King Tut's Daggers

Anyone know how in general the gold dagger, and the iron dagger, were constructed? i.e. is the tang extended all the way through and peened over on the end, or is some other technique used?

More interested in the iron dagger than anything else. Also regarding the iron dagger, is there any indication of what the alloy of the blade might be? Is it basically wrought iron, meteoric iron, or some sort of carburized steel? I am guessing it is wrought iron, but am not sure. Anybody have any good closeups pix of the iron dagger? I have one, but it is a small pic. Usually one only sees the gold one.

I saw the gold dagger in person when I went to the Tut exhibit at the Los Angeles County Museum of Art a few weeks back. Absolutely exquisite piece of craftsmanship, and quite worthy of a Pharaoh. In looking at it I was unable to determine the method of construction. I am thinking it is some sort of through tang method, but there was an applique cartouche on the very top of the pommel, so it was impossible to see if it was peened over or not, though that is the most likely possibility.

On a related note, did the more typical bronze daggers of the period follow the same construction techniques as Tut's daggers, or was something different done?

I'm not sure about Tut's dagger's tang, but I know there is a goldsmith who made an exact copy. I'll let you know when I can dig up the info. I think the blade iron
might be meteoric (if I remember correctly).
Many New Kingdom daggers were cast as one piece with the hilt, which often had wood (e.g. ebony) plates inset in the handle:
http://www.digitalegypt.ucl.ac.uk/tools/dagger.html
some older daggers had the hilt riveted to the blade like Mycenaean weapons.
These seem to have knob like hilts which fit in the palm, and were designed for an overhand stabbing thrust.

I think the iron dagger was made from meteoric iron. Nobody had the ability to smelt iron ore at that early stage. Meteoric iron isn't the best for blades - high levels of impurities like nickel make it unsuitable.

Hmmm, I read somewhere that the dagger was a gift from some Asian kingdom, presumably the Hittites, who smelted iron.

But that was in a later period, I suppose - at this time they probably could not smelt iron. Though I do not know enough of the origins of iron smelting to know for sure.

I take it, then, that no one has done any sort of metallurgical analysis on this blade? Too bad, but not a surprise, with so many objects out there deserving anaylsis.

Thanks, Todd, for the weblink. Look forward to any other info you (or others) dig up.

The dagger hasn't been analyzed, so nobody knows. But the first iron was already melted as early as 3000BC. Back then it was as accidental by-product from melting other metals, and could only be made in very little quantities. There are writings known that describe iron as being much more valuable then gold. A link to an article with this and more information was placed on SFI a few months back, but I haven't been able to dig it up yet. I did find an article about the oldest steel though, dating to 1800BC:

http://forums.swordforum.com/showthread.ph...ight=first+iron

And here is a thread about Tut's golden dagger:
http://forums.swordforum.com/showthread.ph...ighlight=dagger

Oh, I'm just starting to find some articles on the earliest iron melting:

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

http://www.edinformatics.com/inventions_inventors/steel.htm

Thanks for the correction. I thought Tut was earlier than 15th C.

Tut is dated to around 1330 B.C. in the old chronology, per "Treasures of Tutanhkamun"

Uh, not really.

When I was a custom knifemaker in the late 80s, there was a fad among cutlers for forging knives from meteoric iron obtained from sources like rockhound shops and meteor crater.

All reports from the smiths I knew were that metoeric iron made pretty decent blades as its nickle and chromium content were usually within the realm of modern alloys.

The standard that was popular at the time was pattern welding in the damascus style, with etching to make the pattern stand out.

Meteoric iron from strikes in Syria are often contaminated with traces of Tungsten- making genuine damascus a higher grade still.

The main problem with making blades from meteors is that most of what you find are really small pieces- too small for practical use.

Damascus and its surrounding area apparently had a large meteor strike at some point in prehistory that scattered a LOT of small pieces of high grade iron around that are fairly easy to find.
Which is why the place became a center of swordmaking in the iron age.


-Badger-

I also met the smith who was commissioned to make the replica of the Tut dagger in the 80s- his table was several down from mine at knife expo 87 in socal.

