Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 3
Codebreaker

Hittite Relics found in North America.

122 posts in this topic

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

That is not a snide remark, that is pointing out that Wakefield's case is weak at best. There is a number of ways copper could have made its way to Europe, like with the Vikings in the Middle Ages of whom we know had settlements in the Middle Ages in America. It does not have to be some Hittite tribe of which, as far as we know, none had a mariner tradition. Besides the little fact that the Hittites used the Mesopotamian cuneiform letters, well understood to archeology that would have disciphered those stones were they real.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Is he ?

Does he mention how they happened to get there, since they couldn't sail directly?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Guys, you misunderstood my comments...I do not maintain that Hittites were doing this copper trade. I'm simply stating that the evidence that is given is substantial that somehow copper ores from Michigan made it to Europe during the Bronze Age. If you don't agree with that then the way to argue against is to find holes in either his theories or his data. As to which sea-faring nation did this I have no clue. Neither do I have a clue as to where they crossed the Atlantic. What is important is that if his theories are correct then we best start looking for the answers to those two questions.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

<!--quoteo(post=615923:date=May 11 2005, 11&amp;#58;12 AM:name=marduk)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (marduk @ May 11 2005, 11:12 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=615923"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Hittite, phoenecian, sumerian, egyptian

st some point someone will probablt discover its an old o.s. survey marker and the mystery will be over <img src="style_emoticons/default/w00t.gif" style="vertical-align:middle" emoid=":w00t:" border="0" alt="w00t.gif" /> <img src="style_emoticons/default/w00t.gif" style="vertical-align:middle" emoid=":w00t:" border="0" alt="w00t.gif" /><!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->

For Pete's sake, Darwin's theory of evolution is still up for debate in America. How pathetic.

Why shouldn't Darwin's theory be up for debate?

Edited by SpiritWriter

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Believe that we may have addressed this topic in the past. As you are aware, Wakefield is sorely lacking in professional education/experience as it relates to the topic at hand. Should you choose to present the actual metallurgical studies, kindly do so.

Bear in mind that the research of Rapp, et. al., is readily retrievable. Due to time constraints, actual response may be somewhat delayed.

Will await.

.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Why shouldn't Darwin's theory be up for debate?

Gotta love the hilarity of this situation. You're necroposting in reply to someone who was necroposting in reply to someone who was banned from UM. :w00t: Neither of which is likely to reply to your post.

What is it about Darwin's theory that you think is up for debate?

cormac

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Gotta love the hilarity of this situation. You're necroposting in reply to someone who was necroposting in reply to someone who was banned from UM. :w00t: Neither of which is likely to reply to your post.

What is it about Darwin's theory that you think is up for debate?

cormac

I wasn't debating I was just wondering why the user was so positive that it didn't need debating... I don't see why any theory couldn't benefit from a little debating...

Edited by SpiritWriter

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If you don't mind I would like to know what necroposting is please? Same as quoting?

Edited by SpiritWriter

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If you don't mind I would like to know what necroposting is please? Same as quoting?

No, necroposting isn't the same as quoting. Necroposting is replying to a post or thread that hasn't seen any use in a very long time. In this case you replied to a post that's over 4 years old, which in turn is a reply to a post that originated over two years prior to that. Neither participant of which is either likely to see your reply, be interested in same or possibly even still be here at UM. It's alot like walking into a room while saying something, only to find the other people who were there have already left, leaving you pretty much talking to yourself. While there is no rule against it, it's usually frowned on as the more recent reply serves no real purpose.

cormac

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No, necroposting isn't the same as quoting. Necroposting is replying to a post or thread that hasn't seen any use in a very long time. In this case you replied to a post that's over 4 years old, which in turn is a reply to a post that originated over two years prior to that. Neither participant of which is either likely to see your reply, be interested in same or possibly even still be here at UM. It's alot like walking into a room while saying something, only to find the other people who were there have already left, leaving you pretty much talking to yourself. While there is no rule against it, it's usually frowned on as the more recent reply serves no real purpose.

cormac

Well thanks I guess I better start paying attention... lol yeah I didnt look at the date at all

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Wakefield's effort is crap, and it's not a rigid scholarly effort--it's an intentional lie. Let me demonstrate this by focusing on his discussion of the Uluburun shipwreck. First, here's the summary from the first page of his article (emphasis added):

Recent scientific literature has come to the conclusion that the major source of the copper that swept through the European Bronze Age after 2500 BC is unknown. However, these studies claim that the 10 tons of copper oxhide ingots recovered from the late Bronze Age (1300 BC) Uluburun shipwreck off the coast of Turkey was “extraordinarily pure” (more than 99.5% pure), and that it was not the product of smelting from ore. The oxhides are all brittle “blister copper”, with voids, slag bits, and oxides, created when the oxhides were made in multiple pourings outdoors over wood fires. Only Michigan Copper is of this purity, and it is known to have been mined in enormous quantities during the Bronze Age.

