OOPArts

[john]

if i remember correctly, copper was also "mined" in nw n. america....the Indians shaped shield shaped copper objects - the name of which completely escapes me at this point.... which were used in potlatch ceremonies. Kwakiutl? others?

Here in British Columbia they are known as 'Coppers'-shield shaped objects pounded into thin sheets/incised with various designs.
http://www.lanecc.edu/library/don/copper.htm#museum

sam -

awesome reference.

you're better than my library.


j

[stan]

Thanks, Sam. I have never seen these coppers before.

[Beagle]

Ditto Sam

[DougWeller]

That copper from the Lake Superior region was taken by the Phoenicians after 1500 B.C., when the Ice Age icepack had dissipated to expose that land with its rich veins of ore.

No they didn't. There was waaay more than enough copper right there around the Med. No need for such a ridiculously expensive method of getting it.

There's really no mystery at all about what happened to this copper - it's mostly still there. Some idiot several long years ago made some stupid claim about how tons of it had been mined there but the claim was just that - a claim. There's no reason at all to believe anything more than just a small quantity was ever taken from the Michigan site by anyone. Here's a reference from an actual archaeologist that actually works in Michigan and actually is (or was) involved at the actual site:

http://www.ramtops.co.uk/copper.html

Thank you Doug Weller

The "Native Americans" there say a previous unknown people did the mining...

No they don't.

Harte

Hello Harte, I'm not really a proponent of the "missing copper" story, but the article you posted by the Michigan archaeologist was much more of a rant than a scientific refutation.

I've read it before and found it lacking. Maybe someone else can offer real proof that the story doesn't hold up.

OOPArts are fun, though. Eventually most of them are soundly refuted or become scientific fact.

What it was was a talk at a conference. Not a scholarly paper.

If you contact the school of mines there and ask about the copper, they will refer you to her, she is the recognised authority.

The bottom line is that those huge figures have no basis in evidence. But they make a more exciting story than the truth.

[Beagle]

Thanks for the comment Doug. I only made the staement because Harte offered it up.

If this person is the resident authority, she should consider offering a convincing paper on this subject.

Untill then it remains one of those oft talked about mysteries.

[oldarchystudent]

Thanks for the comment Doug. I only made the staement because Harte offered it up.

If this person is the resident authority, she should consider offering a convincing paper on this subject.

Untill then it remains one of those oft talked about mysteries.

If there isn't sufficient evidence you may never see a paper. Archaeologists are notorious for skipping the publishing responsibility even when they have lots to report. It's a serious problem.

[Harte]

Thanks for the comment Doug. I only made the staement because Harte offered it up.

If this person is the resident authority, she should consider offering a convincing paper on this subject.

Untill then it remains one of those oft talked about mysteries.

If there isn't sufficient evidence you may never see a paper. Archaeologists are notorious for skipping the publishing responsibility even when they have lots to report. It's a serious problem.

I just cannot agree. Why is it the responsibility of an archaeologist to address silly unsubstantiated claims? Do you think this person has not published on the subject of this site? Why would any scientist, via publishing in scholarly journals, become involved in refuting claims that have no substantive evidence behind them? This person is not James Randi. This woman has a job to do (or did - the article is sort of old) and is (or was) doing it. If archaeologists spent time refuting unsubstantiated claims, then Hancock could tie up the field for decades. Imagine, the instant some stupid claim is refuted, one could slightly alter the claim and cause the archaeologist to have to re-publish a new refutation. this 'slight alteration' of dubious theories occurs all the time in pseudoscience. The originator of the silly claim at some point finds out why he must be wrong and makes the necessary changes to his claim to be able to weasel around the scientific barriers that have been pointed out.

To my mind, scientists should conduct science. They should not busy themselves with looking into every single thing some psychic or con artist (same thing, in my book) has claimed in the past. There is no reason at all to believe the ridiculous claims made about the ancient Michigan copper "mining' activity, so why spend time (or grant money) on the subject?

Harte

[stan]

good point about the methods of the pseudoscientist

i've seen it on this board

It takes a special sort to be a professional debunker...and
I am glad they are out there.

[JohnB]

Just out of curiousity.

Why is it trying "to weasel around the scientific barriers that have been pointed out" when a "Pseudoscientist" amends his idea, but the same act miraculously becomes "Modifying our theory in the light of new evidence" when a "Mainstream Scientist" does it?

[marduk]

because a pseudoscientist doesn't modify because of new evidence
he modifies because he thinks it will make him more money

[Harte]

Just out of curiousity.

Why is it trying "to weasel around the scientific barriers that have been pointed out" when a "Pseudoscientist" amends his idea, but the same act miraculously becomes "Modifying our theory in the light of new evidence" when a "Mainstream Scientist" does it?

The difference is in the word "new" before the word "evidence."

The pseudoscientist, as was pointed out by Marduk, is only scamming the layman out of his hard-earned cash and has no interest in actually discovering the truth. He avoids mentioning the already-known facts about his subject which would refute his thesis. He only "weasels around" these already existing facts after they are made common knowledge by the protestations of the actual scientists that make the actual discoveries. In most cases, these facts are decades old and sometimes much, much older when the pseudoscientist first ignores them.

