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

[Timo Nieminen]

Two questions:

Originally Posted by Roland_M

The picture with the red arrow clearly shows signs of a lamination process.

Are you including iron repeatedly folded on itself (e.g., to remove slag, for homogeneity, etc.) in "laminated"? This would be normal if it's hot-forged. And since, apparently, it's not cold-forged like the other iron objects from the tomb, it's presumably hot-forged.

Laminated, in the sense of being welded together from different irons, is possible (and might explain why the 1995 XRF measurements gave a much lower nickel content - I should look where the recent XRF measurements were taken on the blade (it's in the supplementary material for the paper)).

Originally Posted by Roland_M

The other picture looks like that the dagger is differential hardened.

Would you happen to know the carbon content of the blade? The recent XRF measurements appear to have included measurement of the carbon content, but that result isn't given in the paper (other than the statement of "minor quantities").

I'd be really surprised if the carbon content is high enough for differential hardening. A lamination line would be a more likely explanation.

Originally Posted by Roland_M

The blade is much too perfect for the first few footsteps with a completely new technology.

Compared with other Egyptian iron-working of the time, yes, it's "too perfect". To me, this suggests foreign origin, or at least foreign worker(s).

Perhaps not a completely new technology. The Alacahöyük dagger (from Anatolia) is about 1000 years older than Tutankhamun's dagger. Too corroded to know if the workmanship is similar. High nickel -> meteoric iron.

https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/F...Alacahoyuk.jpg

[Bob A]

A few questions that are nagging at me:

Can iron be worked at room temperatures with tools that are softer than iron?

Does the heat-treating that any meteorite receives during its atmospheric entry have any consequences affecting its characteristics, that would not obtain in ordinary terrestrial iron?

I apologise in advance for my general ignorance of the subject at hand.

[Timo Nieminen]

Originally Posted by Bob A

Can iron be worked at room temperatures with tools that are softer than iron?

Some types of cold-working are possible with soft tools (e.g., bending, dishing), but that requires starting with thin enough sheet. In general, you want tools (i.e., hammers and anvils) that are harder than iron. The Greenland solution was usually basalt (which is much harder than iron).

Originally Posted by Bob A

Does the heat-treating that any meteorite receives during its atmospheric entry have any consequences affecting its characteristics, that would not obtain in ordinary terrestrial iron?

Probably not. The internal crystal structure doesn't appear to be affected by the fall. We don't know much about how hot they get during their fall. For a brief discussion, mostly of our ignorance, see http://curious.astro.cornell.edu/abo...h-intermediate

[A. G. Maisey]

After reading more from the sources that Timo has indicated, as well as a number of other on-line sources, I'm inclined to agree that a blade could be forged cold from meteoritic material, but with the qualification that the meteoritic material would need to be of the correct composition to permit this forging, and if only forging was to be used, the shape and size of the material would need to be very close to the finished article.

There can never be any dispute about the cold forging of simple blades from iron, or preferably mild steel, this is a standard blacksmithing technique.

A careful reading of the Buchwald & Mosdel link indicates that the material used in the Greenland blades was indeed capable of being cold hammered, and that it was quite thin in the first place, probably fragments that had split off from the main body of the meteorite.

In a previous post to this thread I used the term "stock removal". We usually tend to think of stock removal in the modern terms of files and mechanical grinders, but stock removal is actually the reduction of any large piece of material by cold removal of some of the original body of material. This can be achieved by splitting or by grinding with a stone or wet sand and wood.

The Buchwald & Mosdel work does seem to indicate that stock removal did take place, either by the splitting off of meteor fragments at the time of impact (spallation), or by the human agency of splitting off fragments.

It also seems that quite high temperatures were at least sometimes used (P.16).

Here is a link to another source that is well worth attention:-

http://www.ironfromthesky.org/?p=310

Once we understand that the composition of the meteorite used in the Greenland blades was such that it permitted a degree of shaping by cold hammering, and that the fragments of meteorite that were turned into blades were quite small and thin to begin with, the entire Greenland blade matter becomes clear.

However, there is a vast difference between the Greenland blades and the King Tut blade.

The King Tut blade is a large, serious, very well made blade, something that without prior knowledge could very well be attributed to a much later time.

I believe that it will eventually be confirmed that this blade is of forge welded construction.

[Roland_M]

Originally Posted by A. G. Maisey

There can never be any dispute about the cold forging of simple blades from iron, or preferably mild steel, this is a standard blacksmithing technique.

Different Nations, different definitions.

"Work hardening, also known as strain hardening or cold working, is the strengthening of a metal by plastic deformation. This strengthening occurs because of dislocation movements and dislocation generation within the crystal structure of the material."

I apologize, but in Germany this is per definition no forging in the narrower sense.

Originally Posted by A. G. Maisey

"The King Tut blade is a large, serious, very well made blade, something that without prior knowledge could very well be attributed to a much later time. "

The grave of King Tut was probably already opened in the classical antiquity period and some grave goods from other graves were added to King Tuts grave goods. With the aim, to prevent it from stealing. This would explain the total chaos in King Tuts grave. So it is possible, that the dagger was made long after King Tuts death.


