Deleted

Charlie Hatchett · Post by **Charlie Hatchett** » Mon Feb 05, 2007 3:02 pm

deleted

Charlie Hatchett · Post by **Charlie Hatchett** » Mon Feb 05, 2007 3:06 pm

deleted

Forum Monk · Post by **Forum Monk** » Mon Feb 05, 2007 3:07 pm

Playing the devil's advocate, maybe I can offer an expanation which nullifies your hypothesis for pre-clovis smelting.

Looking at the photos you posted of strata, your pre-clovis layer is adjacent to and at the same elevation, more or less as a creek bed. How do you know that the materials are not depositied there by the moving water and the iron artifacts are recent and washed due to regional flooding?

Charlie Hatchett · Post by **Charlie Hatchett** » Mon Feb 05, 2007 3:56 pm

deleted

Forum Monk · Post by **Forum Monk** » Mon Feb 05, 2007 4:10 pm

You further confirmed my suspicion that the bedrock is limestone.

In the following post are holes in the limestone bedrock similar to your furnaces:
http://128.255.52.149/cdm4/item_viewer. ... 1204&REC=3
The holes displayed in the above picture are very common throughout Texas, known as mortar holes, the natives used them to grind grain. They could have been used for other purposes later. A google search for "bedrock mortars" will show many of these features throughout north america.

In addition, limestone is soluable and is frequently carved, gouged and cavenated by water (especially acidic water).

Forum Monk · Post by **Forum Monk** » Mon Feb 05, 2007 4:31 pm

Finally, there is one more point which, IMO strongly mitigates against the hypothesized furnaces being used for iron melting. Linestone itself will melt before iron, having a melting temperature of around 2500* F. and the calcium carbonate, the primary ingredient of limestone, melts at slightly lower temperature. Limestone is used as a flux in modern blast furnaces.

So if these holes were actually iron furnaces, the walls would be melted, expanding the furnace and destroying its efficiency.

That concludes my hastily put together case.

Post by **Minimalist** » Mon Feb 05, 2007 5:01 pm

In the following post are holes in the limestone bedrock similar to your furnaces:

Do they have drain holes/air vents as well?

Forum Monk · Post by **Forum Monk** » Mon Feb 05, 2007 5:51 pm

Minimalist wrote:Do they have drain holes/air vents as well?

I can't say Min, but consider this: which one of those stone axes or points was used to carve a vent hole through several feet of limestone? Which metal tool could have done it? It seems implausible to me. It must be a natural feature, that could have been later exploited. But there is no real evidence as of yet, it was a pre-clovis era furnace. Maybe a camp fire or ritualistic fire pit, perhaps the Spanish or Indians exploited 500-600 years ago.

Charlie Hatchett · Post by **Charlie Hatchett** » Mon Feb 05, 2007 6:04 pm

deleted

Charlie Hatchett · Post by **Charlie Hatchett** » Mon Feb 05, 2007 6:15 pm

deleted

Forum Monk · Post by **Forum Monk** » Mon Feb 05, 2007 6:46 pm

Charlie,
Have you actually verified that the vent hole is connected to the bottom of the proposed furnace. I know it is assumed but i don't recall you ever saying you probed it or otherwise confirmed it.

Post by **Minimalist** » Mon Feb 05, 2007 6:50 pm

The first thing I noticed about all the mortar holes is they're circular

The Club is famous for trying to fit square pegs into round holes.

Forum Monk · Post by **Forum Monk** » Mon Feb 05, 2007 7:13 pm

More rebuttal to proposed pre-clovis furnaces.
Consider the methods employed to work with melted iron. First of all, the furnace proper would have to be lined with appropriate refactory material since the limestone wall and floor would have melted. The over-all size of the furnace should be small perhaps but at least large enough to accomodate the charcoals or other combustibles as well as the crucible which would hold the iron. The iron would not likely be melted with out a vessel to contain it, otherwise you have the problem of recovering the molten iron. Fragments of the crucibles or refractory material would be present (one would assume).

As for using sea-shell molds, I have seen the claim but question its feasibility. I wonder what the melt point of sea-shells are???

Forging is a possibilty also, but again consider the practically of heating and handling iron pieces in a furnace with a roof opening instead of side door. The iron 'effigies' you have displayed do not resemble forged pieces.

(I am not criticizing your work. I have said before, I think you need to make sure you dot the i's and cross the t's. I am sure the so-called 'club' has a lot tougher questions than I can ask.)

Charlie Hatchett · Post by **Charlie Hatchett** » Mon Feb 05, 2007 7:34 pm

deleted

Post by **Minimalist** » Mon Feb 05, 2007 9:15 pm

Yet, Monk, somehow man came to understand that heating certain rocks led to a useful by-product. It seems quite safe to say that the proper furnaces were not designed before the metal was discovered.

Somehow, conditions in nature must exist that led someone (doubtlessly brighter than the rest) to see what was possible when those rocks were heated.