Tutankhamun's iron dagger was meteoric

[Sharur]

Apologies for the delayed reply; I've had another three-week health-related hiatus since my previous post here.

Peter, for all the cases you've cited, the meteorite recoveries were yet again not made because the glowing meteor in the sky was tracked to its impact point by distant witnesses, but because someone relatively close to where the object fell saw and/or heard it land (setting aside those instances where no glowing object was seen at all before-hand). The connection with any bright meteor in the sky might be made afterwards, but this is in most cases even nowadays simply an association created because of modern knowledge, not because those who observed the fall had tracked the glowing flight and then computed and searched a likely fall-zone for any meteorites afterwards. Yes, it's perfectly possible to say that a light in the sky is associated with an object believed to have fallen from the sky, but if the light in the sky turns out to have been a bright planet or a flash of lightning, or the object collected is made of wood, a piece of fungus, an earthly stone, a fossil, a worked-flint axehead, or an unidentified object which is no longer available for examination, do we then say that connection is equally real? This is though the problem we face when dealing with the ancient reports, right through to modern ones where objects have been found after a witness has seen a bright meteor near (and sometimes not so near) the local horizon.

The Ensisheim fall of November 7, 1492 AD (Julian calendar; November 16 Gregorian) is a particularly important and fascinating one, because it is the oldest European meteorite seen to have landed, and part of which still exists. It is the second-oldest meteorite in the world with this distinction. However, as far as the earliest documentary evidence for it notes (broadsheets published soon after the event in four versions with both Latin and German texts by Sebastian Brant), there was no searching, probably because it - and perhaps a number of other, now lost, objects - was actually seen to land in a field (these texts do not state who saw it, but the accompanying woodcut on three of the four sheets shows two men, one riding a horse, being startled by its arrival who are facing towards its landing point). The famous "small boy" episode only appears with the Ensisheim city protocol of 1589 (preserved just in a series of unhappily variant translations into French - a boy - English - a child - and German - a boy - made between 1802 and 1804), while the first mention of an Emperor associated with its finding (Maximilian) does not appear until 1600. Maximilian was still "merely" King of the Romans in 1492 November, as his father Friedrich III was Holy Roman Emperor until his death in August 1493.

The reason it was called a "thunderstone" or similar was because then, and indeed from long before then, through well into the 19th century AD, the general belief (declining only from the latter years of the 18th century among natural philosophers) was that such stones were generated within atmospheric storm clouds and expelled from them to the earth from time to time. Brant's Latin text says as much, for example, as well as citing ancient omen lore about various atmospheric phenomena, while Brant himself eagerly portrayed the Ensisheim event as a favourable omen for the reign of his patron King Maximilian. The fall came with a very loud sound like a tremendous thunderclap, which was apparently widely heard, perhaps from the Noric Alps in the east (south of Vienna), west as far as Burgundy. There's a very useful paper by Ursula Marvin, "The Meteorite of Ensisheim: 1492 to 1992", in Meteoritics, Vol. 27, 1992, pp. 28-72, which is worth seeing, as it includes copies of the original Brant broadsheets and subsequent materials, with translations, and a great deal of helpful discussion on how tales about the stone changed over time, and how its perception in scholarly circles also changed over the centuries. It's freely available as a PDF via the NASA ADS system here, although unfortunately the scans of all the photographed figures in this version of it are very poor and dark (if luckily not including the Brant broadsheets).

A more critical element though is you seem to be assuming in all this that finding a meteorite after only witnessing a meteor that may have dropped one to the surface (generously, we might estimate this at as many as 1 in 30,000 visual meteors) is a simple activity. Sadly, it very definitely is not!

I think the difficulties may be overestimated.  Back in 1803, members of the French Academy of Sciences managed to ascertain that a reported fall of meteorites at l'Aigle did indeed result in extraterrestrial stones on the ground.  A further meteoritic occurrence at Angers in 1822 was similarly successfully correlated.

No Patrick, I'm definitely not overestimating the difficulties! The link between bright meteors and meteorites became understood only from the c.1830s, for instance, while you may care to see Marvin's comments in respect of the famed L'Aigle fall, and the other people who were working towards a modern understanding of meteorites by observation then, most critically the earliest detailed chemical analyses of meteorites around and before 1803, beginning on page 54 of the cited source above. Such work was taking place against a background of the accepted Aristotelian doctrines which set all meteors, including bright shooting stars, as being of purely atmospheric nature. It's thus hardly surprising given the millennia of longevity these ideas had persisted as the accepted truth, that as late as c.1860 there were still scientific advocates of the purely atmospheric origin for meteorites. If you're interested, I'd recommend reading through the opening chapters (especially those by Marvin, Gounelle - on L'Aigle - and Jankovic - on the ending of classical meteorology) in "The History of Meteoritics and Key Meteorite Collections: Fireballs, Falls and Finds", eds. McCall, Bowden & Howarth, Geological Society, 2006. Parts of the book, including the complete chapter by Gounelle barring the illustrations due to copyright restrictions, if unfortunately only segments of the other two chapters, are available to read online via Google Books here.

