Meteorite Dagger?

[Mare Rosu]

Closed item from eBay.
http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&ssPageName=ADME:B:WNA:US:112&item=110014116936&id=
Any comments? Jens, B.I.?
I think if it is a real Meteorite Dagger price was very low.
Gene

[Jens Nordlunde]

Well Gene, not everything that shines is gold, but I have no doubt the seller can convince some about the meteoric iron – I am not convinced, and I think he may have some problems to prove it. Most, if not all, meteoric iron made into blades had to be mixed with ‘earthly’ iron ore, as the ‘heavenly’ iron was not suited to be worked alone.

If you search for ‘Meteoric iron’ you will find the answer in one of the threads – happy reading:).

[VANDOO]

I AM VERY SUSPECIOUS OF THIS ITEM ESPECIALLY BECAUSE OF THE RUST ON THE BLADE, THE LOOSE RUST WAS NOT EVEN BRUSHED OFF FOR THE PHOTO. I GUESS THEY THOUGHT THAT WOULD MAKE IT LOOK OLD BUT ONE WITH KNOWLEGE OF EDGED WEAPONS WHO WAS TRYING TO PRESENT A RARE AND UNIQUE ITEM FOR SALE WOULD NOT HAVE DONE THAT.

I WOULD NOT WANT IT IN MY COLLECTION BECAUSE IT LOOKS LIKE ONE OF THOSE THINGS THAT THE LADYS PUT BATTERIES IN. :D

[Ian]

Another one where the seller's feedback is "private" and the bidders' IDs are kept "private."

CAVEAT EMPTOR!!!

[BSMStar]

I WOULD NOT WANT IT IN MY COLLECTION BECAUSE IT LOOKS LIKE ONE OF THOSE THINGS THAT THE LADYS PUT BATTERIES IN. :D

And I thought it looked like a candle. :o

I have to add... than not all meteorite blades were worked and folded... if a "raw" meteorite were just shaped into a blade form and then rusted, you would be able to see some of the Widmanstatten pattern in the rust (assuming that it is not an ataxite). There are examples from Namibia (weapons made from the Gibeon Meteorite). Some spear points have been polished and etched... cool!

[A. G. Maisey]

Yes, meteoritic material can be cut, polished etched, and mounted as a blade. This has been done by some custom knife makers in the US, and possibly in other places, too.

When meteoritic material has been used as pamor in keris and other items of wesi aji in Jawa, the fragments of meteoritic material have been wrapped in an iron envelope, welded together, and then repeatedly folded and welded until the material was clean. The end product of this process could be used to make a blade, or it could be used to adorn a blade as pamor.

However, it is possible to take pieces of meteoritic material and weld these pieces into a solid, clean mass of material. I have done this on several occasions, and although I only produced small billets, just large enough to provide pamor material for a keris, after combining with iron, if I had had a larger quantity of meteorite, I could easily have produced a billet large enough for a knife blade made entirely of meteoritic material.

If I can do it, other people could have done it. It is possible.

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.

[nechesh]

This seller specializes in "interesting" and "unusual" items of "great spititual power". He seems to offer a great deal of such items. :rolleyes:

[newempire@echoes.net]

Another one where the seller's feedback is "private" and the bidders' IDs are kept "private."

CAVEAT EMPTOR!!!

I concur with Ian, private feedback is the first red flag flown by an unscrupulous eBay seller, the second red flag is keeping the bidders ID private so a knowledgeable collector is unable to warn the bidder. Also! Ebay is flooded with cheap Chinese imports.

[BSMStar]

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/microprobe/description/home.html

[Jeff Pringle]

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.
:D

[Jens Nordlunde]

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

[BSMStar]

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:rolleyes:. [/font][/color]

Jens, didn't you read? :rolleyes:

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]

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.
:D

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

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

[A. G. Maisey]

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]

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 :eek: !
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 :D

[A. G. Maisey]

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]

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....
:D
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]

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.

