On Sun, 27 Jun 2004 19:18:20 -0400, Gary Coffman
wrote:

On Mon, 28 Jun 2004 09:04:48 +1200, Eric Stevens wrote:
On Sun, 27 Jun 2004 03:11:14 -0400, Gary Coffman
wrote:

On Sat, 26 Jun 2004 11:13:49 +1200, Eric Stevens wrote:
On Wed, 23 Jun 2004 23:46:01 -0500, Tom McDonald
wrote:
In the case of the copper artifacts in the upper Great Lakes
area, all of the shapes and structures have been shown to have
been made via cold and hot-working techniques.

This is not my understanding. Metallurgical examination has shown that
some of the artifacts have been cast.

The evidence brought out in this thread is that *one* copper artifact
shows radiographic evidence (characteristic porosity) for part of it
being heated above the melting point in atmosphere at some point.
That is in no way conclusive evidence of casting technology. The
piece may have been an attempt at casting, or it may simply have
been overheated while being worked.

Maybe you missed it but http://www.iwaynet.com/~wdc/copper.htm was
cited a few weeks ago in sci.archaeology and introduces evidence for
the casting of copper. Arlington Mallery's book gives more details
including the results of competent metallurgical examination.

No, I didn't miss it. That's where the reference to artifact R666 was
found. None of the other artifacts shown present convincing evidence
(characteristic porosity) of having been poured in atmosphere.

Did you see my Message-ID:
in which I quote
metallurgical aspects from Mallery?



Eric Stevens