We may remember that Egypt shows signs of having been an organised kingdom for quite some time even before the 'First Dynasty', and meteor-spotting would have been an activity spanning centuries, even millennia, not just a few decades.  And while there would have been no particular shortage of terrestrial stones, iron slag would have been absent and other 'terrestrial metallic substances' primarily limited to copper and its compounds, which would have been fairly distinguishable.

Hence I see no problem with the Ancient Egyptians realising the origin, or more accurately the means of arrival, of the iron which fell into their hands, or at least their land.

If this were so, then where is the supporting evidence, Patrick?

Egypt's tradition of 'heavenly iron' and surviving iron objects of meteoric composition.

So essentially none at all, given the "heavenly iron" argument is a circular one based on a modern interpretation of the Egyptian hieroglyphs that were used to describe all iron (and perhaps other metals too) regardless of its origin, as viewed through the prism of a modern understanding of meteorites

[Patrick Waterson]

We may remember that Egypt shows signs of having been an organised kingdom for quite some time even before the 'First Dynasty', and meteor-spotting would have been an activity spanning centuries, even millennia, not just a few decades.  And while there would have been no particular shortage of terrestrial stones, iron slag would have been absent and other 'terrestrial metallic substances' primarily limited to copper and its compounds, which would have been fairly distinguishable.

Hence I see no problem with the Ancient Egyptians realising the origin, or more accurately the means of arrival, of the iron which fell into their hands, or at least their land.

If this were so, then where is the supporting evidence, Patrick?

Egypt's tradition of 'heavenly iron' and surviving iron objects of meteoric composition.

So essentially none at all, given the "heavenly iron" argument is a circular one based on a modern interpretation of the Egyptian hieroglyphs that were used to describe all iron (and perhaps other metals too) regardless of its origin, as viewed through the prism of a modern understanding of meteorites

Perhaps a wider viewing perspective than such a narrow prism is desirable.

Let us imagine that the Egyptian 'bia' refers only to earthly iron.  We immediately encounter a double problem (triple, really) in that 1) Egypt lacks native sources of iron and 2) early Egyptian iron objects are of meteoric composition.  (The third problem is that logically Egyptians should use a foreign loan-word for this presumably foreign terrestrial metal, or employ an Egyptian periphrasis denoting its foreign origin.)

The 'Iron From the Sky' project gives the following brief background details.  I quote this as an essentially impartial source (note how it does not commit to a particular explanation).

"The background to this project comes from our recent study of the oldest known examples of worked iron in Egypt. We analysed a nickel-rich iron bead found in a pre-dynastic (3600 – 3300 BCE) grave pit at the Gerzeh cemetery, and confirmed that it was produced by working of iron from a meteorite. This finding has led us to consideration of the use of iron in ancient Egypt, starting from the question of whether iron from a meteorite fall (or find) was the main source of metal prior to the discovery of iron ore deposits.

The term for iron in Ancient Egyptian texts is also used to describe aspects of the sky; it is not known why the same phrase is applied to two such separate 'objects'. It may be that the colour of the sky invited comparison with the sheen and colour of metallic iron. Equally, it may be that the ancients observed a relatively rare celestial phenomenon – the fall of an iron meteorite – which led to the association of metal and sky, especially if the meteorite was found after it landed.

The overall knowledge of the origin of Egyptian iron and material culture is scarce. Egyptian iron artefacts have been subjected to little research from both materials culture and science perspectives, whereas historical investigations of iron in the Near East have centred round the military hardware perspective. Many examples of iron artefacts exist in museum Egyptology collections, but they generally have not been subjected to detailed scientific analysis. The artefacts take a variety of different forms and have a wide geographic provenance, such as the iron dagger blade from Tutankhamen's tomb. They range in reported archaeological date from the 4th Dynasty onwards, but with the majority appearing later from around the 26th Dynasty. There are a small number of Egyptian nickel-rich iron artefacts found in the Nile Valley, dating from the 11th to the 18th Dynasties which are dominantly symbolic in form. Large quantities of iron slag were found during excavations of 26th Dynasty Delta sites, although this could be waste from copper smelting.

In parallel to the excavation of iron artefacts, ancient texts indicate that the earliest written word for iron appearing in hieroglyphs, (biA), could have been a relatively broad term, since no evidence exists to suggest that the necessary knowledge of metal production existed at such an early time in Egypt. If iron as a material was viewed within this broader perspective, materials of other composition – but related to  iron by similar visual appearance or physical properties (e.g., a high density, metallic lustre and surface texture) also need to be considered in order to understand the perception of iron by ancient Egyptians. There is no text to demonstrate that early Egyptians were aware of the celestial origin of meteorites, however lexicography studies point to a link between sky and the early term for iron. However, from around the end of the 18th Dynasty, a new term for iron is developed which literally translates as 'iron from the sky'.

