question of the origin of bronze in favour of independent discovery,
for we have already seen, in speaking of the stone age,--and I have
endeavoured to show that it is a peculiarity observable in the works of
all savage and barbarous races,--that being devoid of rule or measure,
and having very imperfect means of securing adherence to a uniform
standard, their productions are characterized by incessant variations,
even in cases where the first idea is known to have been derived from
a common source. The variations here shown to exist in the composition
of bronze are no greater than are capable of being accounted for by
the universal prevalence of a law of variation, resulting from many
causes, and amongst others from want of precision, and carelessness,
which is a defect common alike to all tyros in their art, whether
ancient or modern. It is a fault we have many of us to complain of
almost daily in our cooks. A batter pudding is composed of milk, flour,
and eggs, in proper proportions, but a careless cook will constantly
vary her proportions, and will fail in adjusting her quantities to
the total amount; but we must not, on that account, assume that each
cook has invented the art of making batter puddings independently.
So, in like manner, it is quite consistent with the facts observed
even in America, to suppose that the first knowledge of bronze, and of
those many features in the civilization of the Mexicans and Peruvians
which present such striking analogies to the civilization of Egypt,
may have been originally communicated by some casual wanderer or some
shipwrecked castaway from the then centres of Eastern culture (for the
theory of geographical changes is, of course, out of the question when
speaking of the origin of bronze), and that they have varied in their
development on American soil no more than might naturally be expected
from their introduction to an entirely new and partially civilized
race. Such an assumption, though difficult to account for, and wanting
in evidence, is more in accordance with the well-known traditions of
the Mexicans and Peruvians, who attribute their civilization to the
advent of a god; or with that of the natives of Nootka Sound, on the
north-west, who state that an old man entered the bay, in a copper
canoe, with paddles of copper, and that the Nootkans by that means
acquired a knowledge of that metal.
As illustrations of the modern metal-work of the natives of Nootka
Sound and its neighbourhood, several examples are given in Plate
XIX, figs. 7 to 11. Figures 7 and 8 represent two sides of an iron
dagger in the Museum of the Royal United Service Institution. The
ornamentation on the handle is that of the natives of the country, but
the workmanship of the blade, which is ribbed on one side, appears
to indicate foreign manufacture. Figures 9 and 10 are two sides of a
copper dagger of the same form; this specimen is now in the Belfast
Museum, in which it was deposited in the year 1843 by Mr. A. Thompson,
who brought it from the north-west coast of America, and described it
as having been fabricated by the Flathead Indians; it is undoubtedly
of native workmanship; in both these weapons one side of the blade and
handle is concave, the other convex, a form which appears to denote
that it was originally taken from some similar weapon of bone or cane.
The nearest approach to the form of this weapon in bone, that I am
aware of, is that of the Indian ‘kandjar’, a figure of which was given
in my first lecture on Primitive Warfare, Plate X, fig. 63. This weapon
has also one concave and one convex side, derived from the natural
curvature of the bone out of which it is made.
But putting aside American civilization, which, it must be admitted,
does in the existing state of our knowledge present great difficulties
in the way of those who advocate the theory of a common origin for
bronze, and turning our attention to the eastern hemisphere, we find
the evidence on this point more satisfactory. We may observe, in
the first place, that the area over which bronze has been used for
implements appears, in so far as we have at present been able to trace
it, to be continuous, extending over the greater part of Europe, Egypt,
Assyria, and some parts of Siberia, India, and China, from which latter
country some few bronze weapons have lately been added to the British
Museum. Mr. Theobald, of the Geological Survey of India, also mentions
in a paper read to the Bengal Asiatic Society,[207] that bronze axes
are found in the valley of the Irrawaddy, where they are held in such
veneration as rarely to be procurable; and Sir Walter Elliot has
shown me some bronze implements which he found deep beneath the soil
in cutting a canal in the valley of the Ganges. Bronze is wanting in
Africa; in America, with the exception of Peru and Mexico; in the
north of Sweden and Norway, and, I believe, in the greater part of
the northern districts of Russia and Siberia, though with regard to
Russian and Siberian bronzes, our information is still very deficient.
And here I may observe that I speak only of bronze as applied to tools
and weapons; its use for other purposes may have been introduced at
any subsequent period of the world’s history; but the presence of a
bronze weapon implies either total ignorance, or at least an imperfect
knowledge of the means of hardening the more useful metal for this
purpose, iron.
