Copper Casting In America (Trevelyan)

The presence of silver inclusions *proves* the native copper was not melted after being deposited. Native copper is deposited by chemical means, not volcanic melting and extrusion. This naturally chemically refined material is extremely pure copper. Here's a quote from the Caladonia Native Copper Mine literature;

" The term "native" as used by mining men is synonymous with "pure", "unadulterated" or "virgin". Keweenaw copper was found in a state of such purity that a piece brought from underground could immediately be beaten into pots and pans without smelting or refining."

Some of the ancient mine tailings are still there, for example at the sites on the Snake River near Pine City, Minnesota (Minnesota historical site

21PN11), or near Beroun, Minnesota (21PN86). But most of the tailings at Keweenaw were reworked by 19th and 20th century miners. The tailings were rich and easily accessable, so it should be no surprise that miners using more modern methods would have done this. 20th century miners even reworked the tailings of 19th century mining operations as recovery techniques, and power machinery, made it profitable to do so.

Do you have evidence of the existence of such villages in the area? From what I can gather, ancient native copper mining in the UP was seasonal work, done from temporary encampments at the mine sites. This is not a subject where I can claim any expertise, so I don't hold that as absolute fact. Any hard evidence of permanent habitations near the mines would be welcome.

Gary

Reply to
Gary Coffman
Loading thread data ...

Apart from the fact that the radiographs on Connors site are by no means the only evidence, the presence of one exception should not be ignored.

I don't for one minute expect that an ordinary forest fire would melt a copper artifact of that size.

How about the several times I posted the reference to the reports of New York Testing Laboratories and the National Bureax of Standards. I quoted Mallery in Message-ID: . Yuri Kuchinski later picked it up and requoted it in message news: snipped-for-privacy@posting.google.com... and I cited my original article again in Message-ID: .

Important words from the quote from Mallery include:

"X-RAY EXAMINATION:?The tools were radiographed using standard techniques. A review of the radiographs led to the following observations:? # I?The three tools were originally cast."

"The specimens are originally cast but apparently have been reheated and worked to some extent."

"Following this report, six leading American museums furnished tools from the United States, Canada, Mexico, Guatemala, and Peru for testing. Various metallurgists who have examined the micrographs of these tools concur in the findings of the New York Testing Laboratories, Inc. that many of the specimens examined have been cast. Dr. George P. Ellinger, metallurgist for the National Bureau of Standards, said, after examining the submitted specimens, "The presence of cuprous oxide in the interior of the tools tested and the concavity caused by shrinking justify the conclusion that the vast majority of the ancient tools were cast."

These words are unambiguous and do not depend solely on the interpretation of the information posted on Connor's site.

Eric Stevens

Reply to
Eric Stevens

Eric Stevens says in news: snipped-for-privacy@4ax.com:

This is not so hard to see, copper comals made in Guerrero and Xoahaca are made in much the same way they were previous, the comal being the primary 'tool' made in the region. These comals are not cast, they are pounded. I am by no means a leading expert on the totality of tools, but the comal appears to be something that was large and consumed alot of the copper generated for non-ornamental purposes. Maybe it is difficult for a person in New Zealand to have access to this information; however I have seen at least 2 video reports on the manufacturing of the comal, and they are not cast. The most similar cultural item I have seen is the hammered woks created from iron in china (which you can buy on the home shopping network if you are lucky). Woks being more sophisticated with handles, whereas the comal is just a large concave piece of copper.

I would not be surprised if the Andeans and Mesoamericans cast copper, they certainly has made many advances in metallurgy, however I think, with regard to tool use, one has to question the utility of casting when hammering out the metal requires less heat and is amicable to all kinds of transformations without need of a mold.

BTW, this whole conversation is repetitious and boring. We start this whole thing by some idiot argueing that copper smelting technology came from europe, when in fact the technology in the new world clearly initiated independently in south america and spread in the opposite direction. Of course if the eurasians can invent copper smelting and then casting, gee it seems like someone who knows enough to smelt copper could, if he so desired, to cast it also, a minor variation in a well advanced technology. Thus the cultural connection of either to eurasian influence is dubious even if it did exist. By the fact you have some expert pointing to a number of cultures in which we KNOW that copper smelting developed independently of eurasia, as evidence for copper casting is not the way to 'cast' an argument for the diffusion of casting technology from europe. More or less its a way to disprove that any artifacts that were cast in the new world were the result of european influences.

