Mark,
Copper kettles were made of copper, and brass kettles were made of brass, generally speaking. Copper was the common material prior to the 18th c., but given that it was more expensive, zinc was added more commonly in the 18th c. to reduce the cost, thus making brass. Depending on how much zinc you add, the material can still look very copper-like, which was probably something traders wanted to retain so their clients would buy it. Therefore you can’t necessarily tell by looking whether you have pure copper kettles (reddish) or one that looks that way but had some zinc added to make it less expensive. When more zinc is added, then you achieve the gold appearance associated with brass. The Montreal merchants sometimes specified whether they were selling copper or brass kettles. They may not have known themselves whether the copper-looking ones had some zinc in them, though the price may have been an indicator.
So there is a shift over time in what to expect in material, rather than any shift in lug form being linked with the material. The square “dog eared” French lugs show up in the 17th and 18th c. and aren’t linked specifically with true copper vs. copper-looking vs. brass. Holland kettles, if made in England (in the 18th c. England had Dutch tradesmen come over to make kettles for them) also have the same issue since the lugs tend to be iron but would have experienced the same general shift through time in the material used for the body. The bodies of the older kettles (16th c., early 17th c.?) from what I’ve observed are often rounded, but I saw a straight sided, flat bottomed one in a museum in The Netherlands, too. The designs of the bodies appeared to be linked to time period and nationality, rather than materials, too.
You can use a scratch test, though some may frown on this. I tried it on a scrap that looked like copper. The scratch reveals golden color if the material is actually brass.
I covered this in my dissertaion, specifically in one of the appendices under the entry for kettles. It’s titled :CLASSIFICATIONS BY HISTORICAL ARCHAEOLOGISTS AND EIGHTEENTH CENTURY MONTREAL MERCHANTS AND MILITARY PERSONNEL IN NEW FRANCE: EMIC AND ETIC APPROACHES. And of course you can look at the bib for my sources.
Misty
Misty Jackson, Ph.D., RPA
Arbre Croche Cultural Resources
214 South Main Street
Leslie, Michigan 49251
On Sep 9, 2013, at 10:08 AM, Branstner, Mark C wrote:
> Ok, question of the day … People refer in a very off-hand way about copper kettles or brass kettles, and use the terms interchangeably …
>
> But is there is fact a difference? I understand copper pots made of very thin copper stock with riveted bail lugs that were often secondarily cut-up for tinkling cones, etc.
>
> On the other hand, when I think of brass kettles, I think of something heavier, probably cast, and certainly less portable from a weight perspective.
>
> So … Are copper kettles different than brass kettles, or are they essentially identical but made different materials, or are some folks just incorrectly describing copper kettles as being made of brass?
>
> Probably all of the above, but I would love to hear some opinions, or handy links.
>
> Thanks in advance,
>
> mark
>
> ___________________________________
>
>
> Mark C. Branstner, RPA, AARP
>
> Senior Historical Archaeologist
>
>
> Illinois State Archaeological Survey
>
> Prairie Research Institute
>
> University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign
>
> 209 Nuclear Physics Lab, MC-571
>
> 23 East Stadium Drive
>
> Champaign, IL 61820
>
>
> Phone: 217.244.0892
>
> Fax: 217.244.7458
>
> Cell: 217.549.6990
>
> [log in to unmask]
>
>
> "The difference between genius and idiocy? Genius has its limits." -- Albert Einstein
>
|
