Iron, Prehistoric and Ancient 9781607244707, 1607244705

Citation preview

Iron, Prehistoric and Ancient

A n a l e c t a Gorgiana

241 Series Editor George Kiraz

Analecta Gorgiana is a collection of long essays and

short

monographs which are consistently cited by modern scholars but previously difficult to find because of their original appearance in obscure publications. Carefully selected by a team of scholars based on their relevance to modern scholarship, these essays can now be fully utili2ed by scholars and proudly owned by libraries.

Iron, Prehistoric and Ancient

By Harry Richardson Amelia Hertz

w

1 gorgia? press 2009

Gorgias Press LLC, 180 Centennial Ave., Piscataway, NJ, 08854, USA www.gorgiaspress.com Copyright © 2009 by Gorgias Press LLC Originally published in All rights reserved under International and Pan-American Copyright Conventions. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording, scanning or otherwise without the prior written permission of Gorgias Press LLC. 2009

1

ISBN 978-1-60724-470-7

ISSN 1935-6854

Extract from The A^merican Journal of Archaeology, vol. 38 (1934).

Printed in the LTnited States of America

IRON,

PREHISTORIC PLATE

A N D

ANCIENT

X X X I X

years ago a controversy arose between t h e proponents of a high antiquity for man-made iron and those maintaining a similar position with regard to bronze. I n an admirable and interesting work St. John V. D a y 1 summed up the case for iron while the precedence of bronze was upheld by the redoubtable Gladstone 2 and a galaxy of scholars. Archaeological evidence, though not wanting, lacked its present authority and the conflict was waged around classical legend and the cultural significance of a few undocumented objects of early iron and bronze. Echoes of t h a t controversy still reverberate as current tradition—none more persistent than a widespread belief t h a t industrialization of iron first occurred in the East. T h e t r u t h in the matter appears now to be precisely the reverse. There is no warrant for either bronze or iron in the Orient until after their appearance in Europe, where, as most authorities are at present agreed, the Bronze Age 3 begins about 2000 B.C. and the Iron Age 4 opens one thousand years later. FIFTY

Obviously such a chronology is concerned only with palpable evidence of industrial usage, and it rejects as sporadic, hence meaningless, t h e occurrence of the following antiquities: BKONZJS Place Egypt Egypt

Medum Memphis

Object Rod5 Statue 5

El Gerzeh Great Pyramid Abusir Abydos Ur Knossos Vaphio Kakovatos Tut-ankh-amen Ramses I I I

Object Beads 6 Plate 6 Picks 6 Lump 8 Dagger 7 Cube 7 Ring 7 Ring 7 Dagger 8 Halbert 6

Dale B.C. 2980-2900 2625-2475

Period III Dynasty VI Dynasty

Date B.C. 4000 2900-2750 2750-2625 2625-2475 2278-2170 1800 1500 1500 1350 1198-1167

Period Predynastic IV Dynasty V Dynasty VI Dynasty Sumerian M. M. I I Mycenaean Mycenaean X V I I I Dynasty X X Dynasty

IRON Place Egypt Egypt Egypt Egypt Mesopotamia Crete Greece Greece Egypt Egypt

Inadequate documentation also tends to invalidate both items of bronze and three of t h e earlier iron objects from Egypt. T h a t the El Gerzeh beads and the dagger of Ur are meteoric rather than terrestrial iron has now been established beyond reasonable doubt. 9 1

St. John V. Day, The Prehistoric Use of Iron and Steel, 1876. W. E. Gladstone, The Time and Place of Homer, 1876. "Archaeology," Encyclopaedia Britannica, 14th Edition, Vol. 2, p. 247. 4 A Guide to Early Iron Age Antiquities, British Museum, Table XII, for a chronology of the Hallstatt 5 period. H. Garland, C. O. Bannister, Ancient Egyptian Metallurgy, 1927. 6 A Guide to Antiquities of the Bronze Age, British Museum, p. 172. 7 T. A. Rickard, "Iron in Antiquity," The Journal of the Iron and Steel Institute, No. II, 1929. 8 Howard Carter, The Tomb of Tut-ankh-amen, 1927. » See Note 5, p. 573. s

3

555

THE ARCHAEOLOGICAL INSTITUTE OF AMERICA

556

HARRY CRAIG RICHARDSON

A relatively late dating for iron (1000 b . c . ) and bronze (2000 B . C . ) , moreover, accords with the pre-historical synthesis wherein generations of men are revealed content merely to turn the inherited environment to slightly better account. Thus t h e evidence of object and inscription alike bear witness t h a t Egypt was dependent on copper long after bronze appears at Troy II (2400-1900 B . C . ) . Here certainty ends and speculation begins. Anatolia without tin is no more acceptable as the birthplace of bronze than Akkad or Sumer. Perhaps the frequent occurrence of early Trojan forms in the D a n u b e 2 valley may be more than a clue; in any event, it is safe to assume t h a t the bronze worker of Troy obtained tin from Bohemia. The origin of iron seemingly presents a more difficult problem. I t s ores are found everywhere — a fact often invoked to substantiate claims for this or t h a t region to priority of discovery. T h e premise is sound, but the conclusion is apt to be weak unless it connotes the available ore as t h a t best adapted to a rudimentary technique. Iron occurs in various forms —and the chief concern then, even as now, was not one of amount, but the kind, and whether the ores within reach could be reduced economically. Fifty years ago the enormous deposits of the Lake Superior district were similarly in question — a doubt happily resolved by the timely invention of the basic process and an ingenious system of transport. 3 The problem of origin, thus circumscribed, is further conditioned by an obvious lack of technical knowledge in many localities. Even with suitable ores, a claim, to be sound, must also imply t h e ability and the need to invent a new process. Let it again be repeated t h a t " o r i g i n " or "discovery," as the term is used here, means the production in quantity of a variety of forms. Rings, amulets and beads, casual byproducts of the copper-bronze era, are not especially significant. B u t when iron weapons and implements begin to appear — when these objects grow larger and their numbers tend to increase —then, and then only, t h e fact becomes clear t h a t the production of iron has really begun. Obviously this would occur first where good ores are abundant, and where the fundamentals of metallurgy had been gradually acquired through prior experience with copper or bronze. Economic necessity may have forced the event. In a primitive world where competition was the law of physical survival the momentum of industry was usually in proportion to the amount of pressure exerted immediately beyond the ethnic frontier. Metallurgically, the operation of this is discernible in the rapid advance of some regions to a developed bronze culture, and in a seeming reluctance to take the next step and go forward with iron. Egypt perhaps offers the classic example. For centuries her metallurgists kept the pace, skilfully adapting a remarkable copper-working technique to the production of bronze. This was no easy transition, for, without 1

