John I noticed in a quick preliminary reading that the writer left parting of gold from silver an unexplored issue. This process is most often missed when discussing smelting because the target is presumed to be gold. In addition he effectively assumed lead reduction was used for parting silver from gold with no historical proof.
I believe he missed the point of establishing an actual purity standard. In other words he did not try to establish what "pure" meant for silver as opposed to gold. In his results I noticed that gold at levels exceeding 100 ppm were found in most silver granules recovered from the byproduct slag. This is once again in a range not unlike that of Mexico.
The cross contamination of silver with gold is most likely due to the fact that the native ores were a form of electrum. (Electrum is a natural solution of gold and silver.) Because those metals are mutually soluble it is difficult to part the two elements. Parting a trace of silver from gold can be accomplished because the silver is reactive. The reverse process of parting a trace of gold from nearly pure silver was nearly impossible in ancient times because the gold is NOT reactive.
I believe he missed the point of establishing an actual purity standard. In other words he did not try to establish what "pure" meant for silver as opposed to gold. In his results I noticed that gold at levels exceeding 100 ppm were found in most silver granules recovered from the byproduct slag. This is once again in a range not unlike that of Mexico.
The cross contamination of silver with gold is most likely due to the fact that the native ores were a form of electrum. (Electrum is a natural solution of gold and silver.) Because those metals are mutually soluble it is difficult to part the two elements. Parting a trace of silver from gold can be accomplished because the silver is reactive. The reverse process of parting a trace of gold from nearly pure silver was nearly impossible in ancient times because the gold is NOT reactive.



















