American Indian's lack of gold

originally posted by: Solvedit

originally posted by: Hanslune
Calvert and others[8] reported dates of 2780±70 14 C yr BP (UM-1359),[9] 3500±80 14 C yr BP (UM-1360), and 3350±90 14 C yr BP (UM-1361) from whole-rock samples; a date of 3510±70 14 C yr BP (UM-1362), from shells extracted from the beachrock core; and dates of 2770±80 14 C yr BP (UM-1364) and 2840±70 14 C yr BP (UM-1365) from carbonate cementing the beachrock core.

I may have conceded on the date too soon. In some places in the Southeast, the natives built large mounds out of their garbage, primarily shellfish waste. It became a substance called "shellrock" which was used to pave roads, perhaps still is. Sometimes they put a layer of shellrock under asphalt. It's mollusk shells combined with really sticky white sand. It seems to remain sticky and tacky even when dry. They might have used something like shellrock to serve as fill when they built their dock because it's more solid than sand but easier to extract than quarrying coral or stone.

...and what population was doing this in Bimini island? Where are the shell middens?

Anyway, my point is, the pile of shellfish waste which was used to fill the dock could have been created 3500-2770 years BP. Who knows if the people who researched the date of the Bimini road were actually able to scrape some of the mineralization out from between the grains of sand and test its age.

You have evidence you cannot refute so if cannot incorporate it into your theory - it is dead. Show us an archaeological report about the inhabitants of Bimini at that time? May I suggest you look up the Lucayan people - they were the folks who were there when the Spanish showed up. It's interesting that you didn't immediately look up and learn the history of the area and who lived there.

From an initial settlement of Great Inagua Island, the Lucayans expanded throughout the Bahamas Islands in some 800 years c. 700 – c. 1500 CE.

www.pnas.org...

www.pnas.org...

originally posted by: HansluneIt should look like a port not a place without resources and no sign of it being a port

Why?

Yes you are making that up and it isn't based on any evidence you can present. Who exactly was doing this and why didn't the Columbian exchange occur when they were going about this?

Secrecy, like I already said, as well as the need to not educate the locals so much that they wouldn't need to spend their time gathering copper ore or gold dust.

You can make anything you want but if your idea cannot explain the existing evidence - it isn't a theory its just fantasy

No, it's a speculative hypothesis. I never said it deserved to be called a theory.

originally posted by: Hanslune...and what population was doing this in Bimini island? Where are the shell middens?

Maybe they built as big a dock as the available shellrock allowed.

You have evidence you cannot refute so if cannot incorporate it into your theory - it is dead. Show us an archaeological report about the inhabitants of Bimini at that time? May I suggest you look up the Lucayan people - they were the folks who were there when the Spanish showed up. It's interesting that you didn't immediately look up and learn the history of the area and who lived there.

From an initial settlement of Great Inagua Island, the Lucayans expanded throughout the Bahamas Islands in some 800 years c. 700 – c. 1500 CE.

How does that refute my speculative hypothesis?

The dates don't exactly jibe with your quoted estimates of the age of the Bimini road but people could have been visiting Bimini to gather shellfish before they burned the forests down and built permanent settlements which left signs.

Or the builders of the Bimini road could have mined sand which contained shells which had been deposited at the dates your sources estimate, in order to fill the inside of their dock. That would mean it could have been built in Phoenecian times or just before Columbus, or anywhere in between.

There is a map which shows the Bimini stones above water dated 1513. It may be a copy of an ancient map or it may have been created just after the sand mineralized and the wood rotted away, but before the stones sank into the lagoon floor.

originally posted by: Solvedit

There is a map which shows the Bimini stones above water dated 1513. It may be a copy of an ancient map or it may have been created just after the sand mineralized and the wood rotted away, but before the stones sank into the lagoon floor.

So, lets review, the facts are there were no people there to 'build' the natural structure, you are demanding that your speculations be deemed facts - they aren't.