Those who wish for more detailed information as to the evidence upon
which the succession of the stone, bronze, and iron ages has been
determined, would do well to refer to Sir John Lubbock’s remarks upon
this subject in _Prehistoric Times_. It may, however, be useful to
enumerate briefly some of the chief points which have been adduced
in support of the opinion that the employment of these materials
corresponds to successive stages in the development of civilization in
Europe. (1) Not only do the Roman writers mention iron as being the
metal used by them in their time, but they also speak of its employment
by the barbarian nations of the north, with whom they came in contact,
and the word ‘ferrum’, _iron_, was with the Romans synonymous with
sword. (2) Although numerous finds of iron implements of the Roman
period have been discovered in various parts of the world, there has
been no authentic and undoubted instance of a weapon of bronze having
been found associated with them, or with Roman pottery or coins. (3)
Bronze implements are most abundant in Denmark and Ireland, countries
which were never invaded by Roman armies, whilst they are exceedingly
rare in Italy. (4) The ornamentation of the bronze implements is not
Roman, but pre-Roman in character. (5) On the other hand, the numerous
finds of bronze weapons which have been discovered have never been
associated with iron, except in cases where the nature of the iron
implements shows them to have belonged to a period of transition. (6)
The pottery associated with bronze-finds is superior to that found
with stone implements, but inferior to that of the iron age, and the
potter’s wheel was unknown during the stone and bronze ages. (7) Silver
is found associated with iron, but rarely if ever with stone or bronze.
(8) No coins or inscriptions of any kind have been found with bronze
implements. (9) In the Swiss lakes, settlements associated with stone
and bronze have been found near each other, as for instance Moosseedorf
and Nidau, 15 miles apart; in the former, bronze is entirely absent;
in the latter, it was used not only for articles of luxury, such as
might denote a more wealthy class, but also for implements of common
use, such as fish-hooks, pins, &c.; it is improbable that so marked
a contrast in the civilization of two settlements so close to each
other should have existed during the same period. (10) The implements
and ornaments of the bronze-finds are more varied in form, showing
an advance in art upon those appertaining to the stone age. (11) The
bronze-finds are marked by an increase in the number of domesticated
animals, and an entire absence of some of the wild animals of the
earlier period, and they are also more clearly associated with traces
of agriculture. (12) In the Danish peat bogs, successive strata are
found overlying each other, denoting changes in the vegetation of the
country; in the lowest and earliest are found the remains of pine
trees, which now are foreign to the soil; above which are strata in
which oak was the prevailing tree, and at the present time the oaks
have been superseded by beeches. These successive strata correspond
in a general way to successive stages in the civilization of the
inhabitants; in the pine-bearing strata, implements of stone are found;
with the oak trees, implements of bronze, and higher up, implements of
iron. It has also been attempted to trace a somewhat similar succession
of periods in the gravels and alluvium of the torrent of Tinière,
in Switzerland; but the evidence in this case is not considered so
satisfactory as in that of the Danish peat bogs.
In Chaldea, the transition from stone to bronze has been traced by
the relics found in the soil; iron being then used only in small
quantities, and chiefly for ornaments, as amongst the ancient Britons
in the time of Caesar.[208] In Egypt, where both bronze and iron
weapons have been found in the tombs, the transition from bronze to
iron is marked by the colour of the weapons in the paintings, and
dates, according to Sir Gardner Wilkinson, about B.C. 1400. Hesiod
speaks of an age of copper, when the ‘black iron did not exist’. Homer
also alludes frequently to copper or bronze implements, and when iron
is mentioned always speaks of it as requiring much time and labour to
fabricate it. Then we have the well-known passage from Lucretius, so
often quoted in reference to this subject, in which the three ages of
stone, bronze, and iron are mentioned;[209] and Strabo mentions the
Lusitanians as being armed partly with copper or bronze weapons.[210]
Many other quotations might be given from ancient authors to prove that
the existence of a bronze age preceding the use of iron was known to
the ancients, but I will not occupy your time further with this part
of the subject, seeing that others far more competent to deal with
it than myself have failed to derive much information of value from
this source. There is often considerable difficulty in determining
the exact meaning of the writers, when speaking of the material of
which weapons are composed, the same word being sometimes used to
express copper, bronze, and iron. In fact it may, I think, safely be
said that, notwithstanding the large amount of useful information that
may be obtained from the study of the early writers, there is no more
fruitful source of error than the attempt to apply ancient history and
tradition to the elucidation of prehistoric events. Modern science, and
our fuller appreciation of the value of evidence, have thrown far more
light on prehistoric times than ever fell to the lot of the ancients;
and it is for us, therefore, to correct their errors, and not to be
misled by them.
