Meteoric Blades on Bronze Age Weapons

[Timo Nieminen]

Originally Posted by A. G. Maisey

prior to 1323BC who had the technology that could forge weld iron or could cast iron?

"Who?" is the difficult question.

As you noted, while it takes high temperatures to forge weld iron, it's otherwise low-tech:

Originally Posted by A. G. Maisey

Meteoritic material was used in Sub-Saharan Africa, and it was worked in primitive forges; the original Javanese/Balinese forges were not much more than a depression in the ground with air delivered to the fire through bambu tubes from feather bellows. You do not need high technology to weld iron. In fact, the traditional type of "hole in the ground" forge is still in use in some parts of Jawa, and probably is still in use in some parts of Bali.

A hole in the ground, charcoal, a blower, a rock as an anvil and a rock as a hammer: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v94aAEMZMIQ

Casting (low-carbon) iron or steel is much more technologically demanding, and I know of nobody doing it before the Industrial Evolution. The Chinese were casting cast iron about 2000 years ago, but "cast iron" has a quite low melting point (about 1200C/2200F) since it's a saturated carbon solution (typically 3%-4% carbon).

Iron forging/welding technology might have preceding iron smelting technology. First, it allows small pieces of meteoric or telluric iron (native iron, i.e., naturally occurring metallic iron of terrestrial origin) to be used to make larger objects than would be possible without welding. Second, it appears that there was occasional accidental smelting of iron in the copper industry, when iron oxide was used a flux in copper smelting (and temperature got a little higher than needed for copper smelting).

So there was motivation for forge welding iron. Forge welding of copper alloys and gold was already known, so the basic idea was there. Judging by the history of the techniques, forge welding iron is much easier than casting (low carbon) iron.

But "Who?" is a difficult question to answer.

[A. G. Maisey]

Yes, correct Timo.

I threw the idea of casting into the mix because of two things:- some suggestions that it might have been cast as a continuation of bronze casting, and the fact that I cannot find any authoritative opinions of the KT dagger being forged.

On my monitor I cannot see any evidence of it being forged, but I'm certain that in the hand that evidence would be obvious. What I'd like to see is somebody who has handled it and who knows exactly what he is looking at to have published that it is forged.

I personally think it was.

There seems to be good evidence that iron working technology appeared in India before anywhere else. The Vedic Peoples had Aryan roots, the Hittites and Mitanni were also from Aryan roots.They worshipped the same Gods. I wonder if there was contact between the New Hittite Kingdom and the Vedic Peoples of India?

It seems that the formation of the New Hittite Kingdom coincides with the beginning of iron working technology in India. We know that in the early 17th century BC Indo-Aryans were moving from the East to the west and through the Middle East.

I tend to think that when the requisite research has been carried out, and from my enquiries it appears to be something that is still ongoing with as yet no definite conclusions, we might find that Hittite iron technology has its roots in Indo-Vedic or Indo-Aryan culture, which in effect can push the beginning of Hittite iron age technology back to 1500BC, which just happens to coincide with the time by which the Hittites had developed viable iron weapons.

My personal opinion remains the same as it has been from the beginning of this thread, and in fact for a very long time before this thread began, and that is that the King Tut Dagger was a product of Hittite technology.

Incidentally, I have finished reading the papers that were so generously bestowed upon me, and I now have no doubt at all that the material of the King Tut Dagger is of meteoritic origin.

Facts seem to have a half-life of about 45 years (Arbesman) so this meteoritic origin might not be a fact forever, but as at right now it seems to be a pretty good imitation of a fact.

[shayde78]

At the risk of resurrecting a zombie thread, I want to post this new article about Tutankhamun's dagger. Seemed to make more sense to add it to the robust discussion of this thread, rather than create a new one. I've always been fascinated with this knife, and while the newer findings simply support past speculation, I enjoy learning more about it. I hope some of you do, too

https://www.yahoo.com/entertainment/...193343647.html

[David]

I'm not sure why members are always sheepish about resurrecting old threads. If there is new information that os pertinent to the discussion it seems to me exactly what you should do. So i would say it does indeed make more sense to add to this thread rather than begin another.
I'm not sure how much new info this particular article has added. I already posted the bit about the iron dagger gift to KT's grandfather Amenhotep III, suggesting it might in fact be the same dagger.
The article does talk about Widmanstätten pattern made visible through X-ray and points out that this means the blade was forged at temperatures lower than general steel forging points. The photos in the article don't show that very well, but there are some better photos in this article linked below. If indeed these are Widmanstätten patterns that does indeed seem to point to meteoric origin.
https://arstechnica.com/science/2022...m-a-meteorite/