Biblical Hebrew Forum

[Harold Holmyard <hholmyard3 AT earthlink.net>]

Yitzhak,

Thanks for the material on iron, but it is only modern man's conclusions 
about what happened. It does not determine what actually happened. The 
Bible says that iron was used from the beginning of civilization, and 
the doubts about Moses being able to use the word are questionable even 
in the realm of modern knowledge of the past. Wikipedia says:

The use of iron weapons instead of bronze weapons spread rapidly 
throughout the Near East by the beginning of the 1st millennium BC. 
Anatolians had begun forging weapons out of iron, which was a superior 
metal to bronze, by 1500 BC at the latest.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iron_Age

So if they used iron in weapons by 1500 B.C. at the latest, there is no 
reason why Moses could not have written about iron.

HH: Here is a bit from an article from the /Journal of Materials 
Processing Technology / that I did not want to pay $31.50 to access fully:

Ancient blacksmiths, the Iron Age, Damascus steels, and modern metallurgy




References and further reading may be available for this article. To 
view references and further reading you must purchase 
<http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B6TGJ-44J796S-G&_user=10&_coverDate=11%2F23%2F2001&_rdoc=1&_fmt=full&_orig=search&_cdi=5256&_sort=d&_docanchor=&view=c&_acct=C000050221&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=10&md5=0e1d89cdfc533eb119b4d05d21426280> 
this article.

*

Oleg D. Sherby^ ^a <#aff1> and Jeffrey Wadsworth^b <#aff2>

*

^a Department of Materials Science and Engineering, Stanford University, 
Stanford, CA 94305, USA

^b Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, Livermore, CA 94551, USA


     Abstract

The history of iron and Damascus steels is described through the eyes of 
ancient blacksmiths. For example, evidence is presented that questions 
why the Iron Age could not have begun at about the same time as the 
early Bronze Age (i.e. approximately 7000 Image ). It is also clear that 
ancient blacksmiths had enough information from their forging work, 
together with their observation of color changes during heating and 
their estimate of hardness by scratch tests, to have determined some key 
parts of the present-day iron–carbon phase diagram.

HH: One fact given in Google from the article, but which I could not 
access, is that: "Hoover then proceeds to give evidence for the *use* of 
*ancient iron*, “The oldest
Egyptian texts extant, dated 3500, refer to *iron*."

Journal of Materials Processing Technology : *Ancient* blacksmiths *...* 
<http://linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/S0924013601007944>
Hoover then proceeds to give evidence for the *use* of *ancient iron*, 
“The oldest
Egyptian texts extant, dated 3500 Image , refer to *iron*, and there is 
in the *...*
http://linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/S0924013601007944 - - Cached 
<http://www.google.com/search?q=cache::linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/S0924013601007944+ancient+use+of+iron&hl=en&ie=UTF-8>

HH: >From an article on iron furniture came this information:

http://www.egyptdecor.com/Wrought_Iron.htm

Iron is a very common element and in Egypt iron ores occur in the 
mountainous areas of the eastern desert and Sinai. Archaeological 
evidence suggests that people have been using iron for at least 5000 
years. The first signs of iron use was in ancient Egypt. Iron was more 
expensive than all other metals. iron was widely used in ancient 
Egypt but did not replace bronze for long time. Wrought iron has 
successfully competed with bronze for prominence since about 4000 BC and 
it eventually replaced the high quality bronze. It took over bronze in 
the manufacture of swords, axe heads, plows and other items of general 
use. The principal weapon of the Egyptian army was the iron bow and iron 
arrow. The earliest known production of steel occurred around 1400 BC. 
The Egyptian  ruler Tutankamoun was buried with an iron dagger.

HH: Somebody else says:
http://www.touregypt.net/science.htm

The Egyptians called iron 'the metal of heaven' or ba-en-pet, which 
indicates that the first specimen employed were of meteoric origin; the 
Babylonian name having the same meaning. 

It was no doubt on account of its rarity that iron was prized so highly 
by the early Egyptians, while its celestial source would have its 
fascination. Strange to say, it was not used for decorative, religious 
or symbolical purposes, which - coupled with the fact that it rusts so
readily - may explain why comparatively few iron objects of early 
dynastic age have been discovered. 

