8/18/2019 Bronze and the Bronze Age
1/38
8/18/2019 Bronze and the Bronze Age
2/38
Published by
Oxbow Books, Park End Place, Oxford OXl
IHN
© Oxbow Books and the individual authors, 2000
ISBN 1 84217019 8
A CIP record for this book is available from The British Library.
This book is available
direct
from
Oxbow Books, Park End Place, Oxford OXl
IHN
(Phone:
01865-241249;
Fax:
01865-794449)
and
The David Brown Book Company
PO Box 511, Oakville, CT 06779, USA
(Phone: 860-945-9329; Fax: 860-945-9468)
or from our website
www.oxbowbooks.com
Cover: Three
Bronze
Age daggers from (left to right) Myrsinochorion (Aegean), Lyon (France) and Fossombrone
(Italy). These daggers can befound in previous volumesof Priihis
torische
Bronzejunde
Vl/11,
VII5 and Vl/lO). The
world map is from Mountain High maps® copyright ©
1993
Digital Wisdom, Inc.
Printed in Great Britain at
The Short Run Press
Exeter
8/18/2019 Bronze and the Bronze Age
3/38
1
ronze and the ronze ge
Christopher
Pare
The term 'Bronze Age' has been in use since the
birth of
modem
archaeology, and one would expect
the concept to be well
understood
. Strangely, this is
not
the case,
and
there is no consensus on how to use
the term. This is surely because the Three Age System
is thought
not
to be a profitable subject for modem
research. But if the Three Age System is obselete,
why is it so widely used? Is there, after all, something
which makes the Bronze Age fundamentally differ
ent from
other
Ages'?
Andrew
Sherrat t (1993; 1994)
is the most convincing contemporary exponent of
the 'Bronze Age Hypothesis',
and
his work, together
with studies
by Kristian Kristiansen
e.g. 1987 ,
provides the best introduction
to
the questions
discussed below.
To approach these questions, the first step must
be a discussion of the definition of the Bronze Age,
and
in particular its start
and
finish . Peter Northover
once
used
the following definition (1988:44): Bronze
Age is a loaded terminology
with
a conventional
meaning that varies from region to region. Here it
defines that period when coppers and copper alloys
were
predominant
for all metal products save those
of
precious
metals.
Northover should
be com
mended
for
making
his use of the term explicit;
however, his definition is surely too
broad
for general
use,
and
could include any period before the Iron
Age using copper - smelted or unsmelted, native,
'pure' or intentionally alloyed.
t
is surely advisable,
in archaeological usage, to reserve the term bronze
for intentional alloys of copper with tin ; this
would
include ternary alloys such as Cu-Sn-As (arsenical
bronze) or Cu-Sn-Pb (lead bronze) . With this ter
minology, the Bronze Age is easier to define: simply
by the
predominant
use of bronze in the production
of tools,
weapons and other important
artefacts.
Indeed, this is the method generally used to define
the transition to the Iron Age, for example in the
well-known developmental stages described by A.
Snodgrass (1980: 336 f.), based on
working
iron':
The criterion
used
... is that of
working
iron',
that is, iron used to make the functional
parts
of
the real cutting
and
piercing implements that form
the basis of early technology.... Using this criterion
of working iron, we can discern three
broad
stages
in the
development
of an iron technology; they
are I think applicable to every area of Eurasia ...
In stage 1,
iron
may be employed with
some
frequency, but it is not
true
working iron ... In the
main, its employment is for ornament, as is
appropriate for the expensive commodity which
we know it to have been in
many
cases. ...
In
stage
2,
working
iron is present but is used less
than
bronze for implements of practical use.
In stage 3, iron
predominates over
bronze as the
working metal, although it need
not
,
and
usually
does not, completely displace bronze even in this
role.
... Simple
proportion
alone is used to distinguish
between stages 2
and
3.
t
might be thought that
such
an abstract criterion could have had little
economic or industrial significance for the per iod
in question. Yet study of many ancient cultures
shows
a fairly
abrupt
change, at a certain point,
from a predominant use of
bronze
to a
pre
dominant
use of iron,
within
the strict field of
working metal.
The crucial feature of this process of technological
development, which
makes
it widely - perhaps
universally -
useful
as an indicator of cultural
change, is that the transition to an iron-based
technology (stage 3) is normally abrupt, as Snodgrass
noted. This is quite different to the adoption of
tin
bronze which can either
be
abrupt
or
gradual,
depending
on the region involved.
This difference in the take-up of bronze
and
iron
can be explained, at least in part, by the availability
of workable iron, copper
and
tin ores. Whereas iron
ores
are
common in many parts of the
ancient
8/18/2019 Bronze and the Bronze Age
4/38
2
CHRISTOPHER PARE
world, bronze does not occur naturally. Tin depo
sits are rare - indeed absent in
many
parts of the
world. Although much
more common than tin,
copper ores are unevenly
distributed
in Europe and
the Near East. They are also quite varied, the type
of ore affecting
both
the ease of metal extraction
and the quality of the copper produced. Some ores,
for example, contain copper with quite high levels
of associated elements e g. arsenic or antimony)
and, when
smelted,
these can produce so-called
'unintentional' alloys
with
properties which match
low-tin
bronzes
(see for example
Northover
1989).
The contrast to the Bronze/Iron transit ion is clear.
Iron is
much
easier to come by than copper and tin,
and has technological qualities which differ mark
edly from bronze. Adopting a bronze technology,
on the other hand, requires access to reliable supplies
of copper and tin, which are liable to come from
distant sources; and, in some cases, the properties of
tin bronze did not represent a dramatic improvement
on available arsenical or antimonal coppers. So it is
no surprise that the Copper/Bronze transition does
not
have the
universal abrupt nature
of
Bronze/
Iron . We might, for example, predict that a region
with easy access to tin, and only relatively pure
copper, would adopt bronze with alacrity.
If
on the
other hand, tin is
hard
to come by, then the transition
to bronze might proceed more slowly, especially if
there is a plentiful
supply
of a
good
alternative raw
material such as arsenical
copper
.
Despite these adverse factors, bronze did come to
be adopted as the dominant metal for a
wide
range
of
products
(tools , weapons, metal vessels, orna
ments) all over Europe. For me, this is the essence of
the 'Bronze Age', and for that reason I recommend
a simple definition of the term: the span of time in
which bronze
was
the predominant material in
metallurgical production. Predominant could, for
example, be defined as >75 of metal artefacts, and
bronze could be defined as any intentional copper
alloy
with
>4 Sn,
but
the
parameters
used are
not
of crucial importance - in Europe, at least,
much
higher
proportions of objects, with
much
higher
concentrations of tin, became
standard.
However, it
does seem advisable to differentiate between high
and low tin alloys: in some cases very small amounts
of tin
e
.g. 0.5-1.0 Sn) could be added, probably to
facilitate the processing of copper, for example to
lower the melting point and to increase the fluidity
for casting. For example a text of the
mid
3rd
millennium BC from Ebla records the
production
of
a
copper
alloy
with
0.79 Sn (Miiller-Karpe 1989:
183). As Cleuziou
and
Berthoud(1982: 15)explained,
a use of tin for this
kind
of alloying is
not
very
different from the use of As, Sb or Pb; high tin
alloying e.g. 6-14 Sn) produced a very different
kind of metal. Even from these preliminary com
ments, it is obvious
that
the Copper/Bronze tran
sition is
not
a simple matter,
and
specialists in
archaeometallurgy have become quite circumspect
in their interpretations.
Despi te the complexi ty of the subject, a diffusionist
view of the start of the Bronze Age remains deeply
rooted, even in the specialist literature. This is
encouraged by maps such as Fig. 1.1, published in
1976 by A. Gallay and M.-N. Lahouze, or Fig. 1.2, a
diagram purporting to show the spread of tin bronze
from south-east to north-west Europe between ca .
2500 BC and ca . 1600 BC,
published
by A. Sherratt in
1993.The diffusionist view is further encouraged by
conventional chronological terminology: in south
east Europe the Early Bronze Age begins at the end
of the 4th millennium BC, and in north-west Europe
at the end of the 3rd millennium BC:
Aegean: ca. 3100 BC e.g. Manning 1995;
Maran
1998)
Bulgaria:
ea.
3100 BC
e.g. Weninger
1992)
Carpathian Basin:
ea.
2500 BC e.g. Forenbaher 1993)
C and NW Europe:
ea. 2300/2200
BC
e.g. Needham
1996;
Rassmann
1996)
This gives the impression of a cultural gradient
down which influences can gradually diffuse from
the Near East, to south-east, central and finally
north-west Europe. However, people often forget
that the tradi tional terminology for the Early Bronze
Age is purely a matter of convention and largely
arbitary definition.
In Central
and western
Europe the Early Bronze
Age is generally held to
start
after the Bell Beaker
phenomenon
. In south-east Europe, in the absence
of Beakers, the Early Bronze Age is simply an
extension of the west Anatolian and Aegean Early
Bronze phases. Finally, in the Carpathian Basin, we
find that cultures previously thought to be con
temporary with Reinecke Br A in Central Europe are
today, as a consequence of radiocarbon calibration,
known
to begin considerably earlier. A good example
of this crucial change is illus trated by a chronological
table published by 1 Bona (1992: 40 f.), in which EBA
I (Vucedol
C/Zok
, Mako, early Nyfrseg) is dated to
the 19th
century
BC, even
though
the same publica
tion includes a summary of calibrated H dates
clearly indicating that these cultural groups reach
back to the mid 3rd millennium BC (Raczky et
al.
