Academia.eduAcademia.edu

Figure 2 – uploaded by Vladimir Zavyalov

See full PDFdownloadDownload figure
Fig. 2. The element composition of welds (A and B) of early medieval knife no. 749 from Stara Boleslav, Czech Republic (see table 2 for data); a — distribution of Ni and Co across the welds; b — Co vs Ni with added linear trend lines; c — microphotograph of the welding seam B. Obr. 2. Prvkové slozeni svard (A a B) v noZi vz. 749 ze Staré Boleslavi (data prevzata z tab. 2); a — distribu- ce Nia Co napfié analyzovanymi svary; b — Co vs. Nis pridanymi linearnimi spojnicemi trendu; c— mikro- fotografie svarového vu B.

Figure 2 The element composition of welds (A and B) of early medieval knife no. 749 from Stara Boleslav, Czech Republic (see table 2 for data); a — distribution of Ni and Co across the welds; b — Co vs Ni with added linear trend lines; c — microphotograph of the welding seam B. Obr. 2. Prvkové slozeni svard (A a B) v noZi vz. 749 ze Staré Boleslavi (data prevzata z tab. 2); a — distribu- ce Nia Co napfié analyzovanymi svary; b — Co vs. Nis pridanymi linearnimi spojnicemi trendu; c— mikro- fotografie svarového vu B.

Related Figures (8)

