The following day Hill showed it to J S Perring, another member of Vyse's team, who added his affidavit to the effect that the iron could not have been placed there after the construction of the pyramid. Despite the fact that Colonel Vyse forwarded this iron plate to the British Museum, together with affidavits from Hill and Perring as certificates of authenticity, archaeologists patently ignore its significance. The majority of archaeologists at best maintain an aloof silence on the subject; at worst they call it a forgery. The more conciliatory assume it to have been of meteoritic origin as specimens of such iron have been found hammered into precious objects from the earliest dynasties.

Certainly the ancient Egyptians were aware of meteoritic iron, but uncomfortably for the archaeologists, the evidence suggests that by a very early date in their history they were already sophisticated enough to differentiate between different types of iron. Loadstones were called `res mehit ba', meaning `north-south iron', and Plutarch quotes Manetho as differentiating loadstones from non-magnetic iron, calling the former `Bone of Osiris', and the latter `Bone of Typhon', (being the Greek version of Set).³ Robert Temple in `The Crystal Sun', uses this to argue that the Egyptians must have been aware of the differences between magnetic and true north, imaginatively suggesting that the motif of the `crossed arrows', which occurs often in Egyptological symbolism, relates to the difference between true, and magnetic north. ⁴

Robert H O'Connell in 1983 translated the coffin text Spell 148, which refers to meteoritic impact as being integral to the conception of Horus. `…the blast of a meteorite such that gods fear, Isis awoke pregnant by the seed of her brother Osiris!….<sup>5</sup> Even earlier, in 1911, Wallis Budge translated a text from the time of Pepi II (circa 2278- 2184 BC) which speaks of `the iron which came from Set, and was in the forearm of Set; it transferred to the deceased the power of the eye of Horus'.⁶ As the constellation of the Great Bear was considered to be the abode of Set, we can reasonably conclude that at least one iron-bearing meteorite came from this direction early in the Old Kingdom. And if we were to conclude that the ascension of Horus came about during the unification of the two lands, we would be able to postulate that this unification came about during a period of meteoritic activity.

The evidence then, seems to support the notion that the ancient Egyptians were aware of iron, and probably viewed it as a heavenly substance. And yet its association with Set makes its inclusion in the pyramid of Khufu a surprise. Petrie in the Pyramids and Temples of Gizeh, 1883, referred to the iron plate found by Hill. `…and though some doubt has been thrown upon the piece, merely from its rarity, yet the vouchers for it are very precise; and it has a cast of nummulite on the rust of it, proving it to have been buried for ages besides a block of nummulitic limestone, and therefore to be certainly ancient…'⁷ His language and phraseology, both implying that he was personally familiar with the piece, and providing clear evidence of its antiquity.

However, the assumption that all iron in the Old Kingdom was of meteoritic origin is frankly untenable. In 1989 a fragment was taken from the plate found by Hill, and was tested by two eminent metallurgists Jones and Gayer who concluded that it was very ancient. Significantly they stated that the metallurgical evidence supported the archaeological evidence that it was incorporated within the pyramid when it was built.⁸ More importantly they went on to determine that the iron was not meteoritic, had been smelted at a temperature of between 1000 and 1100 degrees centigrade, and bore traces of gold on one of the surfaces of the plate. To simply dismiss the plate as a forgery therefore is to impugn the reputation of these scientists, and yet to do otherwise is to run into a brick wall of archaeological dogma, whose mantra states that iron can only have been meteoritic at such an early stage in civilisations development.

This iron plate however, is not the only example of prehistoric ironwork, for there are many more. The most spectacular is the evidence of the Dorak hoard, unearthed in the 1920's near the village of Dorak, around one hundred kilometres east of Troy. This hoard consists of a large and intricate cache of ceremonial objects that was found within two main tombs built of rectilinear, cyclopean masonry. In one of the tombs they found a male skeleton, with elaborate grave goods, one item of which was a sword with a silver blade, upon which was engraved a fleet of seventeen, oared, ships. In another of the tombs a wooden throne was found, enabling reliable dating to take place. Some vestiges of gold ornamentation remained, including the unmistakable hieroglyphs of Sahure, of Egypt's 5^th Dynasty, whose reign is traditionally dated to 2487-2475 BC, and who came to the throne a mere 79 years after the death of Khufu. Most of the weapons in the tombs were bronze, which by itself is extraordinary during this Chalcolithic period, but one artefact was more special. It had a blade of iron, and a hilt crafted in black obsidian in the shape of two leopards. ⁹ If the dating is correct, then this early culture had mastered the use of iron during, or before, the Egyptian Old Kingdom.

