2015
DOI: 10.1016/j.jas.2014.10.005
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Technological tradition of the Mongol Empire as inferred from bloomery and cast iron objects excavated in Karakorum

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
3
1
1

Citation Types

0
10
0

Year Published

2017
2017
2021
2021

Publication Types

Select...
7

Relationship

0
7

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 15 publications
(11 citation statements)
references
References 8 publications
(5 reference statements)
0
10
0
Order By: Relevance
“…). It is important to note that based on our prior research, the technological landscape encountered at Delgerkhaan Uul is quite different from that documented at the roughly contemporary site of Karakorum, the capital of the Mongol Empire, where fully established bloomery‐based technology served as the primary means for iron production (Park and Reichert ).…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 83%
See 2 more Smart Citations
“…). It is important to note that based on our prior research, the technological landscape encountered at Delgerkhaan Uul is quite different from that documented at the roughly contemporary site of Karakorum, the capital of the Mongol Empire, where fully established bloomery‐based technology served as the primary means for iron production (Park and Reichert ).…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 83%
“…Recent analysis of Mongolian bronze and iron objects from a variety of contexts and periods demonstrates that nomadic communities in Mongolia had a long history of indigenous metalwork informed by neighbouring traditions (Park et al . , , Park and Reichert ). This pattern is clearly evident in the use of bloomery‐based iron technology from the Xiongnu period onward, which is fundamentally different from the cast‐iron tradition dominant in China.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 96%
See 1 more Smart Citation
“…The similar mineralogy of these slag is further reflected in their bulk chemical composition; samples have moderate FeO (27)(28)(29)(30)(31)(32)(33)(34)(35)(36)(37)(38)(39)(40)(41)(42) wt.%), moderate SiO2 (37-43 wt.%), and elevated to moderate CaO (7-19 wt.%) contents (Table 6, for the individual bulk area analyses see Supplementary Table S2). On the ternary diagrams FeO-CaO-SiO2 and FeO-Al2O3-SiO2, slag of WCB and slag of MCB generally plot in proximate domains.…”
Section: Type Of Slagmentioning
confidence: 96%
“…The negative impact of sulphur on the metal is associated with the formation of iron sulphide-metal eutectics, which melts during temperatures of hot forging of iron (at 988 • C) causing brittleness of the metal [33] (p. 39). By modern metallurgy standards, steel with sulphur levels higher than 0.03 wt.% is considered too brittle for most purposes, while in the past, iron with sulphur levels up to 1.1-1.5 wt.% was sometimes used in the manufacture of various objects [9] (p. 21), [34]. Only two out of the nine samples of Negev blooms reveal sulphur levels higher than 0.5 wt.% indicating a poor-quality metal.…”
Section: Effect Of Sulphur and Copper On Ironmentioning
confidence: 99%