Meteorite Dagger?

BSMStar · 4th August 2006, 01:29 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by A. G. Maisey

As for identifying meteoritic material after it has been forged, well, the famous historical metallurgist Professor Jerzy Piaskowski of Poland cannot advise of any way in which this can be done, and judging from the response I have had from other analytical metallugists spread across the globe, including a couple who specialise in analysis of meteorites, nobody else can tell us how to do it either.

I am a bit surprised that people who analyze meteorites do not know how to do this. The answer is in the trace elements, they are the fingerprint for cosmic origin. Arizona State University, Center for Meteorite Studies has been using an Electron Microprobe for years to do qualitative/quantitative analysis for meteorites and trace element amounts. The question is, getting someone to do this test (it requires polishing a small area of the surface) on a non-meteorite, and putting a number of blemishes on you otherwise beautiful sword. (Well, there is the issues of sample size).

FYI:

http://meteorites.asu.edu/

http://probelab.geo.umn.edu/

http://geoinfo.nmt.edu/labs/micropro...tion/home.html

Jeff Pringle · 4th August 2006, 02:06 PM

Quote:

The answer is in the trace elements, they are the fingerprint for cosmic origin.

You can get trace elements by INAA as well as EMP, with a very small sample size.
I think in addition to a good Iridium anomaly, a blade with a percentage of meteorite would have oxygen isotopes that are skewed off the terrestrial mass fractionation line.
By looking at the Cobalt/Nickel ratio you might get some clues as well.

Jens Nordlunde · 4th August 2006, 02:52 PM

Interesting mails, and educational as well, and I admit I wrote about something I did not know anything about

. I do however find it unlikely, that the seller had the blade tested by one of the methods mentioned, or he would have mentioned it

.

BSMStar · 4th August 2006, 06:19 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jens Nordlunde

I do however find it unlikely, that the seller had the blade tested by one of the methods mentioned, or he would have mentioned it

. [/font][/color]

Jens, didn't you read?

1. It was likely to be made of meteorite.
2. Meteorite blades do not rust.
And my favorite...
3. Always acquire ancient artifacts from expert sources. (Yea right...)

So, this fine print suggests:
1. It might be made from a meteorite.
2. The blade rusted, so it is not made from a meteorite (following the logic).
3. Do not buy from me; since you can not buy $50,000+ ancient artifacts for $600.

And I still think it looks like one of my wife's candles.

BSMStar · 4th August 2006, 06:27 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jeff Pringle

You can get trace elements by INAA as well as EMP, with a very small sample size.
I think in addition to a good Iridium anomaly, a blade with a percentage of meteorite would have oxygen isotopes that are skewed off the terrestrial mass fractionation line.
By looking at the Cobalt/Nickel ratio you might get some clues as well.

For those who are hard core, here is a link on INAA:

http://www.ncnr.nist.gov/div8395/inaa.html

A. G. Maisey · 4th August 2006, 10:33 PM

Thanks for your input on the ID question, BSM & Jeff.

I first started to make this enquiry in about 1986.

Since the first time I enquired I have posed the same, or a similar question to more people than I can recall.

I most recently posed the question on 6th. March 2006, when I sent emails to a number of people who specialize in analysis of meteoritic material.

A couple did not answer.

A couple clearly did not understand what I wrote and replied with answers that were not relevant to my question.

The other people who replied, and I forget now if I recieved two answers or three, provided answers which indicated that it was not possible to identify meteoritic material in circumstances that I outlined.

Would you two gentlemen concur with those opinions, or not?

Here is the text of the letter that I sent out in March this year:-

Dear ---------,

My name is Alan Maisey.

My field of study is the Javanese keris.

The keris in Java is a cultural icon surrounded by complex layers of belief systems.

One of these beliefs relates to the inclusion of meteoritic material in the blade of the keris.

A keris blade is made by forge processes involving multiple layering and welding of the material used in the construction of the blade. A blade containing meteoritic material would typically have the meteoritic material refined and cleaned by folding and welding, and then this meteoritic material would be combined, by folding and welding, with iron.