Furthermore they showed evidence for impressive trading links, having amber that may have come from the Baltic, and ivory from Africa. Unfortunately there is scant evidence regarding the culture of these people, although their kings like the early Egyptians, evidently carried globe headed sceptres, or maces, as emblems of authority, and had an impressive armoury of swords, daggers, spears, and axes. Female statues were also found, wearing string skirts similar to those depicted on carvings found at Çatal Hüyük and at Tassili in the Sahara. The question that must inevitably be asked is, were these people merely the recipients of Iron Age culture, or the origin of it? No firm answer is possible, but perhaps significantly the style of many of these grave goods displays a distinct cultural identity, being similar to the later Trojan style, which is demonstrably neither Egyptian nor Mesopotamian. The iron sword for example, is artistically different from the styles of the adjacent civilisations, which could imply that it was locally crafted. It would therefore be possible to conclude that these were an artistically diverse people who imported the raw iron from another culture they had contact with. If so, then the identity of these people is a mystery. The alternative is to consider whether this previously little known culture was the origin of the smelted iron found within the Great Pyramid.

There is scant evidence to form an opinion, as the scarcity of iron finds, leaves little for analysis. An entirely understandable state of affairs, as iron is not a substance known for its longevity. Buried in any soil, little would remain after a millennium, let alone nearly five. In the Egyptian soil in particular, the situation would be even more acute. As Lawton and Ogilvie-Herald point out, the high level of nitrates in the Egyptian soil would cause any exposed iron to disintegrate rapidly, which might account for its rarity, but even so, it would be likely to leave some form of rust impression.¹⁰ And while this is undoubtedly true, the assumption that all iron must have inevitably decayed reveals a modernist viewpoint that ignores another facet of the equation. Modern man is the beneficiary of a throwaway culture, and we should not assume that in the early days of metal smelting, ore was sufficiently abundant as to be accorded a similar fate. The likelihood is that except for rare ceremonial usage, metal would have been re-cycled. The combination then of re-cycling and decay, inevitably makes early metal finds rare. A good example of this has recently emerged in the excavation at Tell Hamoukar in Syria, where a large bone facsimile of a sheathed dagger dating to the 4 ^th Millennium has been unearthed, without any corresponding metal finds. In the excavator's opinion, this find points to an incredible degree of sophistication in the art of metalworking, at the very dawn of its traditional accreditation. Tell Hamoukar of course, is not a million miles away from the site at which the Dorak hoard was unearthed, but any connection between the two is impossible to determine.

Yet, a clue to the possible fate of these people, if not their origin is perhaps surprisingly provided by linguistics, aided peripherally by traditional archaeology. In that region of Anatolia, it is known that the original non Indo-European Hattic language was replaced, first by Hittite, and then later Phrygian, before a Celtic language that gives its name to the ancient area of Galatia, before being finally replaced by Greek.¹¹ Interestingly some of the words absorbed into Greek seem to indicate that the earlier culture was familiar with a level of metallurgy unknown to the Greek newcomers.¹² There is also a letter amongst the Hittite archives dated to around 1200 BC that specifically alludes to iron making, and also states that as an industry it was subject to palace control. It is hardly surprising that it was deemed a State Secret, as the use of iron gave tremendous advantages to an army.

What holds back the acceptance of iron in antiquity, apart from the rarity of finds, is the erroneous assumption that it must have been poured to make it useable. It is a fact that Iron ore is more widely distributed on Earth than either copper or tin, and that its metallurgy is on the face of it much more complicated than that of bronze. A temperature of around 1535° Centigrade is necessary to cause iron to melt sufficiently so that it will flow, but that is a lot higher than the temperature necessary to work it usefully. Just because ancient metalworkers could not cast iron, does not mean they could not work it. A temperature as low as 900° Centigrade in a charcoal furnace will easily separate iron from its ore. The resultant metal being denser falls to the bottom of the furnace and forms slag. Copper on the other hand melts at 1083° Centigrade, although the addition of tin can reduce this by up to 100°. To smelt copper from its common ore of Malachite a temperature of between 700° and 800° is required, which would easily have been achieved by the kilns of the ancient world. In fact it is theorised that the first copper may well have been produced accidentally in antiquity as a result of pottery making. ¹³ As Malachite was used to colour certain types of pots in ancient times, it is probable that early potters noticed the shiny metal in the bottom of their kilns after firing pots glazed with Malachite paste. But however it came about, the admixture of tin to make bronze was known at Ur as early as 3500 BC.

