Eric Stevens says in
:

These words are unambiguous and do not depend solely on the
interpretation of the information posted on Connor's site.

This is not so hard to see, copper comals made in Guerrero and
Xoahaca are made in much the same way they were previous, the
comal being the primary 'tool' made in the region. These comals
are not cast, they are pounded. I am by no means a leading
expert on the totality of tools, but the comal appears to be
something that was large and consumed alot of the copper
generated for non-ornamental purposes.
Maybe it is difficult for a person in New Zealand to have
access to this information; however I have seen at least 2 video
reports on the manufacturing of the comal, and they are not
cast. The most similar cultural item I have seen is the hammered
woks created from iron in china (which you can buy on the home
shopping network if you are lucky). Woks being more
sophisticated with handles, whereas the comal is just a large
concave piece of copper.

I would not be surprised if the Andeans and Mesoamericans cast
copper, they certainly has made many advances in metallurgy,
however I think, with regard to tool use, one has to question
the utility of casting when hammering out the metal requires
less heat and is amicable to all kinds of transformations
without need of a mold.

BTW, this whole conversation is repetitious and boring. We
start this whole thing by some idiot argueing that copper
smelting technology came from europe, when in fact the
technology in the new world clearly initiated independently in
south america and spread in the opposite direction. Of course if
the eurasians can invent copper smelting and then casting, gee
it seems like someone who knows enough to smelt copper could, if
he so desired, to cast it also, a minor variation in a well
advanced technology. Thus the cultural connection of either to
eurasian influence is dubious even if it did exist. By the fact
you have some expert pointing to a number of cultures in which
we KNOW that copper smelting developed independently of eurasia,
as evidence for copper casting is not the way to 'cast' an
argument for the diffusion of casting technology from europe.
More or less its a way to disprove that any artifacts that were
cast in the new world were the result of european influences.

Are you arguing for the sake of arguing or is there a point and
direction to your argument?

BTW, Now that we have decided to dabble south. Consider the
obsidian knives and decorative glasswares of the mesoamericans.
What kind of parallels do these have in the old world. This was
a fairly advanced technology.



--
Philip
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Mol. Anth. Group http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DNAanthro/
Mol. Evol. Hominids http://home.att.net/~DNAPaleoAnth/
Evol. of Xchrom.
http://home.att.net/~DNAPaleoAnth/xlinked.htm
Pal. Anth. Group http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Paleoanthro/
Sci. Arch. Aux
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/sciarchauxilliary/