Meteoric Blades on Bronze Age Weapons

[A. G. Maisey]

This idea of the King Tut dagger being of meteoritic origin is not a new idea, from my recollection it has been floating around for at least 50 years.

It might well be true that the KT dagger has its origins in meteoritic material, but this examination carried out by Albert Jambon does not, in my opinion, confirm meteoric origin of the material, what it does is to confirm possibility or meteoric origin of the KT dagger material, as well as virtually all other ferric material used in early iron artifacts. This possibility seems to be based upon the percentages of nickel and cobalt present in the KT dagger, which align with the median composition of a group of iron meteorites. We have a possibility, we do not have proof. Jambon has presented a hypothesis, it is not yet even a theory.

I will be very interested in any peer reviews that Jambon's findings may generate.

Personally, I do not find the KT dagger such a remarkable object.

The best authenticated early iron object comes from the burial find at Alaca Huyuk in Turkey, this dates from between 2500 to 2300 BC. It is a 30cm overall length dagger with an iron blade.

The Hittites were present in Asia Minor before 1700BC, they were at their peak of power in about 1400BC, they had developed viable iron weapons by about 1500BC. I am unclear on the form of iron that Hittites used in their production, but the sheer volume of iron of Hittite manufacture seems to indicate it was not of meteoritic origin. I think it was probably limonite in one form or another, a form of iron ore that can be turned into useable weapons and tools, and which was used as a source of ferric materials by early --- and not so early --- iron workers from Africa to Sweden. It would not have been likely to be haematite because of the requirement for smelting, and I think Hittite culture was a bit early for the smelting process, so they needed a source that can be worked in the forge, and limonite can be worked with forge technology.

Interestingly, in limonite we find iron in combination with nickel and with cobalt.

Even more interestingly, the Royal Houses of Egypt and of the Hittites were connected by marriage.

Hittite iron weapon technology in place by 1500BC.

King Tut dagger dated to +/- 1300BC.

Egyptian court and Hittite court with diplomatic and marital connections.

Where is the big mystery?

The KT dagger blade is Hittite in origin, mounted in Egypt.

Hittite iron technology was probably forge technology and rested on the refinement of limonite.

Limonite is an iron ore that contains both nickel and cobalt.

Some iron meteorites contain both nickel and cobalt.

I am not a metallurgist, everything I have written above is simply common knowledge for anybody who has a broad general interest in history, archaeology and the history of iron use. It is all in the public domain and can be verified by relevant research. I have not bothered to check any of this before writing this post, it is stuff that is common knowledge and I have been aware of for a long time.

Jambon has identified cobalt and nickel in early iron artifacts, he has identified the percentages of these elements as corelevant to median percentages of the same elements in a group of iron meteorites. This is not proof of origin of the material, it is the basis for a hypothetical origin of the material, however logical analysis would seem to disallow this hypothesis.

[mariusgmioc]

The Alacahöyük (in Anatolia, present day Turkey) dagger, overall 18.5 cm, gold mounted iron blade, about second half of 3rd millenium BC. Currently in the Museum of Anatolian Civilisations in Ankara.

I got the photo from Wiki Commons and the information from the museum guide book.

[A. G. Maisey]

Yes, that's the dagger.

I had two measurements in mind for this, one was 20cm, one was 30cm.

I took the 20cm as blade length, the 30cm as overall length.

My source was probably one of several books I have somewhere on the European Iron Age, I cannot remember correct titles or authors and I do not know where they are, and its not important anyway.

As for dating, I'd guess that as with many archeological finds, opinions can vary, and in this present case it is of no moment, the important thing is that iron technology was around a long time before KT played with his dagger.

This pic is the dagger I was talking about.

[motan]

Hi all,
A nice thread with many learned comments. The use of meteorite iron in pre-iron age cultures is not new and has been known for decades from Syria, Asia Minor, China and pre-Colombian America. The real mistery here has however not been discussed.
How they worked this meteorite iron into usable objects? Forging iron into blades is very different than working bronze, so how did they manage that at all?
.

[A. G. Maisey]

Where ferric material from a meteoritic source is involved, the only technology necessary is forge technology, same as with limonite.

Smelting is necessary with haematite, and smelt technology for iron appears not to have been available until around 1200BC, but smelt technology for copper had been used from around 5000BC.

So:-
meteorites:- forge
limonite:- forge
haematite:- smelt

[motan]

I am aware of development of metal working from the Chalcolithic through to the iron age in general lines. I do not know whether forging was used also as part of bronze working.
Most bronze objects were made by casting, and that is very different than forging, so they had to do something completely different and non-obvious in order to work meteorite iron.

[RobertGuy]

Originally Posted by motan

... I do not know whether forging was used also as part of bronze working.
Most bronze objects were made by casting...

Bronze usually cast, maybe hammered to work harden edges, However gold, silver and copper were all hammer worked at this time, heated to anneal and soften the metal. I can see early metal workers trying the same techniques on their new wonder material.

[A. G. Maisey]

Yes, a type of forging was used in bronze blade production. It is "cold" forging, where the blade is first cast, then the edges are cold forged down to a very thin edge, bronze has the quality of fast and (relatively) easy work hardening, so by cold forging the blade edges down to a feather edge hardening and edge sharpening were achieved at the same time.

True forge technology is necessary to work meteoritic material, it needs to be brought to a weld heat and brought together into a homogenous mass, this is then forged out, turned back upon itself and rewelded, something in excess of 7 welds usually need to be taken before the impurities have been washed out of the material, when the material is clean it can be forged to shape and cold worked to the finished product.

Bronze is usually an iron/tin alloy that melts at about 1700F, iron melts at about 2800F and will forge weld at a little below this temperature, nickel melts at about 2600F. The 1700F necessary to melt bronze for casting can be brought up to the necessary temps for welding iron and nickel, the nickel will stick first then the iron. The 1700F needed to melt bronze is what I would call a "high cherry red", and is more than adequate to forge iron. Introduction of oxygen will raise the fire temperature to the necessary heat for welding.

Meteoritic material was used in Sub-Saharan Africa, and it was worked in primitive forges; the original Javanese/Balinese forges were not much more than a depression in the ground with air delivered to the fire through bambu tubes from feather bellows. You do not need high technology to weld iron. In fact, the traditional type of "hole in the ground" forge is still in use in some parts of Jawa, and probably is still in use in some parts of Bali.

The progression from bronze working to iron working in both Europe and in SE Asia was not a cessation of one type of production, and commencement of another, the two technologies and the two materials continued side by side for a long time, the "Bronze Age" and the "Iron Age" overlapped one another. In fact, I believe that investigation would demonstrate that bronze swords were in fact at no disadvantage at all when compared to early iron swords.

However, to return to the question of whether or not the KT dagger is of meteoritic material. My personal opinion is that the Jambon hypothesis still needs to be accepted for what it is:- a possibility.

EDIT

I probably should mention that early iron blades would have been cold forged along the edges and work hardened, not quenched like a steel blade. It took a long time before smiths discovered that adding a little bit of carbon to the iron made it hardenable. In fact even in the Middle Ages in Europe, some swords were still iron, not steel, and what they called steel then was often what we would call "mild steel", ie, low carbon steel.