Speaker 1: Welcome to Stuff to Blow Your Mind production of iHeartRadio.
Speaker 2: Hey you welcome to Stuff to Blow Your Mind. My
Speaker 2: name is.
Speaker 3: Robert Man and I am Joe McCormick, and we're back
Speaker 3: with part three of our series on human uses of
Speaker 3: iron from space. I think we had a little interlude
Speaker 3: there where. On Tuesday of this week we ran an
Speaker 3: unrelated interview. But today we're back to finish off the
Speaker 3: series with Part three. Now, if you haven't heard the
Speaker 3: first two parts yet, you should probably go back check
Speaker 3: those out first, But to do a quick recap. In
Speaker 3: part one, we focused largely on the iron dagger of
Speaker 3: Tuton Common, a blade found wrapped up with the pharaoh
Speaker 3: tuton Common inside his coffin from before the time of
Speaker 3: large scale smelting of iron in Egypt. And we discussed
Speaker 3: chemical and mineral analysis showing that this dagger was almost
Speaker 3: certainly made out of iron that came not from Earth,
Speaker 3: but from a piece of iron meteorite that fell from space.
Speaker 3: And it turns out that a lot of iron artifacts
Speaker 3: like amulets, beads, tools and trinkets. A lot of these
Speaker 3: iron artifacts from before the various regional iron ages have
Speaker 3: this in common. They come from meteorites, so ancient peoples
Speaker 3: were taking alien metal that fell from the sky and
Speaker 3: shaping it to their uses. In Part two, we talked
Speaker 3: about a few more specific artifacts believed to be made
Speaker 3: from meteorite irons, such as the Shang Dynasty axes from
Speaker 3: ancient China, and a meteorite iron sculpture known as the
Speaker 3: Iron Man or sometimes in the media as the Space Buddha,
Speaker 3: which was at one point alleged to be a Tibetan
Speaker 3: depiction of a divine figure in Buddhism known as vice Ravana,
Speaker 3: but according to some experts in Buddhist art, was actually
Speaker 3: a twentieth century European design, amounting to a forgery or
Speaker 3: at least a crude imitation of Tibetan imagery. And then
Speaker 3: I ended up getting in to some of the speculation
Speaker 3: about who could have actually made this sculpture, which is
Speaker 3: a somewhat wild story if true, big if true. We
Speaker 3: also talked about the history of knowledge that meteorites come
Speaker 3: from space. So it took scientists of the European Enlightenment
Speaker 3: until around the beginning of the nineteenth century to really
Speaker 3: agree on this, but there is some evidence that people
Speaker 3: in ancient China. In ancient Egypt and other cultures knew
Speaker 3: that this metal came from above, and some of the
Speaker 3: indications of this are linguistic, for example, in the fact
Speaker 3: that in the ancient Egyptian language there's a convention to
Speaker 3: refer to iron as iron of the sky or metal
Speaker 3: of the sky. And so today we're back to talk
Speaker 3: about more possible uses of meteorite iron in technology and
Speaker 3: artifacts from human history. And you know, one thing that's
Speaker 3: interesting this has sort of come up a little so far,
Speaker 3: is that meteoric iron still retains a strong power, a
Speaker 3: sense of power, and a mystical appeal, even after the
Speaker 3: spread of tools and artifacts made from earth based iron.
Speaker 3: So even after iron as an element becomes common and mundane,
Speaker 3: and you know, it's smelted out of iron ore from
Speaker 3: the earth and we use it to make all kinds
Speaker 3: of things, including including steel products, there's still something undeniably
Speaker 3: appealing and even perhaps mystical about iron from the stars.
Speaker 2: That's right, and that's why in this next section I
Speaker 2: want to get out of the Bronze Age and get
Speaker 2: into the post Bronze Age Islamic world, where we see
Speaker 2: various mentions of what may be meteoric iron. So a
Speaker 2: lot of this is going to concern swords, at least
Speaker 2: in the outset here. Swords have of course played a
Speaker 2: significant role in human history and take on various meanings
Speaker 2: across various cultures that use them, which is pretty much
Speaker 2: any culture with access to the prerequisite metals. As we've
Speaker 2: just us on stuff to blow your mind and the
Speaker 2: artifact the short form episodes we were on Wednesday before,
Speaker 2: we see sword like weapons in cultures that did not
Speaker 2: have access to the prerequisite metal work, though their functionality
Speaker 2: is ultimately perhaps more comparable to a club. Thinking here
Speaker 2: about you know, particular examples of essentially wooden clubs that
Speaker 2: are that to the untrained eye might look like a sword.
Speaker 2: May even be you may even have bits of stone
Speaker 2: embedded in them, you know, given this the swordlike appearance,
Speaker 2: so there is something like, even when you cannot make
Speaker 2: swords because you don't have the prerequisite materials, there is
Speaker 2: something about the form, and it's an extension of the
Speaker 2: human arm as a weapon that seems to lock up
Speaker 2: in various cultures. At any rate, wherever the sword was known,
Speaker 2: the sword increasingly took on various literal symbolic metaphorical meanings,
Speaker 2: And this of course means that swords factor into various
Speaker 2: religious traditions in a number of ways, like, for instance,
Speaker 2: in Christiananity, Jesus mentions the sword as a metaphor for conflict,
Speaker 2: and I believe the particular passage is widely interpreted to
Speaker 2: refer to social division rather than armed conflict. But like
Speaker 2: anything in a religious text, people will take it and
Speaker 2: apply whatever meaning they want to it.
Speaker 3: Yeah, there are a lot of ways you could read
Speaker 3: I come not to bring peace, but a sword.
Speaker 2: Yeah. Now you'll find swords, even flaming swords, and Buddhist
Speaker 2: iconography and Hinduism, and the sword of course also factors
Speaker 2: into Islam. And I bring up these other religious examples
Speaker 2: in part because, based on some of the sources I
Speaker 2: was looking at, it does seem that there is often
Speaker 2: a Western bias in interpreting sword iconography and references in
Speaker 2: Islam as more overtly tied to armed conflict than perhaps
Speaker 2: in other religions. This is not to say that the
Speaker 2: sword in Islamic traditions isn't, but as with other cultures,
Speaker 2: it doesn't always refer to harmed conflict or violence.
Speaker 3: Could be literal, could be metaphorical.
