Re: ANCIENT MARINERS: Andean-Mexican seagoing trade

From: Seppo Renfors (Renfors_at_not.com.au)
Date: 07/11/04 

Date: Sun, 11 Jul 2004 03:09:01 GMT

Tom McDonald wrote:
>
> Seppo Renfors wrote:
>
> >
> > Tom McDonald wrote:
> >
> >>Seppo Renfors wrote:
> >>
> >><snip>
> >>
> >>>>>>>http://www.rocklakeresearch.com/history.htm
> >>
> >><snip>
> >>
> >>>Whatever you might think about their theories, there is one thing that
> >>>is particularly interesting there - the claimed hiatus of mining
> >>>between 1200 BC and 900 AD. Didn't you see that?
> >>
> >>Seppo,
> >>
> >> This claim flies in the face of the evidence of copper from the
> >>UP of Michigan being used from ca. 7000 ybp through the coming
> >>of the French. The Old Copper complex dates from about 3000 BC
> >>to something like 1000 BC (depending on location).
> >>Mississippian cultures began about 800-900 AD, and also used
> >>copper. I wonder why these two dates were chosen by the
> >>website's authors. I suspect it might have had to do with the
> >>florescence of the Old Copper Complex and the rise of the
> >>Mississippian cultures; although they clearly relate those dates
> >>to events in Europe, too.
> >>
> >> However, copper use never stopped, and mining in the UP of
> >>Michigan continued. Red Ochre, Hopewell, Effigy Mound,
> >>Mississippian, Oneota (ca. 400 BC--European contact) were all
> >>manifestations of Indian culture in the American midwest that
> >>used copper. Most of the copper was from the areas we've been
> >>discussing.
> >
> >
> > How the hell can you have "Red Ochre, Hopewell, Effigy Mound" cultures
> > at 400 BCE when the "Effigy Mound" people didn't appear till about 600
> > AD? The Red Ochre (from about 500 BCE), Hopewell (from about 100 BCE)
> > cultures did overlap but both were gone by 600 AD.
>
> Seppo,
>
> 'ca. 400 BC--European contact'. 'From about 400 BC to European
> contact'. Sorry you didn't grasp that.

You mention a mob of people, then point to a time, now you tut-tut
about your own actions attempting to somehow imply an "error" by me -
why else point to a specific (but irrelevant) time? You see your
"european contact" in this context doesn't state a time as the ARTICLE
claims "european contact" before then. You don't specify what you
referred to with your sloppy writing.

> >> There was no hiatus in copper mining.
> >
> >
> > I note you point to Iowa for a claim re-Michigan........
>
> Where did I point to Iowa?
 
Are you suggesting none of the "cultures" you point to exist in Iowa?

http://www.nps.gov/efmo/web/hrs/images/fig8.jpg

> > "Copper was obtained through trade with groups of the Old Copper
> > complex to the north, who had been accessing the extensive Lake
> > Superior copper deposits since at least 7,000 BP." - Susan R. Martin:
> > "Wonderful Power: The Story of Ancient Copper Working in the Lake
> > Superior Basin"; ...... Hmmmmm.... *not* a very reliable source!!
>
> Then why did you choose it?

To say even revisionists agree with certain aspects - BTW, I can quote
whomever I like and designate the value of them as I see then warrant.

> > Red Ochre: "Unfortunately, little else is known of this culture, as
> > reliable radiocarbon dates are scarce and few human physical remains
> > have been studied to date." - Jennifer R. Hass: "Human Skeletal
> > Remains from Two Red Ocher Mortuary Contexts in Southeastern
> > Wisconsin,"
>
> The Riverside site is Red Ochre. It is probably the
> best-studied Red Ochre burial site. It is the context from
> which R666/55786 comes. It's well-known, and well-studied.
> Curious you didn't follow up on that.

