TL;DR
- Anchor points with strong context: L’Anse aux Meadows (accepted Norse site) and the Maine “Norse penny” (live controversy). See UNESCO listing and Parks Canada page for the former; JONA 2017 + Maine State Museum overview for the latter. (accessed 2025-08-10).
- Semitic/Biblical inscriptions cluster: Los Lunas (credentialed supporters exist), Bat Creek (forgery case is detailed), Newark Holy Stones (19th-c hoax consensus). Sources below. Orient (1995); Mainfort & Kwas 2004 PDF; OAC white paper (accessed 2025-08-10).
- Classical (Greco-Roman) claims worth knowing: Tecaxic-Calixtlahuaca “Roman head” (peer-review back-and-forth), Guanabara Bay amphorae (media/deep controversy), Tucson lead crosses (rich documentary trail, widely judged hoax). Antiquity debate overview; NYT 1982; JSTOR article (accessed 2025-08-10).
“The absence of evidence is not evidence of absence; it is evidence of absence of evidence.”
— D. T. Campbell, paraphrased across his methodological essays (spirit fits the topic)
How to read this guide#
I’m not here to smite or to canonize. Below are the most cited objects and sites, grouped by theme, and ordered (within each group) from more to less plausible in my view based on context, provenience, and technical critique. I flag credentialed advocates (journalists, profs, museum staff, etc.) where notable. If any of the ambiguous cases were nailed down, they’d re-weight our priors on transoceanic contact. Until then: cautious curiosity.
For theory-level context on diffusionism (pro and con), see Joseph Campbell’s view: Campbell on diffusionism
Norse & Runic#
L’Anse aux Meadows (Newfoundland, Canada) — excavated Norse settlement (c. 1000 CE). Firmly accepted. Primary context, artifacts, and ^14C all align. Good baseline that contact happened at least here. UNESCO listing; Parks Canada page (accessed 2025‑08‑10).
The Maine “Norse Penny” (Goddard site, Brooklin, ME) — a Norwegian silver coin (Olaf Kyrre, late 11th c.) found in 1957 in a large indigenous trade midden. Maine State Museum notes the likeliest path is indigenous trade from Norse zones; numismatist Svein H. Gullbekk (Journal of the North Atlantic, 2017) argues the find is plausibly genuine in context; ANS voices hoax concerns. Status: nontrivial, unresolved. JONA 2017; Maine State Museum overview (accessed 2025‑08‑10).
Kensington Runestone (Minnesota) — 1898 find with a 1362 date in runes. Early support came from Newton H. Winchell (state geologist; 1910 report); modern runologists and geologists are mostly skeptical. Read both the historical Winchell report and current critiques. Winchell 1910 (LOC PDF); Geological hoax critique (accessed 2025‑08‑10).
Heavener Runestone (Oklahoma) — often read as “Glome’s Valley.” Lacks Norse archaeological context; Scandinavian settlement in the area is modern. Coverage is mostly heritage/tourism; scholars generally unconvinced. BBC Travel; Wikipedia (accessed 2025‑08‑10).
Narragansett Rune Stone (Rhode Island) — moved/stolen and recovered in 2014, with no secure context; consensus: modern. Wikipedia (accessed 2025‑08‑10).
Semitic / Biblical#
Los Lunas Decalogue Stone (New Mexico) — Ten-Commandments text in Paleo-Hebrew letterforms on a huge boulder. Advocates include Cyrus H. Gordon (Semiticist; saw it as a Samaritan mezuzah, Late Antique/Byzantine) and James D. Tabor (religious studies), who once leaned positive; UNM’s Frank Hibben also vouched early, though his own record is contested. Critics cite epigraphic anomalies and lack of material culture around it. Neutral take: a serious inscription claim with a fraught context. Orient (1995); McCulloch resource; Tablet magazine overview (accessed 2025-08-10).
