> Thanos, I'm not so sure that "there is no way
> any ancient people who smelted copper did not know
> what iron was...".
How could they not?
> It depends on what you mean
> by "ancient".
No, it does not. It is dependent on whenever copper was smelted.
> Just because iron oxide is one of
> the byproducts of processing raw copper is no
> reason to assume that early copper smiths knew of
> anything useful regarding composition of the
As I said: " Iron oxide is commonly found in copper ore and is a known byproduct of smelting copper-there is no way any ancient people who smelted copper did not know what iron was which the only question left is did they use it for anything [i.e. in context tools]..."
> We have plenty of evidence that the OK
> knew what copper was but zero evidence that they
> knew what iron oxide was.
"Zero", huh? Lol. Must be nice to just make up whatever when it is convenient. The AE used iron oxide in various pigments and paints since early predynastic times. They knew what it was and where to get it.
> Likewise, they might
> have known about flux (containing
> SiO2/quartz/sand) for separating out the slag, but
> that doesn't mean they knew how to make glass.
To continue the quote from above: "...and though provenance and/or source is often contested, several iron objects have been found dated to the OK and earlier". As there is in Mesopotamia and Anatolia. You speak of hypotheticals in the negative to argue your narrative yet there is circumstantial evidence that says otherwise which also gives credence to equally valid "hypotheticals".
Regardless, to quote myself again:
"Personally, I do not believe the OK AE smelted iron, but would have rather imported it, possibly from Anatolia/Caucasus".
> Also, regarding "To the question-did the AE
> have metals prior to 2,000BC...", I assume you
> meant "To the question of which metals
> the AE had..." to clarify that no one has
> questioned whether the AE had metals prior
> to 2000BC.
To quote Audrey which is what I responded to:
"Sounds like you're saying AE prior to 2000 BC had metal tools?"
Therefore you do not have to "assume" what I meant.
> Finally, regarding those "swords" that dated to
> 3300BC, do you know how they were "dated", e.g.,
> directly vs. through context?
Of course I do.
> As you mentioned,
> they're copper, so there is no relevance to
> granite work during the OK.
Apparently you did not read and/or understand as usual. The "relevance" is the history of metalworking in general existing (by extension) for more than a 2,000yrs before dynastic Egypt let alone the pyramid age.
> Also, if they are
> "swords", they appear to be strictly
> ornamental/symbolic since they do not have a
> functional guard or grip that fits a human hand.
...and? To make replicas of real world objects for ornamental/symbolic purposes only speaks to a higher level of cultural sophistication and is actually quite interesting.
Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 17-Apr-16 20:21 by Thanos5150.