Anatolian Studies

http://journals.cambridge.org/ANK

Additional services for Anatolian Studies:

Email alerts: Click here

Subscriptions: Click here
Commercial reprints: Click here
Terms of use : Click here

Early iron metallurgy in Anatolia

Ünsal Yalçın

Anatolian Studies / Volume 49 / December 1999, pp 177 - 187

DOI: 10.2307/3643073, Published online: 23 December 2013

Link to this article: http://journals.cambridge.org/abstract_S0066154600006827

How to cite this article:

Ünsal Yalçın (1999). Early iron metallurgy in Anatolia. Anatolian Studies, 49, pp 177-187 doi:10.2307/3643073

Request Permissions : Click here

Downloaded from http://journals.cambridge.org/ANK, IP address: 137.99.31.134 on 23 May 2015

 Early iron metallurgy in Anatolia
tinsal
Deutsches Bergbau-Museum, Bochum
Introduction
The beginning of the Iron Age is generally dated to the
last quarter of the second millennium BC in Anatolia and
the Near East. The development of iron metallurgy
allowed many tools and weapons to be produced in this
period. The earliest iron finds, which are not more than
a dozen, occur in the third millennium BC in Anatolia
(Waldbaum 1980 discusses these early finds). Consid-
ering that pure iron occurs rarely in nature, the most
important question is: what were these objects made of?
Preliminary analyses of a few Bronze Age finds show
that some of them contain nickel. Because of this it is
generally accepted and frequently cited that these finds
were made of meteoric iron1.
Finds of the third millennium BC show that iron was
used in Anatolia before the Hittites, although the
production techniques are uncertain. According to
generally accepted scientific opinion, the Hittites were
for a long time the only people capable of smelting iron,
but this hypothesis has not been clearly proven by the
archaeological evidence. Increasingly from the second
millennium BC, written records and the variety of finds
provide a great deal of information about the quality and
value of the metal. Only after the first millennium BC
did iron start to become a material of mass-production to
the same extent as bronze2.
Towards to the end of the second millennium BC iron
finds are concentrated in Anatolia's neighbours
Macedonia, Greece, Crete, Cyprus, Syria, Palestine, Iraq,
northern Iran and the Caucasus, especially Armenia,
Georgia (the Trialeti culture) and Kolchis in the eastern
Black Sea3. This last region in Georgia was colonised by
the Ionian city of Miletus during the middle of the first
millennium BC4.
1
For Early Iron Age finds in the Near East see Waldbaum
1980: 69-80; Pleiner 1986: 237ff, pi 11-2; Pernicka 1995: 61;
Yalcin 1993: pi 42-3; Yalcin 1997.
2
See Wartke 1982: 191-6.
3
For the earliest iron finds in this region see, Abramisvili 1962;
Waldbaum 1980; Pleiner 1986: Bd. 20: 237-40, pi 11-2.
4
See Tsetskhladze, Treister 1995: 1-32; Yalcm 1993: 361-70.
177
In order to understand ancient iron production in
Anatolia and neighbouring areas we need to examine all
of the finds and interpret them in the widest possible
context. Before making regional interpretations,
however, Anatolian iron finds will be considered. We
will then consider Anatolian metallurgy in its wider
context5.
The earliest iron finds from Anatolia (3000-1000 BC)
The earliest iron finds from Anatolia are summarised in
table 1. According to present understanding, the earliest
of all is a twisted bracelet which has been dated to the
third millennium BC. This bracelet was a grave offering
found at Tilmenhoyuk, Gaziantep (Grave number M3;
find number Tb/K/124)6. As no scientific analysis has
been carried out on this bracelet it is uncertain whether it
is made of meteoric or terrestrial iron.
The majority of iron finds from the third millennium
BC come from Alaca Hoyiik. Six iron objects were
found in the royal tombs: one gold-handled dagger; two
ornamental pins with golden heads; one necklace
terminal; a semi-lunate disc; and a fragment of a knife
(see table 1).
5
The iron finds from southern Georgia are being comprehen-
sively studied by the author. The mentioned finds are from the
Kolkhis and Bordshomi valleys and date to the beginning of the
Iron Age (1000-800 BC).
6
For dating of the iron bracelet see Esin 1976: 209-46. This
find is wrongly cited as coming from Gedikli in a paper by the
author (Yalcin 1997). Authors such as Muller-Karpe (1994: 14)
and others have made the same error. The Late Chalcolithic
mace-head from Korucutepe, often cited as the earliest iron
find, is uncertain and for this reason is not included in the list
here. The description of the mace-head, which came from the
grave of a male, is ambiguous in the excavation report which
was written in two languages. While the find is mentioned as
iron ore in the English text, it is called pure iron in the Turkish
text. Judging by the photograph, the English seems more
correct. For discussion of this matter see van Loon, Giiterbock
1972: 79-86, pi 54-6; Esin 1976.
 Anatolian Studies 1999

Site Object Date Comments References

Tilmen Hoyiik Bracelet Early third millennium No analysis Esin 1976: 225

Alaca Hoyiik Gold-handled dagger Early Bronze Age II Low Ni Kosay 1951:70, 167;
(2800-2500 BC) Wertime 1973: 885

Two gold-headed pins Single analysis Kosay 1938: 107, pi 82;

2.7% Ni Waldbaum 1980

Necklace terminal No analysis Kosay 1938: 114, 115,122

Semi-lunate disc 2.4% Ni Kosay 1938: 123, 129;

