Meteoric Blades on Bronze Age Weapons

[kronckew]

Oral history sometime leaves out bits. I don't disagree that the blade could have been made with major additions of a sky metal. it would have been easier to include it with some chinese supplied stock during the forging, the inclusion of the source of the chinese sources into the story would have detracted from it's traditional spirital message. It's a big No-No to try to shave off a bit for testing tho.

That dagger is gorgious by the way, they had quite good skill and artistry.

[A. G. Maisey]

Ariel & Marius.

I know a little bit about working with meteoritic material because I have worked with it.

Using fragments of the Arizona meteorite, I have made small billets of clean ready to use meteoritic iron, these small billets could have been made bigger if I had had sufficient meteorite, or they could have been made into very small blades as they were.

However, I used this refined meteoritic material to make damascus blades by incorporating it with iron and steel.

Two small billets of meteoritic material that I made were given to a Pande Keris in Solo with instructions to make two keris. The first keris he made was unsatisfactory and it was sold, the second keris he made is a part of my collection.

I worked with pure meteorite and the product I produced was pure meteorite, which was later combined with other material. There is an easier way to work with meteorite than the one I chose, but I worked with the pure material because I considered this to be a matter of work ethic.

The easier way to work with meteorite is detailed in a text book that was prepared at the request of the Surakarta Karaton. We are uncertain exactly which ruler of Surakarta ordered its preparation, but it was probably Pakubuwana X, and the Empu providing the information was probably Jayasukadgo.

In this text book, the meteoritic material being addressed is the Prambanan Meteorite. The method detailed involves making a small, thin-walled iron packet, putting small pieces of meteoritic material into the packet, closing the packet, bringing it to weld heat and then taking the weld. This initial weld will unite the pieces of meteorite, after which the material can be cleaned (refined) in the usual way.

It would be possible to weld two pieces of meteorite in a charcoal forge, but they would need to be fairly large pieces, it would be virtually impossible to weld small pieces of meteorite in a charcoal or coke forge. If a single large piece of meteor was available, this would be easier still. I had only very small pieces of meteorite to work with, and when I was working with this material in the late 1980's, it was very, very expensive material. I used a gas forge to weld and refine it.

To return to the question of what raw material was used in early iron blades, and how it was processed.

Meteoritic material will break up under the hammer. It is necessary to bring the pieces of meteorite together while they are still in the fire, they will then stick together. Then it is necessary to tap them together on the anvil until the adhesion is firm. If you hammer in a normal fashion they will simply fly into a thousand pieces. Once the first weld has been taken it becomes progressively easier. You add a small piece of meteorite at a time until you have a good sized lump, then fold and weld until there are no little star-like sparks generated at weld heat. It is not rocket science, it is simply application of logic, together with a smidgen of knowledge.

There was an overlap of bronze working technology and iron working technology. There can be no doubt of this. Since there was an overlap, it seems reasonable to assume that early iron artifacts, whether blades or something else, might have been produced by casting technology similar to that used in bronze production.

However, bronze production rested firmly upon the ability of potters to produce vessels capable of withstanding temperatures of 1700F.

To me, the big question is if the potters at this time in history were able to produce vessels capable of withstanding temperatures of 2800F.

However, a small fire in an earth depression and given a continuous infusion of air by the use of bellows can reach +2800F without a great deal of difficulty.

As Ariel has noted:- Occam rules.

The easiest, most obvious way to do something is usually the way something is done.

[mariusgmioc]

Originally Posted by A. G. Maisey

Ariel & Marius.

Very interesting explanations!

Do you have any idea what makes meteoritic iron so hard to work? May it be the high Nickel content?

With respect to Tut's blades, I also believe it is much more likely to be an imported present for the Pharao from somewhere where iron working was already known.

[A. G. Maisey]

Meteoritic material is not hard to work, it is no more difficult to work than ordinary iron, but as I explained, if you do not take the very first weld very gently it will break up under the hammer, so the first weld is taken as gently as possible, and you need to bring the pieces to be welded, together in the forge, if you have more than a single piece of material, after that first weld, the following welds are easier and towards the end of the cleaning process, it is just like welding ordinary iron.

