Talk:Orichalcum

Comments

An alternative way of understanding the word, "oreichalkos" (or orichalcum), would be to assume that it came from Greek word "orao" (meaning to see or look... to let oneself be seen, appear), "chalkos" (meaning copper... bronze). Put together they could mean: "seeing-copper", "looking-copper", or "transparent copper". Transparent means "through-appearing" but it is not the transparent thing that "appears": the transparent thing allows another object to be seen through it. Oreichalkos—"seeing copper" or "looking copper"—could be used to fuse to other substances that allowed people to look into objects or through them. It is possible that if energy is passed through it; it could give the desired effect of flashing red. [1] [2]

The above was originally added by 71.97.153.79 on 2005-12-12 and later moved to here on 2006-08-15 — JamesEG (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 23:38, 8 July 2018 (UTC)

The following was deleted by someone: "The fourth-century Imperial Roman sceptres discovered by Clementina Panella's team, hidden in a wooden box on the lower slope of the Palatine Hill in Rome, have hand-holds of orichalcum, according to early reports." An irresponsible deletion, or is there something in this that escapes me? --Wetman 07:33, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

If it's a bit of a rum statement. If, as the article makes clear, nobody knows what orichalcum is, how can anyone claim a certain find is made of it? --Suttkus 04:22, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Ah, yes: perhaps Clementina Panella's team don't know what they're talking about. That certainly does seem to have motivated the deletion. --Wetman 05:48, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Just to mention that Virgil's Aeneid cannot be taken with the same weight as Plato's writings in regards to the alleged appearance of the material, since by then Romans had forgotten the wrod's etymology (they believed it meant a metal-that's not-gold-but-hey-it-looks-like-gold), which probably made them think it meant "alloy that looks like gold" or "alloy from gold" (in which case the armor mentioned by Virgil would have had electrum or white gold).--159.147.50.15 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 21:39, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

Orichalc in the Bible

I just noticed that orichalc is mentioned in both the Old and New Testaments, in the Vulgate Bible, translated circa A.D. 400. This could be useful to someone who is researching the history of orichalc. For example, you could look up the corresponding verses in Hebrew, and then you would know which Hebrew word was believed by 4th- or 5th-century Christian scholars to have had the same meaning as orichalc.

Vulgate verse numbers:
III Rg. vii. 45, Sir. xlvii. 20, Apc. i. 15, ii. 18

Corresponding King James verse numbers:
1 Kgs. 7:45, Sir. 47:18, Rev. 1:15, 2:18

The verse in Sirach is interesting, because it seems to presuppose that the reader will immediately recognize orichalc as the name of a metal which is not particularly scarce or valuable. The logic seems to be that orichalc is related to gold in the same way that lead is related to silver: i.e. a cheap common metal with an approximately similar color.

-- Evil-mer0dach 12:51, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

In late Latin, "auricalcum" meant "brass" or "a brass thing", and that's how the Vulgate uses the word, and everyone reading the Bible understood that. In fact, the Vulgate translator mistranslated (or "poetically translated", according to the official word for many centuries) various other metals as "auricalcum".

So, bin Sira expected his readers to recognize what tin was; Jerome apparently decided brass was more poetic and fit better and rendered it as "auricalco"; King James' team understood this and translated it to "tin". Nothing exciting here.

In fact, this is one of the few cases where the KJV corrected a Vulgate translation. For example, in 1 King 7:45, even though the vessels made by bronzeworker Hiram are almost surely bronze, the Vulgate says "auricalcum", so KJV says "brass", even though every other modern translation from NIV to RVR says "bronze". --157.131.170.189 (talk) 10:59, 22 November 2018 (UTC)

the sharpest metal ever been in mithologies

i've been told by a friend that this(orichalcum) is the sharpest metal . . what do you think the sharpest metal is? some says there is no measurement of sharpness in metal, they say it all depends on how HARD is the metal . . uhmm. . it's so confusing really. . Jcupu (talk) 13:37, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Sharpness depends on several things. A hard metal can be made sharper, but is often more likely to break were a less hard metal would simply bend. Then, there are ways to mix several metals through folding (not the same as an alloy) to get something sharper... or you could create alloys, though folding is more efficient, as far as I know. And there are ceramics that are harder/can be made sharper then most (or all?) known metals. So, in the end: The question if kind of unimportant, it's the method of fabrication that creates sharpness, not the metal.

