DOI Page / Citation link:
https://doi.org/10.11588/diglit.33567#0286
170
"It is remarkable that bone ash as well as gypsum have been used by the old Egyptians in
the preparation of this cement. Calculating from this analysis, as far as it can be done, the principal
components of this cement, we hnd it to contain :—
p. c.
"Quartz, etc. ........... 13.98
Calcium carbonate (CaCOg) ........ 28.59
Calcium phosphate (CagPgOg) ........ 10.26
Hydrous calcium sulphate (CaSCQ -j- 2 HgO) .... 4.25
Water, organic matter, etc. ........ 19.29, etc."
It is hardly necessary to add that these results render it very clear that so far as the material
furnished far examination was concerned, there was no evidence of either gold or copper having been
attached to it at a previous period. The very slight trace of the latter metal—four hundredths of
one per cent.—is an amount of impurity which is too insignificant to lend support to the opposite
hypothesis. Parts of one of the iron clamp dogs (No. 5 in Lieutenant-Commander Gorringe's list) were
submitted by him to officers of the U. S. Ordnance for physical and chemical tests, and the results
given to me for embodiment in this chapter. No comment is necessary on this fine piece of work,
and I have simply taken the liberty of introducing, in italics, into the list of substances determined by
Captain Butler's analysis, others found by the analysis of Dr. Wendel for Mr. A. L. Holley, in order
that the two may be compared. It will be noticed that the constituent to which Captain Butler in
a foot-note attributes the high temperature necessary to forge this iron is entirely wanting in the
analysis of Dr. Wendel (arsenic).
It would be very interesting to know more of the history of the production of that iron, and
especially to have authentic information as to its age/ for while we have abundant testimony as to
the existence of mines and furnaces in the times of the Egyptians, one of the most distinguished of
Egyptologists has doubted their possession of iron. Mr. Holley, in a letter to the editor of the
H770& says of this iron :
Our friend, Mr. Fred. E. Church, lately handed me a piece of iron found under our Egyptian obelisk, and
asked me to report to you about its quality and the probable method of its manufacture. The specimen was
too small for any physical test whatever. A clean fracture revealed to the expert eye a rather highly carbonized
and granular but tough-looking metal, not unlike what is called puddled steel. I sent the specimen to Dr.
Wendel, the able chemist of the Albany and Rensselaer Iron and Steel Works, who took such an interest in
the matter that he made the following very complete analysis/ If we had not known from the general
history of the iron manufacture that the specimen must have been made by the Catalan process, the analysis
would have so indicated. The notable facts are: about a half per cent, of carbon, giving the hardness of ordinary
rail steel ; very low silicon and phosphorus, due to the method of manufacture ; and a remarkably large amount
of calcium, indicating the plentiful use of lime as a flux in the process. The small amount of slag (for a
Catalan product) as well as the fine fracture indicate frequent reworking, etc., etc.
This fragment was a part of one of the iron dogs used for clamping the stones of the steps together.
The following is the report of Captain J. G. Butler, U. S. A., on the same material:
WATERTOWN ARSENAL, 20, 1881.
Submitted for mechanical test by Major Clifton Comly per Captain J. G. Butler on the Emery Testing
Machine, one iron clamp dog used in foundation of obelisk in Egypt.
Clamp Dog (see Plate xi): About 10 inches long, 1 inch wide, y inch thick, partly encased in lead, and flaked
with rust.
Cut off one end, forged it to a point; tried to harden it by plunging it red-hot into water. Would not
harden. Cut off other end and forged into a ring at third attempt, at a much higher heat than necessary or
proper for wrought iron" (probably the effect of copper, which is apparently incorporated mechanically, judging by
appearance only of copperish streaks and spots, which appeared more distinctly when the specimen was large than
when reduced.)
* The information on this point is authentic. The age of the iron in 1882 is 1904 years. The doubting (Egyptologist
may profit by reading Chapter I " Steel," by J. S. Jeans. 1880. (H. H. G.)
" See analysis at the end of Captain Butler's paper.
