Quality and Quantity in Late Bronze and Early Iron Age Exchange Systems BITNO-libre

7/26/2019 Quality and Quantity in Late Bronze and Early Iron Age Exchange Systems BITNO-libre

1/16

Associazione

Nazionale

per

Aquileia

Casa Bertoli

Dipartimento di Ingegneria dei

Materiali

e

Chimica

Applicata

Universita

di

Trieste

ncient

Metallurgy

between Oriental lps and Pannonian Plain

Workshop -Trieste,

29-30

October

1998

Alessandra Giumlia-Mair

ed.

Trieste 2000


2/16

Christoph Huth

QUALITY AND QUANTITY IN LATE BRONZE AND EARLY IRON AGE

EXCHANGE SYSTEMS

Recent analyses of metal finds from Slovenian hoards revealed that some objects of

the Late Bronze Age were made from lead/copper and lead/tin/copper alloys instead of tin

bronze as one would have expected (Trampuz-Orel 1996; Trampuz-Orel, Heath 1998;

Trampuz Orel, Heath, Hudnik 1998). Among these artefacts are shaft-hole axes and win

ged axes of a form which is mainly known from Italy (fig. 1,9-10). Both axe types contain

high amounts oflead, ranging from 11 % up to 57%, while in the shaft-hole axes tin is found

in traces or in very little quantities only (0.05%-3%). In fact most of the shaft-hole axes

consist of a binary lead/copper alloy. The alloys were probably made by adding metallic

lead to the copper prior to the casting process. Alternatively, highly-leaded copper ingots

may have been used for making the axes. Such ingots are also known from Slovenian Late

Bronze Age hoards.

The raised levels of lead may have many causes. Through the addition of lead it was

possible to improve the casting process by lowering the metal's melting point and its visco

sity. Lead could also have been used as a substitute for tin, though it seems that there was

always enough tin available in form of used bronze objects or scrap (as being found in so

many hoards). However, a high amount

of

lead will also have negative effects on the arte

fact. Since lead tends to build globules in the metal, too much

of

it may seriously deterio

rate the mechanical properties ofthe cast object. Lead will also reduce the metal's ductility

and enhance the artefact susceptibility to corrosion.

As

the bronze smiths

of

the Late Bronze Age were craftsmen

of

outstanding skillful

ness the use

of

highly leaded alloys for certain artefacts can hardly result from carelessness

or ignorance. In their study Trampuz-Orel and Heath (1998) point to similar finds from

other parts

of

Europe, especially from Brittany and N-W Iberia, and even from China

of

the Western Chou Dynasty (1100-771 BC). They discuss several theories trying to explain

the occurrence of these highly leaded bronzes. Some researchers see them as a pre

monetary means of exchange, i.e. a standardised and easily recognizable object; others

think that these axes were made (and deposited) for votive purposes; finally, they could

have been ingots exchanged for their value as raw material, though this does not explain

the fact that the metal was buried and never recovered.

Axes made of alloys containing large quantities of lead or tin are in fact known from

many parts

of

Europe (fig. 2). Very often they were rather carelessly manufactured and

deposited in great quantities. Many hoards consist entirely

of

axes, thereby giving the

impression of mass fabrication or dumping respectively. Such hoards can be found among

quite different cultural groups

of

the Bronze Age. Although the axe finds regularly appear

in a certain period, that is at the very end of the Bronze Age, they are by no means con-


3/16

26

Christoph Huth

temporaneous in terms

of

absolute chronology. Depending on the moment at which a spe

cific region adopted iron technology by giving up the traditional bronze economy, the axes

date from a period beginning in the 12

th

and ending in the 6

th

c. BC. Nevertheless this

combination of artefact type, alloy type and manufacture of large quantities of low quality

products not fit for practical use along with its appearance at the Bronze Age/lron Age tran

sition is indeed a phenomenon so typical that it must have the same background in whate

ver region of the Bronze Age world it occurred.

Certainly the best known hoards

of

this type are those from Brittany and Lower

Normandy (fig. 1,1- Briard 1965; Briard, Verron 1976; Rivallain 1977). It should be noted

that they are the only type of hoard in the Early Iron Age of north-west France. Scrap

hoards

of

Late Bronze Age tradition no longer occur.

n

1965 Briard counted almost 300

hoards containing more than 30000 axes, the biggest one has 4000 pieces (Maure-de

Bretagne, Dep. Ille-et-Vilaine: Briard 1965, p. 313, no. 311). n the meantime a few more

have been discovered, some of them comprising more than 1000 axes (e.g. Riec-sur-Belon,

Dep. Finistere: Le Roux 1990). The average hoard consists

of

about 100 axes. Briard

(1965; 1987) distinguished between nine types

of

Armorican axes, mainly according to

their length and their morphological features.

It

is important to note that these axe types do

not constitute weight groups, due to the heterogeneity of the alloys used and the fact that

many axes still contain their core of clay. Nearly all specimens are of poor quality. Many

of

them are miscasts. The edges are never sharpened. Obviously the axes were never inten

ded to be used as tools or weapons.

One reason for the poor quality

of

these axes is the heterogeneity

of

the alloys used

by the bronze smiths. High levels of lead are a typical feature of the Armorican axes.

Amounts

of

30 to 40% of lead are common, while higher levels of up to 80% are not unu

sual. Axes of the Pleucadeuc type are made entirely of lead. Tin is found in much smaller

quantities. 3 to 4% seem to be the rule, but occasionally the amount

of

tin can reach more

than 20%. Generally there is no congruence between alloy type and axe form. The alloys

used vary considerably among the axes of a single type. Some of the Armorican axe types

seem to be particularly frequent in certain areas, while others do not show any marked spa

tial distribution. Outside Brittany and Lower Normandy many single finds

of

Amorican

axes are known, yet very few hoards. Usually Armorican axes were deposited irregularly,

i.e. buried as a heap of axes without any discernible order. However, some are reported to

have been hoarded in layers with the edges pointing inwardly (e.g. Langonnet, Dep.

