Abstract
The never-ending stream of new publications means that some important ones get unnoticed. This slender and elegant volume brings together the most complete published data on the iron artefacts from the burial equipment of King Tutankhamun (Tomb KV 62). It was not cited in the latest discussion of the ancient Egyptian iron in the JEA, 1 therefore it is necessary to raise awareness about this book and stress its importance for the research of Egyptian ironwork and metallurgy.
The book is a by-product of a thorough study of golden appliqués from the Tomb of Tutankhamun, being a cooperation of the German Archaeological Institute in Cairo, the University of Tübingen, the Egyptian Museum in Cairo and the Roman-Germanic Central Museum in Mainz. 2 The text succinctly describes the sixteen model chisels with iron blades, found in a wooden box (Carter No. 16); an iron wedjat-eye amulet on a golden armlet (Carter No. 256hh[1] and 256hh[3]); an iron amulet in the form of a headrest (Carter No. 256,4,v); and the most famous object, a dagger with an iron blade (Carter No. 256k). The main focus is on this last artefact, taking one fifth of the length of the volume.
The highly informative text is accompanied by superb photographs and radiographs of the complete artefacts, technological details documented by macro-photographs and photographs from a microscope. What is discussed in the text is at the same time visible in the photographs, and that is not the case for each publication of archaeological material. It provides a model example of how scientific data can be presented in a visually appealing way, in a ‘popular’-leaning publication, nevertheless based on thorough scientific data. In addition to the documentation of artefacts, all objects were analysed by portable X-ray fluorescence (pXRF), compared with the measurements of a selection of the iron meteorites (pp. 24–8). A previous publication of the Egyptian-Italian team focused only on the dagger blade, 3 in this book all objects are demonstrated as being most probably made of meteoritic iron. It is true that Egyptologists assumed this for decades, 4 but now the assumption is corroborated by analytical data.
After the discussion of the iron objects, another dagger from the Tomb of Tutankhamun (Carter No. 256dd) is thoroughly examined, and the pXRF analysis of its gold is adduced as well. 5 The text builds a case for the dagger with the iron blade being a ‘smaller brother’ (p. 43) of the fully golden dagger; a product of artists or groups of artists with different sets of skills, with the latter, golden dagger being a product of a much more skilled artisan(s). These could have been members of the same workshop, although this seems improbable. Direct comparison of the detailed photographs of both daggers side by side in full colour are revealing, and it is clear that 256dd serves as an inspiration for the 256k. The authors close with the possibility that blades, hilts, and sheaths could have been made at separate times and places in the Late Bronze Age (p. 44). There are archaeometallurgical techniques that could provide further clarity, but they are not currently available in Egypt. 6 The décor of the iron dagger tries to imitate or directly cite the golden one, thus the suggestion of mutually independent creation seems to be improbable as well.
The author of this review has only very few critical remarks. A scale is absent from all photographs, with the exception of microscopic photography. Adding one would have slightly diminished the aesthetic appeal of the images but increased their usability. On the other hand, measurements of the objects are always given with the photograph of the full object, making up for the deficit.
The part of the book that requires more research is the discussion of the ancient Egyptian context and the meaning of the chisels with wooden handles and iron blades. They represent a continuation of a tradition that reaches back to Predynastic and Chalcolithic Egypt. 7 The model blades for the ancient Egyptian kings of the Early Dynastic Period were made of copper and arsenical copper. 8 Only very few metal objects from royal burials before the New Kingdom are known. Some of them may be made of iron; an idea that has already been proposed in the literature. 9 This does not diminish the importance of the chisels from the Tomb of Tutankhamun, it just needs to be stressed that they might be a ‘tip of the iceberg’ of other similar examples. 10 In the mundane, economic meaning, the chisels were for the craftsmen of Tutankhamun, not for the king himself, and they could have been symbols of the patron-craftsman interdependence. Moreover, they could refer to the Opening of the Mouth ritual, as the authors discuss, where tools of craftsmen and the craftsmen themselves were involved. Only hints of their roles are available from the Old Kingdom; they are fully expressed only in the New Kingdom evidence of the ritual, where craftsmen had importance in producing the living image of the deceased. Chisels were used in this context together with other artisan tools, although they were not depicted in each rendering of the ritual. 11
Our understanding of the use of iron in ancient Egypt is far from complete. Unfortunately, outside of Egyptology, this understanding was shaped by R. Faulkner’s unlucky decision to translate bj3 as ‘iron’ in the Pyramid Texts, a choice which has repercussions still today. 12 This review is not the space for a full discussion. Suffice it to say, that the path taken by J. P. Allen who opted for the more neutral ‘metal’ is much more compatible with the evidence. In fact, ‘emic’ Egyptian terminology does not follow our ‘etic’ classification of chemical elements and minerals. 13 The approach to identify bj3 as exclusively either ‘copper’ or ‘iron’ is not convenient, as it misrepresents the past ancient Egyptian perception. 14
Returning to the data and arguments contributed by the publication under review, already Howard Carter had doubts about the Egyptian provenance of the iron blade, the largest piece of iron in the king’s burial equipment, and these doubts will continue, because of the idiosyncratic nature of the find. 15 Nonetheless, Himmlisch! Die Eisenobjekte aus dem Grab des Tutanchamun provides welcome additions to the data against which we explore the use of iron in ancient Egypt. English and Arabic versions of the publication would support the wider dissemination of this data. The present review also comes three years after the publication of the volume, because the reviewer thinks that the publication did not receive the attention it deserves.