The question of how many mines there were and how much was mined is basically an archaeological one. Metallurgists are not qualified to answer it. What in the world is a 'philosopic-humanistic' [sic] subject?
Doug
Doug Weller says in news:v7xvibvdjnt2.uucapluqt32u$. snipped-for-privacy@40tude.net:
A Ph.D. is not particularly feild specific, it means that the individual is adaptive and learned enough to do many things. For example, I was never formally trained to do PCR or genetic analysis, I have taken no courses in advanced genetic analysis or statistical analysis when applied to molecular genetics, having a Ph.D. means that an individual is intelligent enough to read the primary literature, and recreate experiments from what is read or do analysis from what is read. A low level BA in history may not understand this, but a Ph.D. applies to all sciences. I could literally walk out and start looking for work in any number of sciences, without any specific retraining. If you had an advanced science degree and training you might understand this, but since you are a low-level naer- do-well who boostingly professes speculation and weak science. There are people of non-doctoral level who are capable of also adapting and learning, I know a few here on the internet, and have made great effort to familiarize themselves with the best primary literature. You, however, are not one of them, you avoid primary literature like it is a plaque or something, that's why you cannot fathom how professors, instructures, post-docs and graduate students adapt to the needs of whatever feild they were in.
To give an example of what went into my Ph.D. I learned.
And many other things not directly related to biochemistry in the traditional sense.
I do a completely different set of things, now.
There is nothing that needs to be said to respond to her, she is a basic wannabe without the resources to acheive the status she dreams of having. A science professor does not need to be formally trained in every feild that he works to work, she does not understand this.
Inger,
You yourself are not a scholar in metallurgy. Why should we pay you any attention when you write about copper casting, or copper at all, in pre-Columbian NANOM?
Tom McDonald
If you choose to answer this post, please quote my contribution in full.
TSM
Inger,
Did the article write itself? If you attack the article, you have attacked the author of the article. If I were to say that "Not to mention that the distinguished Professor don't present any degree in Metallurgy which definitely is needed to be able for the case!"
When you write that, you assume that _she_ would have to have a degree in metallurgy to talk about her specialty. You don't know what courses she took, or what access she had to people with both theoretical and practical experience in metallurgy, especially the metallurgy of the metals found in the Upper Peninsula of Michigan. It would be simple, normal scholarly behavior to talk with people who had the expertise she needed, if she didn't have it herself. To imply that she didn't is indeed an ad hominim.
You pride yourself on the network of folks who know things you don't know. Do you think you're the only person in the world who does that?
In any case, you haven't presented any evidence to support a contention that Martin was wrong in the cited work. Do you have any?
Tom McDonald
P.S.: If you reply to this post, please quote it in your reply.
TSM
Seppo,
So you aren't discussing the archaeology, then?
Tom McDonald
Seppo,
Care to tell us when you're going to stop beating your wife?
I didn't say that there was no *evidence*; I said 'the casting of copper is not *established*'. Unless you believe that it is known for certain that copper was cast in the relevant area at the relevant time period, which IMHO is still under discussion.
I'd be interested in solid, professional evidence, peer reviewed, from the primary sources. Your continuing to quote from one website, which is journalistic, not scientific, isn't particularly edifying any more. Find better information.
Tom McDonald
Eric,
The issue about peer review had to do with Larry claiming that his paper had been peer reviewed for the Chachmool Conference in which he presented it. There was no denigration of the quality of the conference. As with Larry's paper, I suggest that it would be more appropriate to judge her paper on its own merits.
From the title, I think the paper is a technical discussion about whether the term "Old Copper *Culture*" is appropriate anymore. In archaeology, a 'culture' denotes "all that is nonbiological and socially transmitted in a society....The term culture is often used to indicate a social grouping that is smaller than a civilization but larger than an industry." _Dictionary of Anthropology_, original copyright 1956, printing of 1977, Charles Winick.
There has been a discussion about whether it might be more appropriate to consider the copper-using society at the relevant time (ca. 3000 BC) an industry rather than a culture.
An industry has been defined as: "A collection of artifacts of the same age found at a given site constitute the site's industry. If a site was inhabited successively, so that there are artifacts belonging to different ages, the one site represents different industries." (Op. cite)
It appears that the general culture of what we've called the "Old Copper Culture" was not markedly different from surrounding, non-copper using, folks.
It is the kind of thing that one often expects from scholars that know whereof they speak in a given field.
Oddly, there has been precisely zero evidence presented in this discussion on the pro-casting side that is anything more than works 'aimed at an amateur audience'. That someone who has expertise in a field, and who has bemoaned the lack of popular works from professionals in the field, has written a popular book seems not only proper but commendable.