1944: 107, 119, 129, 187, pis
87, 95, 100

Knife fragment No analysis Ank 1937: 95, fig 129D

Troia Mace head Troy II (2800-2500 Ore/bloom? Schmidt 1902: 244;

BC) Waldbaum 1980: 73;
Pernicka 1995: 61

Tarsus Iron lump Early Bronze Age III No analysis Goldman 1956: 33
(2400-2100 BC)

Alisar Pin fragment 1900-1700 BC No analysis von der Osten 1939: 253,
264, 273, figs 284, 290

Kusura Metal fragment 1800-1600 BC No analysis Lamb 1936: 39

Alaca Hoyiik Assorted fragments 1800-1200 BC No analysis, two Kosay-Akok 1966: 184, 191,
(jewellery, tools, metallographic 195, 197-8, 227-8, figs 41-3,
weapons) studies 46;
Muhly etal 1985

Bogazkoy Assorted pieces (tools, 1450-1200 BC No analysis, two Boehmer 1972;

weapons) metallographic Muhly et al 1985
studies

Korucutepe Iron pieces? 1400-1200 BC No analysis van Loon 1978

Tell Acana Iron pieces 1450-1200 BC No analysis Woolley 1955: 120, 279,
282;
Waldbaum 1980: 76
Table 1. Pre-Iron Age iron finds from Anatolia. The table includes all finds hitherto published as 'iron'

