>This could push back the history of The America's by 2000 years.<
Don’t get your hopes up!
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. 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.”
So, the story goes way back into the last century, just off an island that features one of the most mysterious treasure hunts of modern times, and nobody says a word until History (channel) needs to promote the next series of The Curse of Oak Island.
Furthermore, the guy is simply failing to appreciate that while it’s probably a genuine Roman sword there’s really no guarantee it was found when and where claimed.
He said mainstream historians often dismiss such finds by suggesting artifacts that do not conform to the orthodoxy must have been dropped by collectors in more modern times.
True, but that’s not the only reason they give.
“That’s how they poo-poo having to talk about it,” Pulitzer says. “But it’s a pretty blatant Roman artifact. The knee-jerk reaction was to think somebody put that sword there. It was found incredibly close to Oak Island in water only 25ft deep. But if you dropped that rare collectors’ sword overboard, wouldn’t you dive down to get it?”
Seems a pretty naive, and lame, observation to me.