So you've tried to dismiss the lack of archaeological evidence for a port - nope that lack of evidence is the elephant in the room

No anchors, no evidence of shipping, no water source, little food - why would there be a port there?

No evidence of trade

So you are left with your beliefs.......

You keep trying to run away from the lack of evidence and believe that you can overlook the damning lack of evidence. Now you seem want to bring in the Piri Reis map (1513) ah why? It isn't an ancient map - may I suggest you read the margin notes (written in Turkish) on said map - here is are the translations.

www.sacred-texts.com...

originally posted by: HansluneSo, lets review, the facts are there were no people there to 'build' the natural structure, you are demanding that your speculations be deemed facts - they aren't.

You do need a review. My point was that people may have come from the Old World, built the dock to tie up their ships, and traded with the locals.

So you've tried to dismiss the lack of archaeological evidence for a port - nope that lack of evidence is the elephant in the room

Well, there's that dock, but there's no reason to believe they would have necessarily built a very permanent settlement, or that the natives did not dismantle and repurpose what they found, so you hardly have proof to the contrary.

No anchors,

why do you need an anchor if you have a dock??

no evidence of shipping,

Except, you know, a dock.

no water source, little food - why would there be a port there?

Rainwater and the ships' water was a water source.

No evidence of trade

Remember how the thread was about how some American Indians seem to lack gold artifacts? Plus, there's a dock, plus some archaeologists think the amount of copper in the ancient Old World exceeds by far what they were producing in the Old World. Plus, there's scant evidence elsewhere, like a now-secret site off Brazil where there are ancient amphorae- sparse suggestions of contact with the Old World.

So you are left with your beliefs.......

You keep confusing beliefs with the notion of a speculative hypothesis.

You keep trying to run away from the lack of evidence and believe that you can overlook the damning lack of evidence.

No, I am speculating on the meaning of scanty evidence.

Now you seem want to bring in the Piri Reis map (1513) ah why? It isn't an ancient map - may I suggest you read the margin notes (written in Turkish) on said map -

IIRC I clearly stated I questioned your dating of the Bimini Road. The shells may have formed in 3350 BP but they could have been mined and used for fill only decades prior to the creation of the 1513 map. My point as you may recall was that the map showed the stones above water. They are made of beach rock and must have formed close to the surface. That means they had only been there for a few decades when the map's creator saw them, unless it was a copy of an ancient map from Phoenecian times. They would have sunk into the lagoon floor in a matter of decades. All the map tells us is they must be at least a few decades old, because the wood which formed the beach rock into the shape of a dock had rotted away or been removed after the fill had mineralized. But the map does not preclude that the road is thousands of years old because it may be a copy of more ancient maps.

originally posted by: Solvedit

You do need a review. My point was that people may have come from the Old World, built the dock to tie up their ships, and traded with the locals.

...and left no trace of this while in real trade ports vast amount of evidence of the trade is found - showed you one example - I guess you don't think it's important that that part of Bimini would be a bad place for a port?

Well, there's that dock, but there's no reason to believe they would have necessarily built a very permanent settlement, or that the natives did not dismantle and repurpose what they found, so you hardly have proof to the contrary.

There is no dock its natural. Unless you can show evidence it is a dock - people's opinions are not facts especially biased people who so desperately want it to be a road to Atlantis...

No anchors,

why do you need an anchor if you have a dock??

Because in all real ports lots and lots of anchors are left because they are used to secure ships not at the dock. Again your making believe the rocks are a dock, it isn't.

no water source, little food - why would there be a port there?

Rainwater and the ships' water was a water source.

How many weeks and months to cross the Atlantic? Most real ports have water. All Spanish one's did. Lack of resources, lack of archaeology = no port, just natural rocks

Remember how the thread was about how some American Indians seem to lack gold artifacts? Plus, there's a dock, plus some archaeologists think the amount of copper in the ancient Old World exceeds by far what they were producing in the Old World. Plus, there's scant evidence elsewhere, like a now-secret site off Brazil where there are ancient amphorae- sparse suggestions of contact with the Old World.