In the case of scientific theory, such theories must be falsifiable to be considered scientific. If new evidence emerges that falsifies a theory (and by "new evidence" I mean new evidence and not some facts that the scientist decided to sweep under the rug when formulating his original theory,) then the scientist, or some other scientist, attempts to come up with a new theory that can explain all the already known facts plus the newly discovered fact(s). The new theories are often modified versions of the old ones. If you look at relativity, Einstein's field equations in Special Relativity reduce to exactly Newton's equations, if you remove the "v squared over c squared" terms.

Harte

[stan]

JohnB wrote:

Why is it trying "to weasel around the scientific barriers that have been pointed out" when a "Pseudoscientist" amends his idea, but the same act miraculously becomes "Modifying our theory in the light of new evidence" when a "Mainstream Scientist" does it?
_________________

Did you have an example in mind, JohnB?

[JohnB]

Stan, I don't have an example in mind. I'm more looking at how a persons actions are interpreted. If my side does it, it's perfectly normal and quite above board but if your side does it, then it's an unscrupulous tactic.

To Harte and Marduk, making generalised insults against those whose ideas you disagree with is not a very compelling argument. The other side could just as easily argue that established archaeologists are more interested in preserving their reputation and tenure than finding the truth.

If new evidence emerges that falsifies a theory (and by "new evidence" I mean new evidence and not some facts that the scientist decided to sweep under the rug when formulating his original theory,) then the scientist, or some other scientist, attempts to come up with a new theory that can explain all the already known facts plus the newly discovered fact(s).

Ah, this explains the reasoned, well thought out responses when the Geologists started questioning the age of the Sphinx, does it? Science or Dogma?

In the science/pseudoscience debate I'm an observer. I've read orthodox science and I've read Hancock. (Blood pressure Marduk, mind the blood pressure. ) I look at what both sides have to say and weigh their respective evidence. I have no axe to grind or reputation to lose. In a debate on this type of topic my question is the same to both sides. "What is your evidence?"

By any objective means, orthodox science sometimes comes up with very little. What, for example, is the actual evidence for attributing the Sphinx to Khafre? Context? What would relying on context tell us about those who built Cleopatra's Needle? Flimsy circumstantial evidence is not proof. Hence the orthodox argument becomes "It's IV Dynasty because we say it is. If you think we're wrong, prove it."

This is fair enough as far as it goes but orthodoxy should be required to provide proof of their conclusions too. In this debate so far, they have failed to do so. I find their position akin to my saying "The second planet around Alpha Centauri is made entirely of used alien kleenex. If you disagree, prove me wrong."

This is not to say I agree with the dates proposed by West and Hancock either. The rather excellent article by Colin Reader at the Ma'at website argues for a First Dynasty construction in a compelling way and led to further debate which I watch with interest.

I suppose my approach is similar to that of a Juror in a trial. I expect to be shown an argument based on facts rather than supposition and slander. Extrapolation is fine, but at least have something to back up the original idea.

Sorry for the long winded post, but I thought it a good idea to get where I'm coming from out in the open.

Cheers.

[marduk]

The other side could just as easily argue that established archaeologists are more interested in preserving their reputation and tenure than finding the truth.

firstly you're talking about egyptologists and not archaeologists
secondly i have not insulted anyone i was speaking a known fact
Pseudoscientists book sales are dependant on them making more and more exaggerated claims to stay popular
Archaeologists pay is not dependant on anything but funding which is dependant on the aims of the organisation that employs them
you could hardly claim that institutions like the British museum are not interested in the truth and would happily cover up a 5000 year old spaceship buried in the sands of time when they could exhibit it

people who actually have more than a passing knowledge of psuedoscience can see right through the crap thats written in their books and their agenda
for instance David Hatcher Childress claims that radioactive skeletons were unearthed from harappa around 1890 a full 30 years before the geiger counter was invented
or Hancocks claims that ECD is a valid concept when in fact it was never accepted by anyone as valid
or Schochs claims that the pyramid builders were a travelling race who originated in Sunderland
or JAW claim that the pyramids were built to mirror Orion when in fact the Egyptians barely ever mentioned the constellation
Erich Von Danikens claim that the egyptians used lightbulbs in their tombs when they didn't know what electricity was
or Sitchins claim that Alien.....
oh whats the point
if you want to believe in this kind of crap then thats up to you
if youre not prepared to do the actual research yourself or listen to experts who have then it isn't science anyway is it
its personal belief
in that respect believing in pseudoscience is no better than Arch's claims that God built the earth in six days then had a bit of a rest

ludicrous really to anyone who knows better
the claim that Archaeologists are keeping things quiet to protect their reputations is a claim that Hancock popularised because without it all his claims fall flat
its the same ploy being used today by Semir Osmaganic
it would mean that every archaeologist and scientist on earth was conspiring to hide the truth from the general public to protect reputations that most of them don't even have
that in itself is more ludicrous than anything any psuedoscientist has ever written
as such it isn't an argument that "the other side" can claim
its just a fallacy that some people want to believe because they don't find history as interesting as sci fi
but they want to

[Beagle]

Hello JohnB,

Welcome to the forum. Archaeologica is one of the largest and most popular archaeology forums on the internet. I would say that it has a world wide viewership but I see that you're from Oz - 'nuff said.

About pseudoscience. If you Google the word, you'll find many websites providing a description of it. Upon reading some of them, you'll realize that there is none of that here, no matter how often the word is used. On the other hand, no topic is off limits.

Given the popularity of this forum, it naturally has some critics, usually one small group of people. You'll notice though, that when a critic registers here, they wind up staying here - and this becomes their favorite place to post and discuss.

In other words - the proof is in the pudding. Enjoy JohnB.