Speaker 2: Exactly, so. Islamic swords may stand for religious or political authority,
Speaker 2: they may stand for mystical knowledge and more in addition
Speaker 2: to military victory. But moving on to specific swords, there
Speaker 2: are a number of them of note from Islamic history.
Speaker 2: The prophet Muhammad is held to have possessed nine swords
Speaker 2: during his life, and the most famous of which is
Speaker 2: the dul Fakari or dul Fakar. I may be pronouncing
Speaker 2: this incorrectly. If so, I apologize, but the name's meaning
Speaker 2: is largely uncertain, but may relate to concepts of splitting,
Speaker 2: and is often depicted as a pronged, split or double
Speaker 2: bladed sword. You can look up images of various images
Speaker 2: of the sword in iconography, and depending on how it's presented,
Speaker 2: the blade may split near the tip or I've seen
Speaker 2: examples of the blades splitting close to the hilt. So
Speaker 2: I guess it kind of runs the gamut from like
Speaker 2: the highly symbolic to the you know, pievable and practical,
Speaker 2: and again that we're talking about largely about imagery here.
Speaker 2: Actual symbolic swords have been produced, but the sword in
Speaker 2: question here, the dual Forakar, is I think largely understood
Speaker 2: to be a mystical and or mythological item. The story goes, however,
Speaker 2: that the prophet acquires the sword at the Battle of
Speaker 2: Bata in six twenty four, and then ultimately passes the
Speaker 2: sword on to his son in law, Ali, the fourth Caliph,
Speaker 2: now Caliph's by the way, if you're not familiar, these
Speaker 2: were the Muslim civil and religious rulers who succeeded Muhammad.
Speaker 2: So the sword in question here, the Dulafaikar, is strongly
Speaker 2: associated with Ali. There are various legends about his military
Speaker 2: exploits with this mystical weapon and its ability to cut
Speaker 2: through his enemies, though it is also a symbol of
Speaker 2: political and spiritual authority. It is in many ways said
Speaker 2: to be the sword of swords, as Islamic blades were
Speaker 2: traditionally inscribed with the phrase there is no sword but
Speaker 2: dul Fokar, and there is no hero but Ali. Okay,
Speaker 2: some superlatives, right right, And you can find examples of this.
Speaker 2: I was looking around and like various museums inevitably have
Speaker 2: swords of Islamic origin that have that do mention the
Speaker 2: Dulfokar on them. So it's a can you can find
Speaker 2: examples of this, perhaps even in your own museum within
Speaker 2: your own region. Now, some say that the actual sword
Speaker 2: in question here, among other relics, is currently in the
Speaker 2: in the possession of the Topekapi Palace museum in Turkey.
Speaker 2: But it also seems that in twelve verse Sheism, the
Speaker 2: sword is believed to be in heaven or and or
Speaker 2: in the possession of Muhammad Almadi, the Imam believed to
Speaker 2: return at the end of time. So again there's this
Speaker 2: idea that again a highly mystical sword that is held
Speaker 2: in tradition to not even be perhaps on this earth anymore. Now,
Speaker 2: I say all this to sort of going to get
Speaker 2: into the idea of Islamic swords, but this is not
Speaker 2: the sword that I wanted to talk about in connection
Speaker 2: to today's episode. Like there's I've seen no discussion that
Speaker 2: this sword or anything any artifact that is connected to
Speaker 2: this sword containing meteoric iron, And I guess we should
Speaker 2: also clarify that any sword in the possession of beings
Speaker 2: not on this earth any longer cannot be analyzed. However,
Speaker 2: we do see at least some mention of possible meteoric
Speaker 2: iron weapons in Islamic traditions. I'll get to specific example
Speaker 2: in just a second, but you know, we should remember
Speaker 2: that medieval Arab astronomy was extremely advanced prior to the
Speaker 2: rise of Islam in the seventh century. Pre Islamic Arabs
Speaker 2: depended on empirical observations of constellations, and then with the
Speaker 2: rise of Islam we see the emergence of this tradition
Speaker 2: of five daily prayers, prayers that need to be directed
Speaker 2: toward Mecca. And this creates a true incentive based on
Speaker 2: religion for better charting of time and location. Thus there's
Speaker 2: a reason to focus more on the movements of the stars,
Speaker 2: and this ends up helping to foster a more robust
Speaker 2: cultural understanding of astronomy, drawling upon other traditions in the
Speaker 2: ancient world and building out new knowledge. Now, on the
Speaker 2: other hand, I was reading a survey of Muslim materials
Speaker 2: on comets and meteors by David Cook. According to Cook,
Speaker 2: comets and meteors during the for a very long time
Speaker 2: in these traditions were not considered astronomical phenomenon. They were
Speaker 2: held to occur within the atmosphere and therefore they were terrestrial,
Speaker 2: so they were largely omitted from astronomical works, while mentions
Speaker 2: would still be found in other forms of literature, especially
Speaker 2: when they were held as portents or lined up with
Speaker 2: important deaths or events such as the death of the
Speaker 2: Prophet in six thirty two, as well as events in
Speaker 2: the lives of the Third and fourth Caliphs. Now in
Speaker 2: the past, I think this was when I was writing
Speaker 2: for How Stuff Works, and I was writing or applying
Speaker 2: some edits to an article that dealt with iron, and
Speaker 2: I remember reading that blades of possible meteoric iron had
Speaker 2: been associated with seventh century Caliphs, and I look back,
Speaker 2: I tried to get into this because I early wanted
Speaker 2: to figure out where's this coming from, what specifically is
Speaker 2: this referring to? What are the sources? And the initial
Speaker 2: source was a nineteen forty one paper published in the
Speaker 2: Journal of the Royal Anthropological Institute of Great Britain and
Speaker 2: Ireland titled the Use of Meteoric Iron by ta Rickard,
Speaker 2: and at one point in the text he discusses the
Speaker 2: possibility that Zeus's thunderbolts were a quote poetic expression for
Speaker 2: the use of meteoric iron, and that later I'm going
Speaker 2: to read a quote hear from it In later times,
Speaker 2: we read that Attila, timor Antar and other devastating conquerors
Speaker 2: had swords from heaven. So also the Caliphs, whose swords
Speaker 2: were made of the same meteoric material as the Cobbastone
Speaker 2: that lies in the Holy Sanctuary at Mecca. Avajo's, an
Speaker 2: Arab philosopher of the twelfth century, states that excellent swords
Speaker 2: were made from a meteor weighing one hundred pounds that
Speaker 2: fell near Cordoba in Spain. Now, if you've listened to
Speaker 2: the show for a while, you know that we did
Speaker 2: in an episode on the Cobbastone the Blackstone of Mecca
Speaker 2: a while back, probably a few years at this point,
Speaker 2: And one of the things that we did cover there
Speaker 2: that maybe wasn't as a parent to the author of
Speaker 2: this paper, is that the origins of the Cobbastone are
Speaker 2: far from a settled matter.
