bronze and the bronze age

8/18/2019 Bronze and the Bronze Age

1/38


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


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


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


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


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 .


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


8/38

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


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


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 (%)


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


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


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


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


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....


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


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


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 (%)


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.


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


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


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

bronze and the bronze age

Documents