Dear Ms. Kadar,
I stand by my statement that purity cannot be used as a sole diagnostic
criterion to determine whether or not a copper is native. The range of
purities in native copper is wide varying from as little as 0.09 per cent.
(see for example, the paper by George Rapp, Jr. "Discrimination of ore type
for Chalcolithic copper artifacts from India", in "The Beginnings of the Use
of Metals and Alloys" , Ed. R. Maddin, MIT Press, 1988( In particular see
his Table 2.2 p. 24).
R. Maddin
----- Original Message -----
From: "Manuella Kadar" <[log in to unmask]>
To: <[log in to unmask]>
Sent: Tuesday, September 12, 2000 1:02 AM
Subject: Re: Native copper and oxide ores in Transylvania
> Dear Dr. Maddin,
>
> At the time being, I'm working on my doctoral thesis on "The Biginnings of
> Bronze
> matallurgy in Transylvania- Romania". A couple of weeks ago I had a debate
with
> some Romanian archaeologists who are unanimously stating that the raw
material
> used for the axes belonging to eneolithic cultures due to the high purity
of
> copper (99,3- 99,6 % Cu) it can't be but native copper. I made references
to
> your
> paper, which you very kindly sent me two years ago ( Distinguishing
artifacts
> made of native copper- Jurnal of Archaeological Science 1980) in which you
have
> stated that the degree of purity cannot be used in the identification of
native
> copper.
> Would you be so kind to advise me if there are any other analytical or
> experimental studies dealing with this issue?! I would very much
appreciate if
> you could point me any references!
>
> With my very best wishes,
>
> Manuella Kadar
>
>
>
>
>
>
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
|