The optimum admixture of tin is around 10%, which confers a number of benefits on the resultant bronze alloy. For one it melts at a lower temperature of around 950° Centigrade, and can be easily poured into moulds, which becomes hard immediately after casting. Similarly the hardness of iron depends upon the quantity of carbon in the alloy, but the most significant difference is not the temperature of smelting, which frankly is not significantly dissimilar, but the method of treating the resultant metal. Cold hammering can shape copper, whereas iron must be hammered hot, or it becomes useless as a tool. To hammer red-hot iron requires a hammer with a handle, and archaeologists claim that no such tools were available to the Egyptians until the late Bronze Age. ¹⁴ To obtain a reduction product that can be worked into usable iron by hammering, the reduction must take place at a temperature of about 1100° to 1150° Centigrade.

In Egypt, it is considered that early bronze objects were imported, but there is ample evidence that copper smelting was practiced as early as Badarian times, as finds of pins, and beads attest. ¹⁵ These early objects are flimsy, but by the end of the pre-dynastic era, the Egyptians were in possession of practical, solid copper weapons. ¹⁶ The early archaeologist, Currelly, discovered an ancient furnace in the Sinai Peninsula, which had been used for smelting copper. It consisted of a hole in the ground about two and a half feet deep surrounded by a stone wall, through which there were two blast holes. ¹⁷ Since then archaeologists in Chad and Cameroon have found several similar smelting furnaces dating to at least 3000 years old, but which had been used to smelt iron.¹⁸

On the 11^th of November 1994 experimental archaeologists built a replica of these furnaces, placing blow pipes into the blast holes, which were used to supply air to the enclosed furnace. A thermocouple probe was inserted which showed that a temperature of 1000° Centigrade was easily reached and maintained. When more than one person blew air through the tubes, temperatures far in excess of this figure were reached. ¹⁹ A painting on a Theban tomb, number 386 in Upper Egypt, dated to around 2000 BC depicts just such a furnace. So there is nothing in the metallurgy that precludes the early smelting and tempering of iron, other than the assumption that hot-hammering could not have taken place. What is perhaps ironic is that archaeologists accept that Bronze was known in early Dynastic times in Egypt, but not produced there until much later. This has a lot to do with the absence of tin, but there was no such shortage of iron ore, which was available in Ancient Egypt.

Notwithstanding the previously mentioned examples of early iron in Egypt, there are others, which are less commonly known. As early as predynastic times haematite ore was fashioned into beads, and amulets, and other iron compounds were used as pigments.²⁰ The earliest evidence for worked iron is similarly from pre-dynastic Egypt, where two lots of small tubular beads were found at Gerzeh. Although completely oxidized, Professor Gowland who analysed them, was of the opinion that they had originally been metallic iron made by bending a small sheet of iron into a tubular shape. Further analysis has shown that this material was meteoritic in origin. ²¹

However a 4^th Dynasty remnant of iron oxide, that was originally part of a magic set found in the Menkaure Valley temple by George Reisner; when examined was proven to have no nickel content. As all meteoritic iron contains nickel, it was accepted that this object must have had a terrestrial origin. ²² Several iron 5^th Dynasty objects were found by Maspero, including chisels from Saqqara, pieces of a pickaxe from Abusir of the 6^th Dynasty, and further broken tools at Dahshur, said to be of similar date. Modern archaeology questions these finds, but they are far from being unique. Petrie found a mass of iron rust together with 6^th Dynasty copper adzes, in the foundations of a temple at Abydos, and was absolutely certain they were of the same date. When tested chemically there was no nickel content, and hence this rust was similarly terrestrial. ²³ In the opinion of the early archaeologists Coghlan and Wainwright, iron was undoubtedly known in the Near -East as early as the third millennium BC but its use was very limited, and the making of useful iron on a large scale was probably first achieved by the Hittites in the fifteenth century BC. ²⁴ Certainly by the time of Amenhotep III, iron was sufficiently well known that Tushratta wrote to the Pharaoh offering him a present of a sacred knife of iron, and iron rings covered with gold.²⁵

