Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-gb8f7 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-22T22:30:18.719Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Reconstructing prehistoric metallurgical knowledge: the northern Italian Copper and Bronze Ages

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  25 January 2017

Mark Pearce
Mark Pearce*
Affiliation:
University of Nottingham
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

The paper attempts to integrate the results of chemical analyses, which are seriously underused in archaeological discourse, with other classes of information in order to try to interpret ancient metal working behaviour and knowledge within a semiotic framework, adopting the modernist premise that ancient metalworking was both rational and deliberate. A number of case studies from northern Italy is discussed. In the first it is noted that in the Copper Age Remedello culture arsenical copper was used for halberds and daggers while purer copper was used for flat axes; it is suggested that this distinction reflects deliberate choice and explanations are offered for it. The second case study regards the interpretation of the Pieve Albignola early Bronze Age axe hoard; evidence for the workshop practices of ancient bronzesmiths and for the use of axe preforms as ingots is discussed. The third case study concerns the swords and daggers of the middle and recent Bronze Age; finds context (tombs and wetlands) are discussed and it is suggested that metal analyses may indicate that sometimes these artefacts are not primarily functional.

Cet article essaie d'intégrer les résultats d'analyses chimiques, (qui sont loin d'être suffisamment utilisés dans Ie discours archéologique), à d'autres classes d'information, afin de tenter d'interpréter les comportements et le savoir liés au travail ancien des métaux, dans un cadre sémiotique, en adoptant la prémisse moderniste selon laquelle le travail ancien des métaux était rationnel et délibéré. On examine de nombreuses études de cas de l'Italie du nord. Dans le premier cas, on utilisait du cuivre arsenical de la culture Remedello pour fabriquer des hallebardes et des poignards, tandis que l'on utilisait du cuivre plus pur pour les haches plates. On montre aussi que cette distinction semble refléter un choix délibéré et on donne diverses explications pour soutenir cette hypothèse. Le second cas concerne l'interprétation de la découverte du dépôt des haches de Pieve Albignola au début de l'âge de bronze: on discute des preuves qui expliquent la manière dont on forgeait le bronze à cette époque, dans les ateliers de forge, ainsi que de la possibilité pour les haches préformées de servir de lingots. La troisième étude de cas porte sur les épées et les poignards du milieu et de la fin de l'âge de bronze: on traite des lieux de découvertes (tombes et marécages) et des analyses des métaux, ceci laissent parfois à penser, qu'à l'origine, ces objets n'étaient pas fabriqués dans un but fonctionnel.

Zusammenfassung

Zusammenfassung

Dieser Beitrag versucht die Ergebnisse chemischer Analysen, die im archäologischen Diskurs bei weitem nicht oft genug herangezogen werden, mit anderen Arten von Informationen zu integrieren, um zu versuchen, früheres Metallbearbeitungsverhalten und wissen innerhalb eines semiotischen Rahmens zu interpretieren. Dabei wird von der modernistischen Prämisse ausgegangen, daß frühere Metallbearbeitung rational und überlegt vorsichgegangen ist. Eine Reihe von norditalienischen Fallstudien wird vorgestellt. In der ersten wird festgestellt, daß in der kupferzeitlichen Remedellokultur für Stabdolche und Dolche arsenhaltiges Kupfer, für Flachäxte aber reines Kupfer verwendet wurde; es wird vorgeschlagen, diesen Unterschied als Widerspiegelung einer bewußten Wahl zu sehen; entsprechende Erklärungen dafür werden angeboten. Die zweite Fallstudie betrifft die Interpretation des frühbronzezeitlichen Beilhordes von Pieve Albignola; es werden Hinweise auf die Werkstattpraktiken damaliger Bronzeschmiede und auf den Gebrauch von Beil-Vorformen als Metallbarren diskutiert. Die dritte Fallstudie befaßt sich mit Schwertern und Dolchen der mittleren und jüngeren Bronzezeit, deren Fundzusammenhänge (Gräber und Feuchtgebiete) vorgestellt werden; die Ergebnisse von Metallanalysen legen nahe, daß diese Artefakte in erster Linie nicht funktional waren.

Keywords

Bronze AgeCopper Agemetal analysismetal workingnorthern Italy
Type
Articles
Information
European Journal of Archaeology , Volume 1 , Issue 1 , 1998 , pp. 51 - 70
Copyright
Copyright © 1998 Sage Publications 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Barfield, Lawrence, 1981. L'Eneolitico e l'antica età del Bronzo in Lombardia. In Atti 1° Convegno Archeologico Regionale, 139–165. Brescia: Museo Archeologico di Cavriana.Google Scholar
Barfield, Lawrence, 1994. The Bronze Age of Northern Italy: Recent Work and Social Interpretation. In Mathers, Clay and Stoddart, Simon (eds), Development and Decline in the Mediterranean Bronze Age, 129–144. (Sheffield Archaeological Monographs 8). Sheffield: J.R. Collis.Google Scholar
Barker, Graeivie W.W., 1971. The first metallurgy in Italy in the light of the metal analyses from the Pigorini Museum. Bullettino di Paletnologia Italiana 80: 183–208.Google Scholar
Barker, Graeme, 1981. Landscape and Society: Prehistoric Central Italy. London: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Berzero, Antonella, Vera, Caramella Crespi, Nicla, Genova, Sandro, Meloni, Massimo, Oddone and Mark, Pearce, 1991. Indagine chimica sul ripostiglio di Pieve Albignola (Pavia). In Pearce, M., Cataloghi dei Civici Musei di Pavia, I, Materiali preistorici, 163–170. Milano: Edizioni ennerre.Google Scholar
Bianco Peroni, Vera, 1970. Le spade nell'Italia Continentale. (Prähistorische Bronze-funde IV, 1). München: Beck.Google Scholar
Bianco Peron', Vera, 1978–79. Bronzene Gewässer- und Höhenfunde aus Italien. Jahresbericht des Instituts für Vorgeschichte der Universität Frankfurt am Main 1978–79: 321–335.Google Scholar
Bianco Peroni, Vera, 1994. I pugnali nell'Italia Continentale. (Prähistorische Bronze-funde VI, 10). Stuttgart: Franz Steiner.Google Scholar
Binford, Lewis R., 1971. Mortuary Practices: Their Study and Their Potential. In Brown, J.A. (ed.), Approaches to the Social Dimensions of Mortuary Practices, Memoir of the Society for American Archaeology 25:6–29. Also in Lewis R. Binford (1972), An Archaeological Perspective, 208–243. London: Seminar Press.Google Scholar
Borgna, Elisabetta, 1992. Il ripostiglio di Madriolo presso Cividale e i pani a piccone del Friuli-Venezia Giulia. Roma: Quasar (Studi e ricerche di Protostoria mediterranea 1).Google Scholar
Bradley, Richard, 1990. The Passage of Arms: An Archaeological Analysis of Prehistoric Hoards and Votive Deposits. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Budd, Paul, 1991. Eneolithic arsenical copper: heat treatment and the metallographic interpretation of manufacturing process. In Pernicka, Ernst and Günther, A. Wagner (eds), Archaeometry '90, 35–44. Basel-Boston-Berlin: Birkhäuser.Google Scholar
Budd, Paul and Barbara, Ottaway, 1991. The properties of arsenical copper alloys: implications for the development of Eneolithic metallurgy. In Budd, Paul, Chapman, Barbara, Jackson, Caroline, Janaway, Rob and Ottaway, Barbara (eds), Archaeological Sciences 1989. Proceedings of a Conference on the Application of Scientific Techniques to Archaeology. Bradford, September 1989, 132–142. (Oxbow Monograph 9). Oxford: Oxbow.Google Scholar
Budd, Paul, Mark Pollard, A., Brett, Scaife and Richard, G. Thomas, 1995a. Oxhide Ingots, Recycling and the Mediterranean Metals Trade. Journal of Mediterranean Archaeology 8(1):1–32.Google Scholar
Budd, Paul, Mark Pollard, A., Brett, Scaife and Richard, G. Thomas, 1995b. Lead Isotope Analysis and Oxhide Ingots: A Final Comment Journal of Mediterranean Archaeology 8(1):70–75.Google Scholar
Cardarelli, Andrea, 1992. Le età dei metalli nell'Italia settentrionale. In Guidi, Alessandro and Piperno, Marcello (eds), Italia Preistorica, 366–419. Roma-Bari: Laterza.Google Scholar
Castelfranco, Pompeo, 1886. Tombe della Cattabrega di Crescenzago (Prov. di Milano). Bullettino di Paletnologia Italiana 12:57–63.Google Scholar
Castelfranco, Pompeo, 1891. Tombe di Monza dell'età del bronzo. Bullettino di Paletnologia Italiana 17:34–47.Google Scholar
Charles, James A., 1985. Determinative mineralogy and the origins of metallurgy. In Paul, T. Craddock and Michael, J. Hughes (eds), Furnaces and Smelting Technology in Antiquity, 21–28. (Occasional Paper 48). London: British Museum.Google Scholar
Childe Vere, Gordon, 1930. The Bronze Age. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Clarke, David, 1978. Analytical Archaeology, 2nd edn, revised by Bob Chapman. London: Methuen.Google Scholar
Corti, Maria, 1976. Principi della comunicazione letteraria. Introduzione alla semiotica della letteratura. Milano: Bompiani.Google Scholar
Cremascoli, Franco, 1956–57. Analisi di alcuni bronzi. Sibrium 3: 34–35.Google Scholar
De Marinis, Marinis, 1970. Le spade di Monza della tarda età del Bronzo. Sibrium 10:99–108.Google Scholar
De Marinis, Marinis, 1972. Nuovi dati sulle spade della tarda età del Bronzo nell'Italia settentrionale. Preistoria Alpina 8: 73–105.Google Scholar
De Marinis, Raffaele C., 1992. La più antica metallurgia nell'Italia settentrionale. In Höpfel, Frank, Platzer, Werner and Spindler, Konrad (eds), Der Mann im Eis. Band 1. Bericht über das Internationale Symposium 1992 in Innsbruck, 389–409. Innsbruck: Universität Innsbruck (Veröffentlichen der Universität Innsbruck 187).Google Scholar
Dickinson, Oliver T.P., 1977. The Origins of Mycenean Civilisation. (Studies in Mediterranean Archaeology 99). Göteborg : Paul Åströms.Google Scholar
Fleming, Andrew, 1973. Models for the development of the Wessex culture. In Colin, Renfrew (ed.), The Explanation of Culture Change: Models in Prehistory, 571–585. London: Duckworth.Google Scholar
Gale, Noél and Zofia, A. Stos-Gale, 1995. Comments on ‘Oxhide Ingots, Recycling and the Mediterranean Metals Trade’. Journal of Mediterranean Archaeology 8 (1): 33–41.Google Scholar
Guerreschi, Giampiero and Carla, Limido, 1993. Elaborazioni statistiche sui manufatti in bronzo e in ferro. II: Le spade. Annali Benacensi 10: 93–126 (Atti del XII Convegno archeologico benacense, Cavriana, 28 maggio 1989):Google Scholar
Hall, Mark, 1995. Comments on ‘Oxhide Ingots, Recycling and the Mediterranean Metals Trade’. Journal of Mediterranean Archaeology 8 (1): 42–44.Google Scholar
Hodder, Ian, 1986. Reading the Past: Current Approaches to Interpretation in Archaeology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Junghans, Siegfried, Edward, Sangmeister and Manfred, Schröder, 1960. Metall-analysen Kupferzeitlicher und friihbronzezeitlicher Bodenfunde aus Europa. (Studien zu den Anfängen der Metallurgie 1). Berlin: Mann.Google Scholar
Junghans, Siegfried, Edward, Sangmeister and Manfred, Schröder, 1968. Kupfer und Bronze in der frühen Metallzeit Europas. Katalog der Analysen Nr. 985–10040. (Studien zu den Anfängen der Metallurgie 2,3). Berlin: Mann.Google Scholar
Junghans, Siegfried, Edward, Sangmeister and Manfred, Schröder, 1974. Kupfer und Bronze in der frühen Metallzeit Europas. Katalog der Analysen Nr. 10041–22000 (mit Nachuntersuchungen der Analysen Nr. 1–10040). (Studien zu den Anfängen der Metallurgie 2,4). Berlin: Mann.Google Scholar
Karo, Georg, 1930–33. Die Schachtgräber von Mykenai. Munich: Bruckmann.Google Scholar
Levy, Thomas E. and Sariel, Shalev, 1989. Prehistoric metalworking in the southern Levant: archaeometallurgical and social perspectives. World Archaeology 20 (3): 352–372.Google Scholar
Muhly, James D., 1995. Lead Isotope Analysis and the Archaeologist. Journal of Mediterranean Archaeology 8 (1): 54–58.Google Scholar
Northover, J. Peter, 1980. Appendix. The analysis of Welsh Bronze Age metalwork. In H.N. Savory, Guide Catalogue of the Bronze Age Collections, 229–243. Cardiff: Amgueddfa Genedlaethol Cymru/National Museum of Wales.Google Scholar
Pauli, Ludwig, 1971. Studien zur Golasecca-kultur. Heidelberg: Mitteilungen des Deutschen Archäologischen Instituts, Römische Abteilung 19.Google Scholar
Pauli, Ludwig, 1984. The Alps. Archaeology and Early History. London: Thames and Hudson.Google Scholar
Pearce, Mark, 1991. Cataloghi dei Civici Musei di Pavia, I, Materiali preistorici. Milano: Edizioni ennerre.Google Scholar
Pearce, Mark, 1994a. Ii territorio di Milano e Pavia tra Mesolitico e Prima età del Ferro. Dalla carta archeologica alla ricostruzione del paesaggio. Firenze: La Nuova Italia.Google Scholar
Pearce, Mark, 1994b. The origins of metallurgy and ore sources: a north Italian case study. Accordia Research Papers 4 (1993): 49–62.Google Scholar
Pearce, Mark and Massimo, Oddone, 1993. Provenance problems and Neutron Activation Analysis. In Pavúk, J. (ed.), Actes du XIIe Congrès International des Sciences Préhistoriques et Protohistoriques, Bratislava, 1–7 septembre 1991, 1: 237–241. Nitra: Institut archéologique de l'Académie Slovaque des Sciences.Google Scholar
Pernicka, Ernst, 1995. Crisis or Catharsis in Lead Isotope Analysis? Journal of Mediterranean Archaeology 8 (1): 59–64.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Peroni, Renato, 1971. L'età del Bronzo nella Penisola Italiana, L L'antica età del Bronzo. Firenze: Olschki.Google Scholar
Peroni, Renato, 1989. Protostoria dell'Italia continentale. La penisola italiana nelle età del Bronzo e del Ferro. (Popoli e civiltà dell'Italia antica 9). Roma: Biblioteca di Storia Patria.Google Scholar
Peroni, Renato, 1994. Introduzione alla protostoria italiana. Roma-Bari: Laterza.Google Scholar
Rittatore Vonwiller, Ferrante, 1953–54. La necropoli di Canegrate. Sibrium 1: 7–48.Google Scholar
Sandars, Nancy K., 1961. The First Aegean Swords and Their Ancestry. American Journal of Archaeology 65: 17–29.Google Scholar
Sandars, Nancy K., 1963. Later Aegean Bronze Swords. American Journal of Archaeology 67: 117–153.Google Scholar
Sayre, Edward V., Aslihan Yener, K. and Joel, Emile C., 1995. Comments on ‘Oxhide Ingots, Recycling and the Mediterranean Metals Trade’. Journal of Mediterranean Archaeology 8 (1) 45–53.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schliemann, Heinrich, 1878. Mycenae. A Description of Researches and Discoveries at Mycenae and Tiryns. London: John Murray.Google Scholar
Shanks, Michael and Christopher, Tilley, 1987. Social Theory and Archaeology. Cambridge: Polity Press.Google Scholar
Skeates, Robin, 1995. Animate objects: a biography of prehistoric ‘axe-amulets’ in the central Mediterranean region. Proceedings of the Prehistoric Society 61;279–301.Google Scholar
Torbrügge, W., 1972. Vor- und frühgeschichtliche Flüssfunde. Bericht der Roimisch-Germanischen Kommission 51–52 (1970–71):1–146.Google Scholar