4 ms·

The unknown dude sometime around 2000-1500 BCE who discovered you could get iron from ore?

stx 6y ago
This guy made it economical. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Percy_Gilchrist https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Percy_Gilchrist
- jjoonathan 6y ago
  I'd call https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bessemer_process https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bessemer_process the major advance and Gilchrest-Thomas a refinement. Shrug.
dragontamer 6y ago
It should be noted that iron was still around before iron-ore mining. But metallurgists back then had to wait for meteorites to fall from the sky and craft those (King Tut's meteorite-iron sword). But yes, the leap from copper/bronze (which could be discovered by simply dropping rocks into a fire, since copper melts at low enough temperatures) vs iron, which is a process that requires much hotter temperatures + forging techniques, is huge. Learning to mix metals into alloys would eventually lead to the discovery of steel (mix iron + wood). Not as good as modern steel, but trial-and-error would get a process down over the centuries for sure. The "Iron Forge" seems to be the hardest step in the whole tech tree. Its a huge leap, no matter how I think about it. Maybe some old pre-history metallurgist was lucky enough to play with meteorite-iron and noticed similarities to ore somewhere else.
- Sharlin 6y ago
  Bronze was revolutionary in other ways. Sure, copper occurs in native metallic form, but even once you find out that mixing it with certain minerals yields a much better metal, you have other problems. Namely that the mineral that gives the best alloy, cassiterite, or SiO2, only occurs in large quantities thousands of kilometers away from your copper deposits. Trade between regions that had hitherto had little contact became a thing. Iron, as known to the ancients, was in many ways inferior to bronze. Iron with low carbon content is malleable but soft, whereas iron with too much carbon is hard but brittle. It took a long time for people to painstakingly learn to make iron that was consistently as good as bronze, and even longer to learn how to further refine iron into consistent-quality steel, a process that also required huge amounts of energy compared to bronzemaking.
app4soft 6y ago
> The unknown dude sometime around 2000-1500 BCE No, this unknown dude was far later somewhere in Japan.[0] [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Japanese_swordsmithing https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Japanese_swordsmithing
- freddie_mercury 6y ago
  At this point in the internet there are literally thousands of Youtube videos, Quora threads, and various other articles debunking the myth of Japanese swords. It is really just another example of the myth of the exotic Orient. Here's one I picked at random to get you started on catching up: https://www.quora.com/Are-Japanese-swords-overrated https://www.quora.com/Are-Japanese-swords-overrated
  - tlear 6y ago
    His claim is not that it is superior but that there is evidence that this process was discovered in Japan. I never heard that before, not sure what on that wiki page backs that

stx 6y ago

This guy made it economical. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Percy_Gilchrist https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Percy_Gilchrist

jjoonathan 6y ago
I'd call https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bessemer_process https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bessemer_process the major advance and Gilchrest-Thomas a refinement. Shrug.

dragontamer 6y ago

It should be noted that iron was still around before iron-ore mining. But metallurgists back then had to wait for meteorites to fall from the sky and craft those (King Tut's meteorite-iron sword). But yes, the leap from copper/bronze (which could be discovered by simply dropping rocks into a fire, since copper melts at low enough temperatures) vs iron, which is a process that requires much hotter temperatures + forging techniques, is huge. Learning to mix metals into alloys would eventually lead to the discovery of steel (mix iron + wood). Not as good as modern steel, but trial-and-error would get a process down over the centuries for sure. The "Iron Forge" seems to be the hardest step in the whole tech tree. Its a huge leap, no matter how I think about it. Maybe some old pre-history metallurgist was lucky enough to play with meteorite-iron and noticed similarities to ore somewhere else.

Sharlin 6y ago
Bronze was revolutionary in other ways. Sure, copper occurs in native metallic form, but even once you find out that mixing it with certain minerals yields a much better metal, you have other problems. Namely that the mineral that gives the best alloy, cassiterite, or SiO2, only occurs in large quantities thousands of kilometers away from your copper deposits. Trade between regions that had hitherto had little contact became a thing. Iron, as known to the ancients, was in many ways inferior to bronze. Iron with low carbon content is malleable but soft, whereas iron with too much carbon is hard but brittle. It took a long time for people to painstakingly learn to make iron that was consistently as good as bronze, and even longer to learn how to further refine iron into consistent-quality steel, a process that also required huge amounts of energy compared to bronzemaking.

app4soft 6y ago

> The unknown dude sometime around 2000-1500 BCE No, this unknown dude was far later somewhere in Japan.[0] [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Japanese_swordsmithing https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Japanese_swordsmithing

freddie_mercury 6y ago
At this point in the internet there are literally thousands of Youtube videos, Quora threads, and various other articles debunking the myth of Japanese swords. It is really just another example of the myth of the exotic Orient. Here's one I picked at random to get you started on catching up: https://www.quora.com/Are-Japanese-swords-overrated https://www.quora.com/Are-Japanese-swords-overrated
- tlear 6y ago
  His claim is not that it is superior but that there is evidence that this process was discovered in Japan. I never heard that before, not sure what on that wiki page backs that