Copper Casting In Ancient America

Apparently on date Mon, 31 May 2004 09:31:07 +1200, Eric Stevens

Not really. I'm saying Conner's website is basically fabricated history to the taste of the author of it, and has no real credibility. That way, when people say "there are accredited archaeologists who have found evidence of copper casting in Alaska" and then post a URL to Conner's webpages, I can say they are pointing to a discredited site.

With luck, *you* will be *forced* to adopt the position that Conner's webspace is reliable and an example of good archaeology. Alternatively you have to accept that it *isn't*, and stop posting URLs to it to support your arguments. I don't really care which.

Apparently on date Mon, 31 May 2004 09:31:07 +1200, Eric Stevens

Conner does. He can't find "world class authorities on pit furnace iron making" in the same continent as he is living in, which is the reason he gives for contacting Aitcheson.

I have no reason to think his books are either good or bad, but since they are forty years out of date I would choose something a bit more recent to learn about ancient metallurgy.

My interest in Aitcheson is in what context he has relevance to the journalist's website about ancient iron smelting.

The journalist has introduced him as a "world class" authorities on pit furnace iron making, a source of "expert advice".

I am trying to point out that this is misrepresenting the information on the part of Conner because his authority figure hasn't seen the site first hand, and the "advice" isn't even reproduced in context. We don't know what Aitcheson said because Conner hasn't quoted him properly.

No, he contacted Aitcheson twenty years after starting his interest in the Celtic / Nordic furnaces through reading Mallery's opinion on them. I realise this is inconsistent with what he says in the section about "very likely", but that's something I've pointed out as it is what he says elsewhere in his webpage.

Apparently on date Mon, 31 May 2004 21:07:55 +1200, Eric Stevens

I'll say it again then. I'd have thought - and still do - that there were (and are) thousands of americans with the ability to recognise a pit furnace from a photograph.

And I'll trot out another from the same place: There are plenty of *historic* pit furnaces in North America.

So I take it you either

A) have more knowledge of what I think about the ability to recognise pit furnaces in americans, or B) are denying the existence of historic pit furnaces in NA - in other words any pit furnace found in NA is prehistoric.

C) Maybe you object to Old World pit furnaces being older than the 17th - 19th century ones are being built by settlers?

D) Perhaps you want to deny 17th - 19th century pit furnaces are not in the historical record?

What are you on about?

Conner, who you seem to believe, himself says "But our preliminary laboratory dating of materials suggests these furnaces were built and operated by early Ohio pioneers. Still, since the technology represented by these furnaces was long obsolete in the early 1800's, they are enigmatic."

Do you mean there was some sort of "little dark age" where everyone in America suddenly forgot what pit furnaces are for?

What?

This is weird, I think you must have suddenly gone mad or something, what happened in 1970 to turn the continent suddenly stupid? A visit by Hyerdhal brought the average IQ down to zero?

If you wear the red slippers and say it three times.

The picture of the adze head had clusters of bubbles, quite characteristic of casting (or poor arc welding).

Gary

I don't insist that there be no middlemen. Even modern trade is often conducted via middlemen. What I am suggesting by saying the trade was likely systematic is that it wasn't just a matter of happenstance that items were traded. I suspect that to move the quantities involved beyond the local area, a more deliberate system of trading would have been required.

Pre-Columbian visits to the New World aren't something I know much about, for sure. But the little I've read about it seems to say that the Norse weren't the only ones involved, nor were the contacts limited to just North America. Anyway, that's not the purpose of this post, or as far as I can tell, this thread. So I'm willing to leave it at that.

Linear voids are characteristic of incomplete forging. But the radiograph of the hand adze referenced showed clusters of bubbles. I know of no way to produce that other than by casting or arc welding.

Hot work will tend to close voids. It won't produce bubbles.

I don't think that's a fair statement. Absence of a fault doesn't prove much unless you already know the item was cast. However, if you could show by other means that the item was cast, then the lack of faults would be an indication of casting sophistication.

Gary

Yes, sorry. That's what I meant.

How do you know what is accepted knowledge?

Now you're just being silly. I would expect Inger not to understand what Martyn wrote, but Martyn clearly is saying that you don't have to go to Europe to find someone who could recognise a pit furnace from a photograph. His question is basically rhetorical as he answers it in the next sentence.

Once again, if you ignore the context you distort the meaning, which is what you've done.

Is this like being almost pregnant? I know Yuri used to accuse people of lying when they were obviously just mistaken, but you seem here to have decided to back Inger's claim that Martyn was lying.

I can't ask her to substantiate her claims? Ah well, that saves me worrying about that. I can sleep better tonight.

Doug

Eric's done a good job of making it easier for you not to answer my questions. I didn't expect you to though, you're getting a dab hand at ignoring questions you can't answer, usually by cutting them out when you respond.

By the way, I'd expect people to be more likely to notice a house with a smashed window than one with intact windows.

Doug

I haven't taught primary school pupils, undergraduates or graduates for several years.

