Does this XRF report look right for a medieval iron dagger?

W

wade1212

Joined
Aug 22, 2022
Messages
3
Does this XRF report look right for a medieval iron dagger?

Fe - 97.963
Cu - 0.711
Zn - 0.489
Mn - 0.474
Pb - 0.173
Ni - 0.059
Mo - 0.003
 
The predominance of iron is what you want to see (and/or copper), which we do. The other elements are all naturally occurring and would/could be present in any crudely forged iron blade, especially in the low trace amounts present - they most likely were not added intentionally.

Not saying that this makes it a medieval era dagger, as this simple structure is easily duplicable today.

What concerns me is the lack of even the smallest percentage of carbon (element "C") in the spectroscopy. Before ~1600 AD, charcoal (which contains carbon) was added to the iron ore during the smelting and casting process, so there should be carbon present. That would be a much better confirmation of a knife made in the middle ages.

While inorganic material (iron, copper, etc.) cannot be dated, charcoal can. Radiocarbon dating would be able to pick up on any trace amounts of carbon from the charcoal inclusion, and would be able to provide a more definitive validation of the time period. But since there is no carbon indicated, carbon dating would not show anything.

Since there is no carbon, chances are this blade was made after the 1600's (and not middle ages) - that would be my conclusion.

Do you have pics?
 
Last edited:
shane45-1911 said:
The predominance of iron is what you want to see (and/or copper), which we do. The other elements are all naturally occurring and would/could be present in any crudely forged iron blade, especially in the low trace amounts present - they most likely were not added intentionally.

Not saying that this makes it a medieval era dagger, as this simple structure is easily duplicable today.

What concerns me is the lack of even the smallest percentage of carbon (element "C") in the spectroscopy. Before ~1600 AD, charcoal (which contains carbon) was added to the iron ore during the smelting and casting process, so there should be carbon present. That would be a much better confirmation of a knife made in the middle ages.

While inorganic material (iron, copper, etc.) cannot be dated, charcoal can. Radiocarbon dating would be able to pick up any trace amounts of carbon from the charcoal inclusion, and would be able to provide a more definitive validation of the time period. But since there is no carbon indicated, carbon dating would not show anything.

Since there is no carbon, chances are this blade was made after the 1600's (and not middle ages) - that would be my conclusion.

Do you have pics?
Click to expand...
From my limited XRF knowledge most XRFs are bad at picking up carbon--better at heavy metals and you need dedicated WDXRF machines for carbon and even then the surface needs to be milled/polished--thanks for the reply!
 
wade1212 said:
From my limited XRF knowledge most XRFs are bad at picking up carbon--better at heavy metals and you need dedicated WDXRF machines for carbon--thanks for the reply!
Click to expand...

Indeed you are correct, it depends upon the sensitivity and type of equipment (and to some degree, the skill of the operator) performing the analysis.

If there was the presence of carbon, I would say that very likely you have what you think you have - but without definitive proof that there is carbon in the blade, it is very much a guess as to its age - unfortunately.
 
Last edited:
shane45-1911 said:
Indeed you are correct, it depends upon the sensitivity and type of the equipment (and to some degree, the skill of the operator).

If there was the presence of carbon, I would say that very likely you have what you think you have - but without definitive proof that there is carbon in the blade, it is very much a guess as to it's age - unfortunately.
Click to expand...
Gotcha, thanks
 
shane45-1911 said:
The predominance of iron is what you want to see (and/or copper), which we do. The other elements are all naturally occurring and would/could be present in any crudely forged iron blade, especially in the low trace amounts present - they most likely were not added intentionally.

Not saying that this makes it a medieval era dagger, as this simple structure is easily duplicable today.

What concerns me is the lack of even the smallest percentage of carbon (element "C") in the spectroscopy. Before ~1600 AD, charcoal (which contains carbon) was added to the iron ore during the smelting and casting process, so there should be carbon present. That would be a much better confirmation of a knife made in the middle ages.

While inorganic material (iron, copper, etc.) cannot be dated, charcoal can. Radiocarbon dating would be able to pick up any trace amounts of carbon from the charcoal inclusion, and would be able to provide a more definitive validation of the time period. But since there is no carbon indicated, carbon dating would not show anything.

Since there is no carbon, chances are this blade was made after the 1600's (and not middle ages) - that would be my conclusion.

Do you have pics?
Click to expand...

I have no doubt at all that carbon is present in that blade - it's just that XRF is not sensitive to light elements like C.

Lower limit is around Z=11 (sodium). C has Z=6.
 
TC said:
I have no doubt at all that carbon is present in that blade - it's just that XRF is not sensitive to light elements like C.

Lower limit is around Z=11 (sodium). C has Z=6.
Click to expand...

Again correct, but I don't like assumptions. We have science for a reason..... :)

I also suspect that there probably IS carbon present, but without proof - the knife could have been made yesterday.
 
XRF is all about the blanks and calibration. If the lab that tested it KNEW how to look for the elements listed in the substrate they tested; all good. If they’re used to looking for trace metals in motor oil or baby formula; not so good.

Half of SCIENCE is accurate testing, the other half is smart interpretation.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top