Tom McDonald wrote:

Eric Stevens wrote:

On Mon, 28 Jun 2004 13:22:35 -0400, Gary Coffman
wrote:


On Mon, 28 Jun 2004 17:38:04 +1200, Eric Stevens wrote:

[..]

While not directly addressing the point, you may be interested in
http://www.lehigh.edu/~inarcmet/papers/jfa022002.pdf

While not Egyptian, and the artifacts analyzed show evidence of
being wrought rather than cast, the chemical analysis does back
my position. The metals being worked were alloys, not pure native
copper.


As I said, it all depends upon what you mean by 'pure'.

Eric,

In the context of this thread, at least its original context,
the copper was native copper in the upper Great Lakes area of
the US and Canada. That copper is typically well over 99% pure
out of the ground, and does not have to be smelted to remove
impurities. If another context is in evidence, then a
definition of the term 'pure' is needed.

http://www.dayooper.com/Networks.JPG

The copper may well be 99% pure - what about the rest? It isn't every
day people find huge lumps of pure copper without impurities embedded
within it. This is the dilemma that people bypass and ignore.

This has a good story about the Great lakes Copper deposits.
http://www.geo.msu.edu/geo333/copper.html

[..]


--
SIR - Philosopher unauthorised
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The one who is educated from the wrong books is not educated, he is
misled.
-----------------------------------------------------------------