121 replies to this topic

[TheSearcher]

Shadow_of_Man, on 10 January 2010 - 07:29 PM, said:

It has been recently discovered (within the last couple of decades) that the ancient mummies of Egypt have smoked tobacco, which at that time was only known to exist in the Americas. As far as the presumed history of man is concerned, we know that history as we know it is wrong and we can argue the conspiracy behind that until we are blue in the face; however, the fact is that trade routes have existed since far before presumed history dictates and Ancient Native Americans are no exception.  There is no need to theorize anything such as ancient non-native outposts established in America before the genocidal murder Columbus or the ancient Norse explorers, for trade is simply the most likely reason to find non-native artifacts anywhere on the planet.

Yes, certain mummies of Egypt have traces of nicotine, that much has been proven, but there is no way to tell if it is tabacco or any of the other plants that naturally contain nicotine. So that's kind of a hollow argument to start with. Then again this has been discussed ad nauseum in other threads, there is little proof against the statement, but there is even less proof for it.

@ SlimJim22 : There is no such thing as Hittite-Minoan, they're two different scripts and even two very different languages. Using it together and making one language out of it is, I'm sorry, nonsense.

Besides, the Phoenicians did not navigate to the american continent, for starters, their vessels did not allow for it. According to the Greek writers, Phoenician merchant ships were of a broad, round make, what our sailors would call "tubs," resembling probably the Dutch fishing-boats of a century ago. They were impelled both by oars and sails, but depended mainly on the latter.
Each of them had a single mast of moderate height, to which a single sail was attached;10 this was what in modern times is called a "square sail," a form which is only well suited for sailing with when the wind is directly astern. It was apparently attached to the yard, and had to be hoisted together with the yard, along which it could be closely reefed, or from which it could be loosely shaken out. It was managed, no doubt, by ropes attached to the two lower corners, which must have been held in the hands of sailors, as it would have been most dangerous to belay them. As long as the wind served, the merchant captain used his sail; when it died away, or became adverse, he dropped yard and sail on to his deck, and made use of his oars.

[Ixohoxi]

Just found this thread after reading about Michigan copper in the Mediterranean, and doing some follow research. Though I am disappointed in the usual "skeptobanter" appearing throughout this thread - and especially the most recent posts - I enjoyed the posts from Judi E.

That said, here is the article I read which resulted in my ending up here; the tone of several in this thread ticked me off enough to register and post...

Michigan Copper in the Mediterranean, by Jay Stuart Wakefield, MES & AAPF

We'll see if this inspires any new thought and/or research by the "denizens" of this forum. I've been through countless debates online over the years so I am prepared to deal with just about anything.

Enjoy.

[questionmark]

More Hitite-Manichean-Romanoide brain maxturbation?

[Harte]

Ixohoxi, on 10 September 2011 - 09:15 PM, said:

Just found this thread after reading about Michigan copper in the Mediterranean, and doing some follow research. Though I am disappointed in the usual "skeptobanter" appearing throughout this thread - and especially the most recent posts - I enjoyed the posts from Judi E.

That said, here is the article I read which resulted in my ending up here; the tone of several in this thread ticked me off enough to register and post...

Michigan Copper in the Mediterranean, by Jay Stuart Wakefield, MES & AAPF

We'll see if this inspires any new thought and/or research by the "denizens" of this forum. I've been through countless debates online over the years so I am prepared to deal with just about anything.

Enjoy.

It's a load of crap.

Quote

A Mathematical Mystery Tour, or the Prehistoric Numbers Game

Now we turn to the second major theme in the copper culture myth, that of the dogma of the missing copper. Where did all the copper go? This theme is formulated on a calculus of mythic arithmetic, a prehistoric numbers game! The mythic calculations involve the numbers and depths of copper extraction pits, the numbers and weights of stone hammers, the percentage volume of copper per mining pit, the numbers of miners, and the years of mining duration. Ultimately, the mix of these numbers yields the alleged total amount of extracted prehistoric copper, that being in the range of 1 to 1.5 billion pounds. It's difficult to attribute this branch of mathematics to any one individual, but if there's credit to be given, it should be given first to Drier and Du Temple (Drier and Du Temple 1961) and then to a Chicago-area writer named Henrietta Mertz, who lays out her numerology proposals in a book entitled Atlantis: Dwelling Place of the Gods (Mertz 1967). In contrast, I propose that none of these numbers, save those related to the weight of the hammers, are actually knowable in an empirical sense.