1 Though bronze bolts, a vase and an offering table are mentioned in the records of the XII Dynasty (2000-1788 B.C.) it is not until the XVIII Dynasty (1580-1350 B.C.) that the references become general and include, among other items, bronze armor and weapons. These, for the most part, appear to have been booty or tribute collected by Thutmose III (1501-1447 B.C.) in his Syrian campaigns. In the records of Ramses III (1198-1167 B.C.) occur the first references to the actual making of bronze. Cf., James H. Breasted, Ancient Records, Egypt, Vol. I, 483, 500, 534; Vol. II, 45, 435, 447, 501, 802, Vol. IV, 202, 343. ' V. Gordon Childe, The Dawn of European Civilization, 1925, p. 57. 3 The basic process was invented in 1878 by Thomas and Gilchrist.

IRON, PREHISTORIC A N D A N C I E N T

supplies of her own, tin was obtainable only through conquest or trade. B u t the vigor was lacking in the closing phase of a war-worn Empire (1200-1090 B.C.) to abandon bronze and take up iron. N o doubt the Egyptian metallurgists had knowledge of it; vague rumors, even specimens, of the marvelous new metal were bound to have filtered in. Some a t t e m p t s may even have been made to apply it, but in face of the difficulties, these would soon be abandoned. At tremendous cost a stable and profitable bronze industry had been built up; bronze had in t h e past met every need and, as far as could then be seen, would continue to do so. Conceivably, iron might be a metal of future promise, but in the immediate present it was no harder, no more durable, and was infinitely less beautiful than the familiar bronze. Successful reduction demanded, moreover, radical changes in t h e existing technique. Most important of all, good ores were required —and where were such ores to be found? Here there is a divergence of responsible opinion. Some authorities maintain t h a t iron, as well as copper, was present in the deposits of the Sinaitic peninsula; others claim, on the contrary, t h a t no iron is to be found there now and t h a t it never existed. A few Egyptologists have pointed to distant Nubia as a probable source; but the oldest known mining sites there appear to be Roman. 1 T h a t these deposits were not worked until a comparatively late date is also implied by Herodotus. H e specifically comments, and with an obvious emphasis, t h a t t h e Ethiopians marching in the host of Xerxes carried " s h o r t arrows pointed not with iron but a sharpened stone." 2 T h e point really a t issue in such discussions of fact is not whether iron ores were available, but rather what kind. Low grade hematites of the variety mined in E g y p t 3 to-day would be practically worthless to a primitive industry because of the deleterious oxides which form the gangue. T h u s concept and evidence combine to refute the pretensions of Egypt. There is no valid authority for iron among the Egyptians before the Assyrian conquest. 4 In the Tigris-Euphrates valley, as along the Nile, the tide of early civilization advanced with copper, and receded with bronze. Iron, if known, was exceedingly rare a n d never attained industrial rank except in Assyria. And though an inscription of Tiglath-Pileser 1 6 (1125-1100 B.C.) is frequently cited as proof of an earlier dating, there is no warrant in fact for Assyrian iron until the eighth century B.C. I t is imp o r t a n t to observe, however, t h a t the iron hoards found a t Khorsabad, N i m r u d and Nineveh 6 are the earliest known of any considerable size in the ancient East. 1

H. Garland, C. 0 . Bannister, op. cit., p. 85. »Herodotus, VII, 69. "In West Sinai there appear iron and manganese ores in pockets wherever the carboniferous limestone outcrops. In the eastern desert of Egypt there are three districts, W'adi Dib, Abu Marwat and Abu Jerida where iron ores are displayed in fair amounts and of good quality." Iron Ore Resources of the World, The Eleventh International Geological Congress, Stockholm, 1910. * In the opinion of Ebert, "one cannot distinguish an iron culture in Egypt before the middle of the second century B.C." Cf„ "Eisen," Reallexikon der Vorgeschichte, Vol. I l l , Section 1. s "At the bidding of Urta, who loves me, four wild bulls which were mighty and of monstrous size in the desert in the country of Mitani and near to the city of Araziki which is over against the land of Hatti, with my mighty bow, with my iron spear, and with my sharp darts, I killed." D. D. Luckenbill, Ancient Records, Assyria and Babylonia, Vol. I, p. 247. 6 At Nimrud (the original section of what later became the Assyrian city of Nineveh) the palaces of Ashurnasirpal III (883-859 B . C . ) , Shalmaneser III (858-824 B . C . ) and Tiglath-Pileser IV (745-727 B.C.) were excavated by Layard. Numerous iron objects were found among the remains of Ashurnasirpal's palace—daggers, spear-heads, arrow-heads, parts of a helmet, fragments of armor, axes, sickles, 3