There is a misconception that serves to obscure the issue of early metal usage, and that is the assumption that metal ages are fixed and inviolate. The Chalcolithic, Bronze and Iron ages did not begin simultaneously all over the near east. Instead the advent, and indeed the evidence for each age depends upon the availability of metal ores. There were for example, regional variations and shortages of both tin, and iron. So much so, that one area could be in the Bronze Age, whilst another was in the Copper Age or Iron Age due to the availability of the respective ore. The Phoenicians, having easy access to tin and copper tended not to use iron, although a few rusted iron objects have been found at Ugarit.²⁶ The Hittites as we have seen, were at the same time firmly entrenched in the Iron Age, from at least the middle of the 2^nd Millennium until their obscure demise around 1200 BC. In fact there are so many mentions of iron in the Boghazkoi archives of the Hittite rulers, that one scholar concluded that iron was the common metal, not bronze.²⁷ Consequently due to ore location and extraction, as well as the secrecy inherent in its use, it is considered that iron was prevalent in Anatolia, at the same time that bronze was the chief metal of Egypt and Phoenicia.

And yet, this does not relay the whole picture, for it is undoubtedly significant that iron was from the earliest of times, associated with Set. As the demon of Egyptian religion until his rehabilitation in Ramesside times, images and artefacts of Set were excluded from Pharaonic temples and tombs. Placing metal objects attributed to him into a tomb would have been a desecration. It may also be significant, that amongst the legends of all the cultures who worked in stone, were particular taboos about the use of iron in stone monument construction. Deuteronomy for example makes the case eloquently "…thou shall build an altar unto the Lord thy God, an altar of stones: thou shall not lift up any iron tool upon them."²⁸ Even had such a prohibition not been the case, the tombs were designed for eternity, and it would have been abundantly clear to even these early Egyptians that iron rusts rapidly. Consequently the inclusion of iron objects would have been illogical.

Yet despite the abundant presence of iron ores in Egypt, it seems probable that the presence of early iron is more likely to have come by way of trade from some unknown region, but from where? Copper metallurgy was first introduced into east central Europe by 5500 BC, and clearly has a long and relatively unknown pedigree amongst the Old European homelands north of the Black Sea. Linguistically the vocabulary of metallurgy provides some evidence of the antiquity of smelting tradition. Where a root word exists in multiple languages, it is generally accepted as evidence of its antiquity. For example, the Sanskrit word `ayas' is variously taken to mean metal, bronze, or iron, and derivatives of this word occur throughout the region. In Latin aes, means bronze, as does the similar Norse `eir'. However, there are no common words for tin, so `ayas' is unlikely to have meant bronze. The assumption is therefore that in its early days, the word referred to copper alone. This, as J P Mallory points out, is somewhat unsatisfactory, as another word for copper was known, being one that was related to the Indo-European root `reudh' or `red'. The similarity of this word to the Sumerian `urud' or `copper' implies some connection between the two cultures.²⁹ In the Sumerian language, most of the root words are monosyllabic, yet the words for crafts such as farmer, herdsman, fisherman, metalworker, blacksmith, carpenter, basketmaker, etc, even merchant, are polysyllabic, suggesting that these crafts were already in place before the rise of Sumeria.

Wilson suggests these early metal workers were a race known to the Greeks as Chalybians (From the Greek for iron), or Tibarenians, who are a race often credited with being the first to smelt iron. ³⁰ A suggestion seemingly devoid of corroboration, and yet the Sumerian word for metalworker was `tibira'. Given the presence of early Egyptian artefacts amongst the grave goods of the Dorak hoard, it seems likely that a sophisticated trading network existed between the two cultures. Although there were undoubtedly iron ores in the early Egyptian homeland, the abundance of iron ore in the mountainous Caucasus region makes it more probable that this unknown culture was the source of the iron found in the Great Pyramid, rather than the other way round. If for no other reason, that following the demise of the Old Kingdom, iron is not found in Egypt until the time of Amenhotep III, and then by way of importation. Yet, to judge by the strange, seemingly structural, non-ceremonial use of the metal within the Pyramid, it would appear that iron was better known than the scarcity of finds would suggest. A conclusion supported by the Ugaritic texts of north Syria, whose culture declined around 1200 BC, and which speaks of the god Chusor, who was the inventor of iron and ironwork. Philo of Byblos likened him to the Greek Hephaestus, but it is clear from the texts that his origins lay in deepest antiquity. ³¹ Clearly a body of knowledge that would have taken many centuries of practice in order to attain the level of sophistication that the iron plate and the Dorak sword both demonstrate, has disappeared from the historical record. Seemingly in a similar manner to the demise of higher-level mathematics that I have found evidence for.