SNIP

MYTH: Other elements that are found in many copper culture myths are mantra-like repetitions of numbers that combine the head count of miners, a time duration of mining, and mining pit counts into an algorithm of total exploited copper. "Furthermore it is believed that as many as 10,000 miners, labored some 1000-plus years, in an estimated 10,000 Copper Range pits" (Sodders 1990:30). Essentially the same mathematical alchemy is reported by Drier and Du Temple, who add that the total amount of removed copper approaches 1 to 1.5 billion pounds:

"If one assumes that an average pit is 20 feet in diameter and 30 feet deep, then it appears that something like 1000 to 1200 tons of ore were removed per pit. If the ore averaged five percent, or 100 pounds per ton then approximately 100,000 pounds of copper were removed per pit. If 5000 pits existed, as earlier estimates indicated (and all pits are copper bearing), then 100,000 pounds per pit in 5000 pits means that 500,000,000 pounds of copper were mined in prehistoric times - all of it without anything more than fire, stone hammers, and manpower. If the ore sampled 15 percent, and if more than 5000 pits existed, then over 1.5 billion pounds of copper were mined (Drier and Du Temple 1961:17).

Henriette Mertz tells it more plainly and lays culpability at the toes of the archaeological profession: "This incredible amount of copper has not been accounted for by American archaeologists ..... the sum total according to archaeological findings here in the States amounts to a mere handful of copper beads and trinkets.....float copper. Five hundred thousand tons of pure copper does not disintegrate into thin air. It cannot be sneezed away......it must be somewhere, and to date, it has not been located in the United States," and "99.9% is still to be accounted for" (Mertz 1976:18). Mertz concludes, of course, that the copper was disappeared by Old World Bronze Age metal mongers.

FACT: The figures are made up out of thin air and can be sneezed away. That's because no one has a means to measure any of these variables accurately or with any precision. All of these figures are built on ill-constructed estimates. Let's examine the variable "percentage of copper in the trap rock" as an example. Clearly, the actual percentage of copper in rock varies from none (plain old rock) to one hundred percent (Ontonagon Boulder). Additionally, while the course of copper in trap rock is somewhat predictable, the amount of copper isn't necessarily constant or even regular. Many failed mining concerns of the nineteenth century found out this fact of geology the hard way! The counts of copper pits, the sizes of pits, and the weight of removed trap are 1) either arbitrarily-chosen numbers, or 2) variable in reality; despite this they are used as constants in the algorithm. Drier and Du Temple used a constant for copper percentage (error) and then multiply it by an estimated number of pits (error inherent) of a constant size (error), counting some and extrapolating to unknown areas (another error). Because we know that pits are not randomly but systematically located, excavated and followed, it makes no sense to extend their probable locations to unknown areas unless one is willing to accomodate enormous errors. In these algorithms, error compounds error compounds error. The resultant sums are a statement of faith, not fact; the numerologists may as well be counting angels dancing on heads of pins.

The above is from Susan R. Martin, State Archaeologist for Michigan.  Her article appeared in The Michigan Archaeologist and was written in 1995.

Don't believe this ridiculous number concerning the amount of copper that was mined in Michigan.

Also, rest assured there was plenty of copper in the areas around the Med for the use of the local peoples.  More than enough, in fact.  Still is, come to think of it.

Harte

[LadyW8tn41]

This story is of great interest to me because of the connection of the "Hittite" with other associations with Ancient Jews that are reputed to have come to the Americas.  They would have spoken (thusly written) Hittite--no?  This could be (Could be) more evidence of Jewish habitation here.

