Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-fbnjt Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-05T03:58:58.707Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The Coming of Iron

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  02 January 2015

G. A. Wainwright
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

Inquiry immediately makes it clear that man must first have come to know iron through meteorites. Except for the great masses at Ovifak in Greenland, which are outside the question, iron from earthly sources is not known to occur in the native state. It does, however, occur in metallic form in meteorites (FIG. 2) and is the only metal to do so. In this form it may be found in solid lumps of metal weighing as much as 50 tons (Bacubirito), 36½ tons (Ahnighito), or 15⅔ tons (Chupaderos). But of course most of it occurs in much more manageable sizes—in pieces as large as a man’s head, a hen's egg, a pea, or only as dust. But all meteorites are not solid iron, Very many are a mixture of iron and stone (FIGS. 1, 3) or what is to all intents and purposes merely stone (FIG. 4), and so useless to man as a source of iron. All meteorites fall into one of these three classes.

Type
Research Article
Information
Antiquity , Volume 10 , Issue 37 , March 1936 , pp. 5 - 24
Copyright
Copyright © Antiquity Publications Ltd 1936

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 Encycl. Brit nth ed., ‘Greenland’ p. 545. Google Scholar For full details see Flight, A Chapter in the History of Meteorites pp. 26ff.Google Scholar

2 Rickard, Man and Metals, 1932, II, p. 848 Google Scholar

3 Anns. Serv. Antiqq (Cairo), XXVIII, 183-7; Journ. Egyptian Archy. xix, 49-52 ; IX, 151, 152. For all that proceeds from this confusion of the thunderbolt and meteorite see my series of articles in J.E.A., XVII, ff.

4 Farrington, O.C. Cat. of the Meteorites of North America p. III. It is an iron meteorite Google Scholar

5 For example, Peary, R.E. Northwards over the Great Ice Google Scholar, II, 559, 561, 612 and cf. Brit. Mus. Handbook to the Ethnographical Colins 1910, pp. 248 ff.Google Scholar

6 Putnam, in The Amer. Anthropologist 1930, v, 49; id., Google Scholar in Proc. Amer. Antiquarian Soc 1882– 3, II, 360; Google Scholar Hooton, and Willoughby, The Turner Group of Earthworks, Hamilton County, Ohio (Camb., Mass. 1922), pp. 50, 51, 65-67.Google Scholar

7 Childe, New Light on the Most Ancient East p. 292.Google Scholar

8 In Frankfort, Iraq Excavations of the Oriental Institute 1933–33 (Oriental Inst. Commun., no. 17), pp. 59– 61, pp. 59-61, and fig. 53, cf. also p. 38 and figs. 30-35.Google Scholar

9 Vyse, The Pyramids of Gizeh 1, 275, 276.Google Scholar

10 Olshausen, in Zeits. für Ethnologie 1907, p. 373, no. 1.Google Scholar

11. Id., op. cit., p. 374, nos. 2, 3.

12 Petrie, Abydos 11, p. 33. Google Scholar For a good photograph of it and the tools found with it see Brit. Mus. Guide to the Antiq. of the Bronze Age 1920, fig. 185.Google Scholar

13 MacIver, and Woolley, Buhen pls. 86, 88 and pp. 193, 211.Google Scholar

14 Olshausen, op. cit. p. 374, no.4.Google Scholar

15. Rickard in Man, 1927, no. 56.

16 Though very rare such are known to exist though not near Egypt. Rickard, Man and Metals, II, 846.

17 Man and Metals, 11, 833, 834.

18 Fig. 5 is from a photograph kindly supplied by the University of Pennsylvania Museum.

19 Tools and Weapons, p. 33, no. 144, and pl. xxxix. This was written before the discovery of the Tell Asmar dagger.

20 Newberry, Beni Hasan, 1, pl. xxxi.

21 Maspero in Grébaut, Le musée égyptien, 1, pls. xxxiv, xxxv, and p. 32.

22 Petrie, Tarkhan 1 and Memphis v, pp. 10, 21, grave 474, and pls. 1, 12, iv, 6.Google Scholar

23 See for instance Thomas, E.S., Cat. Ethnograph. Mus. Royal Geogr. Soc. of Egypt (Cairo, 1924), pl. 206, figs, c, e, and pp. 74, 75, 76, for the description.Google Scholar

24 For the details about bia and meteorites see my article Iron in Egypt in J. E. A. xviii, pp. 3-15.

25 Forsdyke, in Annual of British School at Athens, in, XXVIII, 279, 296, and pl. XXIII, 2.Google Scholar

26 Scheil, in Rev. d’Assyriologie, 1958, p. 42This reference was kindly given me by Mr Gadd.Google Scholar

27 Zimmern, Akkadische Fremdwörter, 1917, p. 59.Google Scholar

28 Hrozny, in Archiv. Orientaba, 1929, 1, 281, 11. 74, 75.Google Scholar

29 Id., Hethitische Texte, passim (pubd. in O. Weber, Boghazköi-Studien, Heft 2).

30 Keilschrifturkunden aus Boghazköi, XII, 1, iii, 8; xn, 24, i, 8; xv, 9, iii, 3.

31. Keilschrifttexte aus Boghazköi, iv, 1, vs. 39. For this and the references in the previous note see Götze, Kleinasien, p. 112.

