Meteoric iron used for keris's vs. for Indian weapons

Jim McDougall · 14th February 2005, 06:53 PM

BSM,
Thank you so much!!! Beautifully explained!!!
This stuff gets more and more fascinating!!!
All the best,
Jim

Jens Nordlunde · 14th February 2005, 07:15 PM

Hi BSMStar,

When you write 'I believe this is apart of the issue at hand.' I have to say no, this is a part of the understanding of the whole thing - so it is right on target

.

I would like to thank you and the others who participate in this discussion, for explaning the things so clearly. Since I started this thread - which get more end more interesting - I have learned a lot, knowledge I which would have taken me a long time to gather - if I ever could - thank you very much.

Jens

nechesh · 15th February 2005, 12:05 AM

Jim posted this quote from Stone: A note concerning aesthetics : from Stone (p.664)
"...the most brilliant watering is in Malayan blades made by piling alternate layers of mild steel and an alloy of iron and nickel containing about 3% nickel.
These are welded and twisted in various ways and then etched with a mixture of lime jiuc and arsenous acid".
"..in the old blades the nickel alloy was meteoric iron, in some of the later ones it was Krupps nickel steel".

With all due respect to Stone, the last part of this quote just is not correct. This is part of the problem with this subject, we can find many accounts by scholars of an earlier time that are misleading at best and just dead wrong at worst. There is just NO evidence for meteoric pamor before the 19thC. Period. Maybe Stone meant something else by the phrase "old blades", but i would say old means pre-19thC. Not only that, Prof. Paiskowski's research has proven conclusively that much of the contrasting pamor in early keris is actually created by the use of high and low phosphorous iron, NO nickel at all. This is an important point to consider in evaluating the evolution of the keris blade.
I think it is a good thing that we have the reference material that we do when studying this material. But some of this info needs to be taken with a grain of salt. On this matter i have seen various authors who seem to pick up and pass along the same misinformation on this subject in a continuous chain of reference material. We can't just accept something because it is written, as clearly, sometimes these writers are wrong.

Jeff D · 15th February 2005, 12:32 AM

Great discussion.

I am no expert but we may be taking the "meteoric iron" term too literally. Meteoric iron or steel is another term used for Nickel steel, and has nothing to do with its origins. The iron from a meteor usually has Ni at 5-15%, It is not the trace elements in it that identifies it as a meteor, rather what elements are not present ie lack of other alloying elements. Nickel steel manufactured here on terra firma usually has 3-5% Nickel. So if an e-bay seller is saying his Keris has "meteoric iron" he may not be embellishing his item, but, may be using a out of date term.

Just my 5 cents worth (pre 1964).
Jeff

nechesh · 15th February 2005, 12:55 AM

Jeff, though i like to see the best in every man, i don't think that is what eBay dealers are doing. However, i do think the majority of them are just misguided having heard the myth somewhere that ALL keris are made this way or reading about it in some reference book with outdated information. And then there are a few who tend to act knowledgable and make the claim that theirs truly is a meteorite blade, really, and if you were as smart as they are you would know it was true.

Jeff D · 15th February 2005, 01:04 AM

Hi Nechesh,

You are of course correct. But like you I like to give everyone the benefit of doubt. Unless, of course, it is my good money taken in a scam. It also ties in Jim's Stone quote of Krupp manufacturing meteoric iron, it also may be the reason the outdated books use the term which now has a new meaning as the original term became outdated and not used in its original context.

All the best.
Jeff

Jim McDougall · 15th February 2005, 04:14 AM

Hi Jeff,
It's always good to see you come in, and I especially like your 'nickel's worth comment !

As Jeff has noticed, my placing the Stone quote was intended to illustrate the early use of terminology as pertains to 'meteoric'. I thought the reference to Krupps as a source for nickel in later blades was an interesting note to the importance of the nickel in achieving certain blade pamor aesthetically(perhaps I should have noted that specifically

Whenever Stone is used as a reference in discussion, most of us recognize that this is an venerable work that is typically considered in its context, as benchmark material that has in many cases, been superceded.
The material found in Stone presents interesting perspective as earlier research that can offer clues to continuing investigations. For example, as in the case of geneological research, it is typically necessary to rely on early and outdated maps, charts and historical data to seek information within key locations as counties, townships and cities have changed names, thus one cannot find information under the current names.