The Pyramid texts are considered to be the earliest theological Egyptian text. They contain references to iron in numerous places, mainly featuring in funerary ceremonies, the reception of deceased kings to heaven and their subsequent life in heaven, as well as a specific association with the god Seth [Ritual of bodily restoration of the deceased and offerings; Utterances {21, 13c}; {570, 1454b & 1455a}; {21, 14a}; {530a, 1454b}; {684, 2051c}]. Excavations during 1923-24 revealed that during the 19th Dynasty, heavily mineralised mammal fossil bones were incorporated into burial shafts at Qau el-Kebir, in addition to similar fossil bone fragments wrapped in two linen bundles placed within a near-by rock-cut tomb. Many of the bones were reported to be hippopotamus and this location was known as a cult centre of the god Seth who was frequently depicted in artwork as a hippopotamus. These dark, heavy, fossilised bones share strong visual similarity with desert-weathered iron meteorites; as such, they could be the source of inspiration for the Pyramid texts reference to the 'iron bones of gods'."

[Gods were identified with stellar and planetary bodies.]

This seems to be a fair summary of the position.  Interesting to note is that the implicit lexical connection between 'iron' and 'sky' becomes explicit with the end of the 18th Dynasty.  Paradoxically, this had little to do with conventional meteorites, but rather with a much more copious source of iron in the solar system.

[Swampster]

"Peter, for all the cases you've cited, the meteorite recoveries were yet again not made because the glowing meteor in the sky was tracked to its impact point by distant witnesses, but because someone relatively close to where the object fell saw and/or heard it land (setting aside those instances where no glowing object was seen at all before-hand). The connection with any bright meteor in the sky might be made afterwards, but this is in most cases even nowadays simply an association created because of modern knowledge, not because those who observed the fall had tracked the glowing flight and then computed and searched a likely fall-zone for any meteorites afterwards."

I'm not sure why you keep referring to the difficulty of tracking the landing site of a glowing meteor to find its impact. The only reference I've made is to an attempt to do so is the Hraschina meteorite, and in that case the commission which set out did find the meteorite.

My point (and Patrick's, I think) has been that people in the past were able to associate something happening in the sky with the sudden appearance of a rock.

The eyewitness accounts make it clear that they have associated the bright thing in the sky with something impacting. These are people who have had the impact occur right next to them. The same people who were next to the impact were aware of the sky events - even though these happened many miles back in the trajectory. Without any expert training, they were able to identify the thing which had fallen. In the case I quote below, an impact crater was found very soon after impact and the meteorite was found later in the same day. I don't think anyone has actual proposed that an ancient Egyptian computed and searched a likely fall-zone. 
If they made a _wrong_ connection between a find and an event, that still tells us that people thought that objects could fall from the sky.

Any searching priests or whatever do not need to actually plot a landfall. In fact, they may not go searching at all - if an impact landed this close to some ancient Egyptians they may well have brought the thing from the sky to the attention of their local priests or even further afield. In at least one of the Mauretanian examples, word reached the local towns of the finds, but not because of alerting academics - note how long it was before the international academics found out about it.


'"We were preparing dinner when suddenly the torch I was holding was no longer necessary as night had become bright
day. We became very frightened as it appeared that the day of the last judgement had begun. Just after the
light had passed there were three or four explosions from the South, and after this we heard an ishshsh-like
sound which terminated in a big thud. We searched for the object that obviously had fallen upon us but we
only discovered a hole in the soil. In it was some kind of ash-like dust which we could also smell, and which
was different from the camel's urine [which soaked the ground around the animals]. Early the next morning
I told the story to Eli who in turn told it to Albadad [Sidi Mohamed Ould Alharthi]. Albadad arrived later
during the day and actually found the stone, broke it apart, and gave pieces of it as souvenirs to everybody
who asked for one."'


As you originally said, "The problem isn't so much a semantic one, as a physical one, in that unless you're standing very close to where a meteorite actually lands, you'd be hard pressed to know whether it had indeed fallen from the sky."

Since in the three cases I've cited, someone was indeed standing very close to where a meteorite actually landed, they would be less hard pressed to know that it had indeed fallen from the sky. They were also able to associate it with a bright flash or other heavenly display.

The Ensisheim paper makes it clear that people at this time and early (citing e.g. Pliny) associated sounds and light in the sky with objects falling to earth. Whether they believed in the 15th century that they were produced by thunderclouds doesn't alter their perception that there could be bangs and flashed followed by lumps hitting the ground. The paper supports the idea that people in the past could connect an aerial display with the impact of a particular rock. It also shows that they can find a stone - which they have associated with sounds and sights in the sky - and less than three weeks later it is in the hands of the ruler. As you say, there seems to have been no need to search because the impact was seen - but I'm not sure why this dismisses the chance of Egyptian meteorites being found in exactly the same way.