There are many more publications listed on her web CV. If the rest of them are on the level of these three, I think Martin's reputation and capacities are secure.
Tom McDonald
It is enlightening to see Eric Stevens ignore the word "recent" used repeatedly on the URL he posted. Especially since the earliest referenced work cited there is from 1997, while from the URL Doug posted earlier one can read the following: "Martin and her husband Patrick Martin, also an archaeologist and Michigan Tech professor, researched the Lac La Belle site,
20KE20, in the summer of 1988 after it was reported to them by collectors in 1987. The results of the Martinsí 1988 research at this site are published in a 1993 issue (Vol. 39, Nos. 3-4) of The Michigan Archaeologist. In that article the Martins describe the cache of artifacts found at the 20KE20 site and its importance to archaeologists."Susan Martin's complete CV can be found on
Care to tell us when you are going to stop beating your boyfriend?
To "establish" something takes "evidence". To claim it is NOT established, is the rejection of the existing evidence, and it requires ALL evidence to be rejected. After all, it only takes ONE single item to prove it - I (and others) are pointing to more than merely one.
Ahhh.... the "Wellian logic" again!
Nope, I need provide nothing more, it is now up to you to PROVE the evidence provided already are NOT in fact evidence of casting of copper. The ball is in your court.
By the same token neither are you AFAIK, so why should anyone listen to you?
THAT is a dishonest extension BEYOND the boundaries specified by Inger. But then that IS what you need to do, in your ad hominim attacks on her.
How about you focus in the ISSUES instead of the authors of posts?
[..]
Yes. And so far none has been presented.
tk
Oh but I was, EXACTLY as much as you were and are! Now, are you going to revert back to dealing with the actual ISSUES, instead of bullshit?? You still haven't managed to refer to a single substantiated "point" in that article that isn't pure mudslinging, worthy of any politician!
The problem isn't 'vitrification'. The problem is to do with the so-called 'water of crystallisation' in the the many compounds which make up a clay. This exists even in a bone-dry clay. At relatively low temperatures the water of crystallisatioclay matrix.
The temperature (or more usually 'temperatures') at which this occurs depends on the type of clay. With some clay you cannot avoid cracking from this phenomenon. With other clays the pot will survive providing you carefully follow a time-temperature curve as you heat it. The exact curve depends upon the shape and thickness of the clay object. There are very few (if any) clays where this is not necessary to some extent. This is why I previously wrote that merely learning how to make a crucible which will withstand the process would have been no trivial task.
Eric Stevens
How do you relegate the evidence of cast copper cited by Mallery? As far as I am aware the provenance of the artifacts were not in dispute prior to the metallurgical examination. Nor do I know that the metallurgists conclusions have been shown to be wrong.
Eric Stevens
You are fudging. The discussion most definitely has been centered around pit furnaces. First the pit furnaces used for smelting iron and then their possible use for smelting copper **in North America**.
Further, the point to which I was responding was the implied denigration by Martin Harrison of "Mallery, Conner and Keeler" and ineptitude of Conner in making enquiries of a mere 'historian' about the possible identification of what might have been a pit furnace. My point was that irrespective what you called him, Aicheson was not an unqualified person to ask.
You claim that "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" suggests that there are indeed people "in NA who might be regarded as authorities on pit furnaces". If you read my quote, I asked for their identity. Can you provide their names?
Eric Stevens
Not so. While Mallery wrote his book for an amatuer audience he cited analyses and reports at the strictly professional level. I have previously quoted some of the relevant details on 25 May 2004 in Message-ID:
Some years ago I attempted to track down Mallery's papers which passed to the Smithsonian on his death. It turned out that the Smithsonian had later passed them into the black hole of (I think) the National Archives.
It maynow be easier to repeat the work than to locate the original reports.
Eric Stevens
I didn't ignore the the word 'recent' but it is apparent that the ancient copper culture is not Susan R. Martin's primary focus. That she is a greater authority on the old copper culture than anyone posting on this site is more or less what I said in my previous response.
Eric Stevens
--- the phantom line eater has struck again! -------------
At relatively low temperatures the water of crysallisation is lost from the structure causing changes in volume of the matrix.
Eric Stevens
Eric,
Yes, so. As you note below, Mallery aimed his book at an amateur audience. We don't have the original material from the experts he cites; _those_ would be more reliable than Mallery's work. Not a question of his honesty, but of his purpose and audience.
While Mallery wrote his book for an amatuer audience he cited
There you are on the right track. If the work is repeated, with proper sampling and analysis techniques, then we would have something to hang our hats on.
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.