1992: 47, table 2; for the radiocarbon chronology of
the Early Bronze Age in the Carpathian Basin see
now
O Shea 1992; Forenbaher 1993). A similar
development has taken place in Romania: 30 years
ago,
A.
Vulpe assigned the 'Transition Period' to the
three or four centuries before or around 2000 BC;
then followed the Early Bronze Age ea
. 2000-1700
BC and the Middle Bronze Age
ea
. 1700-1300 BC
(1970: 6). A few years later, he raised the start of the
8/18/2019 Bronze and the Bronze Age
5/38
3
RONZE AND THE BRONZE ACE
- .
V
\
Fig. 1.1. The
spread
of tin bronze technology from the
Near
East to
Europe,
according to A. Gal/ay and M.-N.
Lahouze
0976:
157,fig. 4: siade 5, maftrise du bronze ). - The
radiocarbon dates
are uncalibrated. - The technology
was first discovered in
Mesopotamia
(3000
bc,ca.37th century BC), then
spread
to Anatolia and the Aegean 2500
bc,ca.31st century BC), south-east Europe
(2000
be,
ca.
25th century
BC)
and central and western
Europe
(1700
be,
ca. 2000
BC). - Gal/ay and Lahouze s dates have
been
calibrated using the OxCal v.2.01 programme. - Gal/ay and
Lahouze
0976:
158)
also
note two
areas
with early evidence for
bronze:
the British
Isles
towards 2100
be
and
Macedonia before
2000
be ,
which
could
represent autonomous centres of innovation.
Transition Period to ea. 2700 BC, but the start of the
in possession of this
hugely
improved empirical
Early Bronze Age remained at ea. 2000 BC or a little
foundation, it is not necessarily easy to interpret the
before (1976). Today, according to calibrated 14C the
earliest stages in the adoption of copper and its
start of the Transi tion Period is dated even earlier
alloys. The study of copper and early bronze metal
( ea. 3500 BC), and the start of the Early Bronze Age
lurgy in Europe was revolutionised by the work in
(Glina III-Schneckenberg B)now seems to have taken
the 1950s
and
1960s of the SAM (Studien zu den
place around the
mid 3rd
millennium BC. Anfangen
der
Metallurgie) team,
based
in Stuttgart
The conventional
structures
and
terminologies for
(Iunghans
et al.
1960; 1968; 1974). This
massive
the
Early
Bronze
Age were created before
the
project, involving the analysis of
about
22,000 metal
scientific revolution in archaeology which led to the
objects, is without doubt the single
most important
assembly of large quantities of chemical analyses, research contribution. But the interpretations and
and
multiple high quality
4C
dates. But even today,
conclusions
drawn
by the SAM team, and other
8/18/2019 Bronze and the Bronze Age
6/38
4
CHRISTOPHER PARE
SOUI ll-EAST
~ ; ; ; I
~ N ~ O ~ I ~ n ~
z-pl cce moulds
F1n ST
~ I E C J I T I I S
TRIl
BAOEN
ss
EUROPEAN
COPPER AGE
NEOLlTlIIC
· I ~ I ~ \ \ : · E S : · ~ r L ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ t
~ I \ l J I J L E
IIRONI.E
ACE
(1 11111111115 CIIIIII,e)
long d istance exchange
1500
chm-iot,
EARLY
OTOMANI
em-ly hillf0l1 i
IiIW
NZE
2000
ACE
2500
CO IUl EO
use of wool
horses
WA R
E
PIT -GRA
vrs
JOOO
JSOO
4000
4500
SOOO
SSOO
Fig
1.2. Illustration
published
by A. Sherratt (1993: 16, fig. 4) showing the spread of tin bronze from south east
to north west
Europe
between ea. 2400and 1600 BC
scholars in the following decades, have often been lyses from different laboratories,
using
different
rendered obselete by the radiocarbon revolution and analytical methods, have shown that reliability has
the arrival of dendrochronological dates,
happening
improved over the past decades (see for example
in parallel
with
the take-off in production of metal
Northover
Rychner 1998). Nevertheless,
even
analyses . This means that the corpus of metal today it is
difficult
to interpret the conflicting
analyses has been subjected to a continuous process analytical results which are sometimes published,
of reinterpretation in the last decades, as chrono
for example the widely varying results of Optical
logical sequences have been reshuffled and refined. Emission Spectography, Electron Microprobe Ana
Considerable care
must
be taken when reading
lysis, Neutron Activation Analysis and X-Ray Fluor
earlier publications, in which it is often not immedi escence on metal artefacts from Kastri, Syros (Muhly
ately apparent
if relative or absolute dates are based 1991: 362).
Apart
from variations in the results of
on traditional historical methodology (cross-dating), different analytical procedures, we must also bear
uncalibrated or calibrated 14c Unfortunately, this in mind the non-uniform distribution of elements,
problem also applies to the first systematic study of including tin, in
copper
alloy artefacts. An even
our subject, 'On the production of tin bronze in the more important source of inaccuracy is the analysis
early metallurgy of Europe', by
K.
Spindler (1971), of strongly mineralised or oxidised metal samples,
based mainly on the 21,170 SAM analyses available
especially when this factor is
not
clearly described
at that time. The mass of available analytical data is by analysts. I have mentioned these archaeometal
still far from being fully digested and synthesised. lurgical problems in order to make clear that isolated
The question of the reliability of analytical results
analyses of poorly preserved objects are generally
requires a brief comment. Projects comparing ana- difficult to interpret. Obviously, this is
much
more .
8/18/2019 Bronze and the Bronze Age
7/38
5
RONZE AND THE BRONZE
AGE
important for the earliest stages of metallurgical
innovation. In the case of tin bronze, for example,
the earliest artefacts will probably always be some
what controversial; on the
other
hand, the question
of the adoption of a fully bronze-using technology,
when
we often have
hundreds
or even thousands of
analyses at our disposition, is much less susceptible
to the problems of analytical inaccuracy.
In
the following pages, after a brief introduct ion
to the development of early metallurgy' , two main
subjects will be discussed: the earliest introduction
of tin bronze alloys, and the transition to metal
production based on the predominant use of tin
bronze. The latter subject will be reviewed in more
detail, in the light of
our improved
analytical
and
chronological data, to address the question of the
nature of the European Bronze Age.
THE COPPER AGE BACKGROUND
Research on the earliest copper alloys (mainly with
arsenic,
antimony and/or
tin) is at the same time
one of the most crucial
and
one of the most difficult
fields in Chalcolithic and Bronze Age studies. The
past two decades have seen dramatic advances in
our knowledge, and models have been put forward
which have profound implications - particularly
for the
3rd
millennium BC.
Artefacts
made
from native copper appear on
archaeological sites from the late 8th millennium BC
in south-east Turkey e
.g.
Cayoni; Tepesi, Muhly
1989), and from the 7th millennium BC in Mesopo
tamia e.g. Tell Maghzaliyeh, Ryndina Yakhontova
1985).
The
mace-head from Can
Hasan
lIB in
southern Anatolia demonstrates casting in the early
6th millennium BC(French 1962),bu t good evidence
for the intentional smelting of copper ores (furnaces
and slags), appears in the archaeological record
much later, towards the end of the 5th millennium
BC, at sites
such
as Norsuntepe, Degirmentepe, Tal
i-Iblis, Seh Gabi and Tepe Ghabristan. The increased
occurrence in copper artefacts of arsenic and other
impurities such as iron, likewise indicating copper
ore smelting, is well documented in the Near East in
the late 5th millennium BC (late Ubaid) at sites such
as Mersin XVI-XVII, Norsuntepe, Susa I
and
Tepe
Yahya V (Pemicka 1990: 45 ff.), but much earlier
evidence from the 6th mil lennium BCat Yarim Tepe
has also been mentioned (Merpert Munchaev 1987:
17;Muller-Karpe 1989: 181;Gale
et al.
1991:50
f.).
At
the same time, there is a marked increase in the
number
and
size of copper artefacts being produced,
for example the 55 copper axes dating from the late
5th millennium BC from Susa (Talion 1987: 311
H.;
Muhly 1988:8).True alloys (mainly
Cu-As
and more
rarely Cu-Ag, Cu-Pb, Cu-Sb and Cu-As-Pb), in
which the added elements markedly change the
properties of the copper, first appear in the Near
East in the 4th millennium BC, for example at Nahal
Mishmar in Palestine (Bar-Adon 1980)
and
Ilipmar
IV in north-west Anatolia (Begemann
et al. 1994).