Bat Creek Stone (Tennessee) — found 1889; re-read by Cyrus H. Gordon in the 1970s as Paleo-Hebrew. The most detailed rebuttal is Mainfort & Kwas, American Antiquity (2004): they identify a 19th-c Masonic source for the glyphs and modern brass ornaments in the burial. Proponents (e.g., J. Huston McCulloch) still contest the case. Mainfort & Kwas 2004; Debate packet (PDF) (accessed 2025-08-10).
Newark Holy Stones (Ohio) — a suite of Hebrew-inscribed artifacts (1860). The current professional consensus: forgeries tied to 19th-c Mound Builder myths; see Lepper et al. (Ohio Archaeological Council) for the one-stop history. OAC white paper (accessed 2025-08-10).
The Paraíba Inscription (Brazil) — 1872 Phoenician text from Paraíba (known via copies). Declared a hoax early; Cyrus Gordon later argued it genuine (1968), prompting responses by Frank Moore Cross and others. It remains academically rejected but is a classic case of a credentialed believer re-opening a cold file. JSTOR 43782414; JSTOR 43782329 (accessed 2025-08-10).
Pedra da Gávea (Rio de Janeiro) — supposed Phoenician-style inscription on a mountain face; promoted by early 20th-c Brazilian writers like B. A. da Silva Ramos; mainstream view: pareidolia + erosional features. Background: Wikipedia (accessed 2025-08-10).
Classical (Greek / Roman) & Latin‑Christian#
Tecaxic‑Calixtlahuaca “Roman head” (State of México) — a small terracotta head found in a Postclassic burial; Hristov & Genovés argued Roman origin with TL results excluding a colonial make; counter‑critiques question context and contamination. A rare case with peer‑reviewed exchange rather than pure internet shouting. Antiquity debate overview (accessed 2025‑08‑10).
Guanabara Bay amphorae (Rio de Janeiro) — diver Robert Marx publicized “Roman amphorae” in the 1980s; legal and political fights ensued; archaeologists remain unconvinced due to chain‑of‑custody and context problems. A media‑heavy saga more than a settled find. NYT 1982 (accessed 2025‑08‑10).
Comalcalco bricks (Tabasco, Mexico) — genuine Maya brick city where some claim letter‑like marks = Roman characters. Specialists note the bricks’ marks are construction/masons’ signs or decorations; the “Roman alphabet” meme is not evidential. See critical notes and site background. Comalcalco critique; Wikipedia (accessed 2025‑08‑10).
Tucson (Silverbell) lead crosses (Arizona) — 1920s finds of lead items with Latin/Hebrew. A century of analysis points to hoax: caliche issues, plagiarized Latin, no site assemblage. Still, note that early on Byron Cummings (UA) and Andrew Douglass (astronomer) entertained authenticity—useful for understanding how hoaxes gain momentum. Wikipedia; A Hot Cup of Joe (accessed 2025‑08‑10).
Ibero-Atlantic & Early-Modern Reads#
Dighton Rock (Massachusetts) — densely carved boulder; Edmund B. Delabarre (Brown Univ., 1917) famously read it as a Portuguese knight’s inscription (Miguel Corte-Real). Current scholarly view: Native petroglyph tradition with later over-interpretations; still a classic in contact debates. Delabarre 1917 (Archive.org); Massachusetts state park (accessed 2025-08-10).
Newport Tower (Rhode Island) — windmill in Governor Benedict Arnold’s 17th-c will; recurrently recast as Templar/Norse. Documentary anchor wins here. Newport History (accessed 2025-08-10).
Midwestern “Tablets” & Caves#
Michigan “Relics” (Scotford–Soper–Savage collection) — thousands of engraved slates/clays from late‑19th‑c digs. Disproven repeatedly (materials, toolmarks, script pastiche). BYU Studies has a meticulous review of the episode and why it seduced clergy and laity alike. BYU Studies analysis; University of Michigan history (accessed 2025‑08‑10).
Davenport Tablets (Iowa) — 1877–78 inscribed slates; the McKusick monograph traces how and why they were likely salted. Still cited in diffusionist lists; now a cautionary tale in museum practice. Archaeology Bulletin; Wikipedia (accessed 2025‑08‑10).
