TRANSCRIBER’S NOTES:
—Obvious print and punctuation errors were corrected.
—Huge tables at pages 460 to 463 have been split into four parts each.
—Bold text has been rendered as =bold text=.
—At page 7 and 489 there are a few Coptic words; it is possible
that these characters will be not properly shown; in this case, a
translitteration has been here added:
-page 7: BENIPE and BAA-N-PE;
-page 489 (index): BENIPE.
THE ANCIENT
BRONZE IMPLEMENTS,
WEAPONS, AND ORNAMENTS,
OF
GREAT BRITAIN AND IRELAND.
THE ANCIENT
BRONZE IMPLEMENTS,
WEAPONS, AND ORNAMENTS,
OF
GREAT BRITAIN
AND
IRELAND.
BY
JOHN EVANS, D.C.L., LL.D., F.R.S.,
F.S.A., F.G.S., PRES. NUM. SOC., &c.
LONDON:
LONGMANS, GREEN, & CO.
1881.
(_All rights reserved._)
LONDON
PRINTED BY VIRTUE AND CO., LIMITED
CITY ROAD.
PREFACE.
THE work which is now presented to the public has unfortunately been
many years in progress, as owing to various occupations, both private
and public, the leisure at my command has been but small, and it has
been only from time to time, often at long intervals, that I have
been able to devote a few hours to its advancement. During this slow
progress the literature of the subject, especially on the Continent,
has increased in an unprecedentedly rapid manner, and I have had great
difficulty in at all keeping pace with it.
I have, however, done my best, both by reading and travel, to keep
myself acquainted with the discoveries that were being made and the
theories that were being broached with regard to bronze antiquities,
whether abroad or at home, and I hope that so far as facts are
concerned, and so far as relates to the present state of information on
the subject, I shall not be found materially wanting.
Of course in a work which treats more especially of the bronze
antiquities of the British Islands, I have not felt bound to enlarge
more than was necessary for the sake of comparison on the corresponding
antiquities of other countries. I have, however, in all cases pointed
out such analogies in form and character as seemed to me of importance
as possibly helping to throw light on the source whence our British
bronze civilisation was derived.
It may by some be thought that a vast amount of useless trouble has
been bestowed in figuring and describing so many varieties of what
were after all in most cases the ordinary tools of the artificer, or
the common arms of the warrior or huntsman, which differed from each
other only in apparently unimportant particulars. But as in biological
studies minute anatomy often affords the most trustworthy evidence
as to the descent of any given organism from some earlier form of
life, so these minor details in the form and character of ordinary
implements, which to the cursory observer appear devoid of meaning,
may, to a skilful archæologist, afford valuable clues by which the
march of the bronze civilisation over Europe may be traced to its
original starting-place.
I am far from saying that this has as yet been satisfactorily
accomplished, and to my mind it will only be by accumulating a far
larger mass of facts than we at present possess that comparative
archæology will be able to triumph over the difficulties with which its
path is still beset.
Much is, however, being done, and I trust that so far as the British
Isles are concerned, the facts which I have here collected and the
figures which I have caused to be engraved will at all events form a
solid foundation on which others may be able to build.
So long ago as 1876 I was able to present to the foreign archæologists
assembled at Buda-Pest for the International Congress of Prehistoric
Archæology and Anthropology, a short abstract of this work in the shape
of my _Petit Album de l’âge du Bronze de la Grande Bretagne_, which I
have reason to believe has been found of some service. At that time my
friend the late Sir William Wilde was still alive, and as the bronze
antiquities of Ireland appeared to be especially under his charge, I
had not regarded them as falling within the scope of my book. After
his lamented death there was, however, no possibility of interfering
with his labours, by my including the bronze antiquities of the sister
country with those of England, Wales, and Scotland in the present work,
and I accordingly enlarged my original plan.
In carrying out my undertaking I have followed the same method as in
my work on the “Ancient Stone Implements, &c., of Great Britain;” and
it will be found that what I may term the dictionary and index of
bronze antiquities is printed in smaller type than the more general
descriptive and historical part of the book. I have in fact offered
those who take an ordinary interest in archæological inquiry without
wishing to be burdened with minute details a broad hint as to what they
may advantageously skip. To the specialist and the local antiquary
the portion printed in smaller type will be found of use, if only as
giving references to other works in which the more detailed accounts of
local discoveries are given. These references, thanks to members of my
own family, have been carefully checked, and the accuracy of all the
original figures for this work, engraved for me with conscientious care
by Mr. Swain, of Bouverie Street, may, I think, be relied on.
To the councils of several of our learned societies, and especially
to those of the Societies of Antiquaries of London and Edinburgh, the
Royal Irish Academy, the Royal Archæological Institute, and the Royal
Historical and Archæological Association of Ireland, I am much indebted
for the loan of woodcuts and for other assistance. I have also to thank
the trustees and curators of many local museums, as well as the owners
of various private collections, for allowing me to figure specimens,
and for valuable information supplied.
My warmest thanks are, however, due to Mr. Augustus W. Franks, F.R.S.,
and Canon Greenwell, F.R.S., not only for assistance in the matter of
illustrations, but for most kindly undertaking the task of reading my
proofs. I must also thank Mr. Joseph Anderson, the accomplished keeper
of the Antiquarian Museum at Edinburgh, and Mr. Robert Day, F.S.A., of
Cork, for having revised those portions of the work which relate to
Scotland and Ireland.
The Index has been carefully compiled by my sister, Mrs. Hubbard. As
was the case with those of my “Ancient Stone Implements,” and “Ancient
British Coins,” it is divided into two parts; the one referring
generally to the subject matter of the book, and the other purely
topographical. The advantages of such a division in a book of this
character are obvious.
In conclusion, I venture to prefer the request that any discoveries of
new types of instruments or of deposits of bronze antiquities may be
communicated to me.
JOHN EVANS.
NASH MILLS, HEMEL HEMPSTED,
_March, 1881_.
CONTENTS.
CHAPTER I.
INTRODUCTORY.
PAGE
The Succession of the Stone, Bronze, and Iron Ages—A Copper Age
in America—Scriptural Notices of Bronze—Bronze preceded Iron
in ancient Egypt—Bronze in ancient Greece—The Metals mentioned
by Homer—Iron in ancient Greece—Bronzes among other ancient
Nations—Use of Iron in Gaul and Italy—Disputes as to the three
Periods—The Succession of Iron to Bronze—The Preservation of
ancient Iron 1
CHAPTER II.
CELTS.
Origin of the word Celt—Views of early Antiquaries—Conjectures
as to the Use of Celts—Opinions of modern Writers 27
CHAPTER III.
FLAT AND FLANGED CELTS.
Flat Celts from Cyprus and Hissarlik—Discoveries of Flat Celts
in Barrows—Those ornamented on the Faces—Flanged Celts—Those
from Arreton Down—And from Barrows—Decorated Flanged Celts—Flat
Celts found in Scotland—Decorated Scottish Specimens—Flat Celts
found in Ireland—Decorated Irish Specimens—Character of their
Decorations—Flat Celts with Lateral Stops 39
CHAPTER IV.
WINGED CELTS AND PALSTAVES.
Origin of the term Palstave—Celts with a Stop-ridge—Varieties
of Winged Celts—Transitional Forms—Palstaves with Ornaments
on Face—With Central Rib on the Blade—Shortened by Wear—With
a Transverse Edge—Looped Palstaves—With Ribs on Blade—With
Shield-like Ornaments—With Vertical Ribs on Blade—With
semicircular Side-wings hammered over—Iron Palstaves imitated
from Bronze—Palstaves with two Loops—Scottish Palstaves—Irish
Palstaves—Looped Irish Palstaves—Irish Palstaves with
Transverse Edge—Comparison with Continental Forms 70
CHAPTER V.
SOCKETED CELTS.
Terms, “the Recipient” and “the Received”—Evolution from
Palstaves—With “Flanches,” or curved Lines, on the Faces—Plain,
with a Beading round the Mouth—Of a Gaulish type—With vertical
Ribs on the Faces—With Ribs ending in Pellets—With Ribs and
Pellets on the Faces—With Ribs and Ring Ornaments—Variously
ornamented—Of octagonal Section—With the Loop on one
Face—Without Loops—Of diminutive Size—Found in Scotland—Found
in Ireland—Comparison with Foreign Forms—Mainly of Native
Manufacture in Britain—Those formed of Iron 107
CHAPTER VI.
METHODS OF HAFTING CELTS.
The perforated Axes of Bronze—Celts in Club-like Handles—Their
Hafts, as seen in Barrows—Hafting after the manner of
Axes—Socketed Celts used as Hatchets—Hafted Celt found at
Chiusi—Hafts, as seen at Hallstatt—Celts in some instances
mounted as Adzes—No perforated Axe-heads in Britain—Hafting
Celts as Chisels 146
CHAPTER VII.
CHISELS, GOUGES, HAMMERS, AND OTHER TOOLS.
Simple form of Chisel rare—Tanged Chisels—Chisels with
Lugs at sides—Socketed Chisels—Tanged Gouges—Socketed
Gouges—Socketed Hammers—Irish Hammers—Method of Hafting
Hammers—French Anvils—Saws and Files almost unknown in
Britain—Tongs and Punches—The latter used in Ornamenting—Awls,
Drills, or Prickers frequently found in Barrows—Awls used in
Sewing—Tweezers—Needles—Fish-hooks 165
CHAPTER VIII.
SICKLES.
Method of Hafting—Sickles with Projecting Knobs—With
Sockets—Sickles found in Scotland and Ireland—Found on the
Continent 194
CHAPTER IX.
KNIVES, RAZORS, ETC.
The Socketed Form—Scottish and Irish Knives—Curved
Knives—Knives with broad Tangs—With Lanceolate Blades—Of
peculiar Types—Double-edged Razors—Scottish and Irish
Razors—Continental Forms 204
CHAPTER X.
DAGGERS AND THEIR HILTS.—RAPIER-SHAPED BLADES.
Tanged Knives or Daggers—Knife-Daggers with three Rivets—Method
of Hafting Daggers—Bone Pommels—Amber Hilt inlaid with
Gold—Hilts with numerous Rivets—Inlaid and Ivory Hilts—Hilts
of Bronze—Knife-Daggers with five or six Rivets—Knife-Daggers
from Scotland—From Ireland—Daggers with Ornamented Blades—With
Mid-ribs—With Ogival Outline—Rapier-shaped Blades—Rapiers with
Notches at the Base—With Ribs on the Faces—Rapiers with Ox-horn
and Bronze Hilts—Bayonet-like Blades 222
CHAPTER XI.
TANGED AND SOCKETED DAGGERS OR SPEAR-HEADS, HALBERDS, AND MACES.
Arreton Down type of Spear-heads—With Tangs and with
Socket—Scandinavian and German Halberds—The Chinese Form—Irish
Halberds—Copper Blades less brittle than Bronze—Broad Irish
Form—Scottish Halberds—English and Welsh Halberds—The Form
known in Spain—Maces, probably Mediæval 257
CHAPTER XII.
LEAF-SHAPED SWORDS.
Their Occurrence in British Barrows not authenticated—Occur
with Interments in Scandinavia—The Roman Sword—British
Swords—Disputes as to their Age—Hilts proportional to
Blades—Swords with Central Slots in Hilt-plate—With many
Rivet-holes—With Central Rib on Blade—Representation of
Sword on Italian Coin—Those with Hilts of Bronze—Localities
where found—Comparison with Continental Types—Swords found
in Scotland—In Ireland—In France—Swords with Hilts of
Bone—Decorated with Gold—Continental Types—Early Iron Swords 273
CHAPTER XIII.
