Skip to Content.
Sympa Menu

b-hebrew - Re: [b-hebrew] Iron and Curses in Deuteronomy 28

b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org

Subject: Biblical Hebrew Forum

List archive

Chronological Thread  
  • From: Harold Holmyard <hholmyard3 AT earthlink.net>
  • To: "b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org" <b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org>
  • Subject: Re: [b-hebrew] Iron and Curses in Deuteronomy 28
  • Date: Wed, 11 Feb 2009 08:05:03 -0600

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









Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page