It is similarly sometimes important to know what theories, beliefs and material were regarded in references in contemporary times. This is why early narratives are considered so important in weapons research, contemporary observations.

I think it is extremely important to respect the work of the early authors and qualify data that has since been found incorrect (which has been done here with Nechesh's notes, thus achieving exactly that).

It is interesting to note from the foreward in the venerable volume we all know simply as 'Stone':
"...I am fully aware that this book is far from complete or perfect, but I trust that it may be an incentive to someone better qualified than I to write another on similar lines that will give more accurate information".
-George Cameron Stone, 1934

So here we all are, trying to do just that, and grateful to Mr. Stone for showing us the direction to follow.

All best regards,
Jim

rasdan · 15th February 2005, 09:12 AM

Hi guys,

This is quite different form the discussion. I was just wondering, is there danger of emmision of dangerous gasses or other substance during forging a meteorite? Some meteorites contain xenon etc. I dont know this is dangerous or not. However, I heard one guy fainted and was admitted to the hospital while trying melting a meteorite. The exact cause i dont know. Curently i have a nickel-iron metorite from Nantan, China and i'm thinking of making a keris from it. Any comment?

nechesh · 15th February 2005, 11:48 AM

Jim, you are, of course, right about the importance of early work, however flawed, in aiding our continued research on the subject. Perhaps you noted that i started my comment on your posted quote "With all due respect to Stone" and that was indeed a sincere remark.
It is interesting to note that the certain blade pamor aesthetic that the import of nickel was trying to achieve seems to have been a European one, not a traditional one. Groneman, for instance, was trying to reproduce the higher nickel pamor effect of meteorite when he imported nickel for keris production, a look that was to his taste.
Rasdan, nice to see you are back from holiday. I will be sending you a message soon. At least if you do make a keris from your meteorite that will be one example we can be sure of.

tom hyle · 17th February 2005, 12:13 PM

This is one of those threads I read the first half page of in real time, then it just "exploded" behind my back! In typical fashion, I'm responding while only 1/2 finished catching up.......I think the metal "not standing" beneath the hammer means that it cracked and crumbled when hammered upon, which wootz is also said to do if not worked properly, or perhaps if its chemistry is a little off, as with the meteor. Combining it (by hammering or melting I don't think is told?) with terrestrial metal diluted the impurity that caused the problem, allowing the metal to be worked ordinarily. The hope, I suppose, was that something about its chemistry might be bizarre and helpful. Odd pockets of terrestrial ores were known to have such properties. Skofnung and his brothers were said to have nonrusting edges. The Chinese didn't bother with iron weapons at first (until they got inexpensive, or until they improved?), because an impurity in one of the ores used in their bronze made it comparable....
Cut iron meteors display a flake-board-like pattern of angled crystals called a Windmenstatten pattern (spelling probably way off on that one), but only if cut/ground into; any hot working destroys this pattern, which could only be remade under the conditions of outer space or whatever. So, yeah, apart from burning a sample for spectroscopy, I don't think there's any way to tell the origins of a piece of forged iron. Musea and universities do it to things to follow ancient trade routes; "this dagger blade is made with copper from the Caucases...." etc. K(e)ris tangs are, AFAIK, formed by the two side plates of the blade, the cutting layer or core steel having stopped at or before the ganga, or at most within the first inch of tang. The two side plates of pamor metal are welded to each other, and then usually twisted together, too, so a tang tip actually should work, yes? I don't think I've seen any with tang extensions welded for length?

BSMStar · 17th February 2005, 04:20 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by tom hyle

Cut iron meteors display a flake-board-like pattern of angled crystals called a Windmenstatten pattern (spelling probably way off on that one), but only if cut/ground into; any hot working destroys this pattern, which could only be remade under the conditions of outer space or whatever.

Hi Tom,

Somewhat like the Keris, a cut and polished surface of an iron meteorite (except Ataxites) will only display the Widmanstatten structure after being acid etched.