178
Fig 1. Map of sites with iron finds up to 1000 BC: • third millennium BC; • second millennium BC
 Anatolian Studies 1999
Of these objects, the gold-handled dagger (find
number A1.K.14) is the best-known (Ko§ay 1951;
Wertime 1973). It was found in grave K with three
bronze solar discs. The end part is made of iron and
severely corroded, and the analyses conducted on this
section showed low values for nickel. There therefore
seems to be no possibility that this dagger is made of
meteoric iron7. But if the analysis was conducted on the
corroded area the results should be viewed with caution.
A further investigation for traces of nickel in this object
should be conducted.
Two ornamental pins made of a combination of gold
and iron were found in royal grave M.A (Kosay 1938:
107, pi 82; Kosay 1944: 107-87, pis 87, 95, 100). The
decorative mace-like pinheads are made of gold. One of
the pins (find number Al/a. M.A.30) is 12.2cm in length,
while only the head of the other pin (find number
Al/a.M.A.34) survived. Another find from grave M.A.
is an n-shaped 2.1cm-long necklace terminus (find
number Al/a. M.A.23). The semi-lunate disc from grave
M.C. is in four corroded pieces (find number Al/a.
M.C.33). Finally, the knife fragment came from grave
T.M (Ank 1937: fig 129d).
Three of the finds mentioned above (the dagger
fragment, a pin, and the semi-lunate disc) were subjected
to analysis8. Only the percentage of nickel was used for
interpretation in this paper. Meteoric iron is distin-
guishable from terrestrial iron by its high nickel content.
Analyses conducted on meteorites so far show that
meteoric iron contains an average of 6-20% of nickel
(see table 2)9. It is generally accepted that objects
containing less than 5% nickel are not of meteoric
origin10.
The nickel values for the Alaca Hoyiik finds are
shown in table 1. The semi-lunate disc contains 2.4% Ni,
the pin 2.7% Ni, while the dagger has a very low nickel
content. During her work on the Alaca Hoyiik nickel-
containing iron finds, Waldbaum (1980) mistakenly
converted the NiO values given in the literature (3.06%
and 3.44 % NiO) again into NiO values and accepting
7
For discussion see Pernicka 1995: 62. Waldbaum 1980 also
sees the Alacahoyuk dagger as smelted iron.
8
Results of the analyses are given in Waldbaum 1980.
9
For other references to meteoric iron see Buchwald 1975; for
discussion see Pernicka 1995: 61-2.
10
See Medenbach, Goresy 1982: 80, 358-66. Because native
iron is rare in nature, meteoric iron was believed to be the
material used for early iron finds. In this connection the
famous iron from Gronland Ovifak can be mentioned. There
are many native iron masses known, the largest one weighing
28,000kg. The iron under discussion was considered previ-
ously as meteoric iron because of its nickel content, which
averages 1.5-2%, and can reach 4% on occasion.
180
these wrong values as Ni, she interpreted the objects in
question as being made of meteoric iron". The new
nickel values (2.4% and 2.7% Ni) produced by
Pernicka's re-analysis (1995) show that the iron of these
objects must be of terrestrial origin12. In this case, the
question should be whether as yet undiscovered terres-
trial native iron of Anatolian origin was used or not. The
other possibility is that the iron may have been produced
from its ore. These questions may be answered when all
the finds are analysed in detail. Working on the
microstructure of the metal may provide certain answers.
Slag inclusions in the metal may give information about
the origin of the metal and production techniques.
A mace-head from Troy II, found during
Schliemann's excavations, was identified as iron by
Schliemann himself. In Schmidt's catalogue (1902), it
was described as 'two pieces of a chunk containing iron
oxide' and according to Schmidt the find was not
metallic iron. The chemical composition of this mace-
head is given in table 3.
Analysis shows that this object is formed of oxide
and hydrate, and contains a large amount of water.
Pernicka (1995) suggests that the find might be a piece of
slag from a completely corroded iron pig ('ofensau')13, or
iron ore taken from the oxidation zone. More research is
needed on this issue. Along with the chemical analyses,
it is necessary to investigate the composition and origin
of this piece in terms of its microscopic mineral inclu-
sions and its manufacture.
Taking account of the chemical composition and
macroscopic structure, the Troy II mace-head may be
made of oxidised iron ore14. It is open to discussion
whether a tongue-shaped iron mass can be dated to Troy
II as it is now thought that it may be from Troy VII15.
Therefore the Early Bronze Age iron finds from Troy
discussed in the literature can be erased from the list of
early iron finds.
11
See Waldbaum 1980.
1
Information on the origins of the metal can be provided by
examination of the structure of the metal. When an object is
cold hammered at low temperature that object will keep its
Widmanstaetten structure, which is typical for meteoric iron.
Widmanstaetten structure will transfer into Martensit structure
only when the object is hammered at 1000°C or hotter. Nickel
isotope analyses may be useful in special situations, as the
presence of a nickel isotope (59Ni) is known in lunar soil and
meteorites. For discussion of this subject, see Shedlovsky et al
1970: 1503.
13
For details see Sperl 1980.
14
The mace-head has been recently published in colour in an
exhibition catalogue: Der Schatz aus Troia-Schliemann und der
Mythus des Priamos-Goldes, 1996: 174, Cat No 226.
15
For discussion see Przeworski 1939: 145.
 Yalgm
Group Fe Ni
Heksaedrit 92.6 6.07
Oktaedrit 86.8-92.3 6.54-11.65
Ataksit 79.6 18.85
Table 2. Average composition of iron meteorites (from Rosier, hanger 1976:234-7). According to their particle sizes,
the oktaedrits are divided into five groups showing different nickel proportions: very coarse particle oktaedrit (6.54%
Ni); coarse particle oktaedrit (7.39% Ni); medium particle oktaedrit (8.22% Ni); fine particle oktaedrit (9.00% Ni);
very fine particle oktaedrit (11.65% Ni)
SiO 2 2.24 CuO
A12O3 0.22 MgO
Fe 2 O 3 72.94 NiO
FeO 6.34 CaO
Table 3. Chemical composition of mace-head found at Troy II (for analysis results, see Pernicka
1995: results are given by weight percentage)
The other contentious find is an iron lump from
Tarsus which is dated to Early Bronze Age III, but we
have neither a description nor any analysis giving infor-
mation about this item16. A few finds dated to the
beginning of the second millennium BC are shown in
Table 1. The finds from Alisar and Kusura are in this
group. There is an iron pin and an undescribed object
from Alisar, both of them from Level II (c. 1900-1700
BC). Another iron piece comes from Afyon-Kusura.
This piece came from Level C (c.1800-1600 BC). None
of these finds has been subject to any analysis so far17.
The iron finds (Kosay 1966: 184, 191, 195, 197, 198,
227-8, tbl 41-3, 46; Kosay 1951: 14, tbl 8*5.3) dated to
1800-1200 BC (level IV-II) from Alaca Hoyiik are
assorted tools, with two nails, a pin, a panel, a dagger, an
arrow head, a bracelet and a knife fragment. Among
these finds, five of them were described as definitely iron
by Muhly (1980), while three of them (Al.c.39, Al.c.48,
A1.41) are corroded and therefore do not react to a
magnet. Two of the finds were studied from a metallo-
graphic point of view by Maddin18. Among these finds,
16
Goldman (1956) mentions this item in the excavation report.
For comment see Goldman 1956. Waldbaum (1980) mentions
the Tarsus finds in his paper but without interpretation.
