 |
|
| Metalworking (rec.crafts.metalworking) Discuss various aspects of working with metal, such as machining, welding, metal joining, screwing, casting, hardening/tempering, blacksmithing/forging, spinning and hammer work, sheet metal work. |
| Reply |
|
|
LinkBack | Thread Tools | Display Modes |
|
#1
|
|||
|
|||
Copper Casting In America (Trevelyan)
Copper Casting In America (Trevelyan)
Greetings, all, Here's a brief review of a new volume about Native American copper. _________________ _Miskwabik, metal of ritual: metallurgy in precontact Eastern North America_, Amelia M. Trevelyan. Lexington : University Press of Kentucky, c2004. ("Miskwabik" is an Ojibwa word for "copper".) Description: Miskwabik, Metal of Ritual examines the thousands of beautiful and intricate ritual works of art—from ceremonial weaponry to delicate copper pendants and ear ornaments—created in eastern North America before the arrival of Europeans. The first comprehensive examination of this 3,000-year-old metallurgical tradition, the book provides unique insight into the motivation of the artisans and the significance of these objects, and highlights the brilliance and sophistication of the early civilizations of the Americas. Comparing the ritual architecture and metallurgy of the original Americans with the ethnological record, Amelia M. Trevelyan begins to unravel the mystery of the significance of the objects as well as their special functions within the societies that created them. The book includes dozens of striking color and black and white photographs. Amelia M. Trevelyan is Professor and Chair of Art History at Principia College in Elsah, Illinois. _________________ And here's a revealing quote from the above volume, p. 15. "Metallurgical testing and observation indicate that native copper was primarily cold-worked in precontact times and forged rather than cast. However, because the temperatures necessary for melting as well as smelting copper are comparatively low, the latter was probably a technical possibility." So here we see the political bias in American archaeology laid out for all the world to see. 1. She doesn't even mention any of the available scientific evidence indicating that, in precontact times, much copper was cast rather than cold-worked and forged. It may simply be plain ignorance on her part, but we shouldn't also discount a possibility that she's deliberately excluding any evidence that is not in accord with her anti-Native political bias. In any case, the name Mallory (a qualified engineer, and the leading researcher in this area) is not mentioned in her bibliography at all. 2. Yet she admits these things "were probably a technical possibility". How generous of her! So here we see the sort of an anti-Native bigotry that is still all too common within our professional archaeological establishment. These folks really still live in the middle ages! What a dark snake-pit of racism and bigotry our academic establishment is... This never ceases to amaze me, I must say. This is the Dumbing-Down Crew that is hard at work to deny the cultural achievements of Native Americans. Regards, Yuri. Yuri Kuchinsky -=O=- http://www.trends.ca/~yuku A great many people think they are thinking when they are merely rearranging their prejudices -=O=- William James |
|
#2
|
|||
|
|||
|
Copper Casting In America (Trevelyan)
Here's something else that I've just noted about this subject. When I said "the Dumbing-Down Crew ... hard at work", I was actually even more correct than I thought!  Yuri Kuchinsky wrote: Copper Casting In America (Trevelyan) Greetings, all, Here's a brief review of a new volume about Native American copper. _________________ _Miskwabik, metal of ritual: metallurgy in precontact Eastern North America_, Amelia M. Trevelyan. Lexington : University Press of Kentucky, c2004. ("Miskwabik" is an Ojibwa word for "copper".) Description: Miskwabik, Metal of Ritual examines the thousands of beautiful and intricate ritual works of art -- from ceremonial weaponry to delicate copper pendants and ear ornaments -- created in eastern North America before the arrival of Europeans. The first comprehensive examination of this 3,000-year-old metallurgical tradition, What's that??? "3,000-year-old metallurgical tradition,"? Golly gee, whoever had written this blurb doesn't even know that this metallurgical tradition is actually 5000-year-old! What a blooper! Page 9 of Trevelyan's own book states, "The Old Copper Culture was a Middle to Late Archaic development that lasted from about 3000-1000 BC, and was focused primarily in upper Great Lakes region." This blurb is found in a few places on the Net, for example at, University Press of Kentucky http://www.kentuckypress.com/viewboo...up=116&ID=1038 So this seems like a standard blurb. What a bunch of turkeys... Their ignorance seems infinite. Yuri. the book provides unique insight into the motivation of the artisans and the significance of these objects, and highlights the brilliance and sophistication of the early civilizations of the Americas. Comparing the ritual architecture and metallurgy of the original Americans with the ethnological record, Amelia M. Trevelyan begins to unravel the mystery of the significance of the objects as well as their special functions within the societies that created them. The book includes dozens of striking color and black and white photographs. Amelia M. Trevelyan is Professor and Chair of Art History at Principia College in Elsah, Illinois. _________________ And here's a revealing quote from the above volume, p. 15. "Metallurgical testing and observation indicate that native copper was primarily cold-worked in precontact times and forged rather than cast. However, because the temperatures necessary for melting as well as smelting copper are comparatively low, the latter was probably a technical possibility." So here we see the political bias in American archaeology laid out for all the world to see. 1. She doesn't even mention any of the available scientific evidence indicating that, in precontact times, much copper was cast rather than cold-worked and forged. It may simply be plain ignorance on her part, but we shouldn't also discount a possibility that she's deliberately excluding any evidence that is not in accord with her anti-Native political bias. In any case, the name Mallory (a qualified engineer, and the leading researcher in this area) is not mentioned in her bibliography at all. 2. Yet she admits these things "were probably a technical possibility". How generous of her! So here we see the sort of an anti-Native bigotry that is still all too common within our professional archaeological establishment. These folks really still live in the middle ages! What a dark snake-pit of racism and bigotry our academic establishment is... This never ceases to amaze me, I must say. This is the Dumbing-Down Crew that is hard at work to deny the cultural achievements of Native Americans. Regards, Yuri. Yuri Kuchinsky -=O=- http://www.trends.ca/~yuku A great many people think they are thinking when they are merely rearranging their prejudices -=O=- William James |
|
#3
|
|||
|
|||
|
Copper Casting In America (Trevelyan)
Yuri Kuchinsky wrote:
Here's something else that I've just noted about this subject. When I said "the Dumbing-Down Crew ... hard at work", I was actually even more correct than I thought! Yuri Kuchinsky wrote: Copper Casting In America (Trevelyan) Greetings, all, Here's a brief review of a new volume about Native American copper. _________________ _Miskwabik, metal of ritual: metallurgy in precontact Eastern North America_, Amelia M. Trevelyan. Lexington : University Press of Kentucky, c2004. ("Miskwabik" is an Ojibwa word for "copper".) Description: Miskwabik, Metal of Ritual examines the thousands of beautiful and intricate ritual works of art -- from ceremonial weaponry to delicate copper pendants and ear ornaments -- created in eastern North America before the arrival of Europeans. The first comprehensive examination of this 3,000-year-old metallurgical tradition, What's that??? "3,000-year-old metallurgical tradition,"? Golly gee, whoever had written this blurb doesn't even know that this metallurgical tradition is actually 5000-year-old! Yuri, I noticed that, too. However, the blurb isn't the book. From the looks of things, the blooper was made by the person who wrote the blurb, not Ms. Trevelyan. What a blooper! Page 9 of Trevelyan's own book states, "The Old Copper Culture was a Middle to Late Archaic development that lasted from about 3000-1000 BC, and was focused primarily in upper Great Lakes region." This seems to be correct, although I would have chosen to call it the 'Old Copper Complex'. This blurb is found in a few places on the Net, for example at, University Press of Kentucky http://www.kentuckypress.com/viewboo...up=116&ID=1038 So this seems like a standard blurb. Might could be. The blurb is wrong; Trevelyan's text is correct. What a bunch of turkeys... Their ignorance seems infinite. Maybe. But you haven't demonstrated either. But I do thank you for pointing this book out to me. Yuri. the book provides unique insight into the motivation of the artisans and the significance of these objects, and highlights the brilliance and sophistication of the early civilizations of the Americas. Comparing the ritual architecture and metallurgy of the original Americans with the ethnological record, Amelia M. Trevelyan begins to unravel the mystery of the significance of the objects as well as their special functions within the societies that created them. The book includes dozens of striking color and black and white photographs. Amelia M. Trevelyan is Professor and Chair of Art History at Principia College in Elsah, Illinois. _________________ And here's a revealing quote from the above volume, p. 15. "Metallurgical testing and observation indicate that native copper was primarily cold-worked in precontact times and forged rather than cast. However, because the temperatures necessary for melting as well as smelting copper are comparatively low, the latter was probably a technical possibility." So here we see the political bias in American archaeology laid out for all the world to see. 1. She doesn't even mention any of the available scientific evidence indicating that, in precontact times, much copper was cast rather than cold-worked and forged. Perhaps you could show me some of this evidence (other than the Connor web site or the Mallery book; I can always read the former, and have requested the latter by ILL). It may simply be plain ignorance on her part, but we shouldn't also discount a possibility that she's deliberately excluding any evidence that is not in accord with her anti-Native political bias. In any case, the name Mallory (a qualified engineer, and the leading researcher in this area) is not mentioned in her bibliography at all. Why would it be mentioned? Her book is on copper usage, (apparently more wrt its usage as art and ceremonial usage), and most of Mallery's book is about iron. In any case, Trevelyan would most likely have wanted primary sources on the metallurgy, not a book like Mallery's which quotes them. 2. Yet she admits these things "were probably a technical possibility". How generous of her! So here we see the sort of an anti-Native bigotry that is still all too common within our professional archaeological establishment. These folks really still live in the middle ages! What a dark snake-pit of racism and bigotry our academic establishment is... This never ceases to amaze me, I must say. This is the Dumbing-Down Crew that is hard at work to deny the cultural achievements of Native Americans. Have you read the book? Or are you judging it by a non-technical blurb and a few selected quotations? If the former, good on ya; if the latter, then quityerbitchin until you have. Tom McDonald |
|
#4
|
|||
|
|||
|
Copper Casting In America (Trevelyan)
Apparently on date Thu, 10 Jun 2004 16:00:11 -0400, Yuri Kuchinsky
said: Here's something else that I've just noted about this subject. When I said "the Dumbing-Down Crew ... hard at work", I was actually even more correct than I thought! Bizarre for you to be correct, but yeah, you certainly are dumbing down the subject quite considerably. |
|
#5
|
|||
|
|||
|
Copper Casting In America (Trevelyan)
On Thu, 10 Jun 2004 15:36:41 -0400, Yuri Kuchinsky wrote:
Copper Casting In America (Trevelyan) Greetings, all, Here's a brief review of a new volume about Native American copper. _________________ _Miskwabik, metal of ritual: metallurgy in precontact Eastern North America_, Amelia M. Trevelyan. Lexington : University Press of Kentucky, c2004. ("Miskwabik" is an Ojibwa word for "copper".) Description: Miskwabik, Metal of Ritual examines the thousands of beautiful and intricate ritual works of art—from ceremonial weaponry to delicate copper pendants and ear ornaments—created in eastern North America before the arrival of Europeans. The first comprehensive examination of this 3,000-year-old metallurgical tradition, the book provides unique insight into the motivation of the artisans and the significance of these objects, and highlights the brilliance and sophistication of the early civilizations of the Americas. Comparing the ritual architecture and metallurgy of the original Americans with the ethnological record, Amelia M. Trevelyan begins to unravel the mystery of the significance of the objects as well as their special functions within the societies that created them. The book includes dozens of striking color and black and white photographs. Amelia M. Trevelyan is Professor and Chair of Art History at Principia College in Elsah, Illinois. _________________ And here's a revealing quote from the above volume, p. 15. "Metallurgical testing and observation indicate that native copper was primarily cold-worked in precontact times and forged rather than cast. However, because the temperatures necessary for melting as well as smelting copper are comparatively low, the latter was probably a technical possibility." So here we see the political bias in American archaeology laid out for all the world to see. 1. She doesn't even mention any of the available scientific evidence indicating that, in precontact times, much copper was cast rather than cold-worked and forged. It may simply be plain ignorance on her part, but we shouldn't also discount a possibility that she's deliberately excluding any evidence that is not in accord with her anti-Native political bias. In any case, the name Mallory (a qualified engineer, and the leading researcher in this area) is not mentioned in her bibliography at all. 2. Yet she admits these things "were probably a technical possibility". How generous of her! So here we see the sort of an anti-Native bigotry that is still all too common within our professional archaeological establishment. These folks really still live in the middle ages! What a dark snake-pit of racism and bigotry our academic establishment is... This never ceases to amaze me, I must say. This is the Dumbing-Down Crew that is hard at work to deny the cultural achievements of Native Americans. Realize that casting is primarily a technique used for cheap mass produced items. It allows relatively low skilled workers to produce large numbers of relatively complex identical items. Cold working is a much more challenging, and artistically unique, way to produce intricate copper ceremonial items. The smith has to have a higher level of skill than the foundryman to produce equally complex work. Given that, it seems to me that your claims of bigotry by a art historian are unfounded. If anything, the idea that the art objects were produced by cold work makes them even more impressive examples of the skill of the worker than if they were mere castings. But that said, casting pure copper is a bitch. Porosity is the enemy, even for modern copper founders. They charge a hefty premium for low porosity castings. Alloying the copper to make bronze improves matters *enormously*, and production of such alloys was a huge technological leap forward for the casting industry. *If* the Native Americans of millenia past made the technological leap of producing bronze alloy, it would be a significant achievement (as it was when Old World artisans did it). But I've seen no evidence produced in this thread that the ancient Native Americans made such a technological leap forward. The artifacts described appear to all be relatively pure native copper. As such, the *intelligent* way of working the material would have been smithing rather than casting. So if the motive were to make ancient Native Americans appear stupid, then claiming that they used open casting techniques would be the method of choice to do so. Now ask yourself which side of the argument is making that claim. Gary |
|
#6
|
|||
|
|||
|
Copper Casting In America (Trevelyan)
Tom McDonald wrote:
Yuri Kuchinsky wrote: ... 1. She doesn't even mention any of the available scientific evidence indicating that, in precontact times, much copper was cast rather than cold-worked and forged. Perhaps you could show me some of this evidence (other than the Connor web site or the Mallery book; I can always read the former, and have requested the latter by ILL). The evidence is in the Mallery book, and I've already quoted it here. It may simply be plain ignorance on her part, but we shouldn't also discount a possibility that she's deliberately excluding any evidence that is not in accord with her anti-Native political bias. In any case, the name Mallory (a qualified engineer, and the leading researcher in this area) is not mentioned in her bibliography at all. Why would it be mentioned? Because it's relevant. Her book is on copper usage, (apparently more wrt its usage as art and ceremonial usage), and most of Mallery's book is about iron. Non sequitur. Yuri. Yuri Kuchinsky -=O=- http://www.trends.ca/~yuku A great many people think they are thinking when they are merely rearranging their prejudices -=O=- William James |
|
#7
|
|||
|
|||
|
Copper Casting In America (Trevelyan)
Gary Coffman wrote:
On Thu, 10 Jun 2004 15:36:41 -0400, Yuri Kuchinsky wrote: Copper Casting In America (Trevelyan) Greetings, all, Here's a brief review of a new volume about Native American copper. _________________ _Miskwabik, metal of ritual: metallurgy in precontact Eastern North America_, Amelia M. Trevelyan. Lexington : University Press of Kentucky, c2004. ("Miskwabik" is an Ojibwa word for "copper".) Description: Miskwabik, Metal of Ritual examines the thousands of beautiful and intricate ritual works of art—from ceremonial weaponry to delicate copper pendants and ear ornaments—created in eastern North America before the arrival of Europeans. The first comprehensive examination of this 3,000-year-old metallurgical tradition, the book provides unique insight into the motivation of the artisans and the significance of these objects, and highlights the brilliance and sophistication of the early civilizations of the Americas. Comparing the ritual architecture and metallurgy of the original Americans with the ethnological record, Amelia M. Trevelyan begins to unravel the mystery of the significance of the objects as well as their special functions within the societies that created them. The book includes dozens of striking color and black and white photographs. Amelia M. Trevelyan is Professor and Chair of Art History at Principia College in Elsah, Illinois. _________________ And here's a revealing quote from the above volume, p. 15. "Metallurgical testing and observation indicate that native copper was primarily cold-worked in precontact times and forged rather than cast. However, because the temperatures necessary for melting as well as smelting copper are comparatively low, the latter was probably a technical possibility." So here we see the political bias in American archaeology laid out for all the world to see. 1. She doesn't even mention any of the available scientific evidence indicating that, in precontact times, much copper was cast rather than cold-worked and forged. It may simply be plain ignorance on her part, but we shouldn't also discount a possibility that she's deliberately excluding any evidence that is not in accord with her anti-Native political bias. In any case, the name Mallory (a qualified engineer, and the leading researcher in this area) is not mentioned in her bibliography at all. 2. Yet she admits these things "were probably a technical possibility". How generous of her! So here we see the sort of an anti-Native bigotry that is still all too common within our professional archaeological establishment. These folks really still live in the middle ages! What a dark snake-pit of racism and bigotry our academic establishment is... This never ceases to amaze me, I must say. This is the Dumbing-Down Crew that is hard at work to deny the cultural achievements of Native Americans. Realize that casting is primarily a technique used for cheap mass produced items. It allows relatively low skilled workers to produce large numbers of relatively complex identical items. Cold working is a much more challenging, and artistically unique, way to produce intricate copper ceremonial items. The smith has to have a higher level of skill than the foundryman to produce equally complex work. Yes, Gary, but an intelligent metalworker will use the technique that is most appropriate for the situation. Given that, it seems to me that your claims of bigotry by a art historian are unfounded. If anything, the idea that the art objects were produced by cold work makes them even more impressive examples of the skill of the worker than if they were mere castings. It would be rather impressive if the worker knew how to use a variety of techniques. But that said, casting pure copper is a bitch. Porosity is the enemy, even for modern copper founders. They charge a hefty premium for low porosity castings. Alloying the copper to make bronze improves matters *enormously*, and production of such alloys was a huge technological leap forward for the casting industry. *If* the Native Americans of millenia past made the technological leap of producing bronze alloy, it would be a significant achievement (as it was when Old World artisans did it). But I've seen no evidence produced in this thread that the ancient Native Americans made such a technological leap forward. The Native Americans of millennia past certainly knew how to produce bronze alloys. There's plenty of evidence of this in S America, for example, and in Mexico. It's also an interesting subject if the ancient Native Americans of the Great Lakes area knew how to produce bronze alloys. I don't exclude this possibility but, at this time, the evidence seems to be lacking. Nobody has investigated this possibility before, no doubt because of a racist bias in N American archaeology. The artifacts described appear to all be relatively pure native copper. As such, the *intelligent* way of working the material would have been smithing rather than casting. Not always. See above. So if the motive were to make ancient Native Americans appear stupid, then claiming that they used open casting techniques would be the method of choice to do so. Now ask yourself which side of the argument is making that claim. Gary Best regards, Yuri. Yuri Kuchinsky -=O=- http://www.trends.ca/~yuku -=O=- Toronto But scientists, who ought to know Assure us that it must be so. Oh, let us never, never doubt What nobody is sure about. -- Hilaire Belloc |
|
#8
|
|||
|
|||
|
Copper Casting In America (Trevelyan)
Yeah, she's definitely more racist than the white-god junkies.
Yuri Kuchinsky wrote in message ... Copper Casting In America (Trevelyan) Greetings, all, Here's a brief review of a new volume about Native American copper. _________________ _Miskwabik, metal of ritual: metallurgy in precontact Eastern North America_, Amelia M. Trevelyan. Lexington : University Press of Kentucky, c2004. ("Miskwabik" is an Ojibwa word for "copper".) Description: Miskwabik, Metal of Ritual examines the thousands of beautiful and intricate ritual works of art?from ceremonial weaponry to delicate copper pendants and ear ornaments?created in eastern North America before the arrival of Europeans. The first comprehensive examination of this 3,000-year-old metallurgical tradition, the book provides unique insight into the motivation of the artisans and the significance of these objects, and highlights the brilliance and sophistication of the early civilizations of the Americas. Comparing the ritual architecture and metallurgy of the original Americans with the ethnological record, Amelia M. Trevelyan begins to unravel the mystery of the significance of the objects as well as their special functions within the societies that created them. The book includes dozens of striking color and black and white photographs. Amelia M. Trevelyan is Professor and Chair of Art History at Principia College in Elsah, Illinois. _________________ And here's a revealing quote from the above volume, p. 15. "Metallurgical testing and observation indicate that native copper was primarily cold-worked in precontact times and forged rather than cast. However, because the temperatures necessary for melting as well as smelting copper are comparatively low, the latter was probably a technical possibility." So here we see the political bias in American archaeology laid out for all the world to see. 1. She doesn't even mention any of the available scientific evidence indicating that, in precontact times, much copper was cast rather than cold-worked and forged. It may simply be plain ignorance on her part, but we shouldn't also discount a possibility that she's deliberately excluding any evidence that is not in accord with her anti-Native political bias. In any case, the name Mallory (a qualified engineer, and the leading researcher in this area) is not mentioned in her bibliography at all. 2. Yet she admits these things "were probably a technical possibility". How generous of her! So here we see the sort of an anti-Native bigotry that is still all too common within our professional archaeological establishment. These folks really still live in the middle ages! What a dark snake-pit of racism and bigotry our academic establishment is... This never ceases to amaze me, I must say. This is the Dumbing-Down Crew that is hard at work to deny the cultural achievements of Native Americans. Regards, Yuri. Yuri Kuchinsky -=O=- http://www.trends.ca/~yuku A great many people think they are thinking when they are merely rearranging their prejudices -=O=- William James |
|
#9
|
|||
|
|||
|
Copper Casting In America (Trevelyan)
Tom McDonald wrote: Yuri Kuchinsky wrote: [..] 1. She doesn't even mention any of the available scientific evidence indicating that, in precontact times, much copper was cast rather than cold-worked and forged. Perhaps you could show me some of this evidence (other than the Connor web site or the Mallery book; I can always read the former, and have requested the latter by ILL). "Show me where, except the evidence of it" statement by Tom. So, if one was to show another source than those he has excluded (which I have done a while ago already), then he could add that to the list of "except...", I presume! [..] -- SIR - Philosopher unauthorised ----------------------------------------------------------------- The one who is educated from the wrong books is not educated, he is misled. ----------------------------------------------------------------- |
|
#10
|
|||
|
|||
|
Copper Casting In America (Trevelyan)
