Copper in Ancient India c10.s3.14

c10.s3.14

² It is often remarkable how truth is arrived at by different peoples through almost identical channels of surmises and mistakes. We have already pointed out that in India a good deal of confusion existed regarding the chemical nature of zinc from the fourteen to the sixteenth century. In Europe also "the exact nature of zinc and its ores continued doubtful during the seventeenth century. Glaubey it is true, stated that calamine was an ore of zinc, but Lemery, so late as 1675, believed that zinc was identical with bismuth, and Boyle often employed the names zinc and bismuth indiscriminately for the same substance." Then again in India there was a good deal of confusion for a long time regarding the equivalents for zinc and its ore calamine (rasaka or kharpara). Both the equivalents of calamine were used to designate the ore as well as the metal. In Europe also "the word zinc occurs in many subsequent authors and sometimes it is employed to denote the metal, at other times the ore from which the metal is obtained" It would be rash to suggest from the similarity in the development of the ideas regarding the chemical nature of zinc that Europe borrowed them from India. It often happens that different countries often arrive at a particular truth after pursuing a similar train of reasoning.