Re: [tied] First iron swords on mass scale

Mark Odegard wrote:

> This seems to have been the older view, one that is still being spread by things dependant on older sources. Bronze is
> satisfactory, and in fact, in some ways better, for just about any application iron is used for, including much weaponry
> (steel is another matter).
>

What is known about the carbon content of iron swords used
by Phrygians, Philistines and Dorians? I know that Egyptians
were able to make pretty good steel by about 900 BC. Did
they develop this technology by themselves? Or maybe they
borrowed it from Philistines?

> The real story seems to be that the smiths ran out of tin, or the usual exchange routes had been disrupted. Tin and
> copper occur in different kinds of rocks, and only very rarely do these kinds of rocks occur near to each other.
>

Are you saying that they decided to make iron only because
they couldn't make bronze? This seems very interesting and a
little bit surprising. Anyway, after 1200 BC iron weapons
became common even in areas that shouldn't have any problem
with getting enough tin. Thus, iron (steel?) appeared to be
superior material at that time.

> Iron is harder to work, but they seem to have known all about iron before the iron age is said to have begun.
>

I am aware that iron was occasionally used long before the
so called "Iron Age" started. But my question about the
first massive use of swords made of iron (or primitive
steel) remains unanswered.

By the way, what names were used for "steel" in Anatolian,
Greek, Egyptian, Phoenician, Arameic, Hebrew and Akkadian
languages? Do all these names have a common (IE?) origin?
And what about "iron"?

Michal