[docyabut2]

There is no evidence that Phoenician or Hittes ships made it to the Americas.They were known to hug the coast lines in the ancient world or go off course and the ships were not equipped to be able to carry that much water to make it there:)and if you talk of the experimental boat of Ra when they even had to be dropped water and supplies to make it.

Edited by docyabut2, 05 January 2013 - 04:27 AM.

[kmt_sesh]

LadyW8tn41, on 05 January 2013 - 03:44 AM, said:

This story is of great interest to me because of the connection of the "Hittite" with other associations with Ancient Jews that are reputed to have come to the Americas.  They would have spoken (thusly written) Hittite--no?  This could be (Could be) more evidence of Jewish habitation here.

Welcome to UM, LadyW8tn41.

Now, as to your post: With respect, no, it certainly isn't (see your last question). Not only were the Jews not even mariners of any noticeable degree, but they did not speak Hittite. They spoke Hebrew, a dialect of the Semitic language group. Hittite, on the other hand, belongs to the language family of Indo-European. The earliest writing of the Hebrews appears as a paleo-script adapted from other Semitic scripts, while the Hittites wrote in a form of cuneiform as well as their own version of hieroglyphs. And perhaps most tellingly, the Hittites as a significant socio-political state had disappeared before the Hebrews rose in prominence in the highlands of Judah. Well, also, the center of power for the Hittites had been in central Anatolia, up in what's now Turkey.

[questionmark]

LadyW8tn41, on 05 January 2013 - 03:44 AM, said:

This story is of great interest to me because of the connection of the "Hittite" with other associations with Ancient Jews that are reputed to have come to the Americas.  They would have spoken (thusly written) Hittite--no?  This could be (Could be) more evidence of Jewish habitation here.

If you exclude the Book Mormon there is absolutely no evidence for it, and the Book Mormon is quite a weak piece of evidence.

[Abramelin]

I think the word "Jews" should be dropped in this context, because they were only one tribe of the Israelites.

Then we have the Phoenicians, or Canaanites (they called themselves the "knn" or "khnn"). In my blog I posted about a research done by an Israeli professor and his research showed that the Hebrews and Phoenicians/Canaanites were very probably one and the same people, one part of that people being sailors, the other part landlubbers.

There is a possibility that the Canaanites traded with the Hittites, as they did with people all around the Mediterranean.

The Phoenicians did hug the coasts, but it is now generally accepted (I think) that they arrived in Cornwall to mine/trade in tin, so at some point they must have lost sight of the Atlantic coast of Europe and sail on the open ocean to Britain.

But like Questionmark already said, it's only the Book of Mormon that suggest Semites crossed the Atlantic. All the other 'proof' is based on hoaxes and wrong interpretations of scribbles and scratches on rock (Cyrus Gordon, Barry Fell)..

[bimmel]

I just saw the original photos from ~1900 and the current tablet featured on the History channel. The most obvious thing to indicate this is a hoax is that it was unfired clay. Anyone from that time that was using clay medium and taking the time to inscribe that tablet would know it required firing to hold up to any type of handling or period of time. But, if you take that assumption out, no matter how easy it is, there is something that is very hard to overlook. How can an unfired clay relic stay 100% preserved in very clear detail sitting in a forest for thousands of years? Unfired clay when exposed to small amounts of moisture over long periods (subsurface) or lots of moisture during short periods (exposure to rain) will quickly erode. If I buried a piece of unfired clay in the desert it wouldn't hold up for too long where it would have any recognizable detail, so I don't know how it looked like a freshly carved piece of clay when they discovered it in that region.

I'm not discarding the theories that people use this tablet in support of, but the tablet itself I just don't see how it could be 5,000 years old let alone 5 years old at the time of discovery. These types of hoaxes were quite common in the day. Often they were used for publicity stunts or to generate investment for various things. More than a couple of such hoaxes where parlayed into profitable enterprises so it is not hard to figure out the motives to so something like this.