Other cultures?

In various places--one an older version of the Wikipedia article on Korean mythology--I've come across references to similar "lost red metals" in Asian cultures. Supposedly the Korean one was called "Yugi", but one would like to know the hanja for that. The Japanese equivalent was used as the name of one of Yoshimitsu's swords in "Soul Calibur 2"--which I don't have.

I think it would behoove this article to mention, briefly, that other cultures have similar legends, if better sources than video games can be found for their names. Nagakura shin8 (talk) 07:46, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Okay, I found it (by borrowing SC2 from my sister!)--the Japanese metal was called hihiirokane or hihiirogane, which I'm guessing is written 日色金, meaning "sun-colored metal" (bronze? copper?). Unfortunately the only references to it that I can find are from the Koshikoden, which is, I believe, apocryphal. Nagakura shin8 (talk) 05:41, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Mormonism?

This line: "The Golden Plates of Mormonism, although not called orichalcum, were reported by Joseph Smith's brother William to be a mixture of copper and gold, and have "the appearance of gold."" bothers me slightly. If they were never claimed to be made of orichalcum, why is this in here? I've deleted the line.

If the line is re-added, I think it should at least be re-written to emphasise the fact that the plates have never been demonstrated to exist in anything other than Joseph Smith's fantasy. His brother, who would have a definite bias, cannot be relied upon as a neutral and objective source. Therefore, the source cited for this information should be someone other than Smith, his family or anyone from the LDS leadership of the time. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.67.93.133 (talk) 07:11, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Mistake

"According to Critias, recorded by Plato, the three outer walls of the Temple to Poseidon and Cleito on Atlantis were clad respectively with brass, tin, and the third, which encompassed the whole citadel, 'flashed with the red light of orichalcum.'"

This statement, near the top of the article, is untrue. These three walls are not on the outside of the temple, they are on the outside of the islands, similar too a walled fortress. The temple to Posidon and his wife Cleito is Silver. Remilo (talk) 20:26, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

"fictional metal"?

Wouldn't "legendary metal" or "unidentified and possibly mythical metal" be more appropriate? There's probably a real basis to at least some of the uses of the word... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.138.217.49 (talk) 05:33, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Esoteric bullshit

The esoteric section is highly biased and borders on presenting the fiction of individual "prophets" as either truth or widely accepted beliefs. I beleive it should be razed and replaced with a factual account of mentions of orichalcon in theosophy and its derivative faiths, and maybe a sentence or two about Edgar Cayce. Now it reads more as Cayceian evangelism than an encyclopedia.

Also, no, HAARP does not work on that principle. :) 213.163.40.100 (talk) 09:34, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

Most of the section looks like original research (read: somebody just made crap up) as well. All those citation needed marks...Hmm. 75.129.98.169 (talk) 21:26, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

Nevertheless All Atlantis can be considered Fiction and "Bullshit" but it does not stop it to be in General CULTURE! Fiction is Fiction and Esoteric IS Esoteric, do not expect facts or proofs. It is what it is : Historical Culture. We cannot eliminate and pretend it to not exist in Culture on the soul basis of arbitrary thoughts that Wikipedia must stay within the factual frame. It can be argued that it is a FACT that there is a story of Atlantis, or it is a Fact that Edgar Cayce talks about the life and technology of Atlantis. etc. Is it a Fact by itself... That is why it is under the section of Esoteric.