SCABBARDS AND CHAPES.
Sheaths with Bronze Ends—Wooden Sheaths—Bronze Sheaths—Ends
of Sword-Sheaths or Scabbard Ends—Chapes from England and
Ireland—Spiked Chapes—Mouth-pieces for Sheaths—Ferrules on
Sword-Hilts 301
CHAPTER XIV.
SPEAR-HEADS, LANCE-HEADS, ETC.
Different Types—Leaf-shaped—With a Fillet along the
Midrib—Ornamented on the Sockets—With Loops at the Sides—From
Ireland—Decorated on the Blade—With Loops at the Base of
the Blade—Of Cruciform Section near the Point—With Openings
in the Blade—With Flanges at the Side of the Openings—With
Lunate Openings in the Blade—Barbed at the Base—Ferrules for
Spear-shafts—African Spear Ferrules—Continental Types—Early
Iron Spear-heads 310
CHAPTER XV.
SHIELDS, BUCKLERS, AND HELMETS.
Shields with numerous raised Bosses—With Concentric Ribs—With
Concentric Rings of Knobs—Shields found in Scotland—In England
and Wales—Wooden Bucklers—The Date of Circular Bucklers—Bronze
Helmets—Their Date 343
CHAPTER XVI.
TRUMPETS AND BELLS.
Trumpets found in Ireland—Trumpets with Lateral Openings—The
Dowris Hoard—Riveted Trumpets—The Caprington Horn—Trumpets
found in England—Bells found in Ireland 357
CHAPTER XVII.
PINS.
Pins with Flat Heads—With Crutched Heads—With Annular
Heads—Those of large Size—With Spheroidal Heads—With Ornamental
Expanded Heads—From Scotland—From Denmark—Their Date difficult
to determine 365
CHAPTER XVIII.
TORQUES, BRACELETS, RINGS, EAR-RINGS, AND PERSONAL ORNAMENTS.
The Gaulish Torque—Gold Torques—Funicular Torques—Ribbon
Torques—Those of the Late Celtic Period—Penannular Torques
and Bracelets—Bracelets engraved with Patterns—Beaded
and Fluted—Looped, with Cup-shaped Ends—Late Celtic
Bracelets—Rings—Rings with others cast on them—Coiled Rings
found with Torques—Finger-rings—Ear-rings—Those of Gold—Beads
of Tin—Of Glass—Rarity of Personal Ornaments in Britain 374
CHAPTER XIX.
CLASPS, BUTTONS, BUCKLES, AND MISCELLANEOUS OBJECTS.
Difficulty in Determining the Use of some Objects—Looped
Sockets and Tubes—Possibly Clasps—Perforated Rings forming
a kind of Brooch—Rings used in Harness—Brooches—Late
Celtic—Buttons—Circular Plates and Broad Hoops—Perforated
Discs—Slides for Straps—Jingling Ornaments—Objects of Uncertain
Use—Rod, with Figures of Birds upon it—Figures of Animals 396
CHAPTER XX.
VESSELS, CALDRONS, ETC.
Fictile Vessels—Gold Cup—Bronze Vessels not found in
Barrows—Caldrons found in Scotland—In Ireland—Some of an
Etruscan Form—The Skill exhibited in their Manufacture 407
CHAPTER XXI.
METAL, MOULDS, AND THE METHOD OF MANUFACTURE.
Composition of Bronze—Lead absent in early Bronze—Sources of
Tin and Copper—Analyses of Bronze Antiquities—Cakes of Copper
and Lumps of Metal—Tin discovered in Hoards of Bronze—Ingots of
Tin—Methods of Casting—Moulds of Stone for Celts, Palstaves,
Daggers, Swords, and Spear-heads—Moulds of Bronze for Palstaves
and Celts—The Harty Hoard—Bronze Mould for Gouges—Moulds
found in other Countries—Moulds formed of Burnt Clay—Jets
or Runners—The Processes for Preparing Bronze Instruments
for Use—Rubbers and Whetstones—Decoration—Hammering out and
Sharpening the Edges 415
CHAPTER XXII.
CHRONOLOGY AND ORIGIN OF BRONZE.
Inferences from number of Types—Division of Period
into Stages—The Evidence of Hoards—Their different
Kinds—Personal, Merchants’, and Founders’—Lists of Principal
Hoards—Inferences from them—The Transition from Bronze to
Iron—Its probable Date—Duration of Bronze Age—Burial Customs
of the Period—Different Views as to the Sources of Bronze
Civilisation—Suggested Provinces of Bronze—The Britannic
Province—Comparison of British and Continental Types—Foreign
Influences in Britain—Its Commercial Relations—Imported
Ornaments—Condition of Britain during the Bronze Age—General
Summary 455
WOODCUT ILLUSTRATIONS.
The references are to the original sources of such cuts as have not
been engraved expressly for this book.
CHAPTER III.
FLAT AND FLANGED CELTS.
FIG. PAGE
1. Cyprus 40
2. Butterwick 41
3. Moot Low 44
Llew. Jewitt, F.S.A., “Grave Mounds,” fig. 187.
4. Yorkshire 45
5. Weymouth 46
6. Read 47
7. Suffolk 48
8. Arreton Down 49
_Archæologia_, vol. xxxvi. p. 329.
9. Plymstock 50
10. ” 50
_Arch. Journ._, vol. xxvi. p. 346.
11. Thames 52
12. Norfolk 52
13. Dorsetshire 53
14. Lewes 53
_Arch. Journ._, vol. xviii. p. 167.
15. Ely 53
16. Barrow 54
17. Liss 54
18. Rhosnesney 55
19. Drumlanrig 56
20. Lawhead 57
_Proc. Soc. Ant. Scot._, vol. vii. p. 105.
21. Nairn 58
_Proc. Soc. Ant. Scot._, vol. ii. N.S.
22. Falkland 59
23. Greenlees 59
_Proc. Soc. Ant. Scot._, vol. xii. p. 601.
24. Perth 60
25. Applegarth 60
26. Dams 61
_Proc. Soc. Ant. Scot._, vol. xiii. p. 120.
27. Ballinamallard 61
28. North of Ireland 62
29. Ireland 62
30. Tipperary 62
_Arch. Journ._, vol. vi. p. 410.
31. Ireland 63
32. Connor 64
33. Clontarf 65
34. Ireland 65
Wilde, “Catal. Mus. R. I. A.,” fig. 248.
35. Ireland 66
36. Trim 66
37. Ireland 66
38. ” 66
39. Punched patterns 67
40. ” ” 67
41. ” ” 67
42. ” ” 67
43. ” ” 67
Wilde, “Catal. Mus. R. I. A.,” figs. 286 to 290.
44. Armoy 68
45. Ireland 68
46. ” 69
47. ” 69
CHAPTER IV.
WINGED CELTS AND PALSTAVES.
48. Icelandic Palstave 71
49. ” ” 71
_Arch. Journ._, vol. vii. p. 74.
50. Wigton 73
51. Chollerford Bridge 74
52. Chatham 74
53. Burwell Fen 75
54. Bucknell 75
55. Culham 75
56. Reeth 76
57. Dorchester 76
58. Colwick 77
59. Barrington 78
60. Harston 78
61. Shippey 79
62. Severn 80
63. Sunningwell 80
64. Weymouth 82
65. Burwell Fen 82
66. East Harnham 83
67. Burwell Fen 83
68. Thames 84
69. Stibbard 84
70. Irthington 85
71. North Owersby 85
72. Bonn 85
73. Dorchester 87
74. Wallingford 88
75. Stanton Harcourt 88
76. Brassington 89
77. Bath 89
78. Oldbury Hill 90
79. Ross 91
80. Honington 91
81. Ely 92
82. Bottisham 92
83. Nettleham 93
_Arch. Journ._, vol. xviii. p. 160.
84. Cambridge 93
85. Carlton Rode 94
86. Penvores 96
87. West Buckland 96
_Arch. Journ._, vol. xxxvii. p. 107.
88. Bryn Crûg 96
89. Andalusia 97
_Arch. Journ._, vol. vi. p. 69.
90. Burreldale Moss 98
91. Balcarry 98
92. Pettycur 99
_Arch. Journ._, vol. vi. p. 377.
93. Ireland 100
94. ” 100
95. ” 101
96. North of Ireland 101
97. Lanesborough 101
98. Trillick 102
99. Ireland 102
100. ” 102
101. ” 102
102. ” 103
103. ” 103
104. ” 103
105. Miltown 104
106. Ireland 105
107. ” 105
108. ” 105
109. Ballymena 105
CHAPTER V.
SOCKETED CELTS.
110. High Roding 109
111. Dorchester, Oxon 109
112. Wilts 110
113. Harty 110
114. ” 111
115. Dorchester, Oxon 111
116. Reach Fen 112
117. ” ” 112
118. Canterbury 114
119. Usk 114
120. Alfriston 115
121. Cambridge Fens 116
122. High Roding 116
123. Chrishall 117
124. Reach Fen 117
125. Barrington 117
126. Mynydd-y-Glas 119
127. Stogursey 120
128. Guildford 120
129. Frettenham 120
130. Ely 121
131. Caston 121
132. Carlton Rode 122
133. Fornham 122
134. Fen Ditton 123
135. Bottisham 123
136. Winwick 123
137. Kingston 124
138. Cayton Carr 124
139. Lakenheath 125
140. Thames 125
141. Kingston 125
142. ” 126
143. Thames 127
144. Givendale 127
145. Cambridge 127
146. Blandford 127
147. Ireland (?) 128
148. Barrington 128
149. Hounslow 128
150. Wallingford 128
151. Newham 129
152. Westow 130
153. Wandsworth 130
_Arch. Journ._, vol. vi. p. 378.
154. Whittlesea 130
155. Nettleham 132
_Arch. Journ._, vol. xviii. p. 160.
156. Croker Collection 132
157. Nettleham 132
_Arch. Journ._, vol. xviii. p. 160.
158. Ulleskelf 132
159. Reach Fen 133
160. Carlton Rode 133
161. Arras 134
162. Bell’s Mills 135
“Catal. Ant. Mus. Ed.”
163. North Knapdale 136
164. Bell’s Mills 136
165. ” ” 136
“Catal. Ant. Mus. Ed.”
166. Leswalt 137
_Ayr and Wigton Coll._, vol. ii. p. 11.
167. Ireland 138
168. ” 138
169. Belfast 139
170. Ireland 139
171. ” 139
Wilde, “Catal. Mus. R. I. A.,” fig. 280.
172. Athboy 140
173. Meath 140
174. Ireland 140
175. Newtown Crommolin 141
176. North of Ireland 141
177. Ireland 141
178. ” 142
Wilde, “Catal. Mus. R.I.A.,” fig. 275.
179. Kertch 142
_Arch. Journ._, vol. xiv. p. 91.
CHAPTER VI.
METHODS OF HAFTING CELTS.
180. Stone Axe of Montezuma II. 148
181. Aymara Stone Hatchet 148
182. Modern African Axe of Iron 149
183. Stone Axe, Robenhausen 150
184. Bronze Axe, Hallein 152
185. Raron, Brigue 154
186. Edenderry 155
Wilde, “Catal. Mus. R.I.A.,” fig. 257.