We know that material from the Prambanan meteorite was used in the construction of some keris made in Central Jawa and dating from circa 1800.

I myself have worked with a Javanese pandai keris (keris maker) and produced a blade made of meteoritic material from Arizona.

A continuing problem for students of the keris is the identification of keris blades which contain meteoritic material. We know that some blades do contain this material, but we have no way of knowing which blades these are, short of actually knowing the history and maker of the blade, something which is so rare as to be almost non-existent.

It is relatively important for keris blades which do contain meteoritic material to be identifiable.

A keris blade that definitely contains meteoritic material has a higher cultural and monetary value, than does one which does not contain meteoritic material.

It has been suggested to me that use of electron microprobe procedures could provide positive identification of meteoritic material incorporated as a component of forge worked material combined with iron.

My question to you is this:-

Is it possible to positively identify material which has been subjected to forge processes, including welding, as containing meteoritic material?

Your response would be greatly appreciated.

Sincerely,

Alan Maisey

There it is, BSM & Jeff.

Take a very small quantity of meteoritic material, fold and weld with iron through at least 8 folds and more than 8 weld heats, weld the resulting billet to a piece of steel, forge this out and shape and finish it.

Then subject the finished product to analysis and give a positive ID of meteoritic content.

Can it be done or not?

Jeff Pringle · 5th August 2006, 02:33 AM

I think it could be done, but it would take some work & money to get to where you can make it ‘definite’.
For example, say I send you a few grams of metal from a blade I just made, 50% meteorite, 50% home-smelted steel. You send that to a lab and have trace element analysis done, you have one data point. It would be a good data point, ‘cause I can tell you which meteorite I used, and you could compare it to the unforged meteorite, there are usually reams of trace element data available on meteorites - now you got two points, which show how the meteorite material is diluted out.
But wait, the blade I did is non-homogenous (as are most keris), you really ought to analyze it more than once, or at least make sure your lab is taking that into account.
Now you check a keris (Datum three? Four?), if it’s old, they weren’t using meteorites from AZ or Argentina, so you have a different element pattern, perhaps – you could study up on element fractionation in the cores of asteroids to figure out which elements are significant, but at this point I’m starting to wonder what non-meteoric kerisses have in them, so you better send a sample of one of them out for testing – there’s another data point (nickel could be a discriminator, but terrestrial nickel is used, too).
Go through that process enough times, you’ll have a great way to graph out any blade, and it will drop into the ‘extra’ or the ‘terrestrial’ field, with an acceptable level of certainty.
But at this time, no one has done that (& published), so we can only speculate – Iridium should be high, that’s how they started thinking the K/T boundary layer was meteorite-related, and that’s got to be more diluted than a keris, it’s geologic in scale

!
Some study of the significant element ratios would be in order before you start, so you can cut lab costs, or just bet on iridium and go for it. I think a couple of different element ratios would be better in the long run, though – you’d be able to sort out which meteorites went into which blade, eventually, and avoid unscrupulous iridium smiths (I don’t really think they exist, yet!).
The best place for asteroid paper research:
http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abstract_service.html
Or, get a planetary scientist to take an interest in the project – but they are really swamped in actual meteorites now, so they might be too busy for this esoteric pursuit.
And if you want a piece of this blade’s metal for testing, look out for the positive Boron anomaly – I did the welding with borax flux

A. G. Maisey · 5th August 2006, 02:58 AM

Thanks Jeff.

I think you just confirmed what everybody else who understood the question had already said. Not in quite the same words perhaps, but the end result is the same.

What it comes down to is that there is no economically viable way to obtain a positive ID on meteoritic content in a keris.

There may be a way to determine if there is meteoritic content, but even that is not certain.

Testing would of course need to be non-destructive.

If the value of the object is $X, and its value might rise to $2X if it can be definitely proven to contain meteoritic material, its not really a proposition to carry out tests that could run to $X to the power of 10.

I reckon we`re just about back where we started as far meteors and keris go:- believe it if you will, its an item of faith, and who can criticise another`s faith?