Morbihan: Le Roux 1979, pp. 550-552). The result is a deposit of cylindrical shape requi

ring a minimum of space. n a pit 50 cm deep and 80 cm wide, 1000 axes weighing about

280 kilograms can easily be stored. Moreover, by depositing axes in layers one can imme

diately tell if part

of

the hoard is missing. Many authors (the more important ones discus

sed by Briard 1987) took the Armorican axes for a kind of primitive money, however this

does not seem very likely. This point will be discussed further below.

A phenomenon similar to the Armorican axe hoards is known from southern England.

These hoards belong to the Early Iron Age Llyn Fawr phase. They contain either axes

of

the so-called Sompting type (fig. , 3) or faceted axes (fig.

1,

4). While hoards with

Sompting axes are mainly found in the south and the south-east

of

lowland England (e.g.

Figheldean Down, Wiltshire: Coombs 1979), those with faceted axes are concentrated in

'


4/16

Quality and Quantity in Late Bronze and Early Iron Age Exchange Systems

27

the south-west, particularly

in

Dorset (Pearce 1983). At the same time a few scrap hoards

of Late Bronze Age tradition are known (Huth 1997), some

of

which contain socketed axes,

yet never in as-cast condition. The axe hoards of England are much smaller and much less

numerous than their Armorican counterparts. Nevertheless, the hoarding of as-cast axes of

poor quality at the time

of

the Bronze Age/Iron Age transition is certainly no coincidence.

Unfortunately there are no metallurgical analyses

of

the hoards of Sompting axes, while the

faceted axes from south-west England typically contain high levels of tin, sometimes more

than 20%, and very small quantities oflead (Northover 1980a, pp. 66-68; Northover 1980b,

pp. 234-235; Northover 1983, p. 67; Northover, Sherratt 1987, p. 17; Northover in Cunliffe

1988, p. 79). In this respect they differ strongly from the Armorican axes, where the situa

tion is just the reverse.

Hoards

of

as-cast axes are also known from Belgium and west Germany (fig.

1,

5 -

van de Weerd 1938; Kibbert 1984). In fact all Early Iron Age hoards

of

this region consist

exclusively

of

socketed axes. However, they are very few in number and metallurgical

analyses are still lacking. The axes of these hoards mainly belong to the so-called

Geistingen type. They show the typical features

of

so many axes dating to the Bronze

Age/Iron Age transition: casting flaws, blunt edges and careless manufacturing.

A situation comparable to both north-west France and southern England prevails in

the north-west

of

the Iberian peninsula. Again the Early Iron Age sees quite a number

of

hoards containing as-cast axes (Coffyn 1985, pp. 230-235). Like always the axes belong to

the local repertoire, i.e. in this case palstaves (fig.

1,

6). Two types can be discerned: the

Paredes de Coura type in Portugal and the small Samiera type in Galicia. The Portuguese

axes contain very high levels of lead reaching from 46 to 73%, while tin sometimes occurs

in traces only. In Galicia two types

of

alloys can be found: a usable ternary bronze with 2

to 3% of lead and slightly higher amounts of tin and another one containing between 8 and

20% of lead and between 11 and

21

% of tin. Many axes still have casting risers. The hoards

are comparatively big. One contained more than 200 axes. One reason for the poor quality

of these axes is the heterogeneity

of

the alloys used by the founders.

In southern France the hoards of the Early Iron Age Launacien phase are accumula

tions of scrap and copper ingots, very much like the hoards

of

most parts

of

Late Bronze

Age Europe (Guilaine 1972). However, they do contain as-cast socketed axes

of

poor qua

lity in some quantity (fig.

1,

2 - Chardenoux, Courtois 1979). Unfortunately there are

hardly any metallurgical analyses available. Those taken from the hoard

of

Peret, Dep.

Herault, indicate that apart from pure copper for the bun-shaped ingots, two different alloys

were used: one containing frequently less than 4% of tin for the socketed axes and another

one with 7 to 10% of tin for the other objects like spearheads and ornaments (Garcia 1993).

The objects of the Agde shipwreck seem to fit into this pattern, too (Junghans, Sangmeister,

Schroder 1974). In this respect Peret and the Agde cargo resemble typical Late Bronze Age

hoards, although they date to the Early Iron Age. The hoards

of

the Launacien are again

comparatively big. The cargo

of

the Agde shipwreck (Bouscaras, Hugues 1967;

Chardenoux, Courtois 1979) with its 1700 bronzes, 800 kilograms of copper ingots, 36 tin

ingots and lead (Penhallurick 1986), clearly shows that at least some of the collected metal

was traded. This can hardly be surprising, considering that at this time Phoenicians, Greeks

and Etruscans were in close contact with the barbarians. The Agde shipwreck can be dated


5/16

CL ,

6

ll

{J

\

u

9

8

___----...

Z


6/16


29

Fig. 2. Early Iron Age hoards consisting of as-cast axes, related hoards from Slovenia, and scrap hoards with as

cast axes

of

southern France.

Fig.

1.

As-cast axes from France (1-2), England (3-4), west Germany (5), the Iberian peninsula (6), Albania

7-

8); as-cast axes (9-10), cast ingots (11-12) and wheel-shaped pendant from Slovenia - 1-2 after Chardenoux,

Courtois 1979, 3 after Coombs 1979, 4 after Pearce 1983, 5 after Kibbert 1984, 6 after Monteagudo 1977, 7 after

Prendi 1984, 8 after Prendi 1982, 9-13 after Terzan 1996.


7/16

30

Christoph Huth

to 600 BC or shortly afterwards (for a detailed discussion

of

the chronology

of

the Launac

hoards see Huth 1997). By the early 6

th

c. Greek craftsmen, very probably Phoceens, had

settled down in Languedoc, and particularly in the region of Agde, the ancient Agatha

(Nickels 1983).

Hoards with as-cast axes are again known from south-east Europe, especially from

northern Albania (Prendi 1984). They contain shaft-hole axes

of

the Albano-Dalmatian

type (fig. 1, 7) as well as socketed axes of a local type (fig. 1,8). As everywhere else, this

type of hoard appears at the very end of the Bronze Age. Some of the hoards are quite big,

such as Torovice (Prendi 1984), which contained more than 120 axes. Unfortunately, no

metal analyses are available. However, it would not be surprising to find alloys with high

levels

of

tin or lead.

