Curse of the Curse of Oak Island...

[xaos]

From another thread:

from AU Dreamers: Laser ablation isotope data analysis

A very fancy word, that in reality, is about absolutely meaningless. Similar to all of the other 'technology' they have used to keep the series interesting.

They are simply looking for a percent composition of the lead, and other trace minerals, and the isotope count on the lead, then comparing it with other samples.
You have to compare apples with apples. As an example, we use this, or a similar process to compare batches of Spanish coins, and the origin of minting. This tells nothing of the origins of the gold that was used to make the coins. Within each 'batch' of the minting process, the coins have similar chemical composition. Each batch is distinct, and each mint is very distinct. You cannot sample a coin and determine where the gold was mined.
Remember, much of the coinage was produced from artefacts which had been melted down.

So, they found no artefacts with similar composition, which is surprising, as lead has been used for centuries.

As shown above, to say that a manufactured artifact, "could' have origins to a certain mine is laughable.

What is far more conceivable is that bullets were melted down to make the artefact, as all bored soldiers know, we sit around and make stuff.

At best, they figured out it was made from lead, other than this, without a match to a manufactured artefact, the results are meaningless.

Hmm it's late and I'm tired maybe I didn't use the proper term but isn't that the work that Oxford did?

Metal provenancing using isotopes and the Oxford archaeological lead isotope database (OXALID)

 

Amazon Forum Fav 👍

Upgraded Night Vision Monocular Digital Infrared Monocular Telescope for 100% Darkness with 8X Zoom - Grab it through Amazon!

[xaos]

Yes, this is a similar process, using isotope measurements and various other methods of xray spectroscopy. Lead isotope is particularly useful, as the Uranium 238 decays to Lead 206, the isotope measurement can see the distinct decay rate (which is well established)

If you had raw ore, and compared it to the source, this is a direct comparison. Once you have lead in the form of an artefact, it becomes a bit of detective work and much guessing.
Artefact to artefact comparison, is about bullet proof. Determining the source of the raw material, is so much guesswork, and unfortunately, you can find what you want to find.

lead is especially tricky, as the source is usually galena ore, but much lead found in use was a byproduct of silver production. Lead was also frequently recycled, (the Romans had been mining for lead in Southern Europe since at least the 3rd century) mixing the raw materials from numerous locations. In addition, the mountainous regions of Southern Europe were formed about the same time, so the lead ore is all about the same age, thus the same isotope values. You can differential by the other chemical composition, but again, the metallurgic process blends these, as does the frequent use of recycled materials.

As examples:
Provenance evidence for Roman lead artefacts of distinct chronology from Portuguese archaeological sites The comparison with Pb isotope ratios of the published data for several lead ore deposits, exploited by the Roman in Iberian Peninsula, suggests that lead used in the manufacture of most of the glandes plumbeae would come from Linares-La Carolina, Alcudia Valley and Ossa Morena Zone. Also, some glandes could have been made using these ores, probably mixed with lead ores from Gallia Narbonensis (Southern France) or from Sardinia in the Mediterranean region. On the other hand, lead used in most fistulae aquariae came from Iberian mines, namely from Sierra Morena (Alcudia Valley and Linares-La Carolina mines) and Ossa Morena mining district, although in some cases, probably mixed with lead from the Iberian Pyrite Belt.

Late Roman Republican artefacts from Monte dos Castelinhos Pb isotope ratios point to raw materials with a probable Iberian provenance, namely from mines of the Sierra Morena and Ossa Morena Zone. There is evidence of the use of lead also resulting by the reduction of litharge, a by-product of the silver cupellation, in our case using argentiferous jarosites from the Iberian Pyrite Belt mixed with lead from other provenance.

Isotopic Ag–Cu–Pb record of silver circulation through 16th–18th century Spain Unfortunately, the Pb isotope ratios of ores are strongly correlated with each other, which often makes provenance assignment insufficiently discriminating.... We discuss the problems associated with the allocation of the coinage metals to potential sources, notably isotopic modification during the metallurgical processes.

Tracing Roman lead sources using lead isotope analyses in conjunction with archaeological and epigraphic evidence—a case study from Augustan/Tiberian Germania Additionally, all significant metals that were used in antiquity contain at least a trace of lead whilst it has been proved by direct experiment that lead isotope compositions are not fractionated by such processes as smelting, cupellation, fire refining, etc. (Gale and Stos-Gale 1996).
Notwithstanding, lead isotope analysis is a procedure of exclusion, i.e., a safe assignment of a metal supply area just by LIA is, at last, not attainable. What can be determined with certainty is which ore body does not come into question as a supply area. This is due to the fact that several ore bodies from different localities but of similar age may have indistinguishable lead isotope compositions.

To the COOI disaster.

For the lead cross 'found' at the COOI site, you can see that the testing of the composition and lead isotope certainly, by the scientific research illustrated above, is NOT conclusive to an origin of the ore. I would very much doubt that this artefact was created from a virgin pour of lead from a mine.