Another find, about 12cm long in the shape of a stick, was
found at Bogazkoy in 1996, and is dated to Early Bronze Age
III. Metallurgical analysis of this early iron find was made by
the author and its dating has been confirmed by the 14C method.
17
For Alisar finds see von der Osten 1939: 253, 264, 273, fig
284, 290; for the Kusura iron find see Lamb 1937: 217ff.
18
For discussion see Muhly et al 1985: 76-84, pi VIII-XI.
181
Co P Analysed quantity
0.61 0.25 78
0.50-0.61 0.16-0.24 202
1.01 0.12 38
1.12 co 2 1.54
0.11 H2O 12.15
2.44
1.08 Sum 100.18
the knife fragment (find no A1.G.78) is completely
corroded but it shows a possible perlite structure on the
polished section. The second find, which is possibly a
handle (find no Al.e.35), has survived better. On its
polished section, this sample has ferritic and perlitic parts
and contains slag inclusions (Muhly et al 1985: 77-8, pi
IX-X). Maddin mentions the possibility that these inclu-
sions appear during hammering and then stay in the iron,
but the possibility of them occurring during smelting
should also be taken into account. Generally, iron
produced in bloomery furnaces contains this kind of
inclusion (Yalcin, Hauptmann 1995: 269-309).
Depending on this hypothesis, there are some archaeo-
logical finds which may show that iron smelting
techniques were in use during the second millennium
BC. There is, however, a need for further research. The
chemical-mineralogical content of inclusions in metals
and their origins should be defined, since slag inclusions
can enter the metal during smelting or hammering.
Some iron finds unearthed at Bogazkoy are dated to
1450-1200 BC19. A cutting implement from level II of
the Lower City (c. 1450-1350 BC), a find from level Il-Ib
(c. 1450-1350 BC), an axe from level Ib (c. 1350-1300
BC) and an arrow-head with a nail from level I (c. 1300-
19
Boehmer 1972: 137-8, 144-5, pi 43-6. The finds have been
most recently compiled and published by Waldbaum (1980).
Dr J Seeher, the latest director of Bogazkoy excavations,
informed the author of the presence of new iron and slag finds.
These finds are currently being examined by the author using
scientific techniques. For the scientific analysis of the two
Bogazkoy finds see Muhly et al 1985: 77-8, pi IX-X.
 Anatolian Studies 1999
1200 BC) have been found. An iron piece from level
IVb-III at Biiyukkale (c. 1450-1200 BC), an axe and a
conical arrowhead from level Ilia (c.1300- 1200 BC) are
known. Among the Lower City finds an axe (find no Bo.
484/0) and a nail (find no Bo. 183/h) were studied by
Maddin. The results are similar to those from
Alacahoyiik. The axe was made of carbonised iron, but
the nail was very corroded, so it was not possible to take
a polished section for optical research20.
Apart from the Bogazkoy objects described above,
there are also eight small pieces and 12 small bloom
fragments (Boehmer 1972: 131, pi VIII). Eight of these
pieces were described as slag by Muhly et al (1985).
During the rechecking of the Bogazkoy finds, an object
was described by the same authors as 'Speise'21 and
another one as 'a smelted slag fragment' (Muhly et al
1985: 77). In this way the first evidence was found for
iron smelting in the 14th century BC.
Among the early Anatolian irons, it is known that
there are four finds from Korucutepe which are dated to
1400-1200 BC. The levels of these objects are uncertain,
but they can probably be dated a bit later than the 11th
century BC (van Loon 1978: 147-8, 276). On the other
hand some of the iron objects from Tell Acana, in Hatay,
come from well-defined levels22. From level IV (c.1450-
1370 BC) there are some lumps of iron, from level II and
levels III (1350-1270; 1350-1185)23 there are two arrow-
heads, and there is a spatula from level I (1270-1185).
In the Van region of eastern Anatolia iron objects
occur in considerable quantities from the 11th century
BC onwards. Iron objects from Karagiindiiz and Ernis
indicate the production of a lot of metal objects which
were very rare until then. Excavations in 1994-96 at
Karagiindiiz cemetery unearthed hundreds of iron objects
dated to the 1 lth -10th centuries BC. Among these finds
there are jewellery items such as bracelets, anklets, rings,
necklace ends, and beads, but most common are tools
and weapons24.
These objects are depicted in Muhly et al 1985: pi Ixb.
21
During complex ore smelting (for instance with arsenic or
antimony) in a reducing environment an intermediate product
usually occurs, which contains metals such as iron, nickel and
copper with arsenic/antimony.
22
Waldbaum (1980) mentions the Tell Acana finds in his paper,
citing Woolley 1955.
23
For discussion see Woolley 1955: 120; Muller-Karpe 1994.
The sentence 'Lumps of mixed iron and copper.. .in the form of
the crucible in which it had been melted' occurs in the paper.
Miiller-Karpe thinks that this refers to unrefined copper with a
high iron content, but the precise meaning is uncertain.
24
For discussion see Sevin, Kavakli 1995: 331-50.
Karagiindiiz iron finds are currently being examined by the
author.
182
Iron in the textual sources
Apart from the finds mentioned above there are written
documents concerning iron, starting from the beginning
of the second millennium BC. It is clear from the
Kiiltepe texts that iron was a valuable metal in the period
of the Assyrian trade colonies, the early second
millennium BC. According to one of the texts iron was
used in exchange for gold and silver but not for copper.
It is mentioned that eight sekel of gold were not enough
to trade for one sekel of iron (amutum)15. Other texts
suggest that iron was 40 times more valuable than silver
and that trade in iron was closely controlled.
In the Akaddian language of the Kiiltepe texts iron is
called amutum, while the term KU.AN was used in
Mesopotamia. The Sumerian term AN.BAR was later
used by the Hittites. The various ancient terms used for
iron are shown in table 4.
Iron was mentioned as a very valuable commodity in
early Hittite texts. The word iron was used in connection
with kings and queens, thus symbolising monarchy,
power and sovereignty. In some texts, for instance, the
king's words are compared with the hardness and
endurance of iron (Siegelova 1984: 71-178). One early
Hittite text (16th century BC) mentions an iron
(AN.BAR) throne and a sceptre of great size and
weight26.
Further information about iron from the 18th century
BC comes from Tell Acana in the province of Hatay. A
section of a text mentions 400 sukur weapons (spear-
heads?) made of iron (AN.BAR)27. This information
indicates that iron was starting to be used in weapons
from the 18th century BC. Before then it was primarily
a symbol of power and sovereignty, as in the Alaca
Hoyiik dagger, and used widely for jewellery.
Although iron finds from the Hittite Empire period
are limited, the written records often mention iron.
Archaeological finds of iron are not more than two
dozen28. The records mention knife, dagger, sword blade
and assorted tools29. Iron was not a luxury metal in this
period anymore but was used for daily purposes. As well
Maxwell-Hyslop (1972) compiled all the data from the
Kiiltepe texts concerning A M U T U .
26
Siegelova (1984) h a s translated the Hititte text concerning
iron, and its procurement and processing. Siegelova's transla-
tions are evaluated and re-interpreted again in the monograph
of Miiller-Karpe (1994). F o r the cited section see Siegelova
1984: 76.
27
See Siegelova 1984.
28
For comment on this matter see Waldbaum 1980; Miiller-
Karpe 1994.
29
For detailed information see Siegelova 1984.
 Yalgm

