Thoughts on the Float Copper and AAPS Museum From Lee Pennington: 

These are my thoughts about the giant piece of float copper and the proposed museum by the Ancient Artifacts Preservation Society (AAPS) group.

First, the museum:  There are hundreds of people, maybe thousands of people, myself included, who have in their possession strange, unusual ancient artifacts that simply do not make any sense according to the standard paradigm. The things I have I make no mention of to anyone other than people who show a genuine interest, and even then I do so very carefully.    Everyday, well not that often, but certainly often, I run into people who also have such artifacts. Until we compare, we have no idea that we and others have such artifacts that might very well connect us all globally.

  It's only by sheer accident that cross-study of different artifacts is even possible. The traditional academic people don't even want to look at these things.  There is simply no place in the world where these artifacts can be brought together for present and future study. I hurt deeply that many things are being lost and even worse, trashed.    When Wayne May managed to get the Michigan tablets back into Michigan, the hope was that a museum would be available to house these.  I think that was where the AAPS group came up with the idea of a museum in the first place.  You probably already know that the state archaeologist became in charge of the Michigan tablets, and they have been declared a fraud and, therefore, worthless for study.  Even at the exhibit which was done, the tablets were listed as fraud.

Loss of Precious Artifacts: I predict that within 50 years, unless a proper place to house these Michigan tablets (and how many thousands of other artifacts?) at a place where the keepers are not locked into any particular paradigm, and at the very least, unbiased, then no one will even have the opportunity to study these precious, yes precious, fraud or not, tablets. They simply will be buried under the axiom that it's easier to ignore something when declared fraud, than it is to address the objects objectively.  Trust me. This kind of thing, declaring fraud and then not having to answer some of the hard questions, is happening constantly.   

Many archaeological reputations in America have been made not on discovery but solely on the art of debunking.  Consider Fantastic Archaeology and tons of other debunking books.  Many of these same archaeologists say they don't have time to waste on looking at artifacts that have already been declared frauds, but they certainly have time to write books declaring, and re-declaring, the very same artifacts frauds. The idea of a museum to house such objects and be available to those who wish to study them on a world-wide basis is an incredible idea.  Will it happen? The odds are certainly against it. "Regular" museums simply won't touch many of these items. 

I can speak from personal experience with what happened here in my area.  Many of us worked long hours getting the "Brandenburg Stone" properly housed at the Falls of the Ohio Interpretive Center in Clarksville, IN.  The Brandenburg Stone has what appears to be an ancient script on it the stone was found early in the 20th Century near Brandenburg, KY, and 40 years later wound up in the Brandenburg Library, on the floor under a window where people were even walking on it.  There has been much debate as to what the markings on the stone represent.  (I'll attach a photo) We (Ancient Kentucke Historical Society) went to the expense of building a beautiful case for the stone and got it placed in the Falls.  Local "academic" historians managed to put pressure on the Center and the stone "had to be removed."  There had been a translation of the stone that indicated it was ancient Coelbren (Welsh), and the historians wanted "nothing" to do with anything that might add credence to an existing legend of a Welsh prince named Madoc. People were coming to the Falls Center just to see the stone.  So now they have lost that potential revenue just because someone wanted no argument against the existing paradigm.                            

Imperative That We Have Our Own Museum: That's why such a museum, one that is not afraid to focus on out-of-place artifacts, is so important.  The general AAPS Board has been hesitant to think in terms of such a museum being located in the Keweenaw because of outside people not wanting to travel that far to get to it. Some thought such a museum should be in the UP but not so far out but closer to a larger city, for example, Marquette. Both Fred Rydholm and I feel the museum should be located in the Keweenaw (near where many ancient copper mines are located). In relation to outside people not traveling so far to get to such a place, I mentioned at an AAPS board meeting the L’anse Aux Meadows site in Newfoundland.  Thousands of people a year visit the site, and it's about as difficult to get to as any site, except maybe Antarctic. Would outsiders coming in to the Keweenaw be of value to the local people?  Ask the people around L’anse Aux meadows (which I did).  Some of the tiny settlements think in terms of the Viking site established there being a savior for the livelihood of their small communities. I think people like the                            

Second, the Giant Piece of Float Copper:  I've read many pros and cons on the value of this piece of copper.  Ask yourself.  Have you ever seen a really large piece of float copper?  I mean a really large piece.  I'm talking 40 to 70 tons. There certainly have been others, thousands of them. Where are they now? Mostly melted down and used as electric wires and a thousand other things.    Fred thinks in ancient times the float copper was what was gathered the most even much more than what was "mined."  Fred says, "You could just pick the copper up off the ground!"  Yet, the float copper is now mostly all gone.  There are a few pieces still around held by individuals.  This piece of copper that the AAPS is trying to save is probably the largest piece of float copper still in existence. I've seen on the posts people suggesting that the copper should be left in its natural habitat.  I would be all for that, if it could only happen.  But it's not going to happen.  There are two choices remaining for this particular piece of copper.  Either it will be saved and available for present and future generations to look at, or it will be melted down and gone forever.  Fred's idea to purchase the copper and have it as the center piece for the proposed museum is brilliant. How much ancient history is connected to just such copper?  Many people have traveled just to see the Ontonagon Boulder at the Smithsonian a boulder weighing a ton and a half.  How many would travel and how far to see "the largest float copper boulder in the world one weighing maybe 70 tons, one nearly 50 times larger than the Ontonagon Boulder"?  As Fred says, "It will be the show piece for the museum."                            

I am 100% in Support of the Museum: So why am I supporting both the museum and the saving of the great piece of float copper? I support the museum because it would be a place where we could see strange, unusual artifacts together in one place, to see their global significance, and to see relationships between things. I know many people who would donate their artifacts to such a museum.  Without such a place, many such artifacts will simply be thrown out when the caring owner dies.  The giant piece of float copper should be saved if for no other reason than for people to be able to see what was lying around nearly a hundred percent pure during the Bronze Age. Saving that great piece, at whatever cost, is better than melting it down and turning it into pennies and electric wires.  Once melted, there is no putting it back.  On both the museum and the copper, the future deserves better than status quo no, not status quo but better than loss, total, complete, loss.

Lee Pennington