[A. G. Maisey]

Quite frankly BSM, I don`t want to do it at all.

I believe I can mostly identify meteoritic material by recognising the origin, method of construction, and probable maker of a blade, and then using the "touch test"---the stuff does feel a little bit different to other materials used as pamor.

I`ve been posing the question all these years because I`ve sometimes thought it might be a good academic exercise to put together a sampling of blades that recognised Javanese experts considered contained meteoritic material, and seeing just how good the indicators that have been used were.

The mix is not at all homogenous. Its layers upon layers upon layers. You could probably test 20 different spots before you struck a square 1/8 inch that actually had meteoritic material in it. On the types of blades that I know contain meteoritic material I could not imagine any keris fancier approving the polish of even one section of 1/8 by 1/8 inch.You probably could ID a section of material that waslikely to contain meteoritic material though. That would probably reduce the number of tests needed.

A normal Javanese keris blade is going to run about 16 inches, including the tang.

But tell me this:- those trace elements that you would be looking for:- are they still going to be there after the material has gone through many, many weld heats?

[Jeff Pringle]

those trace elements that you would be looking for:- are they still going to be there after the material has gone through many, many weld heats?
I believe so, they track meteorite contamination of the lunar surface by looking at things like PGE (platinum group elements), which are not likely to oxidize away before iron in a welding operation.
Iron meteorites are full of the non-volatile stuff that didn't burn off during the birth of the solar system, and was too heavy to float away from the center of the new-born planets/asteriods - I bet a few minutes at 2300 F would have little effect.

Thanks for that very good synopsis of the ebay auction copy, BSMStar!

I'm curious about what levels of these trace elements are in commercial steel, now...time to do some research...
:)

[Jeff Pringle]

Perhaps a better way -
Take a couple months going through the various reference material standards for steels on the web, pulling out the info on the few for which there is trace element data.
Do the same for iron meteorites.
Pick a couple trace elements that aren't typically manipulated in steel production, say Ag, Au, As, Ge, Ta, Zr, Hf, La; the earth steels should plot in one area (or along a single line) when comparing two elements, meteoric metal in one or more areas outside or overlapping - the 'right' pair of elements should allow good discrimination.
You might be able to get the same result by comparing Ni to Co, or P to S; but since those are manipulated elements they might not graph well.
Get a keris tested, it should fall between the two areas, if it's a mix of the two metals - and you've only paid for one lab test!
You'll have to put in some hours with the Excel program's chart function, though :(
Bonus, you could publish an article in a scientific journal or popular magazine once you're done!
http://www.nist.gov/srm

[Jens Nordlunde]

Hi Jeff,

For one who knows something about what you describe, it sounds plausible that the way you describe it will work very well – I don’t know anything about it:o. So I will have to ask a question. How can you be sure that the two metals are mixed so well that they will both be represented in the little piece you take out for testing?

[Jeff Pringle]

You'd have to sample carefully, but since we are limiting the discussion to non-destructive techniques, I think EMP or XRF (X-ray flourescence) are the only options. Both of those techniques can be aimed, so you could (with EMP, at least) get measurements of the different layers in the pamor. I'm not sure how small an area XRF samples, but they use it on artifacts in museums, so it's very non-destructive. The trace elements are uniformly distributed through the metals, so you'd only have to take into account the mix of the two metals in the folding process, and sample accordingly...
...or so I think! :confused:
;)
INAA (or EMP or XRF) would be good if you could take some filings off the end of a tang, but then you couldn't be sure the tang was the same metal as the pamor, and you'd have potential issues.

[BSMStar]

Quite frankly BSM, I don`t want to do it at all.

I agree will you, if you are looked at it from a solely monetary or “what can I gain from it” standpoint. In the field of Samurai blades… old, damaged blades have been cross-sectioned and analyzed to reveal the method of sword making by the old masters. There is no reason research can not be carried out on the Keris. It may be interesting (from a scientific view) to better understand the question that we are all asking… how common is it for meteorite material to be used in Keris making? It is possible to answer this question. Then we would know if the conventional knowledge is correct on which contain meteorite and which do not (is there a look and feel to them).