Arsenic is relatively
common
in copper ores and,
according to most authors, the appearance of ar
senical copper can be explained by preferentially
obtaining copper from ores which have higher
concentrations of arsenic. In the case of finds like
Nahal
Mishmar, with high levels of arsenic or
antimony, specialist opinions differ, some authors
believing that the alloys were produced by smelting
copper ores e.g. Pemicka 1990:48 ff.), others arguing
that alloys
with
more
than
4% As were made by eo
smelting with
arsenic-containing minerals e.g.
Tylecote 1991).
In south-east Europe, artefacts
made
of
pure
copper
appear
in the late 6th millennium BC,
considerably later than in the Near East. However,
after a preliminary horizon with copper ornaments
and
light implements, the following millennium saw
the swift growth of copper production, most notably
of heavy
implements
(Vinca-Plocnik lIB), which
culminated in a veritable
boom
in the Late and
Final Chalcolithic at the
turn
of the
5th/4th
millen
nium
BC (KodZadermen-Gumelnita-Karanovo VI),
and the spread of the pure copper heavy implement
complex to the
north
and
north-east, for example
to the Tripolye, Tiszapolgar, Bodrogkeresztur and
Balaton cultures (see for example Strahm 1994: 10
ff.; Pernicka 1990: 49 ff.; Pernicka
et
al. 1997). t
seems reasonable to assume that the horizon of
heavy copper implements corresponds with the start
of extraction at mines
such
as Ai Bunar and Rudna
Glava around the second quarter or middle of the
5th millennium BC (for a review of the evidence,
see [ovanovic 1988);as in the Near East, the inception
of smelting
would
go hand-in-hand with increased
production of copper artefacts. However, it is often
claimed that the
vast
majority of
heavy
implements
is made of native copper (but note the difficulty of
distinguishing native copper from pure smelted
oxide or carbonate ores, see
Maddin
et al. 1980;
Muller-Karpe 1989: 181; Gale
et al.
1991: 54 f.),
and
recently it has even
been argued
that this earliest
mining activity
was
aimed at malachite, for use as
a semi-precious stone in jewellery,
not
at ores for
metal production (Pemicka
et
al. 1993;
but
see the
discussion in Gale
et al.
1991: 53 ff.). t remains to
be seen how this controversy will be resolved; it
seems likely, however, that some of these early
artefacts, at least, were
made
from smelted copper
ibid .:
51 f.).
In
south-east Europe the Final Chal
colithic and Proto Bronze Age (first half of the 4th
millennium BC)
saw
a
marked
change in the organ
isation of metal production: in E. N. Chernykh's
8/18/2019 Bronze and the Bronze Age
8/38
6
CHRISTOPHER PARE
terminology the replacement of the Carpatho-Balkan
by the Circum-Pontic Metallurgical Province (Cher
nykh 1992; Pernicka et al. 1997: 54 H.). After the
'boom' in copper production in south-east Europe,
some
areas
(e.g. the Varna and Kodzaderrnen
Cumelnita-Karanovo VI groups) seem to
have
experienced
a collapse of
production (ibid.).
The
new
metallurgical
tradition
,
beginning
in the early
4th
millennium
BC, was
based
on arsenical copper,
perhaps earlier in
south-east
Europe, but quickly
cop
ied
north of the Alps,
for
example in
the
Mondsee, Altheim
and
Pfyn cultures (Pernicka 1990:
51;
Strahm
1994; Vajsov 1993).
These changes in metallurgy have
been
incorpor
ated into more general developmental schemes, for
example by J. D.
Muhly
(1988: 9 f.): The intensive
mining
activity ... resulted in the depletion of the
oxide (and carbonate) copper ores of the Balkans by
Late Eneolithic times, resulting in a
great
drop in
metal
production
. With this metal
shortage
came a
period
of
experimentation and
innovation resulting
in the first
production
of arsenical
copper
. The search
for new sources of copper eventually
led
to the
exploitation of the massive deposits of sulfide ores
and a shift in the
main
centers of metallurgical
development
from the
Danube
Basin
and
the Car
pathians to
the Alps
and
the
ore
mountains
of
Czechoslovakia,
both
areas rich in
copper
sulfide
ore
deposits. Christian Strahm,
too, sees an im
portant distinction
between
the
'transitional'
arsen
ical copper technology and the so-called A uf-
bauphase
(Foundation Phase) of the 3rd millennium
BC, the latter
based
on
the exploitation of complex
sulphide
ores, especially Fahlerze.
According
to
Strahm, the technology for smelting complex copper
ores
spread
from the
Carpathian
Basin
not
only to
the
Corded
Ware
and
Bell Beaker cultures
north
of
the Alps,
but
also
to
central Italy (Rinaldone),
presumbaly
reaching southern France (Fontbuxien)
by the early
3rd
millennium BC (Strahm 1994). t is
significant
that
both Christian
Strahm and
Barbara
Ottaway have
recognised a 'hiatus'
between
the early
arsenical
copper production
in the first half of the
4th millennium BC (Mondsee-Altheim-Pfyn
north
of the Alps, TRBC on the north
European
plain) and
the more developed metallurgy (Strahm's A uf-
bauphase )
of
the
Bell Beaker and Corded
Ware
cultures
(Ottaway 1989; Strahm 1994). The
Auf-
bauphase ,
with
its
mining and
smelting of complex
sulphide ores, is the context in which tin alloying
was introduced.
A
very
important
general scheme for the historical
development
of metallurgy has been presented in a
number
of publications by E. N.
Chernykh
(most
recently: 1992). In
Chernykh's scheme
, the
Copper
Age Carpatho-Balkan Metallurgical Province was
replaced in the Early and
Middle
Bronze Age by the
Circum-Pontic Metallurgical Province ca
mid
4th
to
mid 2nd millennium
BC). This
was
only eclipsed
in the Late Bronze Age, by the emergence of regional
metallurgical tradit ions: the European, the Caucasian
and
the
Eurasian Metallurgical
Provinces. Cher
nykh's work,
involving the reconstruction of Metal
lurgical Provinces, Metallurgical Zones,
and
Metal
lurgical
and Metalworking
Focal Areas, represents
a crucial
advance
in our understanding of the subject.
However, within the broadly convincing picture of
metallurgical development, one aspect surely re
quires revision. A European Metallurgical Province
is certainly already apparent by the
early
2nd
millennium BC,
at
the time
of
the
widespread
adoption
of tin bronze, and probably even in the 3rd
millennium BC,at the time of Strahm's
Aufbauphase .
We will
return
to this
question
later in the article.
THE EMERGENCE OF
TIN
Pernicka (1998) has
recently
summarised his
thoughts
on the introduction of tin bronze, basing
his conclusions
on
an
impressive
series of detailed
studies in south-east Europe,
the
Aegean and the
Near
East.
According
to
Pernicka (ibid .:
137 f.)
metallic
tin was discovered at the start of
the
Bronze Age. Tin
was
probably first
smelted
from
tin-stone,
an
oxide
ore
(Sn0
2
) ,
perhaps
discovered
as a by-product of panning for alluvial gold. In
contrast
to other
early
alloys,
such
as arsenical or
antimonal copper, from the start Cu-Sn alloys were
produced
by
melting together
metallic copper and
tin; this is thought to be much more likely than
the smelting of
copper/tin
ores or the addition of
tin ores
(e.g.
tin-stone) to
molten copper
(Pernicka
1998; but see
Charles
1980: 174 f.; Gale
et al. 1985:
155).
Following the
early
appearance
of
copper-tin
alloys at
Mundigak,
Afghanistan, in the second half
of the 4th
millennium
BC (Stech Pigott 1986: 47;
see also Cleuziou Berthoud 1982),
tin bronze
first
appeared in the Near East at around 3000 BC or the
start of the 3rd millennium BC in Anatolia and
northern Mesopotamia (e.g. Tell al-Judaidah, Braid
wood Braidwood 1960: 300
H.;
Tepe Gawra layer
VIII, Waetzoldt 1981: 374;
Muhly
1985: 281; Moorey
1994: 297
H. .
A few
bronze
objects
are
known from
the early
3rd millennium
BC (e.g. Kish, Miiller-Karpe
1989: 184, fig. 5), but
regular use
starts in the
middle
of the millennium, as
shown
most clearly by the
'Royal' graves of Ur (Early Dynastic IIIa,
ca.
26th
century BC) and the hoards of Troy IIg. There is a
scatter of
contemporary
mid 3rd millennium finds
of tin
bronze
reaching from the Aegean in the west
to Susa in the
east' , suggesting that
this technology
was
a
common cultural phenomenon, involving
8/18/2019 Bronze and the Bronze Age
9/38
7
RONZE AND THE BRONZE ACE
intensive contacts and
exchange
between the indi
vidual regions (Pernicka 1998: 138 H.).
Pernicka
summarises
his conclusions
as follows
(1998: 140 f.): Die
Ausbreitung
erfolgte nicht
zufallig -
bald
hier,
bald
da -, sondern
nach einem
klaren Muster mit einer relativ
grofsen
Ursprungs
region. Zumindest im
Westen der Alten Welt hatten
die sich entwickelnden Regionen Bertihrung mit
anderen,
in
denen Zinnbronze schon
langer
bekannt
war. Es ist deshalb
sinnvoll, die
Ausbreitung der
Zinnbronzetechnologie als
einheitlichen
Prozef zu
betrachten,
der
die
Umwandlung der
menschlichen
Gesellschaft von
einem einfachen
zu
einem
hoheren
Organisationsgrad begleitet. Pernicka emphasises
that this view is opposed to
the model
developed
by C.
