Biblical Hebrew Forum

[Yitzhak Sapir <yitzhaksapir AT gmail.com>]

Dear Harold,

> So far I have read the part about the time period before 1200 B.C. I am
> not well-informed in such details, but I was struck by a few things in
> the article. She admits that there are very few remains, though she
> counts 150 iron objects from the Bronze Age. Some were clearly smelted,
> and even some iron products with nickel in them could have been. She
> shows that there was steel very early, both in Jordan and in the Hittite
> area. These include blades and an axe, though there are questions about
> how well the artisans understood the techniques they used. She says that
> some of the iron objects are so rusted away that one could not even test
> them scientifically to see how they were produced. She speaks of Hittite
> literary records of far greater quantities of iron than the
> archeological remains show. Based on what she says, it seems conceivable
> that a great deal of iron products of the ancient world have oxidized
> away, as others have said.

Yes, but you cannot view the comments in isolation.  On p. 31, she includes
also the best evidence you could hope for, an apparently MB steel blade or
point from Pella.  But as an isolated instance, it does not properly serve
as evidence.  The conclusion that integrates all the evidence she mentions
is at the end of that same page -- the iron artifacts mentioned were confined
to ornamental, ritual, and ceremonial use.  This includes the blades and
axes, the one significant steeled iron artifact that was found in a MB 
context,
and also the examples from the Hittite area.  As for the Hittite
texts, she notes
that these probably also point mainly to a ritual or prestige use of
the material
rather than a technological or utilitarian one.  These artifacts may be much
rarer because as prestige objects they were passed on as special heirlooms
or in other ways were guarded, sold or given to foreign states as
gifts, or later
stolen, and the result is that we find a lot less of these special
rather expensive
pieces of iron.  The "oxidized away" model simply doesn't answer some
necessary questions: 1) where are the iron workshops for these absent objects
that "oxidized away"?  2) why only iron from prior to some date X is
not found in
quantity and after that date is found increasingly in quantity?  Do we
assume that oxidization exactly destroys those objects from those time
periods?  Because of the correspondence between the decline in use
of copper and the increase in use of iron, and because we see that from
those iron objects that do remain, the initial period does not show
consistent steeling, a better explanation is that steeling was largely
unknown, and where it was known, was not dependable to make stronger
weapons.  Initially then, weapons for mass use were made of copper
because the iron was still very expensive, and starting with the loss of
copper trade routes, iron was gradually used as a substitute alongside
copper, and steeling techniques slowly perfected.  This process took
centuries.  Only in the late 8th century did the Assyrian create the first
"iron army", equipped only with iron.  (Steeled) Iron was now seen as a
stronger and cheaper alternative, whose strength was now sufficiently
dependable to overcome bronze.  The scenario I just described fits
better simply all the facts.  I really have to disagree with you that the
idea that the iron had oxidized away is conceivable in light of the
evidence she provides.  If not for the above described explanation, we'd
rather have to conclude and faced with the possibility that it
oxidized away, we'd rather have to rule out that possibility and simply
conclude that we don't know the reason for the lack of earlier iron and
the presence of later iron.  The lack of mention of bronze in the
relevant verses of the Bible matches the cultural situation following the
Assyrian exclusive use of iron in the late 8th century.  No oxidization
scenario helps here because bronze weapons are found prior to that
period, and are apparently found on the battlefield (such as the Battle
of Kadesh).  Finally, keep in mind the difference in terminology between
smelt and steeled, used by Waldbaum as well.  Smelt iron does not
signify a technological improvement and Waldbaum never says it
does.  It is only steeling that is significant.  She explicitly discusses
this on p. 28.  The only "other" whom I've seen suggest that iron
oxidized away is Herbert Hoover whose analysis from a century ago
is really very dated and so his conclusion in this case no longer
relevant.

Yitzhak Sapir