There is a range of crystal structures from fine to coarse. The theory we learned (over 30 years ago) about the cause of this range of crystal structures, there was a planet or planetoid that existed between Earth and Mars. Through some event, the planet was destroyed... scattering its debris along what we call the asteroid belt. The core of the planet was made of "iron" like our own Earth's. As this nickel-iron core cooled, it crystallized. The slower the component cooled, the coarser the crystal structure became. I hope you will fine this helpful.

BSMStar

nechesh · 18th February 2005, 12:19 AM

Henk, indeed i do have Tammens Vol. 1 and i have read the passages over many times.I think the analysis of which he speaks is merely a way of determining the elemental components such as nickel, not the source from which they come. I don't believe it was necessary for Groneman to test blades to make the conclusion that they were meteorite. Groneman was a contemporary to the process. He knew a blade was meteroite probably because he knew the empu who made it, or the blade was well provenenced. He mayhave tested nickel content, but he was told they were from meteorites.
The meteorite analysis that Tammens sites is for strikes which took place on the other side of the world to Jawa, so while it is interesting it doesn't prove in any way that there were strikes previous to Prambanan that were used for pamor. He does metion four other meteorite sites on Jawa, Tjabe, Bandong, Ngarri and Djati Pengelon. Tjabe was ordinary stone Chondrite which fell in 1869, http://internt.nhm.ac.uk/cgi-bin/ear...y=T1210&index= , Bandong was a stone LL6 that fell in 1871, http://www.nyrockman.com/museum/bandong-80.htm , Djati Pengilon is also ordinary stone Chondrite and fell in 1884, http://internt.nhm.ac.uk/cgi-bin/ear...ey=D910&index= . I could find no records of the other one mentioned. Perhaps they have an alternative spelling. They all don't seem to have any iron/nickel content to speak of AND they struck in the latter half of the 19thC so
Free iron from heavem may indeed be free (unless it hits you

) but it certainly ain't common. MOST blades were not made with this stuff. MANY old blades didn't even use nickel to create pamor contrast.

Henk · 18th February 2005, 09:31 AM

You made a point Nechesh, and a stone doesn't make a pamor blade unless you heat it and collect the possible nickle and use it, but that is unlogical.
And I'm aware of the fact that different metalls were used to make a pamor blade without nickle.

I did read the dutch version of Tammens and I don't find mentioned that dr. Groneman was told that the metall came from a meteor. But it is very good possible like you put it. But when they told him the metall was from a meteor, our scientist wasn't acting very scietific

tom hyle · 18th February 2005, 12:47 PM

I have thought of this idea of meteorite kris as a confusion of windmenstatten and pamor patterns, but could it be that there is an Indonesian folk belief that nickel or other metals originate from meteors, and even when mined from the Earth, that their origins "in the mists of time" are celestial? In Western Africa there is a folk belief that neolithic celts (knives/axes/palstave tips) come from the sky and are artifacts of divine/alien origin.

okhba3 · 18th February 2005, 02:16 PM

According to an Indonesian book: "Pamor Keris" by Bambang Harsrinuksmo, the key component for Pamor is Titanium and not Nickel. It's true that there was a laboratorium test for Prambanan meteorite and it said that there were 4.7% Nickel, 49.38% Iron and 0.53% Phospor, but the test was using ancient chemical anlysis. A newer test using nuclear physics was done by Haryono Arumbinang reveals that there was no Nickel in Prambanan meteorite, instead there were significant amount of Titanium, Iron, Zirkonium and Niobium.
The logic behind it that Titanium is so hard that when the meteorite hits the earth, most of the material was burned except for Titanium and other metals.

BSMStar · 19th February 2005, 01:56 AM

okhba3

OK, I am confused by the latest analysis on the Prambanan meteorite, do you have any sources to quote. An amount of Ti above a trace amount would be highly unusual... but to say there is no nickel, but Ti instead?????

I would think the first state analysis is more correct than the other stating Ti.

Tom,

I do not think anyone would confuse pamor with Widmanstatten structure. Widmanstatten structure will only be visible through rusting (oxidation) or through acid etching. Pamor is basically binding the iron on the blade with sulfur to blacken it. Attached are two pictures to show the visual differences, the Widmanstatten structure if of a fine octahedrite.