Renfrew,
which
posited
the
autonomous
invention
of
tin bronze
in the
north-east Aegean
as
one of the primary factors causing
profound
social
change.
Renfrew's view
,
according
to Pernicka, is
contradicted by
the
results of
Lead
Isotope analysis,
which shows that
the
great
majority
of copper and
bronze
objects from sites like
Troy
, Poliochni
and
Kastri
could
not have been
made
from local ores.
Therefore the metallurgical
boom in
the north-east
Aegean
was caused by 'stimulation' from
the Near
East
(Muhly Pernicka
1992: 312 ff.):
importation
to the
Troad
of copper
alloyed
with
tin
-
probably
as finished artefacts -
from
the
Near East (Pernicka
1987: 703).
He concludes
as
follows
(1987: 705):
Wichtigstes
Ergebnis der Artefaktenanalysen ist
der
Nachweis,
daf die EinfUhrung der Zinnbronze
im
trojanischen Kulturkreis
nicht auf
eine
lokale
Entwicklung zurtickgefiihrt werden kann,
sondern
daf
zumindest das zu deren Herstellung
notwen
dige Zinn uber sehr weite Entfernungen,
moglicher
weise aus Zentralasien
herantransportiert werd en
mufite.
As for
the
reasons
behind
the
introduction
of
bronze
in
the
Near
East, Pernicka (1998: 135 f.)
notes
that
arsenical
copper
c
an match
the
properties
of
tin bronze
.
However
it
has
crucial
disadvantages,
mainly the
difficulty in
controlling the
amount of
arsenic
in an alloy: it
was impossible
to measure
precisely the arsenic
content of an
ore,
and
the
volatility of arsenic
makes
it difficult to produce
objects with
more
than 5% As.
Indeed,
97.1% of
the
objects
analysed by the SAM project have
less
than
3% As, so arsenical
copper rarely reached the
hardness
of a typical 10% tin
bronze.
He also
draws
attention
to
the
adoption
of
tin
bronze mainly
in
'wealthy'
cultural contexts (in
Anatolia
for example
at
settlements
like
Troy
IIg and Poliochni
'giallo',
and
the 'princely graves ' from Horoztepe, Alaca
Huyuk,
Ahlathbel,
Kayapmar and Mahmatlar),
often in
the
form of
prestige
objects
made
using
advanced
casting techniques
(for tin bronze in
Anatolia, see Yener et al. 1996). So
the
introduction
of tin bronze was not just a diffuse
transfer
of raw
material and
knowledge, it was
the result
of trade
over
long distances idem
1990: 53; see also Stech
Pigott 1986: 52
H.).
An
international
trade
in
tin
(or
tin bronze),
controlled
by large city-states,
began
by the
mid 3rd
millennium
BC. Before this
horizon
there are
only
a
few isolated finds of tin
bronze
objects in
south
-east
Europe,
such as
the
knife from Velika Gruda (Primas
1996: 94, fig. 7.1, M2 with 7.6% Sn). Objects like this
are
often interpreted as
evidence
for an experimental
phase
in the history of alloying technology.
However,
Pernicka
believes that e
xperimentation
is
made
unlikely by
the
rarity of tin ores,
and their infrequent
association with
copper
ores,
suggesting that
isolated
finds like Velika Gruda
can probably
be
interpreted
as
deriving
from
the international trade
in
the Near
East (1990: 53). He
adds that
the
spread
of tin
bronze
into
south-east Europe
is
impossible
to follow at
present,
owing to the imprecise
chronology
of the
region, but he entertains the possibility that
bronze
was introduced in south-east
Europe
at
roughly
the
same
time as in the Aegean. Finally, he notes
that
tin
bronze
spread to the
rest
of
Europe
about 500 years
after its adoption in the Near East
and
the Aegean;
the tin
bronze
alloying technology
not
only
spread
to
the west,
but also to
the
east, to the
Indus
Valley,
via
the
Iranian highlands and Central
Asia (1998:
138 H.).
J.
D. Muhly and E. Pernicka
agree
with
H.
Mc
Kerrel (1978: 19) that ...
there can
be no
question
of
any major Near
Eastern source
[of tin]
which
was
exploited
in the Bronze Age
and yet remains
still to
be
discovered , and they note that the
sources of
tin
remain
the
great enigma
of Bronze Age archae
ology
(Muhly Pernicka
1992: 315). In the
Aegean
(including Crete), the East
Mediterranean
(including
Cyprus) and Western
Asia
(including the
Caucasus)
there are
no
workable sources
of tin ore
(Muhly
1985;
Muhly
Pernicka 1992: 314 f.; Pernicka 1998:
137; 142 f.).
Among the various
claims for
Old World
tin
sources, Pernicka e.g. 1998: 142 f.) argues
strongly
against
Sogukpmar
(north-west
Anatolia), Suluca
dere
and Kestel (both in
the
Taurus
mountains);
the
case of Kestel is most
controversial
(see, for
example
Hall Steadman 1991;
Pernicka
et al. 1992;
Muhly
1993; Yener
&
Goodway 1992; Yener
& Vandiver
1993a .b; Willies 1992; 1993). The
situation
in Europe,
where both
tin-stone
(Sn0
2
)
and
stannite (CuleSnS4)
occur
in
some quantity,
is
quite
different. The
most
prolific tin
sources
in
Europe
are in
Cornwall
and
the Ore Mountains (Erzgebirge, on the
border
between
Sa
xony
and Bohemia); important
deposits
are also known from Brittany
and
the Massif Central
in France,
and the north-west Iberian peninsula
(Per
nicka 1998:137; 142 f.). Less well
documented
sources
in
Tuscany
(Monte Valerio)
and southern
Sardinia
8/18/2019 Bronze and the Bronze Age
10/38
10
CHRISTOPHER P ARE
arly Helladic
(n =139)
125
30
124
123
25
20
'
15
c:
0
0
z
la
5
4
3
5
2
0
2 3
4
5 6
7 .
8
9
10
1I
12
13
14 14+
0
0.5
I 2
3
4
5
6
7
8 8+
Sn (%)
As (%)
Middle Helladic
(n = 34)
j
15
-
-
,
,
10
la
-
>.
>.
o
o
c:
c:
"
0
0
0
0
z
5
z
5
o
2 3 4
5
6 7 8 9
10 J
I
12
13 14
15
16 17
Sn
(%)
Fig 1.4. Histograms of the tin and arsenic contents of copper alloy objects in Early Helladic and Middle Helladic
mainland Greece
For
references to the metal analyses included in the histograms see Table 1.1.
objects
have over
5% Sn, two
have 3-5
% Sn
and
no further analyses
have
been published from Archanes,
less than seven contain below 0.5% Sn (Varoufakis
Charnaizi, Fortetsa, Hagia Triadha Katsambas, Kala-
1973) .
thiana Koumasa
Krasi,
Lebena
Marathokephalon
Crete
also seems to have used only
small
amounts
Mochlos,
Myrtos
Phaistos Platanos, Porti, Pyrgos,
of tin during the Early and Middle Bronze Age. Salarne, Tekes
and
Traostalos
(Slater 1972 [1 object] ;
Apart from
the
28 EM and MM
analyses
published
Branigan
1974: 150 H. [82 objects]; Varoufakis 1995
recently by Mangou & Ioannou (1998), at le
ast
90
[7 statuettes]). Only 7% of
these analyses
indicate
o
0.5 1 2 3 4 4+
As (%)
8/18/2019 Bronze and the Bronze Age
11/38
11RONZE AND THE BRONZE
ACE
Early Helladic
Macedonia
Mandalo
Petralona hoard
PetraIona district
Seratse
Servia
1
23
4
1
2
McGeehan-Liritzis 1996
Mangou
Ioannou 1999
Ibid.
Heurtley
1930: 144; 1939: 253 f.
[ones 1979
Thessaly
Petromagoula
SeskIo
9
1
McGeeha n-Lirit zis Gale 1988
Ibid.; Maran 1998: 264, note 1069
Phocis
Ay.
Marina
2
Dickinson
1977: 114
Euboea
Tharounia
Cave
'Euboea'
Manika
5
1
23
Mangou
Ioannou
1999
Phelps et al. 1979
Sampson 1985: 306; Stos-Cale et al. 1996
Boeotia
Eutresis
Lithares
5
10
Goldman 1931: 285
Kayafa
et al.,
this
volume
ttica
Aghios Kosmas
Rouf
Mylonas 1959: 78
Petrikaki 1980: 173
Peloponnese
Corinth
Lema Ill-IV
Tsoungiza
Voidokoilia
'Peloponnese'
1
25
7
5
1
Caley 1949: 60 H.
Kayafa et al., this volume
Ibid.