Speaker 3: Yeah, I don't remember. It's been a while, so I
Speaker 3: don't remember exactly what we concluded there, but it seemed
Speaker 3: like there were still plenty of room for uncertainty there,
Speaker 3: though there were suggestions of reasons for thinking it may
Speaker 3: have been a stone created by an impact of some sort,
Speaker 3: whether it came from above, or maybe whether it was
Speaker 3: created of like one of those types of glasses created
Speaker 3: by impacts.
Speaker 2: Yeah, yeah, And I think ultimately it's just all observational
Speaker 2: because it's a sacred relic. It's not going to be
Speaker 2: scientifically analyzed, which is the case with many relics around
Speaker 2: the world. In getting into this whole business about the sword,
Speaker 2: so that was what I really wanted an answer to,
Speaker 2: and I've got to admit that I was able to
Speaker 2: find out precious little about Islamic swords alleged to have
Speaker 2: been forged from meteoric iron. Rickard here was citing British
Speaker 2: geologist Sir Lazarus Fletcher, who lived eighteen fifty four through
Speaker 2: nineteen twenty one, but rooting around in available texts by
Speaker 2: this author, I didn't really find any answers to my
Speaker 2: questions either. I did consult a couple of sources about
Speaker 2: the history of metallurgy in the region. And it is
Speaker 2: key to note that we've already touched on islam arises.
Speaker 2: After the end of the Bronze Age in the Middle East,
Speaker 2: the Islamic world had access to Damascus steel, so any
Speaker 2: meteoric weapons would be largely symbolic and or relics of
Speaker 2: the past, and they clearly had access to what is
Speaker 2: often held up is the best steel of the day.
Speaker 3: Right, steel being a product of iron, So it would
Speaker 3: not be a question like we talked about with the
Speaker 3: King tut example, with this being a you know, a
Speaker 3: product from before the regional iron age, from before people
Speaker 3: before there was large scale smelting of iron in the area.
Speaker 3: There's plenty of smelting of iron and production of iron artifacts.
Speaker 3: These would just be iron from a different source in
Speaker 3: a place that was already rich with iron, exactly.
Speaker 2: Yeah. Now, interestingly enough, interestingly enough here, I don't know
Speaker 2: to what extent, or any extent this ends up coloring
Speaker 2: these older writings by Western writers, if this factors into
Speaker 2: the analysis at all. But there is actually a line
Speaker 2: in the Quran fifty seven twenty five that refers to
Speaker 2: iron in a way that is sometimes interpreted as having
Speaker 2: some connection to meteoric iron. I'm going to read the
Speaker 2: passage here, this is of course in translation. Indeed, we
Speaker 2: sent our messengers with clear proofs, and with them we
Speaker 2: sent down the scripture and the balance of justice, so
Speaker 2: that people may administer justice. And we sent down iron
Speaker 2: with its great might benefits for humanity and means for
Speaker 2: Allah to prove who is willing to stand up for
Speaker 2: him and his messengers without seeing him. Surely Allah is
Speaker 2: all powerful almighty ah.
Speaker 3: So I imagine some interpretation is hinging there on the phrase
Speaker 3: we sent down iron, with the idea of iron somehow
Speaker 3: coming from above exactly.
Speaker 2: Yeah. I was reading paper talk titled Basic Concepts of
Speaker 2: Physics and the Perspective of the Qur'an by M. M. Karashi.
Speaker 2: This was in a nineteen eighty nine edition of Islamic Studies,
Speaker 2: and the author here writes that quote the implication of
Speaker 2: the words has become fully apparent only through historical investigation
Speaker 2: of the earliest use of meteoric iron. So I could
Speaker 2: be wrong on this end. As always I invite correction
Speaker 2: or clarity, But I believe some commentators argue that these
Speaker 2: lines in the Qur'an reference and historical understanding of iron
Speaker 2: meteor rights, you know, perhaps drawing on again, as we've
Speaker 2: touched on knowledge that already existed in the ancient world
Speaker 2: in different parts and to different degrees, that there was
Speaker 2: a connection between iron and meteorites, between iron and the
Speaker 2: sky again makes perfect sense, given everything we've discussed, but
Speaker 2: isn't also also isn't necessarily guaranteed. Some also seem to
Speaker 2: interpret this verse as just stating that iron in the
Speaker 2: earth was a creation of Allah, and consideration of meteors
Speaker 2: doesn't seem to always serve as part of that conversation.
Speaker 2: You know, it was sent down just a way of
Speaker 2: saying it came from God, which you know fair enough.
Speaker 2: And say anything was sent down, you could, I guess
Speaker 2: you could say a giraffe was sent down, but that
Speaker 2: doesn't mean it actually had a re entry into the
Speaker 2: Earth's atmosphere.
Speaker 3: Well, everything in this passage is said to be sent down,
Speaker 3: and the other cases of sent down here don't necessarily
Speaker 3: seem to imply a physical descent from space.
Speaker 2: Right, So again I invite correction or clarity on these points,
Speaker 2: especially from anyone who has kroonic knowledge and so forth.
Speaker 2: But I did find it interesting that in this passage
Speaker 2: we see a possible reference to meteoric iron, and then
Speaker 2: we also have these other, like more perhaps dubious mentions
Speaker 2: in Western writings about meteoric swords meteoric iron swords that
Speaker 2: were used by the Calbs.
Speaker 3: All right, well, I wanted to begin this next section
Speaker 3: by looking at how big chunks of meteorc iron arrive
Speaker 3: on Earth. Already, we've mentioned several examples of meteoroids that
Speaker 3: at some point entered Earth's atmosphere and fragmented or shattered
Speaker 3: in the air, separating into a series of smaller meteorite
Speaker 3: fragments which can be found across an impact field. For example,
Speaker 3: in the last episode, we talked about the Chinga meteorite,
Speaker 3: one piece of which was probably used to make the
Speaker 3: so called space Buddha sculpture that we talked about. And
Speaker 3: while the artistic origins of that sculpture are highly suspect,
Speaker 3: the physical origins are not. Really it does seem to
Speaker 3: be agreed upon that this is a piece of iron meteorite.