In Slovenia careful and systematic research provides us with a clearer picture

of

the

situation at the end

of

the Bronze Age (Trampuz-Orel 1996; Trampuz-Orel, Heath 1998;

Trampuz-Orel, Heath, Hudnik 1998). The highly leaded shaft-hole axes (fig. 1, 9) and the

winged axes (fig.

1,

10)

of

Slovenia have already been mentioned. However, apart from

these axes there are other artefacts showing high amounts

of

lead, tin and sometimes also

antimony. Thus the typical Late Bronze Age pIano-convex copper ingots that were in use

until Hallstatt A were replaced by a variety of cast ingots during Hallstatt B (fig. 1, 11-12).

These, too, are made of a binary copper and lead alloy with raised levels of lead (24.8% on

average, with a maximum

of

89.1 %). In fact all objects

of

this phase reveal a deliberate

addition

oflead,

though generally to a much lesser degree (4.3% on a average). In addition,

a ternary bronze with high levels of tin was used in casting wheel-shaped pendants (fig. 1,

13) and to a lesser extent also rings (generally 10-20% tin, lead ranging from 1.4 to 3.7%

on average). Like the axes, the pendants were hoarded in as-cast condition. Trampuz-Orel

(1996) was able to show that the pendants

of

the Kanalski Vrh find were made at the same

time as the remaining objects

of

the hoard. Altogether three castings were carried out, each

charge of bronze containing a specific amount

of

deliberately added lead or tin. Moreover,

similar impurity patterns show that the same raw copper was used for all three alloys. There

is strong evidence that the whole series of objects had been buried right away after casting,

and had therefore never entered metal circulation, nor did it contain any recycled material.

Even more important however, Kanalski Vrh shows that at least some ingot metal was

hoarded in the shape of amulets (for the amulet character of pendants see Kossack 1990).

Finally it should be said that some of the objects mentioned above (especially cast ingots,

but also pendants, rings and one socketed axe) contain high levels of antimony. These can

reach as much as 20.6%. Very often, although not always, objects with elevated contents

of

antimony contain very little tin (Trampuz-Orel 1996). Similar alloys are known from

Switzerland (Rychner 1995) and western Hungary (Helm 1900; Maclean, McDonnell

1996). Trampuz-Orel (1996) suggests that the high levels of antimony may be related to a

change to copper of the Jahlerz type during Hallstatt B. However, such high quantities of

antimony could have also been added deliberately as a substitute for tin (Davies 1935).

A ritual background has been discussed for the deposition

of

these serially produced

axes (Verron 1983), yet convincing archaeological evidence remains to be brought forward.

A very popular theory sees the as-cast axes of standardised form as some kind of money

(for the Armorican axes summarised and discussed by Briard 1987). However, these paleo-

r


8/16


31

monetary models suffer from serious shortcomings, all the more since the pre- and pro

tohistory of monetary exchange systems is a highly complicated affair far from being satis

factorily understood. Very often, therefore, these paleomonetary theories rather reveal a

modernistic understanding

of

archaic societies instead

of

explaining the archaeological evi

dence in its own terms. Without entering into a discussion on prehistoric exchange systems,

on goods, gifts and commodities, on barter, trade and markets and so forth, it will be enough

to

point out a few specific problems with this theory in relation to the axe hoards: first

of

all, why should bronze be used as a standard object

of

exchange at a time when it is

becoming increasingly superfluous? Secondly, these axes do not conform to any standard

of weight, which could be expected if they were used as a means

of

exchange. Thirdly, we

are dealing with loosely connected agricultural communities of a rather small size, whereas

a common standard

of

exchange requires centralized political control

cf.

Ercolani Cocchi

1987; this is, by the way, the reason why money

as

a universal means

of

exchange only

occurs in statelike societies). Fourthly, why did these paleomonetary systems appear in just

some regions? Why did they vanish within a few decades only to reappear in an entirely

different form and context several centuries later?

Explanatory evidence might instead come from a comparison of the axe deposits with

the hoards

of

the preceding Late Bronze Age. Typically these hoards consist

of

a variety

of

bronze scrap and pIano-convex ingots

of

pure copper (for Slovenia and the neighbouring

regions see Ter.zan 1996 and Turk 1996; for west-central and north-west Europe Huth 1997;

for the Iberian peninsula Coffyn 1985; for Italy Ercolani Cocchi 1987). These copper ingots

show that even in the Late Bronze Age, that is after a time of more than 1000 years ofbron

ze metallurgy, new raw material still entered the metal in circulation. The bronze objects

are scrapped depending on their original dimensions. Bigger objects like swords are always

fragmented, while small objects like jewellery or tools are very often deposited in a fairly

intact condition (Huth 1997, pp. 149-152). Actually the maximum length of the hoarded

objects seems to correspond to the diameter of the crucibles used by the bronze smiths

. (Mohen, Bailloud 1987, p. 135). At any rate the scrapping

of

the bigger objects facilitated

storage and transport

of

the metal. Generally the fragments in the hoards do not fit together,

which in fact shows that objects were continuously taken from and added to the hoards.

This means that the hoards were existing over a certain period

of

time. What is known to

us

today is just the final moment in the life span of the hoards, that is the state at the time

of

their final deposition, no matter for what reason this may have happened. Finally, a

further point

of

utmost importance for the interpretation

of

the Bronze Age hoards must be

made. Bronze smiths were using specific alloys according to the function of their products

(Trampuz-Orel 1996; Brown, Blin-Stoyle 1959). Tin or lead (and possibly antimony:

Maclean, McDonnell 1996) was carefully added either to improve the casting process, as

is the case with lead, or to obtain certain properties of the artefacts like the desired degree

of

hardness or malleability, as is the case with tin and lead (for lead see Staniaszek,

Northover 1982). By adding tin, lead or antimony it was also possible to produce certain

color effects. Antimony and lead were possibly used as a substitute for tin (though there

does not seem to have been any long-term shortage of tin), or to lower the melting point of

the alloy. Antimony would also facilitate the manufacture

of

objects

as

it expands on soli

dification, thus filling out moulds and enabling finer detail in the casting (Maclean,


9/16

32

Christoph Huth

McDonnell 1996; Maclean pers. comm.).

