Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Re: [ancient_waterways_society] Re: Smelting

Expand Messages
    VERY  INTERESTING:  I can observe that if an error, or attitude, is published and is quoted a few times .... that error is near impossible to correct. 
    Message 1 of 7 , Mar 15 5:13 AM
    • 0 Attachment
      VERY  INTERESTING:  I can observe that if an error, or attitude, is published and is quoted a few times .... that error is near impossible to correct.  There is a tremendous amount of evidence to support fleets of ships doing pre-Columbian commerce.   Fast forward, all.  
      To Rick .... I tried to open your YouTube type of video ... and ... nada .... it did not open for me:    "Rick discusses The Graves of the Golden Bear on Red Ice Creations Radio"      Cal           
      From: james m clark jr <jameyboy@...>
      To: ancient_waterways_society@yahoogroups.com
      Sent: Wednesday, March 14, 2012 9:36 PM
      Subject: [ancient_waterways_society] Re: Smelting

      Good to hear from you Oz,

      This is one of those AWS question and answers that would seem best to wander at. Pardon the pun as it is definitively not my intention either way to dispute. I assume Deut. 4:20 comes to mind. However, personally so does the distinction of desert and wilderness as David Stern puts it "bees don't inhabit the desert, bees are in the wilderness." Yet when it comes to migratory questions it seems their is a generic voice generally speaking of a voice that is assumed that the wilderness wanderings trace the steps almost wherever Abraham has said to have trod... until the time of Solomon who was acknowledged far beyond the desert as were many others such as Calcol whom some scholars label as a foreigner regardless if among others in Chronicles in which he is. From what I gather, Ps. 104 is not a refferece to a global Genisis flood but rather centralized or more local perhaps to the Black Sea & the Caucus mountains as Israel had yet to be discovered. Another flood, perhaps a reference to the book of Jasher was perhaps even futher away in the fertile crescent neither one of which these regions it wouldn't seem could have been mistaken as a vast wilderness. Surely in whatever wilderness they were in would have been noted. BI suggests that this wilderness was in Europe. I'm not sure exactly where Brit Am places this wilderness it would seem simular. Perhaps it is the same as Rome sent their exiles which was also in Gaul.

      be well,

      --- In ancient_waterways_society@yahoogroups.com, "Rick O" <ozman@...> wrote:
      > As some of you know, I've devoted a lot of time to studying the
      > worldwide development of copper and bronze industries. My findings
      > differ significantly from what you would find in most history classes or
      > textbooks -- or even from some of the "wilder" hypotheses of academia.
      > Most middle -eastern scholars attribute the entire early bronze age to
      > copper from Egypt. Yet we know that Egypt imported copper. Other
      > scholars attribute the wealth and influence (and Linear A script) of
      > 1600 bce Crete to trading that copper from Egypt to elsewhere. The list
      > that these scholars compiled is extensive and complex. It is also much
      > in violation of the principles embodied in Occam's Razor. It is almost
      > certainly wrong to the Nth degree.
      > What no one addresses is where any of these cultures obtained the fuels
      > for powering the smelting process. Certain Biblical scholars tout the
      > idea that during forty years in the wilderness, the Israelites forged
      > copper weapons from ore / very small nuggets found on top of the ground
      > in furnaces formed from native clays. If so, what did they burn in those
      > furnaces, camel dung? Nope, not not nearly hot enough! Yet, that is
      > about the only fuel available in that desert.
      > Now, those clay furnaces are real and there is real copper slag
      > associated with them. Yet that very fact implies two things in complete
      > violation of either the Biblical account or the scholars' association of
      > the furnaces to the wandering Israelites
      > <http://isearch.avg.com/search?cid={be8ae63f-436c-41af-a77d-7523e3db295e\
      > }&mid=00171102515747d1a161d151b5e5bff3-bc460407e5825bc24d3d6a37ebd0b4cac\
      > 983a32f&lang=en&ds=ins11&pr=sa&d=2012-02-24%2020:06:28&v=\
      > p&snd=did&q=Israelites> : (1) the furnaces are not portable, therefore
      > they (the users of the furnaces) were not "wandering", and (2) they
      > (whoever used the furnaces) had to have been trading for delivered high
      > energy fuels. If they were buying imported fuels, why wouldn't they also
      > buy imported copper that was already smelted or even already formed into
      > weapons?
      > So, you see, even the "mundane" scholarly explanation of the furnaces
      > requires trade diffusion. Trade diffusion of any kind over long
      > distances is unacceptable to most academic anthropologists, so, "Buzz!
      > Wrong answer. Thank you for playing!"
      > Then we take a look at the Beaker / Bell Beaker culture. Copper trade
      > was closely associated with nearly all their sites. And those sites
      > spanned the Med, the British Isles, pretty much throughout Europe and
      > even lower Scandinavia. At least one (a socketed arrowhead), probably
      > two (an axe head), of the artifacts associated with the broad term "Bell
      > Beaker" culture in Ireland are identified as made from copper from Upper
      > Michigan.
      > I could go on for many, many pages about this - oh, wait, I did
      > <http://www.gravedistractions.com/graves-of-the-golden-bears.php> !
      > --- In ancient_waterways_society@yahoogroups.com, "Mark Bennett"
      > <mlbennett@> wrote:
      > >
      > > Someone please correct me if I am wrong, but my understanding is that
      > > bronze handles heat better and that the English bronze cannons held up
      > > better than the Spanish cast iron ones, contributing to the Armanda
      > > victory. Mark
      > >
      > >
      > > > Thanks for the complement.
      > > >
      > > > Pre Columbus North America iron smelting is even more controversial
      > than
      > > > the trans Atlantic copper trade.
      > > >
      > > > Bronze replaced copper as a tool material because it would hold a
      > better
      > > > edge than the softer copper.
      > > > So, even though it was harder to make, requiring secret copper/tin
      > > > recipes, it won out as the material of choice.
      > > >
      > > > Everyone assumes iron replaced bronze for the same reason.
      > > > But there are other reasons.
      > > > First, iron ore is much more available through out the planet than
      > copper
      > > > and tin.
      > > > There is no need for world wide trading networks.
      > > > You can even find it in swamps. (Bog Iron.)
      > > > Second, the smelting process is much simpler.
      > > >
      > > > But each step came with a need for an increase in another
      > technology.
      > > > There was a required higher temperature for each improvement.
      > > >
      > > > Copper needs temperature of apx 250 to 350 C
      > > > Iron needs about 1250 C
      > > >
      > > > So far, how the knowledge to get to these higher temperatures came
      > about
      > > > worldwide is a mystery.
      > > > But knowledge is a more valuable trade item than anything else.
      > > > It is pretty light and all it takes is one guy who likes to travel.
      > > >
      > > > A good over view of smelting is at:
      > > > http://www.reference.com/browse/smelting
      > > >
      > > >
      > > >
      > >

    Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.