One which has fortunately survived presents several points of interest: 
it is an iron tool from the masonry of the great Pyramid of Khufu at 
Giza, and thus presumably dates from the time when the Pyramid was being 
built, i.e. about 2900 B.C. This tool was subjected to chemical
analysis and was found to contain combined carbon, which suggests that 
it may have been composed of steel. By 666 B.C. the process of 
case-hardening was in use for the edges of iron tools, but the story 
that the Egyptians had some secret means of hardening copper and
bronze that has since been lost is probably without foundation. Desch 
has shown that a hammered bronze, containing 10.34 per cent. of tin, is 
considerably harder than copper and keeps a cutting edge much better.

HH: Moses was a prince in Egypt, and the Israelites received gifts from 
the Egyptian citizenry when they left. So they could have had access to 
iron metals from the top tier of society, even if it was not in general 
use by everyone at the time. Somebody writes:

http://www.lost-civilizations.net/ancient-egyptian-science-alchemy.html

Even as early as 3400 B.C., at the beginning of the historical period, 
the Egyptians had an intimate knowledge of copper ores and of processes 
of extracting the metal. During the fourth and subsequent dynasties 
(i.e. from about 2900 B.C. onwards), metals seem to have been entirely 
monopolies of the Court, the management of the mines and quarries being 
entrusted to the highest officials and sometimes even to the sons of the 
Pharaoh.

Whether these exalted personages were themselves professional 
metallurgists we do not know, but we may at least surmise that the 
details of metallurgical practice, being of extreme importance to the 
Crown, were carefully guarded from the vulgar. And when we remember the 
close association between the Egyptian royal family and the priestly 
class we appreciate the probable truth of the tradition that chemistry 
first came to light in the laboratories of Egyptian priests.

HH: Here is a good article on the subject of iron in Egypt:

THE USE AND PRESENCE OF IRON IN THE EGYPTIAN OLD KINGDOM.

Keith Squires 2005

http://www.gizagrid.com/egyptian_iron.html

It is copyrighted, and I am not sure if I can reproduce here for that 
reason.He makes it clear that iron was known in Egypt at the time of 
Giza pyramid's construction (dated to about 2560 B.C.). The ancient 
Egyptians could distinguish between different kinds of iron. He also writes:

Robert H O'Connell in 1983 translated the coffin text Spell 148, which 
refers to meteoritic impact as being integral to the conception of 
Horus. `…/the blast of a meteorite such that gods fear, Isis awoke 
pregnant by the seed of her brother Osiris!…/.^5 <#2> Even earlier, in 
1911, Wallis Budge translated a text from the time of Pepi II (circa 
2278- 2184 BC) which speaks of `/the iron which came from Set, and was 
in the forearm of Set; it transferred to the deceased the power of the 
eye of Horus'/.^6 <#2> As the constellation of the Great Bear was 
considered to be the abode of Set, we can reasonably conclude that at 
least one iron-bearing meteorite came from this direction early in the 
Old Kingdom.

HH: Squires says that not all the iron was meteoric:

The evidence then, seems to support the notion that the ancient 
Egyptians were aware of iron, and probably viewed it as a heavenly 
substance. And yet its association with Set makes its inclusion in the 
pyramid of Khufu a surprise. Petrie in the Pyramids and Temples of 
Gizeh, 1883, referred to the iron plate found by Hill. `…/and though 
some doubt has been thrown upon the piece, merely from its rarity, yet 
the vouchers for it are very precise; and it has a cast of nummulite on 
the rust of it, proving it to have been buried for ages besides a block 
of nummulitic limestone, and therefore to be certainly ancient/…'^7 
<#2>^ His language and phraseology, both implying that he was personally 
familiar with the piece, and providing clear evidence of its antiquity.

However, the assumption that all iron in the Old Kingdom was of 
meteoritic origin is frankly untenable. In 1989 a fragment was taken 
from the plate found by Hill, and was tested by two eminent 
metallurgists Jones and Gayer who concluded that it was very ancient. 
Significantly they stated that the metallurgical evidence supported the 
archaeological evidence that it was incorporated within the pyramid when 
it was built.^8 <#2>^ More importantly they went on to determine that 
the iron was not meteoritic, had been smelted at a temperature of 
between 1000 and 1100 degrees centigrade, and bore traces of gold on one 
of the surfaces of the plate. To simply dismiss the plate as a forgery 
therefore is to impugn the reputation of these scientists, and yet to do 
otherwise is to run into a brick wall of archaeological dogma, whose 
mantra states that iron can only have been meteoritic at such an early 
stage in civilisations development.