There is quite the database of known artefact analysis, especially lead, as it was so widely used by the Romans. Even with this database, it is not surprising that a match was not found.
I suspect this was made by a sailor on a ship, melting down bits of lead found around the ship. Sailor wanted a cross (probably from the shitstorm of a voyage) and made one.

For the above reasons, I see little scientific reason to place any distinct origin on the artefact, and any claim as such seems foolish. Claiming the most important find in North America...wow, how could he say that with a straight face?

Watching the artefact being recovered was a bit of a joke. As much as that place has been dug up over the years, the buffoon makes a near surface find by half swinging a detector, no wonder there is a shock at actually finding something. Then, there is little evidence of it even being buried, with no oxidation....


Edit Note: this post was a bit of a work in progress, as I wanted to add sources without additional posts. Done now!

 

[xaos]

the 'exclusion' principle.

View attachment 1662862​

This illustrated the isotope ratios of several broad mining localities the Romans exploited during the 3rd through 5th centuries. The different relative ages of the deposits can be used to rule out origins of the ore. (IF the lead used in the artefact has not been recycled) This shows that the Roman artefacts found, were a mixture of lead from Sardinia and Cevennes/Montagne Noir.

As illustrated, and denoted in the numerous references in the post above. It is NOT possible to determine the location of the lead mined in the COOI artefact with any certainty.

 

[3cylbill]

You sound like a pretty fart smeller....ahhhhh...smart feller................

 

[MCX]

Interesting. Can this process at least tell you the age of when the artifact was smelted & where (regardless of the origin of the lead)? That would at least help put an age on it and location of the smelting. Just curious (I know nothing of this process).

 

[xaos]

Sorry, it cannot provide an age based on the isotope...is shows the relative decay from Pb 206 to Pb 204...(Pb is 4.6 Billion years old) this is the comparison ratio used as the signature for the area.

If carbon is in the mix, the age is determined by dating the carbon. For the most part, the timeframe is determined by dating the the site where the artefacts are found. A relative age, as we all know the metallic artefacts were long lived, transported long distances, and of course, recycled.

With the coins of the Americas, there are impeccable mint records, and usually many examples of each mintage. many of these have been analyized, so a 'signature' is available for the mint batch. The chemical composition of a random coin can then be matched to the mintage location and batch. This is not true with the coins of Europe, as the metals were mixed, melted down and blended over the ages. (even with metals from the Americas)

Tracing it back to the mine location origin of the metals used for the production, simply not possible.

In the case of the COOI cross, it is an artefact out of context, and until an artefact with known date and information signature is matched, attempts to date it or provide origin are meaningless.

 

[Tom_in_CA]

... . I would very much doubt that this artefact was created from a virgin pour of lead from a mine.....

Good post xaos. As for your above statement: You will be beating your brains in, to get adherents accept that. In their mind's eyes, if you CAN'T prove it wasn't a "virgin pour of lead from a mine", then that means: It therefore *IS* a virgin pour from the lead of a mine.

And it will be up to you to prove it's not. See how that logic works ? This is why no amount of data to shed doubt on the story, is ever going to work. As long as someone can find some remote fabulous possibility of what something means or how something *might* have gotten there (against all odds), then presto: The story remains iron-clad-true.

 

[kenpodetector]

Could it be that the show is and has been a setup for people to watch its scripted finds for 10 years? Now they sucked Gary Draper into it too but he must be getting a pay check. Ah well yes I passed on this show a couple years ago I just can't stand to watch it. Maybe if I was onsite working it probably would be much different. TV shows especially on that network are notoriously scripted. They have to be in order to keep people watching. Now the boys that went to Bolivia, hell at least the found something in the first season. And Gold Rush they at least come up with gold weekly. These guys just cry about people who passed on and work the drama to suck people in. All I can say is someone has big pockets to keep that dig going on because I would open pit the place or walk away. Ah yes environmental folks I would do reclamation. Merry Christmas to all.

 

[xaos]

Good post xaos. As for your above statement: You will be beating your brains in, to get adherents accept that. In their mind's eyes, if you CAN'T prove it wasn't a "virgin pour of lead from a mine", then that means: It therefore *IS* a virgin pour from the lead of a mine.

Tom, I see what you mean. Looking at the cast they have complied, I can really see your point. How that buffoon Draper is in anyway credible, even to someone with no experience in metal detecting, is beyond me. I guess he is the shows cinematic reincarnate of Igor to Frankenstein?

on a similar note, at least Coopers treasure is no longer around?

 

[Au_Dreamers]

Since it's now fully onto Oak Island, I've asked for a forum change to Oak Island.

Not fully researched on my part but it does seem like this /these processes are like "man-made climate change" scientists, their opinions vary on the "accuracy" / "legitimacy" of the work.

I do have another sincere question though.

Why the personal attacks? Why do many Anti-Oak Island posters make personal attacks?

