Biblical Hebrew Forum

[Harold Holmyard <hholmyard3 AT earthlink.net>]

Yitzhak,
> 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?
HH: There were improvements in the treatment of iron over time, and 
steeling can make iron less vulnerable to oxidation loss. More than one 
article I have read suggested that early iron working could have 
occurred alongside bronze smelting. I will quote statements below. 
Something I notice is that while there are iron tools mentioned in the 
early biblical texts, there are no iron weapons mentioned that I can 
see. Perhaps iron was not used for weapons, bronze probably being 
superior for them in the early periods. This might be a reason why 
bronze objects are not mentioned in Numbers 35, somewhat as Karl 
suggested. If bronze was used for weapons, one might automatically 
assume that someone striking someone else with the bronze object was 
attacking him. The laws in Numbers 35, given in connection with the 
cities of refuge, might be clarifying that if the object is in one's 
hand, even non-weaponry objects of iron, stone, and wood were to be 
considered lethal weapons when used in striking another person. Thus 
they would give no excuse permitting one to enter a city of refuge with 
impunity.

>   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.
>   

HH: I mentioned smelting in connection with the issue of whether the 
early iron was all meteoric iron. Her paper shows that it was not. Yes, 
steeling and other processes would  lengthen the lifespan of the metal 
in corrosive environments. But the Hittite literary records suggest 
there was a lot more iron than the current remains give any indication 
of. Let there be no mistake. Rust destroys iron over time. Here are some 
remarks from Wikipedia:

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

"Rusting can completely degrade iron."

"Given sufficient time, oxygen, and water, any iron mass eventually 
converts entirely to rust and disintegrates."

"As these iron compounds form and flake off from the surface, fresh iron 
is exposed, and the corrosion process continues until all of the iron is 
either consumed or all of the oxygen, water, carbon dioxide, or sulfur 
dioxide in the system are removed or consumed."

The article also shows that there are ways to protect metal so that it 
does not rust or rust so quickly. Knowledge of the problems involved 
with rust loss probably would have motivated people over time to look 
for processes to prevent it. So alloys and other techniques, described 
in the article, could have come into use. The mere difference in time 
could partly explain preservation of iron from later periods, but so 
could improved treatments of the metal. Here is a simple statement along 
those lines:

http://van.physics.illinois.edu/qa/listing.php?id=876

Iron is a pure element. Every atom in a chunk of iron is an iron atom. 
Iron is nice, but it's not very strong.

Steel is even better. To make steel, they melt down iron and mix in 
small amounts of other elements. There are different types of steel 
based on what they mix in and how much. Each type of steel has different 
advantages, such as stength, durability, chemical reactivity, and many 
other qualities. Typical elements that are added to iron to make steel 
include Carbon, Manganese, Silicon, Chromium, and Molybdenum. But most 
of the atoms of steel are still iron, because they only usually add in a 
few percent of other elements.

Now comes rust. Many elements like to go through chemical reactions with 
other elements. Iron likes to react with oxygen to for iron-oxide...or 
rust. We can't keep oxygen away from the iron in our cars since much of 
the atmosphere is oxygen. Rust weakens the iron and can make parts 
break. Steel has the same problem, but some of those elements that are 
added during the steel production can help prevent rust or at least slow 
it down. For example, "stainless steel" is designed so that it will not 
rust, but it is more expensive than other types of steel.

HH: About iron smelting, a good article on the subject of ancient iron, 
supporting many of your ideas, notes:

http://www.geology.ucdavis.edu/~cowen/~GEL115/115CH5.html

At more than 2% carbon, iron alloys change in a completely unexpected 
way: they melt at lower temperatures than pure iron. So the first iron 
alloy to be used for pouring out into molds was a high-carbon alloy. It 
became known as *cast iron* or *pig iron* (from the traditional shape of 
the molds). Cast iron is very strong, but brittle. This traditional 
terminology is confusing ("cast iron" has more carbon than "steel"), and 
the products are not now (and never were) manufactured in sequence of 
increasing or decreasing carbon. I shall return to cast iron later in 
the chapter. . . .

I have already described how a flux can make smelting easier, by 
lowering the temperature at which a slag melts. Iron oxides are among 
the fluxes useful in copper smelting, and others help the slag to drain 
from iron ores in a smelter. By a quirk of fate, some of the iron ores 
along the Black Sea coast have enough natural fluxing material with them 
that they are self-fluxing (the smelter does not need to deliberately 
add anything) and molten iron can be produced at temperatures around 
900° C, well within the reach of copper smelters. Perhaps the first 
smelted iron was discovered as some of these iron ores were used as 
fluxes in copper extraction. If enough iron melted in the process (as 
would happen with these particular ores at these temperatures) the slag 
would contain enough reasonably pure iron to be hammered with curiosity 
by the coppersmiths. Maybe the properties of wrought iron were 
investigated at this time, and maybe much of early iron metallurgy was 
mastered here. Because of this coincidence of the chemistry of local 
iron ores, occurring in a region dense in skilled smelters and smiths, 
much higher-grade iron may have been available to Hattic smiths than to 
other late Bronze Age people, possibly encouraging them to experiment 
with iron more than smiths of other regions. If the Hatti or the 
Hittites were the first people to smelt iron ores deliberately to form 
iron, rather than using the iron that turned up in copper smelting, then 
they were truly the first Iron Age smiths.

HH: Although this author does not think that early iron was used much 
for everyday items, the early biblical books show that it was. So I just 
have to disagree with his conclusions, which are deductive based on a 
lack of remains. Perhaps these iron alloys were used to make cast iron 
equipment and tools. As I said, the Israelites plundered the Egyptians 
as they left the land and so could have taken valuable items of iron 
from the wealthy. But this wrought iron could explain items like Og's bed:

Deuteronomy 3:11  1 (Only Og king of Bashan was left of the remnant of 
the Rephaim. His bed was made of iron. Isn't it in Rabbah of the 
Ammonites? It is 13 feet six inches long and six feet wide by a standard 
measure.)

HH: Bronze does not rust but it also is not not so corrosive as iron. 
Here are some statements about bronze:

http://corrosion-doctors.org/MatSelect/corrbronze.htm

Tin bronzes were among the first alloys developed by ancient 
metalworkers more than 4000 years ago. The addition of tin to copper 
produces an alloy that is harder and more wear- and corrosion resistant 
than either of the pure metals. The discovery of bronze brought immense 
benefits to the early societies, and the period from *2000 BC to 1000 
B*C is familiarly known as the *Bronze Age*.

Today, bronze is the generic term for a family of copper alloys in which 
the principal alloying element is neither zinc (which forms brasses) nor 
nickel (copper-nickels, also called cupronickels). The alloys' names 
reveal their basic composition, e.g., aluminum bronze, nickel-aluminum 
bronze, silicon bronze, etc., although any of these alloys may contain 
several additional alloying elements to imbue specific properties. Like 
the copper-tin bronzes, the alloys have a light golden color, high 
corrosion resistance and excellent mechanical properties.

The presence of lead also makes the alloy easier to machine. Since 
ancient times, bronze has been the preferred material for casting 
statues and other decorative artifacts because it reproduces every 
detail of the mold and because its high corrosion resistance ensures 
that the statue will last. (Few artists intentionally erect temporary 
statues.) With time, atmospheric corrosion causes the metal's surface to 
take on a brown or green color known as a patina. The patina enhances 
the decorative appearance of the statue and protects the underlying 
metal from further corrosion.

HH: So one would expect archeologists to find more bronze items from 
ancient times than iron items.

Yours,
Harold Holmyard