187. Chiusi 156
188. Winwick 158
189. Everley 163
CHAPTER VII.
CHISELS, GOUGES, AND OTHER TOOLS.
190. Plymstock 166
_Arch. Journ._, vol. xxvi. p. 346.
191. Heathery Burn 166
192. Glenluce 166
192*. Carlton Rode 167
193. Wallingford 168
194. Reach Fen 168
195. Thixendale 168
196. Yattendon 169
197. Broxton 169
198. Scotland 170
_Proc. Soc. Ant. Scot._, vol. xii. p. 613.
199. Ireland 170
200. Carlton Rode 171
201. Westow 172
202. Heathery Burn Cave 172
203. Carlton Rode 173
204. Thorndon 174
205. Harty 174
206. Undley 175
207. Carlton Rode 175
208. Tay 175
_Proc. Soc. Ant. Scot._, vol. v. p. 127.
209. Ireland 176
210. Thorndon 178
211. Harty 178
212. ” 178
213. Carlton Rode 178
214. Taunton 178
215. Ireland 179
_Proc. Soc. Ant._, 2nd S., vol. iii. p. 66.
216. Dowris 179
_Proc. Soc. Ant._, 2nd S., vol. iii. p. 65.
217. Fresné la Mère 182
218. ” ” 182
219. Heathery Burn Cave 185
220. Harty 186
221. Reach Fen 186
222. Ebnall 186
_Proc. Soc. Ant._, 2nd S., vol. iii. p. 66.
223. Upton Lovel 189
_Archæologia_, vol. xliii. p. 466.
224. Thorndon 189
225. Butterwick 189
226. Bulford 190
_Archæologia_, vol. xliii. p. 465.
227. Winterbourn Stoke 190
228. Wiltshire 191
_Archæologia_, vol. xliii. p. 467.
229. Llangwyllog 192
230. Ireland 192
Wilde, “Catal. Mus. R.I.A.,” fig. 403.
CHAPTER VIII.
SICKLES.
231. Mœrigen 196
_Arch. Journ._, vol. xxx. p. 192.
232. Edington Burtle 197
233. ” ” 197
234. Thames 198
235. Near Bray 199
236. Near Errol, Perthshire 200
_Proc. Soc. Ant. Scot._, vol. vii. p. 378.
237. Garvagh, Derry 200
238. Athlone 201
CHAPTER IX.
KNIVES, RAZORS, ETC.
239. Wicken Fen 204
240. Thorndon 205
241. Reach Fen 205
242. Heathery Burn Cave 206
_Proc. Soc. Ant._, 2nd S., vol. ii. p. 132.
243. Kilgraston, Perthshire 206
244. Kells 207
245. Ireland 208
246. Moira 209
247. Fresné la Mère 209
248. Skye 209
Wilson’s “Preh. Ann. of Scot.,” vol. i. p. 400.
249. Wester Ord 209
_Proc. Soc. Ant. Scot._, vol. viii. p. 310.
250. Reach Fen 210
251. ” ” 210
252. Heathery Burn Cave 212
253. Harty 212
254. Ireland 212
255. Ballyclare 213
256. Reach Fen 213
257. Ballycastle 213
258. Ireland 213
259. Wigginton 214
260. Isle of Harty 214
261. Allhallows, Hoo 214
262. Cottle 215
_Proc. Soc. Ant._, 2nd S., vol. ii. p. 301.
263. Reach Fen 216
264. Lady Low 216
265. Winterslow 216
266. Priddy 216
267. Balblair 217
_Proc. Soc. Ant. Scot._, vol. vii. p. 476.
268. Rogart 217
_Proc. Soc. Ant. Scot._, vol. x. p. 431.
269. Wallingford 218
270. Heathery Burn Cave 218
271. Dunbar 219
272. ” 219
273. ” 219
_Proc. Soc. Ant. Scot._, vol. x. p. 440.
274. Ireland 219
Wilde’s “Catal. Mus. R.I.A.,” fig. 433.
275. Kinleith 220
_Proc. Soc. Ant. Scot._, vol. v. p. 87.
276. Nidau 221
_Proc. Soc. Ant. Scot._, vol. v. p. 91.
CHAPTER X.
DAGGERS AND THEIR HILTS.—RAPIER-SHAPED
BLADES.
277. Roundway 223
278. Driffield 224
279. Butterwick 225
280. Helperthorpe 227
281. ” 227
282. Garton 228
_Archæologia_, vol. xliii. p. 441.
283. Wilmslow 228
284. Hammeldon Down 229
285. Reach Fen 230
286. Allhallows, Hoo 230
287. Brigmilston 231
288. Leicester 231
289. Normanton 232
290. Roke Down 233
291. Ireland 235
292. Belleek 235
_Journ. R. H. and A. Assoc. of Ireland_,
4th S., vol. ii. p. 196.
293. Ireland 235
294. Woodyates 236
295. Homington 237
296. Idmiston 237
297. Dow Low 239
298. Cleigh 239
_Proc. Soc. Ant. Soc._, vol. x. p. 84.
299. Collessie 239
_Proc. Soc. Ant. Scot._, vol. xii. p. 440.
300. Musdin 240
301. Plymstock 240
_Arch. Journ._, vol. xxvi. p. 346.
302. Winterbourn Stoke 240
303. Camerton 243
304. Cambridge 243
305. Magherafelt 245
_Journ. R. H. and A. Assoc. of Ireland_,
2nd S., vol. i. p. 286.
306. Arreton Down 245
307. Kinghorn 245
308. Colloony 246
309. Ireland 246
Wilde’s “Catal. Mus. R.I.A.” fig. 347.
310. Kilrea 247
311. Thames 247
312. Thatcham 247
313. Coveney 249
314. Thames 249
315. Chatteris 251
316. Thetford 251
317. Londonderry 251
318. Lissane 252
Wilde’s “Catal. Mus. R.I.A.,” fig. 314.
319. Galbally 253
_Journ. R. H. and A. Assoc. of Ireland_,
4th S., vol. ii. p. 197.
320. Tipperary 254
321. Ely 255
322. North of Ireland 255
323. Raphoe 255
CHAPTER XI.
TANGED AND SOCKETED DAGGERS, OR
SPEAR-HEADS, HALBERDS AND MACES.
324. Arreton Down 258
325. Stratford le Bow 258
326. Matlock 259
327. Plymstock 259
_Arch. Journ._, vol. xxvi. p. 349.
328. Arreton Down 260
329. Årup 261
Montelius, “Sver. Forntid,” fig. 131.
330. China 262
331. Ireland 264
332. Cavan 266
333. Newtown Limavady 267
334. Ballygawley 267
335. Falkland 268
336. Stranraer 268
_Proc. Soc. Ant. Scot._, vol. vii. p. 423.
337. Harbyrnrigge 269
338. Shropshire 269
339. Lidgate 271
_Arch. Journ._, vol. vi. p. 181.
340. Great Bedwin 271
_Arch. Journ._, vol. vi. p. 411.
341. Ireland 271
Wilde, “Catal. Mus. R.I.A.,” fig. 361.
CHAPTER XII.
LEAF-SHAPED SWORDS.
342. Battersea 278
343. Barrow 279
344. Newcastle 281
345. Wetheringsett 283
346. Tiverton 284
347. Kingston 284
348. Ely 286
349. River Cherwell 286
350. Lincoln 287
_Proc. Soc. Ant._, vol. ii. p. 199.
351. Whittingham 288
352. Brechin 288
353. Edinburgh 290
354. Newtown Limavady 292
355. Ireland 292
356. ” 292
357. ” 292
358. Muckno 294
359. ” 294
_Journ. R. H. & A. Assoc. of Ireland_,
3rd S., vol. i. p. 23.
360. Muckno 295
361. Mullylagan 295
_Journ. R. H. & A. Assoc. of Ireland_,
4th S., vol. ii. p. 257.
362. Mullylagan 295
363. Ireland 296
Wilde, “Catal. Mus. R. I. A.,” fig. 322.
CHAPTER XIII.
SCABBARDS AND CHAPES.
364. Isleworth 302
365. Guilsfield 303
366. River Isis, near Dorchester 303
367. Ireland 303
Wilde, “Catal. Mus. R. I. A.,” fig. 335.
368. Stogursey, Somerset 304
369. Brechin 304
_Proc. Soc. Ant. Scot._, vol. i. p. 81.
370. Pant-y-Maen 304
371. Reach Fen 305
372. Cloonmore 305
Wilde, “Catal. Mus. R. I. A.,” fig. 336.
373. Stoke Ferry 305
374. Keelogue Ford, Ireland 306
375. Mildenhall 306
376. Thames 307
377. Isle of Harty 308
CHAPTER XIV.
SPEAR-HEADS, LANCE-HEADS, ETC.
378. Thames, London 312
379. Lough Gur 312
380. ” ” 312
381. Heathery Burn Cave 312
382. Nettleham 314
_Arch. Journ._, vol. xviii. p. 159.
383. Achtertyre 315
_Proc. Soc. Ant. Scot._, vol. ix. p. 435.
384. North of Ireland 316
385. Newark 317
386. Reach Fen 317
387. Ireland 317
Wilde, “Catal. Mus. R. I. A.,” fig. 367.
388. North of Ireland 319
389. Ireland 319
Wilde, “Catal. Mus. R. I. A.,” fig. 368.
390. Reach Fen 319
391. Thorndon 319
392. Culham 320
393. Athenry 320
Wilde, “Catal. Mus. R. I. A.,” fig. 382.
394. Thetford 321
395. Lakenheath 323
396. Near Cambridge 323
397. North of Ireland 323
398. Ireland 324
399. Thames 324
400. Ireland 324
401. Near Ballymena 325
402. Ireland 326
403. ” 326
404. ” 326
Wilde, “Catal. Mus. R. I. A.,” figs.
385, 386, 378.
405. Elford 327
406. Isleham Fen 328
407. Stibbard 329
408. Ireland 329
409. Lakenheath Fen 329
410. Nettleham 330
_Arch. Journ._, vol. xviii. p. 160.
411. Knockans 331
412. Lurgan 332
_Proc. Soc. Ant._, 2nd S., vol. ii. p. 65.
413. Ireland 332
414. Antrim 332
415. Thames 333
416. Naworth Castle 333
417. Blakehope 334
418. Whittingham 334
419. Winmarleigh 335
420. Burwell Fen 336
421. Denhead 337
“Catal. Ant. Mus. Ed.,” p. 98.
422. Speen 337
423. Nettleham 339
_Arch. Journ._, vol. xviii. p. 160.
424. Guilsfield 339
425. Glancych 341
426. Fulbourn 341
427. Hereford 341
CHAPTER XV.
SHIELDS, BUCKLERS, AND HELMETS.
428. Little Wittenham 344
Messrs. James Parker & Co.
429. Harlech 345
430. Coveney 346
431. ” 347
432. Beith 347
433. ” 348
434. Beith 349
_Ayr and Wigton Coll._, vol. i. p. 66.
435. Yetholm 350
436. ” 350
437. ” 350
_Proc. Soc. Ant. Scot._, vol. v. p. 165.
CHAPTER XVI.
TRUMPETS AND BELLS.
438. Limerick 357
Wilde, “Catal. Mus. R. I. A.,” fig. 360.
