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

[Ian]

A recent article (appended to this post as a PDF file) published in Meteoritic and Planetary Science makes a very strong case that a dagger found in King Tutankhamun's tomb in 1925 is actually made of iron from a meteor.

King Tut lived in the 14th C BCE at a time when Egyptian metallurgy was thought to be fairly rudimentary. Although iron ore was readily available to the Egyptians, there is no historical record of them smelting iron ore before about 500 BCE. Prior to that time, whatever iron they used appears to have come from meteors. As a result iron was even rarer than gold, and objects made of iron were reserved for kings and nobility.

King Tut's dagger is a magnificent piece of craftsmanship, with iron work that is much more advanced than suspected for this time. The picture below of this knife comes from the same article: it shows a double edged, symmetrical blade with a hilt of gold and rock crystal. The sheath is gold.

Not surprisingly, this dagger has raised substantial questions about the state of Egyptian metallurgy and iron work. The Egyptians of the time seem to have known the source of this iron, because they used an expression for it that means "iron from the sky."

The article is worth reading for its historical perspectives about Egyptian metal crafts in the time of King Tut--it also happens to be pretty solid scientifically for those who are into metallurgy. Here is the Abstract of the article if you don't want to download it:

Scholars have long discussed the introduction and spread of iron metallurgy in different civilizations. The sporadic use of iron has been reported in the Eastern Mediterranean area from the late Neolithic period to the Bronze Age. Despite the rare existence of smelted iron, it is generally assumed that early iron objects were produced from meteoritic iron. Nevertheless, the methods of working the metal, its use, and diffusion are contentious issues compromised by lack of detailed analysis. Since its discovery in 1925, the meteoritic origin of the iron dagger blade from the sarcophagus of the ancient Egyptian King Tutankhamun (14th C. BCE) has been the subject of debate and previous analyses yielded controversial results. We show that the composition of the blade (Fe plus 10.8 wt% Ni and 0.58 wt% Co), accurately determined through portable x-ray fluorescence spectrometry, strongly supports its meteoritic origin. In agreement with recent results of metallographic analysis of ancient iron artifacts from Gerzeh, our study confirms that ancient Egyptians attributed great value to meteoritic iron for the production of precious objects. Moreover, the high manufacturing quality of Tutankhamun’s dagger blade, in comparison with other simple-shaped meteoritic iron artifacts, suggests a significant mastery of ironworking in Tutankhamun’s time.

Ian.

[Roland_M]

Thank you for the article.

Yes, this dagger is pretty strange. It is known since many decades, that this dagger is made from meteroid-iron, centuries before the smelting of iron in Egypt.

But there is at least one huge problem! This dagger is laminated, very skillfully laminated. How in all the world the Egyptians could know how to fold steel if they are totally unexperienced with this material and technique? The making of a steel blade is totally different compared to a bronze sword. Meteroid iron is often very difficult to forge. Very very strange circumstances.

Roland

[Ian]

Roland,

As you say, it is indeed a mystery as to how the Egyptians of that period knew how to manufacture such a dagger. The dating of the dagger to Tut's period is clearly established, and yet the technology used in manufacturing the blade is centuries before its time. The "alien origins" theorists would have a simple answer.

Ian.

[kronckew]

interesting google find:

...it does not solve the problem of whether this is smelted or terrestrial iron. This question really needs to be properly investigated. If I remember correctly, Michel Valloggia discusses (in Mediterranean Archaeology 14, 2001) the slightly earlier letter from Armana in which a Hittite ruler makes excuses to his Egyptian counterpart for not sending the iron that the latter had requested, and he (Valloggia) argues that the Tutankhamum dagger is one such gift. Why is it necessary to know whether this object is meteoritic or smelted iron? Because it is one of the best-preserved iron objects from the period when iron was just starting to become available to elites in Anatolia (during the New Hittite period, 1400-1200 BCE). There are few contemporary iron artefacts known from Anatolia itself - most of what we know about Hittite iron is from contemporary documents.