It

has been observed that some

of

the Late

Bronze Age hoards had been deposited in separate portions. For instance the hoard

of

Egham in south England had been buried in two fractions, one

of

which contained objects

with small quantities of lead, while the other fraction contained highly leaded objects

(Needham 1990). Obviously some attempt has been made to control the lead content of the

metal according to the required properties

of

the artefacts to be made from the recycled

scrap. Clearly it was the metal that was

of

interest to the person who buried the hoard. The

separate storage

of

the hoarded metal has been reported for quite a lot

of

hoards from all

over Europe (for Slovenia see Cerce, Turk 1996), though in most cases it is impossible to

reconstruct which piece originally belonged to which fraction

of

the hoard.

By the Early Iron Age a fundamental change occurs. The characteristic mixed hoards

of

the Late Bronze Age (consisting

of

a variety

of

recycled scrap and fresh raw material in

form

of

pIano-convex copper ingots) are replaced by single-type hoards

of

serially produ

ced objects. These objects, whether axes or pendants, were deposited in as-cast condition

just as cast ingots of various shapes were. They do not consist of specific alloys depending

on the required properties

of

the object in practical use. Instead the artefacts contain high

amounts

of

lead or tin (or antimony in some cases). In addition, the supply with fresh raw

material comes to an end: copper ingots do not occur any longer. While the Late Bronze

Age hoards fit into a well functioning system

of

production and recycling, the Early Iron

Age hoards do not.

Yet it has to be asked why these hoards have been buried at all and never been reco

vered.

If

the Late Bronze Age had really seen a properly performing system

of

metal sup

ply, recycling and subsequent manufacture, then there should be no hoards at all. No piece

of metal should have escaped recycling, and therefore no metal object should have entered

the archaeological record, unless it had been used for burial or votive purposes. There

seems to be a dilemma indeed, which in recent years many archaeologists tried to overco

me by declaring all hoards as votive finds, including the scrap-cum-copper hoards

of

the

Late Bronze Age. However, this single explanation model has its very own shortcomings,

not least by consequently ignoring the metallurgical evidence described above. This is not

the place to discuss these theories, though - suffice

it

to say that a 100% rate

of

recycling

can only be expected in theory. In reality, it does not seem very plausible that metal

recycling should have left no trace at all,

as

no system works at a level

of

perfect efficiency

(certainly not over a period of many centuries). The occurrence

of

at least some scrap and

copper hoards is therefore nothing that cannot be explained in terms of supply, recycling

and craftsmanship. On the contrary, some hoards are to be expected. This opens up further

questions: just how much metal escaped recycling, and how much metal was in circulation

in the first place.

It

is not an easy task to make assumptions about the quantity

of

metal that

had

been

in use by the Late Bronze and Early Iron Age. As prehistoric communities are only known

archaeologically, it is clear that the available evidence is likely to be biased by a variety

of

prehistoric and recent factors (for hoards see Huth 1996; Huth 1997). Nevertheless there

is

enough evidence for taking us a bit further in explaining the nature

of

the hoards under con

sideration. First

of

all it should be noted that there is a sharp increase in the number

of

hoards at the end of the Bronze Age. This happened practically everywhere when iron tech-

r

i


10/16

Quality and Quantity

in

Late Bronze and Early Iron Age Exchange Systems 33

nology came into common use. It seems, therefore, that at a certain point in time compara

tively large quantities

of

surplus metal were suddenly available. Yet, suppose Late Bronze

Age hoards were for the most part recycled metal intended for remelting, is then the increa

sing number of hoards at the end of the Late Bronze Age really indicating wealth? Is it not

rather indicating a crisis in the recycling system, taking into account that a well functioning

recycling system would not have left much over for the archaeologists?

It

would be simi

larly deceptive to infer from the rarity

of

metal grave goods in the Late Bronze Age that

there was a shortage in the metal supply. To sum up the number of metal artefacts coming

from hoards, graves, settlements, rivers and stray finds, and to deduce from the result the

wealth

of

a prehistoric community, would certainly be misleading. Obviously things were

much more complicated. Nevertheless tentative guesses can be made. For example

Cemych (1996; 1998) has estimated that during the Bronze Age not less than 1.5-2 million

tons of copper ore were worked from the mines

of

Kargaly on the southwestern periphery

of the Ural Mountains. Similar calculations have been made for the copper mines of other

parts of Europe (cf. Needham 1998). Consequently, the metalwork documented by

archaeological research can only be in the part per million range

of

what was in circulation

in prehistory.

Bearing in mind that the metal recovered during the last 150 years and documented

by archaeologists is just a small part

of

what had been buried in prehistory cf. also

Kristiansen 1974), and even a tiny fraction

of

what had been in use without ever being

deposited, one can nevertheless identify an enormous increase

of

the hoarded metal at the

time of the Bronze Age/lron Age transition. This is not only true for the number of hoards,

but particularly for the amount of artefacts deposited in these hoards. While the sum of

hoards possibly indicates the frequency of occasions leading to the burying and subsequent

non-recovery

of

metal (filtered through conditions

of

recovery and documentation in recent

times), the number

of

artefacts gives a better picture

of

the quantity

of

metal that must have

been in circulation before deposition. In Brittany the axe hoards

of

the Early Iron Age con

tained some 30000 axes, equalling an estimated total of 9.1 tons or 27.3 kilograms per 100

km

2

This is about 7.5 times as much as during the preceding Carp's Tongue phase, which

also lasted about 150 years. Altogether only some 3.6 tons of bronze or 0.675 kilograms

per 100 km

2

are archaeologically documented from hoards

of

the whole country

of

France

during the Carp's Tongue phase. Lowland England has produced during its heyday ofhoar

ding (or one should perhaps say the most unfavourable time for recovery), the "Ewart

Park" phase, about one ton of metal equalling 1.1 kilograms per 100

km

2

,

while from west

and north-west Germany

of

the Rallstatt B3 phase

as

little

as

212 kilograms (0.161 kilo

grams per 100

km2)

have survived (Ruth 1997). Nevertheless this is much more than ever

before and yet considering the span

of

150 years, not very much seems to have escaped

recycling. The 9.1 tons

of

metal documented from the axe hoards of Early Iron Age north

west France may therefore give us a faint idea of the quantity of metal in circulation.

