Copper Casting In Ancient America

No, YOU called him a historian while omitting any further details.

As you well know Conner wrote "So I wrote to a British historian of metallurgy, Leslie Aitchison, author of A History of Metals" which made Aitchison's standing quite clear.

--- long evasive tail snipped ----

Eric Stevens

The URL cited in the beginning of this thread

refers to E.J. Neiburger as the main proponent for prehistoric NA copper casting. A recent paper by Neiburger with his arguments on this can be found at From the contents of the following issues there does not seemed to have been a reply, but two issues later there is a paper on a possible process for the manufacture of sophisticated copper tools without using casting, see with two followup papers linked at the bottom.

Very interestingly (at least to this amateur) the process proposed seems to produce the kind of bubbles Neiburger takes as proof of casting. Thus bubbles are not necessarily the "smoking gun" of casting.

Yuri,

OK. Just wanted to be clear.

Of course we shouldn't exclude the possibility. However, I have yet to see evidence that smelting it occurred that long ago in North America. The copper I'm talking about is over 99% pure right out of the ground, and would need no smelting before use.

(Ah, smelting! I fondly recall the cold spring waters of Lake Superior, wading out into the shallows with a long seine net and a good friend on the other pole. Best was when we had a Coleman stove on the shore, and willing hands to clean, batter and deep-fry the smelt before they even knew they were dead. On our second pass of the net, our friends gave us some of the cooked smelt, smelt that we had just scooped up on the first pass. Those were the days! I bet the first Indians who visited Lake Superior's shores after the ice retreated ate smelt, too. A link, past to present. With care, also to the future.)

The issue now is whether there is definitive evidence of copper being cast in the Archaic. I have enjoyed conversing with Gary Coffman on that issue, and have gotten some reading material about the archaeology involved. I intend to contact one or more archaeologists in Wisconsin, since the Old Copper industry flourished here more than anywhere else, except perhaps the UP of Michigan.

I'm also going to look again at the references already cited, to see if I can get a look at some of the radiographs (and perhaps specific density tests) for known copper artifacts that have both adequate provenance and good dating. If anyone would like to point me to extant examples of this type, I'd appreciate it.

Note that this is not in aid of denying copper casting; it is merely to satisfy my curiosity, on terms I think rigorous enough. YMMV.

Tom McDonald

Gary,

Erik Hammerstad has found a couple of articles about a fellow who seems to have reproduced the bubbles found in some of the copper artifacts we've been discussing, but has done it without smelting, melting or casting. These were preceded in an earlier number of the same journal, by an article by the fellow we've been discussing that has claimed the bubbles are definitively from casting. I'd appreciate it, if you're willing, if you would take a look at these articles and give me your opinion.

This is the article by Dr. (dentist) Neiburger from Illinois, who claims Indians used casts for copper tools, etc.:

These next three are about a fellow from Minnesota, Joseph Neubauer Sr. (Keep the names straight; I mis-read it once, and was confused for a moment.) The first two discuss the 'Neubauer Process' of hammering and annealing copper, and include observations about surface and interior bubbles formed without melting the copper. The third is a more practical article, with detail about how he did what he did.

The writing in the articles isn't up to professional standards (it's an amateur archaeological journal, after all). I found myself having to re-read bits to be sure I understood what Peterson was saying in the last three articles. This concerns me; but the information is the important bit, and I'd like to get your reaction to these articles.

I appreciate any time you're willing to put into reading and commenting on this. Thanks.

Tom McDonald

Ok, I read the articles. What Neubauer has produced are what are called *blisters* in the industry. That's not the same thing as casting (or welding) porosity bubbles. Though blistering may appear on the surface of castings, other (incautious) hot work can produce it too.

The pictures in that article aren't conclusive.

However, this picture

is much more conclusive. Note particularly the central cluster of bubbles. This is archetypical of formations of large porosity bubbles.

Note also the general appearance of the entire section of the piece above the 'R' superposed on the radiograph. The "coarse" appearance there is indicative of microscopic porosity due to vigorous melting in an atmospheric environment.

The irregular voids in the upper left of the photo may be blistering. They aren't characteristic enough to say exactly what they are, or how they could have gotten there.