The idea he presents is based on the fact that copper retrieved by the Amerindians from the Michigan area was very pure, elemental copper, meaning that they would find hunks of copper that they could take and cold hammer into objects--they did not have the technology to smelt copper from copper ore. So when he presents the data on the Uluburun shipwreck, he presents it to say that the copper was not from smelting. Observe (from page 3; emphasis added):

In the Hauptmann study, a steel chisel was used to cut pieces for surface sampling of 151 of the Uluburun ingots, and three oxhides and one bun were drill cored all the way through (see Fig.2). Their report states that he samples showed porous volume typical of “blister copper”, that “exceeds by far our previous ideas on their inner structure, with void volume reaching 20% or higher, especially in the upper portions of the ingots. In general, cavities like these, called “spratzen”, are caused by the effervescence of gases, such as oxygen, carbon monoxide, and carbon dioxide, by water from burning charcoal. This is in contrast with copper from other periods and other localities... All the ingots contain angular-shaped inclusions of iron-silicate slags, features compatible with natural rocks affected by the impact of high temperatures in the solid state. These can be removed by repeated melting, but, while these were regular steps … at many metallurgical sites all over the middle and southern part of Africa, the Uluburun ingots were not processed in this way. The angular shape of the slag inclusions, the structure, and the existence of iscorite point to a pouring of copper into a mold when the slag was already solidified… Interfaces in the crystalline structure of the ingots points to different batches during casting. Almost all the samples contained cuprite (Cu2O) distributed in changing amounts throughout the ingots, associated with large voids. The cuprite formed by corrosion in the sea does not penetrate for more than 5mm or so. An oxygen-rich atmosphere necessary to produce cuprite in an amount observed does not prevail during the smelting of (roasted) ores. We therefore can eliminate the conclusion that the ingots consist of as-smelted raw copper from a smelting furnace. Most of the ore available on Cyprus is of chalcopyritic composition, and relics of sulfides are quite difficult to completely remove, yet this mixed sulfide does not occur in the copper ingots.”

The Hauptman study concludes that “from a chemical point of view, the purity of the ingots is extraordinary in comparison with other sorts of copper from Wadi Arabah (high lead), from the Caucasus (high arsenic), from Oman (high arsenic and nickel). The ingots are made of pure copper, and all the ingots show a homogeneous composition. From our metallographic investigations, we are able to exclude a conscious purification or even a refining process to produce the ingots. We see few indications that bronze scrap could have been added, due to the very low tin concentration, and would not include gas bubbles and slag inclusions. The ingots provide an explanation for the previously vexing question of how an ingot of a metal as ductile as copper could have been broken up into small pieces such as those excavated by the hundreds in Sardinia. Two characteristics of the Uluburun ingots stand out – the presence of a substantial degree of porosity, and a high concentration of copper oxide inclusions, which made it brittle. Simply dropping the ingots onto a hard surface would easily shatter the ingots.”

You can see from the bolded parts that he's carefully selected text to support the idea that no smelting was involved in the production of this copper. The article he quotes from is "On the Structure and Composition of Copper and Tin Ingots Excavated from the Shipwreck of Uluburun" by Hauptmann et al. (2002). I've uploaded a copy of this for your perusal:

http://www.putlocker...2E34DAF6D741E2E

Now I will copy the portions of the Hauptmann article from which Wakefield quoted, and emphasize the parts that Wakefield actually used in order to demonstrate his purposeful manipulation. From pages 4-5:

Metallography of Copper Ingots

There are two persistent metallographic characteristics in just about all of the 151 samples of both

the oxhide and bun-shaped copper ingots. One is the

constant porosity, some large and some small, generally present in all the samples studied so far. The

other is the ubiquitous presence of different phases

and compounds inside the copper matrix.

Porous Volume of the Copper Ingots.

Through-out the samples we observed the porous volume

typical for “blister copper.” The ingots contain numerous cavities that can be classified in sizes of a

few micrometers up to several millimeters. It can be

demonstrated by the plugs drilled from the ingots

that copper oxhide and bun-shaped ingots of the

Late Bronze Age have an enormous porous volume

that exceeds by far our previous ideas on their inner

structure (figs. 1–5). The volume locally reaches

up to 20% or even higher. In general, cavities like

these are caused by the enervescence of gases such

as oxygen, carbon monoxide, and carbon dioxide, by

water from burning charcoal, as well as by sulfur

dioxide from oxidation of sulfide inclusions in the

copper in the liquid state. The gases dissolve violently during solidification, a phenomenon known in

metallurgy as “Spratzen” In addition, porous volume is caused all over the ingots by interdendritic

shrinkage (fig. 6). The porosity is high in the upper

part of the ingots. Near the bottom, the porous volume is low, the structure is more dense and hence

much less affected by corrosion over the millennia.