Kayafa 1999: table 3
Phelps et al. 1979
Ionian Sea
Levkas 11
McGeehan -Liritz is 1996: 365
Middle Helladic
ttica
Eleusis Mylonas 1932: 146 f.; Dickinson 1977:
114
Peloponnese
Argos 1
VollgraH 1906: 40; Dickinson 1977: 114
Ayios
Stephanos
5 Kayafa 1999: table 8; R. E.
[ones
(pers.
comm.)
Lema V 10 Kayafa et al. this volume
Malthi 2
Mangou Ioannou
1999
Nichoria 12 Kayafa 1999: tables 33-34; Stos-Gale
et
al.
in press
Voidokoilia 3
Mangou
Ioannou
1999; Kayafa 1999:
table 3
Table
1.1. Metal analyses of
Early
and Middle Helladic
copper-based objects. The numbers refer to the number
of samples analysed.
more than 5% Sn, compared to 86% with less
than
2% Sn.
However,
J. D. Muhly (1991)
has mentioned
nine further
tin bronze artefacts
analysed
by the
SAM project'",
including two
daggers from Krasi
which might
date
to EM I. Even if some or all of
them
can be
assigned with
confidence to the
Early
Middle Minoan period,
they will
not
significantly
alter
our
general conclusion, based on ea. 120 pub
lished analyses, that tin
bronze
was only used rarely
in Crete before the start of Late Minoan. A change in
alloying practice clearly took place during the 16th
and 15th centuries BC. In the Unexplored Mansion
at Knossos (LM
11
60%of the analysed objects contain
more
than 5%
tin 6); and
in Sellopoulo, tomb 4 (LM
II-I1IA), all the
copper
alloys contained over 5% tin
(Catling [ones 1976). In
both
Crete
and
mainland
Greece, tin
bronze
was the
dominant
metal
used
from the
mid
15th century BC
onwards
(LM I1IA/
LH IlIA). Whereas the
use
of tin
only
seems to
have
started to increase in Crete in the Late Minoan period,
from around the 17th century BC
onwards,
on the
mainland
bronze
already seems to have played a
significant role from the
start
of the
Middle
Helladic
period.
In the course of
our
discussion of Aegean metals,
we
have
come across two different models of supply.
On the
one
hand, there was a limited, and
perhaps
short-lived, influx of so-called
Fremdmetalle ,
prob
ably entailing the exchange of
bronze
(copper alloyed
with
tin) over long distances, presumably organised
as a form of sea-borne or
caravan
trade. On the
other hand,
the
regular and predominant prod
uction
of tin bronze, at least
by
LH/LM IlIA, indicates the
existence of a reliable
supply
of tin, alloyed
with
local sources of copper. The earliest indication of the
tin
trade
is the famous tin
bangle
from Thermi IV
(Begemann et al. 1992: 224 ff.),
and
according to the
Lead Isotope
data
imported tin
was
probably alloyed
with
local sources of
copper
at Manika in EH III
(Stos-Gale et al. 1996: 56, table 3, "Cycladic copper")
and at Lema V in Middle Helladic (Kayafa et al., this
volume, "Rhodopi, Lavrion?").
t is interesting to
compare
the situation in Cyprus,
illustrated by the following quotations: In Middle
Cypriot 11
(ca. 1800-1725 BC),"practically all copper
and
arsenical
copper
objects are
made
from
Cypriot
copper.
Only
a few MC 11 tin
bronzes
occur, but
those appear to be
made
of
non-Cypriot copper
(Stos-Gale et al. 1991: 344) ...
The
transition from
Middle to Late
Cypriot
times is marked clearly by
the increase
and
dramatic
improvement
of
Cypriot
metallurgy. There is a
move
from the import of small
amounts
of foreign
bronze
in
Middle
Cypriot times
and
the first, halting,
steps
in local
manufacture
to
the full
blown
Late
Cypriot
manufacture of tin bronze
in
Cyprus, using
foreign tin but
Cypriot copper
(Gale Stos-Gale 1989: 254). t seems, then,
that
a
reliable tin
supply
was first established in
Cyprus
around the start of the Late Bronze Age
ca. 1600
BC); interestingly, deliberate alloying
with
tin also
becomes
'universal'
around this time in Palestine
(Northover 1988: 50; see also Philip 1991; Rosenfeld
et al. 1997).
The long-distance tin trade seems to
have been
able to
supply
Mesopotamia
and
central
and western
Anatolia in the 3rd
millennium
BC (Frangipane 1985:
221, fig. 3; 226 'period 3'). In the first half of the 2nd
8/18/2019 Bronze and the Bronze Age
12/38
12
CHRISTOPHER
PARE
millennium BC, the tin
supply
was still very uneven
in the Near East and East Mediterranean ibid.: 222,
fig. 4), but an important change does seem to have
occurred around the start of the Late Bronze Age in
Cyprus and the Levant, when much larger quantities
of tin
must have
b
een
obtained on a regular basis,
possibly
indicating the
start of trade with
new
trading
partners
or new sources of metallic tin .
Romania, Bulgaria and Yugoslavia
A convenient link between the metallurgy of the
Aegean, the Balkans and the Carpathian Basin is
provided
by the shaft-hole axes from Petralona,
Poliochni ' rosso:
and
Thebes (Maran 1989: 131, fig.
1,2.6.7). These come from contexts of Early Helladic
Il/III
or Ill,
and
belong to a large family of similar
axes, studied in detail by A. Vulpe (1970); Poliochni
and Petralona may be linked to Vulpe s Izvoarele
series and the Veselinovo Il type, the Thebes axe to
Vulpe's Patulele type. As J Maran (1989)has shown,
the axes are important for linking chronological
systems
between
the Carpathian
Basin
and
the
Aegean,
and
suggest the
rough
contemporaneity of
Early Helladic Ill, the first
part
of the Romanian
Middle Bronze Age (Monteoru IC
and
Rein
IC2
ecke Br AI. The shaft-hole axes are important for
two further reasons: they represent a relatively large
proportion
of metal objects
known
from the Early
and Middle Bronze Age in south-east Europe, and
their metallurgical compositions have been in
tensively analysed - especially the Romanian (SAM
project) and Bulgarian (E. N. Chernykh) examples.
According to A. Vulpe, the early shaft-hole axes
cast in
open
bivalve moulds
e.
g. the Baniabic, Fajsz,
Corbasca, Durnbravioara
and
Veselinovo I types)
are all
made
of either pure or arsenical copper. The
only exception is the Dumbravioara axe from the
Early Bronze Age (Schneckenberg phase) settlement
of Sfintu-Cheorghe, with 1 45 tin. Pure or arsen
ical
copper
is also
predominant
in the first
part
of
the Middle Bronze Age/Monteoru IC (Veselin
IC
2
ovo Il, Izvoarele, Patulele, Monteoru I
and
Padureni
I types); the only exceptions are the Padureni I axe
from Halchiu,
and
two Patulele axes with up to
0.4 tin. t is
only
in Monteoru IC A2
2 IA/Br
(Padureni Il,
Monteoru
Il,
Hajdusamson,
Balsa.
Apa-Nehoiu types)
that
use of tin bronze becomes
more
general, but
even now
there are
hoards
like
Sinaia (26 axes with 1.15-3.5 Sn) and Borlesti (five
axes with 0.04 , 0.63 , 5.1 , 5.8 and 7.8 Sn),
which indicate
that
alloying
was
by no
means
standardised. However, in the second part of the
Romanian Middle Bronze Age (Monteoru
Il/Br
B
C) almost all the axes are alloyed
with
tin .
For the Romanian axes, it is clear that the use of
tin increased markedly
during the Middle Bronze
Age, and became predominant in the Apa-Hajdu
samson horizon (Monteoru lA/Br A2b). Indeed,
Vulpe notes that the earlier Middle Bronze Age
bronze axes only contained between 0.9
and
4
Sn, with the later examples reaching up to 7 Sn.
South of the arc of the
Carpathians,
the
adoption
of
tin bronze may have
happened
slightly later: this is
suggested by the cemeteries of Sarata Monteoru,
where
graves of phase lA (Apa-Hajdusamson hor
izon) contain
bronze
objects
with
2.7-5.7 Sn,
whereas those of phase IlA (Br B) have 5.8- ea. 10
Sn (Vulpe 1976: 155).
Tin bronze was clearly extremely rare in Romania
before the Middle Bronze Age. In the hoard of 10
neckrings from Deva,
dated
to the transition from
the Early to the Middle Bronze Age, only two contain
tin (0.31/0.34 Sn, 0.26/0.67 As); the other eight
contain 1.3-1.7 As. According to Vulpe, apart from
the Early Bronze Age axe from Sfintu-Cheorghe.
mentioned above, there is only one earlier find: the
ochre-grave burial from Clavanesti (tumulus 1, grave
11)
with
two bronze buttons (3.4 Sn) and a spiral
ring (1.55 Sn), which
presumably
dates before the
start of the Early Bronze Age .
In the case of Bulgaria, we are able to base
our
discussion on the important research results pub
lished by E. N.