The increasing number

of

hoards at the time when iron was introduced more likely

reflects a crisis in the system of recycling rather than prosperity and wealth of metal. While

it seems that many

of

the scrap hoards

of

the Late Bronze Age were simply left over becau

se

some (actually very little compared to the whole)

of

the metal in use could not be

exchanged any longer, there is strong evidence that the axe hoards at the start of the Iron


11/16

34

Christoph Huth

Age were deposited as metal stocks without the intention

of

recovery within the near futu

re, yet probably with the hope that the metal could be used again one day. Late Bronze Age

hoards do contain copper ingots and damaged or broken objects, while scrap and pure cop

per are entirely missing in the axe hoards of the Early Iron Age. Scrap hoards fit into a func

tioning system

of

supply with new metal and recycling, whereas axe hoards do not. Instead

they consist entirely

of

recycled and subsequently recast material. While the southern

French hoards of the Launacien group and particularly the cargo of the Agde shipwreck

clearly demonstrate that as late as in the 7

th

c. BC bronze could be, and in fact was, exchan

ged in great quantities as long as there were consumers like the Etruscans, Phoenicians and

Greeks, the networks of exchange in other areas were obviously disrupted. The Late

Bronze Age type

of

hoarded material intended for remelting and further exchange was

replaced by serially produced ingots. At the same time the metal was separated according

to its components.

Therefore, a change took place both in the form in which the material was hoarded

and in the metal that was stored. To give ingots the shape of everyday objects was not unu

sual. On the contrary, it was the rule in prehistoric communities. Moreover, axes were to a

certain extent used as ritual objects in the Bronze Age (Jankuhn 1973), and there are many

Late Bronze Age axes from rivers in western Europe (for river finds see e.g. Torbrugge

1972; Wegner 1976; Needham, Burgess 1980; Bonnamour 1990; Muller 1993). River finds

also show that bronze played an important role in ritual activities. Thus it could easily be

the case that ingots were given the shape

of

axes because these were connected with super

natural qualities. Likewise the tin-rich bronze of Kanalski Vrh was moulded into the form

of amulets.

There is ample evidence that even at times when the exchange networks still worked

perfectly, axes were a preferred form

of

ingot. No other metal artefact can be found so often

in scrap hoards in an as-cast condition as axes

of

all types (cf. for example Early Urnfield

hoards

of

Romania with disk-butted axes [Sarasau, Sirbi, both Jud. Vulpe

1970; for the axe type see also Kroeger-MicheI1983], Italian protovillanovian hoards with

shaft-hole axes and socketed axes [Soleto, Reinzano, both Apulia: Carancini 1984], seve

ral French Middle Bronze Age hoards with copper

( )

axes [Nicolardot, Verger 1998] or

two Iberian hoards with as-cast trunnion axes - the Iberian hoards may even be taken as

ingot hoards of the Early Iron Age type, as they contain axes only and date in fact to the

very end of the Bronze Age [Elche, Prov. Alicante; Sant Francisco Javier, Island of

Formentera: Wesse 1990)). Mention must also be made of Italian hoards with pick-shaped

ingots like Madriolo in Friuli (Borgna 1992).

But why do the Early Iron.Age axe ingots contain alloys with high levels of

lead or

tin? One explanation might again be the interruption of the Bronze Age exchange networks

by the introduction

of

iron technology. Lead may have been used as a substitute for tin (as

may have indeed been antimony). At any rate the lead in the axes does not appear to have

been used for silver extraction (Harrison, Craddock, Hughes 1981). Therefore it seems to

come from recycled scrap, or may have been freshly added to the metal in circulation. The

storage

of

a most valuable raw material like tin in alloyed form is self-evident, all the more

since pure tin would have corroded quickly. The separate storage of different alloys, in

order to obtain certain alloys by mixing single pieces of scrap when casting new objects,

1'

l


12/16

and Quantity in Late Bronze and Early Iron Age Exchange Systems

35

can already be observed in the Late Bronze Age such as in the two fractions of the Petters

Sports Field hoard from Egham, Surrey (Needham 1990). In any case the hoarded metal

could always have been reused, as probably most of it in fact was. As has been repeatedly

pointed out, the amount

of

metal documented today can only be a tiny portion

of

what had

been in use

in

prehistory.

The change from the Late Bronze Age triad of copper ingots, scrapped objects and

deliberate alloying according to object function, to serially produced ingots

of

separated

alloy components in the Early Iron Age, happened by no means at the same time all over

Europe. Nevertheless these changes occurred at a certain point in time, that is exactly when

the traditional Bronze Age economy of extended exchange networks collapsed by the intro

duction

of

iron. As this happened earlier in the east than in the west, and still later in the

north and north-west, there can be no doubt that there was indeed a time lag between the

east and the west in prehistory. Yet this time lag does not manifest itself by the belated

adoption and use of objects that were already outdated in more progressive regions as had

been thought for such a long time. Instead it can be seen in the prolonged retention

of

the

specific economic relations of the Bronze Age.

Long-distance exchange is systemic to the Bronze Age economy, due to the unequal

spatial distribution

of

copper and tin resources. Obviously the networks

of

exchange had to

be reorganised repeatedly. This is also mirrored by changing impurity patterns of the metal

in use, as new impurity patterns indicate new metal sources. In fact the changing

of

impu

rity patterns seems to follow the same rhythm as do changes in object morphology and

design, and sometimes also casting technology (Northover 1983; Rychner 1995; Trampuz

Orel 1996). As the exchange systems were also networks of communication, it may very

well be that their reorganisation was one of the driving forces, if not the ultimate impulse,

for innovations in artefact design and casting technology, and presumably in many other

spheres of Bronze Age society.

Looking again at the evidence from Slovenia, it does not appear to be mere coinci

dence that many of the Late Bronze Age objects are of a form which is not indigenous to

the east alpine region. The southerly inspired artefact morphology evidently reflects the

orientation of a newly structured exchange network. Indeed, some significant cultural traits

of the Slovenian Hallstatt culture have their roots in the south. Yet it did not take very

long

until iron working was adopted from Italy, too. The new technology radically changed the

existing economic relations based on long-distance exchange. The Slovenian as-cast bron

zes with high levels of tin, lead or antimony therefore do not only stand for the interruption

of the traditional exchange systems, they also mark the end

of

an epoch, the Bronze Age,

and the dawn of the Iron Age.