Gary Coffman wrote: On Thu, 10 Jun 2004 15:36:41 -0400, Yuri Kuchinsky wrote: Copper Casting In America (Trevelyan) [..] So here we see the sort of an anti-Native bigotry that is still all too common within our professional archaeological establishment. These folks really still live in the middle ages! What a dark snake-pit of racism and bigotry our academic establishment is... This never ceases to amaze me, I must say. This is the Dumbing-Down Crew that is hard at work to deny the cultural achievements of Native Americans. Realize that casting is primarily a technique used for cheap mass produced items. It allows relatively low skilled workers to produce large numbers of relatively complex identical items. Cold working is a much more challenging, and artistically unique, way to produce intricate copper ceremonial items. The smith has to have a higher level of skill than the foundryman to produce equally complex work. Given that, it seems to me that your claims of bigotry by a art historian are unfounded. If anything, the idea that the art objects were produced by cold work makes them even more impressive examples of the skill of the worker than if they were mere castings. Whilst there is little argument with that, it is still illogical to believe that casting wasn't done. Each maker of jewellery, ceremonial items would have ended up with "scraps" of copper. It is unlikely they would have simply been thrown away. The annealing of copper would bring it to melting temperature often enough for smaller thinner bits. It suggests a very likely occurrence that they did melt copper, if for no other reason than to make bigger pieces out of the small scraps and off-cuts. This they would again cold work another time. But that said, casting pure copper is a bitch. Porosity is the enemy, even for modern copper founders. They charge a hefty premium for low porosity castings. Alloying the copper to make bronze improves matters *enormously*, and production of such alloys was a huge technological leap forward for the casting industry. *If* the Native Americans of millenia past made the technological leap of producing bronze alloy, it would be a significant achievement (as it was when Old World artisans did it). But I've seen no evidence produced in this thread that the ancient Native Americans made such a technological leap forward. IIRC silver is found in with copper deposits in the Great Lakes area and it has a melting point a bit lower lower than copper. It is likely they could have used a silver/copper alloy or "bronze". If the minerals co-exist then there is no need for "mixing", it is automatic as with arsenic/copper deposits. The artifacts described appear to all be relatively pure native copper. As such, the *intelligent* way of working the material would have been smithing rather than casting. So if the motive were to make ancient Native Americans appear stupid, then claiming that they used open casting techniques would be the method of choice to do so. Now ask yourself which side of the argument is making that claim. You see, the thing is that cold working something doesn't require "technology", where melting/smelting does. It is the implied lack of technology where the suggested prejudices arise from. -- SIR - Philosopher unauthorised ----------------------------------------------------------------- The one who is educated from the wrong books is not educated, he is misled. ----------------------------------------------------------------- |
|
#11
|
|||
|
|||
|
Copper Casting In America (Trevelyan)
On Tue, 15 Jun 2004 05:29:28 GMT, Seppo Renfors wrote:
Gary Coffman wrote: On Thu, 10 Jun 2004 15:36:41 -0400, Yuri Kuchinsky wrote: Copper Casting In America (Trevelyan) [..] So here we see the sort of an anti-Native bigotry that is still all too common within our professional archaeological establishment. These folks really still live in the middle ages! What a dark snake-pit of racism and bigotry our academic establishment is... This never ceases to amaze me, I must say. This is the Dumbing-Down Crew that is hard at work to deny the cultural achievements of Native Americans. Realize that casting is primarily a technique used for cheap mass produced items. It allows relatively low skilled workers to produce large numbers of relatively complex identical items. Cold working is a much more challenging, and artistically unique, way to produce intricate copper ceremonial items. The smith has to have a higher level of skill than the foundryman to produce equally complex work. Given that, it seems to me that your claims of bigotry by a art historian are unfounded. If anything, the idea that the art objects were produced by cold work makes them even more impressive examples of the skill of the worker than if they were mere castings. Whilst there is little argument with that, it is still illogical to believe that casting wasn't done. Each maker of jewellery, ceremonial items would have ended up with "scraps" of copper. It is unlikely they would have simply been thrown away. The annealing of copper would bring it to melting temperature often enough for smaller thinner bits. It suggests a very likely occurrence that they did melt copper, if for no other reason than to make bigger pieces out of the small scraps and off-cuts. This they would again cold work another time. If they did open atmospheric casting (and I'd strongly contend they didn't have the technology to do any other kind, nobody did until the latter half of the 19th century, and then only as a laboratory curiosity), the resulting copper wouldn't be suitable for cold work, too much porosity. Note too that the annealing temperature of copper is *way* below the melting point. If they did melt parts of an object they were annealing, they were using grossly too much heat. In other words, it would be a mark of incompetence on their part if evidence of such melting were found. If they did attempt to salvage copper scraps, they likely *hammer welded* them. That's done at temperatures below the melting point of copper, so porosity doesn't become as serious a problem. You need to understand that copper behaves *differently* from silver, gold, or even iron. Those metals respond well to casting techniques. Nearly pure copper does not. (Bronze is a different matter, of course, but there still has been no evidence presented of bronze artifacts from the locale and period under discussion in this thread.) But that said, casting pure copper is a bitch. Porosity is the enemy, even for modern copper founders. They charge a hefty premium for low porosity castings. Alloying the copper to make bronze improves matters *enormously*, and production of such alloys was a huge technological leap forward for the casting industry. *If* the Native Americans of millenia past made the technological leap of producing bronze alloy, it would be a significant achievement (as it was when Old World artisans did it). But I've seen no evidence produced in this thread that the ancient Native Americans made such a technological leap forward. IIRC silver is found in with copper deposits in the Great Lakes area and it has a melting point a bit lower lower than copper. It is likely they could have used a silver/copper alloy or "bronze". If the minerals co-exist then there is no need for "mixing", it is automatic as with arsenic/copper deposits. A quick search of the UNS database doesn't show any silver-copper binary alloy listed as suitable for casting. Nor is such a binary mixture called bronze. The search did turn up "nickel silver" copper alloys suitable for casting, but the composition of those alloys *contains no silver*. They do contain large amounts of tin, nickel, and a bit of lead. All of the binary alloys of silver and copper listed are labeled as "wrought", meaning that they are suitable only for cold work. The associated native copper and silver found in the Keweenaw Peninsula is known as "Halfbreed". It isn't even an alloy (solid solution). It consists of intertwined gross crystals of the two separate metals. It is difficult to produce an alloy of silver and copper in the absence of tin. If you heat a sample of Halfbreed, the silver melts out before the copper reaches melting temperature, leaving a mass of copper with voids where the silver was. It does not produce bronze. The presence of tin is usually, though not always (aluminum bronze being the primary exception), a prerequisite for a copper alloy to be called bronze. I'm unaware of any tin deposits in the UP of Michigan. Note, an alloy of arsenic and copper was once called bronze too, but it is dangerous to produce, and exceedingly brittle in use. Old World artisans very quickly abandoned it. Again, no evidence of artifacts from the UP of Michigan composed of that alloy has been presented. The artifacts described appear to all be relatively pure native copper. As such, the *intelligent* way of working the material would have been smithing rather than casting. So if the motive were to make ancient Native Americans appear stupid, then claiming that they used open casting techniques would be the method of choice to do so. Now ask yourself which side of the argument is making that claim. You see, the thing is that cold working something doesn't require "technology", where melting/smelting does. It is the implied lack of technology where the suggested prejudices arise from. Hmph! You might remember that one of the newsgroups where this thread is appearing is the *metalworking* group. Most of the members are machinists, either by vocation or avocation. In other words, their primary occupation is working of metals at temperatures below the melting point. They would *strongly* object to the notion that casting should be the signature mark of metalworking technology. Most of the more advanced technological working of metal is done cold, or at least at temperatures below the melting point of the metal. That's *particularly* true for pure copper. Most of the more astute members would never even consider casting as a viable method for producing pure copper objects. Note that I am not insisting that no copper casting industry existed in the UP of Michigan in pre-Columbian times. At least one radiograph I've seen seems to indicate copper which had been melted in atmosphere at some point. But what I am saying here is that atmospheric copper casting is a particularly unintelligent way of utilizing the pure metal when the alternative of lower temperature smithing is available. So the apparent fact that most of the artifacts found show evidence that they were smithed rather than cast clearly indicates that the Native Americans were sophisticated in the working of the copper available to them. Insisting that they cast the objects instead would be an attempt to show that the workers were *not* sophisticated. A very important indicator of technological sophistication is knowing how to choose the appropriate method to work with a particular material. In this case, the technologically appropriate method is *not* casting. So if your objective is to minimize the technical prowess of the Native Americans, you'd be in the camp pushing for copper casting. Casting dumb, smithing smart. (Again I must point out that bronze is a different matter, but no evidence has been presented to support the production of bronze in the locale and time under discussion.) Gary |
|
#12
|
|||
|
|||
|
Copper Casting In America (Trevelyan)
On Mon, 14 Jun 2004 12:37:25 -0400, Yuri Kuchinsky wrote:
Gary Coffman wrote: On Thu, 10 Jun 2004 15:36:41 -0400, Yuri Kuchinsky wrote: Copper Casting In America (Trevelyan) snip What a dark snake-pit of racism and bigotry our academic establishment is... This never ceases to amaze me, I must say. This is the Dumbing-Down Crew that is hard at work to deny the cultural achievements of Native Americans. Realize that casting is primarily a technique used for cheap mass produced items. It allows relatively low skilled workers to produce large numbers of relatively complex identical items. Cold working is a much more challenging, and artistically unique, way to produce intricate copper ceremonial items. The smith has to have a higher level of skill than the foundryman to produce equally complex work. Yes, Gary, but an intelligent metalworker will use the technique that is most appropriate for the situation. Indeed! And atmospheric casting of pure native copper is *never* the most appropriate method. Its use would be a clear indicator of the lack of sophistication of the metalworking technology of the people involved. Given that, it seems to me that your claims of bigotry by a art historian are unfounded. If anything, the idea that the art objects were produced by cold work makes them even more impressive examples of the skill of the worker than if they were mere castings. It would be rather impressive if the worker knew how to use a variety of techniques. It is even more impressive when the worker knows enough to choose the most appropriate technique for the material being worked. In the case of nearly pure native copper, that technique is *not* casting. Gary |
|
#13
|
|||
|
|||
|
Copper Casting In America (Trevelyan)
Gary Coffman wrote:
[snip] Casting dumb, smithing smart. But casting and/or smithing (depending on the materials at hand) is more smart than just smithing. Yuri. Yuri Kuchinsky -=O=- http://www.trends.ca/~yuku Students achieving Oneness will move on to Twoness. --- W. Allen |
|
#14
|
|||
|
|||
|
Copper Casting In America (Trevelyan)
Gary Coffman wrote:
On Mon, 14 Jun 2004 12:37:25 -0400, Yuri Kuchinsky wrote: Yes, Gary, but an intelligent metalworker will use the technique that is most appropriate for the situation. Indeed! And atmospheric casting of pure native copper is *never* the most appropriate method. Its use would be a clear indicator of the lack of sophistication of the metalworking technology of the people involved. Hmm... I wonder. Is there anyone besides yourself who thinks so? Yuri. Yuri Kuchinsky -=O=- http://www.trends.ca/~yuku Students achieving Oneness will move on to Twoness. --- W. Allen |
|
#15
|
|||
|
|||
|
Copper Casting In America (Trevelyan)
"Yuri Kuchinsky" wrote in message
... Hmm... I wonder. Is there anyone besides yourself who thinks so? Have you personally tried casting pure copper??? Any metal for that matter? I haven't tried copper but I imagine it isn't pretty. Unfortunately my stock is contaminated with zinc, as I throw pennies (5% Zn) in with the pure copper (wire, etc.) pile.  Tim -- "I've got more trophies than Wayne Gretsky and the Pope combined!" - Homer Simpson Website @ http://webpages.charter.net/dawill/tmoranwms |
|
#16
|
|||
|
|||
|
Copper Casting In America (Trevelyan)
Tim Williams wrote:
"Yuri Kuchinsky" wrote in message ... Hmm... I wonder. Is there anyone besides yourself who thinks so? Have you personally tried casting pure copper??? Any metal for that matter? Well, I for for one, while I haven't tried to cast pure copper, I did play around with melting pennies and tin from my dad's chemistry storage to get a nice bronze Stafforshire Knot. I have cast silver (although, per Inger, I don't know which Indian tribe mined it:-)). Indeed the silver belt buckle and bracelet I am wearing at the present moment I cast in tufa, ca. 1972. Yes, I have cast metal. Have You? tk |