Jeff Pringle · 5th August 2006, 03:43 AM

Quote:

there is no economically viable way to obtain a positive ID on meteoritic content in a keris

Well, if we can find someone with a large collection of keris, and convince them to drop their current career and get a job as a microprobe tech....

I should point out that I'm just a smith who occasionally ponders on cosmochemistry, I don't necessarily know what I'm talking about; I'm pretty sure the above method would be the way to do it, though.

BSMStar · 5th August 2006, 04:13 AM

Just for clarification (for the Electron Microprobe)...

1. Concentration of meteoritic material in a say a Keris, can be important. As long as it is not present is minute amounts, the trace elements should still be detectable.

2. How homogenous is the mix? If it is not very homogenous, multiple samplings made have to be made.

3. Identification of cosmic origin won’t be a problem. Every known meteorite type has been “fingerprinted” many times over. The traces are established and well known.

4. Sampling… the area of polish will be about a 1/8 inch by 1/8 inch square (not a bad size blemish)… but the whole sample (blade) has to fit in the microprobe… that maybe an issue for large samples without removing a piece of the blade. Not my first choice.

5. Since it was stated that a method could not be advised or suggested, and no one could tell us how to do it… with no rules of engagement for the sample, I just wanted to state that it is possible. But I do not believe that I suggested this would be desirable or easy… just possible. It becomes a soul search at this point; as to how bad do you want to do it and why.

4th August 2006, 02:52 PM	#3
Jens Nordlunde Member Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Europe Posts: 2,718	Interesting mails, and educational as well, and I admit I wrote about something I did not know anything about. I do however find it unlikely, that the seller had the blade tested by one of the methods mentioned, or he would have mentioned it.

5th August 2006, 02:33 AM	#7
Jeff Pringle Member Join Date: Nov 2005 Posts: 189	I think it could be done, but it would take some work & money to get to where you can make it ‘definite’. For example, say I send you a few grams of metal from a blade I just made, 50% meteorite, 50% home-smelted steel. You send that to a lab and have trace element analysis done, you have one data point. It would be a good data point, ‘cause I can tell you which meteorite I used, and you could compare it to the unforged meteorite, there are usually reams of trace element data available on meteorites - now you got two points, which show how the meteorite material is diluted out. But wait, the blade I did is non-homogenous (as are most keris), you really ought to analyze it more than once, or at least make sure your lab is taking that into account. Now you check a keris (Datum three? Four?), if it’s old, they weren’t using meteorites from AZ or Argentina, so you have a different element pattern, perhaps – you could study up on element fractionation in the cores of asteroids to figure out which elements are significant, but at this point I’m starting to wonder what non-meteoric kerisses have in them, so you better send a sample of one of them out for testing – there’s another data point (nickel could be a discriminator, but terrestrial nickel is used, too). Go through that process enough times, you’ll have a great way to graph out any blade, and it will drop into the ‘extra’ or the ‘terrestrial’ field, with an acceptable level of certainty. But at this time, no one has done that (& published), so we can only speculate – Iridium should be high, that’s how they started thinking the K/T boundary layer was meteorite-related, and that’s got to be more diluted than a keris, it’s geologic in scale ! Some study of the significant element ratios would be in order before you start, so you can cut lab costs, or just bet on iridium and go for it. I think a couple of different element ratios would be better in the long run, though – you’d be able to sort out which meteorites went into which blade, eventually, and avoid unscrupulous iridium smiths (I don’t really think they exist, yet!). The best place for asteroid paper research: http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abstract_service.html Or, get a planetary scientist to take an interest in the project – but they are really swamped in actual meteorites now, so they might be too busy for this esoteric pursuit. And if you want a piece of this blade’s metal for testing, look out for the positive Boron anomaly – I did the welding with borax flux Attached Images