558

HARRY CRAIG RICHARDSON

Significant, too, is t h e f a c t t h a t t h e y occur in Assyria with its flanks in t h e Caucasus a n d on t h e central p l a t e a u of Asia Minor. T h e classical tradition has led m a n y authorities to accept n o r t h e a s t Asia Minor, or t h e Caucasus, as t h e probable source of t h e metallurgical a r t a n d t h e birthplace of iron. T h i t h e r sailed t h e A r g o n a u t s in quest of t h e golden fleece; there dwelt t h e Chalybes, most renowned of t h e iron-workers in all a n t i q u i t y . B u t whence t h e Chalybe tradition came is vague, t h o u g h t h e allusions of Aeschylus 1 point to a Scythian origin. Syria-Palestine, in spite of its later renown, does not a p p e a r to have been an early worker of iron. F r o m first to last its industrial-commercial activities were determined b y t h e usage of E g y p t and Babylonia for whom it alternately served as a region of t r a d e or a field for conquest a n d plunder. I t is entirely admissible t h a t t h e exiled Aegeans, t h e Philistines of H e b r e w history, h a d knowledge of iron in t h e t e n t h c e n t u r y B.C. Such knowledge, however, would h a v e come f r o m t h e West a n d its roots m u s t be sought in E u r o p e . China a n d I n d i a were too far removed f r o m t h e s t r e a m of developing western civilization t o h a v e contributed to, or been influenced by, t h e early working of iron. N o piece of metal f o u n d in China can be d a t e d prior to 1200 B . C . ; 2 a n d t h e earliest recorded use of iron goes back only t o t h e eighth century. India, whose civilization is a p p a r e n t l y later t h a n t h a t of China, seems t o h a v e passed directly f r o m the use of copper t o t h a t of iron with no intermediate bronze culture. On t h e evidence, a n y early dating for iron is inadmissible a t present. I t can only be claimed with reasonable assurance t h a t in 326 B.C. the supreme excellence of I n d i a n iron became known to t h e western world t h r o u g h t h e conquests of Alexander. T h e theory of a Central E u r o p e a n origin for iron is not new. M o r e t h a n t h i r t y years ago Sir William Ridgeway suggested 3 t h a t t h e Achaean invasions of a b o u t 1400 B.C. b r o u g h t iron into Greece; a n d he sought to trace t h r o u g h the arms of t h e Achaeans before T r o y certain affinities with H a l l s t a t t . W h e t h e r t h e Achaeans b r o u g h t iron into Greece m a y be open to question; b u t t h a t t h e Dorians did, there can be no d o u b t . T h u s b y 1000 B.C., a t t h e latest, iron was reaching t h e M e d i t e r r a n e a n coasts f r o m beyond t h e D a n u b e . I n substance, t h e n , archaeological evidence establishes t h e t i m e when m a n first produced iron for weapons a n d implements a t a b o u t 1000 B.C. I t points u n m i s t a k ably t o Central E u r o p e a n d t h e Assyrian uplands as t h e most probable places of origin. Nowhere else, with a n y t h i n g like a comparable dating, h a v e objects been f o u n d in sufficient quantities to w a r r a n t a belief t h a t iron h a d come into general use. saws, a pick, hammers, locks, finger rings, bracelets a n d a bronze bell w i t h an iron clapper. H e r e is variety sufficient t o justify a n i n t h century d a t i n g were it n o t for t h e fact t h a t Sargon II (722-705 B.C.) is known t o have restored t h e palace of Ashurnasirpal and converted it into a storehouse for treasure a n d booty. T h e excavations of Victor Place uncovered in t h e palace of Sargon a t K h o r s a b a d (DurSharrukin) a q u a n t i t y of iron estimated t o weigh approximately 175 tons. Grappling-hooks, chains, picks a n d m a t t o c k s were found, together with numerous bars, or billets, d r a w n o u t at each end a n d pierced with a hole for facility in transport. Cf., Austen H e n r y L a y a r d , Nineveh and Its Remains; Victor Place, AUnite et I'Assyrie; Percy S. P . Handcock, Mesopotamian Archaeology. 1 Aeschylus, The Seven Against Thebes, 727-733. ! J a m e s H . Breasted, The Conquest of Civilization, 1926. 3 Sir William Ridgeway, The Early Age of Greece, I, 1901.

IRON, PREHISTORIC AND ANCIENT

559

And if precedence for the West is claimed here it is only because, in addition to the evidence of objects, Central Europe appears more nearly to fulfill the combined premised conditions of available ore, metallurgical knowledge and t h e economic necessity to develop iron. II At the opening of the second millennium, the cultural gap between the East and the West was perceptibly closing. 1 Barter and exchange were common and fairly continuous between Europe and the Levant at adjacent points, or along the coasts. Metals, salt, amber, pottery, implements and fabrics were the commodities most in demand. T h e wares of Egypt, borne in her own ships, 2 were then being distributed among t h e Aegean islands and in Crete, whence in Cvcladic bottoms they were transported west as far as the Pillars of Hercules and north to the Troad, from which points, and others intermediate, a commercial penetration of Europe had long since begun. Overland and by inland stream the raw materials of Europe were reaching the coasts. 3 Lead, silver and copper from Spain, tin and possibly a species of natural bronze 4 from Cornwall 5 or Bohemia, returned inland again in the form of implements, weapons and ornaments. Powerful communities grew up a t t h e various entrepots, notably in Spain and on the Hellespont, a t which latter point T r o y I I (2400-1900 B.C.) was already a thriving industrial center. T r a d e with Central E u rope 6 was continuous and relatively easy from there, by way of Maritza, Morava a n d the D a n u b e valleys. 7 I t was precisely here, in the upper D a n u b e valley, in a district corresponding to modern Bohemia, Bavaria and Austria, t h a t two streams of Eurasiatic civilization met and struggled for industrial supremacy. For about 2000 B.C.8 there arrived in Bohemia, coming by way of Spain, Sardinia and north Italy, a people, named from the character of their pottery the Bell Beaker Folk. Little is known of their antecedents, but it is evident t h a t they were metal workers of skill and experience; further1

Breasted, The Conquest of Civilization, pp. 38, 57. 3 Breasted, op. cit., p. 67. J. de Morgan, Prehistoric Man, p. 274. 4 " T h e presence of a small percentage of tin—anything from .50 to 2.00% need not imply an intentional addition, because the impure ores from which the implements were made have been shown to contain t h e same admixture; the tin was in these eases not added by man with the object of hardening t h e metal, and consequently t h e implements are copper, and not a poor quality of bronze. Such natural admixtures are most frequent, and offer the highest percentage of tin, in areas where tin ores also occur." A Guide to the Antiquities of the Bronze Age, British Museum. 5 " I n Cornwall where copper and tin ores are found together, the earliest metal implements consist of what m a y be termed a ' n a t u r a l b r o n z e . ' " J . Newton Friend, Iron in Antiquity, p. 20. 6 " I n a lecture before the Royal Anthropological Institute on the Aegean and Danube valley in t h e second millennium B.C., V. G. Childe states: ' T h e central European Bronze Age was t h e child of t h e Aegean, but eventually turned upon its parents and devoured them. Recent excavations in Hungary and Macedonia have thrown light on this double process. I n the lowest strata at Toszeg near Szolnok on the Tiza, t h e connection with Troy is clearly revealed in t h e pottery, and at t h e same time a link is found with the early Bronze Age civilization t h a t arose around t h e tin deposits of Bohemia. I n the fourth layer a t Toszeg an intrusive pottery appears, neither native nor Macedonian, but originating around the head-waters of the Adir and M a r c h . ' " Nature, July 23, 1927, p. 138. 7 J o h n Garstang, The Hittite Empire, pp. 39, 40. s "Archaeology," Encyclopaedia Britannica, 14th Edition. 2