The distribution of the porous volume, in addition,

is irregular. This is exemplifed in the oxhide ingot

KW 1548/7b, where parts of dense copper alternate

with those high in bubbles and cavities (fig. 2) and

are sharply separated from each other. This could

be caused by pouring several batches of metal into

the mold to complete an ingot, an observation sup-

ported by macroscopic evidence (Pulak 2000: 142,

fig. 6).

As shown by previous studies (see above), the

high porosity seems to be a characteristic feature of

Late Bronze Age copper ingots with a provenance

from Cyprus. Already at this point we observe a

striking contrast in quality with copper from other

periods and other localities. At Oman, during the first

half of the third millennium B.C.E., copper with a

very low porous volume was produced from sulfate

copper ores and was melted to bun-shaped ingots

(Hauptmann 1985: 81, fig. 63; 1987: 210). This was

the traditional bulk metal traded in the Bronze Age

in the Persian Gulf area. Raw copper and ingots produced for export—e.g., from Timna, Israel (Roman

1990), and Feinan, Jordan (unpublished results Bo-chum)—reveal an excellent density compared with

those from Uluburun or Cyprus, respectively. This is

certainly due to the oxidic nature of the ores which

prevents unwanted degassing of sulfide inclusions

from ores such as chalcopyrite. However, as exemplified by bar ingots from the end of an Early Bronze

Age (ca. 2300B.C.E.) metal factory at Khirbet Hamra

Ifdan, Feinan (see also Levy et al. 2002), the high

quality of the copper is due not only to the nature of

the ores, but to improvements effected by repeated

remelting of lumps of raw copper into batches large

enough to cast an ingot of 250–300 g.

Already in this first section we can see that Wakefield has a poor understanding of what quotation marks mean and how to use them in an article. You'll also note that he conveniently forgot to quote the bit comparing the porosity to ingots from Cyprus.

From pages 6-7:

All ingots contain angular-shaped inclusions of iron-silicate slags that may

reach a size of up to 5 mm in diameter (figs. 2, 4–

5). They consist mainly of an olivine with a composition close to fayalite (Fe2SiO4) and magnetite

(Fe3O4); occasionally we identified copper sulfides

(chalcocite, nearly Cu2S) or mixed copper-iron

sulfides (nearly chalcopyrite, CuFeS2). There are

striking similarities to slag inclusions described by

Zwicker, Virdis, and Ceruti (1980) from copper oxhide ingots from Sardinia. Our slag inclusions show

typical structures of cooling from a liquid—i.e., lath-or needle-like skeletons of olivine and dendrites

of magnetite (fig. 7)—to be expected from slags

tapped from a furnace. In parts, however, they contain a mineralogical phase with the name iscorite

(Fe7SiO10), which is typical for reheating iron silicates. In addition, they exhibit features comparable

with natural rocks that were affected by contact-metamorphosis, i.e., an impact of high temperatures

in the solid state. Here we observe a granoblastic

structure with isometric mineral grains caused by a

recrystallization due to reheating. Those slag inclusions show coronas of iron oxides formed by oxidation of iron silicate slags at high temperatures. It

is obvious that the copper used to cast these ingots

has characteristics of raw copper produced by a primary smelting process and was not completely separated from adhering slag. There was apparently no

interest in a thorough purification of the metal to

remove these slag inclusions. This suggestion is

supported by both the archaeological and the experimental evidence which indicates that a complete

separation of slag to remove a piece of clean copper

seems to have been not easily understood in ancient

metallurgy. Striking examples are given by Bamberger and Wincierz (1990: 134, fig. 132). The metal

produced by experimental smelting is covered by a

thin layer of slag. The same is true for a piece of

copper from Beer Ora, Timna (Tylecote and Bachmann 1990: 76, fig. 105) that is covered by slag.

Also at Feinan, lumps of copper found at smelting

sites usually show adhering remains of slag (unpublished results Bochum). As observed by Bisson

(2000: 141–43) from an ethnoarchaeological context in Africa, such adhering slag crusts have to be

removed by hammering the lumps produced by

smelting, and by repeated melting processes in order

to obtain high-quality metal. The author points out

that these were regular steps in copper production he

observed at many metallurgical sites all over the

middle and southern part of Africa. Obviously, the

Uluburun oxhide and bun-shaped ingots were not

processed in such a way.

