The Question of Meteoritic Versus Smelted Nickel-Rich Iron: Archaeological Evidence and Experimental Results Author(S): E
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
The Question of Meteoritic versus Smelted Nickel-Rich Iron: Archaeological Evidence and Experimental Results Author(s): E. Photos Source: World Archaeology, Vol. 20, No. 3, Archaeometallurgy (Feb., 1989), pp. 403-421 Published by: Taylor & Francis, Ltd. Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/124562 Accessed: 23/08/2009 02:54 Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use, available at http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp. JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use provides, in part, that unless you have obtained prior permission, you may not download an entire issue of a journal or multiple copies of articles, and you may use content in the JSTOR archive only for your personal, non-commercial use. Please contact the publisher regarding any further use of this work. Publisher contact information may be obtained at http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=taylorfrancis. Each copy of any part of a JSTOR transmission must contain the same copyright notice that appears on the screen or printed page of such transmission. JSTOR is a not-for-profit organization founded in 1995 to build trusted digital archives for scholarship. We work with the scholarly community to preserve their work and the materials they rely upon, and to build a common research platform that promotes the discovery and use of these resources. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected]. Taylor & Francis, Ltd. is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to World Archaeology. http://www.jstor.org The question of meteoritic versus smelted nickel-rich iron: archaeological evidence and experimental results E. Photos Introduction The question of nickel-rich iron originating either from iron meteorites or smelted ores as the source of some of the earliest iron artefacts in continental Europe and the east Mediterranean has intrigued archaeologists and metallurgists alike throughout the present century. Starting from Dorpfeld's (G6tze 1902) report in 1902 of nickel-rich iron in a macehead at Troy to Varoufakis' (1981) study of Late Bronze Age iron rings from Mycenae, the question is far from being resolved. At the same time, however, research into this subject has for several reasons given rise to some unintended confusion in the archaeological and archaeometallurgical literature. One reason has been the variety of methods of analysis of these artefacts dictated by their scarcity, their consequent relative inaccessibility for detailed chemical and metallographic investigation, as well as their variable state of preservation. Thus, corrosion products of an often wholly mineralised sample were occasionally investigated, usually by bulk chemical methods (Varoufakis 1981; Desch 1928 and 1936; Gotze 1902), or, at other times, metallic sections were examined by the application of the electron probe microanalyses (EPMA) (Hansson and Modin 1973), the two sets of data not being directly comparable. Secondly, the main criterion for meteoritic origin, particularly for the early analysts (Desch 1928, 1936), was an elevated nickel content comparable with that in actual meteorites. Recently, there has been invaluable work carried out towards establishing additional criteria for distinguishing artefacts produced from meteoritic as opposed to telluric (native) iron, emphasis being placed on the distribution of nickel in the metallic or corroded areas, and the mineralogy of inclusions (Li Chung 1979; Buchwald and Mosdal 1985; Gettens et al. 1971). Thirdly the documentary evidence in the cuneiform tablets and Hittite texts relating to 'iron from heaven' (Bjorkman 1973; Muhly et al. 1985) and the Egyptian references relating to funerary rites (such as the 'opening of the mouth of the dead' ceremony) in which 'thunderbolt' iron was used (Wainright 1932) had helped shape the hypothesis of iron meteorites as the more plausible source of early nickel-rich iron (Bjorkman 1973:124). This approach, favoured particularly among scholars at the turn of the century, is now outmoded. World Archaeology Volume 20 No. 3 Archaeometallurgy ? Routledge 1989 0043-8243/89/2003/403/$3.00/1 404 E. Photos In the light of these sources of confusion, this paper attempts to remove misconceptions which have arisen in the literature by compiling, in tabular form, some of the more often quoted data on artefacts of meteoritic iron and of smelted nickeliferous ore. In addition, it outlines the main criteria for establishing the meteoritic origin of an iron artefact based on published work. The absence of a uniform means of presenting analytical data would not have been so critical in drawing conclusions had