13/16

36 Christoph Huth

Zusammenfassung

,

Ausgehend

vOll

der Beobachtung, daB etliche spatbronzezeitliche Metallobjekte

Sloweniens nicht aus regularer Zinnbronze, sondern aus Kupfer-Blei- oder Kupfer-Zinn

Blei-Legierungen hergestellt sind, werden analoge Erscheinungen aus anderen Regionen

Europas analysiert. In der Hauptsache handelt es sich urn in Serie hergestellte Axte und

Beile, deren ausnehmend schlechte Qualitat einerseits auf die Verwendung ungeeigneter,

weil iiberaus blei- oder zinnreicher Legierungen zuriickzufiihren ist, andererseits auf die

nachlassige Verfertigung und Bearbeitung der Artefakte, wie GuBfehler, GuBgrate, unge

scharfte Schneiden und nicht entfernte tonerne GuBkerne zeigen. Zu den bekanntesten

Exemplaren gehoren die in mehr als 300 Horten dokumentierten armorikanischen

Tiillenbeile. Vergleichbare Stiicke gibt es auch aus Siid- und Siidwestengland, aus Belgien

und Westdeutschland. Stets handelt es sich dabei aber urn einheimische Beilformen.

Deshalb enthalten die entsprechenden Horte Portugals und Galiziens Absatzbeile, wahrend

in Albanien neben Tiillenbeilen vor allem Schaftlochaxte deponiert wurden. Gehortet WUf-

den iiberall ausschlieBlich Beile. Sie bestehen im Schnitt aus 20-70% Blei und bis zu 20%

Zinn. Nur die siidfranzosischen Horte des sogenannten Launacien enthalten neben seriell

verfertigten Tiillenbeilen auch noch Brucherz und KupferguBkuchen in spatbronzezeitli

cher Manier. In Slowenien gibt es auBer Schaftlochaxten italischer Form auch noch radfOr

mige Anhanger und Ringe sowie gegossene Barren verschiedener Form mit hohen Anteilen

von Zinn, Blei oder Antimon.

Neben der Deutung als Votivgaben sind in der Forschung vor allem Theorien popular,

die in den Beilen palaomonetare Zahlungsmittel sehen. Hingegen erklart si ch der

Wesensgrund der Beilhorte am ehesten aus einem Vergleich mit den spatbronzezeitlichen

Depots. Diese enthalten stets Brucherz und KupferguBkuchen als neu in den

Metallkreislauf eingespeistes Material. Typisch ist fern

er

eine Zerkleinerung der

Gegenstande auf GuBtiegelgroBe, die Trennung des Hortguts nach den in den Stiicken

enthaltenen Blei- und Zinnbeimengungen sowie die standige Entnahme und Beifiigung von

Hortgut, wie die fast niemals anpassenden Bruchstiicke zeigen. Im Gegensatz zu den spat

bronzezeitlichen Brucherzhorten passen die friiheisenzeitlichen Beildepots nicht mehr in

einen funktionierenden Metallkreislauf. Sie unterscheiden sich sowohl hinsichtlich des

Metalls, das gehortet wurde (legierte Bronze mit reichlich Zinn-, Blei- und

Antimonanteilen, reines Kupfer fehlt unterdessen), als auch nach der Form des deponier

ten Metalls (nahezu ausschlieBlich Beile). Offenbar hat man es rnit einer Storung des

Rohstoffkreislaufes zu tun, wie auch die allerorten starke Zunahme von Horten am Uber

gang von der Bronze- zur Eisenzeit nahelegt. Die rnit der neuen Eisentechnologie allmah

lich iiberfliissig gewordene Bronze hat man augenscheinlich in Form von Barren gehortet,

sicherlich in der Hoffnung, sie eines Tages wieder verwenden zu konnen. Dies scheint auch

in den meisten Fallen gegliickt zu sein: selbst die groBe Menge iiberlieferten spatbronze

und friiheisenzeitlichen Metalls ist namlich im Vergleich zum in prahistorischer Zeit abge

bauten Kupfererz und dementsprechend einst im Umlauf befindlichen Metall verschwin

dend gering. Den Barren gab man wie stets in vorgeschichtlicher Zeit dingliche Gestalt.

Die Form von Beilen wahlte man wohl, weil diese auch im Kultgeschehen eine besondere

Rolle spielten, wie zahlreiche Exemplare aus Gewassern und von naturheiligen Platzen

r

1


14/16

Quality

and

Quantity in

Late

Bronze

and

Early Iron

Age

Exchange Systems

37

nahelegen. Analog ist die Amulettform slowenischer Barren zu verstehen. Die Trennung

des Metalls nach bestimmten Legierungen ist bereits in der Spatbronzezeit belegt, hat aber

zu dieser Zeit noch hauptsachlich guBtechnische Ursachen.

m

Rohstoftkreislauf der friihen

Eisenzeit diente dagegen Blei wom6glich als Zinnersatz, ebenso vielleicht Antimon. Das

Rorten von Zinn in legierter Form erklart sich aus den Korrosionseigenschaften reinen

Zinns.

Der beschriebene Wandel im Rortgeschehen vollzieht sich keineswegs iiberall und

zur selben Zeit, stets aber am Ubergang von der Bronzezeit zur Eisenzeit. Da dieser im

Osten friiher als im Westen und Norden stattfindet, hat man es zwar mit einem zeittypi

schen, nicht aber mit einem gleichzeitigen Phanomen zu tun. Die Gleichartigkeit dieser

Erscheinung ist allerdings bezeichnend

fUr

die grundlegende Einheitlichkeit bronzezeitli

cher Tauschsysteme, die ihrerseits in der Weitraumigkeit der Tauschbeziehungen aufgrund

der ungleichen geographischen Verteilung der Kupfer- und Zinnressourcen begriindet ist.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Bonnamour L., 1990,

La Saone et les armes,

in Bonnamour

L.

(ed.),

Du silex a a poudre. 4000 ans d' armement

en val de Saone,

Montagnac, pp. 11-18.

