Talk:Heavener Runestone
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
[edit] Unreferenced tag
Great article, very informative. But it desperately needs citations. (It does attribute theories to individuals here and there, which is good, but checkable cites are needed.) Phiwum 04:47, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
- I agree. I'll try to get some references added as time allows. The belief that these are authentic Viking runes is mainly due to the influence of one woman, Gloria Farley, who spent nearly half a century researching and promoting the idea. Her theory has not been accepted by mainstream archaeologists. Aardvark92 17:20, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
Needs citations
[edit] Academic treatments?
The theories presented in the article don't appear to come from mainstream academic archaeologists. Are there journal publications that discuss the runestone? Or has it been widely ignored in academia? Phiwum 16:10, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
See Aardvark92's comment above. There is no Norse (let alone Old Norse, pre Leif Eiriksson) cultural context for the Oklahoma runestones, and the earliest first-hand (as opposed to hearsay) accounts of this stone are memories of its existence around 1900, shortly after the railroad was driven through Heavener. Money is available for study of the Oklahoma stones, but not academic credit. David Trochos 08:52, 1 November 2007 (UTC)