The mix is not at all homogenous. Its layers upon layers upon layers. You could probably test 20 different spots before you struck a square 1/8 inch that actually had meteoritic material in it.

I am not a Keris making expert. But I believe that I stated the concentration of the meteoritic material is important. If 0.1 grams of meteorite are added to 5000 grams of earth iron… that would be a minute amount of meteorite. If only 10 grams of this mix is folded into the Keris, you are going to have more than a tough go at it…. But I would also say, there are no visual or tactile methods to detect this small amount of material either. I would assume (underline assume) that there would be a significant amount of meteorite material…enough to add to the pamor. If this is the case, then two to three tests max should find it (if not found on the first try). After all, you select where you test. With experience, you will know where to look.

But tell me this:- those trace elements that you would be looking for:- are they still going to be there after the material has gone through many, many weld heats?

Elements are not destroyed or changed during heating (unless they are in a star). Some may be volatile (released as vapors on extreme heating), but if my memory serves me correctly (it has been over thirty years ago that I took CosmoChem at ASU), these are "heavier" elements – they will still be there.

Jens... I hope I addressed your question too.

[BSMStar]

I you are hard core on trace... try this link. ;)

http://www.metbase.de/description/analysis/chemistry/elementsinirons.html

[A. G. Maisey]

As I write this I am looking at a keris that I made the pamor material for. It was made from meteoritic material from Arizona, and the concentration of this material is pretty rich. About the largest area of this pamor that I could definitely identify as solid, uninterrupted meteoritic material, is approx. 1.5 mm. That`s near enough to the 1/8 inch we were talking about, so if the size of the keris itself doesn`t rule it out, and taking into account the other factors that have been addressed, it would seem to be physically possible to analyse a keris blade and determine if meteoritic material had been used in its manufacture.

The "what can I make from it" factor is not a part of this discussion.

As I have already stated, my interest in this purely academic, as has been my continuing interest since 1988 in the metallurgical analysis of old and archaic keris in order to determine composition and techniques used in manufacture.

The market value of any keris, even those at the top of the market, would not be sufficiently increased by a positive ID of meteoritic material to come anywhere near covering what would appear to be the cost of testing.

The whole thing is simply an interesting question that has grown out of a folk belief, or perhaps we should say "item of faith" that has entered the Javanese keris belief system since the Prambanan meteorite was used in the manufacture of keris in Central Jawa, in the early 1800's. This was addressed by Bronson in his 1987 paper:- "Terrestrial and Meteoritic Nickel in the Indonesian Keris".

However, technology has moved along a bit in the last 20 years, and it seems that we now have the means that Bronson did not have to be able to provide definite ID . Now all we need is somebody with access to equipment, interest, funding, and of course, access to samples. Bring all these things together, and somebody could produce a landmark paper.

Actually, Haryono Arumbinang carried out an analysis on some old keris, in Jogja, in , I think, 1983. I do not have the results of this analysis to hand, but I have got them around somewhere. Regretably the interpretation of his analysis has been badly distorted by people not equipped to interpret it.

[BSMStar]

With the Keris, I have always wondered… how did the method of folding two alloys come into being? The very early Keris did not contain nickel, and relied on two alloys of iron. Somewhere along the line, either nickel or meteorite material was introduced. Which came first? When I was first introduced to the Keris, I was left with the impression that the nickel in the pamor came from meteorites…. But maybe the nickel rich iron deposits created this pamor first. Adding heavenly iron was just to help with the connection of the cosmic. A history of Keris alloys would be fascinating to see. Add to this the “staining” of the blade to bring out the pamor… now there’s a story (must have been an amazing set of events to arrive at the finished product the first time it was done)!!!

[A. G. Maisey]

BSM, the question you have raised is pretty much what Bronson set out to answer.