Yeah and indians just gave it away, without trade good being exchanges - as they were in Columbus time - or taken in war. Nope the copper thing is false. There was no shortage of copper in the old world - Cyprus (named for copper) provided enough no one was going to spend a year going to NA to get copper. Amphora in Brazil - debunked decades ago - Iberian ships continued to use amphora for storage until the 19th century in lieu of wooden barrels.

You keep confusing beliefs with the notion of a speculative hypothesis.

yes speculation based on belief instead of evidence

IIRC I clearly stated I questioned your dating of the Bimini Road. The shells may have formed in 3350 BP but they could have been mined and used for fill only decades prior to the creation of the 1513 map.

Okay evidence for this? Your statement doesn't eliminate the C-14 dates. You have to show evidence that such material was used in the matter you suggest - you cannot

My point as you may recall was that the map showed the stones above water.

Evidence to support this is where?

They are made of beach rock and must have formed close to the surface. That means they had only been there for a few decades when the map's creator saw them, unless it was a copy of an ancient map from Phoenecian times. They would have sunk into the lagoon floor in a matter of decades. All the map tells us is they must be at least a few decades old, because the wood which formed the beach rock into the shape of a dock had rotted away or been removed after the fill had mineralized. But the map does not preclude that the road is thousands of years old because it may be a copy of more ancient maps.

All the above is stuff you are making up. There is no such information on any map. If there is please shock me and link to it.

You keep talking like it had to be a typical port. There is no need to assume it must have been.

Why would there have to have been an anchorage? Why must there have been dozens or hundreds of ships at once? If any of this is true, it was a secret which means only a few ships at a time, at most.

Can it be they abandoned Bimini because kind of a bad place for a port? Can it be they took their other docks apart so no one would find them?

The trade goods were definitely atypical, if any trade was going on. It would not make sense to go so far on such a dangerous journey with barely adequate ships without a larger than normal payoff.
My gold-for-opium hypothesis or something else atypical is necessary for it all to work.

It is plausible that the Bimini Road is made of fill which had been formed by wooden structures. I

Another piece of ambiguous evidence which occurs to me is the fact that many people, allegedly indigenous and otherwise, in the New World seem a little Arab or Berber and it need not be post-Columbian. It's not confined to Spanish areas where some of the people might have been descended from the Abbasids or their Berber allies in the occupation of Spain.

originally posted by: Solvedit

originally posted by: HarteWhat is a dock for?

Harte

Tying up ships, offloading trade goods, loading goods obtained in trade.

Plus, if they used a collapsible dock, why wouldn't they use a collapsible village? I think Bimini is warm enough that you don't need much more than a tent.

What is the point of offloading cargo in a collapsible village? To reload it onto the collapsible village's ships to take it out?
Where's the harbor?

Harte

originally posted by: HarteWhat is the point of offloading cargo in a collapsible village? To reload it onto the collapsible village's ships to take it out?
Where's the harbor?

Harte

I've got to say it again. They may not have been exchanging bulky goods.

They may have abandoned Bimini in favor of other sites.

Alternately, they may have chosen a less favorable, isolated spot in order to provide a little distance and security between them and the natives.

originally posted by: Hanslune

Yeah and indians just gave it away, without trade good being exchanges - as they were in Columbus time - or taken in war. Nope the copper thing is false. There was no shortage of copper in the old world - Cyprus (named for copper) provided enough no one was going to spend a year going to NA to get copper.

I think there's still enough copper in Cyprus to do it all over again.

originally posted by: HansluneAmphora in Brazil - debunked decades ago - Iberian ships continued to use amphora for storage until the 19th century in lieu of wooden barrels.

It's worse than that.
The amphorae in that fringe lie were actually placed in that bay by a con man who had bought them new and wanted to age them so he could sell them as antiquities.
After several years, he went back to collect them but was unable to find about a quarter of them. Those were the ones that were later found.

