posted on Oct, 12 2013 @ 02:42 AM
I remember reading an EXTREMELY interesting paper once, and I'll see if I can find it online while writing this. It discussed the peculiarities of
Iron and Bronze and argued that Iron was in fact worked before Bronze, and the reason for lack of strong archaeological evidence is because of the
intrinsic natures of the two metals.
Iron oxidizes and therefore erodes away, and the paper argues in general that the length of time for an iron object to erode completely into less than
recognizable dust is about 3,000 years. So the evidence of any iron working much older than 3-4k years would begin to become very thin or hard to
that the possibility that the iron age started considerably before the full bronze age must be
re-examined, the lack of extensive evidence of their usage is because of the ease of rusting of iron and
iron-carbon alloys by oxidation. Furthermore, a rusted object looks ugly and should be buried. Thus,
their return to earth’s surface as iron oxide destroys the onginrd manufactured iron product.
But some trace elements remain, mainly found as red ochre.
I'm so glad to have found the paper lol.
selection of 7000 B. C., for the be@rmingof the Metals Age, is based on the fact that large villages
were, by thk time, a part of the scene of human activity. Examples are Jericho, and Catal Huyuk and
Hallan Cemi in Turkey. The town of Jericho is reported to have had 2500 inhabitants at the time of
its prime in 7000 B.C. The story of Catal Huyuk in Turkey is equally impressive with a history
dating back to at least 6000 B. C., with a population estimated at over 7,000 people. Evidence of open
hearths abounded in these ancient cities. Waldbaum[l 1] has documented fourteen iron objects at
another four sites dating before 3000 B.C. The oldest object is a four-side instrument from a gravesite
at Samara in northern Iraq, dated ca. 5000 B.C.
Some facts regarding found metals.
The paper goes on in passing mentions that perhaps Neanderthals used Iron tools because their camp sites reveal hot hearths and a lot of red ochre
which most scientists try to explain as a pigment except that the Ochre is shown to have been mined, and that millions of pounds were mined, far more
than needed for just pigments by primitive dunderheads.
This cached website contests that at least carbon dating iron would be difficult at best
The rationale behind the feasibility of the 14C dating of iron is that the carbon in the iron originatesfrom the fuel of the smelting process,
and for most ancient iron this fuel will have been charcoal.There seems to be an implicit assumption that the use of fossil fuel can be unambiguously
recog-nized because of the geological age of the carbon (although the possibilities of Neanderthal ironsmelting have been raised, apparently
seriously, by Sherby and Wadsworth 2001). The potentialdangers of serious misdating arising because of the intermixing of carbon from charcoal- and
fossilfuel-smelted iron seem not to be appreciated (see Cook et al. 2003, discussed below).
I also want to leave the thought, think of the spiritual metaphor to be found in the various metals, Iron has use but is weak and erodes away, Bronze
is strong but tarnishes, Gold is soft yet remains pure.
These must have had profound impact on the first metal workers, almost like the metal workers were seeking answers to life more than practicing metal
working, probably felt they were tuning into various spirits through the forge.