Here is some more interesting stuff:

http://www.michaelbloodmeteorites.com/FS_iron.htm

17th February 2005, 12:13 PM	#10
tom hyle Member Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Houston, TX, USA Posts: 1,254	This is one of those threads I read the first half page of in real time, then it just "exploded" behind my back! In typical fashion, I'm responding while only 1/2 finished catching up.......I think the metal "not standing" beneath the hammer means that it cracked and crumbled when hammered upon, which wootz is also said to do if not worked properly, or perhaps if its chemistry is a little off, as with the meteor. Combining it (by hammering or melting I don't think is told?) with terrestrial metal diluted the impurity that caused the problem, allowing the metal to be worked ordinarily. The hope, I suppose, was that something about its chemistry might be bizarre and helpful. Odd pockets of terrestrial ores were known to have such properties. Skofnung and his brothers were said to have nonrusting edges. The Chinese didn't bother with iron weapons at first (until they got inexpensive, or until they improved?), because an impurity in one of the ores used in their bronze made it comparable.... Cut iron meteors display a flake-board-like pattern of angled crystals called a Windmenstatten pattern (spelling probably way off on that one), but only if cut/ground into; any hot working destroys this pattern, which could only be remade under the conditions of outer space or whatever. So, yeah, apart from burning a sample for spectroscopy, I don't think there's any way to tell the origins of a piece of forged iron. Musea and universities do it to things to follow ancient trade routes; "this dagger blade is made with copper from the Caucases...." etc. K(e)ris tangs are, AFAIK, formed by the two side plates of the blade, the cutting layer or core steel having stopped at or before the ganga, or at most within the first inch of tang. The two side plates of pamor metal are welded to each other, and then usually twisted together, too, so a tang tip actually should work, yes? I don't think I've seen any with tang extensions welded for length? Last edited by tom hyle; 17th February 2005 at 12:43 PM.

18th February 2005, 12:19 AM	#12
nechesh Member Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Cincinnati, OH Posts: 940	Henk, indeed i do have Tammens Vol. 1 and i have read the passages over many times.I think the analysis of which he speaks is merely a way of determining the elemental components such as nickel, not the source from which they come. I don't believe it was necessary for Groneman to test blades to make the conclusion that they were meteorite. Groneman was a contemporary to the process. He knew a blade was meteroite probably because he knew the empu who made it, or the blade was well provenenced. He mayhave tested nickel content, but he was told they were from meteorites. The meteorite analysis that Tammens sites is for strikes which took place on the other side of the world to Jawa, so while it is interesting it doesn't prove in any way that there were strikes previous to Prambanan that were used for pamor. He does metion four other meteorite sites on Jawa, Tjabe, Bandong, Ngarri and Djati Pengelon. Tjabe was ordinary stone Chondrite which fell in 1869, http://internt.nhm.ac.uk/cgi-bin/ear...y=T1210&index= , Bandong was a stone LL6 that fell in 1871, http://www.nyrockman.com/museum/bandong-80.htm , Djati Pengilon is also ordinary stone Chondrite and fell in 1884, http://internt.nhm.ac.uk/cgi-bin/ear...ey=D910&index= . I could find no records of the other one mentioned. Perhaps they have an alternative spelling. They all don't seem to have any iron/nickel content to speak of AND they struck in the latter half of the 19thC so Free iron from heavem may indeed be free (unless it hits you ) but it certainly ain't common. MOST blades were not made with this stuff. MANY old blades didn't even use nickel to create pamor contrast. Last edited by nechesh; 18th February 2005 at 01:04 AM.

18th February 2005, 02:16 PM	#15
okhba3 Member Join Date: Feb 2005 Location: Jakarta, Indonesia Posts: 10	Titanium is the key component? According to an Indonesian book: "Pamor Keris" by Bambang Harsrinuksmo, the key component for Pamor is Titanium and not Nickel. It's true that there was a laboratorium test for Prambanan meteorite and it said that there were 4.7% Nickel, 49.38% Iron and 0.53% Phospor, but the test was using ancient chemical anlysis. A newer test using nuclear physics was done by Haryono Arumbinang reveals that there was no Nickel in Prambanan meteorite, instead there were significant amount of Titanium, Iron, Zirkonium and Niobium. The logic behind it that Titanium is so hard that when the meteorite hits the earth, most of the material was burned except for Titanium and other metals.