 

[TabWhisperer]

I have only occasionally surfed this forum and am not really into the Oak Island stuff. I do still watch it since there just isn't much else on TV anyway. When it comes to that lead cross I can't but think it is complete BS. After all, advertising dollars are at stake. They just happened to be in France and zoomed in on a cross etched into the wall. Then two weeks later they just happened to find a lead cross matching the etching only a few inches deep on a rock beach. When I have found lead sinkers they are worn from the rocks and sand. That cross still has details on it after allegedly hundreds of years of exposure to sand and rocks. They have mentioned they get bad storms that also could have thrown that thing around with wave action. Then the analysis just happens to trace to a quarry in France. I think it is possible they may have found some coins and other stuff on the island but I am pretty suspicious they brought the cross back from France and planted it. Maybe Gary wasn't in on it in order to prevent bad acting.

 

[Steamboat]

The thing about all the metal detector finds, they don't know WHEN the artifact was left there. The cross could have been dropped there two years ago.
All the metal detector surface finds could be found anywhere in the area where people have lived for hundreds of years.

 

[gazzahk]

Why the personal attacks? Why do many Anti-Oak Island posters make personal attacks?

Huh?... What is an "Anti-Oak Island" poster?...

To question something that is claimed without supporting evidence to be true.. Is a positive thing. Not a personal attack...

Posters should be ready to back up their claims with actual evidence rather then unsupported assertions.

This is not a personal attack.

 

[xaos]

Why the personal attacks? Why do many Anti-Oak Island posters make personal attacks?

First off, providing actual information to counter the ludicrous information provided in that series should not be considered anti-oak island. The Oak Island scam has been going on for what, 200 years, why would actual and historical information consider anti? The series is trying to perpetuate the scam, nothing more, nothing less.
No reasonable person would think that the Knights Tempalr, after travelling the world, would settle on a frozen piece of rock and endeavor on a multi-year construction project to bury a vault of valuables. (the Arc of the Covenant?!?!)
Historically, they looked for caves and other readily available natural structures. AT the time, there would have been little interference from locals, and there was no expediency, once they got to this continent, to secure their hoard. Leave no trace or record? Again, not the Templar way.
The Templar have been on the run for a long time, and were used to moving their hoard on a short notice, not spending 2 years in some overly complicated whatever the pit would be called (other than a scam) Leave hints at intervals? hahahaha

I suppose some of my post could be considered a personal attack. I can tone it down a bit, but a buffoon is a buffoon. Folks on this board should endeavor to separate themselves and their livelyhood/hobby from what is portrayed to the public.

I think it may be casting, there is that part of story line on many of these reality shows, where they add the random buffoon to the mix. You see it in many of the Disc Series "reality' shows.

 

[Tom_in_CA]

Huh?... What is an "Anti-Oak Island" poster?...

To question something that is claimed without supporting evidence to be true.. Is a positive thing. Not a personal attack...

Posters should be ready to back up their claims with actual evidence rather then unsupported assertions.

This is not a personal attack.

This is a good answer for Au-dreamers. I would add that:

When it comes to treasure legends (yamashita, lost dutchman, oak island, etc....) that it invariably NOT ONLY boils down to discussing the pro & con facts (to sort out "fact" vs "fiction"). But also does, in fact, boil down to personality types. Ie.: the psychology of how-these-things get started, get believed, etc.... comes into play.

So for example, when a skeptic goes to 'diss a certain part of the story with data, facts, logic, etc..., the faithful could resort to fantastical measures, to bolster a very unlikely scenario. Ie.: "grasping for straws" , with some remote fabulous contingency, by-which that aspect *could* still be true. In cases like this, we are no longer dealing with pro & con facts being discussed. Then it starts to boil down to the ability to sort facts, IN THE FIRST PLACE.

So in my opinion, that's when it seems like locker-room talk takes over . Ie.: where one poster starts to question the other's critical thinking skills. Which, yes, seems like "personal attacks"

 

[Robot]

xaos...This may be appropriate for this...Time of Year!

Something Similar...Published in the Sun Newspaper...1897!

Yes!... xaos...there is a Mystery of Oak Island.

It exists as certainly as love and generosity and devotion exist, and you know that they abound and give to your life its highest beauty and joy.

Atlas! how dreary would be the World if there were... No Mysteries.

It would be as dreary as if there were... No xaos!

xaos, your little friends are wrong!

They have been affected by the skepticism of a skeptical age.

They do not believe except what they see.

What...No Mystery of Oak Island!

Thank God...It exists, and may exist forever,

A thousand years from now,

xaos, nay, ten times ten thousand years from now, it will continue to exist in the hearts of Treasure Hunters.

To Sum It Up:

We Are Treasure Hunters

By Heart!

 

[Charlie P. (NY)]

Atlas! how dreary would be the World if there were... No Mysteries.

Very true. But a mystery is different from a fairy tale. We have untold mysteries yet to be solved and plenty to keep mankind exploring this planet and the solar system or the stars beyond.