.... or Beothuck? The term "red ochre" is about a people who's burial
customs involved red ochre - that includes the Beothuck as well as the
early Saami in Finland. It can be and is also called "Terminal
Archaic" as a culture. I also tends to creep in on the "Woodland
traditions" and can be referred to as that too. "Red Ochre" is a
poorly chosen name as it is practically meaningless.

My understanding is that no burials were found at Riverside..... but I
could be wrong:

http://www.cast.uark.edu/other/nps/nagpra/DOCS/nic0394.pdf
"Riverside Site (20- ME-1), Menominee County, Oshkosh, Wisconsin - 3
bodies were found at that site. The remains of one of the three
individuals was cremated."

"The Riverside Site is a multi-component cemetery and habitation site.
Intermittent occupation of the site spans a time period circa 1000
B.C.-A.D. 1850. The stylistic attributes of the copper objects are
characteristic of the Red Ochre Culture, an archeologically defined
culture within the Archaic Period, dated to 1000-400 B.C."

"The remains of two of the three individuals were removed from Feature
A. Funerary objects date this burial feature to the 18th and 19th
centuries. These objects, not in the possession of the Oshkosh Public
Museum, consist of glass beads, a kettle brass bracelet, and a ceramic
vessel."

So only one set of remains were of any age and that age is unknown.
The primary identifier for "Red Ochre" culture hasn't been found
apparently. Cremation was not a part of that culture either, IIRC
cremation dates to the "Middle Woodland" culture. Again this isn't
exactly the Keweenaw peninsular in Michigan either - if it is indeed
the same "Riverside" we are dealing with.

> > Some artefacts of Lake Superior copper is claimed to have been found
> > with these burials. The claim requires there to be a Lake Superior
> > copper "signature" to make the claim. I'm certain there are more than
> > ONE "signature" required for the copper from that area considering the
> > variety of forms it is found in there.
>
> That's for you to research and provide evidence for.

What part of "I'm certain" didn't you understand?

> Ask Inger
> the value of this sort of 'what-if' scenario.

You know, your life would really be empty and hollow without her as
you can't stop thinking about her for long enough to write a few lines
of text!

> > Wouldn't this also require a
> > knowledge of the composition to claim a "signature" for it? IF so,
> > then why is this knowledge not readily available? It is perhaps merely
> > an assumption it is copper from Lake Superior?
>
> From the Lake Superior area, not from the lake.

Psssttt.... they have found a HUGE piece (7 Yank ton) of that pure
copper IN the lake itself, you know. Who is to say the ancients didn't
dive for it as well?

> But Seppo,
> surely you've followed all the links and read up on the what
> makes Lake Superior-region copper identifiable?

This has already been discussed and searched for - it doesn't appear
to exist - therefor it tends to point to an ASSUMPTION based on
establishment dogma more than science as it requires the rejection of
all refining processes pout of hand. BTW, you are one of those
reporting on such things and there has been diddly-squat from you as
well.

> > Of course c14 dated mines during that claimed hiatus period in
> > Michigan would answer the question - only I don't know how it is
> > possible to date a hole.
>
> That's your assumption. Why not follow it up yourself?

Listen, even with the intelligence of an oven mitten it is obvious you
cannot c14 date a HOLE! 

-- 
SIR - Philosopher unauthorised 
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The one who is educated from the wrong books is not educated, he is
misled.
-----------------------------------------------------------------

Relevant Pages

  • Re: ANCIENT MARINERS: Andean-Mexican seagoing trade
    ... The term "red ochre" is about a people who's burial ... Archaic" as a culture. ... My understanding is that no burials were found at Riverside..... ... The claim requires there to be a Lake Superior ...
    (sci.archaeology)
  • Re: When Burial Begins
    ... as to the origins and use of ochre burials. ... these days a second small grave pit was detected. ... The burial was also entirely embedded in red ochre, ... the inference to a "leather cloak" is consistent to the idea ...
    (sci.anthropology.paleo)