Thoughts on this Keris

David · 22nd March 2021, 05:55 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ian

From Wikipedia:A very interesting small meteorite from my home state. See also here.

Ed Scott was a pioneering cosmochemist at the University of Hawaii.

This is indeed very interesting. However, it begs the question...just because edscottite has been discovered in this one sampling of meteorite, can we assume it will also be found in others. Space is about as huge a space as we can get. If this mineral was formed in the core of a now destroyed planet, what are the odds that it exists in other samples. Certainly we cannot expect that it exists in every sample of Fe-Ni meteorite. So can it ever really be used to prove a blade has been forged with meteorite. I suppose if it can be found in a blade though X-ray fluorescence (XRF) that might seem to be imply an extra-terrestrial source. But i also must point out the following:
"Edscottite is an iron carbide mineral, with the formula Fe5C2. It was previously known to occur during iron smelting, but in 2019 was identified as occurring in nature when it was discovered in a meteorite."
In other words, edscottite is not a previously unknown mineral. It has just never been found in nature on earth, but it is a by-product of smelting. So even if it is discovered to exist in a forged blade, how can we tell if it's presence there is from a nature extra-terrestrial source or simply the by-product from the smelting of terrestrial iron ore?

Ian · 22nd March 2021, 10:54 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by David

This is indeed very interesting. However, it begs the question...just because edscottite has been discovered in this one sampling of meteorite, can we assume it will also be found in others. Space is about as huge a space as we can get. If this mineral was formed in the core of a now destroyed planet, what are the odds that it exists in other samples. Certainly we cannot expect that it exists in every sample of Fe-Ni meteorite. So can it ever really be used to prove a blade has been forged with meteorite. I suppose if it can be found in a blade though X-ray fluorescence (XRF) that might seem to be imply an extra-terrestrial source. But i also must point out the following:
"Edscottite is an iron carbide mineral, with the formula Fe5C2. It was previously known to occur during iron smelting, but in 2019 was identified as occurring in nature when it was discovered in a meteorite."
In other words, edscottite is not a previously unknown mineral. It has just never been found in nature on earth, but it is a by-product of smelting. So even if it is discovered to exist in a forged blade, how can we tell if it's presence there is from a nature extra-terrestrial source or simply the by-product from the smelting of terrestrial iron ore?

Is edscottite produced during usual forging procedures? I don't know. We do know, however, that edscottite is a rare finding in meteoritic Fe-Ni substances--likely formed in the dense core of a planet where Fe and other elements are exposed to extreme heat and pressure. Based on the scientific reports, I think it would be a most unsuitable marker for identifying materials originating from meteorites, with a lot of false negative findings.

A. G. Maisey · 22nd March 2021, 11:09 PM

Yes Ian, I agree, it would very nice if a person such as a cosmochemist, or some other specialist in a related field should stumble across my question and be able to immediately dash off a convincing response backed up with evidence. Yes, that would indeed be all that I could ask for.

However, being a person who has spent most of his professional life asking questions and listening to the answers, I would be quite satisfied if somebody, in fact anybody, could provide a reference to something in print that went at least part of the way towards answering my question.

I have spent somewhere around 50 years trying to find that answer or part answer. I have read a lot of garbled, false and manufactured misinformation. I have read misinterpretations of genuine evidence, I have been told by academics whom I am inclined to accept do know what they are talking about, and at least in this particular matter do unquestionably know a great deal more than I do, that such differentiation of source is not possible, and in fact is an unreasonable expectation.

Nobody I have spoken with nor corresponded with, nothing I have ever read, has been able to provide a response to my question that has been able to confirm that iron-nickel material from a meteoritic source is able to be identified as such after it has been through forge processing, including forge welding.

I have come to the conclusion that all iron-nickel material found in nature and all iron-nickel from a meteoric source is in fact indistinguishable, one from the other, after it has been through high temperature processing. I am using the term "high temperature" rather than "forge", because the Luwu ores --- and others, eg, ancient Greece --- were smelted as well as forged.

Setting aside the man managed processes that material from a meteoric source and/or a terrestrial source might have been subjected to, and also the natural effects, such as those which produce the W pattern in iron-nickel meteorites, it seems to me that there is really only one indicator that will survive the forge or smelt processes that could possibly indicate that material that has been through those processes could perhaps be from a meteoritic source, and that indicator is the level of nickel content in the material.

Iron-nickel meteoritic material is characterised by nickel content that usually is between 5 to 12 percent, but can sometimes be as high as 60%.

Most terrestrial iron-nickel contains much lower percentages of nickel, usually below 2.5%.

But even this is uncertain, because in some silicate laterites the nickel content can go as high as 40%.

Then we have another problem:- some terrestrial deposits of iron-nickel are believed to be the result of ancient meteor impacts. Such a deposit is the Sudbury deposit in Canada. So in the case of such a deposit, is that meteoritic, or is it terrestrial?