560

HARRY CRAIG RICHARDSON

more, and in contradistinction to the Trojan traders, the Bell Beaker Folk appear to have been colonizers.1 In any event, coincident with their arrival a definite metal culture arose in Central Europe, which, known as the Aunjetitz, spread over Silesia, Saxony, Moravia, Bavaria and Bohemia. This was followed less than five hundred years later by a more developed metal industry, the so-called Lausitz culture, which appears to have included the working of bronze.2 Thus by the middle of the second millennium, the peoples of Central Europe had arrived at a metal culture comparable in its basic principles with that of the ancient East; and, what is even more astonishing, in a few hundred years they had accomplished a development which had taken the Orient as many thousands to achieve. Shortly after 1500 B.C. the Lausitz people coalesced with newly arrived dwellers in the Hungarian plain, and together they spread in every direction. The socket and tang now make their appearance. 3 Thereafter weapons of all kinds grow larger and heavier; sword blades are longer and frequently expand in the middle. Thus was developed the leaf-shaped sword of Central Europe, the most formidable offensive weapon yet invented by man. 1 While these momentous events were taking place in Europe, the long mounting tide of eastern civilization was overflowing its traditional boundaries. The standards of Egypt, through the vigorous campaigns of Thutmose I I I (1501-1447 B.C.), had been planted on the upper waters of the Euphrates, and all Syria-Palestine paid tribute to the Pharaoh. Prom far-off Babylon and beyond Taurus where dimly discernible an Hittite Empire was rising to power, came messages 4 of good-will and respect for the mighty Empire of Egypt. The star of Assyria had not then risen; the conquests of Chaldaea and Persia lay yet a thousand years off. Amid the confused struggles of these eastern nations at death-grips, the clash of metal upon metal is heard above the din, but always it is that of copper 5 or the newly discovered bronze, never the ring of iron. It is better bronze or copper perhaps, and the weapons themselves are more skilfully executed, more beautifully ornamented, but, after all, no more destructively serviceable than those of Europe. One hundred years after Thutmose, the Hittite Empire, dominating the central plateau of Asia Minor, had come into being, and emigrants from Thrace, Thessaly, even distant Illyria, had settled in the Troad; or, ascending the Sangarius (Sakaria) Valley, were to be met as far east as the Halys (Kizil Irmak) River. 6 For throughout the fifteenth and fourteenth centuries a rising tide of European migration was in full motion southward. In the van marched the Achaeans, who rapidly conquered Mycenaean'Greece, stormed Crete, and swarmed over the islands of the Aegean. Less than a hundred years later these Achaeans themselves were upon the sea, raiding Cyprus and the coasts of Egypt and struggling for a foothold in Asia Minor. 7 Meanwhile, in successive waves, the emigrants from Europe had been crossing the Bosphorus. Records of the thirteenth century indicate that the Hattic kings were 2 "Archaeology," Encyclopaedia C.A.II., Vol. I, 1924, pp. 100, 108. Britannica, 14th Edition. Ridgeway, op. ext., p. 607, credits these European peoples with the invention of the socket and tang. Woolley's rccent discoveries are implicit that the Sumerians were using the socket at a much earlier date. Cf., C. L. Woolley, The Sumerians, p. 42. s Breasted, op. cit, p. 469. ' Breasted, A History of Egypt, 1912. 6 Breasted, The Conquest of Civilisation, p. 272. 7 John Garstang, op. cit., p. 10.

1 3

IRON, PREHISTORIC AND A N C I E N T

561

aware of impending disaster and sought to avert it through alliance and diplomacy. B u t diplomacy and alliance were without avail. About 1200 B.C.1 the Hittite capital fell and dominance in Asia Minor passed to the races of Europe. I t is not to the purpose here to trace this invasion further; merely to record t h a t it was finally halted a t the gates of Egypt by the armies of Ramses I I I (1198-1167 B.C.). B u t it is important to observe, as the tide rolls back, t h a t a new people has settled on the Palestinian coasts. These are the Philistines of Biblical history, generally believed to have been dislodged Aegeans fleeing the Achaean advance. 2 I n the north, Aramaean tribes rolling in from the desert took possession of Damascus and built a group of powerful city kingdoms. Still farther to the north and west various European peoples amalgamated along the plateau of Asia Minor, whence subsequently they were to emerge as the Phrygians of history. Possibly, then, it is not coincidence t h a t the earliest references to iron in the Asian-Egyptian texts 3 correspond so nearly in time with invasion from Europe; t h a t the clearest and best are a part of, or concerned with, the Hittite record. F a r from surprising, this is precisely what might be expected to follow a European origin. Naturally the Hittite kingdom, dominating Asia Minor, would in t h a t case be first of the eastern empires to acquire the knowledge. And though absolute proof of a west to east trend is now lacking for iron, the influence of Europe upon Hittite affairs, generally, can no longer be doubted. 4 T h a t the use of iron was forced upon Asia by conquering races is also implied in the widespread development of a taboo. This is most evident among peoples who were at great disadvantage in securing the necessary raw materials, or who were so situated otherwise as to be decidedly limited in facilities for working them. T h u s an iron taboo is especially strong among the early Hebrews, who not only were without raw material, but cutoff on all sides from supplies of the semi-finished product. " N o w there was no smith found throughout all the land of Israel; for the Philistines said, lest the Hebrews make them swords or spears." 5 Clearly the Hebrew taboo, though it frequently assumed a spiritual form, 6 was at heart economic. Like many another, fundamentally it expresses the despairing resentment of a conquered and helpless people. B u t the belief t h a t iron was an intruder in the East rests on more solid foundation than the inferences to be drawn from any taboo. From the upper cataracts of the Nile to the Caucasus and from the Euphrates to the Aegean Sea there are no deposits of iron to compare in quantity or quality with those of Europe. Nowhere in western Asia is there a known occurrence of spathic, the ore best adapted to the groping technique of an original iron metallurgy. 7 1

