Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-t8hqh Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-30T21:42:29.943Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Early Metallurgy of Copper In Ireland and Britain

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  27 May 2014

H. H. Coghlan  and
Humphrey Case
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

This paper arises from the work of the Ancient Mining and Metallurgy Committee of the Royal Anthropological Institute, of which Committee the authors are Chairman and Deputy-Chairman respectively.

The method of research has been to obtain drillings from the uncorroded metal of typical Early Bronze Age implements, for analysis in research laboratories. Ninety-eight analyses are published below in Tables I–III (pp. 106–21). They are of 51 halberds (fig. 1), 39 axes of various types and 7 knives or daggers of Beaker Culture type. The halberds are classified according to Ó Ríordáin; and certain of the axes according to Raftery; broad and thick-butted (fig. 2, 41–2) referred to below as ‘thick-butted’; narrow and thin-butted (fig. 2, 23) referred to below as ‘thin-butted’; other types of axe are bevelled (fig. 2, 25), similar to the thin-butted, but generally squatter, with edges bevelled; and flanged (fig. 2, 95), the thin-butted type with flanged edges. Certain thin-butted or flanged axes are decorated and these are classified I (fig. 2, 85) or III according to the system of Megaw and Hardy; some axes cannot be classified, being unfinished; a few are anomalous wafer-like forms.

Type
Research Article
Information
Proceedings of the Prehistoric Society , Volume 23 , January 1958 , pp. 91 - 123
Copyright
Copyright © The Prehistoric Society 1958

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

page 91 note 1 Publications of the Committee have appeared in Man: vol. XLVIII (1948), no. 3, Archaeological note, by V. G. Childe, Geology of copper from the archaeological point of view, by C. N. Bromehead, and no. 17, Some analyses of native copper and ancient artifacts, by Voce, E. (= Voce, 1948)Google Scholar; vol. XLIX (1949), no. 178, Bronze Age metal objects from Azerbaijan, part I, by T. Burton Brown and E. Voce; vol. L (1950), no. 4, Iron objects from Azerbaijan. Third and early second millennium iron, by T. Burton Brown and Messrs Alfred Herbert, no. 49, Bronze Age metal objects from Azerbaijan, part II, by T. Burton Brown and E. Voce, no. 199, Report on patternwelding on a Viking period spearhead, by A. E. P. Collins and H. H. Beeny, and no. 236, Report on some Egyptian artifacts, by H. H. Coghlan and E. Voce; vol. LI (1951), no. 6, Report on the examination of a broken celt from Scotland, by E. Voce, no. 65, Examination of a fragment of the Welwyn bowl …, by H. H. Coghlan, W. Watson, and E. Voce, and no 234, Report on miscellaneous copper and bronze artifacts, by Childe, V. G. and Voce, E., LII (1952)Google Scholar, n. 124, Aims of research, by V. G. Childe, Summary of work to date, by H. H. Coghlan and S. Benton; vol. LIII (1953), no. 150, Studies of British and Irish celts: first series, by Coghlan, H. H. with appendices by Cook, M. and Thompson, F. C. ( = Coghlan, 1953): vol. LIV (1954)Google Scholar, no. 21, Studies of British and Irish early copper artifacts: second series, by Case, H. (=Case), and vol. LV (1955)Google Scholar, no. 4, Analyses of three Continental axes and specimens of Irish ores, by Coghlan, H. H. (=Coghlan, 1955)Google Scholar.

page 91 note 2 Arch., LXXXVI, 1936, 195–321Google Scholar (=Ó Ríordáin).

page 91 note 3 Prehistoric Ireland (1951), 138Google Scholar.

page 91 note 4 A few, not shown on fig. 5 or yet sampled, have thin butts but are otherwise similar.

page 91 note 5 PPS, IV, 1938, 272–6Google Scholar.

page 91 note 6 E.g. Case, fig. 2; PR, 1431.2317, PR, 1432.2325.

page 92 note 1 Possibilities discussed in Case, 21.

page 94 note 1 Voce, 1948, and Coghlan, 1955.

page 94 note 2 Prehistoric working of pyritic ores has been described in detail by Pittioni, , Univ. Lond. Inst. Arch. 7th Ann. Rep., 1951, 17–30Google Scholar.

page 94 note 3 Arch., LVI, 1899, 279–81Google Scholar.

page 94 note 4 During metallographic examination of an Irish thick-butted axe, Dr E. Voce noted evidence for protection against oxidation by hot charcoal or by poling (stirring with green wood). Coghlan, , Notes on the prehistoric metallurgy of copper and bronze, 1951, 110 (=Coghlan, 1951)Google Scholar.

page 96 note 1 See examples quoted in Coghlan, 1951, 107–9Google Scholar.

page 96 note 2 Cf. Otto, and Witter, , Handbuch der ältesten vorgeschichtlichen Metallurgie in Mitteleuropa, 1952Google Scholar, analysis nos. 814 and 342, 817 and 949, 818 and 379, 1051 and 734. (=Handbuch).

page 96 note 3 This trend is confirmed by a series of analyses made by Mr A. A. Smales, B.sc., F.R.I.C., received after this paper had been prepared for publication.

page 96 note 4 See references to opinions of Gowland, Otto, and Witter, in Case, 25Google Scholar. The statistical association of arsenic antimony and silver in Table 1 is noteworthy.

page 97 note 1 In an address to the British Association at Sheffield, 1956.

page 97 note 2 For example, Remedello Culture of N. Italy, Handbuch, nos. 299, 310–1, 337–8, 354. Saale region of central Europe, Handbuch, nos. 378–86, 388; see also Otto, , Jahresschrift für Mitteldeutsche Vorgeschichte, XXXIV, 1950, 92–3Google Scholar, for collected analyses from hoards. N. Italian flat and flanged axes, Handbuch, nos. 772–6, 865–8, 941–2; cf. also halberd, Case, Table II, F.B. 256.

page 97 note 3 The coefficient indicates the ratio by which the various elements may be expected to divide between the metal and the slag during the smelting process.

page 99 note 1 Analyses showing various degrees of resemblance were quoted in Case, 23. The analysis of the Beaker Culture knife from Buttelstedt, Weimar (Handbuch, no. 368) is a good match but for the nickel content (0.05%) which is higher than any in Group I.

page 99 note 2 As Raftery has indicated in Prehistoric Ireland, 1951, 138Google Scholar. Fig. 5 is based on the collections in the City Museum and Art Gallery, Belfast, the Cork Public Museum, and the National Museum, Dublin, information being kindly given by Mr R. Weathercup, Prof. M. J. O'Kelly and Miss E. Prendergast, and on collections in the Ashmolean Museum, the British Museum, the Pitt-Rivers Museum, Oxford, and Salisbury Museum. Mr E. M. Jope also kindly gave information and we are grateful for valuable discussions with Miss Lily Chitty, O.B.E.

page 99 note 3 Wright, and Cole, , Memoirs of the Geological Survey of Ireland: The Geology of Killarney and Kenmare, 1927, 76Google Scholar. Si, 5.29. S, 25.32. As, 16.07. Sb, 3.70. Cu, 40.26. Fe, 4.54. Zn, 3.18. Ag, 0.15. Sulphuret of Mercury? 0.56. Total, 99.07%.

page 99 note 4 Briard, and Giot, , L'Anthropologie LX, 1956, 498Google Scholar (Bel-Air en Landerneau).

page 99 note 5 Thick-butted axes from Waterford, Ireland, and possibly from Merioneth, Wales, a bevelled axe from Ireland and a halberd from Llanfachreth, Merioneth, Wales, all contain a strong trace or more of nickel and would come into Group III. Case, ref nos. 42, 43, 39, 43, and p. 25.

page 99 note 6 Of Middle or Late Bronze Age date. Armstrong, , Man, XXVI, 1926Google Scholar, no. 105. Desch., PPS, IV, 1938, 183–4Google Scholar. Coghlan, 1953, Table II.

page 99 note 7 Handbuch, Tables passim. Junghans and others, unpublished analyses. A strong trace of nickel also appears in some Breton Early and Middle Bronze Age objects including a Western European knife and a flat axe. Briard and Giot, see note 4.

page 99 note 8 Handbuch, 126, Table 13a.

page 99 note 9 Junghans and others, unpublished analyses. Briard and Giot, see note 4, Barnenez en Plouézoc'h.

page 99 note 10 Dr Junghans and his colleagues have expressed the same opinion in conversation.

page 100 note 1 West Mediterranean analyses by Junghans and others, unpublished. At present, early Iberian analyses are few, and this makes any interpretation far from comprehensive. Early Iberian analyses by Junghans and others are not yet available.

page 100 note 2 PRIA, LVI C, 1954, 299–321Google Scholar.

page 100 note 3 The most interesting finds were at Site D, where an awl and a possible blade fragment of an axe were found about 5 inches and ‘about 2″ over old ground level’ (Id., 411), but much disturbance may have occurred on a long occupied site.

page 100 note 4 JCH & HAS, LVI, 1951, 69–86Google Scholar. But cf. Wheeler, , The Stanwick Excavations, 1954, 40Google Scholar.

page 100 note 5 Id., 390, 418.

page 100 note 6 Mitchell, , PRIA, L C, 1945, 6, 10–13Google Scholar. Note different stages assigned to finds at Cordal and Newferry.

page 102 note 1 But Iberian specimens are generally more attenuated. Jalhay and do Paço, , Actas … de la Sociedad Espanola … de Prehistoria, XX, 1945Google Scholar, pl. XVII, 1, 3, 4. Leisner, and Leisner, , Megalithgräber der Iberiscken Halbinsel, 1943Google Scholar, pl. 9. no. 33; pl. 11, no. 17; pl. 46, no. 11. The Leisners do not consider these forms to be the earliest in southern Spain, and believe that the shorter, broader variety, more like Irish axes, is late in relation to the Los Millares assemblage. Id., 523–5.

page 102 note 2 Baudouin, , BSPF, XX, 1923, 326–9CrossRefGoogle Scholar, R. Loire at Trentemoult.

page 102 note 3 There has been no exclusive research on the frequency of this type in Wales and England, but it can be nothing comparable to the frequency in Ireland. At present, guided by Miss Lily Chitty, O.B.E., we know only: Co. Durham and possibly Merioneth (Case, ref. nos. 16 and 43); Willingdon Hill, near Eastbourne, Sussex (Grinsell, , SAC, LXXII, 1931, 42Google Scholar and pl. 1, c.9); and possibilities from Fordham, Cambs.; Norfolk; possibly Oswestry, Shropshire; Somerset; and Farncombe, Surrey (British Association Card Index).

page 102 note 4 Handbuch, Tables passim. As a form, it is primeval—in Ubaid context at Gawra (Tobler, , Excavations at Tepe Gawra, 1950Google Scholar, pl. XCVIII a, no. 2) and probably at Arpachiyah (Mallowan, , Iraq IIGoogle Scholar, pl. X (i), f.p. 100.

page 102 note 5 Handbuch, Tables passim. Junghans, unpublished analyses.

page 102 note 6 See notes pp. 99–100, above, and Handbuch, nos. 188, 190, 209, 346, 367–9.

page 102 note 7 Les premiers âges …, 1887, 213–15Google Scholar. Mr A. W. G. Kingsbury has examined a fragment of this material preserved in the Ashmolean Museum, and reports that it is from the gossan and largely derived from chalcopyrite; and that the mineral probably of most interest to the miners was chalcocite. Thus the grey ores are not in question. A dagger from Alcala, Algarve, and the few detailed Argaric analyses show arsenical metal in use. Handbuch, nos. 261–2, 297–8. See also Case, 1927. 2004, Table II, apparently from a grey ore.

page 102 note 8 See note 2, p. 97 above.

page 102 note 9 Junghans, unpublished analysis.

page 102 note 10 Montemerano hoard: Ó Ríordáin, 234. For analyses, see note 2, p. 97 above; also Junghans and others, unpublished.

page 103 note 1 Discussed metallurgically by Otto, , Jahresschrift für Mitteldeutsche Vorgeschichte, XXXIV, 1950, 90–100Google Scholar.

page 103 note 2 The subject-matter of this and the succeeding paragraph will be discussed by one of us in a further paper.

page 103 note 3 Childe, , The Danube in Prehistory, 1929Google Scholar, fig. 143.

page 103 note 4 Handbuch, no. 397.

page 104 note * DrJunghan, 's highly interesting preliminary publication is in BRGK, XXXIV, 1951–1953, 77–114Google Scholar.