Third millennium BC KU.AN Sumerian Mesopotamia

2000-1500 BC parzillu Akkadian Mesopotamia

amutum Akkadian Anatolia
AN.BAR Sumerian Mesopotamia
KU.AN Sumerian Anatolia

1500-1000 BC amutum, habalkinu Akkadian Anatolia (Mitanni)

parzillu Akkadian Anatolia (Bogazkoy)
AN.BAR Sumerian Mesopotamia, Anatolia
hapalki Hittite Anatolia

1000-500 BC parzillu Akkadian Mesopotamia

AN.BAR Sumerian Mesopotamia, Anatolia

Table 4. Terms used for iron in Mesopotamia and Anatolia (Maxwell-Hyslop 1982)

as making ornaments and jewellery, iron tools and ...concerning the good iron which you mentioned in
weapons were beginning to be produced. In the Hittite your letter, the store in Kizzuwatna has run out of
texts iron is generally mentioned for its cult and religious good iron. I wrote to you that it is not a suitable time
purposes, but occasionally it is possible to obtain infor- to produce iron. They will produce iron but they have
mation about iron technology30. The names of metal not finished yet. When they have finished I will send
craftsmen are listed in descriptions of Old Hittite it to you. Now I am sending you an iron
KI.LAM festivals. It is noteworthy that ironworkers (sword/dagger) point...33
(LU.MES AN.BAR) are mentioned in this context31.
It is to be understood from these lines that the Hittites
Many clay tablets with tax lists and inventories from
were distinguishing iron by its quality. Although it is not
the Kingdom period were found in an open area of the
certain, it is possible that by 'good iron' they may have
palace in Bogazkoy Biiyiikkale. These tablets mention
meant steel. In any case, it is clear from some of the
iron as a pure metal and as products, as well as silver,
finds that the Hittites knew of carburised iron (steel). In
gold, bronze and copper. In the Hittite texts there are
many places in the texts, along with AN.BAR, the term
differences in weight units: while gold and silver were
AN.BAR SIG is used to mean good iron (Siegelova
weighed in sekel, iron and copper were measured in
1984: 71-178).
mina. This situation shows a change in the value of iron.
Another piece of evidence for steel (habalkinu)
A plausible explanation for weighing iron in mina may
occurs in the Amarna tablets from Egypt. In one of the
be the widespread extent of trade in iron. The inventories
letters from the Mitanni king Tusratta to the Pharaoh
and tax lists of palaces and temples mention iron ingots,
Amenophis III (1413-1375 BC) the gift list includes a
showing that iron was available in different places within
distinction between a 'steel dagger' and an 'iron
the land of the kingdom. It is clear from tax lists that iron
dagger'34.
production was conducted in places other than the capital
It has been mentioned above that the usage of
city32. A letter of Hattusili III (1282-1250 BC) is
meteoric iron in Anatolia is not established by the
important evidence on this topic. The letter, which was
archaeological evidence. But there is some information
probably written to an Assyrian king, suggests that iron
in Middle Hittite texts about meteoric iron, named as
production was under the control of the Hittite King.
AN.BAR GE6. Ko§ak (1982) interprets AN.BAR as
terrestrial iron, and AN.BAR GE6 as meteoric iron35. But
according to Reiter (1977), the description 'sky iron'
For discussion see Darga 1985: 33-41.
31
Neu 1980: 32, 56. In the accounts of the early Hititte
KI.LAM festivals many occupation groups who participated in
the festivals are listed, including LU.MES URURDU
DIM.DIM = copper craftsman, LU. MES KUBABBAR = 33
New translation in Siegelova 1984: 156.
silver craftsman, LU.MES GUSKIN DIM.DIM = gold 34
For discussion of this subject see Wilsdorf 1954; Neumann
craftsman, LU.MES.AN.BAR = blacksmith. 1954: 79ff.
32 35
For discussion see Siegelova 1984. See Kosak 1982; Siegelova 1984; Przeworski 1939.