You have different levels or dimension of Facts. The first level is that it actually exist or existed with proof, the second level of facts is it is actually was written or part of a belief system, like Religion, a fiction book, Jules Verne stories, Nostradamus, Edgar Cayce, etc. The second level of facts must be placed under the section of Fiction of Esoteric, or Religious beliefs. The first level is actual history, or at least the official given history. There is a third and forth level of facts, but for our present day, they are still too subtle for the mind to appreciate. Perhaps in the future when the collective consciousness evolves, the mind will be more refined and more complex. --Fady Lahoud (talk) 06:26, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

Big and important difference between verifiable myth/legend and just making stuff up to fit ones beliefs. If I believe Atlantis was populated by a race of intelligent anthropomorphic pink rabbits that does not mean I get to put it in the page. If some ancient Greek philosopher wrote a book about the bunny people and I can prove it though, then I have something to work with but I would still have to cite my sources or people will think I am making things up and want to remove those changes. 75.129.96.93 (talk) 23:53, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

Just came across this. It clearly doesn't belong in the article and I would have removed it if it was still in the article. Dougweller (talk) 09:00, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

I have given several references, plus you have to be a member of http://www.edgarcayce.org/ (A.R.E.) to be able to access the database of all Edgar Cayce Readings. I would suggest to you to take a membership, and search for the firestone, crystals, of Atlantis... After all The subject Orichalcum is Esoteric by itself. I will work something up so you could have access to part of it, but you have to read it. --Fady Lahoud (talk) 07:18, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

I think it would be a waste of time. We do use paywalled stuff at times but that's usually thinks like major media sources and peer reviewed journals. I don't have time to spare for this. Dougweller (talk) 10:37, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

Popular culture

There's a reference (in the line about the series Slayers under "In television and movies") to a "god-like diety". If nobody can explain to me how this isn't redundant, I'm going to change it in a few days. I'll also fix the period hidden in the quotes there, which I wish I'd noticed before making my other update. --Suttkus 12:57, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

In the Anime Hyper Police, the lead character carries a short sword made of orichalcum, and it is supposidly can cut through anything and is incredibly sharp. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.232.72.26 (talk) 17:08, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

Millions of MMO gamers (including World of Warcraft, Guild Wars 2,...) know Orichalcum as an ore can be mined and crafted into armor and weapons by players. It is usuallly the most valuable metal in these virtual economies. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 141.134.35.237 (talk) 10:05, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

I noticed that the "Orichalcum in popular culture" section was removed. I don't see why that is nessecary, and I think it should be restored.ZFT (talk) 05:44, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

I have to agree. That way, we would be able to move some of the references in the intro text into a separate section. Blackbird_4 08:25, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

@ZFT Me too, and I also think that the fact that Orichalcum is also featured in an Aquaman movie as a volatile power source, maybe unless the spelling I copied makes this comment incorrect. 72.83.128.234 (talk) 21:01, 15 January 2024 (UTC)

Richard Francis Burton

In his The Book of the Sword Burton devotes a short chapter to this, with a lot of detail. Dougweller (talk) 16:46, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

A .pdf of the book may be found at burtoniana.org.  davidiad { t } 18:49, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

Possible discovery?

Found an article that speculates a shipment metal was found in a shipwreck. Not sure on best practice to include this, but I thought I'd drop a line in here anyways. ourweakness (talk)

I found a similar article at the Tech Times dated January 9, that indicated that it was not the correct mix possibly? Challenger l (talk) 05:39, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

Amber

The late professor Willy Ley thought that Orichalcum could well be Amber.AT Kunene 123 (talk) 13:28, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

Where did he publish this research or assessment of available documents? Please give us at least that information — or, why bother mentioning anything at all?
Anyways, amber would not do well as a load–bearing structual component. What was Ley's rationale? — JamesEG (talk) 20:10, 8 July 2018 (UTC)

Josephus mentions copper not orichalcum

Under the heading "Ancient literature" it is stated that "Orichalcum is also mentioned in the Antiquities of the Jews - Book VIII, sect. 88 by Josephus"...etc. This is however incorrect because Josephus describes various vessels, fixtures and ornaments as being made of copper and not orichalcum.

