King Tut's dagger--a blade of meteroritic iron - Page 2

Timo Nieminen · 8th June 2016, 10:18 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by David

[...] the latest XRF measurements have identified the make-up of the blade to be identical to the make-up of a meteorite found near the Kharga Oasis, not far from the tomb itself.

Not that identical; the Ni/Co ratio in that meteorite is 40% higher than that of the dagger. It was just the closest of the 20 finds from within 2000km.

It's quite possible that the original meteorite from which the dagger was made was all used, either for this blade or this blade + other purposes. If it was all used, with none left, no original meteorite will ever be identified.

A. G. Maisey · 9th June 2016, 01:46 AM

I said it took me 12 months to learn to successfully forge weld materials with different qualities, and it did, in fact it took me longer than that. But I should clarify, I wasn't working on it 40 hours a week, if I think back and add the hours, it was probably something like about 1000 hours.

If I had been able to start with good coke, it would have taken less time, because you cannot weld in coal, the coal must first be coked, and even that process is not so easy, but I was taught how to do that.

It may be possible for a trained smith to learn to weld different materials in much less time than it took me to learn by trial and error, but the fact remains that in Britain in the 19th century and before there were whole communities of smiths, none of whom were able to do more than the most simple welds of wrought iron.

In fact, when I was looking for somebody to teach me how to weld high carbon steel in the forge I was told repeatedly by my own teacher, and by every other working blacksmith I approached, as well as by the several blacksmithing teachers at tech colleges, that I approached, that it was not possible to weld high carbon steel in the forge, nor was it possible to forge weld nickel with high carbon steel and wrought iron.

However, a gentleman named Bill Moran in the USA was regularly taking these welds successfully --- not sure whether he did nickel or not --- so it could be done.

These days, and particularly with gas forges and the spread of knowledge, there are many people who can take these welds, but back in the 1960's, 1970's it was a totally different story.

To return to history, in some villages in old England, the smiths needed to send welding jobs to a smith in a different village because they could not even weld wrought iron successfully.

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.

Kubur · 9th June 2016, 07:06 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jim McDougall

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.

I agree it's impossible that people added an object later.
Kharga is also a very famous Egyptian oasis. Maybe the place of origin for this iron, meteroritic or not...
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science...90997716300050

Ibrahiim al Balooshi · 9th June 2016, 02:56 PM

Jahingir’s Meteor Dagger

Given to him by a loyal tax collector, Mughal Emperor Jahangir had a meteorite forged into a pair of swords and this dagger.

Like his Empire, he saw it as a gift from God. The tax collector said that as his men dug from the meteorite, the ground grew hot and the stone was molten; his men had to wait for it to cool before moving it.

Showing below.....James Sowerby was a noted artist and historian of natural science, even hosting his own museum that had meteorites on display. As a gift for Czar Alexander I, Sowerby had the Cape of Good Hope meteorite forged into a gift for the Emperor. It took years for the Czar to receive the sword, and for a time it was lost.

Both exhibits and detail from http://www.ripleys.com/blog/meteorite-swords/

Ian · 10th June 2016, 08:42 PM

I want to join with Jim and thank everyone for their thoughtful inputs into this discussion and for their expression of diverse opinions that reflect the spectrum of ideas that this dagger has generated since its discovery in the 1920s.

It seems there is much more to be learn about the origins of this dagger, how it was made, and how it ended up in an Egyptian tomb that was undisturbed for more than 3,300 years.

Ian

kronckew · 10th June 2016, 09:51 PM

i stole it from the museum in 2021 after the restoration of the royal family, went back in time with the wayback machine that stewey & brian lent me, to 1921, put the dagger in the tomb and returned home.

and here's a picture of the scarab i took from it to prove i'd been there.

(this is a real egyptian scarab that has been in the great pyramid as well as tut's tomb back in the '80s - really

)

9th June 2016, 02:56 PM	#35
Ibrahiim al Balooshi Member Join Date: Jul 2006 Location: Buraimi Oman, on the border with the UAE Posts: 4,408	Jahingir’s Meteor Dagger Given to him by a loyal tax collector, Mughal Emperor Jahangir had a meteorite forged into a pair of swords and this dagger. Like his Empire, he saw it as a gift from God. The tax collector said that as his men dug from the meteorite, the ground grew hot and the stone was molten; his men had to wait for it to cool before moving it. Showing below.....James Sowerby was a noted artist and historian of natural science, even hosting his own museum that had meteorites on display. As a gift for Czar Alexander I, Sowerby had the Cape of Good Hope meteorite forged into a gift for the Emperor. It took years for the Czar to receive the sword, and for a time it was lost. Both exhibits and detail from http://www.ripleys.com/blog/meteorite-swords/ Attached Images Last edited by Ibrahiim al Balooshi; 9th June 2016 at 03:08 PM.

10th June 2016, 09:51 PM	#37
kronckew Member Join Date: Mar 2006 Location: Room 101, Glos. UK Posts: 4,181	i stole it from the museum in 2021 after the restoration of the royal family, went back in time with the wayback machine that stewey & brian lent me, to 1921, put the dagger in the tomb and returned home. and here's a picture of the scarab i took from it to prove i'd been there. (this is a real egyptian scarab that has been in the great pyramid as well as tut's tomb back in the '80s - really ) Attached Images

9th June 2016, 01:46 AM	#32
A. G. Maisey Member Join Date: May 2006 Posts: 6,888	I said it took me 12 months to learn to successfully forge weld materials with different qualities, and it did, in fact it took me longer than that. But I should clarify, I wasn't working on it 40 hours a week, if I think back and add the hours, it was probably something like about 1000 hours. If I had been able to start with good coke, it would have taken less time, because you cannot weld in coal, the coal must first be coked, and even that process is not so easy, but I was taught how to do that. It may be possible for a trained smith to learn to weld different materials in much less time than it took me to learn by trial and error, but the fact remains that in Britain in the 19th century and before there were whole communities of smiths, none of whom were able to do more than the most simple welds of wrought iron. In fact, when I was looking for somebody to teach me how to weld high carbon steel in the forge I was told repeatedly by my own teacher, and by every other working blacksmith I approached, as well as by the several blacksmithing teachers at tech colleges, that I approached, that it was not possible to weld high carbon steel in the forge, nor was it possible to forge weld nickel with high carbon steel and wrought iron. However, a gentleman named Bill Moran in the USA was regularly taking these welds successfully --- not sure whether he did nickel or not --- so it could be done. These days, and particularly with gas forges and the spread of knowledge, there are many people who can take these welds, but back in the 1960's, 1970's it was a totally different story. To return to history, in some villages in old England, the smiths needed to send welding jobs to a smith in a different village because they could not even weld wrought iron successfully.

9th June 2016, 03:32 AM	#33
Jim McDougall Arms Historian Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Route 66 Posts: 9,942	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.

10th June 2016, 08:42 PM	#36
Ian Vikingsword Staff Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: The Aussie Bush Posts: 4,197	I want to join with Jim and thank everyone for their thoughtful inputs into this discussion and for their expression of diverse opinions that reflect the spectrum of ideas that this dagger has generated since its discovery in the 1920s. It seems there is much more to be learn about the origins of this dagger, how it was made, and how it ended up in an Egyptian tomb that was undisturbed for more than 3,300 years. Ian