J o h n G a r s t a n g , op. tit., p. 10. = Breasted, op. cit., p. 273. J . A. K n u d t z o n , Die El-Amarna Tafeln, N o . 22, T u s h r a t t a s t o Amenophis I I I (1411-1375 B.C.); Breasted, Ancient Records, Egypt, I I , 537, T r i b u t e t o T h u t m o s e I I I (1501-1447 B.C.); I l l , 403, Power of R a m s e s I I (1292-1225 B.C.); IV, 302, T e m p l e Gifts of Ramses I I I (1198-1167 B.C.); Luckenbill, Ancient Records, Assyria and Bahjlonia, I , 247; H u n t i n g Expedition, Tiglath-Pileser I (1125-1100 B.C.). 4 s J o h n Garstang, op. cit., p p . 38, 39. Samuel, I , X I I I , 19. «Joshua, V I I I , 31. 7 Once it had been discovered t h a t spathic ores were reducible, it follows t h a t t h e iron process would gradually be m a d e applicable t o t h e more difficult hematites and limonites scattered throughout t h e known world. T h e resulting iron would, however, lack t h e consistent quality of t h a t m a d e from t h e spathic ores. Spathic (Fe C 0 3 ) ore is t h e representative member of t h e iron c a r b o n a t e group and 3

562

HARRY CRAIG RICHARDSON

I n Europe the situation was quite the reverse. There, several localities 1 had extensive deposits of manganiferous spathics. T h a t these have been worked from immemorial times is abundantly evident; just how far back is at present uncertain, and of necessity will continue to be so until more is known of the races of Europe and their geographic distribution during the years immediately preceding the Iron Age. Classical historians speak vaguely of Iberians in the west, Ligurians around t h e mouth of t h e Rhone, and Illyrians along the eastern shores of the Adriatic; but whether these were indigenous peoples, or an intruding folk, is not yet clear. I t is certain, however, t h a t they, and other European races beyond the vision of history, were workers of metal, and the temptation is strong to credit them with a knowledge of iron. B u t any such theory, however developed, lacks supporting evidence; and until this may accumulate, the opening of the Iron Age, for both Europe and Asia, can be dated only from the Hallstatt burials. Ill T h e Hallstatt cemetery lies in a defile of the Noric Alps some thirty miles east and south of the Austrian city of Salzburg. In 1846 and the years immediately following, this cemetery was excavated by Ramsauer. So remarkable was the culture here laid bare t h a t " H a l l s t a t t " has taken rank as a type-name, and is now used to identify other and similar sites such as those uncovered by excavation in the provinces of Styria and Carniola, at Glasinatz in old Bosnia, and Bologna. Altogether nearly a thousand burials 2 were opened at Hallstatt, and the wealth of material exposed included objects in gold, amber, glass, bronze and iron. 3 Swords, daggers, axes, spear-heads and javelins were found, m a n y of iron, though a few were bronze. 4 T h e fact t h a t the iron objects were, in most cases, mere slavish copies of those in bronze, indicates clearly t h a t Hallstatt was a transition-type station whose inhabitants, in t h e years around 1000 B.C., were passing from the use of bronze to the working of iron. Who those inhabitants were is not yet clear. T h e fact t h a t cremation and inhumation were both practiced on this site indicates t h e presence of two or more races, when pure contains 48.3% iron. There are minor occurrences in the United States where it is more commonly referred to as siderite. I n England, the " b l a c k b a n d " deposits of the Cleveland district are perhaps the best known of all the spathics. The analysis given by Bauerman (cf., Note (1), p. 504, is reasonably typical. I t is observed t h a t in calcining nearly all of the ferrous has been converted to ferric oxide and t h a t about 80% of the carbonic acid (C0 2 ) has been driven off. While the acids and bases (5.58% and 13.48% respectively in t h e analysis citcd) are not balanced, they are more nearly so in t h e spathics t h a n with other ores. This would be of tremendous value in direct reduction by primitive methods. I t is possible too, t h a t porosity develops in driving off t h e carbonic acid, which would also tend to facilitate reduction. Lime and magnesia are present in sufficient amounts to absorb considerable sulphur. On the authority of Gregory (The Elements of Economic Geology, 1927) some of the blackband ironstones found in Scotland contain so much carbonaceous matter t h a t they can be smelted without additional fuel. 1 Synoptical tables, pages L X X I I I to L X X I X , Iron Ore Resources of ike World, published b y the Eleventh International Geological Congress, Stockholm, 1910, list spathic ores as occurring in Europe at the following points: France, Eastern Pyrenees; Spain, Leon; Austria, Styria and Carinthia; H u n gary, Szepes-Gomerer in Carpathian H u n y a d district; Bosnia, generally distributed; Germany, 2 Siegerland. Ridgeway, op. cit., I , p. 411. 3 4 Joseph Déchelette, Manuel d'Archéologie, I I I , p. 93. Ridgeway, op. cit., I, pp. 413-418.