|
#17
|
|||
|
|||
|
Copper Casting In America (Trevelyan)
"Tim Williams" skrev i meddelandet ... "Yuri Kuchinsky" wrote in message ... Hmm... I wonder. Is there anyone besides yourself who thinks so? Have you personally tried casting pure copper??? Any metal for that matter? I haven't tried copper but I imagine it isn't pretty. Unfortunately my stock is contaminated with zinc, as I throw pennies (5% Zn) in with the pure copper (wire, etc.) pile. I have tried copper long ago. When I was the only girl in 7th grade asking to have metal-handicraft instead of the obligatory needlework for girls that was one of the thing I had to learn, I also had to learn welding and of course forging. I didn't do it much only 3 hours/week for three years. Anyhow I can see your point Tim, but I don't agree. Inger E Tim -- "I've got more trophies than Wayne Gretsky and the Pope combined!" - Homer Simpson Website @ http://webpages.charter.net/dawill/tmoranwms |
|
#18
|
|||
|
|||
|
Copper Casting In America (Trevelyan)
On Tue, 15 Jun 2004 16:53:26 -0400, Yuri Kuchinsky wrote:
Gary Coffman wrote: [snip] Casting dumb, smithing smart. But casting and/or smithing (depending on the materials at hand) is more smart than just smithing. True, when the material isn't pure copper. Bronze casts very nicely, for example, as do gold, silver, iron, etc. But pure copper doesn't. As Key to Metals says, "Pure copper is extremely difficult to cast as well as being prone to surface cracking, porosity problems, and to the formation of internal cavities." Commercially, pure copper is melted and cast using a furnace that is inert gas purged, a crushed graphite cover is floated over the melt, and when the melt reaches 1250 C, a small amount of calcium boride or lithium metal is injected into the melt to act as a deoxidizer. While silcon bronze can be successfully gravity cast in a sand mold, pure copper cannot. Pure copper needs to be pressure molded, either via injection or centrifugal casting methods. The molten metal should not be exposed to air during the casting process. Casting pure copper is a highly sophisticated process of the modern industrial age. The techniques to do it successfully were only developed near the end of the 19th century when the demand for high purity copper castings for the electrical industry drove research and development. It is still difficult and expensive enough to do that aluminum, brass, or bronze is substituted for pure copper wherever it is practical to do so in electrical equipment. Gary |
|
#19
|
|||
|
|||
|
Copper Casting In America (Trevelyan)
On Tue, 15 Jun 2004 16:53:26 -0400, Yuri Kuchinsky wrote:
Gary Coffman wrote: [snip] Casting dumb, smithing smart. But casting and/or smithing (depending on the materials at hand) is more smart than just smithing. Yuri has me killfiled so may not see this, but I am fed up with his going on about 'smart' and 'dumbing down'. It takes more than intelligence to develop technologies, and the lack of a technology does not mean that a group of people are 'dumb'. To say that Native Americans did not develop electricity, nuclear power, or various types of metalworking does *not* mean that they are dumb. And it doesn't make the person making the statement racist. This is basically just Yuri's need to cast nasturtiums at scholars, this time archaeologists. He does the same thing with Biblical scholars in other newsgroups. Doug |
|
#20
|
|||
|
|||
|
Copper Casting In America (Trevelyan)
On Wed, 16 Jun 2004 22:22:21 +0100, Doug Weller wrote:
On Tue, 15 Jun 2004 16:53:26 -0400, Yuri Kuchinsky wrote: Gary Coffman wrote: [snip] Casting dumb, smithing smart. But casting and/or smithing (depending on the materials at hand) is more smart than just smithing. Yuri has me killfiled so may not see this, but I am fed up with his going on about 'smart' and 'dumbing down'. It takes more than intelligence to develop technologies, and the lack of a technology does not mean that a group of people are 'dumb'. To say that Native Americans did not develop electricity, nuclear power, or various types of metalworking does *not* mean that they are dumb. And it doesn't make the person making the statement racist. This is basically just Yuri's need to cast nasturtiums at scholars, this time archaeologists. He does the same thing with Biblical scholars in other newsgroups. I picked up on the fact that he was more interested in axe grinding than casting. Gary |
|
#21
|
|||
|
|||
|
Copper Casting In America (Trevelyan)
Gary Coffman wrote:
On Wed, 16 Jun 2004 22:22:21 +0100, Doug Weller wrote: On Tue, 15 Jun 2004 16:53:26 -0400, Yuri Kuchinsky wrote: Gary Coffman wrote: [snip] Casting dumb, smithing smart. But casting and/or smithing (depending on the materials at hand) is more smart than just smithing. Yuri has me killfiled so may not see this, but I am fed up with his going on about 'smart' and 'dumbing down'. It takes more than intelligence to develop technologies, and the lack of a technology does not mean that a group of people are 'dumb'. To say that Native Americans did not develop electricity, nuclear power, or various types of metalworking does *not* mean that they are dumb. And it doesn't make the person making the statement racist. This is basically just Yuri's need to cast nasturtiums at scholars, this time archaeologists. He does the same thing with Biblical scholars in other newsgroups. I picked up on the fact that he was more interested in axe grinding than casting. Gary Hi, Gary, My main interest in all this is to investigate Native American history. There are apparently hundreds if not thousands of pre-historic metal furnaces that have been described all over northern US. So it sure looks like the Native Americans must have been smelting or melting something. Probably copper, iron, maybe bronze. Some non-professional archaeologists have investigated these things, and published their findings. I find these things quite fascinating. And yet professional American archaeologists don't seem to show any interest at all. They insist on looking the other way. Why do you think this is so? Regards, Yuri. Yuri Kuchinsky -=O=- http://www.trends.ca/~yuku Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away -=O=- Philip K. Dick |
|
#22
|
|||
|
|||
|
Copper Casting In America (Trevelyan)
Gary Coffman wrote: On Tue, 15 Jun 2004 05:29:28 GMT, Seppo Renfors wrote: Gary Coffman wrote: On Thu, 10 Jun 2004 15:36:41 -0400, Yuri Kuchinsky wrote: Copper Casting In America (Trevelyan) [..] So here we see the sort of an anti-Native bigotry that is still all too common within our professional archaeological establishment. These folks really still live in the middle ages! What a dark snake-pit of racism and bigotry our academic establishment is... This never ceases to amaze me, I must say. This is the Dumbing-Down Crew that is hard at work to deny the cultural achievements of Native Americans. Realize that casting is primarily a technique used for cheap mass produced items. It allows relatively low skilled workers to produce large numbers of relatively complex identical items. Cold working is a much more challenging, and artistically unique, way to produce intricate copper ceremonial items. The smith has to have a higher level of skill than the foundryman to produce equally complex work. Given that, it seems to me that your claims of bigotry by a art historian are unfounded. If anything, the idea that the art objects were produced by cold work makes them even more impressive examples of the skill of the worker than if they were mere castings. Whilst there is little argument with that, it is still illogical to believe that casting wasn't done. Each maker of jewellery, ceremonial items would have ended up with "scraps" of copper. It is unlikely they would have simply been thrown away. The annealing of copper would bring it to melting temperature often enough for smaller thinner bits. It suggests a very likely occurrence that they did melt copper, if for no other reason than to make bigger pieces out of the small scraps and off-cuts. This they would again cold work another time. If they did open atmospheric casting (and I'd strongly contend they didn't have the technology to do any other kind, nobody did until the latter half of the 19th century, and then only as a laboratory curiosity), the resulting copper wouldn't be suitable for cold work, too much porosity. I agree that is most likely to have been the procedure. On the other hand what we don't really know is if the porosity was a problem for them. Note too that the annealing temperature of copper is *way* below the melting point. If they did melt parts of an object they were annealing, they were using grossly too much heat. In other words, it would be a mark of incompetence on their part if evidence of such melting were found. I suspect you are using modern ideas as a guide, knowing of other techniques etc. Back then in learning about melting copper, they must observe it melt. Learning annealing they again need to observe the effects, thereby also learning to heat to just below melting point and lend itself to the "hammer welding" you refer to below. If they did attempt to salvage copper scraps, they likely *hammer welded* them. That's done at temperatures below the melting point of copper, so porosity doesn't become as serious a problem. .....and it would also eliminate porosity, would it not? So the small bit could well be melted and cast into a small ingot - to later "hammer weld" the porosity out of it. You need to understand that copper behaves *differently* from silver, gold, or even iron. Those metals respond well to casting techniques. Nearly pure copper does not. I'm aware of the difficulty - as well as the evidence it provides of casting. As such evidence does exist, even if not widely, it indicates the ability to melt copper. (Bronze is a different matter, of course, but there still has been no evidence presented of bronze artifacts from the locale and period under discussion in this thread.) But that said, casting pure copper is a bitch. Porosity is the enemy, even for modern copper founders. They charge a hefty premium for low porosity castings. Alloying the copper to make bronze improves matters *enormously*, and production of such alloys was a huge technological leap forward for the casting industry. *If* the Native Americans of millenia past made the technological leap of producing bronze alloy, it would be a significant achievement (as it was when Old World artisans did it). But I've seen no evidence produced in this thread that the ancient Native Americans made such a technological leap forward. IIRC silver is found in with copper deposits in the Great Lakes area and it has a melting point a bit lower lower than copper. It is likely they could have used a silver/copper alloy or "bronze". If the minerals co-exist then there is no need for "mixing", it is automatic as with arsenic/copper deposits. A quick search of the UNS database doesn't show any silver-copper binary alloy listed as suitable for casting. Try the old 3 cent piece - it was silver + copper alloy. Nor does it need to be "fit for casting" in the modern sense, as all I see it used for is to generate a larger lump of material to work with as a smith would. Nor is such a binary mixture called bronze. A copper alloy is in general called "bronze" irrespective of the mix (eg arsenic + copper) except when it is called "brass" (nickle + copper?). The search did turn up "nickel silver" copper alloys suitable for casting, but the composition of those alloys *contains no silver*. They do contain large amounts of tin, nickel, and a bit of lead. All of the binary alloys of silver and copper listed are labeled as "wrought", meaning that they are suitable only for cold work. The associated native copper and silver found in the Keweenaw Peninsula is known as "Halfbreed". It isn't even an alloy (solid solution). It consists of intertwined gross crystals of the two separate metals. It is difficult to produce an alloy of silver and copper in the absence of tin. No, it has been done a lot of the time. In Sweden (damn I lost the info tag..) they have something they call "malm" (ore) that is a bronze, but a far redder colour than normal bronze. I can't tell you the mix of it as I lost the info. However there is a lot of arsenic + copper bronze around in Asia Minor. It was mined in the Ural mountains as a ready mixed ore. If you heat a sample of Halfbreed, the silver melts out before the copper reaches melting temperature, leaving a mass of copper with voids where the silver was. It does not produce bronze. It does if you heat it to the melting point of copper. http://ia.essortment.com/threecentcoin_rlzk.htm The presence of tin is usually, though not always (aluminum bronze being the primary exception), a prerequisite for a copper alloy to be called bronze. I'm unaware of any tin deposits in the UP of Michigan. Tin is indeed the most common, but not the sole mix. Note, an alloy of arsenic and copper was once called bronze too, but it is dangerous to produce, and exceedingly brittle in use. Old World artisans very quickly abandoned it. Again, no evidence of artifacts from the UP of Michigan composed of that alloy has been presented. It is still called "bronze" as the "bronze age" term itself says. The artifacts described appear to all be relatively pure native copper. As such, the *intelligent* way of working the material would have been smithing rather than casting. So if the motive were to make ancient Native Americans appear stupid, then claiming that they used open casting techniques would be the method of choice to do so. Now ask yourself which side of the argument is making that claim. You see, the thing is that cold working something doesn't require "technology", where melting/smelting does. It is the implied lack of technology where the suggested prejudices arise from. Hmph! You might remember that one of the newsgroups where this thread is appearing is the *metalworking* group. Most of the members are machinists, either by vocation or avocation. In other words, their primary