Are you arguing for the sake of arguing or is there a point and direction to your argument?

BTW, Now that we have decided to dabble south. Consider the obsidian knives and decorative glasswares of the mesoamericans. What kind of parallels do these have in the old world. This was a fairly advanced technology.

Reply to
Philip Deitiker

Copper is copper no matter what part of the world it is in. ALLOYS vary from place to place. So I find it hard to accept Michigan "native copper" is much different from that here in Australia.

I would also direct your attention to this:

formatting link
There is little question this has been melted - and where are the obvious faults?

If you go to purchase a bottle of wine, which is the most important - the label on the bottle or the taste of the content? The above is pointing to the label, ignoring the content.

[..]
Reply to
Seppo Renfors

THAT or similar and worse are the condition of the copper you will find frequently.

It is enough to know it exists.

...and how do you think it is made into one large lump -eg to make an axe head? Spit on it an hope it glues it together?

Oh but that IS the implication.

So mining involves exactly the type finds (and worse) I pointed to with the URL.

Isn't it? Why else do claims of "more manageable sizes" get made? Also mentions of "egg sized" etc... etc... indicating a contiguous piece of pure copper of the required size. This right size lump message has run right through the thread by the naysayers.

Indeed they are. A hammer is properly described as a "hand percussion instrument" - a single purpose tool.

"The dilemma you refer to does not seem to exist." - does exist - I have provided evidence of it in the URL above.

You are rejecting some methods, and still only recognise your own unsubstantiated version that suits your view. You do not accept crushing and melting to separate the copper from rubbish - to make it into "more manageable sizes"!

formatting link
"Neiburger says these bubbles are caused by hot gas in molten metal and as such are solid evidence of copper melting and casting."

...not to mention other claims made on that site.

Where?

I did anticipate this answer already :-)

Where is the evidence they did so? Remember "not knowing" means "doesn't exist", in your methodology of argument. The ancient mining sites are numerous - therefor scrap copper sites would be at least as numerous - but more likely far more numerous as village sites don't have them either. Therefor the recording of the use of these piles of "copper rubbish" by early colonials is that much more likely to exist in multiple places - IF it happened at all. Now all you have to do is support your "what if" with facts or see it disappear - without even so much as a puff of smoke.

"No large pieces of scrap copper were found, and this could be an indication that the Cahokia copper craftsmen "had learned to smelt copper scrap"." - ibid

"Perino noted that while it is known that many copper objects were made at Cahokia, "nowhere in the area has anyone found any copper scrap"." - ibid

A broader look for copper s/melting.

formatting link
(Review of book) Early Metal Mining and Production - Edinburgh University Press 1995 ISBN 0 7486 0498 7 "The use of native copper in North America is explored in some detail but the smelting and alloying technology of South America is barely mentioned."

formatting link
"Copper and bronze (copper-tin and copper-arsenic) began to arrive at Lamanai during the 13th century AD. Provenience studies conducted by Dr. Dorothy Hosler at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology revealed that the copper used to produce many of these items was obtained from West Mexican ore fields."

Note specially this:

formatting link
Where is the "obvious" evidence of it being cast?

There is a section on metals (pp.183-350) in the volume edited by David A. Scott and Pieter Meyers, "Archaeometry of Pre-Columbian Sites and Artifacts". What is says I have no idea

See this for an idea - not yet implemented?

formatting link
ION MASS SPECTROSCOPY AS A TOOL FOR ARCHAEOMETRY

Are you now claiming an extensive analysis of artefact has indeed been done? I'm sure you would be eager to point to them -if they exist. So where are they? As far as I know, only those few artefacts under discussion have been analysed to any degree.

How do you know that when the analysis hasn't been done?

Reply to
Seppo Renfors

Eric,

It isn't being ignored. It has been, and continues to be, discussed. It would be a stronger candidate for evidence of intentional casting if it were not a shapeless blob that somehow got melted.

First, what do you mean by "of that size"? The dimensions noted are about the size of a little girl's palm (about 2.4" x

1.6" x .3"), with a weight of about one pound. (The weight given in grams seems to have misplaced the decimal; I doubt that such a hunk of copper would weigh 12 pounds.)

