Copper Casting In Ancient America

On Fri, 28 May 2004 17:11:56 +1200, Eric Stevens wrote: [SNIP]

It's of course true that I like to put 'debunking' articles on my website. That's its main purpose. You seem to be disparaging that, but hopefully that wasn't your intent.

But she is also the only person I know who has challenged the claims for preposterously huge amounts of copper being mined in the area, so she is the only person I could cite. Doesn't that sound like a sensible reason to cite her? She is saying that to back such claims you need good evidence, and that such evidence does not exist. Do you quarrel with either part of that sentence?

Doug

"Seppo Renfors" skrev i meddelandet news: snipped-for-privacy@not.net.au...

Problem is that the People of First Nation don't agree. They know more than any author who can't even show special knowledge in the area the author writes on a web-page about. The interesting thing here is that the metallurgist here has shown much more open views then many who are educated to know about culture in the past. That the metallurgist often writes closer to what's told by the people who inherited the old oral-traditions, doesn't make their lines less valuable.

Once again: Listen to the natives, Indians and others, they know more and can tell you much more if only you take of your 'valuable' time and listen to what they have to say.

Inger E

Seppo, I have scholars in US and Canada behind me, not to mention that I speak directly to people of First Nation. It's no use to discuss with Tom who continue to call everything that isn't his and DW's way of looking at things for Ad Hominem while they themselves in lack of arguments and contra-arguments presents Ad Hominem over and over.

Being a Professor and a good one in a philosopic-humanistic subject doesn't make same person a good scholar in metallurgy. Simple as that. A title is a title and not a proof of knowledge in any other field than the title is connected to.

Inger E

"Seppo Renfors" skrev i meddelandet news: snipped-for-privacy@not.net.au...

It's sad that Martyn once again lack knowledge of British English. The grammar detail he has missed it the words Seppo quot 'yes the article is'. In British English this means that what comes after the first 'the' in such a statement 'belongs' to the article and not to the person who wrote the article.

Inger E

Eric, there are evidence for Norse in the area from 1000-1400 AD. Not for the dates of sites to 500 BC - 900 BC.

Inger E

NOTE: I addressed YOUR comments - nobody else's here.

Doug being the 'only person' you know who has challenged the claims doesn't make her the leading authority does it. So please, present the proof you believe valuable for that statement of yours.

Doesn't that sound like a sensible reason to

Such evidence do exist but even if they hadn't a scholar who put forward the idea that they don't, which she did, has to present valid arguments and premisses showing that it's likely that the view presented in such a speach to which the Abstract is a summon of.

Do you quarrel with either part of

We are a few who protest against you statement that she is the 'leading'....

Inger E

Considering the fact that I'm aware of you having seen evidence to the contrary, then one must conclude you have some ulterior motive for this denial in the face of evidence to the contrary.

You are right - it is an often used tactic by Doug - derail the discussion to irrelevant side issues. Only it is annoying how he keeps shoving this old bogus piece of clap-trap under our noses as from a "leading authority"!

The problem is that while many of the sites have been reasonably dated, there is no evidence that I know of that the pit furnaces are of the same date. What is needed is reliable dating of the furnaces.

Eric Stevens

I keep pointing out that every statement of fact is usually attended by a value judgement. My statement was one of fact with no valued judgement intended to be applied.

I don't know whether or not the amounts of copper alleged to have been mined is truly preposterous. I do not know how the 'preposterous' estimates have been arrived at. Nor do I know why you think them preposterous. If what you say is correct then Susan R. Martin might be out on her own in her challenges of the huge amounts of copper alleged to have been mined in the area. But are you correct and, if so, why should she be on her own?

For what it is worth, I would be surprised if the lunatic fringe had not put forward 'preposterous' claims as to quantity but why do we not have better information about the subject? Can it be that it has never been properly studied?

Eric Stevens

"Eric Stevens" skrev i meddelandet news: snipped-for-privacy@4ax.com...

There are datings both before and during the period the Norse Greenlanders traded copper, silver, fur and other trade-gods in the Pre-Columbian days.

Inger E

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

You are begging the issue, once again. The issue has never been specifically about pit furnaces but about metallurgy, and the U.S. has some of the best metallurgist who have studied finds in central and south america. They would be able to determine if copper or iron had been smelted at a site and who likely smelted it.

Dx?TMOÛ@½ûW?é!u?V?¢  Ô Ñëfw¯²Þ5û?Ä=ô·÷­HIUm[özæ?7o}?qäÛ@ïL ¼8ª'RÔÇnr|xùI¬^?RQ??±9é©?¢?Æù¨n©qÚF??ÈöLçD;ãfZ s>Ò/P??Nj%Zv?RX?0yJ??G??MZ¯BÌØrÔR?XÒ~ÀþóWºw ©uiMw)ÙôAnJÁÕ^!jû?t¨´íÃLY?æ=ÑHF?vAkB?v?Ñîý#Ý?0¿Ûè§C/!ÞI??Êb?Rì¡ÙA?ÛA?A2??`/)¯ãt@mö; ï%F5M ÜW@¤K,=gÓV?ÜíÀÉP?(?«è+ðp?` SÀHô(

There was NO text there to snip!!