enrichment in the range Of 4—LU 7% 1S not exceptional and a Maximum nickel content reacn- ing tens of percentage points is occasionally encountered as well (see, e.g., HoSek 2005). This demonstrates that the determination of the chemical composition per se cannot be used as unambiguous evidence in support of the meteoritic origin of artefacts. In this respect, the most efficient approach is a combination of chemical element analysis and metallographic examination (when the item studied is preserved in good condition). Hence, the question is whether the origin of all iron artefacts with an elevated nickel content, which are said to be made of meteoritic iron, can be positively determined and whether all such items can be used as support for claiming that the handling of meteoritic iron by early metalworkers led to the discovery of iron metallurgy.
enrichment in the range Of 4—LU 7% 1S not exceptional and a Maximum nickel content reacn- ing tens of percentage points is occasionally encountered as well (see, e.g., HoSek 2005). This demonstrates that the determination of the chemical composition per se cannot be used as unambiguous evidence in support of the meteoritic origin of artefacts. In this respect, the most efficient approach is a combination of chemical element analysis and metallographic examination (when the item studied is preserved in good condition). Hence, the question is whether the origin of all iron artefacts with an elevated nickel content, which are said to be made of meteoritic iron, can be positively determined and whether all such items can be used as support for claiming that the handling of meteoritic iron by early metalworkers led to the discovery of iron metallurgy.
Tab. 1. Chemical element composition (by SEM-EDX) of nickel-rich welding seams (max. Ni content at least 4 wt%), observed in some of medieval iron artefacts from the Czech Republic. * Cobalt content was under detection limit of the SEM-EDX and/or the result was considered unreliable. Tab. 1. Prvkové slozeni (stanovené pomoci SEM-EDX) svar bohatych niklem (max. obsah niklu alespon 4 hm. %), které byly pozorovany v nékterych stfedovékych Zeleznych artefaktech z CR. * Obsah kobaltu byl pod detekénim limitem SEM-EDX nebo byl vysledek povaZovan za nespolehlivy.
Tab. 1. Chemical element composition (by SEM-EDX) of nickel-rich welding seams (max. Ni content at least 4 wt%), observed in some of medieval iron artefacts from the Czech Republic. * Cobalt content was under detection limit of the SEM-EDX and/or the result was considered unreliable. Tab. 1. Prvkové slozeni (stanovené pomoci SEM-EDX) svar bohatych niklem (max. obsah niklu alespon 4 hm. %), které byly pozorovany v nékterych stfedovékych Zeleznych artefaktech z CR. * Obsah kobaltu byl pod detekénim limitem SEM-EDX nebo byl vysledek povaZovan za nespolehlivy.
Tab. 2. Nickel and cobalt content measured across welding seams A and B in the knife (sample) 749 from Stara Boleslav, Czech Republic (according to Hosek 2003b). Tab. 2. Obsah niklu a kobaltu méfeny napfié svary A a B v noZi vz. 749 z rané stfedovéké Staré Boleslavi (podle Hosek 2003b).
Tab. 2. Nickel and cobalt content measured across welding seams A and B in the knife (sample) 749 from Stara Boleslav, Czech Republic (according to Hosek 2003b). Tab. 2. Obsah niklu a kobaltu méfeny napfié svary A a B v noZi vz. 749 z rané stfedovéké Staré Boleslavi (podle Hosek 2003b).
Fig. 3. Ni/Fe vs Ni/Co in welding seams; data were taken from table 1. The yellowish area was delimitated by A. Jambon by plotting Ni/Fe and Ni/Co ratios of fresh iron meteorites (for details see Jambon 2017a): a — compositions of virtually all welds are displaced to lower Ni/Co ratios; b — the grey area corresponds to possible plotting if the undetermined cobalt content would be within the range of 0 to 1 %. Obr. 3. Ni/Fe vs. Ni/Co ve svarovych Svech; data byla pfevzata z tabulky 1. NaZloutla oblast byla vymezena A. Jambonem vynesenim pomért Ni/Fe a Ni/Co neopracovanych meteoritt zeleza (pro podrobnosti viz Jambon 2077a): a— slozeni prakticky vsech svar je posunuto smérem k nizsim pomérum Ni/Co; b — Seda plo- cha odpovida mozZnému zaneseni do grafu, pokud by obsah neuréeného kobaltu lezel v mezich 0 az 1 %.
Fig. 3. Ni/Fe vs Ni/Co in welding seams; data were taken from table 1. The yellowish area was delimitated by A. Jambon by plotting Ni/Fe and Ni/Co ratios of fresh iron meteorites (for details see Jambon 2017a): a — compositions of virtually all welds are displaced to lower Ni/Co ratios; b — the grey area corresponds to possible plotting if the undetermined cobalt content would be within the range of 0 to 1 %. Obr. 3. Ni/Fe vs. Ni/Co ve svarovych Svech; data byla pfevzata z tabulky 1. NaZloutla oblast byla vymezena A. Jambonem vynesenim pomért Ni/Fe a Ni/Co neopracovanych meteoritt zeleza (pro podrobnosti viz Jambon 2077a): a— slozeni prakticky vsech svar je posunuto smérem k nizsim pomérum Ni/Co; b — Seda plo- cha odpovida mozZnému zaneseni do grafu, pokud by obsah neuréeného kobaltu lezel v mezich 0 az 1 %.
Fig. 4. Ni/Fe vs Ni/Co for the iron objects discussed: 1 — Bichkin-Buluk (data from Shramko - Fomin - Solncev 1965); 2 — Boldyrevo | (data from tab. 3); 3 — Czestochowa-Rak6éw (a — data from Jambon 2017b; b — data from Piaskowski 1982); 4 — Wietrzno-Bobrka (a — data for the nickel-rich layers from Piaskowski - Bryniarska 1978; b — data from Jambon 2017b, c — re-calculated Jambon’s data for the nickel-rich layers — when expected that the nickel-rich metal covers max. 30 % of the sample; d — area in which data for the nickel-rich layers can be expected); 5 — Ugarit (data from Jambon 2017b). Obr. 4. Ni/Fe vs. Ni/Co u sledovanych Zeleznych predmétu: 1 — Bickin-Buluk (data viz Shramko - Fomin - Solncev 1965); 2 — Boldyrevo | (data viz tab. 3); 3 - Czestochowa-Rakow (a — data viz Jambon 2017b, b — da- ta viz Piaskowski 1982); 4 — Wietrzno-Bdébrka (a — data pro vrstvy bohaté na nikl viz Piaskowski - Bryniarska 1978, b — data viz Jambon (2017b), c — pfepocitana Jambonova data pro vrstvy bohaté na nikl (za pred- pokladu, Ze kov bohaty na nikl pokryva max. 30 % vzorku), d — oblast, ve které Ize o¢ekavat vyneseni dat pro vrstvy bohaté niklem); 5 — Ugarit (data viz Jambon 2017b).