Speaker 3: So many fragments of the Chinga meteorite have been found
Speaker 3: in the region of Tuva, which is in southern Siberia,
Speaker 3: since the first recorded discovery by miners in the early
Speaker 3: nineteen hundreds. This scattering of iron meteorite chunks over a
Speaker 3: large area is the result of some original object coming
Speaker 3: apart into pieces somewhere in the atmosphere above roughly ten
Speaker 3: to twenty thousand years ago. Now, there are different ways
Speaker 3: for meteoroids to come apart or lose their structural integrity
Speaker 3: in the atmosphere. In some cases they land roughly intact,
Speaker 3: in some cases they split up into some number of
Speaker 3: smaller pieces from the original, and in some cases they
Speaker 3: basically just explode or vaporize, and on the explosion end
Speaker 3: of the scale, the explosions before the meteoroids reach the ground.
Speaker 3: These explosions are referred to as air bursts. In many
Speaker 3: such cases, the entire object, or nearly the entire object,
Speaker 3: is burned up or reduced to dust in the process.
Speaker 3: In the case of the relatively recent Cheliabinsk meteoroid, which
Speaker 3: exploded over Russia in February twenty thirteen, an asteroid that
Speaker 3: was originally like twenty meters or sixty five feet in diameter.
Speaker 3: When it entered the Earth's atmosphere, it exploded a few
Speaker 3: tens of kilometers above the ground. For some reason, I've
Speaker 3: seen different estimates about the altitude. Some say twenty three
Speaker 3: kilometers up, others say thirty kilometers up. But wherever it was,
Speaker 3: this explosion released a huge amount of energy, expressed in
Speaker 3: the hundreds of kilotons of TNT, maybe like four hundred
Speaker 3: or five hundred kilotons of T and T. The explosion
Speaker 3: way up there, damaged thousands of buildings on the ground,
Speaker 3: blew out glass, and sent some fifteen hundred people to
Speaker 3: the hospital, though thankfully no deaths were reported.
Speaker 2: The footage of this, like the dashboard footage that was
Speaker 2: going around, is quite incredible, so if you haven't seen it,
Speaker 2: definitely seek it out.
Speaker 3: Absolutely that is worth looking at. It is awe inspiring,
Speaker 3: and this is a particularly big air burst in the
Speaker 3: modern era, not of course the biggest that can happen,
Speaker 3: but very big and recent memory, though, I was reading
Speaker 3: if the object had impacted the ground instead of exploding
Speaker 3: high up in the atmosphere, if it had hit the
Speaker 3: ground or exploded lower in the atmosphere the dam the
Speaker 3: damage could have been much much worse. So in a way,
Speaker 3: the outcome was rather lucky. But despite the fact that
Speaker 3: the Chelubenzk meteoroid entered the atmosphere as an asteroid the
Speaker 3: size of a house, I've read estimates that well below
Speaker 3: one percent of its mass reached the ground in the
Speaker 3: form of solid meteorites. Again, this is something where I've
Speaker 3: seen different numbers on the estimate. I've read like zero
Speaker 3: point one percent of its mass or like zero point
Speaker 3: zero five percent of its mass, some very small percent
Speaker 3: of its mass actually reached the ground in solid chunks,
Speaker 3: and the rest evaporated or was turned to dust as
Speaker 3: the object broke apart and burned up. So this got
Speaker 3: me wondering what actually causes a fast moving meteoroid to
Speaker 3: just blow up or even vaporize like that. A key
Speaker 3: factor is speed. So the original object, which might be
Speaker 3: a chunk of asteroid or comet material at least a
Speaker 3: few meters in diameter or maybe up to tens of meters,
Speaker 3: typically enters Earth's atmosphere at great speed. According to the
Speaker 3: American Meteor Society, meteors tend to enter the atmosphere going
Speaker 3: anywhere between eleven kilometers per second and seventy two kilometers
Speaker 3: per second. And there's actually an interesting fact concerning this
Speaker 3: variability that you might not think about it first. The
Speaker 3: speed with which a meteor enters Earth's atmosphere depends not
Speaker 3: only on the speed of the comet or the asteroids
Speaker 3: orbit relative to the Sun, so it has its own
Speaker 3: intrinsic speed as it's orbiting the Sun, but it's also
Speaker 3: affected by the movement of the Earth, which is simultaneously
Speaker 3: orbiting the Sun at about thirty kilometers per second and
Speaker 3: is also though this is less important, rotating at about
Speaker 3: one thy six hundred and seventy kilometers per hour. Of course,
Speaker 3: speed is always, you know, it's relative to an observer.
Speaker 3: So even though we use language like the speed at
Speaker 3: which a meetia enters our atmosphere, that could give the
Speaker 3: false impression that our atmosphere is stationary and the media
Speaker 3: is moving. In reality, both are moving, and they're moving
Speaker 3: in their own directions, and so the speed of entry
Speaker 3: is determined by the relative velocity of both objects to
Speaker 3: each other, you know, So it could be kind of
Speaker 3: trying to catch up with the part of the atmosphere
Speaker 3: it hits, or it could be like slamming into more
Speaker 3: kind of a head on kind of collision with the
Speaker 3: part of the atmosphere it hits. And then of course,
Speaker 3: other things about other things about the way a meteor
Speaker 3: enters the atmosphere will determine, will determine its ultimate fate,
Speaker 3: whether it burns up, what the resistance is, and so
Speaker 3: that would include things like the angle of entry. Anyway,
Speaker 3: whatever the speed is at that incredible speed, the air
Speaker 3: directly in front of the meteoroid. Once it enters the
Speaker 3: atmosphere becomes greatly compressed. It's squeezing a lot of atmospheric
Speaker 3: gas in its path into a very small space, very rapidly,
Speaker 3: so you can imagine it kind of like a pneumatic
Speaker 3: piston that is moving so fast it doesn't need a
Speaker 3: cylinder to squeeze the air in front of it. If
Speaker 3: you're traveling at dozens of kilometers per second, you're going
Speaker 3: to squeeze a lot of air into a thin layer
Speaker 3: at your bow before it has the chance to move
Speaker 3: out of the way. And as a result of being
Speaker 3: so violently compressed, this air gets extremely hot, and then
Speaker 3: this layer of hot compressed gas flows around the sides
Speaker 3: of the object as it travels. This fast movement not
Speaker 3: only compresses the gas in front, but it also creates
Speaker 3: a relative vacuum in the space directly behind the meteoroid,
Speaker 3: and these forces put a lot of stress on the object,
Speaker 3: heating it up by thousands of degrees celsius, melting or
Speaker 3: vaporizing parts of it. Causing pieces of it to break off.
