Who Mined Copper in Ancient America?



A very ancient copper ax found along Munch Creek in Pennsylvania baffled many archaeologists. 

You see, according to them -

LINK: "I believe this ax was made by the Old Copper Culture of Upper Michigan. Noninvasive testing shows the purity of the copper is consistent with the Keewenaw Peninsula, which extends into Lake Superior."

Native Americans could not “smelt” copper so it had to be layered and how they bonded the layers remains a question.

It would appear the Adena people (yet to be explained highly unusual and sophisticated culture of the Ohio Valley region) traded with Upper Michigan for copper.

Academia tries to be very precise about their dealings with ancient finds because no one wants to hear from our teachers that they have no clue. So, they tell us the ancient Native People didn't smelt. We kind of knew that already. But they can't explain how they came across copper items. Now they have a conundrum they must explain.

Anyone in science who follows the basic concept of Okkam's Razor knows, the least extraordinary explanation is the most logical, yet archaeologists and anthropologists try to push this away by saying, "well, there must have been Europeans who came over and did the smelting for them."

Apparently ancient copper industry was outsourced. Hmm....

This is doubly insulting to the Native People, as they are basically saying, smart Europeans must have come over and done the important work for them and in the same breath are saying "let's ignore their legends that tell about these white people with magical rocks that make mines sound with ringing. It's not real source of information," (even though they are the people of the area telling you what they witnessed and valued it enough to pass through oral culture).

To further verify what the natives of Wisconsin were saying, Spanish explorers going along the Gulf Coast in Texas came across the Karankawa Indians in the 1500s. They asked them, "dudes where did you get these copper items?" (okay, maybe not verbatim, but that was the gist of it). And the Native People said they traded with the people of the north for them. Those people from the north would be up the Mississippi in the Great Lakes mining region. Now, another tribe verifies trading copper with the mining northerns.

Let's assume some crazy miners from (off the top of my head) Wales, came here way before Columbus and were mining thousands of years ago in Upper Michigan and in Wisconsin. They must have left their culture, right? Shouldn't we be seeing their kinds of shelter, their kinds of writing on the rocks, their kind of tools? Hmmm.....

As well, it's been found that Michigan copper is in the bronze of Europe long ago. So, someone was mining, smelting, and even shipping the copper, yet there is no evidence of Bronze Age European culture in the Great Lakes region. So, who were these "white people" who were mining using rather large tools?




The Newberry Tablet (photograph 1896) was found in the Michigan Great Lakes Area. Some say the script resembles ancient languages like Minoan. But, it if it doesn't match it completely, it isn't. The more likely assumption would be that, around the world there was an advanced culture that taught by example the concept of writing. Men of different regions cobbled a language from the forms they saw and so they often times resemble each others.


Crete script


The truly interesting thing is that this Crete script was likely based on the language imitated from the Original People of the world (some call them Atlantians, Ancient Giants, or Lumerians), and if people from Crete came and mined in America, they would have used their own language, yet the Newberry tablet does not exactly resemble their acquired language form.

So, what we can assume about the Newberry Tablet (by logical deduction) is that it was written by a culture as of yet not known. In other words, that Original Culture - that is their language unadulterated, not imitated by earlier man. The Crete tablet would be their own take on the concept of writing after looking at the Original Culture's way of communicating with figures. This is why them seem vaguely similar.

If we want to understand the Original Culture, we need to decipher the Newberry Tablet. That's their not-yet-imitated form of writing.

Copper trading among mound cultures long ago was apparently quite common, as was seafaring up and down the major rivers, enormous and advanced mound cities, and mining. Ancient giant burial finds have included massive amounts of seashells, likely traded with people such as the Karankawa and Gulf Coast Natives, up and down the Mississippi River which led to the Cahokia (New York City of the mound culture) region.

What is intriguing is to consider that when these original people died off, possibly of disease exposure to the Native People and having a different DNA that did not tolerate disease, such as the Denisovans, the Native People likely moved in and utilized what they left behind, giving mounds a whole different meaning than the builder's intention.

We see this around the world with polygonal megalithic structures that defy explanation and pyramids, as well. It is hard to digest that ancient Egyptians built pyramids and their methods defy the present-day people. It is much more likely they moved into a prior cultures leavings, using structures for different purposes, assuming perhaps that these amazing creations were by the gods and ideal to honor their leaders, perhaps adding on or altering their looks like a new homeowner makes a home their own by painting the walls and renovating without clearly knowing how the past owner used the same building and its rooms.

The same goes for the Mayans and Easter Island and other quite out of place builds. So, what academics is teaching us now involves a lie based on who is local taking credit for what was built earlier. This is kind of like if archaeologists studied the modern day Phillipines and assumed it was purely a Spanish culture in ancient times and gave the Spanish credit for all the history there. 




Archaeologists are stuttering and stumbling to explain very ancient finds in America because they want to point to the only remaining earlier people, although they are, according to anthropologists, not the only people that were here.

Many anthropologists site the seafarers being first wave of immigration, those who took the land bridge were the second arrival, and then those who arrived in huge ships from Europe being the last.

LINK: In the State of Michigan, the largest mine was on Isle Royale, an island in Lake Superior, near the Canadian border. Here, there are thousands of prehistoric copper pits, dug thousands of years ago by ancient peoples unknown. The Minong Belt on Isle Royale has a distance of one and three quarter miles in length and is nearly four hundred feet wide. The copper pits range ten to thirty feet deep with connecting tunnels; one archaeologist estimated that their digging would take the equivalent of 10,000 men working for 1000 years.

The Menomonie Indians of North Wisconsin possess a legend that speaks about the ancient mines. They described the mines as being worked by “light skinned men”, who were able to identify the mines by throwing magical stones on the ground, which made the ores that contained copper ring like a bell. This practice closely resembles a similar practice that was used in Europe during the Bronze Age. Bronze with a high concentration of tin indeed resonates when a stone is thrown against it. The legend might have confused the start of the process with the result of the process. Even so, S.A. Barnett, the first archaeologist who studied Aztalan, a site near the mines, believed that the miners originated from Europe. His conclusion was largely based on the type of tools that had been used, tools which were not used by the local people.





This is only the beginning of my exploration. I highly suggest you study Graham Hancock's amazing work on the subject of mining in the Great Lakes showing up in Europe.



Comments