The Hraschina example gives one possible method by which a commission can be sent to found out if there had been an impact - finding it by word of mouth rather than actually tracking and predicting the impact site. Incidentally, if the explanation of Maximillian's status is due to my mention of an Emperor in an earlier post, that is in reference to the Hraschina meteorite, not Ensisheim.

[Sharur]

Don't think you've really found that "wider perspective" you were seeking on the Egyptian bia, Patrick, and you seem to be imagining the problems it supposedly creates as well.

We immediately encounter a double problem (triple, really) in that 1) Egypt lacks native sources of iron...

A quick check of the first suitable text to-hand (editor Paul Bahn's "Atlas of World Archaeology", Time Life, 2000) shows a significant iron and lead source in the Old Kingdom discussion, located in Upper Egypt by the Gebel el-Hammam site label below the Nile's First Cataract on p. 143, aside from the later-attested sources along the Nile in Upper Nubia between the Fifth Cataract and Meroë (e.g. ditto, p. 149). That's apart from the accidental production of small quantities of iron during other metal-working (e.g. during copper smelting using an iron oxide flux agent), or discovered in connection with other metal mining. You are though ignoring the most obvious native source of iron, one which I noted in my first posting on this topic - iron meteorites lying on the surface, or within the soil's plough-zone, that had fallen quite unseen by anyone over the many preceding millennia. While statistics I've cited previously here show these would not have been especially plentiful, they are discrete pieces of more or less pure nickel-iron, clearly different enough to most ordinary stones found during agricultural land clearance, or working of the topsoil, to be recognised as unusual (their heaviness particularly), then removed and reused for other purposes, at least in some cases. So, the quantities might not be enough to start an Iron Age on their own, but this is hardly no native iron sources.

...and 2) early Egyptian iron objects are of meteoric composition.

From the above, clearly it would be a greater surprise if at least some early iron objects from Egypt were not meteoritic in origin. Although very few such early iron objects have so far been examined with sufficient rigour to confirm your implication here that all such iron was meteoritic, it is perhaps a not unreasonable assumption for a good proportion of cases, particularly given the generally small and specialised/precious nature of the worked iron objects that have survived.

(The third problem is that logically Egyptians should use a foreign loan-word for this presumably foreign terrestrial metal, or employ an Egyptian periphrasis denoting its foreign origin.)

And again, the presumption is in error, given it's not a foreign material, just a rare substance found at times while working the crop fields on, or in, the soil.

The 'Iron From the Sky' project gives the following brief background details.  I quote this as an essentially impartial source (note how it does not commit to a particular explanation).

Not sure I'd use a phrasing like "essentially impartial source" for a project calling itself "Iron From the Sky" Patrick, particularly when it seems to have started from an assumption that observed meteorite falls were of greater moment than the far larger quantity of available finds in obtaining the iron - ...the question of whether iron from a meteorite fall (or find) was the main source of metal prior to the discovery of iron ore deposits. It also seems to have assumed that finding iron ore deposits was the only other main alternative option for such small-scale iron usage as is apparent in the earlier Egyptian contexts, albeit while also citing that, Large quantities of iron slag were found during excavations of 26th Dynasty Delta sites, although this could be waste from copper smelting, a slightly back-handed admission that there are other possibilities. However, as described, the project's pushing the agenda based on a modern knowledge of meteorites, not what the ancients themselves understood.

Whether lexical studies can really say much useful about why "iron" and "sky" might be connected in ancient Egyptian thought is most unclear, particularly given the lack of reliable etymologies for early "iron" terms anyway, as discussed, for instance, in the Bjorkman paper from 1973. We might as well fall back on the long-established etymologist's cop-out of saying it may have originated with a personal name. But perhaps "iron from the sky" meant no more than figuratively "from beyond the horizon", for metal brought into Egypt from other lands in later times.

I'm not sure why you keep referring to the difficulty of tracking the landing site of a glowing meteor to find its impact. The only reference I've made is to an attempt to do so is the Hraschina meteorite, and in that case the commission which set out did find the meteorite.