Second, what do you mean by 'ordinary forest fire'? Forest fires can range from about 700 C to about 1200 C. The high end of that scale is well over the melting point of copper, at 1084 C. It does not appear that your incredulity can rule out forest fire here. I found this on a site about satellite detection of forest fires:

"For temperatures associated with fires (eg 1,000k-1,500K) the peak wavelength will be considerably shorter (a few µm)."

formatting link
or

formatting link

You've told me that you haven't been able to find the report from the NYTL, and (correct me if I'm wrong), from the National Institute of Standards and Technology (the successor to the National Bureau of Standards). Thus, we don't know what the the full reports state, and don't know whether the results might be interpreted differently today.

I've just emailed both the NYTL and the NIST about these reports. Probably a lost cause, but what the hell.

However, please note that the NBS report Mallery cites on page

223, Letter-Circular 444, July 13, 1935, is _not_ the source of the quotation by Dr. George P. Ellinger on page 225, quoted by you below. The quotation by Ellinger has to have been made _after_ the NYTL report; and as I note below, the NYTL testing had to have been done at least a decade after NBS L-C 444.

We don't know whether Ellinger is being quoted from a report, a letter, a conversation, or what. We can't follow up on this to see whether Mallery got it right.

This was the testing done at the behest of James A. Ford of the American Museum of Natural History, per Mallery. Ford began his tenure at the Museum sometime in 1946:

formatting link
or

formatting link

Even if Mallery quoted accurately from the NYTL and George Ellinger, we are still left with the problem that neither the NYTL report, or the statement by Ellinger, state what Gary and Paul assure us would have been obvious from the radiographs; characteristic porosities. Internal small bubbles. Many.

Instead, the NYTL report talks about 'course-grained copper and ... several annealing twins' for the axe and chisel; and 'pure copper crystals or grains' for the spearhead. These were from

100x magnifications of sections taken from the artifacts. No bubbles mentioned. As for the radiographs, the NYTL only says '[t]he specimens were originally cast....' No mention of bubbles; no details as to how they arrived at that verdict.

The later testing of other artifacts Mallery mentions is entirely unsupported by even the details given for the NYTL report, with the exception of Ellinger's mention of cuprous oxide in the interior of the tools tested, and the gross observation of concavities in the tools (all of them? some of them? which?). Again, we don't seem to have any way of tracking down the source of the Ellinger quotation.

None of these tools appear to have been radiographed. Mention is made only of micrographs. And no mention whatsoever of small-bubble porosities.

For sufficiently small values of 'unambiguous', perhaps.

Tom McDonald

Reply to
Tom McDonald

...but only for that piece - not for any other piece. Further more IIRC there is a method of laminating copper and silver sheet and carving through one into the other. It is a Japanese technique IIRC. It requires being heated under pressure, to the point the silver just starts "sweating" and it brazes the sheets together. So silver in copper can also be deliberate - as decoration.

I already posted this earlier. It disagrees with you:

formatting link
"chemical" doesn't get a single mention.

This does not make a claim of "chemical" anything. Copper Sulfate (Bluestone; blue, Roman or Salzburg vitriol) is soluble in water - but dries to a blue crystal or powder. There are just nowhere near the amount of acids or ammonia to it to be dissolved in!

Interesting - I find only one ref to 21PN11, and it mentions nothing about tailings. Nor do I see mentions of prehistoric tailings anywhere. What is known of these tailings piles -do they contain a lot of pure copper?

Again I can find no reference to prehistoric tailings having been reworked. Modern ones have been:

formatting link

I posted information of this in a reply to Tom.

I'm not certain of their "permanency", but villages they did have.

Reply to
Seppo Renfors

You're funny, Seppo. Don't ever change.

Tom McDonald

Reply to
Tom McDonald

Seppo,

I don't recall that. Could you re-post it?

Again, for the main time period and region under discussion (Middle and Late Archaic), what evidence of villages do you have? These folks were hunter-gatherers, and villages in the sense we tend to use the term weren't typical. In addition, we don't have a lot of habitation sites from this period. I'd appreciate any evidence you have of same.

Tom McDonald

Reply to
Tom McDonald

It is called silver brazing (or more commonly, but incorrectly, called silver soldering). It is a common technique used to join pieces of copper. Pressure is not required. A temperature in excess of 800F is required for brazing to occur (by ASTM definition).

Actually, it doesn't disagree with me. It says the copper was carried in an aqueus solution from great depths and deposited in the vents, fissures, and voids of the iron bearing rocks above. The pertinent chemical reaction involved is

CuSO4 + Fe(Metal) => FeSO4 + Cu (Metal)

If you were knowledgeable of the chemistry of copper, this would have been obvious to you. If you had read any of the many geochemical references in the links already provided in this thread, it would have been spelled out for you in excruciating detail.