there been criteria for establishing a nickel-rich artefact as being unequivocally smelted from nickeliferous ores. The lack of these criteria has been due to the complete absence, until now, of archaeological evidence for the smelting of such ores. In addition, it has not been feasible to associate the findplace of most nickel-rich artefacts with an evident nickeliferous deposit (Blomgren 1980) with the possible exception of the early Mycenaean rings from Greece (Varoufakis 1981). Recently the first, albeit limited, evidence of smelting of nickel-rich iron laterites came to light in a Hellenistic (second century BC) settlement in north Greece, in the metallic prills trapped in iron smithing slags and in a fragment of a nickel-rich iron bloom (Photos et al. 1988). The evidence cannot be considered abundant, and furthermore was not corroborated by the chemical and metallographic examination of a small number of iron artefacts from the site: the objects contained no nickel. Nevertheless, the presence of this metallurgical waste from Petres constitutes the first archaeological evidence of intentional or accidental smelting of nickel-rich iron ores in the east Mediterranean. Because of the importance of these finds a set of experimental smelts was undertaken, aimed at formulating some basic criteria for the identification of nickel-rich iron as the product of a smelted ore. Consequently, this paper proceeds to review the archaeological evidence, discusses the experimental results, and attempts to clarify questions raised in the literature in reference to bloomery nickel-rich iron. Meteoritic, telluric and smelted nickel-rich iron- sources There are three sources of nickel-rich iron in artefacts dating from antiquity to the present era in continental Europe, the east Mediterranean and South-East Asia: iron meteorites, telluric iron (native iron-bearing basalts) and nickeliferous ores. Iron meteorites have been the subject of extensive research primarily by astrophysicists and other scientists in the field of meteorite studies. The composition and structure of most meteorites have been compiled (Buchwald 1975) Hey 1966), and most museums with relevant material have produced catalogues of their own collections (Buchwald and Munck 1965). For the purposes of the present discussion, it suffices to say that the nickel content of the majority of iron meteorites lies in the range 5-12 per cent, although it can reach as much as 60 per cent (Mason 1962). Iron meteorites are mainly classified as hexahedrites consisting primarily of kamacite (alpha-iron, ferrite, 5-7 per cent nickel) and octahedrites consisting of lamellae of kamacite and taenite (gamma-iron, austenite, 30-50 per cent nickel). The latter display the characteristic Widmanstatten structure, namely interlocking bands of taenite and kamacite, formed during the slow cooling of The question of meteoric versus smelted nickel-rich iron 405 the meteorite. Meteorites showing this pattern can be identified relatively easily by electron probe microanalysis (EPMA) even when the object made of meteoritic iron has corroded. The metallurgy of iron meteorites, that of an iron-nickel alloy, has been thoroughly investigated (Ogilvie 1965; Uhlig 1954), their chemical composition in minor and trace elements particularly Ga and Ge accurately determined (Moore et al. 1969; Lovering et al. 1957). Trace elements like cobalt, copper, phosphorus or carbon do not exceed a total 2 per cent in the metal (King 1976). Phosphide (schreibersite (Fe, Ni)3P), sulphide (troilite, FeS), carbide (cohenite (Fe, Ni)3C) and silicate inclusions are quite common in meteorites, but the last of these is usually different in composition from that encountered in wrought or cast iron. The presence of characteristic features like Neumann bands, twinned thin lamellae caused by shock related mechanical deformation, have been explained in detail (Uhlig 1955). All these features have to be taken into consideration when attempting to establish the nature of a nickel-rich artefact as meteoritic in origin. Telluric, or terrestrial iron, found in native iron-bearing basalts in a limited number of geographical regions such as the Disko district in west Greenland, exhibits an overall lower nickel content (0.5-4 per cent in ferrite) than meteoritic iron. This explains why investigators in the last century originally confused it with meteoritic iron since the latter was also found in Greenland, Cape York. However, telluric iron can contain varying amounts of carbon ranging from malleable nickel-iron (c. 0.2 per cent) to white nickel cast iron (1.7-4 per cent) (Buchwald and Mosdal 1985:21). It is reasonable to assume that the only workable telluric iron would be of the low carbon range. Indeed the analytical investigation of knives made by Greenland Eskimos supported this proposition. There are a number