Speaker 3: Is just a huge amount of stress on a solid
Speaker 3: chunk of material. These pieces that might be broken off
Speaker 3: of the object are in turn subjected to extreme forces
Speaker 3: of heat and pressure, and a sudden breakup of the
Speaker 3: main mass of the meteoroid can release just a lot
Speaker 3: of energy quite suddenly and resemble an explosion. Also, in
Speaker 3: addition to all this, I came across a paper from
Speaker 3: twenty eighteen adding another interesting mechanism, another piece of information
Speaker 3: to the puzzle here. So this paper was by Tabita
Speaker 3: and Malash published in Mediauritics and Planetary Science in the
Speaker 3: Air twenty eighteen and the paper is called Air Penetration
Speaker 3: Enhances Fragmentation of Entering Meteoroids. So this paper is discussing
Speaker 3: an attempt to model the physics of a fragmenting meteoroid
Speaker 3: with reference to the example of Chellibinsk and the authors
Speaker 3: here argue that their model reveals a previously unrecognized but
Speaker 3: very important mechanism in how this breakup occurs, and that
Speaker 3: is the penetration of high pressure air inside the body
Speaker 3: of the object through permeability of the material or through
Speaker 3: tiny cracks and pores in the rock or the metal.
Speaker 3: And as this air percolates into the solid body of
Speaker 3: the meteoroid, it decreases its material strength. That weakens it
Speaker 3: and makes it more likely to want to split apart.
Speaker 3: One of the authors, Purdue University professor j Malash, described
Speaker 3: the process in a press release, saying, quote, there's a
Speaker 3: big gradient between the high pressure air in front of
Speaker 3: the meteor and the vacuum of air behind it. If
Speaker 3: the air can move through the passages in the meteorite,
Speaker 3: it can easily get inside and blow off pieces. So
Speaker 3: air bursts are aided by this percolation, which every time
Speaker 3: I say that, I do think of coffee as a
Speaker 3: kind of kitchen first thinking. But this percolation of superheated
Speaker 3: compressed gas into the body of the meteoroid through these
Speaker 3: tiny holes and gaps in its structure. But not all
Speaker 3: meteoroids are equally vulnerable to this process. Size and density
Speaker 3: help protect a meteoroid from fragmentation and vaporization. Iron meteoroids
Speaker 3: are not completely immune, but since they are denser on
Speaker 3: average than stony meteoroids, they are less likely to result
Speaker 3: in an air burst, and thus it is more likely
Speaker 3: that large solid chunks reach the Earth's surface intact. And
Speaker 3: so I would like to talk about one such meteorite
Speaker 3: iron meteorite that did reach the surface of the Earth
Speaker 3: in several very large pieces, and that is the Inongenic meteorite,
Speaker 3: also known as the Cape York meteorite, three large pieces
Speaker 3: of which are now on display at the American Museum
Speaker 3: of Natural History in New York. There's one that is enormous,
Speaker 3: you know, it's like sort of car sized, and even
Speaker 3: the other two that are smaller are very big. So
Speaker 3: some thousands of years ago, we don't know exactly when
Speaker 3: a meteoroid weighing possible like two hundred tons about one
Speaker 3: hundred and eighty metric tons, but we don't know for sure,
Speaker 3: entered the atmosphere and fragmented into pieces in the Arctic
Speaker 3: over North America. But as several still very large pieces
Speaker 3: of iron meteorite did make it to the ground. They
Speaker 3: landed in what is today northwestern Greenland, probably before it
Speaker 3: was inhabited by people, after people first arrived in the area.
Speaker 3: Again we don't know for sure when this was. They
Speaker 3: found these large caches of solid iron and began using
Speaker 3: them to make iron tools through a process called cold forging,
Speaker 3: essentially using heavy objects such as stones to hammer pieces
Speaker 3: of the iron meteorite until they broke off, and then
Speaker 3: you would hammer these pieces until they reached the shape
Speaker 3: you wanted, such as a knife blade or a harpoon tip.
Speaker 3: And this cold forging process was very energy intensive. It
Speaker 3: took a lot of human labor. These sources of meteorite
Speaker 3: iron became a vital mineral resource for the Inuit peoples
Speaker 3: of the region.
Speaker 2: It is telling once more, we're talking about a culture
Speaker 2: that would often be interacting with a landscape upon which
Speaker 2: little bits of meteorites would potentially show up a lot
Speaker 2: easier and be easier to find, you know, in this
Speaker 2: case the snowscape, but in other cases we've been talking
Speaker 2: about desert environments.
Speaker 3: Ice is actually a great surface for finding meteorites. This
Speaker 3: came up in that documentary that we watched by the
Speaker 3: Verner Herzog and Clive Oppenheimer documentary where they're looking for
Speaker 3: meteorites on the surface of ice sheets by helicopter in Antarctica,
Speaker 3: and it was a great place to look for them
Speaker 3: because otherwise, you know, you not expecting to see rocks
Speaker 3: on the top of these ice sheets.
Speaker 2: That is Fireball Visitors from Darker Worlds from twenty twenty
Speaker 2: and yeah, we actually interviewed Herzog and Oppenheimer for the
Speaker 2: show I believe it was an anticipation of this, right,
Speaker 2: or was it about their volcano documentary. I'm blanking because
Speaker 2: I watched them both around the same time. At any rate,
Speaker 2: we talked to Werner Herzog and it.
Speaker 3: Was terrifying, though I do want to have a caveat there.
Speaker 3: I've seen some pictures I believe, of how these particular
Speaker 3: iron meteorites were as they were originally in the places
Speaker 3: where the Inuit people's found them, and from what I
Speaker 3: recall seeing, it seemed like they were not just like
Speaker 3: on top of bare ice sheets, but they were positioned
Speaker 3: among a landscape more like nestled in among rocks and earth,
Speaker 3: so I think they still would have really stood out.
Speaker 3: They would have looked weird because they were iron meteorites,
Speaker 3: but not just not so much like the things that
Speaker 3: these scientists were looking for in Antarctica, where it's just
Speaker 3: like a black rock on otherwise unbroken white ice sheet.