19th February 2005, 01:56 AM	#16
BSMStar Member Join Date: Jan 2005 Location: Kansas City, MO USA Posts: 312	okhba3 OK, I am confused by the latest analysis on the Prambanan meteorite, do you have any sources to quote. An amount of Ti above a trace amount would be highly unusual... but to say there is no nickel, but Ti instead????? I would think the first state analysis is more correct than the other stating Ti. Tom, I do not think anyone would confuse pamor with Widmanstatten structure. Widmanstatten structure will only be visible through rusting (oxidation) or through acid etching. Pamor is basically binding the iron on the blade with sulfur to blacken it. Attached are two pictures to show the visual differences, the Widmanstatten structure if of a fine octahedrite. Here is some more interesting stuff: http://www.michaelbloodmeteorites.com/FS_iron.htm Attached Images

14th February 2005, 06:53 PM	#1
Jim McDougall Arms Historian Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Route 66 Posts: 10,296	BSM, Thank you so much!!! Beautifully explained!!! This stuff gets more and more fascinating!!! All the best, Jim

14th February 2005, 07:15 PM	#2
Jens Nordlunde Member Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Europe Posts: 2,718	Hi BSMStar, When you write 'I believe this is apart of the issue at hand.' I have to say no, this is a part of the understanding of the whole thing - so it is right on target . I would like to thank you and the others who participate in this discussion, for explaning the things so clearly. Since I started this thread - which get more end more interesting - I have learned a lot, knowledge I which would have taken me a long time to gather - if I ever could - thank you very much. Jens

15th February 2005, 12:05 AM	#3
nechesh Member Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Cincinnati, OH Posts: 940	Jim posted this quote from Stone: A note concerning aesthetics : from Stone (p.664) "...the most brilliant watering is in Malayan blades made by piling alternate layers of mild steel and an alloy of iron and nickel containing about 3% nickel. These are welded and twisted in various ways and then etched with a mixture of lime jiuc and arsenous acid". "..in the old blades the nickel alloy was meteoric iron, in some of the later ones it was Krupps nickel steel". With all due respect to Stone, the last part of this quote just is not correct. This is part of the problem with this subject, we can find many accounts by scholars of an earlier time that are misleading at best and just dead wrong at worst. There is just NO evidence for meteoric pamor before the 19thC. Period. Maybe Stone meant something else by the phrase "old blades", but i would say old means pre-19thC. Not only that, Prof. Paiskowski's research has proven conclusively that much of the contrasting pamor in early keris is actually created by the use of high and low phosphorous iron, NO nickel at all. This is an important point to consider in evaluating the evolution of the keris blade. I think it is a good thing that we have the reference material that we do when studying this material. But some of this info needs to be taken with a grain of salt. On this matter i have seen various authors who seem to pick up and pass along the same misinformation on this subject in a continuous chain of reference material. We can't just accept something because it is written, as clearly, sometimes these writers are wrong.

15th February 2005, 12:32 AM	#4
Jeff D Member Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: B.C. Canada Posts: 473	Great discussion. I am no expert but we may be taking the "meteoric iron" term too literally. Meteoric iron or steel is another term used for Nickel steel, and has nothing to do with its origins. The iron from a meteor usually has Ni at 5-15%, It is not the trace elements in it that identifies it as a meteor, rather what elements are not present ie lack of other alloying elements. Nickel steel manufactured here on terra firma usually has 3-5% Nickel. So if an e-bay seller is saying his Keris has "meteoric iron" he may not be embellishing his item, but, may be using a out of date term. Just my 5 cents worth (pre 1964). Jeff

15th February 2005, 12:55 AM	#5
nechesh Member Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Cincinnati, OH Posts: 940	Jeff, though i like to see the best in every man, i don't think that is what eBay dealers are doing. However, i do think the majority of them are just misguided having heard the myth somewhere that ALL keris are made this way or reading about it in some reference book with outdated information. And then there are a few who tend to act knowledgable and make the claim that theirs truly is a meteorite blade, really, and if you were as smart as they are you would know it was true.

