American Indian's lack of gold

But you forget - there's a stone "dock" right there at the beach.

Harte

originally posted by: HansluneAgain, and again you keep trying to pretend metals are useful until they fully melt. Nope they only have to soften, once they lose their structural integrity the functional item ceases to be useful.

What makes you think gold softens before aluminum, if gold melts at a 400 degree higher temperature than aluminum? You know aluminum cookware is useful, right?

Not that they wouldn't quickly realize gold was scarce and reserve it for ritual use.

originally posted by: HansluneBefore developing a theory the first thing you do is find every existing fact that reflects on the subject. You then come up with a theory that encompasses all that evidence.

I want to ask you to look up the word "hypothesis."

originally posted by: Harte
But you forget - there's a stone "dock" right there at the beach.

Harte

It's actually about 15 feet below the surface.

In fact, it's right where it would be if a sand pier retained by two walls of wood pilings had decayed after the surface had mineralized into beach rock.

a reply to: Solvedit
gold is definitely softer than aluminum, no heating required.

www.jewelrynotes.com...

originally posted by: Solvedit

originally posted by: Harte
But you forget - there's a stone "dock" right there at the beach.

Harte

It's actually about 15 feet below the surface.

In fact, it's right where it would be if a sand pier retained by two walls of wood pilings had decayed after the surface had mineralized into beach rock.

Yes.
And it's also exactly where it would be if a bunch of sand at a beach mineralized into beach rock - without any pilings.

Harte

originally posted by: Solvedit

originally posted by: HansluneAgain, and again you keep trying to pretend metals are useful until they fully melt. Nope they only have to soften, once they lose their structural integrity the functional item ceases to be useful.

What makes you think gold softens before aluminum, if gold melts at a 400 degree higher temperature than aluminum? You know aluminum cookware is useful, right?

Not that they wouldn't quickly realize gold was scarce and reserve it for ritual use.

You ever hear of gold foil?
How do you think they make it?
Here's a hint - they don't melt it.

Harte

originally posted by: HansluneAgain, and again you keep trying to pretend metals are useful until they fully melt. Nope they only have to soften, once they lose their structural integrity the functional item ceases to be useful.

We have attracted another No-Thread-Read commentator, Mike27. The argument was whether they could ever have used gold utensils for cooking before discovering it was rare. The argument was not whether gold is harder than aluminum. Since it melts at a much higher temperature than aluminum, I would guess it holds its shape well even when hot as compared to aluminum utensils.

You are attempting pretend that wide scale trading leaves no archaeological traces, you are also pretending that diseases would not spread. In addition you are pretending a port would have been built in a place completely unsuitable for such an installation. etc., etc.

Who said there was "wide scale" trading? They may have exchanged just a few compact, high value goods like gold and opium. Who said disease never spread? But if it was a small, secret, high value operation, they could have held back until the crew was healthy. The port did not have to move a lot of goods, but it did have to be secure and away from the good villages.

That is not what happens in the real world, sorry if you cannot get the basic facts right your speculation becomes un-evidenced fantasy.

I had already posted my request after you wrote this that you look up the word hypothesis and think about how it's different from a theory, but just to reiterate, please do.

originally posted by: HarteYou ever hear of gold foil?
How do you think they make it?
Here's a hint - they don't melt it.

Harte

Please state your point if you have one. I never said they had to melt gold for any reason. In fact, since they could form metal vessels without melting, it strongly supports this thread's implication that it is unusual that the North American natives seemed to have no use for gold.

originally posted by: Harte

originally posted by: Solvedit

originally posted by: Harte
But you forget - there's a stone "dock" right there at the beach.

Harte

It's actually about 15 feet below the surface.

In fact, it's right where it would be if a sand pier retained by two walls of wood pilings had decayed after the surface had mineralized into beach rock.

Yes.
And it's also exactly where it would be if a bunch of sand at a beach mineralized into beach rock - without any pilings.

Harte

Don't you need drying in order for beach rock to form? If not, why isn't the whole lagoon floor made of beach rock?

a reply to: Ravenwatcher
Thanks for getting my mind on other things than current events , at least for a few moments. Was fascinating to learn many gold items were from European shipwrecks ... thought I'd pass this on for those that share the appetite of knowledge ...
NATIVE AMERICAN GOLD

 This article illustrates and describes several examples of gold artifacts that were reported to have been found in mounds in Florida, Georgia and Ohio. Most of them were described in old Smithsonian reports in the late 1800's. This article focuses on those that have been discovered in the eastern United States but also illustrates a few additional gold artifacts from other countries. Gold was not traditionally used by Native American Indians. It's barely mentioned in the archaeological record.

originally posted by: MetalThunder
a reply to: Ravenwatcher

Thanks for getting my mind on other things than current events , at least for a few moments. Was fascinating to learn many gold items were from European shipwrecks ... thought I'd pass this on for those that share the appetite of knowledge ...

Thanks for passing the information on.

I don't want to be too quick to assume it's a No Thread Read reply and I can't speak for what the OP meant but it does seem there were few to no native artifacts from large areas of North as well as South America. From tribes with some advancement and ability to make things from their surroundings, and enough appreciation for beautiful goods to spend time carving them from stone and wood.