ref: LINKY

the world is much stranger than we think. our histories are fragmented, especially back then. there were extensive trade networks around the WHOLE world well before we know. and even battery driven plating, and other technologies we in our smug world view look on as mysteries.

bronze is cheap, easy to produce and cast and corrosion resistant, iron is slightly better than bronze as weaponry, if made correctly, but a whole lot more work to get right, thus very expensive. especially as it corrodes and goes back to the gods a whole lot faster than bronze.

not much incentive to use it for more that expensive gifts until it became a lot more commercially viable & available. the hyksos conquests of northern egypt in 1700bc may have introduced the egyptians to iron, ramases battles against the hittites certainly did. the climate helped preserve tut's dagger, while the hittites,, in anatolia, left essentially no iron artifacts.

'nother linky

Egypt:time line

[stekemest]

and even battery driven plating

You may refer to the so-called "Baghdad batteries". That they were really batteries is just speculation. They could have also been vessels for holy scriptures.

[Ian]

My main reason for posting the article on King Tut's dagger is that the data it presents--that the blade comes from meteoritic iron and shows a degree of ironwork more advanced than evidenced by other examples of Egyptian iron work from that period--was to emphasize that a scientific approach to analyzing the blade has resolved, as far as possible, the origins of the iron from which it was made. One item of debate has been settled.

There has indeed been much speculation about the origins of this knife and whether it may have been a gift from another culture. Whether the Hittites had more advanced knowledge of iron working is possible, but such examples are lacking. So we are largely left with conjecture. Separating facts from myths is difficult given the distance of time.

Ian

[Timo Nieminen]

Originally Posted by Roland_M

But there is at least one huge problem! This dagger is laminated, very skillfully laminated. How in all the world the Egyptians could know how to fold steel if they are totally unexperienced with this material and technique? The making of a steel blade is totally different compared to a bronze sword. Meteroid iron is often very difficult to forge. Very very strange circumstances.

This I haven't heard before, that it's laminated. I'm interested in more info - any references?

[A. G. Maisey]

The nature of meteoritic material means that it must be laminated if it is to be used in a blade, except where it has been cut directly from the body of the meteorite, and in this case that does not appear to be so.

[Timo Nieminen]

There are plenty of examples of non-laminated meteoric iron blades, notably cold-forged blades. However, those are usually small. I don't know of any the size of Tutankhamun's dagger (21cm long blade).

Reading further I find: the other meteoric iron objects from Tutankhamun's grave are cold-forged. Apparently the dagger is the exception. The dagger blade is also possibly (probably?) not Egyptian in origin, but might be one of the iron blades given to Amenhotep III (Tutankhamun's grandfather (probably)), by King Tushratta of the Mittanni.

[Ian]

Originally Posted by Timo Nieminen

There are plenty of examples of non-laminated meteoric iron blades, notably cold-forged blades. However, those are usually small. I don't know of any the size of Tutankhamun's dagger (21cm long blade).

Timo, thank you for noting the important fact that non-forged examples of meteoritic items are usually very small. This seems to be a common finding of that time period.

Reading further I find: the other meteoric iron objects from Tutankhamun's grave are cold-forged.

I think that is a key part of the mystery, and the unresolved question about the state of Egyptian iron work at that time.

Apparently the dagger is the exception. The dagger blade is also possibly (probably?) not Egyptian in origin, but might be one of the iron blades given to Amenhotep III (Tutankhamun's grandfather (probably)), by King Tushratta of the Mittanni.

Possibly, but again we are into the realm of speculation. The historic records do not allow us to claim with any confidence that this dagger was a gift from another culture to Tutankhamun or one of his ancestors, or whether it was actually of Egyptian manufacture. We are talking about one of the earliest examples of an iron knife that has survived in a remarkable state of preservation, and I find it frustrating that we know so little about who made it.

[Ian]

Originally Posted by A. G. Maisey

The nature of meteoritic material means that it must be laminated if it is to be used in a blade, except where it has been cut directly from the body of the meteorite, and in this case that does not appear to be so.

Excellent point, Alan, and one that is exemplified by the meteoritic examples of keris blades that you have discussed a number of times on these fora.