The topic came up- as he had the knife in a locked lexan display case at the show.

I remember very little- but I believe he said the dagger was cast in one solid piece, and the inlays were set in hollows in the wax casting.


Needless to say, I did NOT get to handle the piece!


I know I had a knife magazine that had an article on this dagger and its construction years ago- but the magazine has not survived through my several changes of address over time.



-Badger-

This recently came up on the Archmetals mailing list.

Helmi, F., Barakat, K., "Micro analysis of Tutankhamuns's Dagger", Proceedings of the First International Conference on Ancient Egyptian Mining, Metallurgy and Conservation of Metallic Artifacts, 10-12 April, 1995, Cairo, Egypt.

Conclusion was that Tut's dagger was not meteoritic iron because the nickle content was only c. 2.8%, but apparently, nickle content is preferentially lost as meteorites oxidise. Some meteorites initially with 20% nickle end up with almost no nickle at all. There are surviving daggers that we know were made of meteoritic iron with almost no nickle.

So we still don't know whether Tut's dagger was made of meteoritic iron or not.

Can't they just see if there's slag and scale inclusions in there or not. Slag & scale: wrought, no slag & scale, meteor? You'd probably even be able to see that with the naked eye if you look closely, with the condition the dagger is in.

I've searched through my books but found no answer either. I did find the following description of the dagger:


"De tweede dolk (nr. 256k), 34,2 cm lang, is zelfs nog opzienbarender en lijkt sterk op de wapens die door de Mittannische koning Toesjratta aan Amenhotep III werden gezonden. Deze dolk, die in de mummiewindsels gewikkeld, langs de rechterdij lag, stak eveneens in een schede van plaatgoud, die aan de buitenkant is versierd met een gedreven risji-patroon en ook de kop van een woestijnvosje aan het uiteinde draagt. De achterkant vertoont een palmette binnen een rand met een koordmotief. In tegenstelling tot de eerste dolk komen op deze geen inscripties voor. De greep van dit wapen lijkt sterk op die van de eerste dolk, behalve dat dit handvat van een degenknop van glinsterend bergkristal is voorzien. Maar pas toen de dolk uit de schede werd getrokken, werd de ware betekenis ervan zichtbaar: 'Het verbazende en unieke kenmerk van dit prachtige wapen is dat het lemmet van ijzer is, nog altijd glanzend en op staal gelijkend!' Dit metaal, van Hettitische oorsprong en bijzonder zeldzaam en kostbaar, was voorbestemd om de wereld te veranderen."


My crappy English translation:

"The second dagger (nr. 256k), 34.2 cm (13.46 inches) long, is even more sensational and strongly looks like the weapons that were sent to Amenhotep III by the Mittannic king Tushratta. This dagger, which lay wrapped in mummy wrappings along the right thigh, was also placed in a gold-plated sheath, which is decorated on the outside with a driven risji-pattern and also bears the head of a little desert fox at the end. The back shows a palmette within a border with a cord motive. Unlike the first dagger there are no inscriptions on this one. The grip of this weapon strongly looks like that of the first dagger (the golden one), except that this handle is equipped with a pommel made of shiny rock-crystal. But only when the dagger was pulled from the sheath, the true meaning of it became known: 'The most astonishing an unique character of this beautiful weapon is that the blade is made of iron, still shiny and looking like steel!' This metal, of Hittite origin and exceptionally rare and valuable, was destined to change the world."

In replying to an older message:

The smelting wasn't the problem. Iron can even be a byproduct of smelting copper, as the copper ores often have iron ore included as well. Someone from the Greate Orme Mine (bronze age copper mine in Wales) some years ago did a smelting demonstration here, using ore from that mine and got aside from copper also a small bloom of iron inside his furnace. The tricky bit is forgewelding that iron bloom into a solid cohesive mass of iron that can be turned into something bigger then small pins and such. A meteor already is a solid lump of iron, which could potentially even be shaped by coldworking with repeated annealing just like bronze. A raw bloom can't, as it will just fall apart into small pieces. Once they figured you can forgeweld that bloom at high temperatures, the iron age started properly.