Actually it goes back to your first comments regarding the Chelyabinsk meteorite fall in your November 16 posting, and by inference many of your subsequent notes. (The Hraschina meteorites were of course found by people near where the objects fell almost immediately afterwards on 1751 May 26; the investigative commission sent by Emperor Francis I followed only some time later, and did not report until July 6 that year, so did not itself find the meteorites.) I've also tried to indicate the destructive power of a meteor which is still glowing when it impacts the surface to guide the discussion away from that (although it is what many inexperienced eye-witnesses believe has happened). The points I've attempted to make in regard to determining a meteorite fall zone after only witnessing the glowing meteor high in the atmosphere, concern the fact most meteorite falls happen some time after the glowing meteor has vanished, and occur at the end of what's often known, for obvious reasons, as the object's "dark flight". As this latter tends to follow a ballistic trajectory, in free-fall under gravity alone, rather than the straight line path of the glowing part of the trail while the object still retains part of its pre-atmospheric velocity, it is particularly difficult to compute, even with modern techniques and machines. Thus assuming someone can simply witness a bright meteor and go straight out and find any meteorites it might have dropped is essentially nonsensical, barring blind luck. I'd hoped my earlier notes here would have been sufficient to demonstrate much of this.

The eyewitness accounts make it clear that they have associated the bright thing in the sky with something impacting. These are people who have had the impact occur right next to them. The same people who were next to the impact were aware of the sky events - even though these happened many miles back in the trajectory.

In fact this is not so. The reports you've mentioned, and many others you haven't, seem to contain the link because it was made by the modern commentator describing it in paraphrased form, and making various connections based on a modern knowledge of meteoritics, not what the witnesses themselves said or understood. Yes, some may have seen a bright light in the sky, and also been near where a meteorite fell subsequently, but it does not follow they made the link themselves, nor that they were expecting the object to fall because they had seen such a light - which fall might happen only several minutes later in the case of a genuine meteorite's arrival. Otherwise it should not have taken until the 1830s AD to make the connection between especially bright meteors and meteorite falls.

I don't think anyone has actual proposed that an ancient Egyptian computed and searched a likely fall-zone.

Then how would they manage to identify an object as having fallen from the sky if only a bright meteor had been observed, not the actual object impacting? This formed a key aspect of the earlier discussions on this topic here.

If they made a _wrong_ connection between a find and an event, that still tells us that people thought that objects could fall from the sky.

There's no question people believed, indeed in some places still believe, that all manner of things might fall from the sky, again as I've already mentioned. However, genuine meteorites form just a small fraction of the multitude of non-meteoritic objects which were also thought able to so fall. Genuine meteorites only became important among those after the late 18th century AD, when there was a growing understanding that they really did originate in - actually beyond - the sky as seen from Earth, and that came about primarily thanks to chemical analyses of recovered meteorites. Remember too that until the 1850s, there was still a strong belief even amongst parts of the scientific community, that actual meteorites formed within storm clouds in Earth's atmosphere, and fell to the surface only from there. Any association of light effects were naturally subsumed into that ancient cloud-born paradigm, with lightning in or from the storm clouds where such objects were thought to be created. Indeed, there are often crude similarities between witness' descriptions of lightning strikes on buildings and meteorite impacts, so it's not surprising this connection held sway for so very long.

Incidentally, if the explanation of Maximillian's status is due to my mention of an Emperor in an earlier post, that is in reference to the Hraschina meteorite, not Ensisheim.

Interesting. Your comment (Nov 21 posting, para 4) was continuing the discussion of Ensisheim at the time though (from para 3), not Hraschina (mentioned just in para 1). Plus some modern descriptions of Ensisheim refer to Emperor Maximilian, perhaps following the 1493 reprints of Brant's broadsheets (by when Maximilian was Emperor), or a text from 1600, Johann Wolf's "Lectionem Memorabilium", which also seemed to have used these later reprinted broadsheets as source.

[Swampster]

The eyewitness accounts make it clear that they have associated the bright thing in the sky with something impacting. These are people who have had the impact occur right next to them. The same people who were next to the impact were aware of the sky events - even though these happened many miles back in the trajectory.

In fact this is not so. The reports you've mentioned, and many others you haven't, seem to contain the link because it was made by the modern commentator describing it in paraphrased form, and making various connections based on a modern knowledge of meteoritics, not what the witnesses themselves said or understood. Yes, some may have seen a bright light in the sky, and also been near where a meteorite fell subsequently, but it does not follow they made the link themselves, nor that they were expecting the object to fall because they had seen such a light - which fall might happen only several minutes later in the case of a genuine meteorite's arrival. Otherwise it should not have taken until the 1830s AD to make the connection between especially bright meteors and meteorite falls.

I have quoted from the eyewitness reports. These are not paraphrases, simply translations.

"Just after the
light had passed there were three or four explosions
from the South, and after this we heard an ishshsh-like
sound which terminated in a big thud."

Is he _really_ making no link between these events? A really unusual event in the sky is followed just after by a really unusual event of an object from the sky hitting the ground. He's uneducated.

As for taking until the 1830s, well we've already got the 15th century link of something bright in the sky being followed by something landing being connected by those around at the time.
Surely the 19th century link was that these objects had an origin in outer space,not simply that something bright could fall from the sky. You've already said that people thought they were e.g. the product of clouds.