32 Luckenbill, in Amer. Journ. of Sem. Languages, xxxvii, 206.This is the usual version ; Sayce's in ANTIQUITY, 1928, 11, 227 does not seem to have won acceptance.Google Scholar

33 Smith, in J.E.A., in vili, 45-47, x, 108-115. Apparently the original reason for putting it in Pontus, as is commonly done, was that a thousand years later Xenophon found famous iron-workers, the Chalybes, living there.Google Scholar

34 Thureau-Dangin, in La huitième campagne de Sargon, p. 55, 11. 358, 361=p. 79, 11. 30, 38, 39.Google Scholar

35 Dhorme in Syria, xiii, 37

36 But see Götze, Kleinasien, p. 66ff, who thinks it hardly began as early as that.Google Scholar

37 Cf. id., op. cit., p. 73

38 Virolleaud in Syria, IX, 92, 96.

39 But see Wainwright, in J.E.A.xvn, 26 ff ;Google Scholar Journ. Hell. Studies, LI, pp. 1 ff ; Palestine Explor. Fund : Quarterly Statement, 1931, pp. 203 ff. It has otherwise been thought to have been Crete, owing to lack of sufficient evidence and misunderstanding of what there was.

40 But see Knudtzon, Die el-Amarna-Tafelni, p. 163, 1. 16Google Scholar

41 Id., p. 163, 11. 1, 3.

42 Id., p. 159, 1.38.

43 Id., p. 159, 1. 32 ; p. 169, 1. 7 ; p. 173, 1. 49

44 Id., p. 201 1. 28

45 But see Carter, Howard The Tomb of Tut-ankh-amen Google Scholar11, pls. LXXVIIB, LXXXIIA, LXXXVIIB ; ni, pl. xxvil. Mr Carter only considers the chisels to be samples of the new metal.

46 Schaeffer in Syria, x, 292.

47 Cook, A.B. Zeus, I, 630 ff.Google Scholar

48 Breasted, Ancient Records, iv, §§ 44, 64, 71, 81, 82, 129, 403 For all this see Wainwright in Pal. Explor. Fund: Quart. Statement, 1931, pp. 207, 212.Google Scholar

49 P.E.F. : Q.S. 1931, pp. 203-16.

50 Macalister, R.A.S. The Excavation of Gezer 11, pp. 269, 270 and fig. 417.Google Scholar

51 Petrie, Gerar pp. 14–16 Google Scholar

52 Schumacher, Tell el–Mutesellimi, pp. 130–2, figs. 192-4 and pl. XLII.Google Scholar

53 Watzinger, Tell el–MutesellimII pp. 80, 81.Google Scholar

54 Watzinger, Tell el–MutesellimII pp. 80, 81.Google Scholar

55 Id., in op. cit., vi, especially pp. 88, 98.

56 Schräder, E. Keilinschriftliche Bibliothek I, p. 39Future reference to this work will be given as Schräder.Google Scholar

57 Schräder, pp. 61, 77Google Scholar

58 Ibid., p. 83

59 Ibid., pp. 67, 107 twice.

60 Ibid., pp. 145, 147, 155, 161, 163 twice. 61 Ibid., p. 191.

61 Ibid., p. 191

62 Andrae, Die jüngeren Ischtar-Tempel in Assur p. 57 Google Scholar

63 Schräder,, 11, pp. 1567, 103, cf. p. 93;Google Scholar Winckler, Die Keilschrifttexte Sargons pp. 33, 83, 87, 117.Google Scholar

64 Schräder,, Ii, 175 Google Scholar

65 Schräder,, pp. 73, 77Google Scholar

66 Pillet, Khorsabad, p. 80, contents of box 4.Google Scholar

67 Place, V. Ninive et l’Assyrie 1, pp. 84– 89, pls. 70, 71. Some of the ingots are now in the Louvre at Paris, where I obtained some fragments. Prof. Desch’s analysis showed them to be smelted from the ore.Google Scholar

68 Layard, 18491, Ninive et l’Assyrie 1, pp. 84– 89, 341. ‘The Khorsabad king’ pp. 342, 343 is Sargon. There had also been bronze armour there.Google Scholar

69 Forsdyke, in Ann. Brit. School at Athens XXVIII, 296. Google Scholar

70 Cambridge Ancient History, II, 447. Google Scholar

71 Myres, The Cesnola Collection : Antiquities from Cyprus pp. XXXi-XXXIII.Google Scholar

72 For all these see J.E.A., XVIII, pp. 14, 15.

73 Wiedemann, in Proc. Soc. Bibl. Archy 1914, p. 58, no. 22 and pl. v.Google Scholar

74 Schräder, 11, pp. 167, 169

75 Op. cit.p. 167.

76 Petrie, Six Temples at Thebes pl. xxi and pp. 1819.Google Scholar

77 Comb. Anc. Hist., in, 283, 285.

78 Schräder, 11, p. 177, 11. 114, 115.

79 Petrie, Abydosil, pl. xxn, 12 and p. 33 Google Scholar

80. Id., op. cit., I, pl. Lxx, 9 and p. 32.

81 Id. Defennehpl. xxu and p. 55;Google Scholar Nebeshehpl. v and pp. 14, 15; both are bound with Tanis 11. Google Scholar

82 Déchelette, Manuel d’archeologie : premier age du fer p. 546, fig. 226.Google Scholar