I really do think you have problems at time with understanding English. That is not an ad hominem but an observation gained from reading your posts for a number of years. And it certainly isn't abuse to ask you questions about your claims. Calling Martyn a liar as you did is abuse.

Doug

So you jump to the conclusion that Aitchison must be a world class authority. Its more likely that Aitchison was merely the best he could find. But what does it matter to Conner's work in the long term?

But what might you have found in 1968 - 70? The fact that they were in the library of Ohio U at that time suggests they were reasonably well regarded. Its possible that Aitchison's books may have been all you could readily find.

So, you are not in a position to form a proper judgement. Yet you insist on trying.

"Expert Advice Sought and Received, 1970" is the heading of the section in which he describes contacting Aitchison. His first contact with Mallery was in 1963.

Eric Stevens

I must admit that I wondered about the relevance of of a BLAST furnace built in 1811 to PIT furnaces built in any period.

I also wondered why you didn't recognise that Inger was trying to point out to you that the use of the word 'rebirth' implied something preceding.

But up to now I have made no contribution to this part of the discussion. You will have to find someone else to blame.

Eric Stevens

Assertions for which you have absolutely no evidence.

I've been interested in them for some years.

Not so. As recently as 22 May 2004 I wrote "... some of the pit furnaces have been dated to colonial times but a great many remain undated."

What on earth gives you that idea?

Why should I want to do that?

Comprehension seems to be at the root of your problem. If you remember we were discussing the need for Conner to approach Aitchison, rather than your more recently introduced thousands of Americans who have the ability to recognise pit furnaces. Although you have repeated that assertion you have never substantiated it in any way. I suspect you have made it up out of thin air in which case, without your use of the words "I'd have thought", Inger's description of the claim would not be at all inaccurate.

I'm sorry. I'm not Conner so there is no point in framing that question to me in those terms.

Evidence please. Rhetoric is not enough.

If as you say there were thousands of americans familiar with North American pit furnaces in the 1960-70 period one would expect to find at least one or two articles about them in reputable journals. How many can you cite?

Eric Stevens

Lets say I've put that up as a hypothesis. I've already asked Martin to disprove it and you are welcome to have a crack also. Please remember we are talking about the 1960-70 period.

At the worst, Conner was wrong in his statement. All that is necessary to show Conner was wrong is to name one or more recognised North American experts in pit furnaces. That Conner didn't know of any merely makes him wrong if some existed at that period. However, if Martin Harrison doesn't know of any it makes his repeated assertion (and I quote in full):

"Why would you have to go to europe to find someone able to recognise a pit furnace from a photograph? I'd have thought thousands of americans had that ability, especially as there are plenty of *historic* pit furnaces in NA which are not as old as Old World pit furnaces, and are well-attested in the historical record"

... grossly misleading at best. Inger called it a 'lie' but it is saved from that by the words "I'd have thought".

I'm very much regarding the context, which is Conner's account of what he did in the 1960-70 period.

Read my words. More to the point, read Martin Harrison's.

You should put yourself to sleep thinking about Martyn Harrison's criticism of Conner for not approaching any one of the thousands of Americans who Martyn would have thought could have identified a pit furmace for Conner in 1970. That's what this discussion is about.

Eric Stevens

Its a pity for you there is other evidence.

Have you stopped beating your straw man yet?

Eric Stevens

You may be correct when you say there WILL BE countless others. But remember, we are discussing your quite specific criticism of Conner's actions in 1970. The question then is not who will be, its not who is, its 'who was' a North American expert in (north american) pit furnaces in 1970. There may have been someone somewhere but all my researches show is that the only person paying any systematic attention to them was Arlington Mallery.

In other words you can't support your claim and you want me to argue an equally unsupportable claim. What nonsense.

I am trying to discuss the reasons why it might be basically untrue but while you have assertions you seem to have no evidence to back them up.

Careful. You are getting dangerously close to resorting to ad hominem arguments. Is this the best you can do - is it all you have?

It depends which furnace you are discussing. He does cite dates for some furnaces. I suggest you read more of his works to find out.

Opinions are one thing, but assertions are another. You cannot expect to be taken seriously if you merely say that something is your 'opinion' and then show that you have nothing with which to back it up.

You are unable to find a quote where Connor has made that claim for Aitchison. Mind you, I can see how you might be tempted to erroneously leap to that conclusion.

I have now. You gave me a name. I've looked him up and as far as I can see he has only looked at one pit furnace and that was quite recently.

That's a bizarre interpretation of what Conner wrote. From his work with Mallery, Conner already thought he knew what pit furnaces looked like. It was CONNER who sent the photographs to Aitchison.

You love putting up straw men.

First, that is a news letter and not a technical publication.Second, the only reference to 'furnace'in that article is as "Furnace Run", a geographical name.

The archaeologist with which you are concerned is Jeffrey Richner.

A Google search finds:

Jeffrey J. Richner. Midwest Archeological Center, Woodland cultures of the Great Lakes, 19th century Anglo-American occupation of the Midwest, and historic Native American cultures of the Great Lakes and Border Lakes region.