Speaker 2: Right right.
Speaker 3: Anyway, the tools made out of these cold forged chunks
Speaker 3: of iron meteorite were they entered circulation. They were sourced
Speaker 3: from these locations and then eventually traded with the communities
Speaker 3: surrounding the Inuit peoples of northwestern Greenland. Eventually they made
Speaker 3: it even farther. There's some evidence that some iron tools
Speaker 3: made out of pieces of this meteorite were traded with
Speaker 3: Norse Vikings sometime before in the eleventh century or before.
Speaker 3: But by the sixteen and seventeen hundreds, explorers from Europe
Speaker 3: started to make repeated contact with various Inuit peoples, including
Speaker 3: the Inhuit of the far North and the Inuit are
Speaker 3: a group of Inuit people also known sometimes as the
Speaker 3: polar Inuit. They speak a language called Inukton and their
Speaker 3: homeland is in northwestern Greenland. These European and US explorers,
Speaker 3: such as the Scottish naval officer John Ross, recorded that
Speaker 3: in speaking to these people, they were told about some
Speaker 3: kind of mountain of iron that the Inehuit were using
Speaker 3: to make their iron tools, but for a long time
Speaker 3: they never saw. The explorers never saw these iron sources
Speaker 3: for themselves. This was until the expeditions led by the
Speaker 3: US explorer Robert Peer beginning around eighteen ninety four. Peery
Speaker 3: is mainly known for trying to reach the North Pole.
Speaker 3: There's some dispute about whether Peery ever actually did make
Speaker 3: it to the geographic North Pole. He certainly claimed he
Speaker 3: did in April nineteen oh nine, but it's difficult to
Speaker 3: verify since the ice would have been over water and
Speaker 3: is constantly moving, so the marker he placed in the
Speaker 3: ice can't confirm it. Also, some later analysis of the
Speaker 3: records of the expedition cast doubt on the physical plausibility
Speaker 3: of their journey and also if Piery did make it
Speaker 3: to the geographic North Pole. There's an account from Matthew Henson,
Speaker 3: an African American explorer who lived from eighteen sixty six
Speaker 3: to nineteen fifty five and served on multiple expeditions with Peery,
Speaker 3: indicating that he was actually the one who made it
Speaker 3: there first. If they did make it so, a lot
Speaker 3: of questions remain about that, But anyway, after living among
Speaker 3: the Inhuit and learning from them and trading with them,
Speaker 3: PII eventually removed three large chunks of iron meteorite from
Speaker 3: Inhuit lands, the largest of which is known as Anihito
Speaker 3: or the Tent, and this one is more than thirty
Speaker 3: metric tons and it required the construction of a rail
Speaker 3: system just to get it to his ship in order
Speaker 3: to be transported to New York. But there are also
Speaker 3: two other smaller but still quite sizable iron masses known
Speaker 3: as the Woman and the Dog. Later and Pieri's plan
Speaker 3: was to sell these objects in order to finance his
Speaker 3: future expeditions to the Arctic, and they remain on display
Speaker 3: today at the American Museum of Natural History. Now, in
Speaker 3: addition to taking away these meteorites that were so important
Speaker 3: to the Inhuit, not just practically as tools. More on
Speaker 3: that in a minute, there is also an incredibly tragic
Speaker 3: story of how Pierri took away six Inuit people and
Speaker 3: delivered them back to the American Museum as well, under
Speaker 3: the false pretense that they would soon be sent back
Speaker 3: home with many gifts and supplies. But in crowded New
Speaker 3: York they were quickly exposed to unfamiliar pathogens and most
Speaker 3: of them died of respiratory diseases. So in the end
Speaker 3: that story is very sad. I think one man from
Speaker 3: the group was able to return to Greenland, and there
Speaker 3: was a boy among the group named Minic who did
Speaker 3: grow up in the United States for some time, and
Speaker 3: then I believe it sometime later tried to return to
Speaker 3: Greenland and then also at some point came back to
Speaker 3: the United States. But he passed away in the nineteen
Speaker 3: eighteen flu pandemic. But regarding the Inhuit beliefs about these
Speaker 3: meteorites that had provided them with iron tools for so
Speaker 3: many hundreds of years, I wanted to mention a really
Speaker 3: interesting episode of another podcast that I came across while
Speaker 3: researching this subject. So this other podcast is called Endless
Speaker 3: Thread and it's put out by Boston's public radio station WBUR.
Speaker 3: I previously wasn't familiar with it, but this one episode
Speaker 3: I listened to is really great. And this podcast generally
Speaker 3: discusses uses of meteorite among the Inuit people. But my
Speaker 3: favorite thing about it is that it includes interview material
Speaker 3: with an Inhuit shaman named Hivshoe, and it's definitely worth
Speaker 3: checking out that episode in full. I think the main
Speaker 3: title before a colon and subtitle is a Meteorite in Greenland,
Speaker 3: but I wanted to mention one interesting and important thing
Speaker 3: that sort of comes up in it. So Hisshue is
Speaker 3: from a place in northwestern Greenland called hira Paluk, where
Speaker 3: the Inhuit people have this long relationship with metiorite fragments
Speaker 3: in and Hipshue says that in their language, these are
Speaker 3: known as the excrement of the stars.
Speaker 2: That sounds like an entirely different take on.
Speaker 3: What these are, but it doesn't have the connotations you
Speaker 3: might bring to it, the thinking of it as excrement,
Speaker 3: because these objects are quite sacred. In fact, I've read
Speaker 3: in other contexts that a justification given for Peri's removal
Speaker 3: of the iron meteorites from Inhuit lands is that the
Speaker 3: Inhuit acquired other sources of iron and steel for practical
Speaker 3: uses through trade and so forth. So I guess the
Speaker 3: thinking is like, oh, they can they can get iron
Speaker 3: from other sources now, so they don't really need these
Speaker 3: meteorites anymore now, I think there are even if they were.
Speaker 3: Even if these metea rites were only significant for practical
Speaker 3: uses as a source of iron, I think there would
Speaker 3: be reasons for doubting that that way of thinking that justification.
Speaker 3: But in this interview, Hisshue makes clear that these meteorites
Speaker 3: have significance beyond simply being utilitarian sources of metal. Though
Speaker 3: they were that as well, their significance was sacred, and
Speaker 3: he mentions that cutting off a piece of metal from
Speaker 3: the source involves a ritual. There is a ritual to
Speaker 3: that sort of giving the people access to the metal
Speaker 3: from this sacred object, and the tools made from it
Speaker 3: are not simply viewed as tools. He calls them partners
Speaker 3: because in a way, he says, everything in their view
Speaker 3: of the world is life. Everything is infused with life.