Okay, lets assume that nobody ever linked the sky glow with the impact.
The first post was simply that the Egyptian word could mean sky-iron. We have modern examples of something being found - not because a glowing object is followed by priests, commissioners or astronomers - by people who happen to have the thing land within metres. Had it been metal rather than stony, they could call it something to do with the sky because they have just seen a large lump of the stuff hit the ground. Nothing needs to glow.

[Patrick Waterson]

A quick check of the first suitable text to-hand (editor Paul Bahn's "Atlas of World Archaeology", Time Life, 2000) shows a significant iron and lead source in the Old Kingdom discussion, located in Upper Egypt by the Gebel el-Hammam site label below the Nile's First Cataract on p. 143, aside from the later-attested sources along the Nile in Upper Nubia between the Fifth Cataract and Meroë (e.g. ditto, p. 149). That's apart from the accidental production of small quantities of iron during other metal-working (e.g. during copper smelting using an iron oxide flux agent), or discovered in connection with other metal mining.

And does Mr Bahn mention when these were first worked?

You are though ignoring the most obvious native source of iron, one which I noted in my first posting on this topic - iron meteorites lying on the surface, or within the soil's plough-zone, that had fallen quite unseen by anyone over the many preceding millennia.

This assumes they were unseen over the preceding millennia - quite a large assumption.

(The third problem is that logically Egyptians should use a foreign loan-word for this presumably foreign terrestrial metal, or employ an Egyptian periphrasis denoting its foreign origin.)

And again, the presumption is in error, given it's not a foreign material, just a rare substance found at times while working the crop fields on, or in, the soil.

But if this particular - large - assumption is in error, then the presumption is correct.

However, as described, the project's pushing the agenda based on a modern knowledge of meteorites, not what the ancients themselves understood.

As indeed my distinguished interlocutor appears to be doing.   It seems to be a hard habit to shake.

But perhaps "iron from the sky" meant no more than figuratively "from beyond the horizon", for metal brought into Egypt from other lands in later times.

Ancient Egyptians clearly distinguished between the sky and the horizon and their associated concepts and uses.

I don't think anyone has actually proposed that an ancient Egyptian computed and searched a likely fall-zone.

Then how would they manage to identify an object as having fallen from the sky if only a bright meteor had been observed, not the actual object impacting? This formed a key aspect of the earlier discussions on this topic here.

By finding something in the vicinity.  I think Peter means their search method would be in accordance with their times, culture and outlook rather than ours.

If they made a _wrong_ connection between a find and an event, that still tells us that people thought that objects could fall from the sky.

There's no question people believed, indeed in some places still believe, that all manner of things might fall from the sky, again as I've already mentioned.

Hence the connection ...

[Swampster]

I don't think anyone has actually proposed that an ancient Egyptian computed and searched a likely fall-zone.

Then how would they manage to identify an object as having fallen from the sky if only a bright meteor had been observed, not the actual object impacting? This formed a key aspect of the earlier discussions on this topic here.

By finding something in the vicinity.  I think Peter means their search method would be in accordance with their times, culture and outlook rather than ours.

Indeed. And as the examples I've been quoting from modern times as been showing, the simplest explanation is that they could have seen or heard something impacting. I think Alistair brought up the unlikelihood of following a glowing meteor to its impact site - I regret mentioning the Chelyabinsk example now as it led to too much of the 'We three Kings' type supposition.

[Swampster]

Incidentally, if the explanation of Maximillian's status is due to my mention of an Emperor in an earlier post, that is in reference to the Hraschina meteorite, not Ensisheim.

Interesting. Your comment (Nov 21 posting, para 4) was continuing the discussion of Ensisheim at the time though (from para 3), not Hraschina (mentioned just in para 1). Plus some modern descriptions of Ensisheim refer to Emperor Maximilian, perhaps following the 1493 reprints of Brant's broadsheets (by when Maximilian was Emperor), or a text from 1600, Johann Wolf's "Lectionem Memorabilium", which also seemed to have used these later reprinted broadsheets as source.

An unfortunate confusion due, I think to me inserting text after first writing. I did make reference to the Emperor in connection with sending out a commission though, and this was for the Hraschina fall.

[Sharur]

Peter, as your:

"Just after the light had passed there were three or four explosions from the South, and after this we heard an ishshsh-like sound which terminated in a big thud"

citation came from Mauritania in 2003, it's irrelevant to a discussion of whether people prior to the late 18th/early 19th centuries understood meteorites could fall from space. In any reports after the early to mid 19th century, we cannot discount knowledge of the meteor-meteorite-space-origin links being present and understood, most especially those from the mid 20th century onwards.