One hypothesis I stated was that there's a chance the more powerful Indigenous nations were victimizing the less powerful for gold, perhaps making them scour up the dust for tribute or turn over what artifacts they had. Perhaps it led North American tribes to learn to ignore the gold dust in rivers because they dreaded the day word got around they had gold.

For example, there was evidence the residence of Chaco Canyon (they used to be called the "Anasazi Cliff Dwellers") were raided by people from further South and were eaten. Cannibalized. That is not direct evidence that their attackers wanted gold tribute but it at least establishes cross-continent raiding.

Perhaps certain Central or South American nations were powerful enough to do this. Perhaps they were even corrupted as well as technologically educated by old world contact. That they look less Siberian than NorthWest American natives is without doubt; the only question is whether it's all post-Columbian.

Then there's the fact that the Ottoman empire essentially did not expand any further into Europe after Spain confiscated the New World's gold sources.

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

The Lucayans lived there and ate shellfish. If you are right about there being no shell middens, and I don't think you are, it is because they were used up to pave the roads. Shell middens are used in modern paving.

My point however was that the Bimini road might be composed of old shell middens and that might throw off the dating. There is a 1513 map which shows the stones above water. It could have been copied from some ancient source, or it could have been drawn when the structure was still intact which would make the road only a few decades old at the time of the map's creation.

originally posted by: HansluneNo anchors, no evidence of shipping, no water source, little food - why would there be a port there?

Why do you need an anchor if you can tie your ship up to a dock? If they had chosen a spot with a good water source, they might have had to go to war with the Lucayan people to get it. They might not have been able or willing to project enough force across the ocean to do so especially when all they wanted was to do a little trading. So, do they trade for and haul a little water, or do they go to war with only a few shipfuls of men halfway across the globe?

originally posted by: HansluneNo 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.......

What if you were an archaeologist working 500 years from now and you dug up a Chevy Impala with gigantic gold wheels in what had formerly been an inner city area?

Would you say "they couldn't have been conducting wide scale trading, there's no warehouses, no evidence of roads strong enough to move freight, not even any grocery stores within miles?"

And no, I'm not left with my beliefs, I'm left with my hypothesis.

originally posted by: Solvedit

originally posted by: HansluneNo anchors, no evidence of shipping, no water source, little food - why would there be a port there?

Why do you need an anchor if you can tie your ship up to a dock?

Any heavy rock will serve as an anchor, so it be hard to say for sure that we've found "no anchors".

If they had chosen a spot with a good water source, they might have had to go to war with the Lucayan people to get it.
They might not have been able or willing to project enough force across the ocean to do so especially when all they wanted was to do a little trading.

I want to add that, if this is taking place prior to gun powder weapons, the old worlders would have had no, or very little, advantage in a war.

So, do they trade for and haul a little water, or do they go to war with only a few shipfuls of men halfway across the globe?

That is exactly what Hernan Cortez went on to do. But he had gun powder, as well as steel weapons and steel armor.

Chain mail, all by itself, would make his soldiers totally indestructible against the Aztecs much vaunted "secret weapon", which was green obsidian. The Aztecs had conquered the whole region on the basis of having sharper arrow heads than their opponents. It must have frightened them terribly to see those arrows bouncing harmlessly off an armored foot soldier's mail.

But without that advantage, I think he would probably have lost.

a reply to: bloodymarvelousThey had bronze or iron weapons.

They probably came to trade compact, high value goods instead of fight because the ships weren't as advanced as in Cortez's day. They couldn't carry very much cargo or very many soldiers across the sea.

That may be why they built an outpost in a relatively inhospitable place like Bimini. The plan may have been to try to row away if they saw an enemy approaching. In case you didn't read the thread, they probably did have a dock to tie up to.

There may have been only a few ships. If this happened in the Bronze Age, the New World may only have been known to a few captains or ship owners.

The New World may be what fueled the Sea Peoples' conquest. They may have used the gold they brought from the New World to buy more and better weapons than their adversaries.

1# I think they just found it to Soft!
silver is a lot harder so would last longer for them.

the indeans ware very practical,
they did not make Junk like we do!
Do we NEED a moblie phone that are as powerful as a desk top computer.

This is what will kill off mankind. we will use up every thing.
those left will Not know how to live!

2# white man came killed them and took the ALL Gold!

originally posted by: Hooke
The evidence seems to show that, despite the possibly misleading nature of its appearance, Bimini Road is of natural origin:

You overlooked something major. From the Wikipedia page on beach rock:

"The main processes involved in the cementation are : supersaturation with CaCO3 through direct evaporation of seawater, groundwater CO2 degassing in the vadose zone, mixing of marine and meteoric water fluxes and precipitation of micritic calcium carbonate as a byproduct of microbiological activity."

That's stuff which happens at the surface between the low and high tide lines.

From your own source, the Wikipedia page on the Bimini Road:

"In 1978, the radiocarbon laboratory operated by the Department of Geology at the University of Miami dated samples from a core collected by E. A. Shinn in 1977 from the Bimini Road. In 1979, 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. "

The last time the seafloor around the Bimini Road was above water was 12,000 years ago, during the last ice age.

a reply to: Ravenwatcher

Varies by tribe. Inca loved gold.

To Navajo its just not as culturally valuable as silver and turquoise. Gold takes life.



It appears this is an old thread. Well that's the answer.