4th August 2006, 10:33 PM	#6
A. G. Maisey Member Join Date: May 2006 Posts: 7,013	Thanks for your input on the ID question, BSM & Jeff. I first started to make this enquiry in about 1986. Since the first time I enquired I have posed the same, or a similar question to more people than I can recall. I most recently posed the question on 6th. March 2006, when I sent emails to a number of people who specialize in analysis of meteoritic material. A couple did not answer. A couple clearly did not understand what I wrote and replied with answers that were not relevant to my question. The other people who replied, and I forget now if I recieved two answers or three, provided answers which indicated that it was not possible to identify meteoritic material in circumstances that I outlined. Would you two gentlemen concur with those opinions, or not? Here is the text of the letter that I sent out in March this year:- Dear ---------, My name is Alan Maisey. My field of study is the Javanese keris. The keris in Java is a cultural icon surrounded by complex layers of belief systems. One of these beliefs relates to the inclusion of meteoritic material in the blade of the keris. A keris blade is made by forge processes involving multiple layering and welding of the material used in the construction of the blade. A blade containing meteoritic material would typically have the meteoritic material refined and cleaned by folding and welding, and then this meteoritic material would be combined, by folding and welding, with iron. We know that material from the Prambanan meteorite was used in the construction of some keris made in Central Jawa and dating from circa 1800. I myself have worked with a Javanese pandai keris (keris maker) and produced a blade made of meteoritic material from Arizona. A continuing problem for students of the keris is the identification of keris blades which contain meteoritic material. We know that some blades do contain this material, but we have no way of knowing which blades these are, short of actually knowing the history and maker of the blade, something which is so rare as to be almost non-existent. It is relatively important for keris blades which do contain meteoritic material to be identifiable. A keris blade that definitely contains meteoritic material has a higher cultural and monetary value, than does one which does not contain meteoritic material. It has been suggested to me that use of electron microprobe procedures could provide positive identification of meteoritic material incorporated as a component of forge worked material combined with iron. My question to you is this:- Is it possible to positively identify material which has been subjected to forge processes, including welding, as containing meteoritic material? Your response would be greatly appreciated. Sincerely, Alan Maisey There it is, BSM & Jeff. Take a very small quantity of meteoritic material, fold and weld with iron through at least 8 folds and more than 8 weld heats, weld the resulting billet to a piece of steel, forge this out and shape and finish it. Then subject the finished product to analysis and give a positive ID of meteoritic content. Can it be done or not?

5th August 2006, 02:58 AM	#8
A. G. Maisey Member Join Date: May 2006 Posts: 7,013	Thanks Jeff. I think you just confirmed what everybody else who understood the question had already said. Not in quite the same words perhaps, but the end result is the same. What it comes down to is that there is no economically viable way to obtain a positive ID on meteoritic content in a keris. There may be a way to determine if there is meteoritic content, but even that is not certain. Testing would of course need to be non-destructive. If the value of the object is $X, and its value might rise to $2X if it can be definitely proven to contain meteoritic material, its not really a proposition to carry out tests that could run to $X to the power of 10. I reckon we`re just about back where we started as far meteors and keris go:- believe it if you will, its an item of faith, and who can criticise another`s faith?

5th August 2006, 04:13 AM	#10
BSMStar Member Join Date: Jan 2005 Location: Kansas City, MO USA Posts: 312	Just for clarification (for the Electron Microprobe)... 1. Concentration of meteoritic material in a say a Keris, can be important. As long as it is not present is minute amounts, the trace elements should still be detectable. 2. How homogenous is the mix? If it is not very homogenous, multiple samplings made have to be made. 3. Identification of cosmic origin won’t be a problem. Every known meteorite type has been “fingerprinted” many times over. The traces are established and well known. 4. Sampling… the area of polish will be about a 1/8 inch by 1/8 inch square (not a bad size blemish)… but the whole sample (blade) has to fit in the microprobe… that maybe an issue for large samples without removing a piece of the blade. Not my first choice. 5. Since it was stated that a method could not be advised or suggested, and no one could tell us how to do it… with no rules of engagement for the sample, I just wanted to state that it is possible. But I do not believe that I suggested this would be desirable or easy… just possible. It becomes a soul search at this point; as to how bad do you want to do it and why.