As for the other supposed earlier "links" between bright events in the sky and objects landing on the surface, as I've mentioned previously, yes there is no shortage of these claims, even into modern times, but they do not demonstrate an understanding that bright shooting-stars were linked to genuine meteorite falls prior to the early 19th century. All they show is that ANY bright light in the sky (lightning, a planet, a comet, light beams, reflected light from the surface, the aurora, halo phenomena, etc., as well as meteors) might be connected with any amount of objects later found on the surface - regardless of whether those objects had any real association with the light, and regardless of what the objects were.

Saying that the Egyptian term we currently interpret as meaning "iron from the sky" indicates an understanding by the ancient Egyptians that such pieces of iron actually fell from space (an understanding often supposed by modern commentators), is insupportable by the evidence from ancient Egypt, as that evidence is merely this term. The reuse of meteoritic iron by the ancient Egyptians has no relevance to this question, given it was already a rare resource available on the land or in the topsoil, regardless of any putative sky-fallen association due to observations. Moreover, the reality is that ANY slightly unusual object found lying relatively prominently on the surface, or any unusual object found in the soil (or even in rocks) frequently was, and sometimes is still, supposed to have fallen out of the sky. And that is all it needs to make such an association, not an understanding of where the object may have really come from, or what it is, or to have observed a light in the sky, or heard anything apparently falling to the ground, before-hand, let alone having seen it fall. Genuine meteorites form just a fraction of this wealth of supposedly sky-fallen objects overall. Singling-out meteoritic iron as important from all these is only sensible from a modern understanding of meteorites, not what the ancients themselves believed was possible.

...editor Paul Bahn's "Atlas of World Archaeology", Time Life, 2000) shows a significant iron and lead source in the Old Kingdom discussion...

And does Mr Bahn mention when these were first worked?

"Old Kingdom" not precise enough for you, Patrick? The iron must logically have been in-place long before it was first worked on a commercial scale, of course, thus small amounts could have been available on the surface - or even washed-out into the Nile - prior to that time anyway. There needn't have been much, as the surviving early Egyptian iron objects weren't large. Plus I'd simply used it to help counter your earlier assertion that:

...Egypt lacks native sources of iron...

***

You are though ignoring the most obvious native source of iron, one which I noted in my first posting on this topic - iron meteorites lying on the surface, or within the soil's plough-zone, that had fallen quite unseen by anyone over the many preceding millennia.

This assumes they were unseen over the preceding millennia - quite a large assumption.

Not really. Unless we're following Archbishop Ussher here, the preceding millennia for such meteorites to have fallen unseen and collected on and near the surface comprise up to the whole of geological history since the Earth's surface finally solidified, including that sizable chunk prior to humans existing as a species, after all.

If you're suggesting instead that the meteorites had not then mostly so-lain for millennia undiscovered even after humans had appeared on the scene, that too would be incorrect, at least through to the time when humans started practising agriculture on a reasonably regular basis, and a relatively large scale, within a settled society. The importance of significant agricultural land-use to the finding of iron meteorites by earlier societies is indicated by the general paucity of iron meteorites known from Old World countries, as compared with their relative abundance from places such as the Americas, southern Africa and Australia, something discussed in V F Buchwald's Chapter 5 (from his previously-cited Handbook of Iron Meteorites, University of California Press, 1975; especially pp. 40-41 and references). The key distinctions, given a geographically-global meteorite infall rate across the Earth's surface, are higher population densities resulting from a much greater amount of agriculture over a larger area of land, and over a longer time, across more of the Old World.

Some of the "missing" iron meteorites would doubtless have been simply removed, like any solid debris, during land clearance for agriculture, dumped elsewhere and lost, or been broken-up to the point of becoming unrecognisable by repeated agricultural works. However, as the remaining part of Buchwald's Chapter 5 discussed, many of the "lost" meteorites will have been reworked by humans taking advantage of such easily-accessible metal nuggets. From p. 41 (using data in Appendix 5, p. 162): "...reheated meteorites constitute no less than 18% of all iron meteorites. This is a surprisingly large percentage and indicates the eagerness and curiosity with which our forefathers utilized the costly material." ("Reheated" here indicating those objects where analyses had found evidence of deliberate reheating after the iron had reached the Earth's surface.) Still other meteorites show signs of having been cold-worked, with pieces chipped-off and missing, for example.

(The third problem is that logically Egyptians should use a foreign loan-word for this presumably foreign terrestrial metal, or employ an Egyptian periphrasis denoting its foreign origin.)

And again, the presumption is in error, given it's not a foreign material, just a rare substance found at times while working the crop fields on, or in, the soil.

But if this particular - large - assumption is in error, then the presumption is correct.

Only of course, as just noted, it's a logical certainty, no "large assumption", that such a reservoir of native iron in the form of long-fallen meteorites must have existed.

I think I've covered your remaining notes in my opening paragraphs above, Patrick.