...and of course you have backed that statement up with..... what exactly, hmmm? Bogus claims, isn't that so Tom. I see nothing else.

That isn't something *I* need to do, or do - it is they themselves who do that - I only point to it at times. Remember *I* don't FORCE you to type what you do type, no matter how much you like to pretend I can!

...and if that IS true, the people make themselves look "foolish or bad or wrong" "on a regular basis". Lets face it, you did it all to yourself, and again YOU are the one who has resorted to heavy editing out of text WITHOUT any acknowledgement of having done so, as per requirements of good netiquette! So you are doing it to yourself again making yourself look "foolish or bad or wrong" and as it is now several posts in a row it has to be called "on a regular basis"!!

So what happened to your promise of sticking to the issues, instead of engaging in ad hominim? I POINTED you to the issues you had replaced with ad hominim (and continue to do so). Further more you resort to outright lies now, and accuse me of "rearranging" posts - totally without being able to back up your bogus claim, naturally.

LIAR!

LIAR!

Is that the "American Way" you are showing off here? You are a liar - you have resorted to several in this post alone - forget the earlier lies. You cannot substantiate that claim either - nor is your last statement even lucid!

Aha.... I note you couldn't find a single point either.

Well, maybe. I'm not a ceramist. My wife used to do some of it, but she doesn't know about metal casting.

In any case, using clay crucibles is a later stage in the development of casting. Without knowing anything about the pre-historical record of ceramics, I can't say if N.A. Indians knew about two-stage firing of clay. Probably they did, or they at least knew to dry it in air first and then to heat slowly. You only have to see one or two shattered pots to know that something bad is going to happen if you haven't calcined ("bisqued") the clay before tossing it into a furnace at vitrifying temperatures.

But they may not have had to vitrify it at all. It depends on the clay they had to work with. Given the high iron content of the deposits in the UP, they probably had a high-temperature clay to begin with. It probably would vitrify itself once it was used for a melt of metal. You can see evidence of that today, on the insides of cheap crucibles that are used for melting brass or bronze.

FWIW, I can see that you folks have another type of argument going on and that it doesn't have anything to do with casting and the basic metallurgy that us metalheads are familiar with. So, I'm signing off. Have fun with your discussion. Someone might consider dropping the rec.crafts.metalworking NG from your list if you have no more casting issues. d8-)

Ed Huntress

"Ed Huntress" says in news:S2Itc.67091$ snipped-for-privacy@news4.srv.hcvlny.cv.net:

The early pottery can be compared with the earthen ware pottery of Japan, this appeared in south america around 8000 years ago, however I would not be surprised if sites are found with earlier dates. More sophisticated pottery _appears_ later and pottery appears to spread in a diffusive manner from south america up to SW united states. There is a different style of pottery that existed in the NW region of north american and it origin and evolution appear to be distinct from that found in south america. Different potteries have different characteristics. On the issue of pottery use for metallurgy. One has to remember that much of the pottery found was for practical daily use. Such pottery was not needed to function at ultrahigh temperatures. Native americans of the southwest to south america knew how to make adobe and new the temperature and moisture factors in making good adobe, this can be also applied to pottery in scaling the dryness and heating properties.

The other issue however are tools. Once you make a crucible what are you going to handle it with, it takes tools to make tools. One could make tools from pottery itself and those would be evident at sites, since they do not deteriorate with time. The alternative would be other metal tools such as thongs.

And if scale is not important the larger the piece is the more fragile it will be under stress, thus smaller thicker peices may suffice when technology is not so good.

One a side note regarding pottery and durability. When I was in Japan I went to the A-bomb museum in Nagasaki (beautiful city, BTW) and there were a number of large pieces of ceramics on display. One of the pieces I believe came from within 500 feet of ground zero. Everything around the ceramic was destroyed and only twisted metal from metal framed buildings remained. The back side of the piece was discolored with a small amount of surface cracking, the front side was in mint condition, the glaze over most of the piece (I would say 75%) was still completely transparent. I saw several other pieces like that. This can be compared with articles farther out whereby humans and even complete skeleta were vaporized/pulverized by the pulse of radiation released.

What, you don't want to share in the IEJ cycles of hystereses?

How can I produce evidence that there is no one else who knows more than she does? I know that the Michigan School of Mines, or rather to give it its present name the Michigan Technological University considers her the leading authority, and Eric has listed some of her publications.

And once again you make assertions with no evidence. In some language I don't recognise even though I know the words. WHAT EVIDENCE? Is this another of your secrets that we will learn about in another lifetime?

You are lying if you are claiming that good evidence exists for the exaggerated numbers quoted by Professor Martin.

Two (you and the idiot Seppo, who also has no arguments but only insults), is less than a 'few'. All you can do is insult people and avoid giving any evidence. The word charlatan comes to mind (and the evidence for that comment is abundant in this thread and many others like it).

Doug