439. Tralee 358
440. ” 359
441. ” 359
_Journ. R. H. and A. Assoc. of Ireland_,
4th S., vol. iii. p. 422.
442. Africa 359
443. Derrynane 360
Wilde, “Catal. Mus. R. I. A.,” fig. 529.
444. Portglenone 361
_Journ. R. H. and A. Assoc. of Ireland_,
4th S., vol. iii. p. 422.
445. The Caprington Horn 362
_Ayr and Wigton Coll._, vol. i. p. 74.
446. Dowris 364
Wilde, “Catal. Mus. R. I. A.,” fig. 523.
CHAPTER XVII.
PINS.
447. Heathery Burn Cave 365
_Proc. Soc. Ant._, 2nd S., vol. ii. p. 130.
448. Brigmilston 366
449. Everley 366
450. Bryn Crûg 367
_Arch. Journ._, vol. xxv. p. 246.
451. Taunton 367
452. Chilton Bustle 367
_Arch. Journ._, vol. ix. p. 106.
453. Ireland 368
Wilde, “Catal. Mus. R. I. A.,” fig. 452.
454. River Wandle 368
_Arch. Journ._, vol. ix. p. 8.
455. Scratchbury 369
456. Camerton 369
Both from _Archæologia_, vol. xliii. p. 468.
457. Ireland 370
458. ” 370
459. Cambridge 370
460. Ireland 370
Wilde, “Catal. Mus. R. I. A.,” fig. 447.
461. North of Ireland 370
462. Keelogue Ford 371
Wilde, “Catal. Mus. R. I. A.,” fig. 449.
463. Ireland 371
Wilde, “Catal. Mus. R. I. A.” fig. 448.
464. Edinburgh 372
_Proc. Soc. Ant. Scot._, New S., vol. i.
p. 322.
465. Ireland 372
Wilde, “Catal. Mus. R. I. A.,” fig. 450.
CHAPTER XVIII.
TORQUES, BRACELETS, RINGS, EAR-RINGS,
AND PERSONAL ORNAMENTS.
466. Wedmore 375
467. ” 376
468. West Buckland 377
_Arch. Journ._, vol. xxxvii. p. 107.
469. Wedmore 378
470. Yarnton 379
471. Montgomeryshire 380
_Proc. Soc. Ant._, 2nd S., vol. iv. p. 467.
472. Achtertyre 382
_Proc. Soc. Ant. Scot._, vol. ix. p. 435.
473. Redhill 382
_Proc. Soc. Ant. Scot._, vol. i. p. 138.
474. Scilly 383
475. Liss 383
476. Stoke Prior 384
_Arch. Journ._, vol. xx. p. 200.
477. Stobo Castle 384
_Proc. Soc. Ant. Scot._, vol. ii. p. 277.
478. Guernsey 385
_Arch. Assoc. Journ._, vol. iii. p. 344.
479. Cornwall 385
480. Normanton 385
_Archæologia_, vol. xliii. p. 469.
481. West Buckland 386
_Arch. Journ._, vol. xxxvii. p. 107.
482. Ham Cross 386
483. Heathery Burn Cave 386
_Proc. Soc. Ant._, 2nd S., vol. ii. p. 131.
484. County Cavan 387
485. Cowlam 387
486. ” 388
487. Ireland 389
Wilde, “Catal. Mus. R. I. A.,” fig. 480.
488. Woolmer Forest 390
_Proc. Soc. Ant._, vol. ii. p. 83.
489. Dumbarton 390
_Proc. Soc. Ant. Scot._, vol. iii. p. 24.
490. Cowlam 392
491. Goodmanham 392
Greenwell’s “British Barrows,” p. 324.
492. Orton 392
_Proc. Soc. Ant. Scot._, vol. viii. p. 30.
CHAPTER XIX.
CLASPS, BUTTONS, BUCKLES, AND
MISCELLANEOUS OBJECTS.
493. Reach Fen 397
494. ” ” 397
495. Broadward 397
_Arch. Camb._, 4th S., vol. iii. p. 354.
496. Trillick 398
_Journ. R. H. and A. Assoc. of Ireland_,
3rd S., vol. i. p. 164.
497. Ireland 399
Wilde, “Catal. Mus. R. I. A.,” fig. 494.
498. Cowlam 400
499. Reach Fen 400
500. Edinburgh 401
_Proc. Soc. Ant. Scot._, New S., vol. i.
p. 322.
501. Heathery Burn Cave 402
502. ” ” 402
Both from _Proc. Soc. Ant._, 2nd S.,
vol. iii. p. 236.
503. Harty 403
504. Dreuil, Amiens 404
505. Abergele 404
506. ” 404
507. ” 404
508. Dreuil, Amiens 405
CHAPTER XX.
VESSELS, CALDRONS, ETC.
509. Golden Cup, Rillaton 408
_Arch. Journ._, vol. xxiv. p. 189.
510. Kincardine Moss 410
Wilson, “Preh. Ann. of Scot.,” vol. i.
p. 409.
511. Ireland 411
Wilde, “Catal. Mus. R. I. A.,” fig. 407.
512. Ireland 412
Wilde, “Catal. Mus. R. I. A.,” fig. 409.
513. Capecastle Bog 413
CHAPTER XXI.
METAL, MOULDS, AND THE METHOD OF
MANUFACTURE.
514. Falmouth 426
_Arch. Journ._, vol. xvi. p. 39.
515. Ballymena 429
516. Ireland 431
517. ” 431
518. Ballymoney 433
519. Broughshane 433
520. Knighton 434
521. ” 434
522. Maghera, Co. Derry 435
523. Lough Gur 436
_Arch. Journ._, vol. xx. p. 170.
524. Campbelton 437
525. ” 437
526. ” 437
_Proc. Soc. Ant. Scot._, vol. vi. p. 48.
527. Hotham Carr 439
528. Wiltshire 440
529. ” 440
_Proc. Soc. Ant._, vol. iii. p. 158.
530. Harty 441
531. ” 442
532. ” 446
533. Heathery Burn Cave 448
_Proc. Soc. Ant._, 2nd S., vol. ii.
p. 132.
534. Stogursey 450
535. ” 450
536. ” 450
537. Heathery Burn Cave 451
_Proc. Soc. Ant._, 2nd S., vol. ii. p. 132.
538. Kirby Moorside 452
539. Hove 452
_Sussex Arch. Coll._, vol. ix. p. 120.
540. Harty 453
ERRATA.
Page 117, under fig. 123, _for_ “Crishall” _read_ “Chrishall.”
” 143, line 15, _for_ “Spain” _read_ “Portugal.”
” 207, ” 34, _for_ “St. Genoulph” _read_ “St. Genouph.”
” 215, ” 16, _for_ “St. Julien Chateuil” _read_ “St. Jullien,
Chapleuil.”
” 314, ” 3 from bottom, _for_ “Staffordshire” _read_
“Shropshire.”
” 322, ” 4, _for_ “Suffolk” _read_ “Sussex.”
” 336, ” 20, _for_ “Staffordshire” _read_ “Shropshire.”
” 452, ” 4 from bottom, _for_ “Staffordshire” _read_
“Shropshire.”
CHAPTER I.
INTRODUCTORY.
HAVING already in a former work attempted the arrangement and
description of the Ancient Stone Implements and Ornaments of Great
Britain, I am induced to undertake a similar task in connection with
those Bronze Antiquities which belong to the period when Stone was
gradually falling into disuse for cutting purposes, and Iron was either
practically unknown in this country, or had been but partially adopted
for tools and weapons.
The duration and chronological position of this bronze-using period
will have to be discussed hereafter, but I must at the outset reiterate
what I said some eight or ten years ago, that in this county, at all
events, it is impossible to fix any hard and fast limits for the close
of the Stone Period, or for the beginning or end of the Bronze Period,
or for the commencement of that of Iron. Though the succession of
these three stages of civilisation may here be regarded as certain,
the transition from one to the other in a country of such an extent
as Britain—occupied, moreover, as it probably was, by several tribes
of different descent, manners, and customs—must have required a long
course of years to become general; and even in any particular district
the change cannot have been sudden.
There must of necessity have been a time when in each district the new
phase of civilisation was being introduced, and the old conditions had
not been entirely changed. So that, as I have elsewhere pointed out,
the three stages of progress represented by the Stone, Bronze, and Iron
Periods, like the three principal colours of the rainbow, overlap,
intermingle, and shade off the one into the other, though their
succession, so far as Britain and Western Europe are concerned, appears
to be equally well defined with that of the prismatic colours.
In thus speaking of a bronze-using period I by no means wish to
exclude the possible use of copper unalloyed with tin. There is indeed
every ground for believing that in some parts of the world the use
of native copper must have continued for a lengthened period before
it was discovered that the addition of a small proportion of tin not
only rendered it more readily fusible, but added to its elasticity and
hardness, and thus made it more serviceable for tools and weapons. Even
after the advantages of the alloy over the purer metal were known, the
local scarcity of tin may at times have caused so small a quantity of
that metal to be employed, that the resulting mixture can hardly be
regarded as bronze; or at times this dearth may have necessitated the
use of copper alone, either native or as smelted from the ore.
Of this Copper Age, however, there are in Europe but extremely feeble
traces, if indeed any can be said to exist. It appears not unlikely
that the views which are held by many archæologists as to the Asiatic
origin of bronze may prove to be well founded, and that when the use of
copper was introduced into Europe, the discovery had already long been
made that it was more serviceable when alloyed with tin than when pure.
In connection with this it may be observed that the most important
discovery of instruments of copper as yet recorded in the Old World is
that which was made at Gungeria in Central India.[1] They consisted of
flat celts of what has been regarded as the most primitive type; but
with them were found some ornaments of silver, a circumstance which
seems to militate against their extreme antiquity, as the production
of silver involves a considerable amount of metallurgical skill, and
probably an acquaintance with lead and other metals. However this may
be, there are reasons for supposing that if a Copper Age existed in the
Old World its home was in Asia or the most eastern part of Europe, and
not in any western country.
The most instructive instance of a Copper Age, as distinct from one
of Bronze, is that afforded by certain districts of North America, in
which we find good evidence of a period when, in addition to stone as
a material from which tools and weapons were made, copper also was
employed, and used in its pure native condition without the addition of
any alloy.
The State of Wisconsin[2] alone has furnished upwards of a hundred
axes, spear-heads, and knives formed of copper; and, to judge from
some extracts from the writings of the early travellers given by the
Rev. E. F. Slafter,[3] that part of America would seem to have entered
on its Copper Age long before it was first brought into contact with
European civilisation, towards the middle of the sixteenth century. It
has been thought by several American antiquaries that some at least of
these tools and weapons were produced by the process of casting, though
the preponderance of opinion seems to be in favour of all of them being
shaped by the hammer and not cast. Among others I may mention my friend
the Hon. Colonel C. C. Jones, who has examined this question for me,
and has been unable to discover any instance of one of these copper
tools or weapons having been indisputably cast.
