I've read journals from the 19th century about farmers who dug up massive battlegrounds (skeletons, weapons, etc) on their farms and how the smithsonian showed up and took everything.
There are thousands of copper mines in the Great Lakes Michigan region that date to the period, but the lack of copper in Native American artifacts raises a big question. This combined with the Massive Tin mines from the same period in SW England leads many to theorize that it was American Copper and English Tin that was the primary source of bronze in the Mediterranean.
The Alternative sources of tin were in Syria and Georgia, but neither of those have the same archaeological evidence of being massive mining sites to supply the metallurgical boom that was going on.
Didn't know that about the Smithsonian, but nothing surprises me these days. Actually, a govt adjacent entity that WASN'T corrupt would surprise the shit out of me.
Re: Native American copper. Maybe those populations weren't forward thinking enough to build themselves into a copper mining and trading empire? Or maybe the carbon dating was wrong? It often is...
Why squash their potential contributions to history? Who benefits? It would be very interesting to learn about, to say the least. So I wonder... (hence the questions)
It's all good. Truth be told, there is always a lot of speculation with archaeology, very open to interpretation. Myself, I'm writing a book set in the bronze age, so I've done a lot of research and I still feel like I hardly know anything.
Really? How do you know about the trade? Or that Smithsonian is keeping it quiet?
I've read journals from the 19th century about farmers who dug up massive battlegrounds (skeletons, weapons, etc) on their farms and how the smithsonian showed up and took everything.
There are thousands of copper mines in the Great Lakes Michigan region that date to the period, but the lack of copper in Native American artifacts raises a big question. This combined with the Massive Tin mines from the same period in SW England leads many to theorize that it was American Copper and English Tin that was the primary source of bronze in the Mediterranean.
The Alternative sources of tin were in Syria and Georgia, but neither of those have the same archaeological evidence of being massive mining sites to supply the metallurgical boom that was going on.
Fascinating....
Didn't know that about the Smithsonian, but nothing surprises me these days. Actually, a govt adjacent entity that WASN'T corrupt would surprise the shit out of me.
Re: Native American copper. Maybe those populations weren't forward thinking enough to build themselves into a copper mining and trading empire? Or maybe the carbon dating was wrong? It often is...
Why squash their potential contributions to history? Who benefits? It would be very interesting to learn about, to say the least. So I wonder... (hence the questions)
It's all good. Truth be told, there is always a lot of speculation with archaeology, very open to interpretation. Myself, I'm writing a book set in the bronze age, so I've done a lot of research and I still feel like I hardly know anything.
Point is though, the Smithsonian is dirty.
Very nice! I started one myself 3 years ago dabbling in the chalcolithic era... went nowhere after I got a new job and had kids tho.
Good luck!