Professor Max Müller, in the second series of his _Science of
Language_, has, however, drawn some important conclusions on this
subject, from the etymology of words representing metal, of which
it may be useful here to give a brief abstract. Quoting Mr. E. B.
Tylor’s work on the Anahuac (p. 140), he says: ‘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 _tepuztli_, and the latter black _tepuztli_. The conclusion,’
he says, ‘which we may draw from this, viz. that Mexican was spoken
before the introduction of iron into Mexico, is one of no great value,
because we know it from other sources’; but applying the same line of
reasoning to Greek, he says, ‘here, too, _chalkós_, which at first
meant copper, came afterwards to mean metal in general, and _chalkeús_,
originally a copper-smith, occurs in the Odyssey (ix. 391) in the sense
of a blacksmith, or worker of iron.’ What does this prove? It proves
that Greek was spoken before the introduction of iron. The name for
copper is shared in common by Latin and the Teutonic languages, _æs_,
Latin; _aiz_, Gothic; _êr_, old high German; _erz_, modern German;
_âr_, Anglo-Saxon; and the same word is represented in our English
word _ore_. But the words specifically used for iron differ in each
of the principal branches of the Aryan family. At the same time the
words originally representing copper come to be used for metal in
general, and in some cases for iron. In Sanskrit, _ayas_, which is
the same word as _æs_, came to be used for iron, a distinction being
made between dark _ayas_ or iron, and bright _ayas_ or copper. _Æs_ in
Latin, and _aiz_ in Gothic, came to be used for metal in general, but
was never used for iron. _Aiz_, however, according to Grimm, gave rise
to the Gothic word _eisarn_, meaning iron. In old high German _eisarn_
is changed into _îsarn_, later to _îsan_, and lastly to the modern
_eisen_, while the Anglo-Saxon _îsern_ is converted into _îren_, and
ultimately to _iron_. The learned Professor sums up his researches on
this subject as follows:--‘We may conclude,’ he says, ‘that Sanskrit,
Greek, Latin, and German were spoken before the discovery of iron, that
each nation became acquainted with that most useful of all metals after
the Aryan family was broken up, and that each of the Aryan languages
coined its name for iron from its own resources, and marked it by its
own national stamp, while it brought the names for gold, silver, and
copper from the common treasury of their ancestral home’.[211]
These remarks point to a very remote period, and to an Aryan origin for
the first knowledge of copper and bronze, but on the other hand much
has been written in favour of a Semitic origin, especially by Professor
Nilsson, who believes that he has discovered traces of that people even
on the coast of Norway.[212]
The employment of war chariots, which are known to have been used by
the Britons, and vestiges of which have been found in their graves,
implies, it is said, Semitic influence. Much stress is also laid upon
the resemblance of some of the ornaments found on the Danish and other
bronzes to those in use by the Phoenicians; more especially the spiral
ornaments, which Professor Nilsson traces to that source through the
engravings on weapons in the bronze age tumuli. Against this, however,
it may be urged that the spiral ornament has a very wide distribution,
extending over modern Africa, ancient Egypt, Greece, China, New Guinea,
Mexico, and South America, and even to New Zealand and the Asiatic
Isles. In illustration of this I have arranged upon Plate XIX a series
of illustrations of spiral ornament from various countries, showing
how universally it is distributed over the globe. Fig. 12 is from a
New Zealand canoe in my collection; Fig. 13, from a club brought from
New Guinea by the commander of the ‘Rattlesnake’, in 1849, and now
in my collection; Fig. 14, from China; Fig. 15, from ancient Egypt;
Fig. 16, from Greece; Fig. 17, from a Danish bronze sword; Fig. 18,
from an Irish bronze brooch in my collection; Fig. 19, from the Swiss
lakes, figured in Dr. Keller’s work; Fig. 20, an iron ornament in my
collection from Central Africa; Fig. 21, an iron ornament on a club,
from the Bight of Benin, West Africa, in the Christy Collection; Fig.
22, an ornament on a wooden arrow-head, in the Christy Collection,
probably from one of the Melanesian isles; Fig. 23, from Hallstatt;
Fig. 24, a cane arrow-head from the Amazons, South America; Fig.
25, a spindle-whirl from Mexico; Fig. 26, on a bronze shield from
the Caucasus; Fig. 27, an ornament on a bracelet from Hindustan, in
the British Museum; Fig. 28, an ornament carved upon the stones of
New Grange, in Ireland; Fig. 29, from a New Zealand canoe. Compare
the two last figures with Fig. 30, a stone weight in my collection,
lately fished up on the coast of Kent, whilst dredging for whelks; the
ornamentation so closely resembles the New Zealand pattern, and at
the same time that of the stone carvings of the European tumuli, that
considering the circumstance of its discovery, it is purely a matter
for conjecture whether it is to be referred to the antiquities of
this country, or has been dropped overboard by some vessel returning
from our South Pacific colonies. We see from these examples that the
spiral ornament cannot be regarded as belonging exclusively to any one
race; it is a contrivance derived simply from the coil of string, the
source from which, and also from straw plaiting, nearly all barbaric
ornamentation had its origin; it is a proof merely of barbaric origin,
an evidence of continuity from the earliest periods of art.
Mr. Franks in his remarks at the Paris Meeting of the International
Congress of Prehistoric Archaeology, has summarily disposed of the
question of Phoenician ornamentation, by observing that the Phoenicians
were copyists, taking their style from Egypt, Greece, or Rome,
according to the fashion of the period, and that in point of fact a
Phoenician style of art has never existed (_Compte Rendu, II^{me}
Session_, Paris, 1868, p. 251).
Amongst those who have upheld the theory of the origin of bronze from
Phoenician sources, may be mentioned Mr. Howorth, in a paper lately
published in the _Transactions of the Ethnological Society_ (1868,
N.S., vol. vi. pp. 73-100); and Sir John Lubbock, though not committing
himself to the same view as regards the origin of bronze, has
nevertheless been at the pains of ably defending the ancient authors
who speak of Phoenician intercourse with Britain from the attacks made
upon them by Sir George Cornewall Lewis (_Prehistoric Times_, 1869, pp.
59-69).
This being the existing state of our knowledge in regard to the
introduction of bronze, and the variety of opinion on the subject
being, as we have seen, considerable, the task before us will be to
ascertain as far as may be possible, from the implements themselves,
the history of their origin, by examining carefully their construction
in the various regions in which they occur, and by tracing the
geographical distribution of those details of form which show evidence
of connexion; thereby to determine, if possible, the sources from which
they were derived. Whatever degree of veracity we may be disposed to
attribute to early history, we must at least admit that the implements
have this advantage over written testimony of any kind, that they
cannot intentionally mislead us. If we draw wrong inferences from them,
the fault is our own. We shall find the evidence very fragmentary as
yet, but sufficient to prove that it affords a valuable source of
information whenever sufficient materials are collected to enable us
to work out the problem to its legitimate ends.
On the present occasion I propose to confine my remarks to showing, by
means of the accompanying table (Plate XVIII), the distribution of some
of the commoner varieties of the copper and bronze celt, an instrument
which, like its prototype in stone, appears to have been employed both
as tool and as weapon for all the various purposes to which it was
capable of being turned, and to have been used not merely as a hatchet
and battle-axe, but also to have been sometimes hafted on the end of a
straight handle, to be used as a spud or crowbar, and even perhaps, as
some of the forms appear to indicate, as a spade in tilling the ground.
The table is arranged upon the same plan as Plate XIII of my last
lecture, and is intended to serve as a continuation of Plate XII of
the same lecture, showing a further development of the same weapon.
The successive developments are arranged, in order, by classes from
left to right; the several localities are separated by horizontal
dotted lines, by means of which are seen the various types prevalent in
each locality, in so far as I have been able to obtain drawings from
published sources; there can be no doubt, however, that the table is
still very imperfect, and that considerable additions may be made to
it hereafter. On the left, in Class A, will be found celts with convex
surfaces, identical in form to those constructed of stone, the relative
antiquity of which is shown by their being almost invariably of pure or
nearly pure copper. It has been suggested that this form may have been
adopted on account of its being more easily produced by beating the
copper, and that its resemblance to the stone celts is not necessarily
a proof of age; but there is no reason why Class B should not be as
easily formed as Class A by this means, and many are so formed, as may
be seen in the table. Moreover, Fig. 3 _a_ is a _bronze_ celt of the
earlier form, taken from _Prehistoric Times_, and as this must have
been cast in a mould, its peculiar shape can only be accounted for
by supposing it to have been constructed in imitation of the stone
celts. In passing from Class B, a gradual development of form may be
traced, commencing with a slight stop or ridge across, and rudimentary
flanges along the side of the shaft of the blade, developing in
size and improving in form, no doubt, as the art of casting bronze
became gradually perfected.[213] These stops and flanges are at first
raised on the surface of the blade, but by degrees the same purpose
is effected by sinking a groove in the blade to receive the handle,
thereby economizing the metal, and producing a more symmetrical form;
the flanges were at the same time bent over, and ultimately cast with
a cavity on each side to receive the handle, and obviate the necessity
for binding on the celt with thongs. This led by degrees to the
ultimate perfection of the weapon, by the introduction of the socket
type, which is associated with weapons of iron, and is sometimes itself
constructed of that metal.
The order of development here adopted is in the main that followed by
Sir William Wilde, in his _Catalogue of the Museum of the Royal Irish
Academy_, but I have omitted all mention of branch varieties, as they
do not serve my purpose of illustrating the continuity of development,
though they are valuable in showing the connexion between localities.
Although the course of development appears to have followed the
order here indicated, it is not unlikely the earlier forms may have
continued in use, and may even have continued to be constructed at the
same time as the later forms. The earlier and less complicated types,
being easier of construction, and being equally serviceable for some
purposes, would continue to be made, in the same way that smooth-bores
and rifle-barrels, row-boats, sailing-vessels, and steam-packets,
continue to be used simultaneously in our own time.
The progress of development of this weapon will be better understood by
a detailed reference to the figures.
_Reference to the Figures in Plate XVIII._[214]
COPPER, BRONZE, AND IRON CELTS.
CLASS A.--Copper celts from various localities, having convex surfaces,
in form resembling those of stone.--Figs. 1, 2, and 3, from Ireland,
_in my collection_.--Fig. 3 _a_, a bronze celt of the same form, from
Le Puy, France, _Prehistoric Times_, p. 27.--Fig. 4, copper celt
found at Blengow, Mecklenberg-Schwerin Museum; _Horae Ferales_.--Fig.
5, copper celt from the lake dwellings of Sipplingen, Switzerland,
found embedded in a coating of clay (a mould?). See Keller, _The Lake
Dwellings of Switzerland_, (transl. J. E. Lee, 1866), p. 121, Plate
xxix.--Fig. 6, copper celt found in an Etruscan tomb, and now in the
Berlin Museum. See _Catalogue of the Royal Irish Academy_, ‘Bronze,’
pp. 367, 395.
CLASS B.--Copper and bronze celts from various localities, having flat
concave sides, and a rectangular cross section, showing a gradual
enlargement of the cutting edge.--Figs. 7 to 12, copper celts from
Ireland, _in my collection_, showing a gradual enlargement of the
cutting edge.--Figs. 13, 14, 15, ditto, _ditto_, of bronze, the
sides more concave, and the cutting edge more expanded.--Fig. 16,
bronze celt, of similar form, from Denmark (Madsen, _Afbildninger
af Danske Oldsager og Mindesmærker_, Copenhagen, 1872, Heft iii,
Fig. 1).--Fig. 17, copper celt from Steinfurt, in the collection of
Professor Dieffenbach, at Friedberg, Lindenschmit, _Die Alterthümer
unserer heidnischen Vorzeit_ (Mainz, 1864 ff.), Plate 3.--Fig. 18,
ditto of copper, found near Mainz, Museum of Mainz, _Lindenschmit_,
Plate 3.--Fig. 19, the same form of bronze, from near Mainz,
_Lindenschmit_.--Fig. 20, the same form of bronze from Italy, _British
Museum_.[215]--Figs. 21, 22, 23, the same form of copper from Hungary,
_Keller_, p. 219, Plate lxviii.--Figs. 24, 25, 26, similar forms of
bronze, with rectangular holes, from the Island of Thermia, Greek
Archipelago, _British Museum_.
CLASS C.--Bronze celts of the same outline as Class B, but having a
cross ridge or stop on both faces, to prevent the blade from burying
itself in the handle.--Figs. 27, 28, bronze celts from Ireland, _in my
collection_; this form is common to the British Isles.