It would be interesting to establish a similar series for copper oxhide ingots found in N. America. I believe Franz Joseph has found some of these in Ohio. Does anyone know how the ingots were cast to give them this shape?

P26. THE PROVENANCE OF COPPER 'OXHIDE INGOTS'.

Stos-Gale Z.

Isotrace Laboratory, University of Oxford.

Nearly 200 new lead isotope analyses of sulphidic and oxidised ores from 26 copper mines on Cyprus show that the mines from different geological regions form five isotopically distinctive groups. Each of the groups shows a substructure related to the geological history of the ore formation.

Comparison of lead isotope compositions of Bronze Age artefacts with these data can in many cases reveal the actual mines from which the copper for particular artefacts was obtained. Particularly interesting case is the comparison of lead isotope data for 78 Late Bronze age copper 'oxhide ingots' found in Cyprus, Crete, Greece, Sardinia, Turkey and Bulgaria. The data shows that all 'oxhide ingots' dated to the 14th century BC and later, were made of copper consistent isotopically with only one mining region in the geographical north-west of Cyprus, and especially the Apliki and Skouriotissa mines. The study provides further evidence which supports the validity of the conventional approach to the use of lead isotope analysis for provenancing metals.

In the presentation there will be also included a comparison of the origin, based on lead isotope evidence, of the cargo of various types of ingots and tools (about 100 analyses) from the Gelidonya shipwreck.

Similar ingots have been found associated with the seaport of 'Magan' (now Sohar in Oman, north of Muscat heading towards the Straits of Hormuz)

The Copper ore from near Sohar was only exhausted in commercial quantities in recent times (circa twenty years ago).

Near to Sohar the modern Copper Smelter now has to rely on imported Brazilian Copper ore to keep producing Copper .

X-ray fluorescence is the technique recommended by my contacts at the Institute of Mining, Metals and Materials (aka IOM3 , Carlton Terrace London, best civilised bar in any Institution for white folks visiting the mudswamped central London );

XRF which can be used to date the age of ingots based on X-ray interaction on ther patinated surface of metal artefacts.

Atomic absorbtion Spectrophotometry can be used to compare the metallurgy of different artefacts by comparing the spectra emitted by trace elements in the cast product.

Does anyone know how the ingots were cast to give them this shape?

They were able to full melt the copper in small clay kilns maybe 10 pounds at a time. The molten copper was poured into a wood/sand mold like foundrymen do now. 5 or 6 heats = one full oxhyde. 70 lbs max. J. P. Grimes says there were big enough furnaces in the north to pour two oxhydes at a time. Not sure about that but the works in Isle Royale was pretty complicated so it’s possible.

The whole point of standardization was to make trade easy. Common weight and even shape in mining and metalwork made business smoother. It's also probably where the monetary unit “talent” came from because 70 pounds is close to what both oxhydes and the original talent weighed. The Roman talent weighed closer to 100 pounds but that was long after the Bronze Age ended.

Oxhydes were an extremely versatile format which is why they used it for about a thousand years. One man could load a whole ship full of them if he had to, but were also portable and you could paddle a few down a river in a raft easy if you needed to. Lifting and carrying 60/70 pounds is not difficult for a healthy man and I’m sure they did a lot of that too.

Fred Rynholm writes in Superior Heartland that oxhydes were common all over the Hopewell Culture area. I didn’t know that (and it’s a hard book to get ahold of.) Rynholm writes that they found plenty in Indian mounds in Ohio, West Virginia, Kentucky and Indiana. I didn’t know that either. Excepting Ohio, I thought most of the evidence was further north.

For what it’s worth anyone doing research now might want to see if any of those old Mound Museums around the Great Lakes/Ohio River area are still in business. Then check out back issues of Ancient American. But be careful. My understanding is the Interior Department considers even gathering arrowheads a felony nowadays, much less these things.

(Pages 204-05 of James Grimes’ delightful kids book Incredible Bronze Age Journey shows Minoan, Egyptian and Michigan oxhydes for comparison, and gives a simple but probably accurate description of how they were made.)

My understanding is the Interior Department considers even gathering arrowheads a felony nowadays, much less these things.
Fuck them. Take all the photos you can, hide them, keep a couple of samples, hide them too, and then contact the universities with the bulk of your find.

If the law and the media get all funny and furtive about it like they did with "Kenniwick Man", then you know you've got a bomb you could drop at any time.

If it wasn't for ordinary farmers ignoring NAGPRA etc, I never would have got the chance to study injun skulls. I don't have money for masters' and phd's, so private collections were all I had access to. Missouri "Indian" skulls are strange. They look much like actual human skulls, but stunted and bulged at the middle. Picture a human skull made of clay. Imagine pressing it vertically on the forehead with your palm til it looked "low-brow" and the "cheekbones" jutted out in comical fashion. That's about what a missouri "indian" skull looks like.

The mongoloid invaders wiped out the white discoverers of this continent, so I don't feel too bad about their plowed graves or mass deaths by "guns, germs, and steel".