Speaker 3: So a tool made from this meteorite is not just
Speaker 3: simply a dead object to get some use out of. It,
Speaker 3: is a partner in your work. So anyway, if you
Speaker 3: want to check out that other podcast episode again, the
Speaker 3: show is called Endless Thread. The title of the episode
Speaker 3: is a meteorite in Greenland. But to continue on this subject,
Speaker 3: I was reading around and I found other accounts of
Speaker 3: Inuit people explaining that they view these meteorites as having
Speaker 3: a sacred power and that in fact, religious significance and
Speaker 3: material utility are not mutually exclusive in their view. So
Speaker 3: just one example I came across was a paper published
Speaker 3: in the journal Meteoritics by marden at All called Contemporary
Speaker 3: Inuit Traditional Beliefs concerning Meteorites. This is from the year
Speaker 3: nineteen ninety two and it records what was said about
Speaker 3: meteorites by Inuit elders in the High Canadian Arctic in
Speaker 3: nineteen eighty eight, So a few details of what the
Speaker 3: authors here were told. They were told that Inuit people
Speaker 3: have long come across rocks in the landscape that they
Speaker 3: interpret as being not natural, sort of not the same
Speaker 3: as everything else around them, and in some cases these
Speaker 3: are meteorites, and meteorite pieces that are discovered or possessed
Speaker 3: by a person can give people special powers in some cases,
Speaker 3: or have some kind of special link to the fate
Speaker 3: of the person who owns them. They mentioned that these
Speaker 3: iron media have been sources of metal for the fashioning
Speaker 3: of effective tools and weapons. But contrary to what might
Speaker 3: be a common Western assumption, this does not mean that
Speaker 3: they are not viewed as sacred or spiritual objects. Quote.
Speaker 3: The one evident thing that became clear to the author
Speaker 3: is that the Inuit distinctly believed that these meteorites are
Speaker 3: religious objects of the highest order, and it brings into
Speaker 3: question the current academic practice of sending meteorites south to
Speaker 3: research institutes. Any seeming conflict with the traditional use of
Speaker 3: meteoric iron is more apparent than real. The animals, the hunt,
Speaker 3: the act of survival, all being bound up in the
Speaker 3: mystic patterns of animistic belief. So what I take from
Speaker 3: this is it's sort of pushing back against an assumption
Speaker 3: that many Westerners might have that, oh, if people are
Speaker 3: just using this metal to make tools that they use
Speaker 3: for everyday chores, you know, for hunting and other things
Speaker 3: that must be done to survive, and you know, and
Speaker 3: maybe if you compensate them by trading with them some
Speaker 3: other objects that are useful for survival, then there's nothing
Speaker 3: wrong with taking this stuff away. And you might not
Speaker 3: feel the same way about an artifact that has religious
Speaker 3: significance but maybe was crafted by humans and kept in
Speaker 3: a sacred special place and has no role in the
Speaker 3: ongoing work of everyday life. But I think they're saying
Speaker 3: that's wrong. Even though this is used to make materials
Speaker 3: that are used in regular work, it still is also sacred.
Speaker 3: And that kind of raises questions for me about like,
Speaker 3: why would we have the contrary assumption to begin with?
Speaker 3: Why would we naturally assume that if a material is
Speaker 3: broken off of a mother load and hammered into blades
Speaker 3: or harpoon tips or other tools used for everyday survival,
Speaker 3: that material is not sacred or is not a religious object.
Speaker 3: The conclusion doesn't actually follow from that premise. It implies
Speaker 3: there's some other unstated premise that is driving the intuition.
Speaker 3: That premise could be something like things you see every
Speaker 3: day aren't sacred, or things you use to accomplish work
Speaker 3: are not sacred, which, again, like where would such a
Speaker 3: belief come from?
Speaker 2: Yeah, there's a lot to unwrapped there, because on one hand,
Speaker 2: you could see this kind of viewpoint being rooted in
Speaker 2: like clear examples of highly ornate objects that were not
Speaker 2: intended for actual functional use, such as some sort of
Speaker 2: a ritualistic weapon that was clearly not intended for use
Speaker 2: on the battlefield, or some sort of ritualistic item that
Speaker 2: essentially has the role of a scepter where it becomes
Speaker 2: a symbol of power, but it is somewhat divorced from
Speaker 2: practical applications that it may have had in its sort
Speaker 2: of artifact based history, like, for instance, the traditional traditional
Speaker 2: scepters in Chinese tradition. I've seen some discussion that they
Speaker 2: they may have in an origin been backscratchers. It's one theory,
Speaker 2: you know. So it's like, Okay, you have a practical
Speaker 2: item that then ultimately becomes a thing that is completely
Speaker 2: divorced from that tradition and so if you're looking for
Speaker 2: those kinds of like clear examples like Okay, well this
Speaker 2: is clearly a sacred item because it doesn't look like
Speaker 2: it could be used every day, so you have that
Speaker 2: going on. But then yeah, I don't know. It is
Speaker 2: weird to think about this idea of thinking that everyday items,
Speaker 2: everyday things cannot be held up as sacred because I think,
Speaker 2: for one thing, you can see various plenty of examples
Speaker 2: from history where things people encountered every day still took
Speaker 2: on sacred meaning. One example that comes to mind is
Speaker 2: the horse. Like the horse is you know, during times
Speaker 2: of its domestication to be clear here, you know, it
Speaker 2: takes on sacred connotations, mystical connotations. Like the horse. The
Speaker 2: skull of the horse is often held up in different societies,
Speaker 2: is having some sort of a you know, peculiar meaning
Speaker 2: or area to it. And yet the horse was every day.
Speaker 2: The horse was something that was just part of your
Speaker 2: daily life and you depended upon. And then on the
Speaker 2: other end of things, like there's just our personal experience
Speaker 2: like a beloved tool. We may not really be in
Speaker 2: the mindset of thinking about things in our immediate vicinity
Speaker 2: as being you know, mystical or magical or sacred, because
Speaker 2: maybe we just don't apply that mindset to our immediate world.