occupation is working of metals at temperatures below the melting point. They would *strongly* object to the notion that casting should be the signature mark of metalworking technology. Ahhh.... but irrespective of the fact that artisans may get their nose out of joint, melting/smelting metals IS called a "technology". So having that technology under ones belt in addition to the smithing, is indeed one up on the smithing alone :-) Most of the more advanced technological working of metal is done cold, or at least at temperatures below the melting point of the metal. That's *particularly* true for pure copper. Most of the more astute members would never even consider casting as a viable method for producing pure copper objects. Not suggesting modern people do cast copper - I am saying ancient people did. Note that I am not insisting that no copper casting industry existed in the UP of Michigan in pre-Columbian times. At least one radiograph I've seen seems to indicate copper which had been melted in atmosphere at some point. But what I am saying here is that atmospheric copper casting is a particularly unintelligent way of utilizing the pure metal when the alternative of lower temperature smithing is available. While there is/was almost pure copper available at the time, much of it had impurities embedded within it. Large hunks of pure copper were relatively rare. The vast amounts that are indicated to have been mined must include copper with much impurities or copper embedded in other material. This had to be refined somehow, melting is the simplest way of refining it - unless you know of another technique available to the ancients. So the apparent fact that most of the artifacts found show evidence that they were smithed rather than cast clearly indicates that the Native Americans were sophisticated in the working of the copper available to them. Insisting that they cast the objects instead would be an attempt to show that the workers were *not* sophisticated. Nobody is suggesting that smithing isn't an extremely skilled occupation..... but then so is flint knapping in my view. The casting was not used to manufacture anything much apparently. I see it as a refining process to later be hammered at near melting temperatures, thereby producing fine artefacts. A very important indicator of technological sophistication is knowing how to choose the appropriate method to work with a particular material. In this case, the technologically appropriate method is *not* casting. So if your objective is to minimize the technical prowess of the Native Americans, you'd be in the camp pushing for copper casting. Casting dumb, smithing smart. As I said mastering one technology, is less than mastering TWO technologies.... if you want to call smithing a "technology" in favour of Art :-) (Again I must point out that bronze is a different matter, but no evidence has been presented to support the production of bronze in the locale and time under discussion.) I don't know what if any testing of composition of artefacts has been done. Some bronzes only contain 3 - 5% tin elsewhere. If none are done then a claim that bronze doesn't exist can't be made. Testing the metals would also finger print them for origin, which hasn't been done either to my knowledge. -- SIR - Philosopher unauthorised ----------------------------------------------------------------- The one who is educated from the wrong books is not educated, he is misled. ----------------------------------------------------------------- |
|
#23
|
|||
|
|||
|
Copper Casting In America (Trevelyan)
"Yuri Kuchinsky" skrev i meddelandet ... Gary Coffman wrote: On Wed, 16 Jun 2004 22:22:21 +0100, Doug Weller wrote: On Tue, 15 Jun 2004 16:53:26 -0400, Yuri Kuchinsky wrote: Gary Coffman wrote: [snip] Casting dumb, smithing smart. But casting and/or smithing (depending on the materials at hand) is more smart than just smithing. Yuri has me killfiled so may not see this, but I am fed up with his going on about 'smart' and 'dumbing down'. It takes more than intelligence to develop technologies, and the lack of a technology does not mean that a group of people are 'dumb'. To say that Native Americans did not develop electricity, nuclear power, or various types of metalworking does *not* mean that they are dumb. And it doesn't make the person making the statement racist. This is basically just Yuri's need to cast nasturtiums at scholars, this time archaeologists. He does the same thing with Biblical scholars in other newsgroups. I picked up on the fact that he was more interested in axe grinding than casting. Gary Hi, Gary, My main interest in all this is to investigate Native American history. There are apparently hundreds if not thousands of pre-historic metal furnaces that have been described all over northern US. So it sure looks like the Native Americans must have been smelting or melting something. Probably copper, iron, maybe bronze. copper yes, bronze yes, silver yes(to pour in forms) but not iron. That they didn't do until they began trading silver, furs and eagles with the Norse according to the oral tradition I have had from respected Indians I spoken to. Inger E |
|
#24
|
|||
|
|||
|
Copper Casting In America (Trevelyan)
Seppo Renfors wrote:
Gary Coffman wrote: On Tue, 15 Jun 2004 05:29:28 GMT, Seppo Renfors wrote: Gary Coffman wrote: On Thu, 10 Jun 2004 15:36:41 -0400, Yuri Kuchinsky wrote: Copper Casting In America (Trevelyan) monster snip Considering copper : 1. find some rich ore or native or near native. 2. build one hot fire - continue burning and increase coal / charcoal contents. 3. add copper or ore - perhaps using glass technology of the time - pit glass ? more melted stone that is glassy and use this slab as a cookie sheet . :-) 4. cover the top with more fuel and then cap it off - perhaps air vent on the side of the wind... A reduction fire - and when cooled off it might have metal in the sheet... Maybe. Martin -- Martin Eastburn, Barbara Eastburn @ home at Lion's Lair with our computer NRA LOH, NRA Life NRA Second Amendment Task Force Charter Founder |
|
#26
|
|||
|
|||
|
Copper Casting In America (Trevelyan)
Eric Stevens wrote:
On Fri, 11 Jun 2004 22:57:04 GMT, (Gary Coffman) wrote: snip Realize that casting is primarily a technique used for cheap mass produced items. With respect, that is nonsense. Casting is a technique which is used to make shapes and structures which cannot be easily made any other way. Eric, 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. (Note that I am not saying that all the copper artifacts were so made; only that casting was not necessary.) As for whether certain types of tools and ornaments might be more easily made by casting, this is only true if the technology for casting has been developed. That is what is at issue. It allows relatively low skilled workers to produce large numbers of relatively complex identical items. You do them a disservice to describe them as "low skilled". The work is difficult and dnagerous, and it took centuries to develop the techniques. Yes, especially wrt copper (see Gary's discussion of copper casting problems below). So far as I can see at this point, there isn't good evidence for such a period of development in the archaeological record. OTOH, at least for the Old Copper and Red Ochre complexes in the Upper Great Lakes region, there don't seem to be many well-documented sites from that period (ca. 3000-1000 BC); and stratified sites are even more rare. Most of the copper artifacts were surface finds, and many came from collectors whose documentation of their finds generally ranged from fair to non-existent. Cold working is a much more challenging, and artistically unique, way to produce intricate copper ceremonial items. The smith has to have a higher level of skill than the foundryman to produce equally complex work. Which is why the people who know how to melt and cast copper use that technique rather than straight smith-work. Again, I don't know that that is true wrt copper, given the difficulty the technique appears to have in creating strong, high-quality results. OTOH, cold and hot working were known by the Native peoples in the Great Lakes ares to produce that very strong, high-quality result. snip But that said, casting pure copper is a bitch. This from the guy who has just written that the task can be undertaken by low-skilled workers? Eric, I read that to mean that casting, in general (as with iron, silver, bronze, gold, etc.) can be done by folks with fewer skills than smiths. However, copper appears to present particular problems with casting that are not so pronounced with other metals, and which require higher skill levels than would be required by those who cast other metals. This should be taken into consideration along with the fact that Great Lakes copper, and drift copper, don't need to be smelted to use. In other areas, where smelting ore _is_ required, the technology for melting metal is a given; here, it isn't. Porosity is the enemy, even for modern copper founders. They charge a hefty premium for low porosity castings. Alloying the copper to make bronze improves matters *enormously*, and production of such alloys was a huge technological leap forward for the casting industry. *If* the Native Americans of millenia past made the technological leap of producing bronze alloy, it would be a significant achievement (as it was when Old World artisans did it). But I've seen no evidence produced in this thread that the ancient Native Americans made such a technological leap forward. The artifacts described appear to all be relatively pure native copper. As such, the *intelligent* way of working the material would have been smithing rather than casting. So if the motive were to make ancient Native Americans appear stupid, then claiming that they used open casting techniques would be the method of choice to do so. Now ask yourself which side of the argument is making that claim. Neither. The claim merely is that some copper items have been cast. Eric, Yuri was making the claim that to say Indians of the Great Lakes area didn't cast copper was to express bigotry towards the First Nations of the area. Gary's argument flows from Yuri's standard 'mainstreamers are racists' rap, with its particular application in the cast vs. worked copper issue. I'm still agnostic, and am reading up on the archaeological references I can find. If you, or other folks, have suggestions for reading, I'm all eyes. BTW, I've just gotten Mallery's book (the 1979 version, revised and extended by Mary Roberts Harrison). I've only skimmed a bit of it, so I don't have an informed opinion on it yet. Will advise. Tom McDonald |
|
#27
|
|||
|
|||
|
Copper Casting In America (Trevelyan)
On Wed, 23 Jun 2004 23:46:01 -0500, Tom McDonald
wrote: Eric Stevens wrote: On Fri, 11 Jun 2004 22:57:04 GMT, (Gary Coffman) wrote: snip Realize that casting is primarily a technique used for cheap mass produced items. With respect, that is nonsense. Casting is a technique which is used to make shapes and structures which cannot be easily made any other way. Eric, 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. (Note that I am not saying that all the copper artifacts were so made; only that casting was not necessary.) That seems to be a different topic. Are you saying that even if they were found to be cast, it wasn't necessary for them to be cast? As for whether certain types of tools and ornaments might be more easily made by casting, this is only true if the technology for casting has been developed. That is what is at issue. I think you and I are approaching the question from opposite ends. You seem to be saying that no artifacts can have been cast, in the absence of direct evidence for casting techniques. I am saying that cast artifacts are evidence for the existence of casting techniques, even if direct evidence for such techniques is not known. It allows relatively low skilled workers to produce large numbers of relatively complex identical items. You do them a disservice to describe them as "low skilled". The work is difficult and dnagerous, and it took centuries to develop the techniques. Yes, especially wrt copper (see Gary's discussion of copper casting problems below). So far as I can see at this point, there isn't good evidence for such a period of development in the archaeological record. OTOH, at least for the Old Copper and Red Ochre complexes in the Upper Great Lakes region, there don't seem to be many well-documented sites from that period (ca. 3000-1000 BC); and stratified sites are even more rare. Most of the copper artifacts were surface finds, and many came from collectors whose documentation of their finds generally ranged from fair to non-existent. Cold working is a much more challenging, and artistically unique, way to produce intricate copper ceremonial items. The smith has to have a higher level of skill than the foundryman to produce equally complex work. Which is why the people who know how to melt and cast copper use that technique rather than straight smith-work. Again, I don't know that that is true wrt copper, given the difficulty the technique appears to have in creating strong, high-quality results. OTOH, cold and hot working were known by the Native peoples in the Great Lakes ares to produce that very strong, high-quality result. snip But that said, casting pure copper is a bitch. This from the guy who has just written that the task can be undertaken by low-skilled workers? Eric, I read that to mean that casting, in general (as with iron, silver, bronze, gold, etc.) can be done by folks with fewer skills than smiths. However, copper appears to present particular problems with casting that are not so pronounced with other metals, and which require higher skill levels than would be required by those who cast other metals. I don't read 'low skilled' as meaning 'lower skilled'. This should be taken into consideration along with the fact that Great Lakes copper, and drift copper, don't need to be smelted to use. In other areas, where smelting ore _is_ required, the technology for melting metal is a given; here, it isn't. There is a difference between 'smelted' as in refinining and 'melted' as for casting. I am not aware of evidence for the for the former in NA but there may be evidence for the latter in the form of cast artifacts. Porosity is the enemy, even for modern copper founders. They charge a hefty premium for low porosity castings. Alloying the copper to make bronze improves matters *enormously*, and production of such alloys was a huge technological leap forward for the casting industry. *If* the Native Americans of millenia past made the technological leap of producing bronze alloy, it would be a significant achievement (as it was when Old World artisans did it). But I've seen no evidence produced in this thread that the ancient Native Americans made such a technological leap forward. The artifacts described appear to all be relatively pure native copper. As such, the *intelligent* way of working the material would have been smithing rather than casting. So if the motive were to make ancient Native Americans appear stupid, then claiming that they used open casting techniques would be the method of choice to do so. Now ask yourself which side of the argument is making that claim. Neither. The claim merely is that some copper items have been cast. Eric, Yuri was making the claim that to say Indians of the Great Lakes area didn't cast copper was to express bigotry towards the First Nations of the area. Gary's argument flows from Yuri's standard 'mainstreamers are racists' rap, with its particular application in the cast vs. worked copper issue. I'm still agnostic, and am reading up on the archaeological references I can find. If you, or other folks, have suggestions for reading, I'm all eyes. BTW, I've just gotten Mallery's book (the 1979 version, revised and extended by Mary Roberts Harrison). I've only skimmed a bit of it, so I don't have an informed opinion on it yet. Will advise. Very much the curate's egg. Eric Stevens |
