|
15th December 2017, 12:29 AM | #1 |
EAAF Staff
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Louisville, KY
Posts: 7,219
|
Meteoric Blades on Bronze Age Weapons
Greetings folks,
Here is a link to a short article discussing the new finding that iron blades on bronze age weaponry were not from smelting but from meteorites: https://newatlas.com/bronze-age-iron...eorites/52474/ Here is a picture of the actual burial dagger of the Pharaoh Tutankamun. Notice the iron blade: |
15th December 2017, 07:44 AM | #2 | |
Member
Join Date: Aug 2014
Location: Germany
Posts: 525
|
Quote:
In this case the humans must have had a giant genius, because the Tut-dagger is pretty obviously differential hardened and how in all the world had they found out this technique with small amounts of iron from meteorites? Differential hardening is a completely different world compared to bronce. Maybe they had larger ammounts of iron than we think. Iron from vulcanic activities? Roland |
|
15th December 2017, 09:55 AM | #3 |
Member
Join Date: Sep 2014
Location: Austria
Posts: 1,903
|
Hello Roland,
Can you please substantiate the asertion that Tutankhamon's blade was differentially hardened? Regards, Marius PS: I attach a couple of example of blades that display a difference in oxidation around the edge and are NOT differentially hardened (if you take a Magbetu knife from the photos below and clean a little bit more the forging oxidation from the surface of the blade, you may end up exactly with the type of visual effect you noticed on Tutankhamon's blade). Last edited by mariusgmioc; 15th December 2017 at 10:18 AM. |
15th December 2017, 11:45 AM | #4 | |
Member
Join Date: Aug 2014
Location: Germany
Posts: 525
|
Quote:
I can only judge by the pictures, I never had King Tuts dagger in my hands. But almost every picture of this particular dagger shows a brighter area around the edges, which is normally a sign for a complex heat treatment. King Tuts dagger is fully polished, your examples only have a grinded/polished cutting edge, typical for Africa. The upper curved blades are artificially blackened. To be 100% sure, I need to polish and etch this dagger . My personal theory is very simple. I believe, that there was a unknown sophisticated culture like the fictional Atlantis, which brought the knowledge to Egypt and other parts of the world. Regards, Roland Last edited by Roland_M; 15th December 2017 at 11:58 AM. |
|
15th December 2017, 12:15 PM | #5 |
Member
Join Date: Jan 2008
Posts: 1,430
|
There are instances of Inuit peoples making iron spear/harpoon points etc from fallen meteorites (beaten out cold)...
|
15th December 2017, 12:50 PM | #6 | |
Member
Join Date: Aug 2014
Location: Germany
Posts: 525
|
Quote:
Yes, many collectors including myself have a tendency to underestimate the capabilities of ancient or native cultures. But compared to the King Tut dagger Inuit people iron works are cold hammered, realtively simple and not much bigger than a thumb nail. http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencete...s-weapons.html King Tuts dagger is an evidence for sophisticated working on steel 1000 years before the use of steel was wide spreaded. As with the pyramids the Egyptians startet a new technology at an extraordinary high level. I think this a very strange fact. Roland Last edited by Roland_M; 15th December 2017 at 01:20 PM. |
|
15th December 2017, 05:51 PM | #7 | |
Member
Join Date: Sep 2014
Location: Austria
Posts: 1,903
|
Quote:
I believe that your theory is based on wrong and unsubstantiated assumptions, therefore it is quite susceptible to be wrong. First not substantiated assumption is that Tutankhamon's knife is made of meteoritic iron. Second not substantiated assumption is that the knife shows evidence of advanced iron processing (namely differential hardening). Last, but not least while Tutankhammon has lived about 1000 years before the use of iron was widely spread, he also lived at least 100 years after the first iron blades were made (in central Anatolia and in India; while some claim the earliest smelted iron blades were made around 1800 BC, namely around 500 years before Tutankhamon lived). But in the end we all believe what we want to believe. Regards, Marius Last edited by mariusgmioc; 15th December 2017 at 09:12 PM. |
|
15th December 2017, 07:33 PM | #8 | |
Member
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Ann Arbor, MI
Posts: 5,503
|
Quote:
|
|
15th December 2017, 09:18 PM | #9 | |
Member
Join Date: Sep 2014
Location: Austria
Posts: 1,903
|
Quote:
I wrongly added one extra "0" in my original posting but I corrected it now. I meant to say that he lived at least one hundred years later (not 1000) as the most consevative oppinions date the use of smelted iron around 1400 BC. Anyhow, during his time, Iron blades were certainly available, albeit very scarce but he was the pharaon of Egypt. And only about 100 years after his death (around 1200 BC), Iron Age officially begun... at least in parts of Asia. Last edited by mariusgmioc; 15th December 2017 at 09:30 PM. |
|
15th December 2017, 09:31 PM | #10 |
Member
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 6,887
|
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. |
15th December 2017, 10:01 PM | #11 |
Member
Join Date: Sep 2014
Location: Austria
Posts: 1,903
|
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. Last edited by mariusgmioc; 15th December 2017 at 10:17 PM. |
15th December 2017, 04:25 PM | #12 | |
Keris forum moderator
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Nova Scotia
Posts: 7,119
|
