Samples Internet Validity of Internet Sources

Validity of Internet Sources

325 words 2 page(s)

Question 1

The discovery of the AVM stone is the new find showing that Vikings were in Minnesota in the 1300’s. Janey Westin came across a boulder with faint inscriptions in May 2001. The inscriptions AVM were considered to imply Ave Maria. This evidence is used to support the earlier one about Kensington Runestone that was discovered in 1898.

Need A Unique Essay on "Validity of Internet Sources"? Use Promo "custom20" And Get 20% Off!

Order Now

Question 2
There is no any additional evidence brought forward to back up the claims that surround the AVM stone. Three impartial archaeologists were hired to dig the site where the AVM stone was discovered but did not find any clue about the Vikings assumed to have been in Minnesota in the medieval times. They only found two quartz flakes and evidence that Native Americans lived in the region in the past.

Question 3
According to Carl Sagan’s rules, there is a clear reason for one to be skeptical about these claims. First, it is not easy to confirm the facts about the two discoveries. Even after AVM stone was discovered, archaeologists did not come across further evidence of the presence of Vikings in the area. Second, the lifestyle and culture of the early Vikings involved seafaring activities. Therefore, they could not have found anything interesting at the center of the large continent.

Question 4
There is no any other simple explanation for the existence of a rock with Viking runes in Minnesota. It is also not easy to explain what would have motivated Vikings to travel to interior North America.

Question 5
The runes on AVM stone were curved by graduate students at the University of Minnesota during their leisure time after their spring semester of 1985. This came to the limelight after personal confessions of two of the graduates, Prof. Kari Ellen Gade and Prof. Jana Schulman of Indiana University and Southeastern Louisiana University respectively.

Question 6
It is now clear that people should not always believe archaeological claims published in the news outlets until substantial evidence is produced to support them.