183
 Anatolian Studies 1999
does not necessarily mean meteoric iron. The sky itself
may be described as iron in one text: (AN.B)AR- as nepis
'iron sky'36.
It is interesting when two different types of iron occur
together in one line: humanda AN.BAR AN.BAR GE6
ANNAKU (stone, iron, meteoric(?) iron and tin) (Ko§ak
1986: 133).
The various types of iron characteristics mentioned in
Hittite texts are given below37:
AN.BAR iron (smelted)
AN.BAR GE5 iron (meteoric?)
AN.BAR SIG5 good iron
AN.BAR BABBAR white iron (?)
We can gain information about iron production from
a great many of the Hittite texts translated so far. Some
texts have the description AN.BAR SA GUNNI which
means 'taken straight from the furnace' (Siegelova
1984). Kosak's translations (1982; 1984) also mention
this process. One section, for instance, gives the phrase
22 AN.BAR SA GUNNI, meaning '22 iron [pieces]
taken straight from the furnace' (Kosak 1982: 46-8, 198-
200, 125-35). This clearly refers to bloom.
Although the archaeological finds are fewer than two
dozen for the entire Hittite period, the written sources are
very detailed and informative. Through time the quantity
of these texts substantially increases, especially after the
13th century BC. The translated texts mention iron
knives, swords, dagger-points, spear-points, hammers,
stakes and axes38. It can be therefore recorded that iron
was used for making weapons and tools at this time
rather than just being a luxury metal39. An interesting
subject in a Late Hittite list is a basin (TUL AN.BAR)
made of iron and weighing 90 mina (45kg) (Reiter 1997:
396 ff).
The development of iron metallurgy
Comparative studies of early metallurgy reveal that iron
was a metal to which attention was paid rather late in
human development. The earliest finds in the Near East
seem to occur in Mesopotamia in the sixth millennium
BC40, but the dating of these finds is problematic as they
were found in early excavations.
•'" S e e Reiter 1997: 395ff.
37
Kosak, 'the gospel of iron', H A Hoffner and G A Beckman
(eds), Kanissuwar: A Tribute to H G Giiterbock, Assyriological
Studies 23, 1986, 125-35.
38
Fifty six ends are mentioned in one of the lists: Siegelova
1984: 166.
39
See Muller-Karpe 1994; Muhly et al 1985: 73.
40
The earliest iron finds in Iran come from Tepe Sialk, and in
Mesopotamia from Samarra. See Waldbaum 1980: 70, pi 3.1;
Pernicka 1995: 6 1 , tbl 7.
184
Besides this, the first archaeological finds of iron in
Anatolia date to the third millennium BC. Establishing
the material of which these early finds were made is very
important since it is extremely rare to find pure iron in
nature. The rarest of all is terrestrial pure iron. Only
small amounts of iron crystals, for example, were found
in the basalt rock formations of Thuringen-Muhlhausen
and Kassel-Buhl (both in Germany). The Ovifak mass of
iron on Disko island, Greenland, which weighs many
tons, is a rare exception41. Analyses show that these
types of terrestrial iron contain nickel. The Ovifak iron,
for example, contains up to 4% nickel (Pernicka 1995:
60-1). It can therefore be difficult to distinguish terres-
trial iron from meteoric iron42. The most distinctive
characteristic of the Ovifak pure iron is that it contains up
to 4% carbon in places (Medenbach, El Goresy 1982). It
is important to measure the amount of carbon in early
iron finds in order to establish their origin.
Only some of the Anatolian iron finds have been
analysed. These samples usually have less than 3%
nickel, showing that the iron is not meteoric in origin. In
spite of this, early iron finds in Egypt and Mesopotamia
contain high values of nickel. One of the nine beads
from El Gerzeh dated to c.3500 BC contains 7.5% nickel,
which suggests that it is made of meteoric iron43. The
possibility of meteoric iron being known as 'black iron
descended from the sky' by Anatolian people in the
second millennium BC at the latest, is supported by
occurrences of this phrase in the Hittite written sources.
But without corroboration from archaeological evidence,
this subject will remain largely an area of speculation.
According to recent information, iron produced from
iron ore may contain high percentages of nickel.
Piaskowski (1988) suggests that the famous Khalib iron
mentioned by Aristotle, which is rustproof and high
quality, may have been produced from the river soil in
north Anatolia which contains high levels of nickel.
Piaskowski claims that the iron finds dated to 3000-2000
BC containing nickel were produced from mineral ores
with high nickel content (Piaskowski 1988: 37-46). This
assertion should certainly be tested by investigation of
the nickel-bearing magnetite alluvium deposits of the
eastern Black Sea region.
41
See Buchwald, Mosdal 1985: n o 9; Medenbach, El Goresy
1982.
42
T h e samples for analysis should b e as free as possible of
corrosion and contamination, and they should be homogenous
and representative.
43
Ancient iron finds from the Near East are collected by
Pernicka (1995) in a table. For El Gerzeh beads see Petrie et al
1912: 15-9, pi 4.2.
 Yalgm
The origin of the first iron finds can be searched for
in copper mining. As is well known, many copper ores
have various iron compositions. While producing copper
from these kind of ores, if the gases have a major
reducing character in the furnace, then a small amount of
iron may be produced. The iron produced in this way
contains small quantities of elements such as copper and
arsenic. Wertime (1980) claims that iron is an accidental
production during the process of smelting copper and