There is, as yet, no definitive answer, but it is probable that material from Luwu in Sulawesi was the first material used that contained nickel.

Then the Prambanan meteorite came along, and then Groneman introduced the Central Javanese makers to European nickel.

However, the actual technique of folding probably came along in much the same way as it did in Europe, as a necessity to produce material of good enough quality to use. This might have been introduced from India, or from the middle-east. I feel that the method of construction of a keris blade, with the steel core, and plates of pamor on either side, was probably just an outgrowth of the same technology. Along the way it acquired other attributes that in the end made it essential.

In this whole field there are probably enough unknowns to keep a team of professional reseachers busy for a couple of lifetimes. Never going to happen though.

The blade staining probably goes back to at least Majapahit, as the blades showing contrast are remarked upon in the Chinese annals. However, I strongly suspect that the use of acids in cleaning is a comparatively recent phenomenon. Maybe not more than a couple of hundred years old.

[fearn]

Hi Jeff and all,

Sorry I'm late to the discussion, but I'm not convinced that a microprobe would give a good answer to the percent of meteoric iron in a keris, especially an old one.

The unobvious problem is that keris blades are occasionally cleaned with an arsenic (As) solution, so the researcher has to factor in the accumulation (if any) from cleaning. Since it's not pure arsenic in the Indonesian cleaning solutions, this would take some experimentation.

The obvious problem is that the terrestrial iron isn't pure iron, nor is the carbon to make the steel pure carbon. There's going to be a mix of other trace elements that will have to be factored in. In old blades, the iron will not be to an industrial spec, but may have been smelted from ore in the village where the blade was made, or beaten together from recycled sources. Similarly,the carbon source can affect the trace element signature of the steel. For instance, coal picks up various heavy metals (such as mercury, the bane of the midwest US), and trees that are used to make charcoal typically accumulate some cesium (a byproduct of potassium metabolism), and some plants deliberately accumulate metals. As another example, one tree species in New Caledonia naturally accumulates so much nickel (as a chemical defense against herbivores) that the sap could be mined, if it was more common. Given that, in Indonesia, we're talking about one of the richest rainforest areas on the planet (i.e. lots of tree species), the tree species used into charcoal could affect the chemistry of the charcoal used to make the steel, affecting the chemical fingerprint of the resulting keris.

Complex? Yup. The only solution I've come up with so far is to get two blades from the smith, one a tool with no meteoric iron, the other a keris with some putative meteoric iron, both forged at roughly the same time, so they have the same source materials, aside from the meteoritic component. Then you can factor out the terrestrial sources. After that, you have to determine how cleaning the keris with the arsenic solution affects that blade's chemistry. Once you've done that, you can actually say how much of the keris is meteoric.

Bottom line, it will be difficult to predict or determine the trace element chemistry of the terrestrial component of keris, and without that information, it would be very, very difficult to detect the extraterrestrial material in a trace element analysis.

The "good" news is that an old keris is in many ways the worst case scenario. A blade forged with modern, industrial steel, made in the northern hemisphere from materials of known or knowable chemistry, would be much simpler to study

F

[Jens Nordlunde]

Hi Fearn,

This is most interesting, the only thing I can see which could make a difference is the greater pollution in the air to day than some hundred years ago – would this make a difference?

Jens

[Mare Rosu]

Great information on testing for trace elements. Obvious to me we have some heavy hitters at bat here :)
I have some knowledge of Neutron Activation Analysis testing from my Georgia Tech days. I wonder if anyone has tried or has any knowledge of it?
For anyone interested, this is a Link to some information about it, I found it using Google search. one side effect is that the item is now radioactive and depending on the isotope half life it may be a while before it decays down. :(
http://www.missouri.edu/~glascock/naa_over.htm

Gene

[Jeff Pringle]

See what happens when you use the words 'meteorite' and 'dagger' in a thread title, Gene? :D

It had occured to me that pre-industrial iron would have a different (and more variable) chemical signature; I suspect it would not cause too much noise to obscure the extra-terrestrial signature over all the potential elements...there might be archaeological papers that have previous analyses on old keris, one could check them against modern steel & look for differences.
:confused:
:)

[fearn]

You're certainly right about that, Jeff. To be honest, I only read the thread because I'd just finished reading about the "Arctic Iron Age"--where the Inuit and Dorset peoples before them made tool blades out of meteoric iron for, I don't know, a thousand years or so. Another story.