This iron plate however, is not the only example of prehistoric 
ironwork, for there are many more. The most spectacular is the evidence 
of the Dorak hoard, unearthed in the 1920's near the village of Dorak, 
around one hundred kilometres east of Troy. This hoard consists of a 
large and intricate cache of ceremonial objects that was found within 
two main tombs built of rectilinear, cyclopean masonry. In one of the 
tombs they found a male skeleton, with elaborate grave goods, one item 
of which was a sword with a silver blade, upon which was engraved a 
fleet of seventeen, oared, ships. In another of the tombs a wooden 
throne was found, enabling reliable dating to take place. Some vestiges 
of gold ornamentation remained, including the unmistakable hieroglyphs 
of Sahure, of Egypt's 5^th Dynasty, whose reign is traditionally dated 
to 2487-2475 BC, and who came to the throne a mere 79 years after the 
death of Khufu. Most of the weapons in the tombs were bronze, which by 
itself is extraordinary during this Chalcolithic period, but one 
artefact was more special. It had a blade of iron, and a hilt crafted in 
black obsidian in the shape of two leopards. ^9 <#2> If the dating is 
correct, then this early culture had mastered the use of iron during, or 
before, the Egyptian Old Kingdom.

HH: Squires gives other evidence for the early use of iron in Egypt:

On the 11^th of November 1994 experimental archaeologists built a 
replica of these furnaces, placing blow pipes into the blast holes, 
which were used to supply air to the enclosed furnace. A thermocouple 
probe was inserted which showed that a temperature of 1000° Centigrade 
was easily reached and maintained. When more than one person blew air 
through the tubes, temperatures far in excess of this figure were 
reached. ^19 <#4>^ A painting on a Theban tomb, number 386 in Upper 
Egypt, dated to around 2000 BC depicts just such a furnace. So there is 
nothing in the metallurgy that precludes the early smelting and 
tempering of iron, other than the assumption that hot-hammering could 
not have taken place. What is perhaps ironic is that archaeologists 
accept that Bronze was known in early Dynastic times in Egypt, but not 
produced there until much later. This has a lot to do with the absence 
of tin, but there was no such shortage of iron ore, which was available 
in Ancient Egypt.

Notwithstanding the previously mentioned examples of early iron in 
Egypt, there are others, which are less commonly known. As early as 
predynastic times haematite ore was fashioned into beads, and amulets, 
and other iron compounds were used as pigments.^20 <#4> The earliest 
evidence for worked iron is similarly from pre-dynastic Egypt, where two 
lots of small tubular beads were found at Gerzeh. Although completely 
oxidized, Professor Gowland who analysed them, was of the opinion that 
they had originally been metallic iron made by bending a small sheet of 
iron into a tubular shape. Further analysis has shown that this material 
was meteoritic in origin. ^21 <#5>

However a 4^th Dynasty remnant of iron oxide, that was originally part 
of a magic set found in the Menkaure Valley temple by George Reisner; 
when examined was proven to have no nickel content. As all meteoritic 
iron contains nickel, it was accepted that this object must have had a 
terrestrial origin. ^22 <#5> Several iron 5^th Dynasty objects were 
found by Maspero, including chisels from Saqqara, pieces of a pickaxe 
from Abusir of the 6^th Dynasty, and further broken tools at Dahshur, 
said to be of similar date. Modern archaeology questions these finds, 
but they are far from being unique. Petrie found a mass of iron rust 
together with 6^th Dynasty copper adzes, in the foundations of a temple 
at Abydos, and was absolutely certain they were of the same date. When 
tested chemically there was no nickel content, and hence this rust was 
similarly terrestrial. ^23 <#5> In the opinion of the early 
archaeologists Coghlan and Wainwright, iron was undoubtedly known in the 
Near -East as early as the third millennium BC but its use was very 
limited, and the making of useful iron on a large scale was probably 
first achieved by the Hittites in the fifteenth century BC. ^24 <#5> 
Certainly by the time of Amenhotep III, iron was sufficiently well known 
that Tushratta wrote to the Pharaoh offering him a present of a sacred 
knife of iron, and iron rings covered with gold.^25 <#5>

HH: Squires also gives reasons why we don't find many iron objects of 
very ancient date:

There is scant evidence to form an opinion, as the scarcity of iron 
finds, leaves little for analysis. An entirely understandable state of 
affairs, as iron is not a substance known for its longevity. Buried in 
any soil, little would remain after a millennium, let alone nearly five. 
In the Egyptian soil in particular, the situation would be even more 
acute. As Lawton and Ogilvie-Herald point out, the high level of 
nitrates in the Egyptian soil would cause any exposed iron to 
disintegrate rapidly, which might account for its rarity, but even so, 
it would be likely to leave some form of rust impression.^10 <#3> And 
while this is undoubtedly true, the assumption that all iron must have 
inevitably decayed reveals a modernist viewpoint that ignores another 
facet of the equation. Modern man is the beneficiary of a throwaway 
culture, and we should not assume that in the early days of metal 
smelting, ore was sufficiently abundant as to be accorded a similar 
fate. The likelihood is that except for rare ceremonial usage, metal 
would have been re-cycled.

HH: The author explains that it is not necessary to melt iron in order 
to use it:

What holds back the acceptance of iron in antiquity, apart from the 
rarity of finds, is the erroneous assumption that it must have been 
poured to make it useable. It is a fact that Iron ore is more widely 
distributed on Earth than either copper or tin, and that its metallurgy 
is on the face of it much more complicated than that of bronze. A 
temperature of around 1535° Centigrade is necessary to cause iron to 
melt sufficiently so that it will flow, but that is a lot higher than 
the temperature necessary to work it usefully. Just because ancient 
metalworkers could not cast iron, does not mean they could not work it. 
A temperature as low as 900° Centigrade in a charcoal furnace will 
easily separate iron from its ore. The resultant metal being denser 
falls to the bottom of the furnace and forms slag.

HH: He even gives another suggestion as to why Moses may not have wanted 
iron tools used to cut the stone altar (I had always assumed it was to 
make it more natural and less manmade):

And yet, this does not relay the whole picture, for it is undoubtedly 
significant that iron was from the earliest of times, associated with 
Set. As the demon of Egyptian religion until his rehabilitation in 
Ramesside times, images and artefacts of Set were excluded from 
Pharaonic temples and tombs. Placing metal objects attributed to him 
into a tomb would have been a desecration. It may also be significant, 
that amongst the legends of all the cultures who worked in stone, were 
particular taboos about the use of iron in stone monument construction. 
Deuteronomy for example makes the case eloquently /"…thou shall build an 
altar unto the Lord thy God, an altar of stones: thou shall not lift up 
any iron tool upon them./"^28 <#6> Even had such a prohibition not been 
the case, the tombs were designed for eternity, and it would have been 
abundantly clear to even these early Egyptians that iron rusts rapidly. 
Consequently the inclusion of iron objects would have been illogical.

HH: He thinks the Egyptian iron was imported, and here is his guess as 
to where it came from:

Wilson suggests these early metal workers were a race known to the 
Greeks as Chalybians (From the Greek for iron), or Tibarenians, who are 
a race often credited with being the first to smelt iron. ^30 <#6> A 
suggestion seemingly devoid of corroboration, and yet the Sumerian word 
for metalworker was `tibira'. Given the presence of early Egyptian 
artefacts amongst the grave goods of the Dorak hoard, it seems likely 
that a sophisticated trading network existed between the two cultures. 
Although there were undoubtedly iron ores in the early Egyptian 
homeland, the abundance of iron ore in the mountainous Caucasus region 
makes it more probable that this unknown culture was the source of the 
iron found in the Great Pyramid, rather than the other way round. If for 
no other reason, that following the demise of the Old Kingdom, iron is 
not found in Egypt until the time of Amenhotep III, and then by way of 
importation. Yet, to judge by the strange, seemingly structural, 
non-ceremonial use of the metal within the Pyramid, it would appear that 
iron was better known than the scarcity of finds would suggest. A 
conclusion supported by the Ugaritic texts of north Syria, whose culture 
declined around 1200 BC, and which speaks of the god Chusor, who was the 
inventor of iron and ironwork. Philo of Byblos likened him to the Greek 
Hephaestus, but it is clear from the texts that his origins lay in 
deepest antiquity. ^31 <#6> Clearly a body of knowledge that would have 
taken many centuries of practice in order to attain the level of 
sophistication that the iron plate and the Dorak sword both demonstrate, 
has disappeared from the historical record. Seemingly in a similar 
manner to the demise of higher-level mathematics that I have found 
evidence for.

Yours,
Harold Holmyard