Pure nickel welded together with iron is also easy to weld, but when you want weld steel, say a simple high carbon steel like 01, together with iron, or with iron and nickel, you have a quite small weld window, so you need to be able to judge the weld temperature pretty accurately.

Material that is hot short is perhaps more difficult to weld that meteorite, but again, it is a matter of taking the first couple of welds very gently, as you get more welds into the billet you wash out more of the impurities and it becomes easier to weld.

[David]

Originally Posted by mariusgmioc

With respect to Tut's blades, I also believe it is much more likely to be an imported present for the Pharao from somewhere where iron working was already known.

From Wikipedia entry on the Iron Age:
The earliest-known iron artifacts are nine small beads dated to 3200 BC, which were found in burials at Gerzeh, Lower Egypt. They have been identified as meteoric iron shaped by careful hammering.[1] Meteoric iron, a characteristic iron–nickel alloy, was used by various ancient peoples thousands of years before the Iron Age. Such iron, being in its native metallic state, required no smelting of ores.
The Iron Age proper supposedly started around 1200 BC. or so, but obviously people were aware of and working with iron in some form for up to 2000 years before they had enough of a command of the material to make it commonplace.
it would seem that iron was known to the Egyptians longer than perhaps anyone else in the world. If the earliest known iron artifacts indeed come from Egypt, why would you assume the King Tut dagger would need to come from some other origin than Egypt itself?

[A. G. Maisey]

David, I do not understand what is meant by "the Iron Age Proper", however the Hittites were the first technologically advanced people to produce iron tools, artifacts and weapons in any considerable number, and the Hittites had developed viable iron tools and weapons by about 1500BC.

The Hittite Empire collapsed in about 1200BC, and immediately after this collapse the rise of iron technology occurred in Cyprus and Greece. With the rise of iron technology in Greece there was a leap in production of iron artifacts. Also from about 1200 BC we have the first evidence from Cyprus of iron with a carbon content --- ie, steel --- that has been quenched.

It appears that although iron with a carbon content has been found from earlier dates, there was no consistency in the carburisation process, it was an accidental carburisation that had resulted from carburisation in the forge, rather than carburisation in a bloomery. However, carbon content of iron by itself is not enough to produce a tool or weapon that is markedly superior to bronze, that iron with the carbon content needs to be heated and quenched. It would seem that this did not occur until after about 1200BC, so maybe that is what is meant by "Iron Age Proper" .

While it is true that the Ancient Egyptians did cold forge meteoritic material to produce talismans, they did not begin to produce iron tools and weapons until about 500-600BC, when iron smelting technology became available.

Egypt at the time of Tutankhamen did not possess the technology to produce a blade like the KT dagger, but the Hittites did, and there were diplomatic and marriage ties between the Egyptian court and the Hittite court.

An Afterthought

For those of us who come from a European cultural background, our idea of the Iron Age tends to focus on the Middle East and the Mediterranean Basin, however, it should not be forgotten that evidence of iron working that could date back to 1800BC has been found in Uttar Pradesh in India, where it seems to be associated with the migrations of the Vedic People. The evidence includes slag, tuyeres and remains of furnaces.

If we think of the "The Iron Age" in terms of the entire world, I really do think that that the opinion that the Iron Age began with Greece and Cyprus is a rather limited point of view.

[David]

Originally Posted by A. G. Maisey

David, I do not understand what is meant by "the Iron Age Proper", however the Hittites were the first technologically advanced people to produce iron tools, artifacts and weapons in any considerable number, and the Hittites had developed viable iron tools and weapons by about 1500BC.

The Hittite Empire collapsed in about 1200BC, and immediately after this collapse the rise of iron technology occurred in Cyprus and Greece. With the rise of iron technology in Greece there was a leap in production of iron artifacts. Also from about 1200 BC we have the first evidence from Cyprus of iron with a carbon content --- ie, steel --- that has been quenched.

It appears that although iron with a carbon content has been found from earlier dates, there was no consistency in the carburisation process, it was an accidental carburisation that had resulted from carburisation in the forge, rather than carburisation in a bloomery. However, carbon content of iron by itself is not enough to produce a tool or weapon that is markedly superior to bronze, that iron with the carbon content needs to be heated and quenched. It would seem that this did not occur until after about 1200BC, so maybe that is what is meant by "Iron Age Proper" .