I would love to say with absolute certainty that at least a portion of the object was subjected to vigorous melting. I can't because the apparent coarseness could be due to surface irregularities. I'd want to see the object in 3D to rule that out for sure. But the cluster of larger bubbles is a pretty strong indication that the microscopic structure is similar.

Given the fluid nature of molten copper, I'd say the piece would have to have been contained in some fashion while it was molten in order to retain significant thickness when cooled. That's a rough and ready definition of open casting.

Note that a welding repair technique called casting in place would also produce this same sort of structure if done without inert shielding gas. There's a crackerjack welding instructor who lurks here who should be able to give you a graphic demonstration of what happens when TIG welding copper, and you lose your shielding gas.

In general, if you're trying to determine if a copper item was open cast, you should be looking for *many* tiny bubbles, most microscopic, that give the interior a coarse or foamy appearance on the radiograph at low magnification. At higher magnifications, you should be able to distinguish many clusters of microscopic bubbles. A few large, and especially irregular, surface blisters won't tell the tale.

Gary

Apparently on date Wed, 02 Jun 2004 09:44:47 +1200, Eric Stevens

You support Inger when someone criticises her and rarely criticise anything she says.

Prove I'm a liar, Stevens.

Apparently on date Wed, 02 Jun 2004 09:44:49 +1200, Eric Stevens

Prove I'm a liar, Stevens.

Prove this mysterious sudden loss of historical knowledge happened, Stevens.

Rhetoric. You should know all about that as you use it instead of information.

Prove I'm lying.

Prove there weren't.

Prove "it" is a lie then.

You've said my post contained a lie.

Prove it.

You said my post contained a lie.

Prove you didn't.

You presumably couldn't think of something there so didn't go back and add your defence.

Oh, FFS, Stevens, Conner's website calls him a historian, every single scrap of information about Aitchison I have comes from Conner's website.

Couldn't answer that either, eh, Stevens?

Gary,

As always, thanks for your reply. If nothing else, I'm learning something.

I've emailed the curator of the anthropology collection at the Milwaukee Public Museum, where R666 is apparently located. Here is his contact information:

Alex W. Barker, Ph.D. Vice President of Collections and Research, Curator of North American Archaeology & Department Head, Anthropology Phone: (414) 278-2786 Fax: (414) 278-6100 Email: snipped-for-privacy@mpm.edu

With luck, he or one of his associates can give me a leg up on this issue from an archaeological perspective.

Tom McDonald

Non sequitur.

See my response of a few minutes ago.

Eric Stevens

What knowledge?

You've already demonstrated it.

How can I when I said it wasn't a lie?

That was then.

It certainly does now.

I've already done that several times.

Inger called it a lie. I said that your use of the words "I'd have thought" saved it from being a lie. What part of that is too difficult for you to understand?

Eric Stevens

The truth, the WHOLE TRUTH and nothing but the truth.

If only it was that 'one' ....

Eric Stevens

Google "bog iron" (with the quotes) will give you some interesting references on this topic. One article discusses the Swedes and another the action on Long Island by the colonists. I did not see a mention of the native Americans working with bog iron.

I see.... and I haven't been addressing exactly those type of denials by Doug?

Oh dear..... 2 minutes on the web and Doug is proven to be making an ASS (the donkey variety) of himself:

"Native Americans appropriated what they liked, cultivating apples extensively. There are between 25 to 30 kinds of wild apples grown throughout the world with seven kinds in the U.S. Most wild apples are crab apples with small, sour, hard fruit. The crab apple is the ancestor of many of the varieties of apples grown today."

Wonder if he even knows the apple tree is part of the Rose family....

(part 1 of 3)

"The apple-tree, (Pyrus malus) belongs chiefly to the northern temperate zone. London says, that "it grows spontaneously in every part of Europe, except the frigid zone, and throughout Western Asia, China, and Japan." We have also two or three varieties of the apple indigenous in North America."

Doug is shown to be "lacking" in knowledge -again!

Obviously Doug is the "twister" or more aptly said "revisionist", as shown above.

Ho hum..... I have seen a lot of exactly that from Doug - the reversing of truth that is.