# Richner,Jeffrey J. 1991. Archeological Excavations at the Manitou Fish Camp, Apostle Islands National Lakeshore. More...

"From Richard Schachtsiek, site manager, Mount Pulaski Courthouse. September at Mount Pulaski Courthouse always means fall festival time. This year was different from the past 10-plus years because there were no quilts on display during the fall festival. ...

"1979 Archaeological Research at Tennessee Colony Lake, Texas, edited by J. Richner and J.T. Bagot. Southern Methodist University Cultural Resource Management Program Publication, Dallas. Contributing author."

"Lynott, Mark J., Jeffrey J. Richner, and Mona Thompson. "Archeological Investigations at Voyageurs National Park: 1979 and 1980." Midwest Archeological Center Occasional Studies in Anthropology No. 16. U.S. Department of the Interior, National Park Service, Midwest Archeological Center, Lincoln, Nebraska, 1986."

I have made limited non-Google searches with no other results being found.

All I can say is that I have seen no evidence of Richner having any special interest in or knowledge of pit furnaces.

Eric Stevens

Gary,

Thanks for clearing that up. If I understand you correctly, you think finding linear voids in worked copper artifacts, one cannot assume that those artifacts were cast.

OTOH, finding bubbles is, to your knowledge, indicative of the artifact having been cast from molten metal. I noticed you said, "I know of no way..." rather than "Only casting or arc welding will produce" wrt bubbles. Is this just normal caution, or do you feel unable to make a categorical statement here? If the latter, do you know who or where one might go to get more complete and up-to-date information?

I hope you don't take offense by my asking this; but this is fairly important to me, and I'd like to get as complete an answer as I can.

Yeah, didn't think so.

Thanks. If some of the copper artifacts we're discussing are found to have been cast by Indians, I'd like to think the Indians who made them had developed sophistication in the process.

Tom McDonald

[..]

Here is Doug acting a goat again! First he asks a question - to which the answer is blatantly clear - then proceeds to answer it himself - in the process Doug deliberately MISREPRESENTS the issues once more! Doesn't he have a single honest bone in his body?

That is a LIE - "he" states "thousands [of Yanks] could recognise a pit furnace from a photograph"!

It is a LIE generated by DOUG WELLER - nobody else!

NOTE: This is a change on the issues again - NOW he claims Eric has said "have to go to Europe find someone who could recognise a pit furnace from a photograph." This is also another LIE by Doug Weller and nobody else.

One thing Doug has NOT done is address the ISSUES introduced by Martyn Harrisonr - which is the claim "plenty of *historic* pit furnaces", including the implied claim no PRE-historic pit furnaces exists.

At least TWO, and both generated by Doug - nobody else.

To to say Doug did NOT deliberately LIE requires an admission by DOUG of not understanding English!

[..]

Yep.

And I wonder why you had that idea.

Here's the abstract again: "The Rebirth and Demise of Ohio's Earliest Blast Furnace: An Archaeological Postmortem John R. White pp. 217-246 The Eaton (Hopewell) Furnace built in 1802-03 in northeastern Ohio was the earliest blast furnace west of the Alleghenies. Until archaeological work was undertaken, virtually nothing else was known about this industrial site. Archaeological excavation of the site and the subsequent broad specturm of chemical and metallurgical analyses of various materials recovered lead to a more precise understanding of the operation's strengths and weaknesses, and to the discovery that during the course of its short life, the furnace saw a "rebirth" due to use of an improved blast system and an ultimate "demise" brought about by a shortage of timber and the premature use of charcoal in combination with bituminous raw coal as a reducing agent. The Eaton Furnace's use of raw coal in this manner is the earliest yet documented in the New World."

The 'rebirth' of course implied something before, the 1802 furnace before it had the impproved blast system added.

But I think she only read the title, because she wrote: "But there is one article which can be interpreted that there might have

Although just maybe it's possible to interpret the title as suggesting that (don't ask me how, I haven't a clue), how could you interpret the abstract as meaning that?

I was referring to your coming in to another discussion and sidetracking it, but never mind.

Doug

Doug, once again you proven that you don't understand British English which is the English most Canadian speaks as well as the Brits.

OED(and don't mind the edition this is in everyone I have seen): "re-prefix 1 Once more; afresh; repeated. 2 Back; with return to previous state."

on top of it all you didn't read complete text. Why do I even bother taken time answering.

Inger E

Inger, this is just insult coupled with a response that isn't responsive. I know what rebirth means. How about being specific. What exactly did you think you were claiming about the 'rebirth' of the Eaton (Hopewell) Furnace built in 1802-03 in northeastern Ohio? Without answering that your post above is pretty meaningless.

I understand British English extremely well, Inger. I don't doubt that there are times when my speed reading has led me to miss something, but that isn't a comprehension problem.

And words aren't defined by looking at their separate parts and putting them together.

And please don't tell the Canadians they speak British English, they don't think they do.

home page for that site: Please quote the relevant parts of this post when replying. When you cut out the context you make it difficult for others to understand your response and may make people think I have written something I did not write. This is clearly unacceptable.

Doug