Chernykh
(1978). In general, tin
bronze seems to have been quite rare in the earlier
parts
of the Bulgarian Bronze Age: in the Early
and
Middle Bronze Age only 10 of 144 analysed objects
were of tin bronze, compared to 57 of arsenical
copper (Greeves 1982). This contrasts with the Late
Bronze Age, when tin bronze was practically the
only alloy used, although 29
out
of the total 549
analysed objects were found to be of 'pure' copper
ibid.). However,
even in the Late Bronze Age,
Pernicka et al. (1997:138) note that the wide range of
tin contents, between 1.1 and 12.3 ,indicates there
was
no strict control over the alloy composition.
For the Early Bronze Age, the most important site
is Ezero,
with
up to 4 m of stratified deposits (for
14C
dating evidence, see Weninger 1992:420H. .
In
Ezero
A (layers 13-9, ca. 3100-3000 BC) there are 14 rather
simple metal objects, four made from pure copper,
the rest from
copper with
low concentrations of
arsenic, in Ezero B (layers 6-1 , ea. 2900-2500 BC) the
19 metal objects are still
made
of either pure (five)
or arsenical copper,
but now with
rather higher
concentrations of arsenic. The only tin bronze artefact
is an unstratified pin (4.5 Sn) from the surface of
the settlement (Chernykh 1978: pl. 28,43). The most
important
site from the
end
of the Early Bronze Age
(EBA 3), post-dating Ezero, is Novozagora, where
the analysed metal objects were again of arsenical
copper. Ninety-nine analyses are available from the
Early Bronze Age lake -side settlement of Ezerovo Il
(Chemykh 1978:analyses 11883-11982), five of which
8/18/2019 Bronze and the Bronze Age
13/38
13
RONZE
AND THE
BRONZE
AGE
have
:2:2
Sn,
including one
object
with
4 Sn
and
another with
6 Sn; but the reliability of the results
is
somewhat
questionable, as the metal is
reported
to be affected by saline
contamination
(Greeves 1982:
540; Pernicka
et al.
1997: 126). For the
Middle
Bronze
Age, the Emenska Pest cave
provides
the largest
collection of metal objects: the 12 analyses all show
the use of Cu-Sn-As; the
average
tin content is 5.3
Sn, with values ranging widely between 0.8 and
15 Sn (Chernykh 1978: analyses 10912-10925).
Apart
from the
two
objects from Ezerovo
with
4
and
6 Sn, the
unstratified pin
from Ezero, a
flat axe
with
8 Sn from
Cradesnitsa (Chernykh
1978: pl. 27, 13),
and
the shaft-hole axes discussed
below, the Emenska Pest cave is the only Bulgarian
site of the Early
and Middle
Bronze Age with tin
bronzes
ibid .:
pls 27, 3.5; 28, 3.5.8.12.13.39.40; 29,
1.22). All the flat axes, knives, awls, chisels etc.
from other sites
analysed
by Chernykh were made
of copper or arsenical copper. This suggests that
tin
bronzes were
still relatively rare in Bulgaria in
the
Middle
Bronze Age;
metallurgy changed
mar
kedly
in the Late Bronze Age,
when
large numbers
of tin
bronzes
are
known.
Shaft-hole axes can
again
be taken as an
example
for alloying practices. Ezero B shows that
simple
open
bivalve moulds (Chernykh s type 1)
were
used
in
the
first half of
the
3rd millennium BC for
producing
axes of Veselinovo I type. Closed bivalve
moulds (Chernykh s type 4) came into use in the
Middle
Bronze Age,
producing
tools like the
Padur
eni axe from Emenska Pest, similar to the axe from
Poliochni rosso
mentioned above (Chernykh
1978:
pl. 25, 5). A summary of Chernykh s results is
illustrated on Fig. 1.5. It is
immediately
clear that
the axes
made
from open
bivalve
moulds (types
T.2, T.4, T.6, T.8)
are
made from pure or arsenical
copper
(all
8/18/2019 Bronze and the Bronze Age
14/38
- -
C J
la
I
1
(
:J
1
5
•
D
6
G=J
0
7
•
•
8
D
•
~
6.
c = =J
23
0
I
i
' ' - '-"
o
~
0 24
g
~
J c ;J
6
c;::J 0
~
8
5
< ; j
27
c= J
51
8
Fig. 1.6. Summary of metal analyses of shaf t-holeaxes from the Caucasus, the north Pontics teppes, the Volga-Ural region and the Carpatho Balkan region.
-
Empty
symbols: not analysed.
-
Vertical line: pure copper.
-
Cross: arsenical copper.
-
Black symbols: tin bronze.
-
After Chernykh 1977.
I
l e'
I ~
I ~ C i L ]
C 7 J ~ ~
d
b
~ c J
13
-
v
c J
c::=t
c;;:J
11
6.
12 D
4
c J
16
c; J
18
8
n
r
:N
"0
r
m
:N
""0
>
:N
m
8/18/2019 Bronze and the Bronze Age
15/38
15
RONZE
AND
THE BRONZE ACE
Caucasus
N Pontic Volga-Ural Carpa thians
Balkans
100
0= 35
90
80
70
Axe types
60
1-8
50
( )
40
30
20
10
0-l..L_...LlLL..L.L-_--l
100
0=
8
90
80
70
Axe types
60
9-18
50
( )
40
30
20
10
0...L.-_---'-L.L....LL ' -
0=27
0=8
=0 0=3
- - I . l . . . . - - - I .
----JL..l....-----J..l...L...:.....:..l
u _ L L ~ l _ _ J
0=7
0=12
=0
0=17
----'-l..----l
...J..l._--u..:.....:;.-"'-'-
-L.L. . . _ . . . .L . J . . . - - - ' -_----J
Axe types
19-37
( )
100
90
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0...L.-_---'-L.L....LL_-JL..l...-_.J..J....
8/18/2019 Bronze and the Bronze Age
16/38
16
CHRISTOPHER PARE
axes of Kozarac type are shown, even though they
can be linked to the Vucedol
and
Ljubljana cul
tures' .
Nevertheless, Fig. 1.6, c repeats the general
distinction between areas with arsenical
copper
axes
(eastern Balkans, Caucasus, now also the steppes)
and
areas
with
pure
copper
axes (western Balkans,
western Carpathian Basin, steppes and Volga) . The
seven tin bronze analyses in the Carpatho-Balkan
region indicate the adoption of this alloy for pro
ducing some axes in the early part of the Middle
Bronze Age.
According to Chernykh s results for the axes
shown
on Fig. 1.6, d, 80% of the axes in the
Carpathian Basin were made of tin bronze, compared
to 35% in the Balkans, 26% in the Volga-Ural region
and only 3% in the Caucasus (Fig. 1.7 - axe types 38-
62). This scarcity of tin in the Early and Middle
Bronze Age Balkans is also indicated by
Chernykh s
summary of alloying practices in Bulgaria, shown
on Fig. 1.8, indicating
that
tin
bronze
was less
common than arsenical copper
and
arsenical copper
with
tin in the Middle Bronze Age, a situation which
was
reversed in the Late Bronze Age.
Apart
from the shaft-hole axe evidence reviewed
above, there are a few other
more
or less reliable
finds of tin bronze from the Vucedol and Baden
cultures (Vinkovci, Velika Gruda, Brekinjska, Oku
kalj), the Proto Bronze Age (Kacica, Velika Humska
Cuka)
and
even the Late Chalcolithic (Smjadovo,
Zaminec) (Pernicka 1990: 52 f.; Pernicka et al.
1993;
1997; Primas 1996: 104 f.;
Durman
1997: 11 f.). A
marked increase in the use of this alloy, however,
is first evident around the last quarter of the
3rd
millennium BC, at the start of the Romanian and
Bulgarian Middle
Bronze Age,
and the
Cetina
culture in the western Balkans. Another major
development takes place around the time of the
Apa-Hajdusarnson horizon
ca.
17th-16th centuries
BC), with regular use of tin bronze in the area
between the Tisza and
Prut
(Fig. 1.6, d).
The Carpathian Basin
David Liversage (1994)
has
contributed a very
useful review of early alloying practices in the
Carpathian Basin, based on ca. 2,500 SAM analyses.
His results were summarised in a series of histo
grams, showing changing tin content from the sta rt
of the Early Bronze Age to the Late Bronze Age '
(Fig. 1.9). The first Early Bronze Age horizon is
marked
by cemeteries of the Nitra group in south-
west
Slovakia, corresponding
roughly
to Br
Ala
(Fig. 1.9, a).
It
is clear that bronze was
hardly
used
at all; 98% of the analyses contained less than 1%
tin . The next histogram (Fig. 1.9, b) is mainly based
on finds from Br A1b, from later cemeteries of the
Nitra group and Gemeinlebarn phases 1-2. Again
MB 2
MB I
EBA3
EBA2
EBA I
Copper type VIII
Pb
;>
0.03
Bi ;> 0.002
Cu
s
Copper type VI
Pb
<
0.03
Cu
Fig.
1.8.
Summary of
E.
N. Chernykh s results showing
the change of copper types and
alloys
in the
Bulgarian
Earlyand Middle BronzeAge. - Cu = pure
copper,
As
arsenical copper, Sn/As
= copper
with both arsenic
and tin contents greater than
0.5%,
Sn = tin
bronze.
-
After Chernykh
1978: 168,
fig.