Anyway, I think it'd be a great subject for a metallurgy/archeology PhD--looking at Indonesian blade making, and determining how much of the steel's chemical composition/isotopic signature depends on the metal source, how much depends on the carbon and fuel sources, and how much depends on the arsenic staining (at least in the keris blades). It would be interesting to know if there is enough information to determine things like blade origin (or origin of materials) or blade age through a test.

Not something I'd want to do, although I'd be happy to help analyze the data for patterns. Oh well, something to dream about.

F

[BSMStar]

The obvious problem is that the terrestrial iron isn't pure iron, nor is the carbon to make the steel pure carbon. There's going to be a mix of other trace elements that will have to be factored in.

Fearn, There are a number of Meteorites Labs that receive “large” numbers of unknown samples sent to them. Anything from mining slag to your common variety of earth rocks. The whole point of fingerprinting with trace elements is because the trace elements that are found in cosmic source materials are unique enough for positive identification. You can check against the database and identify what you have. You will know if it is an earth rock… or if it is Lunar (Lunars are a little different than earth rocks)… or Martian, which was a little more work (it was the trapped gassed that ID’ed these). It would be highly improbable that you would get at trace element (ratio/concentration) match by accident. If you have worked with these curves (not much unlike FT-IR), then you know what I mean,

The unobvious problem is that keris blades are occasionally cleaned with an arsenic (As) solution, so the researcher has to factor in the accumulation (if any) from cleaning. Since it's not pure arsenic in the Indonesian cleaning solutions, this would take some experimentation.

Surface contamination is an issue on any sample to be tested. This is the reason the surface is removed (polished), to reveal that actual material that you want to test.

[fearn]

I agree BSMStar, so long as we're talking about ID'ing meteorite samples.

When we're trying to ID the meteoric component in a knife made of mixed terrestrial and meteoric materials, it's a bit more complex. The blade is made of:
1) the meteoric material (with a readily identifiable asteroidal fingerprint?)
2) iron from a terrestrial source, with either a known or unknown chemical fingerprint depending on age and source, and
3) carbon (for steel) from a terrestrial source, that probably contains traces of contaminants such as cesium, mercury, or whatever, depending on the source of the carbon (charcoal, coal, etc).

I'll submit that this mixture can be deciphered if 2) and 3) are known--basically, in an industrial setting, especially where the steel is purchased and contains 2 and 3 already. In a non-industrial setting, such as with a century-plus old keris from somewhere in Java, it will be extraordinarily difficult to decipher all three, since we have little idea about the source any of the ingredients.

F

[BSMStar]

I agree BSMStar, so long as we're talking about ID'ing meteorite samples.

When we're trying to ID the meteoric component in a knife made of mixed terrestrial and meteoric materials, it's a bit more complex.

Fearn, the distribution for elements in cosmic sources is different than terrestrial sources. It’s that simple and that unique. I do not know how to better explain it. It is a matter of being able to detect that fingerprint in a diluted form. I believe it is possible if the concentration of meteoritic material is high enough. The only issue would be if an exotic alloy was used with the fingerprint traces as ingredients… not likely in a 200 year old Keris.

Also, keep in mind that meteorites are older than earth rocks. We are not looking at Rubidium/Strontium ratios (good age indicators), but are not the trace indicators we are looking for (not looking specifically for isotopes, we are looking at elemental abundance - unless something has changed in the pass thirty some years).