|
#28
|
|||
|
|||
|
Copper Casting In America (Trevelyan)
Eric Stevens wrote:
On Wed, 23 Jun 2004 23:46:01 -0500, Tom McDonald wrote: Eric Stevens wrote: On Fri, 11 Jun 2004 22:57:04 GMT, (Gary Coffman) wrote: snip Realize that casting is primarily a technique used for cheap mass produced items. With respect, that is nonsense. Casting is a technique which is used to make shapes and structures which cannot be easily made any other way. Eric, 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. Eric, That could be. That's why I wrote the below. My point here is that at least two researchers have done experiments using only cold and hot working, without casting, making all of the major types of artifacts found in the Great Lakes area. This is not to say that some might not have been cast. That's the issue. Contrary to what you write above, I have not yet completed my own look into whether some might have been cast. I'm not willing to take at face value reports of research the originals of which I haven't yet found. (Note that I am not saying that all the copper artifacts were so made; only that casting was not necessary.) That seems to be a different topic. Are you saying that even if they were found to be cast, it wasn't necessary for them to be cast? It's the same topic. I was trying to avoid just this confusion by stating frankly that the research I mentioned does not rule out casting. And to your question, yes. I'm saying that it seems to me at this point that both casting and smithing could have produced the tools we find. The issue is whether both techniques were used, and if so over what time period and what places within the region. As for whether certain types of tools and ornaments might be more easily made by casting, this is only true if the technology for casting has been developed. That is what is at issue. I think you and I are approaching the question from opposite ends. You seem to be saying that no artifacts can have been cast, in the absence of direct evidence for casting techniques. I am saying that cast artifacts are evidence for the existence of casting techniques, even if direct evidence for such techniques is not known. You mistake my meaning. I am saying that casting and smithing both could have been used. If there are artifacts that were cast, then that fact should inform future archaeological work. I'm not sure that you know this, but the main copper-using cultures of the upper Great Lakes areas are very poorly represented by habitation sites. In Wisconsin and the UP of Michigan, there are only a few such sites that have been found and studied from this period (Late Archaic to the transition to Early Woodland--ca. 3-4000 to ca. 100 BC). There are a great many sites with copper artifacts, but they are mostly either surface finds, or are in mortuary contexts; not where the ancient smiths/foundryfolk might have been expected to ply their trades I am less sanguine than you that old reports for which we have only second-hand sources, and for which we don't know the caveats and limitations of the researchers, can be accepted uncritically in the face of nearly unanimous statement from those who have studied the copper artifacts intensively that they haven't found convincing evidence of casting. However, I take offense at the suggestion that I've ruled out casting when I am actually looking into the issue with an open mind. It allows relatively low skilled workers to produce large numbers of relatively complex identical items. You do them a disservice to describe them as "low skilled". The work is difficult and dnagerous, and it took centuries to develop the techniques. Yes, especially wrt copper (see Gary's discussion of copper casting problems below). So far as I can see at this point, there isn't good evidence for such a period of development in the archaeological record. OTOH, at least for the Old Copper and Red Ochre complexes in the Upper Great Lakes region, there don't seem to be many well-documented sites from that period (ca. 3000-1000 BC); and stratified sites are even more rare. Most of the copper artifacts were surface finds, and many came from collectors whose documentation of their finds generally ranged from fair to non-existent. Cold working is a much more challenging, and artistically unique, way to produce intricate copper ceremonial items. The smith has to have a higher level of skill than the foundryman to produce equally complex work. Which is why the people who know how to melt and cast copper use that technique rather than straight smith-work. Again, I don't know that that is true wrt copper, given the difficulty the technique appears to have in creating strong, high-quality results. OTOH, cold and hot working were known by the Native peoples in the Great Lakes ares to produce that very strong, high-quality result. snip But that said, casting pure copper is a bitch. This from the guy who has just written that the task can be undertaken by low-skilled workers? Eric, I read that to mean that casting, in general (as with iron, silver, bronze, gold, etc.) can be done by folks with fewer skills than smiths. However, copper appears to present particular problems with casting that are not so pronounced with other metals, and which require higher skill levels than would be required by those who cast other metals. I don't read 'low skilled' as meaning 'lower skilled'. Read it again. No mention of 'low skilled'. Merely that a smith needs 'higher level of skill' than a foundryman. A neurosurgeon may need a 'higher level of skill' than a dermatologist. Does this make the dermatologist 'low skilled'?q This should be taken into consideration along with the fact that Great Lakes copper, and drift copper, don't need to be smelted to use. In other areas, where smelting ore _is_ required, the technology for melting metal is a given; here, it isn't. There is a difference between 'smelted' as in refinining and 'melted' as for casting. I am not aware of evidence for the for the former in NA but there may be evidence for the latter in the form of cast artifacts. Of course smelting ore and melting for casting are different. However, if one needs and has the technology for smelting, melting for casting is not a technological leap. If one does not need to smelt ore, then melting it for casting requires that technological leap. The issue is whether that leap was made in this case. If cast artifacts are found, then looking for evidence of the development of that technology would be a higher archaeological priority than it is now. Porosity is the enemy, even for modern copper founders. They charge a hefty premium for low porosity castings. Alloying the copper to make bronze improves matters *enormously*, and production of such alloys was a huge technological leap forward for the casting industry. *If* the Native Americans of millenia past made the technological leap of producing bronze alloy, it would be a significant achievement (as it was when Old World artisans did it). But I've seen no evidence produced in this thread that the ancient Native Americans made such a technological leap forward. The artifacts described appear to all be relatively pure native copper. As such, the *intelligent* way of working the material would have been smithing rather than casting. So if the motive were to make ancient Native Americans appear stupid, then claiming that they used open casting techniques would be the method of choice to do so. Now ask yourself which side of the argument is making that claim. Neither. The claim merely is that some copper items have been cast. Eric, Yuri was making the claim that to say Indians of the Great Lakes area didn't cast copper was to express bigotry towards the First Nations of the area. Gary's argument flows from Yuri's standard 'mainstreamers are racists' rap, with its particular application in the cast vs. worked copper issue. I'm still agnostic, and am reading up on the archaeological references I can find. If you, or other folks, have suggestions for reading, I'm all eyes. BTW, I've just gotten Mallery's book (the 1979 version, revised and extended by Mary Roberts Harrison). I've only skimmed a bit of it, so I don't have an informed opinion on it yet. Will advise. Very much the curate's egg. I'm not familiar with that. Will you explain for me? Tom McDonald |
|
#29
|
|||
|
|||
|
Copper Casting In America (Trevelyan)
On Fri, 25 Jun 2004 19:24:15 -0500, Tom McDonald
wrote: Eric Stevens wrote: On Wed, 23 Jun 2004 23:46:01 -0500, Tom McDonald wrote: Eric Stevens wrote: On Fri, 11 Jun 2004 22:57:04 GMT, (Gary Coffman) wrote: snip Realize that casting is primarily a technique used for cheap mass produced items. With respect, that is nonsense. Casting is a technique which is used to make shapes and structures which cannot be easily made any other way. Eric, 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. Eric, That could be. That's why I wrote the below. My point here is that at least two researchers have done experiments using only cold and hot working, without casting, making all of the major types of artifacts found in the Great Lakes area. This is not to say that some might not have been cast. That's the issue. Contrary to what you write above, I have not yet completed my own look into whether some might have been cast. I'm not willing to take at face value reports of research the originals of which I haven't yet found. Fair enough. You may remember that some years ago I reported that I had tried to track down Mallery's papers (left to the Smithsonian on his death) to obtain copies of the originals upon which he relied, but all the papers seem to have vanished into a black hole. It might be worth another try. (Note that I am not saying that all the copper artifacts were so made; only that casting was not necessary.) That seems to be a different topic. Are you saying that even if they were found to be cast, it wasn't necessary for them to be cast? It's the same topic. I was trying to avoid just this confusion by stating frankly that the research I mentioned does not rule out casting. And to your question, yes. I'm saying that it seems to me at this point that both casting and smithing could have produced the tools we find. Only if your assessment is based on simplistic visual examination. Appropriate metallurgical tests are unambiguous. The issue is whether both techniques were used, and if so over what time period and what places within the region. As for whether certain types of tools and ornaments might be more easily made by casting, this is only true if the technology for casting has been developed. That is what is at issue. I think you and I are approaching the question from opposite ends. You seem to be saying that no artifacts can have been cast, in the absence of direct evidence for casting techniques. I am saying that cast artifacts are evidence for the existence of casting techniques, even if direct evidence for such techniques is not known. You mistake my meaning. I am saying that casting and smithing both could have been used. If there are artifacts that were cast, then that fact should inform future archaeological work. I'm not sure that you know this, but the main copper-using cultures of the upper Great Lakes areas are very poorly represented by habitation sites. In Wisconsin and the UP of Michigan, there are only a few such sites that have been found and studied from this period (Late Archaic to the transition to Early Woodland--ca. 3-4000 to ca. 100 BC). There are a great many sites with copper artifacts, but they are mostly either surface finds, or are in mortuary contexts; not where the ancient smiths/foundryfolk might have been expected to ply their trades I am less sanguine than you that old reports for which we have only second-hand sources, and for which we don't know the caveats and limitations of the researchers, can be accepted uncritically in the face of nearly unanimous statement from those who have studied the copper artifacts intensively that they haven't found convincing evidence of casting. However, I take offense at the suggestion that I've ruled out casting when I am actually looking into the issue with an open mind. I didn't say, or even imply, that you have unconditionally ruled out the possibility of cast artifacts. It allows relatively low skilled workers to produce large numbers of relatively complex identical items. You do them a disservice to