Borgna E.,

1992,11 ripostiglio di Madriolo presso Cividale e

i

pani a piccone del Friuli-Venezia Giulia,

Roma.

Bouscaras A., Hugues

c.,

1967,

La cargaison des bronzes de Rochelongue (Agde, Herault),

Rivista di Studi

Liguri, 33.1-3, pp. 173-184.

Briard

I.,

1965,

Les Depots Bretons et l'Age du Bronze Atlantique,

Rennes.

Briard

I.,

1987,

DepOts de bronze, haches douille, pre-monnaie et fausse monnaie,

in I. Bousquet, P. Naster

(eds.),

Melanges offerts au docteur I.-B. Colbert de Beaulieu,

Paris, pp. 133-143.

Briard

I.,

Verron G., 1976,

Typologie des objets de

l

age du Bronze, Fasc. IV: Haches (2), Herminettes,

Paris.

Brown M.A., Blin-Stoy1e A.E., 1959,

A Sample Analysis ()fBritish Middle and Late Bronze Age Material, using

Optical Spectrometry,

Proceedings of the Prehistoric Society, 25, pp. 188-208.

Burgess C., Coombs

D.

(eds.), 1979,

Bronze Age Hoards. Some Finds Old and New,

in British Archaeological

Reports, British Series, 67, Oxford.

Carancini G.L., 1984,

Le asce nell'Italia continentale 11,

in Priihistorische Bronzefunde IX,12, Munchen.

Cerce

P,

Turk

P.,

1996,

Depoji pozne bronaste dobe

-

najdiscne okolisCine in struktura najdb (Hoards of the

Late Bronze Age

-

The Circumstances

of

Their Discovery and the Structure

of

the Finds),

in TerZan

1996, pp. 7-30.

Cemych E.N., 1996,

The Dawn ofMining and Metallurgy

in

Eastern Europe: The New Discoveries,

in Bagolini

B., Lo Schiavo F. (eds.),

The Copper Age

in

the Near East and Europe,

in

XIII U.I.S.P.P' Congress

1996 -

Proceedings

(Forn, 8-14 September 1996), vo .

10,

Forn, pp. 85-93.

Cemych E.N., 1998,

Ancient mining and metallurgy in Eastern Europe,

in Hiinse11998, pp. 129-133.

Chardenoux M.-B., Courtois

I.-C.,

1979,

Les Haches dans la France Meridionale,

in Priihistorische

Bronzefunde IX, 11, Munchen.

Coffyn A., 1985,

Le Bronze Final Atlantique dans la Peninsule Iberique,

Paris.

Coombs D., 1979,

The Figheldean Down hoard, Wiltshire,

in Burgess, Coombs 1979, pp. 253-268.

Cunliffe B.W., 1988,

Mount Batten Plymouth. A Prehistoric and Roman Port,

Oxford.

Davies 0., 1935,

Antimony Bronze

in

Central Europe,

Mall,

35

no. 91, pp. 86-89.


15/16

38

Christoph Huth

Ercolani Cocchi E., 1987, Unita - riserva di valore, strumenti di pagamento, mezzi di scambio in Emilia

Romagna e in Italia,

in

Bermond

Montanari G. (ed.),

Laformazione della

dtta

in Emilia Romagna,

Studi e documenti di archeologia Ill, Bologna, pp. 131-173.

Garcia D., 1993, Entre Iberes et Ligures. Lodevois et moyenne vallee de l Herault protohistoriques, Paris.

Guilaine J., 1972, L' age du Bronze en Languedoc occidental, Roussillon, Ariege, Paris.

Hansel B. (ed.), 1998, Mensch und Umwelt in der Bronzezeit Europas, KieI.

Harrison R.J., Craddock P.T., Hughes M.J., 1981, A Study in the Bronze Age Metalwork from the Iberian

Peninsula in the British Museum, Ampurias, 43, pp. 113-179.

Helm 0., 1900, Chemische Analyse vorgeschichtlicher Bronzen aus Vetem St. Veit, Zeitschrift fur Ethnologie,

32, pp. 359-365.

Huth C., 1996,

Horte als Zeugnisse kultischen Geschehens?,

in M. Almagro-Gorbea et aI.,

Archiiologische

Forschungen zum Kultgeschehen in der jiingeren Bronzezeit und friihen Eisenzeit Alteuropas,

Regensburg, pp. 117-149.

Huth C., 1997, Westeuropiiische Horte der Spiitbronzezeit. Fundbild und Funktion, Regensburg.

Jankuhn H., 1973, s.v. Axtkult, in J. Hoops, Reallexikon der Germanischen Altertumskunde (2 d ed.), 1, Berlin,

pp. 562-566.

Junghans S., Sangmeister E., Schrbder M., 1974,

Kupfer und Bronze in der friihen Metallzeit Europas. Katalog

der Analysen Nr. 10041-20000 (mit Nachuntersuchungen der Analysen Nr. 1-10040), Berlin.

Kibbert K., 1984, Die Axte und Beile im mittleren Westdeutschland II, in Prahistorische Bronzefunde IX, 13,

Miinchen.

Kossack G., 1990, Kultgeriit, Weihegabe und Amulett aus spiitbronzezeitlichen Seeufersiedlungen, Archaologie

der Schweiz,

13,2,

pp. 89-100.

Kristiansen K., 1974, En kildekritisk analyse af depotfund fra Danmarks yngre bronzealder (periode /V-V),

Aarbjilger for nordisk oldkyndighed og historie, 1974, pp. 119-160.

Kroeger-Michel

E.,

1983,

Les haches a disque du Bassin des Carpathes,

Paris.

Le Roux c.-T., 1979, Circonscription de Bretagne, Gallia Pr6histoire 22, 2, pp. 526-556.

Le Roux C.-T., 1990, Riec-sur-Belon, Gallia Informations 1990, 1-2, pp. 38-39.

Maclean P.I., McDonnell J.G., 1996, New Archaeometrical Investigations of the Bronzes in the Carpathian

Basin, Acta Musei Papensis/Papai Muzeumi Ertesit6 6, pp. 77-82.

Mohen J.-P', Bailloud G., 1987, L age du bronze en France

4:

La vie quotidienne. Les fouilles du Fort

Harrouard,

Paris.