Also, (let me add) in the field of Tektites, LDG (Libyan Desert Glass) has a very small amount of a meteoritic component, that is traceable back to a chondritic impactor. LDG is believed to be earth rock impactites (as are all true Tektites), created during an “impact” event. Talk about an unknown mix and meteoritic dilution… but the fingerprint is still there.

Fearn, you have the last word.

[Jeff Pringle]

I think the amount of Iridium in typical (not the meteorite impact ones)mineralized (ore-bearing) Earth rocks is measured in a couple ppb (part per billion), down to parts per trillion; the two iron meteorite info sheets on the previously posted Metbase link were a couple ppm (parts per million) - it seems like even after taking into account the concentrating effects of smelting and the diluting effects of mixing meteoric metal and earth metal, there's room for a noticeable difference.
But it's all speculation until we get some data to crunch.
;)

[nechesh]

I believe it is possible if the concentration of meteoritic material is high enough. The only issue would be if an exotic alloy was used with the fingerprint traces as ingredients… not likely in a 200 year old Keris.


But isn't this the rub. I mean, would the concentration of meteoritic really be all that high in a 200 year old keris. Not 50 percent certainly, at least not in the entirety of the blade. Yes, it would probably be concentrated in the pamor areas, but what keris collector that you know is going to alloww someone to polish off ANY amount of the pamor on their keris for testing. Not me, for sure. Frankly i think the obsession with meteorite blades (keris in partictular) is way out of hand anyway. It is not the main determining factor for a good keris. In fact someone has yet to prove to me that it was even used in keris before the Prambanan fall in the mid 18thC, so it is not therefore vital to the art. In many ways this reminds me of the effects of gold fever. I still don't see that the methods discribed are viable in determining tghis question, even if technically it is possible.

[BSMStar]

nechesh, as earlier stated, testing your collection may not be desirable. I would not take a valuable Pusaka and test it (any why would you want to). But I believe I have made the point that testing old blades which are not deemed “valuable,” to see what percentage of the population may contain meteoritic material, may have some worth. My gut feel is that it well be far fewer than people think. It may let us know if there is indeed a look (a pamor affect) and feel (tactile response) to the blades that contain meteorite. Therefore, there will be some benefit for the research effort that could be applied to blades in our collections (or we may find out you can only tell by testing).

I think the rub is talking someone to doing the research… and giving up the samples.

[nechesh]

Frankly Wayne, i'm not too sure i really like the thought of ANY keris being destroyed for this purpose. I can tell you (though i certainly can't prove it ;) ) that your gut feeling on this matter is most probably entirely correct. I think you would find a relatively few keris actually contain this material. I would also image that when meteorite was used it was not for unimportant blades, so i'm not too sure that looking for meteorite in what some refer to as "junk" blades is going to prove very much since these blades are not likely to contain it. I do believe there is a look and feel that does indicate the likelihood of meteorite and i believe these clues have been discussed in the past, but i think that the only way to really convey this information would be studying these blades in person with someone who is familar with this ID process. It's a bit hard to get that kind of knowledge across on the internet. Ultimitely i think that determining this matters much more to market values and dealers than it does to the real study of keris, but i guess that's just my way of looking at it. It would be nice to know if i had a meteorite keris, but i am not up to destroying any keris to prove it. :)

[BSMStar]

nechesh, I understand your position. On the Japanese side, knowing they use damaged and broken swords… did not lighten the pain to a collector… that they are in turn cut up... and analyzed. But even if a number of old “not valuable” Keris were tested, they would then be a part of an invaluable/indispensable collection of reference pieces, although further damaged by the testing. But I fully understand not wanting to do this with any (historically valuable) piece (and to me, they all are historically valuable), there will be no replacing them. As I have said, it depends on how bad do you want to know.....

Hey Jeff...

The earlier pic that you posted, is this a "meteorite blade?" It would be interesting to find out as to what affects on layering that you've noticed and at what percent meteorite material.