describe them as "low skilled". The work is difficult and dnagerous, and it took centuries to develop the techniques. Yes, especially wrt copper (see Gary's discussion of copper casting problems below). So far as I can see at this point, there isn't good evidence for such a period of development in the archaeological record. OTOH, at least for the Old Copper and Red Ochre complexes in the Upper Great Lakes region, there don't seem to be many well-documented sites from that period (ca. 3000-1000 BC); and stratified sites are even more rare. Most of the copper artifacts were surface finds, and many came from collectors whose documentation of their finds generally ranged from fair to non-existent. Cold working is a much more challenging, and artistically unique, way to produce intricate copper ceremonial items. The smith has to have a higher level of skill than the foundryman to produce equally complex work. Which is why the people who know how to melt and cast copper use that technique rather than straight smith-work. Again, I don't know that that is true wrt copper, given the difficulty the technique appears to have in creating strong, high-quality results. OTOH, cold and hot working were known by the Native peoples in the Great Lakes ares to produce that very strong, high-quality result. snip But that said, casting pure copper is a bitch. This from the guy who has just written that the task can be undertaken by low-skilled workers? Eric, I read that to mean that casting, in general (as with iron, silver, bronze, gold, etc.) can be done by folks with fewer skills than smiths. However, copper appears to present particular problems with casting that are not so pronounced with other metals, and which require higher skill levels than would be required by those who cast other metals. I don't read 'low skilled' as meaning 'lower skilled'. Read it again. No mention of 'low skilled'. Gary Coffman originally wrote of casting "It allows relatively low skilled workers to produce ... " and it was to this which I originally repsonded. My point was that casting is not a low skilled technique. Merely that a smith needs 'higher level of skill' than a foundryman. A neurosurgeon may need a 'higher level of skill' than a dermatologist. Does this make the dermatologist 'low skilled'?q But is the fundamental proposition correct, that a dermatologist is necessarily of lower skill than a neurosurgeon? My observation is that while the disciplines are different, the skill levels are equally high in each. This should be taken into consideration along with the fact that Great Lakes copper, and drift copper, don't need to be smelted to use. In other areas, where smelting ore _is_ required, the technology for melting metal is a given; here, it isn't. There is a difference between 'smelted' as in refinining and 'melted' as for casting. I am not aware of evidence for the for the former in NA but there may be evidence for the latter in the form of cast artifacts. Of course smelting ore and melting for casting are different. However, if one needs and has the technology for smelting, melting for casting is not a technological leap. If one does not need to smelt ore, then melting it for casting requires that technological leap. The issue is whether that leap was made in this case. The discovery of either smelting or melting would initially be accidental. I could think of circumstances in which melting could still occur when working with pure meteoric copper. If cast artifacts are found, then looking for evidence of the development of that technology would be a higher archaeological priority than it is now. I do not share your certainty. Cast artifacts do seem to have been found. I am not aware that the reports cited by Mallery have been followed up in any way. As far as I can tell, nobody has even followed them up for the purpose of showing that they were wrong or that Mallery has misinterpreted them. The whole subject seems to have been treated as a non-issue. Porosity is the enemy, even for modern copper founders. They charge a hefty premium for low porosity castings. Alloying the copper to make bronze improves matters *enormously*, and production of such alloys was a huge technological leap forward for the casting industry. *If* the Native Americans of millenia past made the technological leap of producing bronze alloy, it would be a significant achievement (as it was when Old World artisans did it). But I've seen no evidence produced in this thread that the ancient Native Americans made such a technological leap forward. The artifacts described appear to all be relatively pure native copper. As such, the *intelligent* way of working the material would have been smithing rather than casting. So if the motive were to make ancient Native Americans appear stupid, then claiming that they used open casting techniques would be the method of choice to do so. Now ask yourself which side of the argument is making that claim. Neither. The claim merely is that some copper items have been cast. Eric, Yuri was making the claim that to say Indians of the Great Lakes area didn't cast copper was to express bigotry towards the First Nations of the area. Gary's argument flows from Yuri's standard 'mainstreamers are racists' rap, with its particular application in the cast vs. worked copper issue. I'm still agnostic, and am reading up on the archaeological references I can find. If you, or other folks, have suggestions for reading, I'm all eyes. BTW, I've just gotten Mallery's book (the 1979 version, revised and extended by Mary Roberts Harrison). I've only skimmed a bit of it, so I don't have an informed opinion on it yet. Will advise. Very much the curate's egg. I'm not familiar with that. Will you explain for me? A 19th century 'Punch' cartoon. The very new curate is having breakfast with his bishop and finds the boiled egg he has been served is rotten. The curate lacks the courage to complain about the bishop's breakfast fodder but the expression on his face alerts the bishop to the fact that all is not well. The bishop then asks ' ... and how is your egg?' The curate still too nervous to say the egg is rotten replies "Parts of it are excellent, my lord". That last is the comment I applied to Mallery's book. Eric Stevens |
|
#30
|
|||
|
|||
|
Copper Casting In America (Trevelyan)
On Sat, 26 Jun 2004 17:07:04 +1200, Eric Stevens
wrote: Very much the curate's egg. I'm not familiar with that. Will you explain for me? A 19th century 'Punch' cartoon. The very new curate is having breakfast with his bishop and finds the boiled egg he has been served is rotten. The curate lacks the courage to complain about the bishop's breakfast fodder but the expression on his face alerts the bishop to the fact that all is not well. The bishop then asks ' ... and how is your egg?' The curate still too nervous to say the egg is rotten replies "Parts of it are excellent, my lord". That last is the comment I applied to Mallery's book. http://www.quinion.com/words/qa/qa-cur1.htm gives an even better explanation. Eric Stevens |
|
#31
|
|||
|
|||
|
Copper Casting In America (Trevelyan)
"Eric Stevens" skrev i meddelandet ... On Fri, 25 Jun 2004 19:24:15 -0500, Tom McDonald wrote: Eric Stevens wrote: On Wed, 23 Jun 2004 23:46:01 -0500, Tom McDonald wrote: Eric Stevens wrote: On Fri, 11 Jun 2004 22:57:04 GMT, (Gary Coffman) wrote: snip Realize that casting is primarily a technique used for cheap mass produced items. With respect, that is nonsense. Casting is a technique which is used to make shapes and structures which cannot be easily made any other way. Eric, 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. Eric, That could be. That's why I wrote the below. My point here is that at least two researchers have done experiments using only cold and hot working, without casting, making all of the major types of artifacts found in the Great Lakes area. This is not to say that some might not have been cast. That's the issue. Contrary to what you write above, I have not yet completed my own look into whether some might have been cast. I'm not willing to take at face value reports of research the originals of which I haven't yet found. Fair enough. You may remember that some years ago I reported that I had tried to track down Mallery's papers (left to the Smithsonian on his death) to obtain copies of the originals upon which he relied, but all the papers seem to have vanished into a black hole. It might be worth another try. Eric, I thought I told you last summer that Mallery's paper is found in a Private Museum? Didn't you get any of the files I have from the Keller deposit? I am sure we discussed photos taken of the artifacts. Inger E (Note that I am not saying that all the copper artifacts were so made; only that casting was not necessary.) That seems to be a different topic. Are you saying that even if they were found to be cast, it wasn't necessary for them to be cast? It's the same topic. I was trying to avoid just this confusion by stating frankly that the research I mentioned does not rule out casting. And to your question, yes. I'm saying that it seems to me at this point that both casting and smithing could have produced the tools we find. Only if your assessment is based on simplistic visual examination. Appropriate metallurgical tests are unambiguous. The issue is whether both techniques were used, and if so over what time period and what places within the region. As for whether certain types of tools and ornaments might be more easily made by casting, this is only true if the technology for casting has been developed. That is what is at issue. I think you and I are approaching the question from opposite ends. You seem to be saying that no artifacts can have been cast, in the absence of direct evidence for casting techniques. I am saying that cast artifacts are evidence for the existence of casting techniques, even if direct evidence for such techniques is not known. You mistake my meaning. I am saying that casting and smithing both could have been used. If there are artifacts that were cast, then that fact should inform future archaeological work. I'm not sure that you know this, but the main copper-using cultures of the upper Great Lakes areas are very poorly represented by habitation sites. In Wisconsin and the UP of Michigan, there are only a few such sites that have been found and studied from this period (Late Archaic to the transition to Early Woodland--ca. 3-4000 to ca. 100 BC). There are a great many sites with copper artifacts, but they are mostly either surface finds, or are in mortuary contexts; not where the ancient smiths/foundryfolk might have been expected to ply their trades I am less sanguine than you that old reports for which we have only second-hand sources, and for which we don't know the caveats and limitations of the researchers, can be accepted uncritically in the face of nearly unanimous statement from those who have studied the copper artifacts intensively that they haven't found convincing evidence of casting. However, I take offense at the suggestion that I've ruled out casting when I am actually looking into the issue with an open mind. I didn't say, or even imply, that you have unconditionally ruled out the possibility of cast artifacts. It allows relatively low skilled workers to produce large numbers of relatively complex identical items. You do them a disservice to describe them as "low skilled". The work is difficult and dnagerous, and it took centuries to develop the techniques. Yes, especially wrt copper (see Gary's discussion of copper casting problems below). So far as I can see at this point, there isn't good evidence for such a period of development in the archaeological record. OTOH, at least for the Old Copper and Red Ochre complexes in the Upper Great Lakes region, there don't seem to be many well-documented sites from that period (ca. 3000-1000 BC); and stratified sites are even more rare. Most of the copper artifacts were surface finds, and many came from collectors whose documentation of their finds generally ranged from fair to non-existent. Cold working is a much more challenging, and artistically unique, way to produce intricate copper ceremonial items. The smith has to have a higher level of skill than the foundryman to produce equally complex work. Which is why the people who know how to melt and cast copper use that technique rather than straight smith-work. Again, I don't know that that is true wrt copper, given the difficulty the technique appears to have in creating strong, high-quality results. OTOH, cold and hot working were known by the Native peoples in the Great Lakes ares to produce that very strong, high-quality result. snip But that said, casting pure copper is a bitch. This from the guy who has just written that the task can be undertaken by low-skilled workers? Eric, I read that to mean that casting, in general (as with iron, silver, bronze, gold, etc.) can be done by folks with fewer skills than smiths. However, copper appears to present particular problems with casting that are not so pronounced with other metals, and which require higher skill levels than would be required by those who cast other metals. I don't read 'low skilled' as meaning 'lower skilled'. Read it again. No mention of 'low skilled'. Gary Coffman originally wrote of casting "It allows relatively low skilled workers to produce ... " and it was to this which I originally repsonded. My point was that casting is not a low skilled technique. Merely that a smith needs 'higher level of skill' than a foundryman. A neurosurgeon may need a 'higher level of skill' than a dermatologist. Does this make the dermatologist 'low skilled'?q But is the fundamental proposition correct, that a dermatologist is necessarily of lower skill than a neurosurgeon? My observation is that while the disciplines are different, the skill levels are equally high in each. This should be taken into consideration along with the fact that Great Lakes copper, and drift copper, don't need to be smelted to use. In other areas, where smelting ore _is_ required, the technology for melting metal is a given; here, it isn't. There is a difference between 'smelted' as in refinining and 'melted' as for casting. I