Fig. 4. Ni/Fe vs Ni/Co for the iron objects discussed: 1 — Bichkin-Buluk (data from Shramko - Fomin - Solncev 1965); 2 — Boldyrevo | (data from tab. 3); 3 — Czestochowa-Rak6éw (a — data from Jambon 2017b; b — data from Piaskowski 1982); 4 — Wietrzno-Bobrka (a — data for the nickel-rich layers from Piaskowski - Bryniarska 1978; b — data from Jambon 2017b, c — re-calculated Jambon’s data for the nickel-rich layers — when expected that the nickel-rich metal covers max. 30 % of the sample; d — area in which data for the nickel-rich layers can be expected); 5 — Ugarit (data from Jambon 2017b). Obr. 4. Ni/Fe vs. Ni/Co u sledovanych Zeleznych predmétu: 1 — Bickin-Buluk (data viz Shramko - Fomin - Solncev 1965); 2 — Boldyrevo | (data viz tab. 3); 3 - Czestochowa-Rakow (a — data viz Jambon 2017b, b — da- ta viz Piaskowski 1982); 4 — Wietrzno-Bdébrka (a — data pro vrstvy bohaté na nikl viz Piaskowski - Bryniarska 1978, b — data viz Jambon (2017b), c — pfepocitana Jambonova data pro vrstvy bohaté na nikl (za pred- pokladu, Ze kov bohaty na nikl pokryva max. 30 % vzorku), d — oblast, ve které Ize o¢ekavat vyneseni dat pro vrstvy bohaté niklem); 5 — Ugarit (data viz Jambon 2017b).
Fig. 5. Iron artefacts discussed in this paper: a — spearhead from Bichkin-Buluk (after Pleiner 2000, 26); b —adze-shaped tool from Boldyrevo |; c— chisel-type tool from Boldyrevo I; d— bracelets from Czestochowa- -Rakéw (after Kotowiecki 2004); e — axe from Wietrzno-Bobrka (after Kotowiecki 2004); f — axe from Ugarit; g — knife from Gerasimovka (after Shramko - Mashkarov 1992). Obr. 5. Zelezné artefakty diskutované v tomto élanku: a—hrot o&tépu z Bi¢kin-Buluk (podle Pleiner 2000, 26); b — teslicovité tvarovany nastroj z Boldyreva |; c — dlatovity nastroj z Boldyreva |; d — naramky z Czesto- chowa-Rakéw (podle Kotowiecki 2004); e — sekerka z Wietrzno-Bobrka (podle Kotowiecki 2004); f — sekera z Ugaritu; g — nuz z Gerasimovky (podle Shramko - Mashkarov 1992).
Fig. 5. Iron artefacts discussed in this paper: a — spearhead from Bichkin-Buluk (after Pleiner 2000, 26); b —adze-shaped tool from Boldyrevo |; c— chisel-type tool from Boldyrevo I; d— bracelets from Czestochowa- -Rakéw (after Kotowiecki 2004); e — axe from Wietrzno-Bobrka (after Kotowiecki 2004); f — axe from Ugarit; g — knife from Gerasimovka (after Shramko - Mashkarov 1992). Obr. 5. Zelezné artefakty diskutované v tomto élanku: a—hrot o&tépu z Bi¢kin-Buluk (podle Pleiner 2000, 26); b — teslicovité tvarovany nastroj z Boldyreva |; c — dlatovity nastroj z Boldyreva |; d — naramky z Czesto- chowa-Rakéw (podle Kotowiecki 2004); e — sekerka z Wietrzno-Bobrka (podle Kotowiecki 2004); f — sekera z Ugaritu; g — nuz z Gerasimovky (podle Shramko - Mashkarov 1992).
Fig. 6. Locations of the sites: 1 — Bichkin-Buluk (Russia); 2 — Boldyrevo | (Russia); 3 — Czestochowa-Rak6w (Poland); 4 — Wietrzno-Bébrka (Poland); 5 — Ugarit (Syria); 6 — Gerasimovka (Russia). Obr. 6. Polohy lokalit: 1 — Bi¢kin-Buluk (Rusko); 2 — Boldyrevo | (Rusko); 3 — Czestochowa-Rakéw (Polsko); 4 —Wietrzno-Bébrka (Polsko); 5 — Ugarit (Syrie); 6 — Gerasimovka (Rusko).
Fig. 6. Locations of the sites: 1 — Bichkin-Buluk (Russia); 2 — Boldyrevo | (Russia); 3 — Czestochowa-Rak6w (Poland); 4 — Wietrzno-Bébrka (Poland); 5 — Ugarit (Syria); 6 — Gerasimovka (Russia). Obr. 6. Polohy lokalit: 1 — Bi¢kin-Buluk (Rusko); 2 — Boldyrevo | (Rusko); 3 — Czestochowa-Rakéw (Polsko); 4 —Wietrzno-Bébrka (Polsko); 5 — Ugarit (Syrie); 6 — Gerasimovka (Rusko).
led to a preliminary conclusion that meteoritic metal was used in the manufacture of these items. The chemical element analysis (table 3) also indicated a meteoritic origin; the nickel content varied from 5.3 to 9.45 %, the cobalt content from 0.47 to 0.67 %. At the same time, meteorite specialists clarified that both artefacts had been forged from iron of meteo- rites classified as pallasites. The same hot forging techniques and temperature settings as those used in working with copper were employed; for instance, the working parts of the objects were strengthened by work hardening (they were plastically deformed in a cold state). Using Jambon’s method, we plotted values of Ni/Fe and Ni/Co on a chart in order to compare them with values determined for real meteoritic iron. As fig. 4a shows, our results are consistent with those featuring the meteorites.
led to a preliminary conclusion that meteoritic metal was used in the manufacture of these items. The chemical element analysis (table 3) also indicated a meteoritic origin; the nickel content varied from 5.3 to 9.45 %, the cobalt content from 0.47 to 0.67 %. At the same time, meteorite specialists clarified that both artefacts had been forged from iron of meteo- rites classified as pallasites. The same hot forging techniques and temperature settings as those used in working with copper were employed; for instance, the working parts of the objects were strengthened by work hardening (they were plastically deformed in a cold state). Using Jambon’s method, we plotted values of Ni/Fe and Ni/Co on a chart in order to compare them with values determined for real meteoritic iron. As fig. 4a shows, our results are consistent with those featuring the meteorites.
Related topics:
Bronze Age Archaeology
580 California St., Suite 400
San Francisco, CA, 94104
© 2025 Academia. All rights reserved