While it is true that the Ancient Egyptians did cold forge meteoritic material to produce talismans, they did not begin to produce iron tools and weapons until about 500-600BC, when iron smelting technology became available.

Egypt at the time of Tutankhamen did not possess the technology to produce a blade like the KT dagger, but the Hittites did, and there were diplomatic and marriage ties between the Egyptian court and the Hittite court.

An Afterthought

For those of us who come from a European cultural background, our idea of the Iron Age tends to focus on the Middle East and the Mediterranean Basin, however, it should not be forgotten that evidence of iron working that could date back to 1800BC has been found in Uttar Pradesh in India, where it seems to be associated with the migrations of the Vedic People. The evidence includes slag, tuyeres and remains of furnaces.

If we think of the "The Iron Age" in terms of the entire world, I really do think that that the opinion that the Iron Age began with Greece and Cyprus is a rather limited point of view.

Alan, i was not trying to create an new or confusing terminology by referring to the "Iron Age proper". It is simply that 1200 BC is the date that most historians seem to agree on for the beginning of the Iron Age. I believe i was quite clear that knowledge of forging iron was in existence for at least hundreds of years before this date, but i suppose that historians tend to not mark us as being fully into the Iron Age until the process became more commonplace rather than a technology held by just a single civilization.
Now, i am still not convinced that the process described here for determining the origins of the material for the KT dagger is fool proof or accurate, but if we are to assume that the dagger is indeed made from meteoric ore then i see no reason why it could not have been made by Egyptians in 1300 BC since forging with a big chunk of iron meteorite apparently does not require the use of smelting technology.
This, of course, does not count out the possibility that it might have been a gift from the Hittites. There was know communication between these two great civilizations and apparently King Tut's widow sought to marry a Hittite prince soon after her husband's death.
"A crisis of succession gripped the royal court. With power plays and intrigues surely seething around her, Tut's widow, Ankhesenamun, appears to have launched a coup of her own, sending desperate letters to the king of the Hittites in Anatolia. "My husband is dead," she wrote. "Send me your son and I will make him king." It was an unprecedented request, but understandable. "Her grandmother was Queen Tiye, one of the most powerful queens Egypt ever saw," Ray Johnson explained. "Her mother was Nefertiti. They ruled as living goddesses, so of course Ankhesenamun felt she had the same power. And she found out that she didn't."
A Hittite prince, Zannanza, was eventually sent south to marry her, but he was killed—by a hit squad, some speculate—as he entered Egyptian territory. An elder courtier named Aye, possibly Ankhesenamun's grandfather, then became pharaoh."
But there is a reason the move that King Tut's widow attempted is considered "unprecedented".
It was the era from about 1500-1200 BC that Egypt had the most contact with the Hittites. However, they were for much of that time an adversary if not an outright enemy of the Egyptians. The Hittites were more likely to desire planting such a dagger into the heart of the Egyptian pharaoh rather than gifting it to him. It was Ramses II who brokered the first peace treaty with the Hittites in 1258 BC, but that was not until nearly a century after the death of King Tut. It is actually acknowledged by many historians as the first peace treaty ever recorded by both sides. He did indeed marry a Hittite princess a few years later. I am not aware of any particular diplomatic relationship during King Tut's time or before where the Hittites would be likely to gift a beautiful dagger such as this one to the Egyptian pharaoh, nor any intermarriages between these courts before Ramses II.

[A. G. Maisey]

Thanks for your further comments David.

I was not suggesting that you originated the "Iron Age Proper" terminology, it is a term that is fairly commonly encountered in texts that deal specifically with the Iron Age, and in texts that take a broad general view of history. It represents one point of view of the academics who are specialists in these fields, it is not a universal opinion.

I am not specialist in either Iron Age history or general history, I have only a slight knowledge of both, but I have read over many years many texts dealing with both fields, and I have formed the opinion that I tend to agree with the people who place the beginning of the Iron Age quite a bit earlier than the point at which Greece and Cyprus became involved.

Some historians adopt one point of view, some historians adopt a different point of view.
Two different opinions.
I incline towards one of these opinions, and question the validity of the other.

Thus, when I wrote that "--- I do not understand what is meant by "the Iron Age Proper"---", this is exactly what I meant. It was not an oblique comment, it can be taken at face value, and it refers only to my personal understanding.