lead (Wertime, Muhly 1980: 12ff). In this way, iron
metallurgy and iron production from its ore may have
developed from copper metallurgy. Iron produced by
bloomery techniques began to be used in Anatolia in the
second millennium BC at the latest.
If Snodgrass's (1980)44 classification of iron mining
is taken as a basis, the usage of iron in Anatolia may be
summarised as follows. The years before the second
millennium BC saw the first step in iron metallurgy in
Anatolia (stage 1). From this period approximately a
dozen finds have survived to the present. Iron is usually
used with other metals in this stage. Owing to its scarcity
and value it was usually used in the production of presti-
gious commodities. Through the second millennium BC
the first texts appear which mention iron, and there are
increasing numbers of iron objects (stage 2). Evidence
of the production of iron from its ores appears at about
the same time. The continuous production of iron starts
at the end of the second millennium for the first time
(stage 3). In this period (12th-9th centuries BC) iron
starts to become dominant and is gradually used for
producing weapons and tools. From the eighth century
BC, iron began to be employed in daily usage and took
over the production of weapons and tools from bronze
(stage 4). The finds include weapons such as daggers,
spears and arrow-heads, agricultural implements such as
ploughs, hoes, sickles, and fine tools such as tongs,
scissors and shaving knives.
Although the first evidence of iron production by
smelting from its ore goes back to the second half of the
second millennium BC, there is no evidence of slag or
traces of furnaces. The earliest slag from iron processing
with secure dating was excavated from the Archaic
period settlement at Miletus (Yalcin 1993)45. Thus
44
See Snodgrass 1980: 335-74. Snodgrass divides the progress
of iron metallurgy in the eastern Mediterranean into three
stages. In the first stage iron finds are rare. In the second stage
the number of finds increases, but iron finds are still fewer than
bronze finds. In the third stage iron finds outnumber those of
bronze.
45
The iron slag encountered from the second half of the first
millennium is generally iron workshop slag. It is natural not to
find iron slag from smelting at settlement excavations in
Anatolia, because the smelting process took place outside the
settlement area, near the ore beds.
185
analysis of the iron objects themselves is the only practi-
cable means to explore the technological processes of
early iron production. The inclusions in the iron finds
from Alaca Hoyiik show similar compositions and
structure to slag from iron smelting furnaces. Yet
Maddin suggests that these inclusions may have been
produced during hammering46.
Steel and its usage is one of the issues worthy of
serious consideration in discussions of early iron metal-
lurgy and processing. At what point steel started to be
used and deliberately produced is uncertain in the light of
present information. A few analyses of iron finds which
survive from the third-second millennia are unable to
shed light on technological aspects. Texts which
mention the value of iron and metallographic research on
the Late Bronze Age finds of Alaca Hoyiik may suggest
that steel began to be used as a production material from
the second millennium BC.
Early iron technology became widespread for the first
time in Anatolia during the first millennium BC. The
latest work at Toprakkale47, Anzaf and Miletus (Yalcin
1993: 361-70; Yalcin et al 1995: 39-53) shows that steel
was used deliberately in Anatolia in the first millennium
BC. These Urartian (ninth-seventh century) and
Milesian (seventh-sixth century) weapons and daily tools
were made of steel which has been analysed with scien-
tific techniques. In this situation, it is no coincidence to
find in Greek texts of the first millennium BC the words
khalibs for steel and sideros for iron used together
(Wilsdorf 1954: 67-90; Yalcin 1993). The question of
any relation between the word habalkinu and khalibs in
Greek is completely open to discussion. According to
Greek texts the Khalibs were the inventors of steel. They
lived to the southeast of the Black Sea in the first
millennium BC and therefore may have been communi-
cating with the Hittite, Mitanni and Urartian cultures.
The means of steel production are not completely
understood when we consider the Hittite, Urartian,
Lydian, Greek and Khalib cultures, which were among
the metal producing communities. Whether they smelted
the steel, which is the primary way, or carbonised the
metal and cooled it suddenly, which is the secondary
way, is not yet clear. According to written texts, both
methods were certainly in use in the middle of the first
millennium BC at the latest48. The steel and iron samples
from Archaic Miletus indicate that they used both
primary and secondary ways to produce steel. The
46
Muhly et al 1985; oral communication from Maddin
(Bochum 1997).
47
See Piaskowski, Wartke 1989: 89-133; Wartke 1990.
48
See Strabo XII, C.549, 551.
 Anatolian Studies 1999
objects from Anzaf castle show clearly that the process
of iron technology was well-advanced in the first
millennium BC. Some of the spear-heads, for instance,
were made by putting several pieces together which have
different carbide values, a technique still in use today
which underlies the famous Damascus steel (Yalcin et al
1995).
Bibliography
Abramisvili, R M 1962: Kvoprosu ob osvojeniji zeleza na
territorii Vostocnoj Gruzii (Unpublished Disser-