Again, I suggest you consult a good text on geochemistry. If you feel such a text would be too daunting, then just look for descriptions of the production of Ziment Copper, or how the leaching ponds at Parys mountain operated. These processes mimic the natural geochemical processes at work at Keweenaw.

Gary

Reply to
Gary Coffman

Please point out the "porosity" in this sample:

Two copper pigs:

formatting link
The casting is obvious in this:
formatting link
Both pictures show melted copper - pre Colombian melted copper! It leaves Gary's statements hanging in the air.

However if one considers that "bubbling" has been claimed to be caused by "overheating" in a annealing process - then it is saying "melted" at the same time, as it cannot bubble UNLESS a portion of it is melted. Also "welding" requires the melting of the metal - or so goddamned close to it that the friction heat generated by a blow on it does melt the metal.

Those are two logical examples of melting occurring - the knowledge of melting copper existed. It beggars belief that scraps and off cuts were NOT melted when the process must have been known to them. That people suggest they would rather go and do hard manual labour another day to find a piece "just right" for the job, when it is right there, right now, right before them. All they have to do is melt it into one lump.

The implied suggestion they would rather do the hard labour, and not proceed with the easier option available immediately to them, isn't consistent with known human behaviour.

[..]

SIR - Philosopher unauthorised

----------------------------------------------------------------- The one who is educated from the wrong books is not educated, he is misled.

-----------------------------------------------------------------

Reply to
Seppo Renfors

Seppo,

First, the porosity would be most likely visible on radiographs, or in a section through the bubbles. You haven't given me the information necessary to determine this for these copper pieces.

Second, no one argues that no copper was ever melted in pre-Columbian North America. The question, especially for the upper Great Lakes area, is whether this was done by humans; and if so, whether it was done on purpose to make tools or ornaments.

Third, the artifacts shown are from Lamanai, Belize, and date from after about 1200 AD. They have el zippo to do with copper work in the Upper Great Lakes area in the Archaic. Is that why you posted links to the photos, but not to the web page they're on? That page specifies all this:

"Copper and bronze (copper-tin and copper-arsenic) began to arrive at Lamanai during the 13th century AD. Provenience studies conducted by Dr. Dorothy Hosler at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology revealed that the copper used to produce many of these items was obtained from West Mexican ore fields."

formatting link

This is grasping at straws, Seppo.

Woulda coulda shoulda. As Inger what value to place on 'what-if's'.

The implied suggestion is that the Indians wisely used the techniques that produced the best tools and ornaments for them.

As Gary has pointed out, often, and you seem not to have grasped, casting pure copper is very inferior to forging pure copper in terms of the quality of the finished product. Choosing to use a process that produces a lower quality result over a well-known process that produces a higher quality result is not consistent with known human behavior.

Tom McDonald

Reply to
Tom McDonald

Why are you telling me about things that are not cast when I'm telling you about things which are?

I must ask you that question about your almost totally irrelevant and unhelpful response.

For my part, if you read that part of my previous article which you snipped, you will see that I was responding to Tom McDonalds reliance on Gary Coffman's comments on the Connor site quoting Mallery - as an adequate refutaion of Mallery's claims that some North American artifacts were cast. I quoted at length because Tom seemed unaware of the material inspite of it having been posted twice before in this (or a related) thread.

Gary Coffman has not dealt with all of Mallery's claims.

That's news to me.

Eric Stevens

Reply to
Eric Stevens

Reasonably pure copper can be welded at ambient temperatures merely by pressure. MIllions of electrical connections rely on this property.

Eric Stevens

Reply to
Eric Stevens

Michigan native copper is 'meteoric' copper. Australia does have some meteoric copper (see

formatting link
but it is accessible in quantitities very much smaller than in NA.

Eric Stevens

Reply to
Eric Stevens

That's what I meant.

Flame temperatures of up to 1440C have been recorded but these occur in midair. These are the flames your satellite (see below) is looking for. 1200C at or near ground level is exceptional and occurs only in a burning bed of well ventilated char. Unless the artifact was placed up a tree it is very unlikely to be exposed to the conditions necessary for melting. Temperatures at ground level are usually much lower and it is common to find uncharred or only mildly scorched vegetation under fire debris.