Here is the complete text from Book VIII, sect. 88, in the original Greek (the language in which Josephus wrote) taken from: Flavii Iosephi opera, vols. 1-4, Niese, B. (Ed), Weidmann, Berlin 1955

8.88.1  Κατεσκεύασε δὲ καὶ θυσιαστήριον χάλκεον εἴκοσι πηχῶν τὸ
8.88.2  μῆκος καὶ τοσούτων τὸ εὖρος τὸ δὲ ὕψος δέκα πρὸς τὰς ὁλοκαυ-
8.88.3  τώσεις. ἐποίησε δὲ αὐτοῦ καὶ τὰ σκεύη πάντα χάλκεα ποδιστῆρας
8.88.4  καὶ ἀναλημπτῆρας· οὐ μὴν ἀλλὰ πρὸς τούτοις Χείρωμος καὶ λέβητας
8.88.5  καὶ ἅρπαγας καὶ πᾶν σκεῦος ἐδημιούργησεν ἐκ χαλκοῦ τὴν αὐγὴν
8.89.1  ὁμοίου χρυσῷ καὶ τὸ κάλλος·

All words in bold mean copper (χαλκός) and not orichalcum (ὀρείχαλκος).

I therefore propose that the reference to Josephus is inaccurate and should be deleted.

Note: The text can also be found on line at The TLG and the Perseus Digital LibraryProteusx (talk) 15:28, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

I believe the confusion here comes from the same place as the confusion over the Bible: medieval Latin translations of Josephus often use "orichalcum".

In late and medieval Latin, "auricalcum" meant "brassware", and figuratively brass, bronze, copper, and even occasionally other metals. On top of that, most of the references in Josephus are to Hiram's works for Solomon, so they were translated into Latin—and back out of it—by people who knew the Vulgate Bible, which used the word "auricalcum" to refer the exact same bronze vessels, etc. that Josephus called "χάλκεον".

The fact that "auricalcum" can also mean the mythical metal orichalcum (plus a then-contemporary gold-copper alloy, and figuratively any gold alloy) was not particularly confusing to people who knew Latin (whether late Romans, medieval monks, or renaissance and modern scholars), any more than it's confusing to us that "doctor" means "physician" as well as "holder of a doctorate" (not to mention "script doctor", etc.). Which is why all English translations of Josephus, even the early ones working from Latin sources, render "auricalcum" as "brass" or "bronze", not as "orichalcum".

Unfortunately, to someone who doesn't know Latin, but does know how to use text searches and dictionaries, it's easy to find a reference to "auricalcum" and confuse it for a reference to "orchicalcum". (Even when it's a translation from Greek—or Hebrew, Aramaic, etc.—it's hard for most such people to search the original, written in an alphabet they don't know.)

The good news is that this will probably end up being a temporary problem: If you let Google auto-translate a Latin translation of Josephus Antiquities VIII, or the Vulgate 1 Kings, etc., you'll see "brassware", and even if you look at suggested alternative translations, "brass", "golden metal", and "bronze" will show up ahead of "orichalcum".

However, it might be worth adding something to the article that makes it clearer that most references to "auricalcum" in medieval Latin texts are not references to orchialcum. --157.131.170.189 (talk) 22:58, 22 November 2018 (UTC)

2015 recovery of 39 ingots

The single source for mentioning that dive does not say anything about identifying the ingots as “orichalcum”. There are a few other publications which do; either I or someone else should collect the claims and the evidence proposed as to why various persons are purporting those ingots were ever named “orichalcum” — maker's marks, surviving cargo manifests, or other such documents.
— JamesEG (talk) 19:49, 8 July 2018 (UTC)

Platinum?

What would be source for platinum in Ancient Old World? Perhaps Africa or India? Pure wild speculation, though... Ultima Thulean (talk) 00:37, 8 March 2023 (UTC)