However, what historians do seem to agree on is that Egypt did not begin to work with ferric material until iron smelting technology became widely available around 600BC.

It is true that a piece of meteoritic material can be cold forged into a reasonably compact form, it is also true that a piece of meteoritic material can be worked in a forge.

However, the technology required to do this, and the skill needed to apply that technology does not come out of a clear blue sky, it leaves evidence of its development, and in the case of Ancient Egypt this evidence is not present.

The Iron Age came to Egypt when iron smelting technology became widely available, and that was around 600BC.

The KT dagger can be dated to around 1300BC.

We have in the KT dagger a particular artefact, that required a particular technology and a particular skill to produce.

There is no evidence of that technology and skill existing in Egypt at or prior to the date of the KT dagger.

There is evidence of the technology and skill existing in Anatolia at the date of the KT dagger, and for a considerable time before this date.

The raw material used in Anatolia was probably haematite, it might have been magnetite, it could have been limonite, it was almost certainly not generally meteorite, but in very early items, it might have been.

The reason for the rise of iron technology is often misunderstood. Quite simply the ingredients needed to produce bronze were localised and difficult to obtain, on the other hand sources of ferric material are widespread and can be found almost everywhere. People turned to iron because of availability and then developed the technology needed to work it. Early iron artefacts were not really superior to bronze, it was only when carburisation was understood that ferric materials became a better product than bronze.

In fact, we are not talking about the dagger as a whole, we are only talking about the blade, the mounts are Egyptian. Dagger blades were recognised as acceptable gifts between rulers at this time in history.

The core question here is the way in which the Jambon findings are to be understood. In my opinion Jambon has produced a hypothesis, he has not produced a theory, and he has not produced proof of meteoritic origin of the KT dagger.

[mariusgmioc]

Originally Posted by David

It was the era from about 1500-1200 BC that Egypt had the most contact with the Hittites. However, they were for much of that time an adversary if not an outright enemy of the Egyptians. The Hittites were more likely to desire planting such a dagger into the heart of the Egyptian pharaoh rather than gifting it to him. It was Ramses II who brokered the first peace treaty with the Hittites in 1258 BC, but that was not until nearly a century after the death of King Tut. It is actually acknowledged by many historians as the first peace treaty ever recorded by both sides. He did indeed marry a Hittite princess a few years later. I am not aware of any particular diplomatic relationship during King Tut's time or before where the Hittites would be likely to gift a beautiful dagger such as this one to the Egyptian pharaoh, nor any intermarriages between these courts before Ramses II.

Hello David,
King Tut's dagger being a gift from the Hittites is just one of many possibilities. It can very well be a booty from an earlier confrontation or simply a blade smuggled by some unscrupulous merchant.
Anyhow, as we know so little about this blade, everything is open to speculation.
Regards,
Marius

[motan]

I really don't know anything about forging, but I do have some afterthoughts..
On one hand, the Hittites had both iron and diplomatic relationship with the Egypt (truce was signed during Tut's reign), so that there certainly could have given iron blades as present to the pharaoh.
One the other hand, Egyptians had a centuries long tradition of working meteorite iron, as did other peoples in the Eastern Mediterranean.

However, this is all irrelevant, because analysis of the composition of the blade shows composition typical of meteorite iron (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tutank...n_dagger_blade). As far as I know, such high nickel does not occur in normal iron ore and no ancient culture mined or smelted nickel. So, for me this case is closed.

Further, it is mentioned in the thread that early iron was not superior to bronze for tools. But another main advantage of iron has been missed here. Iron ore is much more common=cheaper than bronze, as it is today.
Lastly, the spread of iron working following the bronze-age collapse is discussed in the Old Testament. In Samuel, Saul complains that there are no lances an swords in Israel because the Philistines monopolize iron working. The Israelites have to go to Philistines, their enemies even to sharpen and mend their tools - plows, axes and spades are mentioned.

[David]

Originally Posted by motan

On one hand, the Hittites had both iron and diplomatic relationship with the Egypt (truce was signed during Tut's reign), so that there certainly could have given iron blades as present to the pharaoh.

Can you tell us what truce was signed with the Hittites during Tut's reign?