So we see here the same poor quoting and that he ignores all the evidence presented of inclusions coming from the smelting of ores to get the copper.

From page 17 (he really jumps around a lot in constructing his "quotations" from this paper):

Evidence in support of Tylecote’s hypothesis is

the existence of slag inclusions in both types of

ingots. Their composition is characteristic of slags

from smelting copper ores under reducing conditions, but not of those from crucible (s)melting. We

could demonstrate that the iron content of the ingots is primarily due to these slag inclusions and

does not permit conclusions regarding the use of

iron-rich fluxes. The angular shape of slag inclusions, the structure, and the existence of iscorite

hence point to a pouring of copper into a mold

when the slag was already solidified and before it

was melted again in the crucible. This excludes casting directly from a smelting furnace: the slag would

have left the furnace in the liquid state and would

be included in the copper as globules. It also excludes an origin, or a solidification, respectively, of

bun-shaped ingots on the bottom of a smelting furnace. Such inclusions of globular slag, for instance,

were observed by Craddock and Meeks (1987) in

the (so-called) ramo secco bars from Roman Italy.

The angular shape indicates that the slag, or the copper, had been mechanically treated. Such a process

is fairly underestimated and neglected in the literature, but is evidenced by archaeological findings

from Iron Age copper production at Feinan (Haupt-mann 2000) and from the Late Bronze Age copper

production all over the Alps (Hohlmann, Hauptmann,

and Schröder in press), and by ethnoarchaeological

research (Bisson 2000: 141–43): that is, the slag

was crushed after smelting to recover copper lumps

and prills or copper matte, and to separate adhering

slag.

He again conveniently plucks a quote right out a context explaining how the copper was smelted.

From page 9:

Fig. 6. Sample KW 3421. Porous volume of a bun-shaped ingot caused by interdendritic shrinkage and gas bubbles. Note several interfaces of dense metal which point to different batches during casting.

From pages 7, 8, and 12:

Cuprite Inclusions.

Almost all copper samples

investigated contain cuprite (Cu2O) distributed in

changing amounts throughout the ingots. It occurs

in two different textures that allow us to distinguish

its conditions of formation. Of subordinated interest

for our investigation is the formation of cuprite by

corrosion processes that represent the weathering of

the ingots in the sea since the ship sank in the Late

Bronze Age. Cuprite of this origin shows layers and

protrusions (fig. 8), in some cases small crystals

preferentially formed at the surfaces or in the pores

of the ingots. The corrosion does not penetrate the

copper ingots for more than 5 mm or so, and in

every case they are much less affected than the tin

ingots. This is a conservator’s problem, but it does

not provide any information about the pyrotechno-

logical processes by which the ingots were formed.

Most characteristic, and visible in almost every

specimen, are copper–cuprite intergrowths that re-

sult from the nearly complete immiscibility of oxy-

gen in copper both in the liquid and in the solid

states. This is exemplifed by varying amounts of

cuprite inclusions in copper. If oxygen is low, cuprite

globules are formed like pearls on a string along

grain boundaries (fig. 9). The eutectic intergrowth

(fog. 10) indicates an oxygen concentration of 0.39

wt.%. These structures are formed during solidifcation at 1065 C, slightly below the melting point of

copper itself. They are visible throughout the ingots

and are associated with large voids. A considerable

surplus of oxygen in the gaseous atmosphere of the

reaction vessel caused further oxidation of the copper far above the eutectic (> 0.39 wt.% oxygen) and

led to extensive precipitation of lumps and larger,

equiaxed crystals of cuprite (hypereutectic composition; fig. 11). In parts, they are embedded like a dispersion in the copper matrix (fig. 12) with beginning

dendritic crystallization. Often these crystals show

breakage due to deformation during and/or after

solidi˜cation. These oxide particles, of course, affect

the malleability of the copper and make it brittle.

Relatively pure copper today—for example, electrolytic copper, 99+ wt.% pure—may contain no more

than 0.02–0.07 wt.% oxygen. If the copper is heated

in a reducing atmosphere to temperatures above

about 370 C, the oxygen concentrations can be

diminished, but the copper is subject to embrittlement. If hydrogen or carbon monoxide is present,

the embrittlement may be rapid (Tyler and Black

1990).

A gas atmosphere necessary to produce cuprite

in an amount observed in our samples does not prevail during the smelting of (roasted) ores. This must

be conditioned toward the reduction to metal in (at

least partial) equilibrium with a fayalite slag (fig. 13)

(Eugster and Wones 1962; Abs-Wurmbach et al.