Speaker 2: But I don't think that the way we consider our
Speaker 2: tools and consider our knickknacks are completely divorced from that
Speaker 2: thinking either. I mean, just think about, like whatever, if
Speaker 2: you do engage in some sort of a craft or
Speaker 2: a handiwork, Like, do you have a beloved tool, and
Speaker 2: how much would you have to lean into the idea
Speaker 2: of it being important to get to the level of
Speaker 2: it being sacred.
Speaker 3: Or the source of the material from which it is
Speaker 3: made being sacred.
Speaker 2: Yeah. Yeah, this also comes back to It reminds me
Speaker 2: we were talking earlier about excrement, the idea of meteoric
Speaker 2: iron as being the excrement of the sky or so forth.
Speaker 2: This brings me back just something that came up in
Speaker 2: our episodes on Dust about how there's sort of like
Speaker 2: a modern understanding of extrement. You know, it's just pure waste, right,
Speaker 2: But for people that were actually engaged in like working
Speaker 2: the land and all like, there would have been more
Speaker 2: of an understanding that this is not like a valueless byproduct,
Speaker 2: this is something that then can be used to grow
Speaker 2: something new, you know. It can be used as a fertilizer.
Speaker 2: There are various traditions where, of course it's also used
Speaker 2: and typically you know, I think we're dealing with animal
Speaker 2: excrement in these cases, but it can be used also
Speaker 2: as fuel for fire, So you don't have to like
Speaker 2: lean far in that direction to see this is something
Speaker 2: that can be that new life can be breathed into,
Speaker 2: you know. But again, just coming back to the idea
Speaker 2: of sacred items in everyday life, I mean, yeah, I
Speaker 2: think most of us can easily admit that we very
Speaker 2: easily imbue physical items with meaning. I mean, it becomes
Speaker 2: a problem. So it's they're not necessarily, you know, hoarders
Speaker 2: are not making everything sacred, I guess necessarily. But you know,
Speaker 2: I don't I don't think it's you know, beyond the
Speaker 2: realm of our understanding that that a tool, especially when
Speaker 2: you depend upon could could you know, take on a
Speaker 2: sacred quality. Now as we begin to close out these episodes,
Speaker 2: I guess we're closing out these episodes on iron, I
Speaker 2: don't know, do you think you have another one in you, Joe?
Speaker 3: Well, there certainly are plenty more examples we could talk about,
Speaker 3: but I feel like maybe we're ready to move on
Speaker 3: for for our purposes, but we could come back to it,
Speaker 3: I guess, yeah, yeah, there, we'll come up again.
Speaker 2: Yeah yeah. There are a lot of examples out there.
Speaker 2: I would love to hear from listeners about it. I mean,
Speaker 2: for ins as we didn't touch on much in the
Speaker 2: way of modern meteoric weapons that have been produced very
Speaker 2: much with the understanding that these are meteors, these meteorites
Speaker 2: and and this this is metal from the sky. And
Speaker 2: you see various examples of this.
Speaker 3: Uh.
Speaker 2: The late Terry Pratchett, for example, had a meteoric blade
Speaker 2: forged for himself using I believe bits of meteorite that
Speaker 2: he himself had collected. This was for when he was knighted.
Speaker 3: Oh boy.
Speaker 2: Yeah, he wanted to make sure you had the right
Speaker 2: sword for.
Speaker 3: It, really making it an occasion.
Speaker 2: Yeah yeah, make a feast of it. There's all. There
Speaker 2: are also various other blades. I was reading about a
Speaker 2: Japanese blade. This is a Japanese Samurai sword forged by
Speaker 2: modern day swordsmith Yoshindo Yoshiwara. It is called the Tintatsuto
Speaker 2: or the Sword of Heavenly Iron. And this particular sword,
Speaker 2: which you can see is on display. It uses iron
Speaker 2: from the Gibbean meteorite that fell in Namibia during prehistoric times.
Speaker 2: You can look up images of it. Looks pretty cool
Speaker 2: and I also read that fragments of this meteorite were
Speaker 2: also traditionally used by the Nama people of Namibia for
Speaker 2: many centuries in tools and in weapons. And you'll find
Speaker 2: various meteoric swords in fiction. I don't believe this is
Speaker 2: in like the core of books. This may be in
Speaker 2: the additional matter, but apparently a couple of these blades
Speaker 2: show up in the works of J. R. Tolkien and
Speaker 2: also on Avatar the Last Airbender. I'd totally forgotten about this,
Speaker 2: but a meteoric sword does come into play on that
Speaker 2: show as well. Those are just a couple of the
Speaker 2: fictional examples, but I'm sure there are plenty more. So yes,
Speaker 2: we would love to hear from you out there. Write
Speaker 2: in with your favorite examples of fictional meteoric weapons, as
Speaker 2: well as various examples or potential examples. With that huge
Speaker 2: caveat you know that we get into in the first
Speaker 2: episode regarding actual weapons that may include iron of meteoric origin.
Speaker 3: Please do We're gonna get a lot of the fictional ones.
Speaker 3: I think this is a rich vein to exploit here.
Speaker 2: Yeah, let's have it all right, We're gonna go ahead
Speaker 2: and close out the show here. But hey again, we'd
Speaker 2: love to hear from everyone out there, and if you
Speaker 2: would like to help us out, if you want to
Speaker 2: support the show, I tell you, one of the best
Speaker 2: things you can do is make sure that you are
Speaker 2: subscribed to the show. So wherever you get your podcasts,
Speaker 2: be at Apple, various other places, just make sure that
Speaker 2: you've hit subscribe if you have the power to do so.
Speaker 2: Above and beyond that, throw us some ratings, you know,
Speaker 2: give us a nice collection of stars. Maybe say a
Speaker 2: few kind words, and you know, share, share the show,
Speaker 2: share a word of the show with people.
Speaker 3: You know that's right, to invoke a cliche. We depend
Speaker 3: upon the support of listeners like you. But all you
Speaker 3: got to do is listen and share it. So huge
Speaker 3: thanks as always to our excellent audio producer JJ Posway.
Speaker 3: If you would like to get in touch with us
Speaker 3: with feedback on this episode or any other, to suggest
Speaker 3: a topic for the future, or just to say hello,
Speaker 3: you can email us at contact at stuff to blow
Speaker 3: your mind dot com.
Speaker 1: Stuffed to Blow Your Mind is production of iHeartRadio. For
Speaker 1: more podcasts from my heart Radio, visit the iHeartRadio app,
Speaker 1: Apple Podcasts, or wherever you listen to your favorite shows.