American Indian's lack of gold

originally posted by: HansluneSo no answer. Again the lack of evidence for any sort of trade is damning.

If you may recall I was merely answering your baseless charge that there would definitely be a certain style of ceramic pot if there had been Old World opium being distributed in the New World. You made a weak charge.

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

They may prefer people not know their actual origin.

Suppose they were descended from explorers or traders or pirates from the Barbary Coast. Some people are prejudiced against Berbers.

Suppose some nation such as the Ottoman empire was selling captives in addition to opium, in the New World, for gold. Suppose the capitves which were sent were young enough to not technologically revolutionize the New World's cultures. To my eye, the uncontacted natives of much of the Americas don't always look much like Mongolians or Siberians.

Suppose King Mansa Musa of Mali intercepted a treasure fleet which washed ashore in West Africa during a storm, and that's where he got his gold.

originally posted by: BlueJacket

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.

My point was that at some point, they had scoured away all the gold which was available to primitive knowledge and tools.

I am guessing the larger, more powerful tribes enslaved or extorted the smaller, less advanced ones to scour up gold, then sold it to pirates or traders from the Old World in exchange for opium or captives.

From Listverse, 06-21-2018:

"Africans weren’t the only people being kidnapped and sold into slavery. Between the 16th and 19th centuries, hundreds of thousands of Europeans were captured by Barbary pirates and sold as slaves in North Africa and the Ottoman Empire.The Barbary pirates would raid the coasts of Europe and capture anyone they could get their hands on. Then they would drag them off to Algiers, where they would be sold as slaves.The Ottoman Empire refused to stop until the United States and Europe forced them. The US had to go to war with the Barbary states twice (in 1801 and 1815) before they left them alone, while the British, Dutch, and French fought with Algiers off and on for nearly 100 years before the Ottoman Empire, in 1890, finally signed an agreement to stop taking white slaves."

It may not have started in the 16th century.

originally posted by: Solvedit
From Listverse, 06-21-2018:

"Africans weren’t the only people being kidnapped and sold into slavery. Between the 16th and 19th centuries, hundreds of thousands of Europeans were captured by Barbary pirates and sold as slaves in North Africa and the Ottoman Empire.The Barbary pirates would raid the coasts of Europe and capture anyone they could get their hands on. Then they would drag them off to Algiers, where they would be sold as slaves.The Ottoman Empire refused to stop until the United States and Europe forced them. The US had to go to war with the Barbary states twice (in 1801 and 1815) before they left them alone, while the British, Dutch, and French fought with Algiers off and on for nearly 100 years before the Ottoman Empire, in 1890, finally signed an agreement to stop taking white slaves."

It may not have started in the 16th century.

The Roman's were enslaving entire tribes and nations and they weren't the first to do so.

originally posted by: HansluneThe Roman's were enslaving entire tribes and nations and they weren't the first to do so.

I am glad you can admit those might be actual Roman amphorae off Brazil.

originally posted by: Solvedit

originally posted by: HansluneThe Roman's were enslaving entire tribes and nations and they weren't the first to do so.

I am glad you can admit those might be actual Roman amphorae off Brazil.

I was of course referring to actual actions of the Roman's in Europe, Asia and Africa. There might be Roman amphora somewhere in the Americas, but we haven't found any.

originally posted by: TzarChasm
Ahem.

Indigenous Americans is the term for tribal communities also referred to as first nations. There's nothing Indian about them. Say it with me. Indigenous... Americans. Indians are people who live in a geopolitical region called India, which is on the other side of the world.

Thank you for coming to my TED talk.

First nations! sounds like more colonial rhetoric to me. They didnt have nations.

Ty for coming to my ted talk.

originally posted by: purplemer

originally posted by: TzarChasm
Ahem.

Indigenous Americans is the term for tribal communities also referred to as first nations. There's nothing Indian about them. Say it with me. Indigenous... Americans. Indians are people who live in a geopolitical region called India, which is on the other side of the world.

Thank you for coming to my TED talk.

First nations! sounds like more colonial rhetoric to me. They didnt have nations.

Ty for coming to my ted talk.

Allegedly indigenous. Thank you for coming to my internet crank's rant.

originally posted by: purplemer

originally posted by: TzarChasm
Ahem.

Indigenous Americans is the term for tribal communities also referred to as first nations. There's nothing Indian about them. Say it with me. Indigenous... Americans. Indians are people who live in a geopolitical region called India, which is on the other side of the world.

Thank you for coming to my TED talk.

First nations! sounds like more colonial rhetoric to me. They didnt have nations.

Ty for coming to my ted talk.

nativegov.org...

"They were known during the colonial years to the French as the Iroquois League, and later as the Iroquois Confederacy. The English called them the Five Nations, comprising the Mohawk, Oneida, Onondaga, Cayuga, and Seneca (listed geographically from east to west). After 1722, the Iroquoian-speaking Tuscarora people from the southeast were accepted into the confederacy, which became known as the Six Nations." The use of the term nation was first used in the 17th century by Europeans.

originally posted by: AutomateThis1v2
Maybe they just didn't care much for it. Like how weak it is and maybe they simply didn't find it worthwhile to blend it with sturdier metals.

Hardly likely. A gold pot would still be stronger than a clay pot.

The issue was probably that if a tribe's rivals got wind that they had gold, they might be raided for it so it could be sold to the larger nations in Central America or perhaps to pirates from Europe or the Middle East and North Africa, who might have known about the Americas long before Columbus.