tation). Tblisi
Arik, R O 1937: Lesfouilles d'Alaca Hoyiik. Ankara
Boehmer, R M 1972: Die Kleinfunde von Bogazkoy aus
den Grabungskampagnen 1952-1969 (Bogazkoy-
Hattusa 7). Berlin
Buchwald, V F 1975: Handbook of Iron Meteorites, their
History, Distribution and Structure. Los Angeles
Buchwald, V F, Mosdal, G 1985: Meteoritic Iron,
Telluric Iron and Wrought Iron in Greenland (Man
and Society No 9). Kopenhagen
Darga, A M 1985: Hitit Mimarhgil. Istanbul
Esin, U 1976: 'Die Anfange der Metallverwendung und
Bearbeitung in Anatolien (7500-2000 v.Chr.)' in H
MiillerKarpe (ed), Les debuts de la metallurgie
(Union Intern des Science Prehistoriques et Proto-
historiques Coll XXIII). Nice: 209-46
Goldman, H 1956: Excavations at Gozlii Kule, Tarsus II.
From the Neolithic through the Bronze Age.
Princeton
Ko§ak, S 1982: Hittite Inventory Texts. Heidelberg
Kosay, H Z 1938: TTK Tarafindan Yapilan Alaca Hoyiik
Hafriyati. 1936 daki Calismalara ve Ke§iflere ait
ilk Rapor. Ankara
— 1944: Ausgrabungen von Alaca Hoyiik. Ankara
— 1951: Les fouilles d'Alaca Hoyiik. Ankara
Ko§ay, H Z, Akok, M 1966: Ausgrabungen von Alaca
Hoyiik - Vorbericht iiber die Forschungen und
Entdeckungen von 1940-48. Ankara
Lamb, W 1936: 'Excavations at Kusura near
Afyonkarahisar F Archaeologia 86: 1-64
— 1937: 'Excavations at Kusura near Afyonkarahisar IF
Archaeologia 87: 217-73
van Loon, M 1978: Korucutepe. Vol 2. Amsterdam
van Loon, M, Guterbock, H G 1972: 'Korucutepe 1970'
in Keban Project, 1970 Activities. Ankara: 79-86
Maxwell-Hyslop, K R 1972: 'The Metals AMUTU und
ASI'U in the Kultepe texts' Anatolian Studies 22:
159-62
Medenbach, O, El Goresy, A 1982: 'Ulvospinel in native
iron-bearing assemblage and origin of this assem-
blage in basalts from Ovifak, Greenland and Buhl'
FRG Contrib Mineral Petrol 80: 358-66
186
Muhly, J D, Maddin, R, Stech, T, Ozgen, E 1985: 'Iron in
Anatolia and the nature of the Hittite iron industry'
Anatolian Studies 35: 67-84
Muller-Karpe, A 1994: Altanatolisches Metall-
handwerk. Neumiinster
Neu, E 1980: Althethitische Ritualtexte in Umschrift
(Stud Bogazkoy Texte 25). Wiesbaden
Neumann, B 1954: Die altesten Verfahren der Erzeugung
technischen Eisens. Berlin
von der Osten, H 1939: The Ali§ar Hoyiik Seasons of
1930-32. Part II. Chicago
Pernicka, E 1995: 'Gewinnung und Verbreitung der
Metalle in prahistorischer Zeit' Jahrbuch d RGZM
37: 21-129
Petrie, W M F , Wainwright, G A, Mackay, E 1912: The
Labyrinth, Gerzeh and Mazguneh. London
Piaskowski, J, Wartke, R-B 1989: 'Technologische
Untersuchungen an einigen urartaischen Eisenob-
jekten aus Toprakkale' Forschungen und Berichte
27: 89-113
Pleiner, R 1986: Uber das Eisen der Bronzezeit. Potsdam
Przeworski, S 1939: Die Metallindustrie Anatoliens in
der Zeit von 1500-700 vor Chr. Leiden
Reiter, K 1997: Die Metalle im Alten Orient. Minister
Schmidt, H 1902: Heinrich Schliemanns Sammlung,
Trojanischer Altertiimer. Berlin
Sevin, V, Kavakli, E 1995: 'Van-Karagiindiiz Erken
Demir Cagi Nekropolii Kurtarma Kazilan 1992-
1993' XVI. Kazi Sonuclan Toplantisi I: 331-50
Siegelova, J 1984: 'Gewinnung und Verarbeitung von
Eisen im hethitischen Reich im 2. Jahrtausend
v.u.Z' Annual of Naprstek Museum 12: 71-178
Shedlovsky, J P, Houda, M, Reedy, R C, Evans, J C Jr,
Lai, D, Lindstrom, R M, Delaney, A C Jr, Arnold, J
R, Loosli, H-H, Fruchter, J S, Finkel, R C 1970:
'Pattern of bombardment-produced radionuclides in
rock 10017 and in lunar soil' Proceedings of the
Apollo Lunar Scientific Conference 2: 1503
Snodgrass, A M 1980: 'Iron and early metallurgy in the
Mediterranean' in T H Wertime and J D Muhly
(eds), The Coming of the Age of Iron. New Haven
and London: 335-74
Sperl, G 1980: Uber die Typologie urzeitlicher,
fruhgeschichtlicher und mittelalterlicher Eisenhiit-
tenschlacken (Studien zur Industrie-Archaologie 7).
Wien
Tsetskhladze, G R, Treister, M Y 1995: 'The metallurgy
and production of precious metals in Colchis before
and after the arrival of the Ionians (towards the
problem of the reasons for Greek colonisation)'
Bulletin of the Metals Museum 24: 1-32
 Yalqm.
Waldbaum, J C 1980: 'The first archaeological
appearance of iron and the transition to the Iron
Age' in T H Wertime and J D Muhly (eds), The
Coming of the Age of Iron. New Haven and
London: 69-98
Wartke, R-B 1982: 'Zur Rolle eiserner
landwirtschaftlicher Gerate des alten Orients aus
der ersten Halfte des 1. Jahrtausends v.u.Z' in J
Hermann and I Selnow (eds), Produktivkrdfte und
Gesellschaftsformationen in vorkapitalistischer
Zeit. Berlin: 191-6
— 1990: Toprakkale. Untersuchungen zu den Metallob-
jekteh im Vorderasiatischen Museum zu Berlin.
Berlin
Wertime, T A 1973: 'The beginnings of metallurgy: a
new look' Science 182: 875-86
Wilsdorf, H 1954: 'Historische und archaologische
Quellen zur Geschichte des Eisens' in B Neumann
(ed), Die dltesten Verfahren der Erzeugung
technischen Eisens. Freiberger: 67-90
187
Woolley, C L 1955: Alalakh. An Account of the Excava-
tions at Tell Atchana in the Hatay, 1937-1949.
Oxford
Yal§in, U 1993: 'Archaometallurgie in Milet: Technolo-
giestand der Eisenverarbeitung in archaischer Zeit'
Istanbuler Mitteilungen 43: 361-70
— 1997: 'Anfange der Eisenmetallurgie in Anatolien'
7996 Yili Anadolu Medeniyetleri Miizesi Konfer-
anslarr. 127-40
Yalcin, U, Belli, O, Maddin, R 1995: 'Van-Yukan Anzaf
Kalesinde Bulunan Metal Eserler Uzerine
Arkeometallurjik Ara§tirmalan' X. Arkeometri
Sonuqlan Toplantisr. 39-53
Yalcin, U, Hauptmann, A 1995: 'Archaometallurgie des
Eisens auf der Schwabischen Alb' in Beitrdge zur
Eisenverhiittung auf der Schwabischen Alb.
Stuttgart: 269-309