That they were originally wrought, and not cast, is _à priori_ in the
highest degree probable. On some parts of the shores of Lake Superior
native copper occurs in great abundance, and would no doubt attract
the attention of the early occupants of the country. Accustomed to the
use of stone, they would at first regard the metal as merely a stone
of peculiarly heavy nature, and on attempting to chip it or work it
into shape would at once discover that it yielded to a blow instead of
breaking, and that in fact it was a malleable stone. Of this ductile
property the North American savage availed himself largely, and was
able to produce spear-heads with sockets adapted for the reception of
their shafts by merely hammering out the base of the spear-head and
turning it over to form the socket, in the same manner as is so often
employed in the making of iron tools. But though the great majority
of the instruments hitherto found, if not all, have been hammered and
not cast, it would appear that the process of melting copper was not
entirely unknown. Squier and Davis have observed,[4] “that the metal
appears to have been worked in all cases in a cold state. This is
somewhat remarkable, as the fires upon the altars were sufficiently
strong in some instances to melt down the copper implements and
ornaments deposited upon them, and the fact that the metal is fusible
could hardly have escaped notice.” That it did not altogether escape
observation is shown by the evidence of De Champlain,[5] the founder of
the city of Quebec. In 1610 he was joining a party of Algonquins, one
of whom met him on his barque, and after conversation “tira d’un sac
une pièce de cuivre de la longueur d’un pied qu’il me donna, le quel
estoit fort beau et bien franc, me donnant à entendre qu’il en avoit en
quantité là ou il l’avoit pris, qui estoit sur le bort d’une rivière
proche d’un grand lac et qu’ils le prenoient par morceaux, et le
faisant fondre le mettoient en lames, et avec des pierres le rendoient
uny.”
We have here, then, evidence of a Copper Age,[6] in comparatively
modern times, during most of which period the process of fusing the
metal was unknown. In course of time, however, this art was discovered,
and had not European influences been brought to bear upon the country
this discovery might, as in other parts of the world, have led to
the knowledge of other fusible metals, and eventually to the art of
manufacturing bronze—an alloy already known in Mexico and Peru.[7]
So far as regards the Old World there are some who have supposed that,
owing to iron being a simple and not a compound metal like bronze, and
owing to the readiness with which it may be produced in the metallic
condition from some of its ores, iron must have been in use before
copper. Without denying the abstract possibility of this having been
the case in some part of our globe, I think it will be found that
among the nations occupying the shores of the eastern half of the
Mediterranean—a part of the world which may be regarded as the cradle
of European civilisation—not only are all archæological discoveries
in favour of the succession of iron to bronze, but even historical
evidence supports their testimony.
In the Introductory Chapter of my book on Ancient Stone Implements I
have already touched upon this question, on which, however, it will
here be desirable farther to enlarge.
The light thrown upon the subכject by the Hebrew Scriptures is but
small. There is, however, in them frequent mention of most of the
metals now in ordinary use. But the word כְהֹשֶה, which in our version
is translated brass—a compound of copper and zinc—would be more
properly translated copper, as indeed it is in one instance, though
there it would seem erroneously, when two vessels of fine copper,
precious as gold, are mentioned.[8] In some passages, however, it
would appear as if the word would be more correctly rendered bronze
than copper, as, for instance, where Moses[9] is commanded to cast
five sockets of brass for the pillars to carry the hangings at the
door of the tabernacle, which could hardly have been done from a metal
so difficult to cast as unalloyed copper. Indeed if tin were known,
and there appears little doubt that the word בְדִיל represents that
metal, its use as an alloy for copper can hardly have been unknown.
It may, then, be regarded as an accepted fact that at the time when
the earliest books of the Hebrew Scriptures were reduced to writing,
gold,[10] silver, iron, tin, lead, and brass, or more probably bronze,
were known. To what date this reduction to writing is to be assigned is
a question into which it would be somewhat out of place here to enter.
The results, however, of modern criticism tend to prove that it can
hardly be so remote as the fourteenth century before our era.
In the Book of Job, as to the date of which also there is some
diversity of opinion, we find evidence of a considerable acquaintance
with the metals: “Surely there is a vein for the silver, and a place
for gold where they fine it. Iron is taken out of the earth, and brass
is molten out of the stone.”[11] Lead is also mentioned, but not tin.
Before quitting this part of the subject I ought perhaps to allude to
the passage respecting Tubal-Cain,[12] the seventh in descent from
Adam, who is mentioned as “an instructer of every artificer in brass
and iron,” or a furbisher[13] of every cutting instrument in those
metals. This must, however, be regarded as a tradition incorporated
in the narrative at the time it was written, and probably with some
accessory colouring in connection with the name which Gesenius has
suggested may mean _scoriarum faber_, a maker of dross, and which
others have connected with that of Vulcan. Sir Gardner Wilkinson[14]
has remarked on this subject that whatever may have been the case
in earlier times, “no direct mention is made of iron arms or tools
till after the Exodus,” and that “some are even inclined to doubt the
_barzel_ (בִַֹרֲזֶל), of the Hebrews being really that metal,” iron.
Movers[15] has observed that in the whole Pentateuch iron is mentioned
only thirteen times, while bronze appears no less than forty-four,
which he considers to be in favour of the later introduction of iron;
as also the fact that bronze, and not iron, was associated with gold
and silver in the fittings for the Tabernacle.
For other passages in Scripture relative to the employment of brass
or bronze, and iron, among the Jews, the reader may consult an
excellent article by the Rev. John Hodgson in the first volume of the
_Archæologia Æliana_ (1816), “An Inquiry into the Era when Brass was
used in purposes to which Iron is now applied.” From this paper I have
largely borrowed in subsequent pages.
As to the succession of the two metals, bronze and iron, among the
ancient Egyptians, there is a considerable diversity of opinion among
those who have studied the subject. Sir Gardner Wilkinson,[16] judging
mainly from pictorial representations, thinks that the Egyptians of an
early Pharaonic age were acquainted with the use of iron, and accounts
for the extreme rarity of actual examples by the rapid decomposition
of the metal in the nitrous soil of Egypt. M. Chabas,[17] the author
of a valuable and interesting work upon primitive history, mainly as
exhibited by Egyptian monuments, believes that the people of Egypt
were acquainted with the use of iron from the dawn of their historic
period, and upwards of 3000 years B.C. made use of it for all the
purposes to which we now apply it, and even prescribed its oxide as a
medicinal preparation. M. Mariette,[18] on the contrary, whose personal
explorations entitle his opinion to great weight, is of opinion that
the early Egyptians never really made use of iron, and seems to think
that from some mythological cause that metal was regarded as the bones
of Typhon, and was the object of a certain repugnance. M. Chabas
himself is, indeed, of opinion that iron was used with extreme reserve,
and, so to speak, only in exceptional cases. This he considers to
have been partly due to religious motives, and partly to the greater
abundance of bronze, which the Egyptians well knew how to mix so as
to give it a fine temper. From whatever cause, the discovery of iron
or steel instruments among Egyptian antiquities is of extremely rare
occurrence; and there are hardly any to which a date can be assigned
with any approach to certainty. The most ancient appears to be a curved
scimitar-like blade discovered by Belzoni beneath one of the Sphinxes
of Karnak, and now in the British Museum.[19] Its date is stated to be
about 600 B.C.[20] A wedge of iron appears, however, to have been found
in a joint between the stones of the Great Pyramid.[21]
Without in any way disputing the occasional use of iron among the
ancient Egyptians, nor the interpretation of the colours red and blue
on the tomb of Rameses III. as being intended to represent blades of
bronze and iron or steel respectively, I may venture to suggest that
the round blue bar,[22] against which butchers are represented as
sharpening their knives in some of the pictures in the sepulchres of
Thebes, may have been too hastily regarded as a _steel_ instead of as a
whetstone of a blue colour. The existence of a _steel_ for the purpose
of sharpening seems to imply not only the knowledge of the preparation
of the metal and its subsequent hardening, but also of files or of
other tools to produce the peculiar striated surface to which the
sharpening property of a _steel_ is due. Had such tools been known, it
seems almost impossible that no trace of them should have come down to
our times. Moreover, if used for sharpening bronze knives, a steel such
as at present used would sooner become clogged and unfit for use than
if employed for sharpening steel knives.
Lepsius[23] has observed that the pictures of the old Empire do not
afford an example of arms painted in blue, the metal of weapons being
always painted in red or bright brown. Iron was but little used under
the old Empire; copper was employed in its stead where the hardness of
iron was not indispensable.
However this may be, it seems admitted on all hands that the use of
iron in Egypt in early times was much restricted, probably from some
religious motive. May not this have arisen from the first iron there
known having been, as it appears to have been in some other countries,
of meteoric origin? The Coptic name for iron, =ⲂⲈⲚⲒⲠⲈ= which has been
interpreted by Professor Lauth[24] as “the Stone of Heaven,” strongly
favours such a view. The resemblance of this term to =ⲂⲀⲀ-Ⲛ-ⲠⲈ=, the
_baa_ of heaven, or celestial iron, has also been pointed out by M.
Chabas,[25] who, however, is inclined to consider that steel was so
called on account of its reflecting the colour of the sky. If the iron
in use among the early Egyptians were meteoric, and its celestial
origin acknowledged, both its rarity and its restricted use would be
accounted for. The term “bone of Typhon,” as applied to iron, is given
by Plutarch on the authority of Manetho, who wrote in the days of the
first Ptolemy. It appears to be used only in contrast to the name “bone
of Horus,” which, according to the same author, was applied to the
loadstone, and it seems difficult to admit any great antiquity for the
appellation, or to connect it with a period when iron was at all rare,
or its use restricted.
Although the use of iron in Egypt was at an early period comparatively
unknown, that of bronze was most extensive. The weapons of war,[26]
the tools for various trades, including those of the engraver and
sculptor, were all made of that metal, which in its crude form served
also as a kind of circulating medium. It appears to have been mainly
imported from Asia, some of the principal sources of copper being
in the peninsula of Sinai. One of the chief mines was situated at
Sarbout-el-Khadem, where both turquoises and copper ore were extracted,
and the latter smelted at Wady-Nash. The copper mines of Wady-Magarah
are thought to have been worked as early as the second dynasty, upwards
of 3000 years B.C.; and in connection with ancient Egyptian mining, it
is worthwhile again to cite Agatharchides,[27] whose testimony I have
already adduced in my “Ancient Stone Implements,” and who relates that
in his time, _circa_ B.C. 100, there were found buried in some ancient
gold-mines in Upper Egypt the bronze chisels or wedges (λατομίδες
χαλκᾶι) of the old miners, and who accounts for their being of that
metal by the fact that when those mines were wrought, men were in no
way acquainted with the use of iron.
In the seventh century B.C., however, iron must have been in general
use in Egypt, for on the landing of the Carians and Ionians,[28]
who were armed with bronze, an Egyptian, who had never before seen
men armed with that metal, ran to Psammetichus to inform him that
brazen men had risen from the sea and were wasting the country. As
Psammetichus himself is described as wearing a brazen helmet, the arms
mentioned would seem to have been offensive rather than defensive.
The source whence the tin, which formed a constituent part of the
bronze, was derived, is much more uncertain. Indeed, to judge from M.
Chabas’ silence, its name and hieroglyphic are unknown, though from
some of the uses to which the metal designated by was applied, it seems
possible that it may have been tin.
On the whole, to judge from documentary evidence alone, the question
as to the successive use of the different metals in Egypt seems to be
excessively obscure, some of them being almost impossible to identify
by name or representative sign. If, however, we turn to the actual
relics of the past, we find bronze tools and weapons in abundance,
while those of iron are extremely scarce, and are either of late
date or at best of uncertain age. So strong, indeed, is the material
evidence, that the late Mr. Crawfurd,[29] while disputing any general
and universal sequence of iron to bronze, confesses that Ancient Egypt
seems to offer a case in which a Bronze Age clearly preceded an Iron
one, or at least in which cutting instruments of bronze preceded those
of iron.