[Patrick Waterson]

Peter, as your:

"Just after the light had passed there were three or four explosions from the South, and after this we heard an ishshsh-like sound which terminated in a big thud"

citation came from Mauritania in 2003, it's irrelevant to a discussion of whether people prior to the late 18th/early 19th centuries understood meteorites could fall from space.

Did we not begin this discussion by wondering whether Ancient Egyptians would have concluded that iron (bia) fell from the sky, as opposed to conceptualising arrival from space?

Saying that the Egyptian term we currently interpret as meaning "iron from the sky" indicates an understanding by the ancient Egyptians that such pieces of iron actually fell from space (an understanding often supposed by modern commentators), is insupportable by the evidence from ancient Egypt, as that evidence is merely this term. The reuse of meteoritic iron by the ancient Egyptians has no relevance to this question, given it was already a rare resource available on the land or in the topsoil, regardless of any putative sky-fallen association due to observations.

Again, the Egyptian understanding - and vocabulary - suggest that they, like Aristotle, envisaged the material falling from the sky, not space.

The problem with seeing meteoric iron as a 'topsoil resource' is the Nile's annual flooding and consequent silt deposition.

Moreover, the reality is that ANY slightly unusual object found lying relatively prominently on the surface, or any unusual object found in the soil (or even in rocks) frequently was, and sometimes is still, supposed to have fallen out of the sky. And that is all it needs to make such an association, not an understanding of where the object may have really come from, or what it is, or to have observed a light in the sky, or heard anything apparently falling to the ground, before-hand, let alone having seen it fall. Genuine meteorites form just a fraction of this wealth of supposedly sky-fallen objects overall. Singling-out meteoritic iron as important from all these is only sensible from a modern understanding of meteorites, not what the ancients themselves believed was possible.

Can we hold for a moment there?  Egyptian 'meteoric' iron is, as I understand it, nowadays so classified on the basis of content, so it really does not matter what process the Egyptians may have used to arrive at their understanding, as they seem to have been correct.

...editor Paul Bahn's "Atlas of World Archaeology", Time Life, 2000) shows a significant iron and lead source in the Old Kingdom discussion...

And does Mr Bahn mention when these were first worked?

"Old Kingdom" not precise enough for you, Patrick? The iron must logically have been in-place long before it was first worked on a commercial scale, of course, thus small amounts could have been available on the surface - or even washed-out into the Nile - prior to that time anyway. There needn't have been much, as the surviving early Egyptian iron objects weren't large. Plus I'd simply used it to help counter your earlier assertion that:

...Egypt lacks native sources of iron...

Out of interest, where and what exactly is this 'Gebel el-Hammam'?  There is a Gebel es Silsila and a Nag el Hammam, but both of these are sandstone quarries.  On page 12 of this article is a mention of modern sandstone quarrying eradicating the Gebel el-Hammam quarries.  And 'mentioned in the Old Kingdom discussion' is not quite the same as 'worked in the Old Kingdom'.  I await clarification on this point.

You are though ignoring the most obvious native source of iron, one which I noted in my first posting on this topic - iron meteorites lying on the surface, or within the soil's plough-zone, that had fallen quite unseen by anyone over the many preceding millennia.

This assumes they were unseen over the preceding millennia - quite a large assumption.

Not really. Unless we're following Archbishop Ussher here, the preceding millennia for such meteorites to have fallen unseen and collected on and near the surface comprise up to the whole of geological history since the Earth's surface finally solidified, including that sizable chunk prior to humans existing as a species, after all.

Again, it might be worth evaluating the effect of the Nile's annual flooding and deposition of silt before relying on this argument.

[Patrick Waterson]

I shall put my cards on the table regarding Egyptian sources of iron, or rather the absence thereof.  On p.136 of JH Breasted's History of Egypt, he notes (in connection with the Sixth Dynasty, Old Kingdom) about Nubia:

"It was not of itself a country which the agricultural Egyptian could utilise.  The strip of cultivable soil between the Nile and the desert on either hand was in Nubia so scanty, even in places disappearing altogether, that its agricultural value was slight.  But the high ridges and valleys in the desert on the east contained rich veins of gold-bearing quartz, and iron ore was plentiful also, although no workings of it have been found there."

I suspect this is the Atlas of World Archaeology's 'source' of iron.  If so, we may note that it is a) not in Egypt and b) shows no signs of having been worked.

We might further note that if some had leaked into the river, it would not perforce lead anyone to the source.  A small amount would pass unnoticed; a substantial amount would just have everyone complaining: "The river is blood!"

[Patrick Waterson]

I am starting to get a bit worried about Alastair, whom I hope we shall see again, but meanwhile the long arm of coincidence presents us with this six-second clip of a meteor arriving over Lisle, Illinois as of 6th February 2017.

Apologies if any adverts intrude prior to the shot, but when one sees the clip the 'minivan-sized' meteor does look quite noticeable - not the sort of thing one can really overlook or assume has arrived from anywhere except the sky.