[Jeff Pringle]

Yes, that blade had 2 patterned pieces of 50% meteorite material sandwitching a piece w/o meteorite. The light layers are pretty much all E.T., and the main thing I noticed while making the blade was how easily Campo Del Cielo forges together, compared to other irons.
I'm not sure what you mean by 'effects on layering,' though, can you be more specific?
If meteoric nickel was all they had to bring out high contrast in the old blades, I bet the ET metal is not very diluted - in the light layers of the pamor.

[BSMStar]

I'm not sure what you mean by 'effects on layering,' though, can you be more specific?

It is my understanding that the cause of pamor is due to the “layers” of nickel and iron (and steel). When stained, the solution of arsenic and lime juice turns the iron black and the nickel remains basically unstained. When creating a mixture of “iron” and meteorite, what happens to the nickel in the process… does it “mix” or does it tend to separate and create “bands” of nickel in the iron (making its own pamor)?

[nechesh]

It is my understanding that the cause of pamor is due to the “layers” of nickel and iron (and steel). When stained, the solution of arsenic and lime juice turns the iron black and the nickel remains basically unstained. When creating a mixture of “iron” and meteorite, what happens to the nickel in the process… does it “mix” or does it tend to separate and create “bands” of nickel in the iron (making its own pamor)?

While nickel is certainly used as a pamor material and gives quite a better contrast i just wanted to remind everyone once again of the work of Professor Jerzy Piaskowski who determined that many old keris may have used no nickel whatsoever and achieved pamor contrast through the use of different types of iron that i believe may have had different phosphorous levels that create the contrast. I think that perhaps Alan Maisey can address your last question (certainly more accurately than i could :) ) and perhaps follow up a little on Piaskowski's work with keris materials.

[BSMStar]

You are absolutely correct nechesh... my fault for being focused on the meteorite/nickel iron subject, dealing with the knife that Jeff made. My Pajajaran is nickel "free" and made of contrasting iron alloys. Thanks for keeping me honest.

With the Keris, I have always wondered… how did the method of folding two alloys come into being? The very early Keris did not contain nickel, and relied on two alloys of iron.

A quote from earlier in the thread... to prove I am getting senile.... at least in my focus. ;)

[nechesh]

A quote from earlier in the thread... to prove I am getting senile.... at least in my focus. ;)

LOL! :D

[A. G. Maisey]

The most common method of making pamor with nickel is to take a paper thin piece of nickel, sandwich it between two layers of iron and forge weld it. You take four of these little billets and weld them together, then you forge out and double over and weld until you have 128 nominal layers of nickel.
In the finished pamor the nickel layers are quite distinct. The nickel does not melt into the iron, it stays as distinct layers of material. Probably the easiest way to think of the mix of nickel and iron, is that the iron acts as "glue" to hold the layers of nickel together.Accordingly, if you can find a relatively wide band of nickel, you have a pretty large area that could be tested.

I`m sorry, I cannot expand further on Prof Jerzy Piaskowski's work. It is highly technical, and his two largest papers have not yet been published. I am only aware of the content because I have worked with him advising on strictly keris and cultural matters, since about 1988.

[BSMStar]

I understand Alan, and I have not read Prof Piaskowski's work. :o

My question is regarding the iron-nickel alloys in the meteorite material (my apology for not beening clear).

In Iron Meteorites, there are two major alloys of iron-nickel:

Kamacite: a solid solution of around 7.5% nickel.
Taenite: a solid solution of more than 25 percent nickel.

There are also the possibilities of having Iron Carbides - solid solutions of Fe, Ni & Co with Carbon, such as Cohenite and Haxonite. But let us ignore those for the moment. If I recall, iron and nickel are always alloyed together unless in oxide or silicate form – in meteorites.

My question was, what happens to these concentrations of iron-nickel on forging and folding? Do they leave a pattern that would be pamor like? Or do they simply mix and are indistinguishable (in the iron and meteorite mix- if you were to make a blade from this material alone)?

[Jeff Pringle]

When creating a mixture of “iron” and meteorite, what happens to the nickel in the process… does it “mix” or does it tend to separate and create “bands” of nickel in the iron (making its own pamor)?