Among the Assyrians iron seems to have been in considerable use at an
early date, and to have been exported from that country to Egypt, but
knives and long chisels or hatchets of bronze were among the objects
found at Tel Sifr, in Southern Babylonia. The earliest bronze image to
which a date can be assigned appears to be that on which M. Oppert has
read the name of Koudourmapouk, King of the Soumirs and Accads,[30]
who, according to M. Lenormant, lived about 2100 B.C. Dr. S. Birch
reads the name as Kudurmabug (about 2200 B.C.). Others in the British
Museum are referred to Gudea, who reigned about 1700 B.C.
The mythology and literature of ancient Greece and Rome are so
intimately connected, that in discussing the evidence afforded
by classical writers it will be needless to separate them, but
the testimony of both Greek and Latin authors may be taken
indiscriminately, though, of course, the former afford the more
ancient evidence. I have already cited much of this evidence in
the Introductory Chapter of my book on Ancient Stone Implements,
mainly with the view of showing the succession of bronze to stone;
on the present occasion I have to re-adduce it, together with what
corroborative testimony I am able to procure, in order to show that,
along the northern shores of the Mediterranean, philology and history
agree as to the priority of the use of bronze for cutting instruments
to that of iron.
The Greek language itself bears witness to this fact, for the words
significant of working in iron are not derived from the name of
that metal, but from that of bronze, and the old forms of χαλκεύς
and χαλκεύειν remained in use in connection with the smith and his
work long after the blacksmith had to a great extent superseded the
bronze-founder and the copper-smith in the fabrication of arms and
cutlery.[31] An analogous transition in the meaning of words has been
pointed out by Professor Max Müller. “The Mexicans called their own
copper or bronze _tepuztli_, which is said to have meant originally
_hatchet_. The same word is now used for iron, with which the Mexicans
first became acquainted through their intercourse with the Spaniards.
_Tepuztli_ then became a general name for metal, and when copper had
to be distinguished from iron, the former was called red, the latter
black _tepuztli_.”[32] I am not certain whether Professor Max Müller
still retains the views which he expressed in 1864. He then pointed
out[33] that “what makes it likely that iron was not known previous to
the separation of the Aryan nations is the fact that its names vary
in every one of their languages.” But there is a “name for copper,
which is shared in common by Latin and the Teutonic languages, _æs_,
_æris_, Gothic _ais_, Old High German _êr_, Modern German _Er-z_,
Anglo-Saxon _âr_, English _ore_. Like _chalkós_, which originally meant
copper, but came to mean metal in general, bronze or brass, the Latin
_æs_, too, changed from the former to the latter meaning; and we can
watch the same transition in the corresponding words of the Teutonic
languages.... It is all the more curious, therefore, that the Sanskrit
_ayas_, which is the same word as _aes_ and _aiz_, should in Sanskrit
have assumed the almost exclusive meaning of iron. I suspect, however,
that in Sanskrit, too, _ayas_ meant originally the metal, _i.e._
copper, and that as iron took the place of copper, the meaning of
_ayas_ was changed and specified.... In German, too, the name for iron
was derived from the older name of copper. The Gothic _eisarn_, iron,
is considered by Grimm as a derivative form of _aiz_, and the same
scholar concludes from this that ‘in Germany bronze must have been in
use before iron.’”
But to return to Greece. It is, of course, somewhat doubtful how far
the word χαλκὸς, as used by the earliest Greek authors, was intended
to apply to unalloyed copper, or to that mixture of copper and tin
which we now know as bronze. Mr. Gladstone,[34] who on all questions
relating to Homer ought to be one of the best living authorities,
regards the word as meaning copper: firstly, because it is always
spoken of by Homer as a pure metal along with other pure metals;
secondly, on account of the epithets ἐρυθρὸς, ἤνοψ, and νώροψ, which
mean red, bright, and gleaming, being applied to it, and which Mr.
Gladstone considers to be inapplicable to bronze; and thirdly, because
Homer does not appear to have known anything at all of the fusion or
alloying of metals. The second reason he considers further strengthened
by the probability that Homer would not represent the walls of the
palace of Alcinous as plated with bronze, nor introduce a heaven of
bronze among the imposing imagery of battle (Il., xvii. 424). On the
whole he concludes that χαλκὸς was copper hardened by some method, as
some think by the agency of water, or else and more probably according
to a very simple process, by cooling slowly in the air.[35]
I regret to say that these conclusions appear to me to be founded to
some extent on false premises and on more than one misconception. The
process of heating copper and then dipping it in water or allowing it
slowly to cool, so far from being adapted for hardening that metal,
is that which is usually adopted for annealing or softening it. While
the plunging into cold water of steel at a red heat has the effect
of rendering that metal intensely hard, on copper the reverse is the
result; and, as Dr. Percy has observed,[36] it is immaterial whether
the cooling after annealing—or restoring its malleability by means of
heat—takes place slowly or rapidly. Indeed, one alloy of copper and
tin is rendered most malleable by rapid cooling.
It has been stated[37] that bronze of the ancient composition may by
cooling it slowly be rendered as hard as steel, and at the same time
less brittle, but this statement seems to require confirmation.
According to some[38] the impossibility of hardening bronze like steel
by dipping it into water had passed into a proverb so early as the
days of Æschylus, but “χαλκοῦ βαφάς” has by others been regarded
as referring to the impossibility of dyeing metal.[39] Some of the
commentators on Hesiod and Homer speak, however, distinctly as to
a process of hardening bronze by a dipping or βαφὴ, and Virgil[40]
represents the Cyclopes as dipping the hissing bronze in water—
“Alii stridentia tingunt
Æra lacu”—
but the idea of bronze being hardened or tempered by this process
appears to me to have been based on a false analogy between this metal
and steel, or even iron. The French chemist, Geoffroy, thought he had
succeeded in imitating the temper of an ancient bronze sword, but no
details are given as to whether he added more than the usual proportion
of tin to his copper, or whether he hardened the edge with a hammer.
With regard to the other reasons adduced by Mr. Gladstone, it is no
doubt true that χαλκὸς is occasionally spoken of by Homer as a pure
metal, mainly, however, it may be argued, in consequence of the same
name being applied to both copper and bronze, if not, indeed, like
the Latin “æs,” to copper, bronze, and brass. We find, moreover, that
tin, for thus we must translate κασσίτερος, is mentioned by Homer; and
as this metal appears in ancient times to have been mainly, though
not exclusively, employed for the purpose of alloying copper, we must
from this fact infer that the use of bronze was not unknown. In the
celebrated description of the fashioning of the shield of Achilles
by Vulcan—which may for the moment be assumed to be of the same age
as the rest of the Iliad—we find the copper and tin mentioned in
juxtaposition with each other; and if it had been intended to represent
Hephaistos as engaged in mixing and melting bronze, the description
could not have been more complete.[41]
Χαλκὸς δ̓ έν πυρὶ βάλλεν ἀτειρέα, κασσίτερόν τε.
Even the term indomitable may refer to the difficulty of melting copper
in its unalloyed condition.
But tin was also used in the pure condition. In the breast-plate of
Agamemnon[42] there were ten bands of black κύανος, twelve of gold,
and twenty of tin. In his shield[43] were twenty bosses of tin. The
cows[44] on the shield of Achilles were made of both gold and tin,
and his greaves[45] of soft tin, and the border of the breast-plate of
Asteropæus[46] was formed of glittering tin.
This collocation of various metals, or inlaying them by way of
ornament, calls to mind some of the pottery and bronze pins of the
Swiss Lake dwellings, which are decorated with inlaid tin, and the
remarkable bronze bracelet found at Mœrigen,[47] which is inlaid with
iron and a yellow brass by way of ornament.
With regard to the epithets red, bright, and gleaming, they are
perfectly applicable to bronze in its polished condition, though they
ill assort with the popular idea of bronze, which usually assigns
to that metal the brown or greenish hues it acquires by oxidation
and exposure to atmospheric influences. As a matter of fact, the red
colour[48] of copper, though certainly rendered more yellow, is not
greatly impaired by an admixture of tin within the proportions now used
by engineers, viz. up to about two and a half ounces to the pound,
or about 15 per cent. As to the bright and shining properties of the
metal, Virgil, when no doubt speaking of bronze swords and shields,
makes special mention of their glitter—[49]
“Æratæque micant peltæ, micat æreus ensis.”
Indeed, the mere fact of the swords of Homer being made of χαλκὸς is in
favour of that metal being bronze, as pure copper would be singularly
inapplicable to such a purpose, and certainly no copper sword would
break into three or four pieces at a blow instead of being merely
bent.[50]
The bending of the points of the spear-heads against the shields of
the adversaries is, however, in favour of these weapons having been of
copper rather than of bronze.[51]
As to Homer having been unacquainted with the fusion or alloying of
metals, it may fairly be urged that without such knowledge it would
have been impossible to work so freely as he has described, in gold,
silver, and tin; and that the only reason for which Vulcan could have
thrown the latter metal into the fire must have been in order to melt
it.
Whether steel was designated by the term κύανος is a matter of
considerable doubt, and certainly in later times that word was applied
to a substance occasionally used as a blue pigment, not improbably
a dark blue carbonate of copper. Assuming the word to mean a metal,
the difficulty in regarding it as significant of steel appears in a
great measure due to the colour implied by the adjective form κύανεος,
being a dark blue.[52] If, however, it were the custom even in those
days to colour steel blue by exposing it, after it had been polished,
to a certain degree of heat—as is usually done with watch and clock
springs at the present day—the deep blue colour of the sky or sea
might well receive such an epithet. That steel of some kind was known
in Homeric days is abundantly evident from the process of hardening an
axe by dipping it in cold water while heated, which is so graphically
described in the Odyssey.
If κύανος be really steel, we can also understand the epithet black[53]
being occasionally applied to it, even though the adjective derived
from it had the signification of blue.
According to the Arundelian Marbles, iron was discovered B.C. 1432,[54]
or 248 years before the taking of Troy, but though we have occasional
mention of this metal and of steel in the Homeric poems, yet weapons
and tools of bronze are far more commonly mentioned and described.
Trees, for instance, are cut down and wood carved with tools of bronze;
and the battle-axe of Menelaus[55] is of excellent bronze with an
olive-wood handle, long and well polished.
Before noticing further the early use of iron in Greece, it will be
well to see what other authors than Homer say as to the origin and
ancient use of bronze in that country.
The name of the principal metal of which it is composed, copper, bears
witness to one of the chief sources of its supply having been the
island of Cyprus. It would appear that Tamassus in this island was
in ancient times a noted mart for this metal, as it is according to
Nitzsch and other critics the Temese[56] mentioned in Homer as being
resorted to in order to exchange iron for χαλκὸς, which in this as well
as some other passages seems to stand for copper and not bronze.
The advantage arising from mixing a proportion of tin with the copper,
and thus rendering it at the same time more fusible and harder, must
have been known before the dawn of Grecian history.
The accounts given by early Greek writers as to the first discoverer
of the art of making bronze by an admixture of copper and tin vary
considerably, and thus prove that even in the days when these notices
were written the art was of ancient date.