Burrows Cave (Illinois) — alleged cave with thousands of “Old‑World” inscribed stones (site never verified). Even many alternative‑history writers call it a con; nevertheless, Cyclone Covey (Wake Forest historian) once lent support. Read Wilson’s analysis of how this persisted. Wikipedia; Ohio History Connection (accessed 2025‑08‑10).
Polynesian & Asian Signals (contact near-certain in places)#
Sweet potato (kumara/kumala) — pre-Columbian spread into Polynesia is accepted by most specialists (linguistic + genetic + archaeological). Multiple introductions likely; not an artifact but a powerful marker. PNAS 2013; PNAS 2007; PNAS 2014 (accessed 2025-08-10).
Polynesian chickens in Chile — 2007 PNAS paper argued a pre-Columbian lineage at El Arenal-1; a 2014 PNAS re-analysis cautioned about contamination and found no compelling signal in their dataset. Debate ongoing, but this is real science, not internet lore. PNAS 2007; PNAS 2014 (open-access mirrors linked above).
“Chinese stone anchors” on the California coast — almost always 19th-century Chinese fishing gear; not evidence of ancient Chinese voyages. See Delgado’s synthesis for context. Conference page; Workshop notes (accessed 2025-08-10).
Quick comparison table (ordered within groups)#
| Item | Region | Claimed culture/script | Context strength | Credentialed advocates | One key source |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| L’Anse aux Meadows | Newfoundland | Norse | Excavated site with artifacts | — (consensus) | UNESCO listing |
| Maine “Norse penny” | Maine | Norse coin | Secure site, weak find-provenience | S. H. Gullbekk (JONA 2017) | JONA 2017 |
| Kensington Runestone | Minnesota | Norse runes | 1898 find; context-poor | N. H. Winchell (1910) | Winchell 1910 (LOC PDF) |
| Heavener Runestone | Oklahoma | Norse runes | Landscape carving, no assemblage | — | Wikipedia |
| Los Lunas Stone | New Mexico | Hebrew/Samaritan | Monumental boulder; no site debris | C. H. Gordon, J. D. Tabor | Orient (1995) |
| Bat Creek Stone | Tennessee | Hebrew (per re-read) | Mound find; 2004 source-match to 19th-c book | — (Gordon earlier) | Mainfort & Kwas 2004 |
| Newark Holy Stones | Ohio | Hebrew | 1860s context; hoax consensus | — | OAC white paper |
| Tecaxic “Roman head” | Mexico | Roman style | Real burial; attribution debated | R. Hristov, S. Genovés | Antiquity debate overview |
| Guanabara amphorae | Brazil | Roman | Diver finds; chain-of-custody issues | R. Marx (popular) | NYT 1982 |
| Comalcalco bricks | Mexico | “Roman letters” claim | Real Maya city; letter-claim rejected | — | Comalcalco critique |
| Tucson lead crosses | Arizona | Latin/Hebrew | Long forensic critique | B. Cummings/A. Douglass (early) | Wikipedia |
| Dighton Rock | Massachusetts | Portuguese/Norse claims | Palimpsest; Native petroglyph consensus | E. B. Delabarre (Brown) | Delabarre 1917 (Archive.org) |
| Newport Tower | Rhode Island | Templar/Norse claims | 17th-c windmill docs | — | Newport History |
| Michigan Relics | Michigan | “Near Eastern” mix | Fabrication evidence | — | BYU Studies analysis |
| Davenport Tablets | Iowa | Mixed scripts | Salting likely | M. McKusick (monograph) | Archaeology Bulletin |
| Burrows Cave | Illinois | “All of the above” | Site never verified | C. Covey (historian) | Wikipedia |
What to do with all this#
- Use context as your filter. Inscriptions without an assemblage (camps, middens, tools, ecofacts) are weak. L’Anse aux Meadows stands out because the site tells a coherent story.