1983). It would exclude the formation of cuprite. We

therefore can eliminate the conclusion that the ingots consist of as-smelted raw copper tapped directly

from a smelting furnace (contra Tylecote 1976). Our

explanation is that the copper, before being cast into

oxhide or bun-shaped ingots, underwent a subsequent remelting process in a smaller reaction vessel,

perhaps in a crucible which led to the precipitation

of cuprite. This seems to have been a widely distrib-

uted phenomenon, as Cooke and Nielsen (1978) and

Zwicker (1984) demonstrated by investigations on

archaeometallurgical finds from casting workshops

at Nichoria (Late Helladic period) and Olympia (fifth

centuryB.C.E.). The slag inclusions observed can

easily be interpreted as relics from a primary smelting process that were not removed. Their granoblastic structure and oxidation coronas are in accord with

a reheating during remelting.

So you can see here the same manipulation of quotes as elsewhere. In particular if you look at the last emphasized part, you'll note he actually drops two words from the sentence that completely changes its meaning. Yet again, though, the actual report of Hauptmann et al. is that this is copper smelted from ores.

I'll stop the quote play here as I've reconstructed most of the two paragraphs of Wakefield, and I think I've demonstrated clearly that he's blatantly manipulating the report to suit his argument when in fact the report goes against him. If you continue to read the Hauptmann et al. article, though, you'll find plenty of other contradictory information. For example, they note that the composition of the ingots is only about 99% copper on average (p. 13)--a far cry from the 99.92% purity Wakefield quotes for native copper (on page 3 of his article). They also note that much of this impurity came from the slag that resulted from the process of smelting ore (p. 13), and that such impure copper would have needed significantly more purification before a smith could use it (p. 18). And they also note that their results fit with the hypothesis that this copper came from Cyprus (p. 15).

So clearly Wakefield's article is without merit. Moreover, it's clear that he read the Hauptmann et al. article and deliberately manipulated it to support a point opposite to the conclusions of the article--that is, he knowing lies. He is consciously spreading misinformation. He is not simply a confused, well-intentioned researcher, but rather a deliberate deceiver.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I would usually not go as far as calling anybody "a deliberate deceiver", but your point is rather well made. Even if you don't agree with the conclusion, it does go to show one ought to take Wakefield's work with a pinch of salt......or a few 1kg bags of salt.......

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Everdred, thank you. I sometimes think that if something looks scienticfic it must be true. Moreover, I just started examining material about the Uluburun wreck and Michigan copper in that wreck would be more of an OOPART than some of the other weird things we see claimed on this site.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Wakefield's effort is crap, and it's not a rigid scholarly effort--it's an intentional lie. Let me demonstrate this by focusing on his discussion of the Uluburun shipwreck. First, here's the summary from the first page of his article (emphasis added):

The idea he presents is based on the fact that copper retrieved by the Amerindians from the Michigan area was very pure, elemental copper, meaning that they would find hunks of copper that they could take and cold hammer into objects--they did not have the technology to smelt copper from copper ore. So when he presents the data on the Uluburun shipwreck, he presents it to say that the copper was not from smelting. Observe (from page 3; emphasis added):

...

A very articulate and well-stated post, Everdred. Well done. :tu:

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Everdred, thank you. I sometimes think that if something looks scienticfic it must be true. Moreover, I just started examining material about the Uluburun wreck and Michigan copper in that wreck would be more of an OOPART than some of the other weird things we see claimed on this site.

That's the thing were you have to be cautious, people like Wakefield are crafty buggers, that can make it sound so convincing and use references, but with a closer look and the help of the original text used, like Everdred did, you notice that it's just clever deception and misdirection.

The show Mythbusters has proven that you actually can polish excrement, however it is still only excrement.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Elsewhere on the planet recent relic or ruin finds also point to travel and trade far beyond what we have previously thought possible.

If primitive humans were able to travel here across a land bridge or by following the shallow parts of ocean along the ring of fire, early metal age humans could have done the same thing. Humans made it to other deep ocean islands long ago too, and in large enough numbers to populate and thrive.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Elsewhere on the planet recent relic or ruin finds also point to travel and trade far beyond what we have previously thought possible.

If primitive humans were able to travel here across a land bridge or by following the shallow parts of ocean along the ring of fire, early metal age humans could have done the same thing. Humans made it to other deep ocean islands long ago too, and in large enough numbers to populate and thrive.

Yes, you are partly correct, however this does not mean that they were also able to transport industrial amounts of metal from one continent to the other, the way some pretend it happened. that's just nonsens

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 3

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.