" Appended analysis shows this effect to have been due probably to arsenic.
"It is remarkable that bone ash as well as gypsum have been used by the old Egyptians in
the preparation of this cement. Calculating from this analysis, as far as it can be done, the principal
components of this cement, we hnd it to contain :—
p. c.
"Quartz, etc. ........... 13.98
Calcium carbonate (CaCOg) ........ 28.59
Calcium phosphate (CagPgOg) ........ 10.26
Hydrous calcium sulphate (CaSCQ -j- 2 HgO) .... 4.25
Water, organic matter, etc. ........ 19.29, etc."
It is hardly necessary to add that these results render it very clear that so far as the material
furnished far examination was concerned, there was no evidence of either gold or copper having been
attached to it at a previous period. The very slight trace of the latter metal—four hundredths of
one per cent.—is an amount of impurity which is too insignificant to lend support to the opposite
hypothesis. Parts of one of the iron clamp dogs (No. 5 in Lieutenant-Commander Gorringe's list) were
submitted by him to officers of the U. S. Ordnance for physical and chemical tests, and the results
given to me for embodiment in this chapter. No comment is necessary on this fine piece of work,
and I have simply taken the liberty of introducing, in italics, into the list of substances determined by
Captain Butler's analysis, others found by the analysis of Dr. Wendel for Mr. A. L. Holley, in order
that the two may be compared. It will be noticed that the constituent to which Captain Butler in
a foot-note attributes the high temperature necessary to forge this iron is entirely wanting in the
analysis of Dr. Wendel (arsenic).
It would be very interesting to know more of the history of the production of that iron, and
especially to have authentic information as to its age/ for while we have abundant testimony as to
the existence of mines and furnaces in the times of the Egyptians, one of the most distinguished of
Egyptologists has doubted their possession of iron. Mr. Holley, in a letter to the editor of the
H770& says of this iron :
Our friend, Mr. Fred. E. Church, lately handed me a piece of iron found under our Egyptian obelisk, and
asked me to report to you about its quality and the probable method of its manufacture. The specimen was
too small for any physical test whatever. A clean fracture revealed to the expert eye a rather highly carbonized
and granular but tough-looking metal, not unlike what is called puddled steel. I sent the specimen to Dr.
Wendel, the able chemist of the Albany and Rensselaer Iron and Steel Works, who took such an interest in
the matter that he made the following very complete analysis/ If we had not known from the general
history of the iron manufacture that the specimen must have been made by the Catalan process, the analysis
would have so indicated. The notable facts are: about a half per cent, of carbon, giving the hardness of ordinary
rail steel ; very low silicon and phosphorus, due to the method of manufacture ; and a remarkably large amount
of calcium, indicating the plentiful use of lime as a flux in the process. The small amount of slag (for a
Catalan product) as well as the fine fracture indicate frequent reworking, etc., etc.
This fragment was a part of one of the iron dogs used for clamping the stones of the steps together.
The following is the report of Captain J. G. Butler, U. S. A., on the same material:
WATERTOWN ARSENAL, 20, 1881.
Submitted for mechanical test by Major Clifton Comly per Captain J. G. Butler on the Emery Testing
Machine, one iron clamp dog used in foundation of obelisk in Egypt.
Clamp Dog (see Plate xi): About 10 inches long, 1 inch wide, y inch thick, partly encased in lead, and flaked
with rust.
Cut off one end, forged it to a point; tried to harden it by plunging it red-hot into water. Would not
harden. Cut off other end and forged into a ring at third attempt, at a much higher heat than necessary or
proper for wrought iron" (probably the effect of copper, which is apparently incorporated mechanically, judging by
appearance only of copperish streaks and spots, which appeared more distinctly when the specimen was large than
when reduced.)
* The information on this point is authentic. The age of the iron in 1882 is 1904 years. The doubting (Egyptologist
may profit by reading Chapter I " Steel," by J. S. Jeans. 1880. (H. H. G.)
" See analysis at the end of Captain Butler's paper.
" Appended analysis shows this effect to have been due probably to arsenic.