Theophrastus makes Delas, a Phrygian, whom Aristotle[57] regards as a
Lydian, to have been the inventor of bronze. Pausanias[58] ascribes the
honour of first casting statues in bronze to Rhœcus and Theodorus the
Samians, who appear to have lived about 640 B.C. They are also said
to have improved the accuracy of casting, but no doubt the process
on a smaller scale was practised long before their time. Rhœcus and
his colleague are also reported to have discovered the art of casting
iron,[59] but no really ancient objects of cast iron have as yet been
discovered.
The invention of the metals gold, silver, and copper is also ascribed
to the Idæan Dactyli,[60] or the Telchines, who made the sickle of
Chronos[61] and the trident of Poseidon.[62]
Though, as has already been observed, iron and even steel were not
unknown in the days of Homer, both seem to have been of considerable
rarity, and it is by no means improbable that, as appears to have
been the case with the Egyptians, the first iron used by the Greeks
was of meteoric origin. I have elsewhere[63] called attention to the
possible connection of the Greek name for iron (σίδηρος) with ἀστήρ,
often applied to a shooting-star or meteor, and with the Latin Sidera
and the English Star, though it is unsafe to insist too much on mere
verbal similarity. In an interesting article on the use of meteoric
iron by Dr. L. Beck,[64] of Biebrich on the Rhine, the suggestion
is made that the final ηρος of σίδηρος is a form of the Aryan _ais_
(conf. _æs_, _æris_). Dr. Beck, however, inclines to the opinion that
the recognition of certain meteorites as iron was first made at a time
subsequent to the discovery of the means of smelting iron from its ore.
The self-fused mass or disc of iron,[65] σόλον αὐτοχόωνον, which formed
one of the prizes at the funeral games of Patroclus, may possibly have
been meteoric, but this is very doubtful, as the forging of iron, and
the trouble and care it involved, were well known in those days, as is
evident from the epithet πολύκμητος so often bestowed upon that metal.
For a considerable time after the Homeric period bronze remained in
use for offensive weapons, especially for those intended for piercing
rather than cutting, such as spears, lances, and arrows, as well as for
those which were merely defensive, such as shields, cuirasses, helmets,
and greaves. Even swords were also sometimes of bronze, or at all
events the tradition of their use was preserved by the poets. Thus we
find Euripides[66] speaking of the bronze-speared Trojans, χαλκεγχέων
Τρώων, and Virgil[67] describing the glitter of the bronze swords of
some of the host of Turnus.
Probably, however, the use of the word χαλκὸς was not restricted to
copper or bronze, but also came in time to mean metal in general, and
thus extended to iron, a worker in which metal was, as we have already
seen, termed a χαλκεύς.
The succession of iron to bronze is fully recognised by both Greek
and Latin authors. The passage in Hesiod,[68] where he speaks of the
third generation of men who had arms of bronze and houses of bronze,
who ploughed with bronze, for the black iron did not exist, is already
hackneyed; nor is the record of Lucretius[69] less well known:—
“Arma antiqua, manus, ungues, dentesque fuerunt,
Et lapides, et item sylvarum fragmina rami, ...
Posterius ferri vis est, ærisque reperta,
Sed prior æris erat quam ferri cognitus usus; ...
Inde minutatim processit ferreus ensis,
Versaque in opprobrium species est falcis ahenæ,
Et ferro cœpere solum proscindere terræ.”
The difference between the age of Homer and Hesiod in respect to the
use of metals is well described by Mr. Gladstone. The former[70] “lived
at a time when the use of iron (in Greece) was just commencing, when
the commodity was rare, and when its value was very great;” but in
the days of Hesiod “iron, as compared with copper, had come to be the
inferior, that is to say the cheaper metal,” and the poet “looks back
from his iron age with an admiring envy on the heroic period.”
Hesiod gives to Hercules[71] a helmet of steel and a sword of iron, and
to Saturn[72] a steel reaping-hook. His remark that at the feast of
the gods the withered[73] part of a five-fingered branch should never
be cut from the green part by black iron, shows that this metal was in
common use, and that for religious ceremonies the older metal bronze
retained its place.
Bronze was, however, a favourite metal with the poet, if not indeed in
actual use long after iron was known,[74] for Pindar, about B.C. 470,
still frequently cites spears and axes made of bronze.
By the time of Herodotus, who wrote before 400 B.C., the use of iron
and steel was universal among the Greeks. He instances, as a fact worth
recording, that the Massagetæ,[75] a powerful tribe which occupied the
steppes on the east of the Caspian, made no use of iron or silver, but
had an abundance of χαλκὸς and gold, pointing their spears and arrows
and forming the heads of their battle-axes with the former metal. Among
the Æthiopians,[76] on the contrary, he states that bronze was rarer
and more precious than gold; nor was it in use among the Scythians.[77]
The Sagartii[78] in the army of Xerxes are mentioned as not carrying
arms either of bronze or iron except daggers, as if bronze were still
of not unfrequent use.
Strabo,[79] at a much later date, thinks it worth while to record that
among the Lusitanians the spears were tipped with bronze.
But certainly some centuries before the time of Herodotus, and probably
as early as that of Homer, the Chalybes on the shores of the Euxine
practised the manufacture of iron on a considerable scale, and from
them came the Greek name for steel, χαλυψ.[80] Daïmachus, in the fourth
century B.C., records that different sorts of steel are produced among
the Chalybes in Sinope, Lydia, and Laconia. That of Sinope was used for
smiths’ and carpenters’ tools; that of Laconia for files, drills for
iron, stamps, and masons’ tools; and the Lydian kind for files, swords,
razors, and knives. In Laconia iron is said to have formed the only
currency in the days of Lycurgus.
Taking all the evidence into consideration, there can be no doubt that
iron must have been known in Greece some ten or twelve centuries before
our era, though, as already observed, it was at that time an extremely
rare metal. It also appears that as early as B.C. 500, or even 600,
iron or steel was in common use, though bronze had not been altogether
superseded for offensive arms such as spear-heads and battle-axes.
The tradition of the earlier use of bronze still, however, remained
even in later times, and the preference shown for its employment in
religious rites, which I have mentioned elsewhere,[81] is a strong
witness of this earlier use. It seems needless again to do more than
mention the bronze ploughshare used at the foundation of Tuscan
cities, the bronze knives and shears of the Sabine and Roman priests,
and the bronze sickles of Medea and Elissa. I must, however, again
bring forward the speculations of an intelligent Greek traveller, who
wrote in the latter half of the second century of our era, as to the
existence of what we should now term a Bronze Age in Greece.
Pausanias[82] relates how Lichas the Lacedæmonian, in the fifth century
B.C., discovered the bones of Orestes, which his countrymen had been
commanded by an oracle to seek. The Pythia[83] had described the place
as one where two strong winds met, where form was opposed to form, and
one evil lay upon another. These Lichas recognised in the two bellows
of the smith, the hammer opposed to the anvil, and the iron lying on
it. Pausanias on this observes that at that time they had already begun
to use iron in war, and that if it had been in the days of the heroes
it would have been bronze and not iron designated by the oracle as the
evil, for in their days all arms were of bronze. For this he cites
Homer as his authority, who speaks of the bronze axe of Pisander, and
the arrow of Meriones. A farther argument he derives from the spear of
Achilles, laid up in the temple of Minerva at Phaselis, and the sword
of Memnon in that of Æsculapius at Nicomedia, which is entirely of
bronze, while the ferrule and point of his spear are also of that metal.
The spear-head which lay with the bones of Theseus[84] in the Isle
of Scyros was also of bronze, and probably the sword likewise. There
are no works of Latin authors of a date nearly so remote as that of
the earlier Greek writers, and long before the days of Ennius, iron
was in general use in Italy. If the Articles of Peace which “Porsena,
King of the Tuscans, tendered unto the people of Rome” were as
Pliny[85] represents them, the Romans must even in those early days
have had iron weapons, for they were forbidden the use of that metal
except for tilling the ground. In B.C. 224 the Isumbrian Gauls who
fought with Flaminius were already in possession of iron swords, the
softness and flexibility of which led to the discomfiture of their
owners. The Romans themselves seem but to have been badly armed so
far as swords were concerned until the time of the Second Punic War,
about B.C. 200, when they adopted the Spanish sword, and learnt the
method of preparing it. Whether the modern Toledo and Bilbao blades
are legitimate descendants of these old weapons we need not stop to
inquire. In whatever manner the metal was prepared, so thoroughly was
iron identified with the sword in classical times that _ferrum_ and
_gladius_ were almost synonyms.
Pliny mentions that the best steel used in Rome was imported from
China, a country in which copper or bronze swords are said to have been
in use in the days of Ki,[86] the son of Yu, B.C. 2197-48, and those of
iron under Kung-Kia, B.C. 1897-48, so that there also history points to
a Bronze Age. But this by the way.
Looking at the fact that iron and steel were in such general use at
Rome during the period of her wars in Western Europe, we may well
believe that had any of the tribes with which the Roman forces came
in contact been armed with bronze, such an unusual circumstance could
hardly have escaped record. In the Augustan age the iron swords of
Noricum were in great repute, and farther north in Germany, though
iron did not abound, it was, according to Tacitus, used for spears and
swords. The Catti had the metal in abundance, but among the Aestii,
on the right coast of the Baltic, it was scarce. The Cimbrians in the
first century B.C. had, according to Plutarch,[87] iron breast-plates,
javelins, and large swords.
The Gauls of the North of France had in the time of Julius Cæsar[88]
large iron mines which they worked by tunnelling; the bolts of their
ships were made of that metal, and they had even chain cables of
iron. The Britons of the South of England who were in such close
communication with the opposite coast of Gaul must have had an equal
acquaintance with iron. Cæsar mentions ingots or rings of iron as being
used for money, and observes that iron is obtained on the sea-coast,
but in small quantities, and adds that bronze was imported.[89] Strabo
includes iron, as well as gold, silver, and corn, among the products of
Britain. In Spain, as already mentioned, iron had long been known, so
that from the concurrent testimony of several historians we may safely
infer that in the time of Julius Cæsar, when this country was first
exposed to Roman influences, it had already, like the neighbouring
countries to the south, passed from the Bronze into the Iron Age.
Notwithstanding all this historical testimony in favour of the prior
use of bronze to that of iron, there have been not a few authors who
have maintained that the idea of a succession of stone, bronze, and
iron is delusive when applied to Western Europe. Among these was the
late Mr. Thomas Wright, who has gone so far as to express[90] “a firm
conviction that not a bit of bronze which has been found in the British
Islands belongs to an older date than that at which Cæsar wrote that
the Britons obtained their bronze from abroad, meaning of course from
Gaul.” “In fact these objects in bronze were Roman in character and in
their primary origin.” As in the same page he goes on to show that two
hundred years before Christ the swords of the Gauls were made of iron,
and as his contentions have already been met by Sir John Lubbock,[91]
and will, I think, be effectually disposed of by the facts subsequently
to be mentioned in this volume, it seems needless to dwell on Mr.
Wright’s opinions. I may, however, mention that,[92] while denying the
antiquity of British, German, and Scandinavian weapons and tools of
bronze, he admits that in Greece and Italy that metal was for a long
period the only one employed for cutting instruments, as iron was not
known in Greece until a comparatively late date.
