> Before bronze, for several millennia tools were made from alloys of copper and arsenic or antimony
So do you have an actual point, or just a pedantic nit to pick over the author using "copper tools" as short-hand for "copper alloy tools"?
"Copper was accessible enough and easy enough to work that it allowed early proto-states to reliably arm their warriors with something better than stone weaponry, which often chips or breaks under impact. Copper is a soft metal, hence its use in pipes and wiring today. But it generally won’t break, and though it does bend easily it can also be bent back into shape."
But I think the article is right.
The only use of the word 'pure' is right before iron.
it's pretty common to refer to Otzi's axe as a 'copper axe', right in the wiki page: "Ötzi's copper axe was of particular interest.". but it's 99.7% copper. It contains other materials
I really dont understand jumping from 'copper tools' to 'pure copper tools'. Otzi's axe was maybe both an example of his mastery of the profession and a useful tool (it shows signs of use and rework).
"Alloy" doesn't imply intent.
OTOH, alloying under 1% is irrelevant to the relevant bulk properties of copper.