Meteorite Dagger?

BSMStar · 6th August 2006, 01:14 AM

With the Keris, I have always wondered… how did the method of folding two alloys come into being? The very early Keris did not contain nickel, and relied on two alloys of iron. Somewhere along the line, either nickel or meteorite material was introduced. Which came first? When I was first introduced to the Keris, I was left with the impression that the nickel in the pamor came from meteorites…. But maybe the nickel rich iron deposits created this pamor first. Adding heavenly iron was just to help with the connection of the cosmic. A history of Keris alloys would be fascinating to see. Add to this the “staining” of the blade to bring out the pamor… now there’s a story (must have been an amazing set of events to arrive at the finished product the first time it was done)!!!

A. G. Maisey · 6th August 2006, 01:37 AM

BSM, the question you have raised is pretty much what Bronson set out to answer.

There is, as yet, no definitive answer, but it is probable that material from Luwu in Sulawesi was the first material used that contained nickel.

Then the Prambanan meteorite came along, and then Groneman introduced the Central Javanese makers to European nickel.

However, the actual technique of folding probably came along in much the same way as it did in Europe, as a necessity to produce material of good enough quality to use. This might have been introduced from India, or from the middle-east. I feel that the method of construction of a keris blade, with the steel core, and plates of pamor on either side, was probably just an outgrowth of the same technology. Along the way it acquired other attributes that in the end made it essential.

In this whole field there are probably enough unknowns to keep a team of professional reseachers busy for a couple of lifetimes. Never going to happen though.

The blade staining probably goes back to at least Majapahit, as the blades showing contrast are remarked upon in the Chinese annals. However, I strongly suspect that the use of acids in cleaning is a comparatively recent phenomenon. Maybe not more than a couple of hundred years old.

fearn · 6th August 2006, 04:00 PM

Hi Jeff and all,

Sorry I'm late to the discussion, but I'm not convinced that a microprobe would give a good answer to the percent of meteoric iron in a keris, especially an old one.

The unobvious problem is that keris blades are occasionally cleaned with an arsenic (As) solution, so the researcher has to factor in the accumulation (if any) from cleaning. Since it's not pure arsenic in the Indonesian cleaning solutions, this would take some experimentation.

The obvious problem is that the terrestrial iron isn't pure iron, nor is the carbon to make the steel pure carbon. There's going to be a mix of other trace elements that will have to be factored in. In old blades, the iron will not be to an industrial spec, but may have been smelted from ore in the village where the blade was made, or beaten together from recycled sources. Similarly,the carbon source can affect the trace element signature of the steel. For instance, coal picks up various heavy metals (such as mercury, the bane of the midwest US), and trees that are used to make charcoal typically accumulate some cesium (a byproduct of potassium metabolism), and some plants deliberately accumulate metals. As another example, one tree species in New Caledonia naturally accumulates so much nickel (as a chemical defense against herbivores) that the sap could be mined, if it was more common. Given that, in Indonesia, we're talking about one of the richest rainforest areas on the planet (i.e. lots of tree species), the tree species used into charcoal could affect the chemistry of the charcoal used to make the steel, affecting the chemical fingerprint of the resulting keris.

Complex? Yup. The only solution I've come up with so far is to get two blades from the smith, one a tool with no meteoric iron, the other a keris with some putative meteoric iron, both forged at roughly the same time, so they have the same source materials, aside from the meteoritic component. Then you can factor out the terrestrial sources. After that, you have to determine how cleaning the keris with the arsenic solution affects that blade's chemistry. Once you've done that, you can actually say how much of the keris is meteoric.

Bottom line, it will be difficult to predict or determine the trace element chemistry of the terrestrial component of keris, and without that information, it would be very, very difficult to detect the extraterrestrial material in a trace element analysis.

The "good" news is that an old keris is in many ways the worst case scenario. A blade forged with modern, industrial steel, made in the northern hemisphere from materials of known or knowable chemistry, would be much simpler to study

F

Jens Nordlunde · 6th August 2006, 05:23 PM

Hi Fearn,

This is most interesting, the only thing I can see which could make a difference is the greater pollution in the air to day than some hundred years ago – would this make a difference?