15th February 2005, 01:04 AM	#6
Jeff D Member Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: B.C. Canada Posts: 473	Hi Nechesh, You are of course correct. But like you I like to give everyone the benefit of doubt. Unless, of course, it is my good money taken in a scam. It also ties in Jim's Stone quote of Krupp manufacturing meteoric iron, it also may be the reason the outdated books use the term which now has a new meaning as the original term became outdated and not used in its original context. All the best. Jeff

15th February 2005, 04:14 AM	#7
Jim McDougall Arms Historian Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Route 66 Posts: 10,296	Hi Jeff, It's always good to see you come in, and I especially like your 'nickel's worth comment ! As Jeff has noticed, my placing the Stone quote was intended to illustrate the early use of terminology as pertains to 'meteoric'. I thought the reference to Krupps as a source for nickel in later blades was an interesting note to the importance of the nickel in achieving certain blade pamor aesthetically(perhaps I should have noted that specifically Whenever Stone is used as a reference in discussion, most of us recognize that this is an venerable work that is typically considered in its context, as benchmark material that has in many cases, been superceded. The material found in Stone presents interesting perspective as earlier research that can offer clues to continuing investigations. For example, as in the case of geneological research, it is typically necessary to rely on early and outdated maps, charts and historical data to seek information within key locations as counties, townships and cities have changed names, thus one cannot find information under the current names. It is similarly sometimes important to know what theories, beliefs and material were regarded in references in contemporary times. This is why early narratives are considered so important in weapons research, contemporary observations. I think it is extremely important to respect the work of the early authors and qualify data that has since been found incorrect (which has been done here with Nechesh's notes, thus achieving exactly that). It is interesting to note from the foreward in the venerable volume we all know simply as 'Stone': "...I am fully aware that this book is far from complete or perfect, but I trust that it may be an incentive to someone better qualified than I to write another on similar lines that will give more accurate information". -George Cameron Stone, 1934 So here we all are, trying to do just that, and grateful to Mr. Stone for showing us the direction to follow. All best regards, Jim

15th February 2005, 09:12 AM	#8
rasdan Member Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Kuala Lumpur Posts: 369	Hi guys, This is quite different form the discussion. I was just wondering, is there danger of emmision of dangerous gasses or other substance during forging a meteorite? Some meteorites contain xenon etc. I dont know this is dangerous or not. However, I heard one guy fainted and was admitted to the hospital while trying melting a meteorite. The exact cause i dont know. Curently i have a nickel-iron metorite from Nantan, China and i'm thinking of making a keris from it. Any comment?

15th February 2005, 11:48 AM	#9
nechesh Member Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Cincinnati, OH Posts: 940	Jim, you are, of course, right about the importance of early work, however flawed, in aiding our continued research on the subject. Perhaps you noted that i started my comment on your posted quote "With all due respect to Stone" and that was indeed a sincere remark. It is interesting to note that the certain blade pamor aesthetic that the import of nickel was trying to achieve seems to have been a European one, not a traditional one. Groneman, for instance, was trying to reproduce the higher nickel pamor effect of meteorite when he imported nickel for keris production, a look that was to his taste. Rasdan, nice to see you are back from holiday. I will be sending you a message soon. At least if you do make a keris from your meteorite that will be one example we can be sure of.

18th February 2005, 09:31 AM	#13
Henk Member Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: The Netherlands Posts: 1,209	You made a point Nechesh, and a stone doesn't make a pamor blade unless you heat it and collect the possible nickle and use it, but that is unlogical. And I'm aware of the fact that different metalls were used to make a pamor blade without nickle. I did read the dutch version of Tammens and I don't find mentioned that dr. Groneman was told that the metall came from a meteor. But it is very good possible like you put it. But when they told him the metall was from a meteor, our scientist wasn't acting very scietific

18th February 2005, 12:47 PM	#14
tom hyle Member Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Houston, TX, USA Posts: 1,254	I have thought of this idea of meteorite kris as a confusion of windmenstatten and pamor patterns, but could it be that there is an Indonesian folk belief that nickel or other metals originate from meteors, and even when mined from the Earth, that their origins "in the mists of time" are celestial? In Western Africa there is a folk belief that neolithic celts (knives/axes/palstave tips) come from the sky and are artifacts of divine/alien origin.