Interesting, Charlie.
THis is where you need a geologist.
Where is Paul H?
Thanks guys. Yeah, the more advice from pro types, the better.Perhaps a metallurgist. Tomorrow I'll show the pictures to a good one. Don't know what he can tell by looking (without chem anaylsis and all) but you never know.
Steve Kissin, a geologist/ metallurgist, has been conducting analyses
of the furnaces, lead type material found in situ in the furnace, and associated roasted pyrite. He was the first geologist to take interest in the site. Here's a few quotes from Steve:
From: Stephen A. Kissin, Ph.D.
Date: 01/11/06 10:21:15
To: Charlie Hatchett
Subject: Possible Prehistoric Furnace and Metal Working
Dear Mr. Hatchett
As far as the ideas about the site are concerned, it certainly looks as if pyrite was roasted there. However, to produce iron from pyrite (or any other oxidized form of iron), one would need a reducing agent, presumably charcoal. This would be rather emphemeral in an ancient site, so there may be no trace of it. The idea that there is a blow-hole as suggested in your photo is interesting, as that would be necessary in order to produce the temperature required to reduce the iron. Although the pictured seashell cannot be identified from the photo, if it is indeed a seashell, it, along with a lot more, could provide a fluxing agent for removal of impurities, chiefly silicon. It would not be a source of manganese. All this suggests that the site is plausibly an iron reduction factory of sorts. I caution you that it is by no means definite, as more investigation would certainly be required to confirm this.
The big question I have at the moment is the establishment of a preClovis age. How did you establish this? In this context, the site could be an early, but historic factory for the recovery of sulfur, which could be readily recovered by roasting of pyrite. This is a necessary component for production of black powder. Hence, firm establishment of the age is very important.
If you have detached a small bit of the metal or metal (the lead-like material), these can be readily identified as to both composition and texture with our facilities here. What would you like to do?
I will speak to my friend from San Antonio, an archeologist who is part of our geoarcheology program and a specialist on the Southwest.
Sincerely,
Stephen A. Kissin, Ph.D.
II.
From: Dr. Steve Kissin
Date: 01/11/06 13:48:10
To: Charlie Hatchett
Subject: Possible Prehistoric Furnace and Metal Working
Dear Mr. Hatchett:
Very interesting photos of the artifacts, especially those you have identified as Clovis type. We have in our area a "paleo-Indian" culture that is 9000 years B.P., dated by radiocarbon dates on shorelines of former shorelines of ancestral Lake Superior. These artifacts are fairly well crafted, resembling much more recent material, but made of local cherts derived from the Gunflint Formation, rather than trade material seen in more recent materials.
The dating of your deposit is valid as far as it goes, but there is the question as to whether the artifact-containing alluvium actually did cover the furnace area after its function. There are sophisticated means of determining this, but they are not available from me. If there were preClovis iron production going on, this would topple all sorts of ideas and, in fact, would preceed iron production in Europe. I think at that point others would interested in applying sophisticated dating methods to the site.
But to the point, if you are agreeable to sending a specimen of the metals to me, I can see what they are quite readily. I need only very small samples, ca. 1 gram. If you wish, I have a loan agreement that I can get to you.
Stephen Kissin
-------Original Message-------
From: Stephen A. Kissin
Date: 01/11/06 15:04:38
To: Charlie Hatchett
Subject: Possible Prehistoric Furnace and Metal Working
I forgot to answer your question. Actually, a small sample would be entirely sufficient. If it is worth a follow-up, we can see what might be needed.
By the way, how close are you to Universal City? My best friend from high school lives there. He visited me in Idaho where I was on sabbatical in spring of 2004.
Stephen Kissin
IV.
-------Original Message-------
From: Stephen A. Kissin
Date: 01/11/06 15:54:33
To: Charlie Hatchett
Subject: Possible Prehistoric Furnace and Metal Working
It would be nice to get down there in January or February, although this winter has been extremely mild so far. In fact, temperatures have been continuously above normal since early December.
Anyway, my mailing address is:
Dr. Stephen A. Kissin
Department of Geology
Lakehead University
Thunder Bay, Ontario
P7B 5E1
Canada
You will need to put a customs declaration form on the package. Say:
Scientific specimen: Mineral specimen, no commercial value.
SAK
V.
-------Original Message-------
From: Stephen A. Kissin
Date: 01/17/06 12:43:43
To: Charlie Hatchett
Subject: Re: Fw: Possible Prehistoric Furnace and Metal Working
Charlie:
It just arrived via DHL. I had a quick look and checked the specimens with a strong magnet. There is no metallic iron in any of them. However, both types of specimens are surprisingly dense, considering the sedimentary rock terrain in which they occur. That brings up a point - could you tell me in which county the site is located? As in big Texas, I know that the counties are relatively small in most cases.
As for the specimens, I am completely mystified at the moment. I will proceed immediately to get small polished thin sections made of bits of them for microscopic and SEM examination. I had a talk with my archeologist friend, originally from San Antonio. As he is retired, he doesn't really want to take on anything else, but he did mention two points to consider. First, the artifact assemblage in the alluvium is apparently mixed, which makes any dating of the site on this basis problematical. Secondly, he is dubious about the obviously older artifacts being of Clovis age.
In any case, the specimens look very interesting, whether they are of natural or human origin. I will get right on the case. I do have a break in mid-February and a lot of points with Air Canada. How far are you from Dallas? This is the only place Air Canada flies to in Texas aside from Houston. There is some interaction with United, but I don't know if my points will apply with them.
Steve Kissin
VI.