Harte

originally posted by: HansluneOne of the things I researched while working on the site of Kalavassos in Cyprus was the opium trade in the Med. It left hundreds of thousands of small brown jars all over the Med. If they were trading in the Americas - where are these jars?

Suppose they ground up the jars and consumed the dust while waiting for a new supply?

Seriously, though, if they were trading opium for gold dust instead of standardized coinage, they probably needed to be flexible in how much they could meter out to purchasers.

originally posted by: HarteIt's worse than that.
The amphorae in that fringe lie were actually placed in that bay by a con man who had bought them new and wanted to age them so he could sell them as antiquities.
After several years, he went back to collect them but was unable to find about a quarter of them. Those were the ones that were later found.

Harte

This site contained a different perspective: www.itmightbepossible.com...

originally posted by: Solvedit

originally posted by: BlueJacketThe gold question is really quite interesting. Being a placer miner myself, that’s a widely available resource in some areas, definitely pure enough to be hammered.

But do you have to have some knowledge to know where it is in order to find it? Hadn't they picked up all the gold that was on the surface?

Absolutely. It comes off of veins post spring flooding, or you find a vein through a variety of means. Gold is quite present and easy enough to find if you know what to look for.

originally posted by: Solvedit

originally posted by: HarteIt's worse than that.
The amphorae in that fringe lie were actually placed in that bay by a con man who had bought them new and wanted to age them so he could sell them as antiquities.
After several years, he went back to collect them but was unable to find about a quarter of them. Those were the ones that were later found.

Harte

This site contained a different perspective: www.itmightbepossible.com...

Whatever.
It doesn't change the facts I laid out.
The source of the amphorae is known - they are modern.
How they got there is also known - they were placed there to make them look ancient.
Link 1
Link 2

Harte

originally posted by: HarteWhatever.
It doesn't change the facts I laid out.
The source of the amphorae is known - they are modern.
How they got there is also known - they were placed there to make them look ancient.
Harte

They will be facts when the age of the jars is scientifically established. Until then, they're just impeaching the impeachment of their origin story.

And, they have banned further exploration.

Isn't it odd that they would cover the whole bay with silt?

originally posted by: Solvedit

originally posted by: HansluneOne of the things I researched while working on the site of Kalavassos in Cyprus was the opium trade in the Med. It left hundreds of thousands of small brown jars all over the Med. If they were trading in the Americas - where are these jars?

Suppose they ground up the jars and consumed the dust while waiting for a new supply?

Seriously, though, if they were trading opium for gold dust instead of standardized coinage, they probably needed to be flexible in how much they could meter out to purchasers.

So no answer. Again the lack of evidence for any sort of trade is damning.

originally posted by: Solvedit

And, they have banned further exploration.

Isn't it odd that they would cover the whole bay with silt?

They did? Who? You really need to stop believing everything fringe kooks tell you to believe.

THINK for moment. Why would a government be remotely concerned that ancient amphora had been found off their shores? What evil will this cause? LOL

originally posted by: Solvedit

And, they have banned further exploration.

Isn't it odd that they would cover the whole bay with silt?

They did? Who? You really need to stop believing everything fringe kooks tell you to believe.

THINK for moment. Why would a government be remotely concerned that ancient amphora had been found off their shores? What evil will this cause? LOL

www.mirror.co.uk...

originally posted by: Hanslune

originally posted by: Solvedit

And, they have banned further exploration.

Isn't it odd that they would cover the whole bay with silt?

They did? Who? You really need to stop believing everything fringe kooks tell you to believe.

THINK for moment. Why would a government be remotely concerned that ancient amphora had been found off their shores? What evil will this cause? LOL

www.mirror.co.uk...

Need to point something out about that article.
In it, the following picture is included, with the caption "Marx discovered 200 amphoras which could have been even older than 19 BC"


The amphorae in that pic were discovered in Croatia.

Also, the article refers to Marx as an "Archaeologist."
Marx was NOT an Archaeologist. He was a treasure hunter who was proficient at skin diving. He stole artifacts and sold them at auction.

Harte