On Dec 27, 4:12=A0pm, Eric Stevens <eric.stev...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
> On Thu, 27 Dec 2007 11:11:16 -0800 (PST), Samra
>
>
>
>
>
> <minoanatlan...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
> >On Dec 27, 10:19=A0am, Robert Socrates <robert.socra...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
> >wrote:
> >> A nice read... I only skimmed over it and it's not my area of
expertise=
,
> >> but two things caught my attention:
>
> >> >The only viable explanation for this is that there must
> >> >have been large populations of Mesolithic people inhabiting the
> >> >coastal regions of northern and western Europe that actively
resisted
> >> >any further colonization, assimilation, or acculturation."
>
> >> A bit far fetched in my opinion... there could be hundreds (well,
dozen=
s
> >> really...) of reasons other than this one. Is there any archeological
> >> evidence for those large populations of Mesolithic people?
> >> Sources?
>
> >> >In about 3200 B.C. Otzi the Iceman was still using the
> >> >old technology of pure copper (axe head - 99.7 % pure copper) while
> >> >the Millarens were working with the advanced Aegean alloy technology
> >> >of arsenical copper.
>
> >> Um... isn't it also a bit far fetched to compare objects carried by
> >> someone found in Alpine areas to a culture on the Iberian peninsula?
> >> Either way... as stated in the article later on when talking about
the
> >> British Islands technology was not spreading evenly over Europe. By
> >> comparing these things one is stating the obvious: That there was an
> >> uneven spread of technology over Europe... which might not be too
> >> surprising when someone looks at the geography of this area.
>
> >Dear Robert,
>
> >My source for your question regarding the halt of the Aegean Neolithic
> >expansion into Europe is:
>
> >"Europe's First Farmers"
> >T. Douglas Price
> >Cambridge University Press
> >2000
> >pg. 17
>
> >My intent on comparing Otzi's pure copper axehead with the Millarens
> >early use of arsenical copper was to illustrate the lack of any
> >discernable "Age of Pure Copper" in Iberia at about the same time.
> >Metallurgy in Iberia seems to have started with the alloying
> >technology of arsenical copper that was then in use in the Aegean.
> >This seriously undermines the idea of the indigenous origination of
> >metallurgy in the western Mediterranean in my opinion.
>
> >Thank you for insightful observations. Please contact me if you have
> >any other questions and comments.
>
>
http://books.google.com/books?id=3Dp9xJ-VpUuNkC&pg=3DPA249&lpg=3DPA249&dq=
=3Da...
>
> orhttp://tinyurl.com/2wx83gsuggests
that in Spain arsenic was
> deliberately alloyed with copper rather than being a natural
> contaminant. Nevertheless arsenic appears to be common in Spanish
> soils to the point where that it is of concern from the point of view
> of food quality. The possibility cannot be ruled out that arsenical
> bronze was initially produced in Spain by chance.
>
> Eric Stevens- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
Dear Eric,
Good source! Yes, it is possible, but, at least to me, much less
lightly than it being an Aegean introduction. The artifact type
evidence of the daggers having a consistently higher (~6%) arsenic
content to increase their hardness is the same as those found in the
Mesaran tholoi on Crete (Betancourt 2006) and reveals the intention of
the makers both in Spain and the Aegean. This, for me, clarifies the
murky nature of arsenical copper in Spain.
Thanks for not replying to my discussion in the sci.archaeology group.
Currently, a big part of it seems to have been taken over by anger and
aberrant psychological behavior.
Best Regards,
W. Sheppard Baird
http://www.minoanatlantis.com
|