Quote:
http://juneauempire.com/art/2015-05-...hidden-history That said i must say that i am really not completely convinced that the method with which the King Tut dagger was determined to be made from meteorite is 100% fool proof. The make-up of this blade is still all of elements that can be found terrestrially. That it is similar to the make-up of know meteoric blades makes this more a maybe for me than a sure thing. Last edited by David; 15th December 2017 at 05:25 PM. |
|
15th December 2017, 05:11 PM | #13 |
Member
Join Date: May 2014
Location: Ireland
Posts: 543
|
sorry double post
|
16th December 2017, 09:20 AM | #14 | |
Member
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Room 101, Glos. UK
Posts: 4,181
|
Quote:
Trade routes were much farther afield and well developed much further back than we think, and we find they were even further back the more we discover new evidence. heck, even the early romans preferred silk clothes. |
|
16th December 2017, 12:25 PM | #15 |
Member
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Ann Arbor, MI
Posts: 5,503
|
A very famous and highly professional and talented bladesmith from Russia by the name Leonid Arkhangelski described in his book “ Damascus Steel” his attempts to make a knife blade out of a meteorite. It was an abject failure: whether cold or hot, it crumbled under the hammer. Eventually, he had to mix regular iron with small quantities of meteorite pieces, melt it completely and only then was he able to make a blade with a very symbolic meteorite content.
AFAIK, bladesmiths from Java also added tiny amounts of the Prambanan meteorite to their krises. Thus, I doubt the pure meteorite origin of the Tut’s blade. IMHO, it is a single example imported from a society wth available iron ores. Although we do not know composition of the purported Tut’s meteorite, Occam usually rules. |
16th December 2017, 12:50 PM | #16 | |
Member
Join Date: Sep 2014
Location: Austria
Posts: 1,903
|
Quote:
Maybe Mr. Arkhangelski experimented with the wrong type of meteorite. I have a couple of meteorite fragments from the Campo del Cielo meteorite and they are almost pure iron-nickel alloy (93% Iron, about 7% Ni and the rest a mixture of Co, P, Ge, etc. in negligible quantities). I don't see how such meteorite cannot be worked hot or even cold. |
|
16th December 2017, 03:06 PM | #17 | |
Keris forum moderator
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Nova Scotia
Posts: 7,119
|
Quote:
This photo from the Alaska State Library Historical Collections is part of the Vincent Soboleff Photograph Collection, ca. 1896-1920. The description of the photo reads "The man holding the dagger is Gusht'eiheen (Spray Behind the Dorsal Fin) of the Killerwhale House of the Dakl'aweidí Clan in Angoon. The dagger he is holding was made by a man named Kucheesh, from a meteorite that fell near Klukwan. When it's brought out in public the words to announce its arrival are "This came to us from the sky." |
|
16th December 2017, 07:31 PM | #18 |
Member
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Room 101, Glos. UK
Posts: 4,181
|
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. Last edited by kronckew; 16th December 2017 at 07:48 PM. |
17th December 2017, 12:21 PM | #19 | |
Member
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: musorian territory
Posts: 422
|
Quote:
russians were very active and them and the spanish took people form hawaii to the american continant to work.. hudsons bay company recruited some of these guys and the had hawaiian workers in the pacific.. also russians took natives from siberia and the took natives from alaska to southern california.. much of the russian crews were siberians.. i think yakutians made up a large part as well as other far eastern groups. many of these guys were skilled metal workers in their own culture. although it seems russians mainly took goods to trade mostly vorsma ect made blades. kondrat (a german migrant family involved in knife production) being a common marker of the trade blades (now the previously state owned company "trud") additionally the natives of the pacific always had had metal- both copper and meteorite iron and had their own pre-contact bladed weapons.. the antenna daggers are a good example being of a specific design.. i.e one side of the blade is flat like some japanese weapons.. in that time the spanish and later the americas were bringing a lot of goods form china as well. furniture. trinkets, ceramics ect whaling ships were very active up the coas. and in fact the americas were also very active in the russia far east with Sakhalin island having american whaling bases and in fact shantar islands with particularly big shantar island being pretty much occupied only by americans and natives. these people couldnt trade in the Manchurian empire at the time with the russians having that special agreement between them and the manchus and a monopoly in that region. so as they were sealing and trading furs as well in the 18th centuary and early 19th centuray. and the closest furm market was manchuria korea and japan.. i have no dount that they traded for mostly chinese korean and japanese goods to the russian and chinese japanese and korean traders in the area and then took those good back to north america with their cargos of whale seal ect and would probably bring sea otter and beaver to asia from the north east on the way there. so they too could be a source of the coins. the americans got around.. they were also active in parts of the northern siberian coast in that period. .. .. |
|
|
|