Seppo and Tom, now you are into the philosopic logistic semantic corner which is one of my pets and always has been:
PLEASE READ ALL TEXT BEFORE YOU COMMENT IT: We have three scenarios: Scenario 1: It's a totally fresh type of studies that are on the agenda. Nothing has been found in Area A but we have a small hint of what's been found in Area B close by. This is as if there is a white sheet in front of us, which waits to be filled with '0' or '1'. In other word:
a) if one single '1' can be placed on the paper than A is non-'0' = an '1' existing area but we still don't know for sure how many '1' (hits) we will have provided we excavate all area A and analyse everything we find.
b) from our knowledge that Area B has shown a minor figured but existens of '1' we know that it's more than possible that we can find not only one '1' but more than one '1' That's the same as saying that the expected result of an excavation in area A is at least more than one '1'. We can't say anything more than that before we start our survey.
c) from our knowledge that Area B has shown a major figure where established '1' existens has been proven that's more than likely that we find a lot, no estimated figure at hand, of '1' in area A when excavating is finished. That's the same as to say that the expected result of an excavation in area A is that we have by then would have a lot of '1' on the white sheet we had before excavation began.
Now comes the situation for Copper Casting in Ancient America. There are a lot of copper artifacts found that dates up to 5000 BP down to 3000 BP where one or other group of people,
Neither do we know only from that type of analyses if the people who produced the copper artifact 'only' know how to heat copper to hammer it or if they know how to cast copper as well.
One other thing we don't know for sure, is if only natives were working with the copper or if there was or wasn't a Phonenician/Greek/Egyptic sailor who during high storm got lost at sea and thus arrived to NA who started the production from knowledge he already had. We can note the dating of when it started, but not why and how. Nor do we know why it ended.
In other word we have a Scenario-a situation and the probability in this case to establish such connection is that we before analysing area A has had a possible '1' identification in area B. If we haven't 'the best' that could be achived while excavting and analysing our result from area A is a possible '1'-identification.
But there is one article which can be interpreted that there might have existed knowledge of copper casting and furnace building in NA during Pre-Historic Age: WHITE, JOHN R., The Rebirth and Demise of Ohios Earliest Blast Furnace: An Archaeological Postmortem, Vol. 21, p. 217.
You can't have a rebirth if there haven't been a birth which leads us to two possible scenarios since we have to exclude scenario a: either we have to accept that there are an amount of artifacts where the figure for possible casting process used in Ancient Age are low or high. No other alternative exists. Thus no one, Professor in Anthropology or not, can dismiss copper casting in Ancient America without proving every single copper-artifacts non-cast produced. Logic say so.
To return to Mallery's book Appendix A page 223-224: "When, at the suggestion of Matthew Stirling, I examined the Perkins collection of copper tools in the National Museum, I noted that there were a number of castings in the collection." OK that's Mallery's personal opinion expressed, but wait it continues: "..... Expert foundrymen who examined the Perkins collection of the Wisconsin Historical Society declared that many of these specimens were casts in a mold.(M's note 2 this chapter." Note 2 for Appendix A Great Lakes Copper Culture reads: "2. Proc. Wisconsin State Historical Society, Vol 7 (1876) p. 101".
back to page 224: "In the pentagonal chisels, there is additional proof of the effects of cuprous oxide. Copper when molen absorbs a considerable amount of gas. 'Some of the oxygen is trapped and combines, with copper to form cuprous oxide Most of it, however, escapes, especially from an open mold. The centers of the upper surface of some of these chisels were decidedly depressed or concave. This is caused by the decrease in volume(or shrinkage) of the molten metal upon solidification. It is a common phenomenon well known by all foundrymen and those connected with the melting and casting of metals. ......' To illustrate this action, a laboratory tst specimen was cast from Lake Superior copper....... "
End of quote from Mallery page 224.
Now we have reached a definitiv proven situation that at least some of the probably casted Ancient Copper artifacts seems to have it's copper origin from a casting process.
In other word - NO scholar can dismiss this in plain words. It takes concrete evidence and arguments to be put forward in order to dismiss the casting.
But it's more: "Virtually all of the Indian mounds in Wisconsin were constructed prior to European contact (AD 1600s). " .....
and while the author of next url doesn't seem to even think of casting process, the distribution area mentioned is of great interest: "Characteristic copper tools include crescent knives, gouges for woodworking, conical points for weapons, barbed harpoon heads for spearing fish, awls and needles. It appears that worked and unworked copper moved along the water routes out of the Upper Great Lakes region, as similar copper artifacts have been found from Manitoba to New England. "
My comment: what we do have is a possibly scenario-c which might be a possible scenario-b, nevertheless it's vital to stress that from a logic view it's vital for everyone who tries to dismiss large coppar mine-production, large coppar-artifact production to prove/exclude every Ancient Coppar artifacts from having it's copper produced in a furnace.