About one hundred and thirty years ago,[93] in 1751, a discussion as to
the date of bronze weapons took place among the members of the Académie
des Inscriptions et Belles Lettres of Paris, on the occasion of some
bronze swords, a spear-head, and other objects being found near Gannat,
in the Bourbonnais. Some antiquaries regarded them as weapons made for
use; others as merely made for show. The Count de Caylus considered
that the swords were Roman, though maintaining that copper or bronze
must have been in earlier use than iron. Lévesque de la Ravalière
maintained, on the contrary, that neither the Greeks, Romans, Gauls,
nor Franks had ever made use of copper or bronze in their swords. The
Abbé Barthélemy showed from ancient authors that the earliest arms of
the Greeks were of bronze; that iron was only introduced about the time
of the siege of Troy; and that in later times among the Romans there
was no mention of bronze having been used for weapons of offence, and
therefore that these swords were not Roman. Strangely enough, he went
on to argue that they were Frankish, and of the time of Childeric. Had
he been present at the opening of the tomb of that monarch in 1653 he
would, however, have seen that he had an iron sword.[94]
A still warmer discussion than any which has taken place in England
or France, one, in fact, almost amounting to an international war of
words, has in more recent times arisen between some of the German
antiquaries and those of the Scandinavian kingdoms of Denmark and
Sweden.
So early as 1860[95] my friend Dr. Ludwig Lindenschmit, of Mainz, had
commenced his attack on “the so-called Bronze Period,” and shown a
disposition to regard all bronze antiquities of northern countries as
of Italian origin, or, if made in the countries where found, as mere
homely imitations of imported articles. Not content with this, he in
1875[96] again mustered his forces and renewed the campaign in even a
more formal manner. He found a formidable ally in Dr. Hostmann, whose
comments on Dr. Hans Hildebrand’s “Heathen Period in Sweden” are well
worth the reading, and contain a vast amount of interesting information.
Dr. Hostmann’s method of dealing with Dr. Hans Hildebrand brought Dr.
Sophus Müller[97] to the rescue, with whom Dr. Lindenschmit[98] at once
grappled. Shortly after Dr. Hostmann[99] again appears upon the scene,
and before engaging with Dr. Sophus Müller goes so far as to argue that
while Greek swords of iron are known to belong to the eighth century
B.C., no bronze sword of that country can with safety be assigned to
an earlier date than the sixth century, and, indeed, these may have
been only weapons of parade, or possibly funereal offerings in lieu of
efficient swords. Rector Genthe[100] also engages in the fight upon the
same side.
These three antagonists bring Sophus Müller[101] again to the front,
and as one great argument of his opponents was that bronze objects
could not be produced with the finish and ornamentation which is found
upon them without the use of iron and steel tools, he brings forward
an official document signed by four authorities in the museum at
Copenhagen, and stating that precisely similar ornamentation to the
spirals, zigzags, and punched lines which occur on Scandinavian bronze
antiquities had been produced in their presence by a workman using
bronze tools only on a plate of bronze. Both plate and tools were of
the same alloy, viz. 9 of copper to 1 of tin.
On this a final charge is made by Professor Hostmann[102] and Dr.
Lindenschmit, the former of whom produces a kind of affidavit from
the late director of the Polytechnic School at Hanover and the court
medallist of the same town, to the effect that certain kinds of punched
work cannot be produced with bronze punches, and the editors of the
_Archiv_ think it best to close the discussion after Dr. Lindenschmit’s
final retort.
I have not thought it worth while to enter into all the details of this
controversy, as even to summarise them would occupy more room than I
could spare. It seems to me, however, that a considerable amount of
misconception must have existed in the minds of some of the disputants,
both as to the accepted meaning of the term Bronze Age, as applied not
chronologically, but to a certain stage of civilisation, and as to the
limitation of the objects which can with propriety be referred to that
age. No antiquary of experience will deny that many bronze ornaments,
and even some bronze weapons, remained in use long after iron and even
steel were known, any more than he would deny that the use of stone
for certain purposes continued not only after bronze was known, but
even after iron and steel were in general use, and, in fact, up to
the present time, not only in barbarian but in civilised countries.
Our flint strike-a-lights and our burnishers are still of much the
same character as they were some thousands of years ago, and afford
convincing instances of this persistent use.
The real question at issue is not whether any bronze weapons co-existed
with those of iron and steel in Western Europe, but whether any of
them were there in use at a period when iron and steel were unknown.
Moreover, it is not a question as to whence the knowledge of bronze
was derived, nor whether at the time the Scandinavians or Britons were
using bronze for their tools and weapons, the inhabitants of Greece and
Italy were already acquainted with iron and steel; but it is a question
whether in each individual country there arrived a time when bronze
came into use and for certain purposes superseded stone, while iron
and steel were practically unknown.
This is a question to be solved by evidence, though in the nature of
things that evidence must to some extent be of a negative character.
When barrow after barrow is opened, and weapons of bronze and stone
only are found accompanying the interments, and not a trace of iron
or steel; when hoards of rough metal and broken bronze, together with
the moulds of the bronze-founder and some of his stock-in-trade, are
disinterred, and there is no trace of an iron tool among them—the
presumption is strong that at the time when these men and these
hoards were buried iron was not in use. When, moreover, by a careful
examination of the forms of bronze instruments we can trace a certain
amount of development which is in keeping with the peculiar properties
of bronze and not with those of iron, and we can thus to some extent
fix a kind of chronological succession in these forms, the inference is
that this evolution of form, which must have required a considerable
amount of time, took place without its course being affected by any
introduction of a fresh and qualifying influence in the shape of iron
tools and weapons.
When, however, in various countries we find interments and even
cemeteries in which bronze and iron weapons and instruments are
intermingled, and the forms of those in bronze are what we have learnt
from other sources to regard as the latest, while the forms in iron are
not those for which that metal is best adapted, but are almost servile
copies of the bronze instruments found with them, the proof of the one
having succeeded the other is almost absolutely conclusive.
The lessons taught by such cemeteries as that at Hallstatt, in Austria,
and by our own Late Celtic interments, such as those at Arras, in
Yorkshire, are of the highest importance in this question.
It is not, however, to be supposed that even in countries by no means
geographically remote from each other the introduction either of iron
or bronze must of necessity have taken place at one and the same
chronological period. Near the shores of the Mediterranean the use of
each metal no doubt prevailed far earlier than in any of the northern
countries of Europe; and though the knowledge of metals probably spread
from certain centres, its progress can have been but slow, for in each
part of Europe there appears to have been some special development,
particularly in the forms of bronze instruments, and there is no
absolute uniformity in their types extending over any large area. In
each country the process of manufacture was carried on, and though
some commerce in tools and arms of bronze no doubt took place between
neighbouring tribes, yet as a rule there are local peculiarities
characteristic of special districts.
So marked are these that a practised archæologist can in almost all
cases, on inspection of a group of bronze antiquities, fix with some
degree of confidence the country in which they were found. To this rule
Britain offers no exception, and though some forms of instruments were
no doubt imported, yet, as will subsequently be seen, our types are for
the most part indigenous.
As to the ornamentation of bronze by bronze tools, I have seen
none in this country on objects which I should refer to the Bronze
Age but what could have been effected by means of bronze punches,
of which indeed examples have been discovered in bronze-founders’
hoards in France,[103] and what are probably such also in Britain.
Such ornamentation is, however, simple compared with that on many of
the Danish forms, and yet I have seen the complicated Scandinavian
ornaments accurately and sharply reproduced by Dr. Otto Tischler, by
means of bronze tools only, on bronze of the ordinary ancient alloy.
But even supposing that iron and steel were known during some part of
the so-called Bronze Age, I do not see in what manner it would affect
the main features of the case or the interest attaching to the bronze
objects which I am about to describe. “De non apparentibus et non
existentibus eadem est ratio” is a maxim of some weight in archæology
as well as in law; and in the absence of iron and all trace of its
influence, it matters but little whether it was known or not, except in
so far as a neglect of its use would argue some want of intelligence
on the part of those who did not avail themselves of so useful a
metal. It will be seen hereafter that some of the objects described
in these pages actually do belong to an Iron Period, and nothing
could better illustrate the transition of one Period into another, or
the overlapping of the Bronze Age upon that of Iron, than the fact
that in these pages devoted to the Bronze Period I must of necessity
describe many objects which were still in use when iron and steel
were superseding bronze, in the same manner as in my “Ancient Stone
Implements” I was forced to describe many forms, such as battle-axes,
arrow-heads, and bracers, which avowedly belonged to the Bronze Period.
A point which is usually raised by those who maintain the priority
of the use of iron to that of bronze is, that inasmuch as it is more
readily oxidized and dissolved by acids naturally present in the soil,
iron may have disappeared, and indeed has done so, while bronze has
been left; so that the absence of iron as an accompaniment to all
early interments counts for nothing. Professor Rolleston,[104] in a
paper on the three periods known as the Iron, the Bronze, and the
Stone Ages, has well dealt with this point; and observes that in some
graves of the Bronze Period the objects contained are incrusted with
carbonate of lime, which would have protected any iron instrument of
the Bronze Period as well as it has done those of Saxon times. Not
only are the iron weapons discovered in Saxon cemeteries often in
almost perfect preservation, but on the sites of Roman occupation
whole hoards of iron tools have been found but little injured by rust.
The fact that at Hallstatt and other places in which graves have been
examined belonging to the transitional period, when both iron and
bronze were in use together, the weapons and tools of iron, though
oxidized, still retain their form and character as completely as those
in bronze, also affords strong ground for believing that had iron
been present with bronze in other early interments it would also have
been preserved. The importance attaching to the reputed occurrence
of bronze swords with Roman coins as late as the time of Magnentius
cannot be better illustrated than by a discovery of my own in the
ancient cemetery of Hallstatt. In company with Sir John Lubbock I was
engaged in opening a grave in which we had come to an interment of
the Early Iron Age, accompanied by a socketed celt and spear-heads of
iron, when amidst the bones I caught sight of a thin metallic disc of
a yellowish colour which looked like a coin. Up to that time no coin
had ever been found in any one of the many hundred graves which had
been examined, and I eagerly picked up this disc. It proved to be a
“sechser,” or six-kreutzer piece, with the date 1826, which by some
means had worked its way down among the crevices in the stony ground,
and which from its appearance had evidently been buried some years. Had
this coin been of Roman date it might have afforded an argument for
bringing down the date of the Hallstatt cemetery some centuries in the
chronological scale. As it is, it affords a wholesome caution against
drawing important inferences from the mere collocation of objects when
there is any possibility of the apparent association being only due to
accident.
In further illustration of the succession of the three Ages of Stone,
Bronze, and Iron in Western Europe, I might go on to cite cases of the
actual superposition of the objects of one age over those of another,
such as has been observed in several barrows and in the well-known
instance of the cone of La Tinière, in the Lake of Geneva, recorded by
Morlot.
It will, however, be thought that enough, if not more than enough, has
already been said on the general question of a Bronze Age in a book
particularly devoted to the weapons and instruments of bronze found
in the British Isles. It is now time to proceed with the examination
and description of their various forms; and in doing this I propose
to treat separately, so far as possible, the different classes of
instruments intended each for some special purpose, and at the same
time to point out their analogies with instruments of the same
character found in other parts of Europe. Their chronological sequence
so far as it can be ascertained, the position in time of the Bronze
Period of Britain and Ireland, and the sources from which our bronze
civilisation was derived, will be discussed in a concluding chapter.
I begin with the instrument of the most common occurrence, the
so-called celt.