Jens

BSMStar · 7th August 2006, 12:17 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by fearn

The obvious problem is that the terrestrial iron isn't pure iron, nor is the carbon to make the steel pure carbon. There's going to be a mix of other trace elements that will have to be factored in.

Fearn, There are a number of Meteorites Labs that receive “large” numbers of unknown samples sent to them. Anything from mining slag to your common variety of earth rocks. The whole point of fingerprinting with trace elements is because the trace elements that are found in cosmic source materials are unique enough for positive identification. You can check against the database and identify what you have. You will know if it is an earth rock… or if it is Lunar (Lunars are a little different than earth rocks)… or Martian, which was a little more work (it was the trapped gassed that ID’ed these). It would be highly improbable that you would get at trace element (ratio/concentration) match by accident. If you have worked with these curves (not much unlike FT-IR), then you know what I mean,

Quote:

Originally Posted by fearn

The unobvious problem is that keris blades are occasionally cleaned with an arsenic (As) solution, so the researcher has to factor in the accumulation (if any) from cleaning. Since it's not pure arsenic in the Indonesian cleaning solutions, this would take some experimentation.

Surface contamination is an issue on any sample to be tested. This is the reason the surface is removed (polished), to reveal that actual material that you want to test.

fearn · 7th August 2006, 12:53 AM

I agree BSMStar, so long as we're talking about ID'ing meteorite samples.

When we're trying to ID the meteoric component in a knife made of mixed terrestrial and meteoric materials, it's a bit more complex. The blade is made of:
1) the meteoric material (with a readily identifiable asteroidal fingerprint?)
2) iron from a terrestrial source, with either a known or unknown chemical fingerprint depending on age and source, and
3) carbon (for steel) from a terrestrial source, that probably contains traces of contaminants such as cesium, mercury, or whatever, depending on the source of the carbon (charcoal, coal, etc).

I'll submit that this mixture can be deciphered if 2) and 3) are known--basically, in an industrial setting, especially where the steel is purchased and contains 2 and 3 already. In a non-industrial setting, such as with a century-plus old keris from somewhere in Java, it will be extraordinarily difficult to decipher all three, since we have little idea about the source any of the ingredients.

F

BSMStar · 7th August 2006, 01:20 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by fearn

I agree BSMStar, so long as we're talking about ID'ing meteorite samples.

When we're trying to ID the meteoric component in a knife made of mixed terrestrial and meteoric materials, it's a bit more complex.

Fearn, the distribution for elements in cosmic sources is different than terrestrial sources. It’s that simple and that unique. I do not know how to better explain it. It is a matter of being able to detect that fingerprint in a diluted form. I believe it is possible if the concentration of meteoritic material is high enough. The only issue would be if an exotic alloy was used with the fingerprint traces as ingredients… not likely in a 200 year old Keris.

Also, keep in mind that meteorites are older than earth rocks. We are not looking at Rubidium/Strontium ratios (good age indicators), but are not the trace indicators we are looking for (not looking specifically for isotopes, we are looking at elemental abundance - unless something has changed in the pass thirty some years).

Also, (let me add) in the field of Tektites, LDG (Libyan Desert Glass) has a very small amount of a meteoritic component, that is traceable back to a chondritic impactor. LDG is believed to be earth rock impactites (as are all true Tektites), created during an “impact” event. Talk about an unknown mix and meteoritic dilution… but the fingerprint is still there.

Fearn, you have the last word.

Mare Rosu · 6th August 2006, 05:36 PM

Great information on testing for trace elements. Obvious to me we have some heavy hitters at bat here

I have some knowledge of Neutron Activation Analysis testing from my Georgia Tech days. I wonder if anyone has tried or has any knowledge of it?
For anyone interested, this is a Link to some information about it, I found it using Google search. one side effect is that the item is now radioactive and depending on the isotope half life it may be a while before it decays down.

http://www.missouri.edu/~glascock/naa_over.htm

Gene

Jeff Pringle · 6th August 2006, 07:42 PM

See what happens when you use the words 'meteorite' and 'dagger' in a thread title, Gene?