Roland

[David]

Originally Posted by Roland_M

The grave of King Tut was probably already opened in the classical antiquity period and some grave goods from other graves were added to King Tuts grave goods. With the aim, to prevent it from stealing. This would explain the total chaos in King Tuts grave. So it is possible, that the dagger was made long after King Tuts death.

I have never seen any information that confirms that items had been added to King Tut's tomb in these break-in, but most archeologists seem to believe that these break-in happened very soon after the initial sealing of the tomb. The general idea when the tombs of kings are broken into is to actually rob from the tomb, not add to it. What's more, this dagger was actually found not just inside the tomb, but inside Tut's sarcophagus. I am having a hard time imagining who might break into a king's tomb at a later date and plant a very valuable dagger not just in the tomb, but actually hidden inside the folds of fabric that the mummy was wrapped in. Occam Razor seems to suggest that the dagger was there from the very beginning.
"His tomb was robbed at least twice in antiquity, but based on the items taken (including perishable oils and perfumes) and the evidence of restoration of the tomb after the intrusions, it seems clear that these robberies took place within several months at most of the initial burial.

Eventually, the location of the tomb was lost because it had come to be buried by stone chips from subsequent tombs, either dumped there or washed there by floods. In the years that followed, some huts for workers were built over the tomb entrance, clearly without anyone's knowing what lay beneath. When at the end of the 20th Dynasty the Valley of the Kings burial sites were systematically dismantled, Tutankhamun's tomb was overlooked, presumably because knowledge of it had been lost, and his name may have been forgotten."

As to whether this dagger was made by the Egyptians or a gift from another civilization, it should be considered that the reason we are hearing about this now is because 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. I suppose it is possible that by coincidence a meteorite that fell in a distant land was the source material for this blade, but again, Occam's Razor would suggest that the likeliest answer is that the dagger was made near when that material was found.

[Timo Nieminen]

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.

[Timo Nieminen]

Originally Posted by A. G. Maisey

The King Tut blade is a large, serious, very well made blade, something that without prior knowledge could very well be attributed to a much later time.

I believe that it will eventually be confirmed that this blade is of forge welded construction.

That would be no surprise. Given that it's hot-forged*, it's not a big step to welding. Either folded and welded for homogeneity, or separate pieces welded together to get a larger piece of iron. Or both.

* The best information I've been able to find is that it isn't cold-forged (unlike the other iron objects from the tomb).

[A. G. Maisey]

Timo, have you ever tried to forge weld?

I was taught basic blacksmithing by a man who came out of his apprenticeship in 1947, in a NSW country town. He was one of the last traditionally trained smiths in Australia. He taught me to forge weld iron and mild steel.

At that time (1980) I was unable to find anybody in the greater Sydney area who could teach me to forge weld iron with high carbon steel or with nickel. This included the very few tech college teachers who were teaching blacksmithing at that time.

In the 19th century text books that I was using back then, mention was made that in most towns in England where there were several smiths, one smith was usually recognised as the welding specialist and he accepted welding jobs from the other smiths in his area.

Forge welding in coke or charcoal is not at all easy.

It took me about 12 months of trial and error to teach myself to weld iron + nickel + high carbon steel , in the forge. Subsequently I taught a number of other people.

The step from ordinary forge work to welding in the forge is a very big step, and the step from welding iron to welding materials with different weld temperatures is immense.

To weld meteoritic material in the forge is a step further again.

These days most people who can forge weld are using gas forges, and this welding is about as difficult as making a chocolate cake, but welding in a traditional forge is not something that is easy to do.

[Timo Nieminen]

Originally Posted by A. G. Maisey

Forge welding in coke or charcoal is not at all easy.
[...]
The step from ordinary forge work to welding in the forge is a very big step, and the step from welding iron to welding materials with different weld temperatures is immense.

To weld meteoritic material in the forge is a step further again.

I don't mean to say that it's a trivial step. But IMO it's a much smaller inventive step than going from cold-forging to hot-forging. Cold-forging iron (with or without annealing) is just the application of existing techniques for forging copper and copper alloys to a new metal. Hot-forging is something different. Don't underestimate the difficulty of that step.

Is it a big inventive step from hot forging to welding? At welding temperatures, iron/steel is sticky. (I've had to remove tools with hammers, and that's just accidental sticking, not deliberate welding.) I don't think it's extraordinary to deliberately investigate welding iron after noticing that.

Originally Posted by A. G. Maisey

Timo, have you ever tried to forge weld?
[...]
It took me about 12 months of trial and error to teach myself to weld iron + nickel + high carbon steel , in the forge. Subsequently I taught a number of other people.

From working in research, I'd say that if you can learn to do it, by yourself, in 12 months, it isn't that hard.

Of course, that's 12 months starting with knowing how to forge weld already. But you say that's an immense step from welding iron, compared to a merely big step from forging to forge welding iron.

I haven't tried it.