86.
the great majority of samples (89%) has less than
1% tin; however, there is now a scatter of analyses
reaching up to a small peak at 10% Sn. Fig. 1.9, c
shows
the use of tin
during
the 'classic' Unetice
phase, or Br A2a, with analyses again coming from
south-west Slovakia and from Gemeinlebarn (phase
3). The tin distribution is now clearly bimodal, with
almost 30% unalloyed and the rest climbing to a
clear peak around 10% Sn. The following pair of
histograms derives from
hoards
of Br A2b in Trans
danubia (Tolnanemedi series, Fig. 1.9, d) and north
east Hungary and Transylvania (Hajdusamson
series, Fig. 1.9, e). Both show a small minority of
unalloyed objects,
and
the
mass
containing 4-10%
Sn. The last
histogram
illustrates tin use in the
Middle Bronze Age, or Br B-C (Fig. 1.9, f), with an
almost perfectly normal unimodal tin distribution
around a peak at 6-7% Sn.
In view of the variety of data utilised by Liversage,
including cemeteries
and
hoards from a wide area,
it is worth looking at one well-studied site in more
detail: the chronology of the cemetery of Gemein
lebarn has been worked
out
by F. Bertemes (1989)
and the analytical
data summarised
by Liversage
(1994:80 f.; 81, table xvii) , The Gemeinlebarn phases
can roughly be paralleled with the Reinecke /Ruck
deschel system, as follows 1 (Br Ala), 2 (Br A1b), 3
(Br A2a), 4 (Br A2b).
Phase
8/18/2019 Bronze and the Bronze Age
17/38
17
RONZE
AND THE BRONZE
ACE
a n=
197
d
20
n = 157
b
4 i •
I
35 .
i' l
,
< \ \ 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 II 12 13 14
Sn ( )
n
=
126
60
1
e
s-,
I
I
5
J:
15
JU
5
0
25
20
0
8/18/2019 Bronze and the Bronze Age
18/38
18
CHRISTOPHER P ARE
Pfutzthal
(awl 10.5% Sn) in
Sachsen-Anhalt
(SAM
3238, 3248, 19935, 19936; Junghans et al. 1960: 194;
Schickler 1981: 437; see also
Kuna
Matousek 1978:
79, fig. 9, Il, crosses) .
According
to
Spindler
(1971:
207
H.)
43% of
analysed
objects from Bell Beaker
contexts
contain more than
a trace of tin,
compared
with
only
7%
from
Corded
Ware
contexts.
Never
theless,
even
in
the
Corded
Ware culture
objects
with relatively high quantities of tin do seem to be
represented, even though
the
reliability of associ
ation
is not always beyond question: Altenburg (axe
5% Sn) and Ranis (bead 3% Sn) in
Thuringia,
Halle
Heide
(spiral
armlet
1.3% Sn) and Kirchscheidungen
KloBholz
pin
11.5% Sn) in
Sachsen-Anhalt,
and
Niederkaina,
grave 7 (spiral 2.2% Sn) in
Saxony
(Otto
& Witter
1952: analysis 211, 212, 692;
Otto
1953:
analysis
B; Schickler 1981: 436).
Even
though
it
would appear
to
speak against
his bel ief in a
spread
of tin
bronze
alloying to
Europe
from the south
-east
(Anatolia, Aegean), Pernicka
admitted that
early
Copper Age) tin
bronzes
seem
to be
concentrated
in
the
Corded
Ware
and Bell
Beaker
cultures
of
Central Europe,
but not in south
east
Europe
? (Pernicka et al. 1997: 125).
orth of the Alps
Turning to the area north of
the
Alps, we are able to
draw
on
the important
study
by
K.
Spindler
(1971).
As he
was interested
in
the
earliest appearance of
bronze,
especially in small quantities, he
organised
his
data
in a rather
unfamiliar way;
on
his
histo
grams,
for e
xample,
he
uses
a
logarithmic
scale,
providing more information
on
low
concentrations
of tin
than high
tin allo ys (Fig. 1.10).
In contrast
to
the Nitra group
,
the graves
of
the earliest Early
Bronze
Age horizon
(Br
Ala) north
of
the
Alps
contain
hardly any
metal objects, their place
being
taken
by artefacts made of stone, bone or shell.
Significant
quantities
of copper and its allo ys appear
first in Br A1b,
particularly
in
the graves
of
the
Adlerberg,
Singen
and
Straubing
groups (Cerneinle
barn is also included in Spindlers analysis: Fig. 1.10,
a).
About
520
analyses were
available
for
this
horizon,
roughly
200 of
which had
no tin at all,
only
8%
had more than
1% Sn,
and
less
than
5%
had more
than
4% Sn. A recently
discovered grave
of the
early
Straubing culture
from Buxheim,
Upper
Bavaria,
Fig. 1.10 right). Histograms showing the tin content of
copper
and copper alloy objects in the area north of the
Alps.
-
Only objects with at least a trace of tin are
included on the histograms.
-
a) Br .
-
b) earlierpart
of Br A2.
- c)
later part of Br A2 .
-
d) Middle Bronze
Age. - After Spindler
1971: 209,
Diagram 1.
a
60
=
320
40
20
60
40
20
60
40
20
60
11
_
b
11
=
799
--- 11
=553
11=229
c
--_.
d
511 (%)
8/18/2019 Bronze and the Bronze Age
19/38
19
RONZE AND THE BRONZE
AGE
contained 47 tin beads with a segmented shape
resembling Early Bronze Age faience beads (Moslem
&
Rieder 1997). S. Moslem
and
K. H. Rieder pointed
out the similarity with the segmented tin beads from
Exloo, Prov. Drenthe, and Sutton Veney, Wiltshire
(Penhallurick 1986: frontispiece; 67, fig. 24; for
other
tin objects in Europe, see Primas 1985) - suggesting
a north-west European origin for the Buxheim beads.
In Br A2a, metalwork becomes more widespread,
and
is now also well represented in graves from
Moravia, Bohemia and central Germany. Spindler's
histogram for this
phase
(Fig. 1.10, b) is slightly
less easy to
interpret, because
he
did
not state how
many samples analysed contained no tin .
However,
the 799 samples
with
at least a trace of tin indicate
a major change in alloying: 71% of the objects
contain more than 1% Sn and 50% have more than
4% Sn.
Furthermore, Spindler notes that
the tin
poor objects are mainly difficult to date, and the
securely
dated
objects are generally
alloyed
with
tin. In Br A2b (Fig. 1.10, c) all the samples have at
least a trace of tin, and only 3% of the analyses
contained less than 1% Sn. 88% of the objects have
more than 4% Sn . Finally, in the Middle Bronze
Age (Br B-C) 92% of the 229 analyses had more
than 4% Sn (Fig. 1.10, d) .
According to both Liversage and Spindler, it is
clear that for the triangle reaching from central
Germany in the north, to southern Germany
and
south-west Slovakia in the south, the transition phase
to a full bronze-using metallurgy happened
around
Br A2a, some
time between the 20th
and
18th
centuries BC. At this time, the distribution of tin
was
generally bimodal,
with roughly
equal
numbers
of artefacts containing above and below 4% Sn. It is
interesting to compare a
pair
of histograms pub
lished by Helle Vandkilde (Fig. 1.11), showing tin
distributions in the classic Unetice phase (Br A2a).
Whereas in the 'central' area
with
'princely' graves
and
rich hoards (middle
Saale-Unstrut
in Thuringia,
southern Sachsen-Anhalt
;
mapped
on
Schmidt
&
Nitzschke 1980: 183, fig. 3) there are roughly
equal
numbers of artefacts containing above
and below
2% Sn (Fig. 1.11, a), in 'peripheral' regions (north
Bohemia,
Spree-Neisse, Riesa-Dresden-Bautzen,
Berlin-Brandenburg and Mecklenburg-Pomerania)
the
sampled
objects are
poorer
in tin,
with
only 21%
containing more than 2% Sn (Fig. 1.11, b) .
Vandkilde's important research on the transition
'From Stone to Bronze' (1996) has shown that in
Denmark the situation in Late Neolithic (roughly
comparable
with
Br A2a) was similar to that in the
'peripheral' Unetice regions (compare Figs 1.11, b;
1.12), although,
with
34%, Denmark apparently has
slightly
more
artefacts with
over
2% Sn. From Per.
lA
(roughly comparable
with Br A2b) onwards,
almost all copper is alloyed with at least 4% Sn.
50
n= 194 a
25
0
7.95
Sn %)
Fig.
1.11. Histograms showing the tin content of copper
and copper alloy objects
in
the I1netice culture.
-
a) the
classic
I1netice culture centrearound the Unsirut-Saale
in Thuringia. - b) the periphery of the classic
I1netice
culture centre north Bohemia Spree-Neisse, Riesa
Dresden-Bauizen Berlin-Brandenburg andMecklenburg
Pomerania). - After Vandkilde 1990: 125, fig . 10.
David
Liversage (1994: 77,
with
fig . 5),
discussing
the Late Neolithic
metalwork
from Denmark, drew
attention to the fact
that
the tin distribution
was not
bimodal, most of the tin-containing objects having
tin concentrations between 1% and 7% Sn. He
concludes as follows: This
must mean
either that
the Danish smiths were not interested in concen
trating their tin in a full bronze, or more probably
that objects of copper and bronze were being im
ported as separate commodities but were being
mixed locally or on the way northwards in the
recycling process.