It had occured to me that pre-industrial iron would have a different (and more variable) chemical signature; I suspect it would not cause too much noise to obscure the extra-terrestrial signature over all the potential elements...there might be archaeological papers that have previous analyses on old keris, one could check them against modern steel & look for differences.

fearn · 6th August 2006, 08:09 PM

You're certainly right about that, Jeff. To be honest, I only read the thread because I'd just finished reading about the "Arctic Iron Age"--where the Inuit and Dorset peoples before them made tool blades out of meteoric iron for, I don't know, a thousand years or so. Another story.

Anyway, I think it'd be a great subject for a metallurgy/archeology PhD--looking at Indonesian blade making, and determining how much of the steel's chemical composition/isotopic signature depends on the metal source, how much depends on the carbon and fuel sources, and how much depends on the arsenic staining (at least in the keris blades). It would be interesting to know if there is enough information to determine things like blade origin (or origin of materials) or blade age through a test.

Not something I'd want to do, although I'd be happy to help analyze the data for patterns. Oh well, something to dream about.

F

6th August 2006, 05:36 PM	#8
Mare Rosu Deceased Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: USA, DEEP SOUTH, GEORGIA, Y'all hear? Posts: 121	Trace element testing Great information on testing for trace elements. Obvious to me we have some heavy hitters at bat here I have some knowledge of Neutron Activation Analysis testing from my Georgia Tech days. I wonder if anyone has tried or has any knowledge of it? For anyone interested, this is a Link to some information about it, I found it using Google search. one side effect is that the item is now radioactive and depending on the isotope half life it may be a while before it decays down. http://www.missouri.edu/~glascock/naa_over.htm Gene

6th August 2006, 01:14 AM	#1
BSMStar Member Join Date: Jan 2005 Location: Kansas City, MO USA Posts: 312	With the Keris, I have always wondered… how did the method of folding two alloys come into being? The very early Keris did not contain nickel, and relied on two alloys of iron. Somewhere along the line, either nickel or meteorite material was introduced. Which came first? When I was first introduced to the Keris, I was left with the impression that the nickel in the pamor came from meteorites…. But maybe the nickel rich iron deposits created this pamor first. Adding heavenly iron was just to help with the connection of the cosmic. A history of Keris alloys would be fascinating to see. Add to this the “staining” of the blade to bring out the pamor… now there’s a story (must have been an amazing set of events to arrive at the finished product the first time it was done)!!!

6th August 2006, 01:37 AM	#2
A. G. Maisey Member Join Date: May 2006 Posts: 7,015	BSM, the question you have raised is pretty much what Bronson set out to answer. There is, as yet, no definitive answer, but it is probable that material from Luwu in Sulawesi was the first material used that contained nickel. Then the Prambanan meteorite came along, and then Groneman introduced the Central Javanese makers to European nickel. However, the actual technique of folding probably came along in much the same way as it did in Europe, as a necessity to produce material of good enough quality to use. This might have been introduced from India, or from the middle-east. I feel that the method of construction of a keris blade, with the steel core, and plates of pamor on either side, was probably just an outgrowth of the same technology. Along the way it acquired other attributes that in the end made it essential. In this whole field there are probably enough unknowns to keep a team of professional reseachers busy for a couple of lifetimes. Never going to happen though. The blade staining probably goes back to at least Majapahit, as the blades showing contrast are remarked upon in the Chinese annals. However, I strongly suspect that the use of acids in cleaning is a comparatively recent phenomenon. Maybe not more than a couple of hundred years old.