Monteagudo L., 1977, Die Beile aufder Iberischen Halbinsel, in Prahistorische Bronzefunde IX, 6, Miinchen.

Mordant C., Pemot M., Rychner V. (eds.), 1998,

L'Atelier du bronzier en Europe du XX, au VIII' sii cie avant

notre ere. Actes du colloque international "Bronze '96", Neuchatel et Dijon, 1996, Paris.

MiilIer F., 1993, Argumente zu einer Deutung von "Pfahlbaubronzen", Jahrbuch der Schweizerischen

GeselIschaft fiir Ur-

und

Friihgeschichte, 76, pp. 71-92.

Needham S., 1990, The Petters Late Bronze Age Metalwork, London.

Needham S., 1998,

Modelling theflow ofmetal in the Bronze Age,

in Mordant, Pemot, Rychner

1998,3,

pp. 285-

307.

Needham S., Burgess c., 1980, The later Bronze Age in the lower Thames valley: the metalwork evidence, in J.

Barrett, R. Bradley (eds.), Settlement and Society in the British Later Bronze Age, in British

Archaeological Reports, British Series, 83, Oxford, pp. 437-470.

Nickels A., 1983,

Les Grecs en Gaule: l exemple du Languedoc,

in

Modes de contact et processus de transfor

mation dans les societes anciennes (Cortona 1981), Pisa and Rome, pp. 409-428.

Nicolardot J.-P., Verger S., 1998, Le depot des Granges-sous-Grignon (commune de Grignon, Cote-d'Or), in

Mordant, Pemot, Rychner 1998, 3, pp. 9-32.

Northover P., 1980a.

Bronze in the British Bronze Age,

in Oddy W.A. (ed.),

Aspects

of

Early Metallurgy,

London,

pp. 63-70.

Northover P., 1980b.

The analysis of Welsh Bronze Age metalwork,

in H.N. Savory,

Guide catalogue of the

Bronze Age collections, Cardiff, pp. 229-236.

Northover P., 1983, The Exploration of the Long-distance Movement ofBronze in Bronze and Early Iron Age

Europe, Bulletin

of

the Institute

of

Archaeology 19, London, pp. 45-72.

l """

.


16/16

Quality

and

Quantity in

Late

Bronze

and

Early Iron

Age

Exchange Systems

39

Northover

P.,

Sherratt A., 1987, Hoards and other groupings represented

in

the catalogue,

n

MacGregor A.

(ed.),

Antiquities from Europe and the Near East

in

the collection

of

the Lord MacAlpine

of

West

Green,

Oxford, pp. 17 ff.

Pearce S., 1983, The Bronze Age Metalwork

of

South Western Britain, in British Archaeological Reports, British

Series, 120, Oxford.

Penhallurick R.D., 1986, Tin

in

Antiquity. Its mining and trade throughout the ancient world with particular refe

rence to Cornwall, London.

Prendi F., 1982, Die Bronzezeit und der Beginn der Eisenzeit in Albanien, in Siidosteuropa zwischen 1600 und

1000

v.

Chr., Berlin, pp. 203-233.

Prendi F., 1984,

Nje depo sepatash parahistorike nga Torovica e Lezhes (Un depot de haches prehistoriques

it

Torovice de Lezha), liiria 14,2, pp. 19-45.

Rivallain I., 1977, Contribution it

l

Etude du Bronze Final en Armorique, N'Djamena.

Rychner v., 1995, Arsenic, nickel et antimoine. Une approche de la metallurgie du Bronze moyen et final en

Suisse par

l

analyse spectrometrique,

Lausanne.

Staniaszek B.E.P., Northover I.P., 1982, The properties of leaded bronze alloys, n Proceedings of the 22 d

Symposium on Archaeometry University of Bradford, Bradford, U.K., March

30 h

-April 3

nl

1982,

Bradford, pp. 262-272. .

Terian B. (ed.), 1996, Depojske in posamezne kovinske najdbe bakrene in bronaste dobe na Slovenskem (Hoards

and Individual Metal Finds from the Eneolithic and Bronze Ages in Slovenia), Ljubljana 1996.

Torbriigge W., 1972, Vor- undfriihgeschichtliche Fluj3funde. Zur Ordnung und Bestimmung einer Denkmdler

gruppe, Bericht der Rbmisch-Germanischen Kommissioll 51-52, pp. 1-146.

Trampuz-Orel N., 1996, Spektrometricne raziskave depojskih najdb pozne bronaste dobe (Spectrometric

Research of

the Late Bronze Age Hoard Finds),

in Terzan 1996, pp. 165-242.

Trampuz-Orel N., Heath D.I., 1998, Analysis of heavily leaded shaft-hole axes,

n

Hiinsel 1998, pp. 237-248.

Trampuz-Orel N., Heath D.I., Hudnik

v.,

1998,

Chemical Analysis

of

Slovenian Bronzes from the Late Bronze

Age,

n

Mordant, Pemot, Rychner 1998,

1,

pp. 223-237.

Turk

P.,

1996, Datacija poznobronastodobnih depojev (The Dating

of

Late Bronze Age Hoards),

n

Terzan 1996,

89-123.

van de Weerd H., 1938, B jlen uit het bronst jdperk, L'Antiquite Classique, 7, pp. 346-347.

Verron G., 1983,

L' interpretation des depots de

l

Age du Bronze

it la

lumiere de prospections et defouilles recen

tes,

n

Enclos funeraires et structures d' habitat en Europe du nord-ouest. Table ronde CNR.S. -

Rennes

1981 - (1983), Rennes, pp. 263-281.

Vulpe A., 1970, Die Axte und Beile in Rumdnien 1 in Priihistorische Bronzefunde IX, 2, Miinchen.

Wegner G., 1976, Vorgeschichtliche Fluj3funde aus dem Main und aus dem Rhein bei Mainz, Kallmiinz.

Wesse A., 1990, Die Armchenbeile der Alten Welt. Ein Beitrag zum Beginn der Eisenzeit im ostlichen

Mitteleuropa, Bonn.

Quality and Quantity in Late Bronze and Early Iron Age Exchange Systems BITNO-libre

Documents

Transcript of Quality and Quantity in Late Bronze and Early Iron Age Exchange Systems BITNO-libre