They really were ugly little fuckers anyway. If you ever dig one up, you'll see.

LOL the way things are going, most of the injun bones will probably be eaten by chinese in the next century or two. Good medicine :)

Dragon bones cure everything :D

I've started searching for the books FranzJoseph mentioned in his earlier posts. Fred Rydholm's books are still in print and can be purchased at:

www.superiorheartland.com

He's written another book about the ancient copper trade:

Michigan Copper - The Untold Story

This is some neat stuff!

Has anyone read James Scherz' 18 p. pamphlet, "Prehistoric Copper Mines, Focus of Ancient Trade"? There is a reprint offered for sale on the Ancient American website. Scherz is, or was, a retired professor at the U. of Wisconsin, Madison.

www.superiorheartland.com (http://www.superiorheartland.com)

Thanks for the link, Uncle John. I thought Fred was dead. (Superior Heartland came out in 1989, got scarce, and it never occurred to me to look online.) From the looks of it his new one (going only by the table of contents) is a very well-padded version of Jewell's Ancient Mines of Kitchi Gummi, but I'll probably give it a shot anyway.

If the law and the media get all funny and furtive about it like they did with "Kenniwick Man", then you know you've got a bomb you could drop at any time.

I never thought of it that way, but unfortunately I have to agree. We have a government in hostile hands and even though it's hard to believe they'd care about things like this, it seems they do.

Kennewick Man was good for our side. He woke up a lot of people to the history that's being buried, absolutely.

Rest in peace, Old Guy.

Here is a partial abstract of the book, Native American Mathematics:

NATIVE AMERICAN MATHEMATICS, Edited by Michael P. Closs; University of Texas Press, P.O. Box 7819, Austin, TX 78713; 512-471-7233; 1986, first paperback printing, 1996, 431 pages, reference bibliography, contributor notes, 0-292-71185-9

This book contains 13 rather technical articles, whose publication here was supported by the Canadian Society for the History and Philosophy of Mathematics. Most of the articles contain number systems -- really, mostly number words, with occasional notes on what might have been early linguistic forms suggesting simple tribal arithmetics. The strongest suggestion, however, is that arithmetical developments occurred only after contact with fur traders, and involvement in trade, made some such reckonings necessary; they were wholly unnecessary to hunting-gathering cultures in small bands. Similarly, measurement, with objective units never developed, as measurements with context-dependent relative units such as handspans, armlengths, or number of sleeps to determine distances, sufficed for constructions made entirely by the individual, who built what he or his family needed, and not communicated among construction or tool-making specialists. People who traveled well-known territories but did not claim land as property had no need to measured nor map and did not develop abstract (context-free) units nor techniques for doing so.

I've seen several programs where anthropologists theorized that N. American Indians used a form of money (rare, uniformly sized seashells) in a complicated trading system that extended across the continent. it seems logical to me that the copper trade with Europe would have been quite sophisticated as well, and would have required a commonly understood system of weights and measures.

Is there an inconsistency here? Have any of you found examples of pre Columbian N. American Indians using or having a system of weights and measures?

I've seen several programs where anthropologists theorized that N. American Indians used a form of money (rare, uniformly sized seashells) in a complicated trading system that extended across the continent. it seems logical to me that the copper trade with Europe would have been quite sophisticated as well, and would have required a commonly understood system of weights and measures.

Is there an inconsistency here? Have any of you found examples of pre Columbian N. American Indians using or having a system of weights and measures?

Math & the ancient world is a real can of worms everywhere. On one had all the ancient peoples of the world had overdesigned mathematic systems. On the other hand there's no proof any of them needed outside help to get that way. This whole subject needs a squad of experts to work on it (the way Dunn looked at the Great Pyramid as an engineer for instance.)

A pop book from 2001 lays out issues of math and proportion problem in this area real well, Ross Hamilton's The Mystery of the Serpent Mound. It was written for non-specialists but is full of head-scratching information for anyone. Hamilton notes that the Hopewell Culture that built the Great Serpent pre-dates Anasazi (Southwest) and Mayan culture and shows superior mathematical understanding. How come? He can't answer that question, but lays out all the information the Serpent Mound conveys and throws as many possible interpretations as he can at it.

Why did all the ancients have things like the recently-discovered Nineveh Constant? Numbers/proportions/encoded information of vast size and complexity on the one hand, just like what the Great Serpent Mound indicates, while at the same time have no practical use for same?

If the Serpent Mound contained anything useful to trade or industry its brilliant design would make sense. But it don't. I thought I could fit the Serpent into a general Bronze Age scheme till Hamilton and others actually started measuring it. After that it becomes clear that it don't fit any scheme, like a lot of other things. It's just there and it makes no sense.

Officially, the people who built these things were barely more than primates. Unofficially, as Ross Hamilton shows, they built things that incorporate knowledge only a Pythagorian could have known. Until we can get some better dates and theories for when and why the Serpent Mound, Hopewell Road, and other things were built, we're stuck. It's a mystery.