Eric Stevens wrote:
On Thu, 01 Jul 2004 01:33:16 -0500, Tom McDonald
wrote:
Eric Stevens wrote:
snip
What about radiographs cited by Mallery? These have been mentioned
several times.
Eric,
Gary has discussed this several times. In essence, the
radiographs on Connor's web site cited by Mallery were
apparently not cast. What Mallery considered bubbles
characteristic of cast copper appear to be, with one exception,
*not* the type of bubbles one finds in casts of copper of the
purity seen in the artifacts.
Apart from the fact that the radiographs on Connors site are by no
means the only evidence, the presence of one exception should not be
ignored.
Eric,
It isn't being ignored. It has been, and continues to be,
discussed. It would be a stronger candidate for evidence of
intentional casting if it were not a shapeless blob that somehow
got melted.
The sole exception, the artifact labeled R666 (Riverside site
artifact number), or 55786 (Milwaukee Public Museum catalog
number--where the artifact is curated), does show the typical
porosity. However, I don't think anyone thinks that the
artifact is an example of intentional casting, but rather of
accidental or natural (e.g.: forest fire) melting of a bit of
copper.
I don't for one minute expect that an ordinary forest fire would melt
a copper artifact of that size.
First, what do you mean by "of that size"? The dimensions
noted are about the size of a little girl's palm (about 2.4" x
1.6" x .3"), with a weight of about one pound. (The weight
given in grams seems to have misplaced the decimal; I doubt that
such a hunk of copper would weigh 12 pounds.)
Second, what do you mean by 'ordinary forest fire'? Forest
fires can range from about 700 C to about 1200 C. The high end
of that scale is well over the melting point of copper, at 1084
C. It does not appear that your incredulity can rule out forest
fire here. I found this on a site about satellite detection of
forest fires:
"For temperatures associated with fires (eg 1,000k-1,500K) the
peak wavelength will be considerably shorter (a few µm)."
http://ceos.cnes.fr:8100/cdrom-00b2/...t/firedet1.htm
or
http://makeashorterlink.com/?N156324B8
OTOH, some of the radiographs clearly show annealing twins, and
linear voids characteristic of smithing.
This has been discussed before in this thread, perhaps before
you returned. If any of this seems new to you, you might want
to read the thread in Google groups.
How about the several times I posted the reference to the reports of
New York Testing Laboratories and the National Bureax of Standards. I
quoted Mallery in Message-ID:
. Yuri Kuchinski later
picked it up and requoted it in message
om... and I cited my
original article again in Message-ID:
.
You've told me that you haven't been able to find the report
from the NYTL, and (correct me if I'm wrong), from the National
Institute of Standards and Technology (the successor to the
National Bureau of Standards). Thus, we don't know what the the
full reports state, and don't know whether the results might be
interpreted differently today.
I've just emailed both the NYTL and the NIST about these
reports. Probably a lost cause, but what the hell.
However, please note that the NBS report Mallery cites on page
223, Letter-Circular 444, July 13, 1935, is _not_ the source of
the quotation by Dr. George P. Ellinger on page 225, quoted by
you below. The quotation by Ellinger has to have been made
_after_ the NYTL report; and as I note below, the NYTL testing
had to have been done at least a decade after NBS L-C 444.
We don't know whether Ellinger is being quoted from a report, a
letter, a conversation, or what. We can't follow up on this to
see whether Mallery got it right.
Important words from the quote from Mallery include:
"X-RAY EXAMINATION:—The tools were radiographed using
standard techniques. A review of the radiographs led to the
following observations:— # I—The three tools were originally cast."
"The specimens are originally cast but apparently have been
reheated and worked to some extent."
This was the testing done at the behest of James A. Ford of the
American Museum of Natural History, per Mallery. Ford began his
tenure at the Museum sometime in 1946:
http://www.mnsu.edu/emuseum/informat...ord_james.html
or
http://makeashorterlink.com/?J567224B8
"Following this report, six leading American museums furnished
tools from the United States, Canada, Mexico, Guatemala, and
Peru for testing. Various metallurgists who have examined the
micrographs of these tools concur in the findings of the New
York Testing Laboratories, Inc. that many of the specimens
examined have been cast. Dr. George P. Ellinger, metallurgist
for the National Bureau of Standards, said, after examining the
submitted specimens, "The presence of cuprous oxide in the
interior of the tools tested and the concavity caused by
shrinking justify the conclusion that the vast majority of the
ancient tools were cast."
Even if Mallery quoted accurately from the NYTL and George
Ellinger, we are still left with the problem that neither the
NYTL report, or the statement by Ellinger, state what Gary and
Paul assure us would have been obvious from the radiographs;
characteristic porosities. Internal small bubbles. Many.
Instead, the NYTL report talks about 'course-grained copper and
.... several annealing twins' for the axe and chisel; and 'pure
copper crystals or grains' for the spearhead. These were from
100x magnifications of sections taken from the artifacts. No
bubbles mentioned. As for the radiographs, the NYTL only says
'[t]he specimens were originally cast....' No mention of
bubbles; no details as to how they arrived at that verdict.
The later testing of other artifacts Mallery mentions is
entirely unsupported by even the details given for the NYTL
report, with the exception of Ellinger's mention of cuprous
oxide in the interior of the tools tested, and the gross
observation of concavities in the tools (all of them? some of
them? which?). Again, we don't seem to have any way of
tracking down the source of the Ellinger quotation.
None of these tools appear to have been radiographed. Mention
is made only of micrographs. And no mention whatsoever of
small-bubble porosities.
These words are unambiguous and do not depend solely on the
interpretation of the information posted on Connor's site.
For sufficiently small values of 'unambiguous', perhaps.
Tom McDonald