am not aware of evidence for the for the former in NA but there may be evidence for the latter in the form of cast artifacts. Of course smelting ore and melting for casting are different. However, if one needs and has the technology for smelting, melting for casting is not a technological leap. If one does not need to smelt ore, then melting it for casting requires that technological leap. The issue is whether that leap was made in this case. The discovery of either smelting or melting would initially be accidental. I could think of circumstances in which melting could still occur when working with pure meteoric copper. If cast artifacts are found, then looking for evidence of the development of that technology would be a higher archaeological priority than it is now. I do not share your certainty. Cast artifacts do seem to have been found. I am not aware that the reports cited by Mallery have been followed up in any way. As far as I can tell, nobody has even followed them up for the purpose of showing that they were wrong or that Mallery has misinterpreted them. The whole subject seems to have been treated as a non-issue. Porosity is the enemy, even for modern copper founders. They charge a hefty premium for low porosity castings. Alloying the copper to make bronze improves matters *enormously*, and production of such alloys was a huge technological leap forward for the casting industry. *If* the Native Americans of millenia past made the technological leap of producing bronze alloy, it would be a significant achievement (as it was when Old World artisans did it). But I've seen no evidence produced in this thread that the ancient Native Americans made such a technological leap forward. The artifacts described appear to all be relatively pure native copper. As such, the *intelligent* way of working the material would have been smithing rather than casting. So if the motive were to make ancient Native Americans appear stupid, then claiming that they used open casting techniques would be the method of choice to do so. Now ask yourself which side of the argument is making that claim. Neither. The claim merely is that some copper items have been cast. Eric, Yuri was making the claim that to say Indians of the Great Lakes area didn't cast copper was to express bigotry towards the First Nations of the area. Gary's argument flows from Yuri's standard 'mainstreamers are racists' rap, with its particular application in the cast vs. worked copper issue. I'm still agnostic, and am reading up on the archaeological references I can find. If you, or other folks, have suggestions for reading, I'm all eyes. BTW, I've just gotten Mallery's book (the 1979 version, revised and extended by Mary Roberts Harrison). I've only skimmed a bit of it, so I don't have an informed opinion on it yet. Will advise. Very much the curate's egg. I'm not familiar with that. Will you explain for me? A 19th century 'Punch' cartoon. The very new curate is having breakfast with his bishop and finds the boiled egg he has been served is rotten. The curate lacks the courage to complain about the bishop's breakfast fodder but the expression on his face alerts the bishop to the fact that all is not well. The bishop then asks ' ... and how is your egg?' The curate still too nervous to say the egg is rotten replies "Parts of it are excellent, my lord". That last is the comment I applied to Mallery's book. Eric Stevens |
|
#32
|
|||
|
|||
|
Copper Casting In America (Trevelyan)
On Sat, 26 Jun 2004 07:21:52 GMT, "Inger E Johansson"
wrote: "Eric Stevens" skrev i meddelandet .. . On Fri, 25 Jun 2004 19:24:15 -0500, Tom McDonald wrote: Eric Stevens wrote: On Wed, 23 Jun 2004 23:46:01 -0500, Tom McDonald wrote: --- snip --- That could be. That's why I wrote the below. My point here is that at least two researchers have done experiments using only cold and hot working, without casting, making all of the major types of artifacts found in the Great Lakes area. This is not to say that some might not have been cast. That's the issue. Contrary to what you write above, I have not yet completed my own look into whether some might have been cast. I'm not willing to take at face value reports of research the originals of which I haven't yet found. Fair enough. You may remember that some years ago I reported that I had tried to track down Mallery's papers (left to the Smithsonian on his death) to obtain copies of the originals upon which he relied, but all the papers seem to have vanished into a black hole. It might be worth another try. Eric, I thought I told you last summer that Mallery's paper is found in a Private Museum? Didn't you get any of the files I have from the Keller deposit? I am sure we discussed photos taken of the artifacts. All that I can find which might possibly relate to that is "Shipley, Marie A. [Brown]. The Norse Colonization in America by the Light of the Vatican Finds. Lucerne: H. Keller's Foreign Printing Office, [1899]." It doesn't seem to relate to Mallery in any way. --- snip ---- Eric Stevens |
|
#33
|
|||
|
|||
|
Copper Casting In America (Trevelyan)
"Eric Stevens" skrev i meddelandet ... On Sat, 26 Jun 2004 07:21:52 GMT, "Inger E Johansson" wrote: "Eric Stevens" skrev i meddelandet .. . On Fri, 25 Jun 2004 19:24:15 -0500, Tom McDonald wrote: Eric Stevens wrote: On Wed, 23 Jun 2004 23:46:01 -0500, Tom McDonald wrote: --- snip --- That could be. That's why I wrote the below. My point here is that at least two researchers have done experiments using only cold and hot working, without casting, making all of the major types of artifacts found in the Great Lakes area. This is not to say that some might not have been cast. That's the issue. Contrary to what you write above, I have not yet completed my own look into whether some might have been cast. I'm not willing to take at face value reports of research the originals of which I haven't yet found. Fair enough. You may remember that some years ago I reported that I had tried to track down Mallery's papers (left to the Smithsonian on his death) to obtain copies of the originals upon which he relied, but all the papers seem to have vanished into a black hole. It might be worth another try. Eric, I thought I told you last summer that Mallery's paper is found in a Private Museum? Didn't you get any of the files I have from the Keller deposit? I am sure we discussed photos taken of the artifacts. All that I can find which might possibly relate to that is "Shipley, Marie A. [Brown]. The Norse Colonization in America by the Light of the Vatican Finds. Lucerne: H. Keller's Foreign Printing Office, [1899]." It doesn't seem to relate to Mallery in any way. It must either have been eaten of your computer when it was sent to service or been sent via the one of telia's servers which has had problems sending files to Australia and New Zealand. I do have a lot of info. I am writing on a thriller for the moment, together with an old friend of mine. Thus I can't put it in my computer before midnight Swedish time when I am home after we have gone thru some of the chapters in the book. You will have the first files tomorrow. Inger E |
|
#34
|
|||
|
|||
|
Copper Casting In America (Trevelyan)
"Inger E Johansson" wrote in message ...
"Eric Stevens" skrev i meddelandet ... snip All that I can find which might possibly relate to that is "Shipley, Marie A. [Brown]. The Norse Colonization in America by the Light of the Vatican Finds. Lucerne: H. Keller's Foreign Printing Office, [1899]." It doesn't seem to relate to Mallery in any way. It must either have been eaten of your computer when it was sent to service or been sent via the one of telia's servers which has had problems sending files to Australia and New Zealand. hey Eric dont you let that one go by. Start Inger off on an A+ course I do have a lot of info. I am writing on a thriller for the moment, together with an old friend of mine. Thus I can't put it in my computer before midnight Swedish time when I am home after we have gone thru some of the chapters in the book. You will have the first files tomorrow. Hey what number excuse are we up to here? Is the klock still running |
|
#35
|
|||
|
|||
|
Copper Casting In America (Trevelyan)
On Fri, 18 Jun 2004 16:34:00 GMT, Seppo Renfors wrote:
Gary Coffman wrote: If they did open atmospheric casting (and I'd strongly contend they didn't have the technology to do any other kind, nobody did until the latter half of the 19th century, and then only as a laboratory curiosity), the resulting copper wouldn't be suitable for cold work, too much porosity. I agree that is most likely to have been the procedure. On the other hand what we don't really know is if the porosity was a problem for them. It would be a problem, a big problem. If they did attempt to salvage copper scraps, they likely *hammer welded* them. That's done at temperatures below the melting point of copper, so porosity doesn't become as serious a problem. ....and it would also eliminate porosity, would it not? So the small bit could well be melted and cast into a small ingot - to later "hammer weld" the porosity out of it. No, it couldn't. Porosity isn't just little bubbles in the metal. Those bubbles contain air, and at molten temperatures, the oxygen in that air would oxidize the inside of the bubble. So what you wind up with is a mass of copper with a lot of oxidized holes in it. You can't weld copper that is oxidized. If this happens when a modern TIG welder is welding copper (gas shield failure), the only thing he can do is grind out all the porosity and start over. You need to understand that copper behaves *differently* from silver, gold, or even iron. Those metals respond well to casting techniques. Nearly pure copper does not. I'm aware of the difficulty - as well as the evidence it provides of casting. As such evidence does exist, even if not widely, it indicates the ability to melt copper. No trick to melting copper. Doing something intelligent with the molten metal in an atmospheric environment is a different matter. As I noted previously, casting pure copper is difficult, even today. For a people without inert gas shielded continuous casting furnaces, it would be nothing but frustration. Gary |
|
#36
|
|||
|
|||
|
Copper Casting In America (Trevelyan)
On Wed, 23 Jun 2004 23:46:01 -0500, Tom McDonald wrote:
Eric Stevens wrote: On Fri, 11 Jun 2004 22:57:04 GMT, (Gary Coffman) wrote: But that said, casting pure copper is a bitch. This from the guy who has just written that the task can be undertaken by low-skilled workers? Eric, I read that to mean that casting, in general (as with iron, silver, bronze, gold, etc.) can be done by folks with fewer skills than smiths. However, copper appears to present particular problems with casting that are not so pronounced with other metals, and which require higher skill levels than would be required by those who cast other metals. Exactly, and further, skill alone isn't sufficient to make sound castings of pure copper. The proper equipment is also required. Specifically, an inert atmosphere furnace. That technology didn't exist until the late 19th century. Gary |
|
#37
|
|||
|
|||
|
Copper Casting In America (Trevelyan)
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. Gary |
|
#38
|
|||
|
|||
|
Copper Casting In America (Trevelyan)
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. Gary Gary, Are you referring to the sort of amorphous, three-cornered blob listed in Conner's web site as 'R666', and in the Milwaukee Public Museum (where it's curated) as '55786': http://www.iwaynet.net/~wdc/copper.htm If so, I have found additional information about that piece. Tom McDonald |
|
#39
|
|||
|
|||
|
Copper Casting In America (Trevelyan)
On Sun, 27 Jun 2004 13:18:58 -0500, Tom McDonald wrote:
Gary Coffman wrote: 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. Gary Gary, Are you referring to the sort of amorphous, three-cornered blob listed in Conner's web site as 'R666', and in the Milwaukee Public Museum (where it's curated) as '55786': http://www.iwaynet.net/~wdc/copper.htm If so, I have found additional information about that piece. Tom McDonald Yes, that's the one. What have you learned? Gary |
|
#40
|
|||
|
|||
|
Copper Casting In America (Trevelyan)
Gary Coffman wrote:
On Sun, 27 Jun 2004 13:18:58 -0500, Tom McDonald wrote: Gary Coffman wrote: 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. Gary Gary, Are you referring to the sort of amorphous, three-cornered blob listed in Conner's web site as 'R666', and in the Milwaukee Public Museum (where it's curated) as '55786': http://www.iwaynet.net/~wdc/copper.htm If so, I have found additional information about that piece. Tom McDonald Yes, that's the one. What have you learned? Gary Gary, I corresponded with Dr. Alex Barker of the Milwaukee Public Museum about this artifact, since they are curating it there. His response about the description of the artifact was as follows: "As to why one might wonder if it had been cast, it's relatively dense for its size, and one surface is fairly smooth and rounded--not like the upper surface of cast metal, however, but one might perhaps imagine it as the bottom of an irregular puddle of metal." It sounded to me as though he had just looked at it; he was more than generous with me, running around and looking for the artifact and associated documentation for me. Unfortunately, he says he couldn't find a record of any radiograph, but that that didn't mean it wasn't there. They are changing their records over to computer files, and the integration of those files won't start for several months yet. I for one don't doubt the radiographs shown on Connor's web site, though. The description he gave seems to fit the photo on Connor's site. It doesn't look like any purpose-made artifact; but it does look as one might expect a bit of accidentally melted copper to look, if it just fell into the ashes of the fire and cooled there. To my untutored eye, at least. Tom McDonald |
| Reply |
| Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
| Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads
|
||||
| Thread | Forum | |||
| Determining Geologic Sources of Native American Copper | Metalworking | |||
| Copper plating | Metalworking | |||
Linear Mode