[Carl203]

I would not trust the smithsonian for passing ancient civilization onfo to the public. They are well known for hidding most of it anyway. As for the history of 'who was here first' and the tablet in question, I agree that humans were transversing the lands long before columbus, and he was only given the title as discoverer due to the governments involved in such claim. It's all about the power and control over those it wished to control. North america is littered with ancient history, from macon ga, and mayan style foundations, to the hidden caves in the hopi lands called egytian catacombs where supossed ancient hindu/egytian relics were found as well as thousands of mummified humans, and those catacombs were cut into the living rock itself. So not only have we the history of these, and many, many more around us, we have some wishing to cover it up and for it to remain hidden from our view.
Even the rock paintings of caves in Utah have depictions of flying crafts. India has detailed writtings of ancient flying craft, as Bolivia and Columbia does as well.
In order to obtain a valid reasoning for yourself, you need to forget (or at least put aside) your beliefs and what you think you understand about human history. Then you can (with an open mind) gain to insight to fact rather that just belief in what someone told you.

[Abramelin]

Carl203, on 06 January 2013 - 05:19 PM, said:

I would not trust the smithsonian for passing ancient civilization onfo to the public. They are well known for hidding most of it anyway. As for the history of 'who was here first' and the tablet in question, I agree that humans were transversing the lands long before columbus, and he was only given the title as discoverer due to the governments involved in such claim. It's all about the power and control over those it wished to control. North america is littered with ancient history, from macon ga, and mayan style foundations, to the hidden caves in the hopi lands called egytian catacombs where supossed ancient hindu/egytian relics were found as well as thousands of mummified humans, and those catacombs were cut into the living rock itself. So not only have we the history of these, and many, many more around us, we have some wishing to cover it up and for it to remain hidden from our view.
Even the rock paintings of caves in Utah have depictions of flying crafts. India has detailed writtings of ancient flying craft, as Bolivia and Columbia does as well.
In order to obtain a valid reasoning for yourself, you need to forget (or at least put aside) your beliefs and what you think you understand about human history. Then you can (with an open mind) gain to insight to fact rather that just belief in what someone told you.

Is the Smithsonian Museum well known for hiding artifacts? You believe the Indiana Jones movies are about facts? Lol,.

There is no conspiracy here, it is now accepted that the Vikings visited America long before Columbus.

India does have detailed writings about flying chariots, but did you ever build one according to their instructions? lol.

And the most detailed 'instructions' came from some Indian 'channeler'.

Bolivian and Colombian golden artifacts depict flying fish, not aircrafts.

An open mind accepts contradicting evidence, not just what suits its fancy.

.

Edited by Abramelin, 06 January 2013 - 07:31 PM.

[lakeview rud]

I think it was Ronald Reagan who told the old joke about digging through the pile of horse**** because somewhere under all that had to be a pony!  In this case I hardly think Wakefield's effort (with 80 references!!) is crap.  A fairly ridgid scholarly effort.  So with all the name-calling and other BS going on in this thread, it still seems that there's some good proof that Michigan copper made its way to Europe somehow.  So how about trying to figure out who and how?  Or come up with a copper mining site in Europe capable of producing that type and purity of copper. If you find one then figure out how much copper was mined there and see if it fits the estimates of how much was used.

[questionmark]

lakeview rud, on 07 January 2013 - 01:48 AM, said:

I think it was Ronald Reagan who told the old joke about digging through the pile of horse**** because somewhere under all that had to be a pony!  In this case I hardly think Wakefield's effort (with 80 references!!) is crap.  A fairly ridgid scholarly effort.  So with all the name-calling and other BS going on in this thread, it still seems that there's some good proof that Michigan copper made its way to Europe somehow.  So how about trying to figure out who and how?  Or come up with a copper mining site in Europe capable of producing that type and purity of copper. If you find one then figure out how much copper was mined there and see if it fits the estimates of how much was used.

Well Michigan copper made it to Europe, after and during the 19th century.... AD.

[lakeview rud]

Another snide remark... next will be the disclaimers that Wakefield isn't a metallurgist or archeologist!  If you cannot come up with a good answer then don't comment.