IRON, PREHISTORIC AND ANCIENT

563

possibly an Illyrian sub-stratum overlaid by Nordic invasion. T h e cremation burials were by far the richer, which might conceivably lead to a belief t h a t iron was a discovery of the cremationists, were it not for the fact t h a t at Glasinatz the order reverses itself. There inhumation predominates 1 and iron 2 objects are less numerous, and poorer, in the cremation graves. B u t whether Illyrian or the culture of some unknown race, the astonishing fact is t h a t here in t h e Hallstatt cemetery lay visible evidence of the earliest comprehensive use of iron by man. Nowhere else has such an abundance and variety of iron objects been found with a comparable dating, and it is obvious, of course, t h a t the Hallstatt forms are merely type-representatives of a long evolutionary process. How far anterior to 1000 B.C. the working of iron began in this region is sheer speculation. 3 All t h a t can now be said with reasonable assurance is t h a t it could not have been prior to 1500 B.C.; and the probabilities are t h a t it was some two or three centuries subsequent to t h a t date. Was it here in the D a n u b e valley, then, t h a t the fires of the iron industry were first lighted? Is it probable t h a t a people so young in the metallurgical art could have been first to achieve this momentous advance? Hallstatt and the archaeological evidence point an affirmative answer; but that, taken alone, is not necessarily conclusive. Of the excellence and abundance of iron ores in the D a n u b e area there can be no doubt. Herein lay t h e R o m a n province of Noricum, comprising within its ancient boundaries modern Styria and Carinthia and such famous mediaeval arm-making centers as Innsbruck and Salzburg. Noric iron, long t h e criterion of excellence, 4 was indeed familiar alike to metallurgist and poet. 5 Pliny 6 rates it as inferior only to iron from the Seres, 7 or t h a t made by the Parthians. Modern testimony is equally laudatory. Jars, who visited this region in 1758, called attention to the fact t h a t steel was frequently produced by direct reduction from the manganiferous spathics of the Styrian Erzberg of Eisenerz. 8 These Eisenerz 1

A Guide to Early Iron Age Antiquities, British Museum.. Iron objects from the Glasinatz graves include spears, javelins, swords, celts, palstaves and axes. Dagger blades are found in both iron and bronze. Bronze arrow-heads, helmets, greaves, shield-bosses, studs, brooches and pins are also in evidence. Cf„ Ridgeway, op. cit., I, pp. 432-438. s Ridgeway dates the earliest Hallstatt graves back to 1200 B.C., and places the earliest Glasinatz burials around 1100 B.C. This seemingly is in complete accord with the early Bologna (Benacci 1) which Randall-Mclver dates at approximately 1050 B.C. 4 Petronius epitomizes t h e R o m a n esteem for Noric iron through Trimalchio's praise of his cook: " 'And because he has a good mind I have brought him from Rome, as a gift, knives of Norican steel.' And at once Trimalchio ordered these to be brought in, and after we had inspected them he gazed on them with admiration, and gave us permission to try the point on our cheek." Satyricon, 70. ' O v i d , Metamorphoses, XIV, 712: Horace, Epades, XVII, 71: Odes, 1, 16, 9. •Pliny, Natural History, X X X I V , 14, 41. 7 " T h e Periplus says t h a t 'Chinese' hides or furs were exported from Barbaricon on the river Indus, and Pliny says t h a t iron made by the 'Chinese' was sent by them with their skins and tissues to Rome. Pliny's reference to 'Chinese' iron, tissues and skins is now taken to refer, in reality, to products not from t h e Chinese, but from the ' C h e r a ' kingdom of south India, so frequently visited by Greek merchants from the reign of Claudius onwards. Chera is often confused with Seres, or Chinese, because of the soft ' c h ' and the appellation Seri given to the Cheras by the Ceylonese." E . H. Warmington, The Commerce Between the Roman Empire and India, pp. 37, 157, 158. 8 Henry Louis, "Presidential Address," The Journal of The Iron and Steel Institute, No. I, 1929. 2

564

HARRY CRAIG RICHARDSON

ores h a v e been more recently discussed b y B a u e r m a n 1 who notes t h a t " t h e production of steel blooms in t h e open charcoal fire (Rohstahlfeuer) is still carried on in some small m o u n t a i n forges, b u t on a n extremely restricted scale for special steel making purposes." 2 Obviously good ores in sufficient q u a n t i t y to provide for t h e needs of a primitive i n d u s t r y were available at, or near, H a l l s t a t t . T h e evidence is less absolute for t h e metallurgic progression of Central E u r o p e a n peoples between 2000 a n d 1500 B.C., yet, in spite of this lack, continuity is discernible a n d t h e objections, a f t e r all, m a y be more a p p a r e n t t h a n real. P e r h a p s it is merely t h a t t h e mind, grown accustomed to enormous lapses of t i m e for t h e unfolding of E u r o p e a n cultures, finds it incredible t h a t in less t h a n five h u n d r e d years a n y people could acquire a knowledge of copper a n d bronze, a n d achieve the metallurgy of iron. B u t the second millennium was, for Europe, a n age of rebirth. T r a d e a n d migration were everywhere increasing, a n d with the exchange of material possessions c a m e t h e interchange of ideas. Lying on t h e m a i n a m b e r routes, 3 in touch with t h e Baltic, t h e M e d i t e r r a n e a n a n d Aegean worlds, no region in t h e west was more susceptible to external influence t h a n t h e D a n u b e area. Here, in t h e d a w n of history, lived young a n d vigorous peoples c o n s t a n t l y under pressure f r o m migratory hordes moving down f r o m the n o r t h . Alert, eager, conscious of growing power, t h e y were u n f e t t e r e d b y metallurgical tradition, and of necessity exploited t h e mineral wealth which lay a t their hands. If priority for t h e West rests chiefly on t h e evidence of objects, t h e claim of t h e Caucasus is a n epic tradition w i t h o u t tangible proofs. N o iron f o u n d in t h a t area can be d a t e d earlier t h a n t h e N i m r u d - N i n e v e h hoards of the eighth century B.C. Conceivably f u t u r e discovery m a y show t h a t t h e working of iron in t h e Caucasus is m u c h older t h a n can now be a d m i t t e d . T h e possibility of this has already been a subject of m u c h speculation; and de Morgan, 4 noting certain similarities with H a l l s t a t t forms, has tentatively suggested t h a t Hellenendorf was t h e p a r e n t whence sprang t h e iron cultures of Central E u r o p e . On t h e evidence as it stands t o d a y it seems more probable t h a t t h e order of precedence was quite t h e reverse, a n d t h a t H a l l s t a t t , far f r o m being t h e offspring, was t h e inspiration of Hellenendorf and o t h e r Caucasian cultures. I r o n a m o n g t h e H i t t i t e s appears to have been rare a n d only in t h e L a t e Period (1200-604 B . C . ) , following submergence of t h e central kingdom, does it really begin t o supersede bronze. 5 1 H . Bauerman, " T h e Erzberg of Eisenerz," The Journal of The Iron and Steel Institute, No, I I I , 1907. 2 H . Bauerman, Ibid., p. 36. J A Guide to Antiquities of the Bronze Age, British Museum, p. 136. 4 J . de Morgan, Prehistoric Man, 1925. 6 I n t h e H i t t i t e collections of the British Museum an iron lance-head and various types of iron hammers are dated from t h e late Hittite period (1200-604 B . C . ) . The collections also include numerous spearpoints and arrow-heads believed to have been used in t h e battle of Carchemish (604 B.C.) between Necho and Nebuchadnezzar. Post-Hittite objects found at Carchemish include spear-heads, lance-points, knives, picks and daggers.

IRON, PREHISTORIC AND ANCIENT

565

T h e f r e q u e n t l y cited letter of H a t t u s i l I I I 1 (1287 B.C.) to R a m s e s I I (1292-1225 B.C.) shows t h a t knowledge of iron h a d developed to a point where a distinction was m a d e between good a n d poor quality. T h a t letter does not necessarily imply, however, t h a t t h e H i t t i t e s themselves were makers of iron; a n d t h e king's s t a t e m e n t , " I have written to get i t , " m a y m e a n either t h a t a request h a d been sent abroad, or t h e c o m m a n d given t o workers within t h e realm. I t is more likely to h a v e been t h e former, for with his own subjects such a m a t t e r would scarcely t a k e t h e f o r m of official correspondence; moreover, a n d contrary to a persistent tradition, it does not a p p e a r t h a t especially good ores were t o be found within t h e H i t t i t e domain. T h e deposits of Asia M i n o r are, for t h e most p a r t , low grade h e m a t i t e with some occurrence of magnetite. 2 Certain mines near T a r b a l i are said t o produce b o t h h e m a t i t e s a n d spathics which, if true, lends considerable significance to Ezekiel's c o m m e n t 3 t h a t t h e m e r c h a n t s of T y r e received " b r i g h t i r o n " f r o m J a v a n (Ionia). Classical references point to only one source 4 in all this vast region—the land of t h e Chalybes east of Sinope on t h e Black Sea. Strabo, writing a t t h e dawn of t h e Christian era, says t h a t " t h e Chaldaei of t o d a y were in ancient times n a m e d t h e Chalybes." 6 " A n c i e n t t i m e s " is a relative t e r m , a n d as used b y him m a y be t a k e n t o m e a n some period, more or less remote, of which he h a d no specific knowledge. I n t h e case of t h e Chalybes " a n c i e n t t i m e s " a p p e a r to fall somewhere between H o m e r a n d Aeschylus, or, between t h e n i n t h a n d fifth centuries B.C. T h e Homeric catalogue does not mention t h e Chalybes, unless, as Strabo suggests, 5 " A l v b e far a w a y , " is read, " C h a l y b e . " E v e n so, t h e peoples referred to are not known as workers of iron, b u t come f r o m a land " w h e r e is the birthplace of silver." 6 1 In t h e Mitteilungen der Vorderasiatischen Gesellschaft, Winckler quotes this letter in full as follows: "Regarding your writing me for pure iron, pure iron is not available in Kizzuwadni in m y store-house. I have written to get iron, and they will bring pure iron, but as yet they do not have it on supply. As soon as they get a supply I will send it to you. In t h e meantime I have sent you an iron sword blade." Hugo Winckler, "Vorderasien im Zweiten Jahrtausend," Mitteilungen der Vorderasiatischen Gesellschaft, 1913, p. 61. 2 A relatively scanty literature on the iron deposits of Asia Minor contributes but few hints of a helpful historical character. Sources on which the conclusions here arrived at are based, include: Iron Ore Resources of the World, published by t h e Eleventh International Geological Congress, Stockholm, 1910; The Iron Ore Resources of Europe, by M a x Roesler, t T . S. Geological Survey, Bulletin No. 706; Troy, by Walter Leaf, 1912. An article appearing in the Iron and Coal Trades Review, July 22, 1927, 3 Vol. 115, p. 131, has proven especially helpful. Ezekiel, X X V I I , 19. 4 According to Garstang (The Hittite Empire, 1929) there were important iron mines near Sis by the side of the Geuk Su, precisely the location of Muskian Tabal which lay approximately 38 N. 36 E. Of the n a t u r e and quality of these ores no trustworthy information is now available, but the implication is t h a t they were workable. In any event, soon after the known appearance of iron in Asia Minor t h e Tabal area became a center of active hostility until finally, "Assyrian armies advancing against t h e former frontiers of H a t t i found themselves in conflict with a people whom they called the Muski. The suggestion is t h a t the Muski of the Assyrian texts were the Moschi of Herodotus (III, 94; VII, 78) and were really t h e first of the Phrygian immigrants from Thrace." Recognition of the Muski as the Moschi of Herodotus also suggests t h a t these people m a y have been the Biblical Meshech, a name usually coupled with Tubal (Gen. X, 2; Ezek. X X V I I , 13; X X X I I , 26; X X X V I I I , 3; X X X I X , 1). And Tubal, long connected with the Tibareni, a people dwelling near the Black Sea, is more plausibly patronymical if derived from Tabal. N o t only is transliteration then seemingly perfect, but Muskian Tabal lay more nearly upon the Hebrew horizon t h a n the little known lands along the Black Sea. T h u s Tubal-Cain, " a n instructor of every artificer in brass and i r o n " (Gen. IV, 22), would appear as the eponymous hero of the only iron-producing region within reach of the Hebrew state. 5 Strabo, X I I , 3, 19, 20. « Homer, Iliad, II, 857.