I would like to hear a positive response to my question, but I doubt that I ever will. In accordance with all available evidence I firmly believe that it is a total impossibility to identify with any degree of certainty whether iron-nickel material that has been through forge (or smelt) processing is from a terrestrial source or a meteoric source.

A. G. Maisey · 22nd March 2021, 11:28 PM

David, just to clarify a point:- I specifically omitted any reference to keris for the simple reason that it just makes the question more difficult to answer.

Yes, this Forum is about keris, but it is a complete impossibility to begin to understand the keris without getting involved in multiple other fields. One of those fields is metallurgy.

So, if we could identify, or not identify, iron-nickel material from a meteoric source after it has been subjected to high temperature processing, but before combination with other materials, that then becomes our starting point for ID of such material after combination with other materials.

However, just to focus on the question relative to keris for a moment.

There is a belief in Central Jawa that certain aspects relating to the feel of pamor on a blade will indicate its source.

In respect of the quantity of meteoritic material used in pamor, this was probably not always only a tiny amount. In the keris that I made the billet of meteoritic material for, the actual meteoritic material was around 50% of the total pamor material.

I have a keris that it is probably attributable to Jayasukadgo, a Surakarta Karaton Empu from circa 1900. The pamor of this keris is very white and quite unlike any other pamor I have seen, it is difficult, if not impossible to identify any iron content in this pamor, additionally it passes the "touch test" for meteoritic pamor that is used in Central Jawa.

Jean · 23rd March 2021, 10:04 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by A. G. Maisey

There is a belief in Central Jawa that certain aspects relating to the feel of pamor on a blade will indicate its source.

I have a keris that it is probably attributable to Jayasukadgo, a Surakarta Karaton Empu from circa 1900. The pamor of this keris is very white and quite unlike any other pamor I have seen, it is difficult, if not impossible to identify any iron content in this pamor, additionally it passes the "touch test" for meteoritic pamor that is used in Central Jawa.

Hello Alan,
Yes, my Solonese friend tried to teach me about this "touch test" (passing the fingers just above the blade and feeling like a low electrical current) but it was not very convincing, maybe it needs more practice or concentration to be properly felt? I also witnessed some Indonesian collectors practicing it at a kris fair in Jakarta. Can you please elaborate a bit about it and give us your impression?
Regards

A. G. Maisey · 23rd March 2021, 10:21 AM

Jean, this touch test seems to have developed somewhat since it was taught to me by Pak Parman. I suppose that is only to be expected, there has been more than a little development of rather exotic & esoteric things associated with the keris in the last 25-30 years or so.

What I was taught about using touch to provide an indicator of meteoric content in a keris blade dd not involve any electrical currents.

I was taught to very, very lightly pass my fingertips over the surface of the blade, you just barely touch it as if you were touching the edge of a feather and trying not to move the individual barbs (hairs) of the feather.

If the material contains meteor the feeling is supposedly a very slight prickly roughness. I said "supposedly" but in blades that I know to contain meteor, and others that very probably contain meteor, I have experienced this feeling. It is a real feeling, it is not anything like an electric current

Jean · 23rd March 2021, 05:57 PM

Thank you Alan and maybe I do not properly remember what the feeling should be and whether the fingers should touch the blade or not, as this was some years ago...

Is there any rational explanation such as pamor materials hardness or more difficult mixing with the iron in your opinion?

A. G. Maisey · 23rd March 2021, 09:03 PM

There probably is a rational explanation Jean, but I do not know what it might be. When I was taught about this there was never any sort of esoteric cause involved, it was just a matter of meteoritic pamor having a particular feeling, the same as some other pamor materials have a particular feeling, for example, pamor on blades classifiable as Gresik has a greasy feel to it.

There is a lot of keris belief around now that the people with whom I associated in the period between +/-1974 and +/- 2010 did not subscribe to. But in fairness some of these people did also hold beliefs that would be difficult for a rational person to accept.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version Email this Page	Search this Thread: Advanced Search
Display Modes
Switch to Linear Mode Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode

22nd March 2021, 11:09 PM	#3
A. G. Maisey Member Join Date: May 2006 Posts: 7,054	Yes Ian, I agree, it would very nice if a person such as a cosmochemist, or some other specialist in a related field should stumble across my question and be able to immediately dash off a convincing response backed up with evidence. Yes, that would indeed be all that I could ask for. However, being a person who has spent most of his professional life asking questions and listening to the answers, I would be quite satisfied if somebody, in fact anybody, could provide a reference to something in print that went at least part of the way towards answering my question. I have spent somewhere around 50 years trying to find that answer or part answer. I have read a lot of garbled, false and manufactured misinformation. I have read misinterpretations of genuine evidence, I have been told by academics whom I am inclined to accept do know what they are talking about, and at least in this particular matter do unquestionably know a great deal more than I do, that such differentiation of source is not possible, and in fact is an unreasonable expectation. Nobody I have spoken with nor corresponded with, nothing I have ever read, has been able to provide a response to my question that has been able to confirm that iron-nickel material from a meteoritic source is able to be identified as such after it has been through forge processing, including forge welding. I have come to the conclusion that all iron-nickel material found in nature and all iron-nickel from a meteoric source is in fact indistinguishable, one from the other, after it has been through high temperature processing. I am using the term "high temperature" rather than "forge", because the Luwu ores --- and others, eg, ancient Greece --- were smelted as well as forged. Setting aside the man managed processes that material from a meteoric source and/or a terrestrial source might have been subjected to, and also the natural effects, such as those which produce the W pattern in iron-nickel meteorites, it seems to me that there is really only one indicator that will survive the forge or smelt processes that could possibly indicate that material that has been through those processes could perhaps be from a meteoritic source, and that indicator is the level of nickel content in the material. Iron-nickel meteoritic material is characterised by nickel content that usually is between 5 to 12 percent, but can sometimes be as high as 60%. Most terrestrial iron-nickel contains much lower percentages of nickel, usually below 2.5%. But even this is uncertain, because in some silicate laterites the nickel content can go as high as 40%. Then we have another problem:- some terrestrial deposits of iron-nickel are believed to be the result of ancient meteor impacts. Such a deposit is the Sudbury deposit in Canada. So in the case of such a deposit, is that meteoritic, or is it terrestrial? I would like to hear a positive response to my question, but I doubt that I ever will. In accordance with all available evidence I firmly believe that it is a total impossibility to identify with any degree of certainty whether iron-nickel material that has been through forge (or smelt) processing is from a terrestrial source or a meteoric source.

22nd March 2021, 11:28 PM	#4
A. G. Maisey Member Join Date: May 2006 Posts: 7,054	David, just to clarify a point:- I specifically omitted any reference to keris for the simple reason that it just makes the question more difficult to answer. Yes, this Forum is about keris, but it is a complete impossibility to begin to understand the keris without getting involved in multiple other fields. One of those fields is metallurgy. So, if we could identify, or not identify, iron-nickel material from a meteoric source after it has been subjected to high temperature processing, but before combination with other materials, that then becomes our starting point for ID of such material after combination with other materials. However, just to focus on the question relative to keris for a moment. There is a belief in Central Jawa that certain aspects relating to the feel of pamor on a blade will indicate its source. In respect of the quantity of meteoritic material used in pamor, this was probably not always only a tiny amount. In the keris that I made the billet of meteoritic material for, the actual meteoritic material was around 50% of the total pamor material. I have a keris that it is probably attributable to Jayasukadgo, a Surakarta Karaton Empu from circa 1900. The pamor of this keris is very white and quite unlike any other pamor I have seen, it is difficult, if not impossible to identify any iron content in this pamor, additionally it passes the "touch test" for meteoritic pamor that is used in Central Jawa.

23rd March 2021, 10:21 AM	#6
A. G. Maisey Member Join Date: May 2006 Posts: 7,054	Jean, this touch test seems to have developed somewhat since it was taught to me by Pak Parman. I suppose that is only to be expected, there has been more than a little development of rather exotic & esoteric things associated with the keris in the last 25-30 years or so. What I was taught about using touch to provide an indicator of meteoric content in a keris blade dd not involve any electrical currents. I was taught to very, very lightly pass my fingertips over the surface of the blade, you just barely touch it as if you were touching the edge of a feather and trying not to move the individual barbs (hairs) of the feather. If the material contains meteor the feeling is supposedly a very slight prickly roughness. I said "supposedly" but in blades that I know to contain meteor, and others that very probably contain meteor, I have experienced this feeling. It is a real feeling, it is not anything like an electric current

23rd March 2021, 05:57 PM	#7
Jean Member Join Date: Jun 2009 Posts: 1,740	Thank you Alan and maybe I do not properly remember what the feeling should be and whether the fingers should touch the blade or not, as this was some years ago... Is there any rational explanation such as pamor materials hardness or more difficult mixing with the iron in your opinion?

23rd March 2021, 09:03 PM	#8
A. G. Maisey Member Join Date: May 2006 Posts: 7,054	There probably is a rational explanation Jean, but I do not know what it might be. When I was taught about this there was never any sort of esoteric cause involved, it was just a matter of meteoritic pamor having a particular feeling, the same as some other pamor materials have a particular feeling, for example, pamor on blades classifiable as Gresik has a greasy feel to it. There is a lot of keris belief around now that the people with whom I associated in the period between +/-1974 and +/- 2010 did not subscribe to. But in fairness some of these people did also hold beliefs that would be difficult for a rational person to accept.