If this is so, then they probably were taught not to look at or talk about any gold dust they spotted lest stronger tribes overhear and intimidate and enslave them to gather the dust up out of stream beds.

There is some evidence that Native Americans could be awful to one another.

originally posted by: Solvedit
Hardly likely. A gold pot would still be stronger than a clay pot.

In what way would a gold pot be stronger than a (fired) clay pot?
Try cooking in a gold pot.

The poster you replied to mentioned blending gold with sturdier metals, not comparing to ceramics.

However, I would certainly agree that the idea of blending gold with other metals to get a stronger alloy is a non-starter. Gold is far softer than any of the other available metals, so such an exercise would only weaken the alloy.

The only real use for gold in that era was aesthetic.

Harte

originally posted by: Harte

originally posted by: Solvedit
Hardly likely. A gold pot would still be stronger than a clay pot.

In what way would a gold pot be stronger than a (fired) clay pot?
Try cooking in a gold pot.

The poster you replied to mentioned blending gold with sturdier metals, not comparing to ceramics.

However, I would certainly agree that the idea of blending gold with other metals to get a stronger alloy is a non-starter. Gold is far softer than any of the other available metals, so such an exercise would only weaken the alloy.

The only real use for gold in that era was aesthetic.

Harte

A wood fire can get to 600 c and while gold melts at 1000 C its loses any strength (it goes soft) at that lower level of heat. It was never terribly useful as a cooking utensil.

originally posted by: HarteIn what way would a gold pot be stronger than a (fired) clay pot?

Doesn't shatter when dropped.

originally posted by: HansluneA wood fire can get to 600 c and while gold melts at 1000 C its loses any strength (it goes soft) at that lower level of heat. It was never terribly useful as a cooking utensil.

A cooking pot would rarely get much hotter than 100 C.

But cooking isn't the only thing they needed pots for.

But look at the lengths they went to in order to decorate things and create ritual objects. They must have ignored gold because it would bring larger, more dangerous tribes running if word got around.

originally posted by: Solvedit

originally posted by: HansluneA wood fire can get to 600 c and while gold melts at 1000 C its loses any strength (it goes soft) at that lower level of heat. It was never terribly useful as a cooking utensil.

A cooking pot would rarely get much hotter than 100 C.



But look at the lengths they went to in order to decorate things and create ritual objects. They must have ignored gold because it would bring larger, more dangerous tribes running if word got around.

No, gold has no value except that which some people associate it to. To HG and primitive farmers other than a decorative item it had no partially value.

Never gone camping have you or worked with a wood fire? You have no idea what you are talking about.

gudgear.com...

How hot is a campfire? There are two temperatures to know. Internal Temperature: A campfire can reach internal temperatures of 1650°F (900°C) in the flames, known as the continuous flame region. Cooking Temperature: Above the flames (called the thermal plume region) where no flames are visible, you can expect temperatures of about 600°F (320°C). This is where you’ll do your cooking. The further away from the flames, the lower the temperature.

originally posted by: HansluneNo, gold has no value except that which some people associate it to. To HG and primitive farmers other than a decorative item it had no partially value.

Never gone camping have you or worked with a wood fire? You have no idea what you are talking about.

This pettifogging back and forth might be chasing people from our thread. People know they're going to have to wade through a lot of useless back and forth, all because some people don't read replies thoroughly or think through their responses.

The Native Americans at the time of European contact spent plenty of time and effort creating decorative things so there must be a reason they overlooked gold.

However, based on the other things they had, gold would have been far from useless for practical things. It's a metal which usually doesn't have to be refined from ore and does not corrode. It has some strength.

The water-based food inside the pot is what keeps it from exceeding 100 C by very much. Even a modern pot can be ruined if left on a stove with no food.

So I guess you never went camping with aluminum pots. If you had, and followed your implied policy of putting an empty pot on the hottest part of the flame, you'd have found aluminum alloy pots melt at 644 C.

originally posted by: Hanslune I was of course referring to actual actions of the Roman's in Europe, Asia and Africa. There might be Roman amphora somewhere in the Americas, but we haven't found any.

Or maybe when we did, they were buried in silt, further offshore exploration prohibited, and false rumors circulated claiming a recent origin.

originally posted by: Solvedit

originally posted by: HansluneNo, gold has no value except that which some people associate it to. To HG and primitive farmers other than a decorative item it had no partially value.

Never gone camping have you or worked with a wood fire? You have no idea what you are talking about.

This pettifogging back and forth might be chasing people from our thread. People know they're going to have to wade through a lot of useless back and forth, all because some people don't read replies thoroughly or think through their responses.

The Native Americans at the time of European contact spent plenty of time and effort creating decorative things so there must be a reason they overlooked gold.

However, based on the other things they had, gold would have been far from useless for practical things. It's a metal which usually doesn't have to be refined from ore and does not corrode. It has some strength.

The water-based food inside the pot is what keeps it from exceeding 100 C by very much. Even a modern pot can be ruined if left on a stove with no food.

So I guess you never went camping with aluminum pots. If you had, and followed your implied policy of putting an empty pot on the hottest part of the flame, you'd have found aluminum alloy pots melt at 644 C.

To bad we weren't talking about aluminum. Gold would be useless in a fire based cooking system. Just stop digging the hole. Your insistence they gold would be used for cooking utensils is a no go. So please show us examples of gold bowls used in cooking from the archaeological record? I'll wait.

Your whole basis is that somebody came to the Americas and stole gold and shipped it to the old world? This somehow left no evidence in either the old or new worlds. Your ideas are absolutely brilliant except the evidence doesn't support it.