> Was iron that much more available and cheaper to process?
No, it wasn’t. Meteoritic iron was the main source for a long while; bronze is more complicated to make, but can be made at much lower temperatures. The fact is, there’s no clean break anyway — the breakdown into stone/copper/bronze/iron ages is a 19th century just-so story.
Thanks, I knew iron is tougher but never heard it was cheaper or more available during the time period. I appreciate the info.
No, it wasnt. Meteoritic iron was the main source for a long while; bronze is more complicated to make, but can be made at much lower temperatures. The fact is, theres no clean break anyway the breakdown into stone/copper/bronze/iron ages is a 19th century just-so story.
////////////////////
I read at one time that the reason the moslems worship a the black stone of Kaaba —reportedly a meteorite— is because they likely used meteorites to make the famous hard flexible saracen swords. These meteorites were made of iron plus several trace metals that gave them their hardness and flexibility. That that art of making those swords was lost. That the closest modern equivalent is stainless steel.
Today the clasp that holds black stone is made of american made stainless steel.
Is there any truth to this in your opinion?