Ethnographic Arms & Armour - View Single Post - King Tut's dagger--a blade of meteroritic iron

Jim McDougall · 9th June 2016, 03:32 AM

As someone who has pretty much zero knowledge or experience in metallurgy welding etc. I must say this discussion is fascinating! and I especially appreciate the outstanding manner maintained in differences in opinion or perspective......textbook!!!

I was surprised to see the notes suggesting that this dagger may have been forged later and placed in the tomb at later date. I had always thought that the tomb of King Tut was unique in that it was quite undisturbed from its original time of interment.

Interesting notes from David affirming that any intrusion into the tomb was of course to rob, not deposit items and these events were very close to the time of interment.....that makes sense.
Also, as well noted, the dagger was in the sarcophagus, not elsewhere in the array of items placed with the burial.

It does seem to me that the fact that King Tut's dagger was indeed of meteoric iron has been well known for decades, and that that iron was known to the Egyptians as they did not have access to supplies of iron nor those skills. I had understood that the iron weapons such as sickle swords (khopesh) were from those acquired from Canaanites (?).

What was key in this 'news' was that apparently a study of meteorites which had fallen in Red Sea and environs revealed about 20 cases, and that in 2000, one which had hit in a limestone plateau near Mersa Matruh, a seaport about 150 miles west of Alexandria.
It was noted in the article I read that this particular meteorite had been named 'Kharga' and that scientific testing revealed that the nickel and cobalt composition was in accord with that of the King Tut dagger.
It was noted that the high quality of the blade of this dagger showed that Egyptian iron smithing was at a much higher level in 14th c. B.C. than previously thought

It also noted that among the Tut artifacts was a scarab amulet of what Carter (in 1922) thought was greenish yellow chalcedony.....however further tests on this object revealed it to be desert silica glass from Libya. This material is consistent with sites of meteor or comet impact.

Therefore it would seem that the discovery confirming these characteristics would preclude the notion that this blade might have been from a period later than Tut's original interment.

9th June 2016, 03:32 AM	#33
Jim McDougall Arms Historian Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Route 66 Posts: 10,142	As someone who has pretty much zero knowledge or experience in metallurgy welding etc. I must say this discussion is fascinating! and I especially appreciate the outstanding manner maintained in differences in opinion or perspective......textbook!!! I was surprised to see the notes suggesting that this dagger may have been forged later and placed in the tomb at later date. I had always thought that the tomb of King Tut was unique in that it was quite undisturbed from its original time of interment. Interesting notes from David affirming that any intrusion into the tomb was of course to rob, not deposit items and these events were very close to the time of interment.....that makes sense. Also, as well noted, the dagger was in the sarcophagus, not elsewhere in the array of items placed with the burial. It does seem to me that the fact that King Tut's dagger was indeed of meteoric iron has been well known for decades, and that that iron was known to the Egyptians as they did not have access to supplies of iron nor those skills. I had understood that the iron weapons such as sickle swords (khopesh) were from those acquired from Canaanites (?). What was key in this 'news' was that apparently a study of meteorites which had fallen in Red Sea and environs revealed about 20 cases, and that in 2000, one which had hit in a limestone plateau near Mersa Matruh, a seaport about 150 miles west of Alexandria. It was noted in the article I read that this particular meteorite had been named 'Kharga' and that scientific testing revealed that the nickel and cobalt composition was in accord with that of the King Tut dagger. It was noted that the high quality of the blade of this dagger showed that Egyptian iron smithing was at a much higher level in 14th c. B.C. than previously thought It also noted that among the Tut artifacts was a scarab amulet of what Carter (in 1922) thought was greenish yellow chalcedony.....however further tests on this object revealed it to be desert silica glass from Libya. This material is consistent with sites of meteor or comet impact. Therefore it would seem that the discovery confirming these characteristics would preclude the notion that this blade might have been from a period later than Tut's original interment.