The acid in the lime juice will etch the layers with nickel less than the ones without, and the arsenic/lime will darken them less; so the nickel-bearing layers will stand out and be lighter and more glossy (although the polish will depend on abrasives and method of their use, too). Phosphorus works the same way, the different alloys are effected by the acid differently. I have never done lime juice and arsenic to a differential phosphorus blade, but with regular etching solutions phosphorus iron etches less deeply and lighter in color, but does not retain its polish like steel with nickel or chrome.

How uniformly the nickel becomes mixed with the other metal depends on how it is worked, how many times the two metals get folded together. At eight folds, the narrowness of the layers and solid-state diffusion are starting to level out the appearance, at least to the naked eye (how uniform it will look also depends on how different the alloys are and how much those elements like to diffuse (Ni does not like to move very fast), and how hot the smith likes to work the metal). It takes ten to twelve folds to really get things smoothed out under magnification. The patterned panels on the knife I posted were folded four times, the base metal was folded eight before going into the mix. The base metal is much more uniform in between the nickel layers, where it got the extra folds. At four folds, the nickel layers are still really obvious, but the meteorite I used welded up so well I didn’t have to fold it many times to get clean metal, so the bright layers are undiluted 6% nickel meteorite.

If a smith were mixing meteorite & plain steel to make the bright layers in the pamor, he would fold it until it was visually uniform (from a foot or two away, at least - otherwise the patterning wouldn't stand out), but there would still be some amount of variation in the metal, quite a lot under the microscope.

Testing the brighter lines in pamor (or the brighter lines within the brighter layers) would get you higher percentage of meteorite material, if it was used.

To get a real big difference in color, I think you need at least 2-3 percent nickel (perhaps less if you’re mixing it with high P metal?), and the Prambanan meteorite has 10% Ni (28.3 ppm Ga, 190 ppm Ge, 4.2 ppm Ir) – I’ll take a wild guess and say the old timers would mix one part meteorite with four or five parts domestic metal, unless the keris was special, when they might bump it up to 33% -50% for the extra contrast that would impart. You’d probably see some degree of contrast all the way down to a one in ten ratio.

[A. G. Maisey]

I can only talk facts about the meteoritic material I myself have handled.

I welded small pieces of Arizona material together, then folded and welded at least seven times, but probably more likely nine or ten times, to make small, solid, clean billets of material that was 100% meteoritic material.

The small solid block of meteoritic material was then forged out to the point where it was starting to separate, which means it was about as thick as a piece of newspaper.

A piece was cut off and put between two pieces of iron about half inch thick.

Four of these pieces were made, then these four pieces welded together, forged out and folded five times to produce 128 nominal layers of the meteoritic material. However, don`t forget that this meteoritic material had---let us say---nine folds in it before it started to be worked as pamor, and there were four layers of it before the first pamor fold was done. That means the meteoritic material itself finished up as 1152 nominal layers.

At this level of layering, the nickelous parts of the original meteoritic material would have lost a lot of the ferric component. It was thin to begin with, and with every weld heat some ferric component would have been lost. If you look at the finished pamor under magnification it is difficult to see if the bright nickelous parts of this pamor have any joints at all.

From an academic point of view I have absolutely no idea what happens with the meteoritic material. From a practical point of view what I can see is an effect that looks very similar to plain, straight nickel.

[Jeff Pringle]

This probably goes without saying, but if anyone goes to the trouble of finding a lab they can work with, and a keris to test, please post the results here so we can have this thread again with some numbers to work with :D
I'll see if I can switch to a lab that does more trace elements for the tests I do on my steel.

[BSMStar]

For you brave of heart...

Here is an old list...

Maybe, with a little soft shoe and sweet talk, someone could talk one of the following labs into doing some “unknown” testing... for feasibility. Maybe some students need some practice, or may want to do a paper or something on this subject. It would make an interesting thesis. :rolleyes: