the journey.

While the Phoenicians/Carthaginians and Greeks circumnavigated Europe to Britain, the Romans were unable to do so.

When the Romans invaded Britain, they had to travel overland to the European side of the English channel, built their ships there and then crossed. They were so unfamiliar with the Atlantic tides they lost half their fleet just crossing the channel and disembarking. I would say the Romans are most unlikely to have made the crossing to North America.

Some historians believe that the Carthaginians made it to the Azores. There is trace evidence to support this. I am not convinced that this is fact either, but I think it to be likely. The Carthaginians made multiple purely exploratory voyages in the Atlantic, as did the Phoenicians.

Edited by Jungleboogie
Link to comment
Share on other sites

True, humans need more food than monkeys. But then again, humans already had the technology to prepare food for ocean journeys, dried and pickled fruit and vegetables & fish, cakes and biscuits, etc. They also had the technology to fish even on the voyage.

35 million years ago (and that's only the earliest fossils we have found so far,) Africa was significantly closer to South America.

Besides, while it's true that humans could prepare for the journey ahead of time like you say, they wouldn't do so without having a destination in mind.

Humans could have drifted here by accident like we believe monkeys did, but it's far less likely they would survive the trip, or even survive as easily as monkeys would in the wilds of South America.

Harte

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Besides, while it's true that humans could prepare for the journey ahead of time like you say, they wouldn't do so without having a destination in mind.

Any civilization which funds exploration would not necessarily have a destination. The very nature of exploration is 'into the unknown'.

35 million years ago (and that's only the earliest fossils we have found so far,) Africa was significantly closer to South America.

Check the distance from the Canary Islands to Tyre, heck even to Carthage. Not much for resupply points between the Canary Islands and Carthage. Any trade ship leaving the Canaries for Carthage or Tyre would have been heavily stocked with supplies. The same would apply for Phoenician/Carthaginian trade routes to West Africa.

Africa was significantly closer to South America.

And sailing is significantly quicker than drifting on a raft.

or even survive as easily as monkeys would in the wilds of South America.

On this I wholeheartedly agree. That has long been the challenge of civilizations attempting to establish colonies, whether for empire or trade.

Edited by Jungleboogie
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.