From: Stephen A. Kissin
Date: 01/17/06 15:29:51
To: Charlie Hatchett
Subject: Re: Fw: Possible Prehistoric Furnace and Metal Working
Charlie:
I see that your site is just off I-35. That is a straight run from Duluth, which is about 200 miles south of here. Maybe I could even drive. Anyway, well see how interesting the stuff is. Actually, annealed cast iron is relatively soft in comparison with most earth materials. My lab technician is already working on the samples.
VII.
From: Stephen A. Kissin
Date: 01/24/06 16:31:53
To: Charlie Hatchett
Subject: microscopic examination of materials
Charlie:
I examined the polished surfaces that I just got back today. Both are very strange. The hard material looks like pyrite in terms of both color and some crystal faces that are visible. It is, however, composed of a lot of very small mostly irregularly shaped particles, about 0.1mm diameter. Something must be binding them, or the material would crumble relatively easily. It could conceivably be natural material, i.e. a pyrite concretion. I would expect a sort of layered structure in this case, however. The concretion would have formed within the limestone, so could be attached, as you seem to have observed.
The soft material, thought to be lead, is composed of many very tiny particles, about 0.01mm diameter. I have no idea now what this stuff might be but it looks to be man-made, but probably not of ancient origin.
I will check out the compositions on the scanning electron microscope as soon as I can get on the machine.
Steve
VIII.
From: Stephen A. Kissin
Date: 01/25/06 14:23:43
To: Charlie Hatchett
Subject: Re: microscopic examination of materials
Charlie:
The images you sent are at a much different scale from the one I was using. In fact, I overestimated the diameter of the particles; they are less than 0.1 mm in diameter. I just came off our brand new super Olympus microscope system where I took photos of both specimens. As soon as I find out how to download them, I will send them to you as computer images. I am now 99% sure that the hard material is pyrite, formed as a concretion in the limestone when it underwent diagenesis. Diagenesis is the name for the process of crystallization whereby a sediment, carbonate mud in this case, becomes a sedimentary rock.
I am still mystified by the soft material. It seems to be a man-made composite material, as you can see at least two components under the microscope. There of very fine grains within a matrix as some sort.
Steve
IX.
From: Stephen A. Kissin
Date: 01/27/06 16:37:20
To: Charlie Hatchett
Subject: Re: Pyrite Pieces
Charlie:
I would say that the first thing to do would be to text for attraction to a magnet. Use a strong magnet; i.e. not a fridge magnet. This will tell whether iron metal is involved or not.
I cannot say anything about working on specimens, i.e. working into tools. That will take an experienced archeologist. Unless you had some idea about heat treatment of the artifacts, I cannot be of much help on other stony materials, except to say something about provenance of the materials themselves.
It is difficult to say anything about your additional pictures. The first one (metal17?) looks like pyrite on the surface, but on the edge looks different, but it is an oblique angle. I think that it would be best to wait until Monday. I will send the specimens back to you after my quick analysis, and you could then compare the fresh surfaces with your other materials.
Steve
X.
From: Stephen A. Kissin
Date: 01/30/06 17:44:38
To: Charlie Hatchett
Subject: SEM results
Charlie:
Here are the qualitative SEM results:
Hard material: As I suspected, it is pyrite. It is definitely natural material - a pyrite concretion.
Soft material : This is a man-made composite consisting of a strip of lead with grains of what appears to be a silicone material.
XI.
From: Stephen A. Kissin
Date: 02/09/06 10:16:09
To: Charlie Hatchett
Subject: Back to you
Hello Charlie:
Sorry for the slow response, but I have been a bit tied up. First, I have attached two tifs of the hard material (pyrite) and the soft material that you sent. The files are large because of the fine structure involved. The hard material shows up as pyrite in the photo. One can see the cube edges on the outer portion of the specimen. The composition was verified in the SEM.
The soft material shows light, translucent particles, which are the silicone material, in a lead matrix. The occasional dark grains are sand.
As for your finds, both really do look man-made. Have you been able to determine if the blowholes connect to the rectangular pits? The round particles are interesting. Do they appear to be lead or what?
My thought is that this may be a metallurgical site, but I have the feeling that it may be historic, perhaps a place where bullets were cast. If the round particles are lead, that would support the idea.
I will run the artifacts past my archeologist friend, although he has protested that he is not an expert on Texas archeology.
Steve Kissin
XII.
From: Stephen A. Kissin
Date: 05/26/06 13:57:22
To: Charlie Hatchett
Subject: back again
Charlie:
There is potentially a lot to examine in the pictures you have sent. In order to proceed step-wise, I think for now it might be best to stick to my original idea of examining the furnace wall material and a comparison piece of unaltered rock. This might give me a better idea of what is happening there.
Some of the other materials definitely are metallurgical products, but I don't think that the shell forms are shells, but probably also pourings.
Steve
XIII.
From: Stephen A. Kissin
Date: 06/26/06 15:29:48
To: Charlie Hatchett
Subject: examination of the furnace materials
Charlie:
I had a look at the polished thin sections. There is not a lot of difference between the furnace wall sample and the rock from 20 feet away. Both are surprising opaque in transmitted light, and although it is not obvious in the hand specimens, this apparently due to finely dispersed carbon. These two specimens are really striking in that they are positively loaded with marine microfossils. I can get a picture for you if you would like.
The furnace wall sample is slightly bleached, suggesting a loss of carbon (through heating?). It also contains some very minor red iron oxyhydroxide FeO(OH). This also might be an effect of the heating.
Steve
I just sent him photos of the hypothesized slag and the iron stained, charred cobble stratum:
Unit Lima- Bed Igl- ISCC (iron stained and charred cobbles)
http://cayman.globat.com/~bandstexas.com/site53.jpg
http://cayman.globat.com/~bandstexas.com/site54.jpg
Steve plans to visit the site early this Summer. Here's his bio:
http://geology.lakeheadu.ca/wp/?pg=31
