On Fri, 02 Jul 2004 22:11:26 -0500, Tom McDonald
wrote:

Eric Stevens wrote:

On Fri, 02 Jul 2004 02:50:07 -0500, Tom McDonald
wrote:


Eric Stevens wrote:

snip

I haven't been able to track down Mallery's papers. As to whether or
not they would be interpreted differently today - I very much doubt
it. The text quoted by Mallery is most basic metallurgy.

I've just emailed both the NYTL and the NIST about these
reports. Probably a lost cause, but what the hell.


Good idea. I was tempted to do that but never got around to it. I
would be surprised if they had the relevant files after all these
years.

Eric,

I heard back from the librarian at the NIST. He says they
don't have L-C 444 anymore, but that is because it's missing,
not because they don't curate them. (It turns out that L-C 445
is about painting radiators in steam heat systems :-))

He said he would contact other libraries that maintain
collections of the old NBS Letter-Circulars. If he gets a copy,
he will snail-mail a copy to me; if not, he'll tell me 'no joy'.

Still waiting to hear from New York Testing Labs. They
apparently were bought by a larger firm a few years ago, but it
looks like they maintained their name. The work they did, at
least on the three indicated artifacts, probably was done on
contract with the National Museum of Natural History. If so,
the Museum might have to consent to releasing the report, if
NYTL still has it.

Who did you contact about Mallery's papers? Would it help, do
you think, for me to contact them as well?

It vanished with a past computer crash. I originally wrote to the
Smithsonian and they then referred me to a person at the (?) National
archives (?). I contacted that person who referred me to another who
never gave me a meaningful response no matter how I (gently) pressed
them. I think a fresh start is a very good idea.


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.


I agree. I'm trying to use Mallery as incontestable proof of copper
casting. I was merely disputing the implication that Gary Coffman had
settled the matter.

Oops - I meant "I'm NOT trying ... "

I never said that the matter was settled. Gary and Paul have
lent us expertise I don't have, and as I learn more, I'm trying
to apply it correctly to the info I have. I think that soon
I'll know enough to at least ask reasonable and germane
questions of the literature, and living archaeologists. Them's
good fun!



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.


With respect to Gary, the fact that he did not know of the use of coal
or carbon to deoxidise molten copper suggests that his is not the
final word on the subject.


Again, never said any one person would have all the pieces of
the puzzle. However, Gary certainly knows more than I did; and
Paul is adding more still.

BTW, in another post (to Phil, I think) you said that I seemed
to have not seen, or to have ignored, the NYTL and NBS
information. I have not ignored it. However, it seemed
reasonable to me to actually get and read Mallery's book, and to
learn more about the issues involved before going off half-cocked.

Now I'm looking into getting the reports themselves, and/or
Mallery's papers regarding the reports (as well as Ellinger's
comments). Seemed like the reasonable approach to me.

Tom McDonald




Eric Stevens