I haven't been able to track down Mallery's papers. As to whether or not they would be interpreted differently today - I very much doubt it. The text quoted by Mallery is most basic metallurgy.

Good idea. I was tempted to do that but never got around to it. I would be surprised if they had the relevant files after all these years.

I agree. I'm trying to use Mallery as incontestable proof of copper casting. I was merely disputing the implication that Gary Coffman had settled the matter.

With respect to Gary, the fact that he did not know of the use of coal or carbon to deoxidise molten copper suggests that his is not the final word on the subject.

Eric Stevens

Reply to
Eric Stevens

I'm fascinated by the "meteoric copper" idea.

I'm ok with the notion that elements up to Iron are formed by gradual fusion processes inside stars.

But as far as I know, that's where these fusion processes stop.

Copper isn't formed in that way.

So I can't see how a lump of space debris could reasonably be copper. It could reasonably include a *bit* of copper, but not easily *be* a copper lump. Iron yes, you certainly get lumps of iron when, e.g. a supernova goes whomp, but copper, no I don't see how that's going to happen.

So I find it enormously unlikely that a lump made predominantly of copper might end up as a meteor. Does anyone know if there is any credibility in this claim in practice?

Apparently >>

Reply to
Martyn Harrison

Indeed. The fact of "bubbles" doesn't necessarily point to of "overheating" while annealing. That radiographs are needed to determine casting means it cannot be determined from a visual inspection unless a un-worked piece eg like the small pigs in the picture. This work hasn't been done for the artefacts that I can find

- therefor I cannot give it - nor can you then claim "not cast" for them.

You certainly could have fooled me. I has seen a number of instances where it is claimed no s/melting was needed the copper was worked by hammering. That embeds the statement "no s/melting".

I highly recommend you withdraw that and rephrase it - lest you want to be seen saying "native people are not humans"!!

The web site URL is posted in another message. The pictures were the relevant part for this issue of "obvious porosity". Again you are wanting to look at the label, ignoring the content!

I just take the opportunity to remind you that West Mexico is in "North America".

What "straws"? Is the above right or wrong? Where is your common sense? Note the picture again where I point to casting is obvious - that picture suggests a considerable overheating of the metal to have that result. This simple fact points to problems with temperature control - it would be no different when annealing something - temperature can (and is so claimed) get too high so the material melts. Them not noting this is suggesting people are (A) blind (B) stupid. I say they were aware of the method required to melt copper. Why do you disagree considering your earlier statement "no one argues that no copper was ever melted" - but yet you do exactly that right here.

None of the above applies at all Tom - you are operating with a closed mind at present, and doing your damnedest to contradict your claim "no one argues that no copper was ever melted"!!

You would further argue that they elect doing something that is much harder in favour of something that is easier. This is unrealistic. It is a very modern notion to make bikes that go absolutely nowhere, even when pedalled for hours!

I suggest you look at Paul's message, and follow the links therein:

Again, as it almost always is, there is more to this than meets the eye - the simple claim "casting makes poorer quality - therefor it wasn't done" is far, far too simplistic.

Reply to
Seppo Renfors

I really hate these poncy misleading terms like "meteoric" copper and "native" copper when perfectly good clear terms are available to use like "pure", "nugget", "vein"......

Hmmmm.... does that then meant that "meteoric iron" isn't really "meteoric" or extraterrestrial at all?

Yes, this is virtually my "back yard". There has been copper mining all along the Flinders Ranges, from North to South as well as on York Peninsular (Moonta -> Wallaroo -> Kadina districts, the "copper triangle"). A few kilometres from here is a perfectly good diamond pipe as well..... only they built a town over it, and the centre of the pipe is under the local footy oval... can't disrupt the footy you know!

The fact that they are lesser quantities doesn't really alter their composition. CU is CU wherever it is, irrespective of quantities.

[..]
Reply to
Seppo Renfors

Martyn,

In this case, the term 'meteoric' doesn't mean 'from meteors', as it does when it's used in the phrase 'meteoric iron'. At least as it's used in archaeology.

Eric explained it, and could do better than me; but I recall it means that the copper was precipitated out of solution that was forced closer to the surface into igneous, and IIRC sedimentary, formations.

As I understand it, all the elements beyond iron are formed via supernovae. So, in that sense, yes; the copper we're discussing did come from elsewhere in space.

Tom McDonald

Reply to
Tom McDonald

PolyTech Forum website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.