The northern
metallurgists were
thus
obviously less
advanced
than those of central
Europe
. As
copper
and bronze were
mixed
the
bipolarity disappeared from the tin distribution.
8/18/2019 Bronze and the Bronze Age
20/38
20
25
CHRISTOPHER PARE
75
50
25
o
75
LN (n
=
169)
50
O L.. I -
75
Per. LA (n =61
50
25
o--- ------- ------ r---
0- ---- . - - -
- . . , - - - - . - - - - ,
n (%)
Fig.
1.12. Histograms showing the tin content of
copper
and copper alloy objects in Late Neolithic and
Early
Bronze Age Denmark - After Vandkilde 1996.
75
Per. LB (n
=
194)
50
25
o
Tr-0.126
In Per la metalworking practices obviously changed
markedly, and for the first time standard bronzes
were
used
-
either
imported or al loyed locally from
imported copper and tin.
The British Isles
For the British Isles, we can base our review on an
important study of southern British Early Bronze
Age metallurgy by Needham et
al.
(1989), and a
new chronological summary by Needham (1996;
see also Gerloff 1996).
Stuart Needham has divided
early British
metalwork
into a series of chronological
horizons, one for the Copper
Age
(Metalwork
Assemblages I-Il),
dating
to the mid-late 3rd millen
nium BC, and 11 for the Bronze Age. The Early
Bronze Age Metalwork Assemblages (MAs),
and
date-ranges,
where
possible
based
on
modern
pre
cision
4C
dates, are as follows:
III = ca 2300-2050 BC
(Butterwick daggers, Migdale axes etc .)
IV = ca. 2050-1900 BC
(Aylesford hoards, Parwich grave etc.)
V = ca. 1900-1700 BC
(Wessex I grave series, Armorico-British daggers etc.)
VI = ca 1700 BC onwards
(Wessex II grave series, Carnerton-Snowshill daggers etc.)
Metalwork Assemblages
I-Il
are characterised
by copper, arsenical copper and occasional bronzes
(Fig. 1.13). The following
horizon
, however, shows
a
marked
change: now
over half
of
the
metal objects
contain
8-14% Sn, and
the great
majority (more
than
93%) have
over
5% Sn. Needham
&
Kinnes
(1981: 133) have even argued for 'tinning' of
undecorated flat axes at
this
time, a technique
which
is apparently most
common
among axes of
the Dunnottar and Migdale groups (however, see
also Close-Brooks & Coles 1980; Kinnes et al 1979
According to Needham et al (1989: 392, fig . 3), the
transition
from
copper
to
bronze
took place quite
rapidly during the life of MA Ill. In the subsequent
phases, there is only gradual change in alloying
practices, involving
increasing amounts of tin: 8
12% in MA IV, 8-14% in MA V, and 10-16% in MA
VI.
The early adoption of tin bronze in Britain
was
already
noticed in a
remarkable
article by
Hugh
McKerrel (1978). He drew at ten tion to the fact tha t
the vast majority of thin-butted ' type B' axes, both
in Scotland (95%) and in Ireland (90%), contain over
5% Sn. He also pointed to a similar development in
metalwork
from Bell Beaker graves, characterised
by
arsenical
copper in steps 1-4 (21 objects of
arsenical
copper,
three bronzes)
, and bronze in
steps 5-7 (1 object of arsenical copper, 21 of bronze).
And, using available 4C dates , he suggested a date
8/18/2019 Bronze and the Bronze Age
21/38
21
RONZE AND TH E
BRO
NZE ACE
MA I
20
(n
= 5)
10
0
: MA n
0
: (n = 18)
la
0
: MA
20
: (n = 59)
10
V J
v
V J
>-.
c:
0
0
0
Z
: MA IV
20
: (n =
26)
la
0
:MAV
20
: (n =48)
la
0
: MA VI
20
: (n
=
120)
10
0
5 la 15
So
0/0)
of
ea.
2200 BC for this
important
change in metal
working practice. McKerrel
's arguments have,
therefore,
been confirmed
by the systematic modem
research of Needham et al.
Although
there is a
degree of fluidity
about
the date -r
anges
of the
individual phases
, there
has
for a long time
been
consensus that the typical finds of MA III
date
well
before Wessex I (Needham 1996: 130). This is
important, in view of the fact that the Wessex I
series of graves can be paralleled fairly reliably with
Br A2a on the continent, for example with the aid
of finds in
graves
and hoards of the classic Unetice
phase in central Germany (Gerloff 1993; 1996).
McKerrel identified the most
important
conse
quence of the early and
regular
use of tin bronze
alloys, the question of the
supply
of Cornish tin to
distant parts of the British Isles (1978: 11): ... the
distances
involved are
considerable; from
Cornwall
to Aberdeenshire
some
eight hundred miles by sea
and from
Cornwall
to
Northern
Ireland
perhaps
half
this distance. Yet, to judge by the consistency
of
high
tin levels in the thin-butted Scottish axes,
this was not an occasional or intermittent activity.
Clearly, within
Britain
, we do
seem
to have a
consistent, well
organized,
long-distance tin move
ment dating
to around 2200
BC
The characteristic feature which demonstrates a
consistent, well organized, long-distance tin move
ment
is a
unimodal
, tight
and normal
distribution
of tin in
copper
objects. As we
have
seen, this is
encountered in Britain already in MA
Ill-IV
(Fig.
1.13), roughly corresponding
with
Br A1. On the
continent, the
development
sets in several centuries
later, chiefly in Br A2b, for
example
in
Denmark
(Fig. 1.12), the
area
north of the Alps (Fig. 1.10, c),
and
in the
Carpathian
Basin (Figs 1.6, d; 1.9, d-e).
This, too,
was
noticed by McKerrel; in view of the
long distances
involved
in supplying Scotland
with
Cornish tin , he suggested , not unreasonably, that
Cornish tin may equally have been taken across
the English
Channel
to
supply
parts
of continental
Europe
(1978: 14):
After
2200 BC, there is a remar
kable change in the European situation and, as has
been noted above, the transition to total bronze use
in Britain takes place apparently very rapidly; for
Sc
otland
nearly all
copper
alloys after 2200 BC are
sound tin bronze. For
central
Europe and Italy from
2200 to 1800 BC, about one-third of all copper
based metal is good
bronze
. Thereafter, the pro
portion is very
much
higher . It is of course
not
yet
possible to clarify the origins of the
continental
tin
component, but, in
view
of the certain and extensive
British
use
of
the metal
and
the
distances involved
Fig.
1.13. Histograms showing the tin content of
copper
even
within
Britain, it is entirely conceivable that it
andcopperalloy
objects
in southern
Britain
in Metalwork
was
British
tin
being used at this time on
the
As
sembla
ges MA)
VI .
- After
Needham
et al.
1989:
Continent.
391 ,
fig. 2.
Although, as we have seen, there does
seem
to be
8/18/2019 Bronze and the Bronze Age
22/38
22
CHRISTOPHER
PARE
a consensus that tin bronze alloying became pre
dominant in Britain well before Wessex I, it should
be realised that the radiocarbon evidence is by no
means as clear as one would wish. This has been
pointed
out
by Fernandez-Miranda et
al
(1995: 62):
for example the Migdale
hoard
(wooden bear core:
3665
±
75 BP) is not necessarily earl ier than 2000 BC,
and
Manor Farm burial 1 (human
and
animal bone:
3450 ± 70 BP, 3270 ± 80 BP) is almost certainly later
(for the 14C dates, see Needham 1996:129).Owing to
wiggles in the calibration curve, radiocarbon dating
around 2000 BC will always be problematical, and
there is clearly a risk
that
the earliness of the
introduction of British tin alloying will be exag
gerated. Indeed, there are problems around the same
time in other
parts
of Europe. The five 14C dates for
the halberds from Melz, Kr. Robel, Mecklenburg,
hoard
11,
conventionally
dated
to Per.
lA/classic
Unetice' ", are earier than expected, with a date
before 2000 BC being most likely (Rassmann 1993:
pis 26-27; 1996: 205, fig. 7). However the Melz dates
are interpreted, they do not have much effect on our
study
of the introduction of tin bronze alloying: in
Mecklenburg and
Brandenburg true bronzes are
hardly represented at this time - the main exception
being halberds, which have an average tin content
of 7.56% in the 14 analysed examples from Mecklen
burg
ibid. 1993: 41; 246, table 7).
The precise absolute chronology of
the
introduc
tion of bronze to the British Isles must remain some
what uncertain. However, it is surely reasonable to
relate the transition from arsenical copper to tin
bronze with roughly contemporary changes
around 2000 BC - in the organisation of copper
mining and metals supply. According to the results
of recent research (see for example
Craddock
1993;
1994; Ixer
Budd
1998; O'Brien 1996; 1999), during
the second half of the 3rd millennium BC Ireland
and
much
of western Britain was supplied with
arsenical copper from t
Top Related