6th August 2006, 04:00 PM	#3
fearn Member Join Date: Dec 2004 Posts: 1,247	Hi Jeff and all, Sorry I'm late to the discussion, but I'm not convinced that a microprobe would give a good answer to the percent of meteoric iron in a keris, especially an old one. The unobvious problem is that keris blades are occasionally cleaned with an arsenic (As) solution, so the researcher has to factor in the accumulation (if any) from cleaning. Since it's not pure arsenic in the Indonesian cleaning solutions, this would take some experimentation. The obvious problem is that the terrestrial iron isn't pure iron, nor is the carbon to make the steel pure carbon. There's going to be a mix of other trace elements that will have to be factored in. In old blades, the iron will not be to an industrial spec, but may have been smelted from ore in the village where the blade was made, or beaten together from recycled sources. Similarly,the carbon source can affect the trace element signature of the steel. For instance, coal picks up various heavy metals (such as mercury, the bane of the midwest US), and trees that are used to make charcoal typically accumulate some cesium (a byproduct of potassium metabolism), and some plants deliberately accumulate metals. As another example, one tree species in New Caledonia naturally accumulates so much nickel (as a chemical defense against herbivores) that the sap could be mined, if it was more common. Given that, in Indonesia, we're talking about one of the richest rainforest areas on the planet (i.e. lots of tree species), the tree species used into charcoal could affect the chemistry of the charcoal used to make the steel, affecting the chemical fingerprint of the resulting keris. Complex? Yup. The only solution I've come up with so far is to get two blades from the smith, one a tool with no meteoric iron, the other a keris with some putative meteoric iron, both forged at roughly the same time, so they have the same source materials, aside from the meteoritic component. Then you can factor out the terrestrial sources. After that, you have to determine how cleaning the keris with the arsenic solution affects that blade's chemistry. Once you've done that, you can actually say how much of the keris is meteoric. Bottom line, it will be difficult to predict or determine the trace element chemistry of the terrestrial component of keris, and without that information, it would be very, very difficult to detect the extraterrestrial material in a trace element analysis. The "good" news is that an old keris is in many ways the worst case scenario. A blade forged with modern, industrial steel, made in the northern hemisphere from materials of known or knowable chemistry, would be much simpler to study F

6th August 2006, 05:23 PM	#4
Jens Nordlunde Member Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Europe Posts: 2,718	Hi Fearn, This is most interesting, the only thing I can see which could make a difference is the greater pollution in the air to day than some hundred years ago – would this make a difference? Jens

7th August 2006, 12:53 AM	#6
fearn Member Join Date: Dec 2004 Posts: 1,247	I agree BSMStar, so long as we're talking about ID'ing meteorite samples. When we're trying to ID the meteoric component in a knife made of mixed terrestrial and meteoric materials, it's a bit more complex. The blade is made of: 1) the meteoric material (with a readily identifiable asteroidal fingerprint?) 2) iron from a terrestrial source, with either a known or unknown chemical fingerprint depending on age and source, and 3) carbon (for steel) from a terrestrial source, that probably contains traces of contaminants such as cesium, mercury, or whatever, depending on the source of the carbon (charcoal, coal, etc). I'll submit that this mixture can be deciphered if 2) and 3) are known--basically, in an industrial setting, especially where the steel is purchased and contains 2 and 3 already. In a non-industrial setting, such as with a century-plus old keris from somewhere in Java, it will be extraordinarily difficult to decipher all three, since we have little idea about the source any of the ingredients. F

6th August 2006, 07:42 PM	#9
Jeff Pringle Member Join Date: Nov 2005 Posts: 189	See what happens when you use the words 'meteorite' and 'dagger' in a thread title, Gene? It had occured to me that pre-industrial iron would have a different (and more variable) chemical signature; I suspect it would not cause too much noise to obscure the extra-terrestrial signature over all the potential elements...there might be archaeological papers that have previous analyses on old keris, one could check them against modern steel & look for differences.

6th August 2006, 08:09 PM	#10
fearn Member Join Date: Dec 2004 Posts: 1,247	You're certainly right about that, Jeff. To be honest, I only read the thread because I'd just finished reading about the "Arctic Iron Age"--where the Inuit and Dorset peoples before them made tool blades out of meteoric iron for, I don't know, a thousand years or so. Another story. Anyway, I think it'd be a great subject for a metallurgy/archeology PhD--looking at Indonesian blade making, and determining how much of the steel's chemical composition/isotopic signature depends on the metal source, how much depends on the carbon and fuel sources, and how much depends on the arsenic staining (at least in the keris blades). It would be interesting to know if there is enough information to determine things like blade origin (or origin of materials) or blade age through a test. Not something I'd want to do, although I'd be happy to help analyze the data for patterns. Oh well, something to dream about. F