- Track the most qualified “yes.” Gordon (Semiticist) on Los Lunas/Paraíba; Delabarre (Brown) on Dighton; Winchell (state geologist) on Kensington; Hristov/Genovés (archaeologists) on Tecaxic; Gullbekk (numismatist) on the Maine penny. Credential ≠ correctness, but it matters which pros are willing to sign their names.
- Expect messy priors. Polynesian signals (sweet potato; maybe chickens) show that some pre‑Columbian contacts happened beyond the North Atlantic, and not all diffusion claims are crankery. That doesn’t rescue weak artifacts, but it changes the base rate.
FAQ#
Q1. If I only read three cases, which give the best signal-to-noise? A. L’Anse aux Meadows (control), the Maine Norse penny (serious debate), and the Los Lunas Stone (credentialed yes + epigraphic critiques). Together they map the spectrum from “proven site” to “nontrivial inscription without context.”
Q2. Which single artifact would most update beliefs if proven? A. A securely excavated Semitic or Roman inscription with associated material culture (pottery, diet, tech) in a sealed pre-1492 layer. Los Lunas or Tecaxic would do it—if locked to context. A one-off stone never beats a stratified assemblage.
Q3. Why keep hoaxes in the canon at all? A. Because they explain how ideas spread (Michigan, Davenport, Tucson), and because debunking methodology is part of the story; it’s the negative control that keeps us honest.
Q4. Any non-Atlantic contact that’s actually mainstream? A. Yes: the sweet potato’s pre-Columbian presence in Polynesia. It’s the cleanest, multi-line line of evidence for trans-Pacific movement before Europeans.
Footnotes#
Sources#
(Linked inline above; key anchors collected here.)
- UNESCO & Parks Canada on L’Anse aux Meadows: UNESCO listing ; Parks Canada page
- Gullbekk, S. H. “The Norse Penny Reconsidered: The Goddard Coin—Hoax or Genuine?” Journal of the North Atlantic (2017). OA mirror: SciSpace PDF ; overview: Wikipedia — Maine penny
- Gordon, C. H. “Diffusion of Near East Culture in Antiquity and in Byzantine Times.” Orient 30–31 (1995): 69–81. J-Stage PDF
- Tabor, J. D. “An Ancient Hebrew Inscription in New Mexico: Fact or Fraud?” (1997). Contextual reporting: Tablet — The Mystery Stone ; curated refs: Los Lunas Decalogue — references
- Mainfort, R. C., & Kwas, M. L. “The Bat Creek Stone Revisited: A Fraud Exposed.” American Antiquity 69 (2004): 761–769. Cambridge page ; TN OA PDF: PDF
- Lepper, B. et al. “The Newark Holy Stones: The History of an Archaeological Comedy.” Ohio Archaeological Council (white paper). OAC white paper
- Antiquity (Cambridge Core) on Tecaxic-Calixtlahuaca debate (Hristov & Genovés; counter-arguments). Issue overview referencing the debate: Cambridge — Antiquity issue
- NYT on Guanabara amphorae controversy: New York Times (1982)
- Comalcalco critique + site background: Haecceities blog ; Wikipedia — Comalcalco
- Tucson artifacts overview and modern synthesis: Wikipedia — Tucson artifacts ; A Hot Cup of Joe — Tucson hoax ; Journal of the Southwest article (Don Burgess) referenced therein.
- Delabarre, E. B. Dighton Rock: A Study of the Written Rocks of New England (1917). Internet Archive
- Newport Tower documentation: Newport History
- Michigan Relics forensic/ historiographic treatments: BYU Studies analysis ; History of UM — Frauds in the Field
- Davenport Tablets scholarship: Archaeology Bulletin ; Wikipedia — Davenport Tablets
- Burrows Cave critiques and meta-analysis: Ohio History Connection ; Wikipedia — Burrows Cave
- Polynesian contact—sweet potato and chickens: PNAS 2013 ; PNAS 2007 ; PNAS 2014 (OA PDF: Thomson 2014 PDF)