566

HARRY CRAIG RICHARDSON

With Aeschylus, however, there is no mistaking the Chalvbes as a nation of ironworkers, but with equal clearness the poet locates them north of the Black Sea and west of the Caucasus; 1 and again in The Seven Against Thebes, he seemingly supports this contention when he alludes to, " t h e Chalyb that hath come, a settler here from Scythia." 2 On the testimony of Herodotus 3 and Strabo, 4 the Scythians do not appear to have been users of iron until, driven from their home east of the Caspian by the Massagetae, and thrust westward, they came in contact with Cimmerian tribes moving east from Europe across the southern steppe-lands of Russia. T h e "ruthless C h a l y b " thus appears to have been a Cimmerian-Scyth; and chronologically his arrival in Asia Minor can be placed late in the eighth century B.C., immediately before, or contemporary with, t h a t wave of invasion which rocked the Assyrian kingdom and struck down the Phrygian state. Knowledge of iron among the Chalvbes therefore is seemingly traceable to Cimmerian influence, and through them, perhaps, to Central Europe. How they developed their undoubted skill is shrouded in mystery. I t is not altogether improbable, t h a t , like the natives of Hyderabad, the Chalvbes evolved independently a crucible process; otherwise, it is difficult to comprehend how, as Aristotle asserts, 5 they could possibly smelt " s a n d t h a t is carried down by the river." 6 IV T h e second half of the Iron Age begins approximately at 500 B.C. and ends at the opening of the Christian era. Like the earlier or Hallstatt period, the late Iron Age, also taking its name from a representative type-site, is known as La Tene. Pre1

Aeschylus. Prometheus Bound, 707-735. " A stranger it is that apportioneth their inheritance, the Chalyb that hath come a settler here from Scythia, a ruthless distributor of wealth, even savage-hearted steel, t h a t hath allotted them as land wherein to dwell even so much as may be theirs to hold in death-disportioned of these wide demesnes." Aeschylus, Seven Against Thebes, pp. 727-733 (Trans. Herbert Weir Smyth). 3 Herodotus, 1, 213. * Strabo, X I , 8, 6. s " I t is said that the production of Chalvbian and Ainisenian iron is very peculiar; for it grows together, as they assert, from the sand that is carried down by the river. Some say that they simply wash this and smelt it in a furnace; but others, 'that after frequently washing the deposit left by the first washing they burn it and insert what is called the fire-proof stone which is abundant in this country. This iron is far more beautiful than the other kinds; for if it were not burnt in the furnace it would not differ at all, as it appears, from silver. Now they say that it alone is not liable to rust; but that it is not very plentiful." Aristotle, De Mirabilibus Auscultationibus, Ch. 48 (Trans. Launcelot D. Dowdall). ' A series of preliminary experiments made by the author with black river sands, collected from various arroyas in southern Arizona, show that repeated washings are necessary to remove objectionable amounts of silica sand and gangue. This carefully done, a fine crystalline ore may be obtained with free iron running between sixty and eighty per cent. The ore particles after washing are so fine, however, that smelting in an open fired furnace could never be carried out, no matter how carefully the drafts were controlled; hence the deduction that if the Chalybes smelted river sand, as Aristotle asserts, they must have evolved some form of crucible process. But melting carefully done in sealed crucibles with the addition of coal, or other carbonaceous material, would yield steel of varying hardness at will of the operator. I t is suggested that possibly herein lies a solution of the traditional mystery of the excellence of Chalybian iron. The fact that most iron sands carry upward of one per cent titanium would not be an obstacle to the primitive metallurgist; and the relatively low phosphorus and sulphur would more than compensate for any harmful effects from the presence of titanium in small amounts. A typical analysis of the Arizona river sands experimented with, is as follows: Phosphorus, .075%; Sulphur, .08; Silicon, 1.97; Titanium, .90; Iron, 66.99; Non-metallics, by diff., 29.985. 2

IRON, PREHISTORIC AND A N C I E N T

567

cisely defined, L a T e n e is a Gallo-Keltic culture; hence a late Iron Age is recognizable only in Europe north of the Alps. I t is contemporary with Republican R o m e and overlaps t h e high civilization of Greece, Persia and Macedonia. T h e La Tene settlement lay on a bay at t h e eastern end of Lake Neuchatel, and the site was, for the first time, fully revealed when the water-level receded about fifty years ago. 1 T h e almost complete absence of articles connected with domestic life 2 indicates clearly enough t h a t it was a military post, probably occupied by Helvetians 3 during the third and second centuries B.C. T h u s the civilization at La Tene itself falls within the middle period of the late Iron Age in Europe. T h e richest burials of t h e earlier period (La Tene I, 500-300 B.C.) occur in t h e upper Rhine valley in the vicinity of Coblenz, and in the Champagne district of northeast France. 4 During the middle period (La Tene II, 300-100 B.C.) the Keltic area, comprising parts of France, Germany, Austria and Hungary, was a broad belt stretching across central Europe from the Atlantic to the Carpathians, and lying approximately between the 47th and 50th parallels of north latitude. At its greatest extent projecting points of dominion also appear in Britain, 5 Spain, north Italy, Dalmatia, the Balkans and Asia Minor. In t h e late period (La Tene I I I , 100-1 B.C.) t h e Keltic sphere of influence abruptly contracts. Rome, determined to safeguard her frontiers, 6 had then advanced beyond the Alps, and the legions of Caesar complete the subjugation of Gaul. A t t h e same time the Teutonic tribes, which in La Tene I were east of t h e Elbe, had passed the Rhine and were pressing southward. Caught, pincer-like, between the disciplined forces of Rome and the undisciplined, but equally implacable Teutons, Gallo-Keltic civilization was squeezed out and ultimately vanishes from European history. Where or when the first Keltic movement took place has not yet been determined, 7 but early in the seventh century these warriors appear in the upper Rhine valley. Possibly the late Hallstatt (700-500 B.C.) culture can be traced to their influence; in any event, it was this mobile and conquering race that, in the years between 500 and 100 B.C., spread a knowledge of iron over northern and western Europe. T h e growth and extent of this Keltic iron-working is revealed by the numerous exposed sites scattered throughout central Europe. At Gyular in Translyvania the remains of a furnace have been found. 8 Two of the earliest and best known sites lie within easy reach of Hallstatt—the one in Carinthia on the upper waters of the Drave, t h e other in Styria on the Mur. 9 Both localities, it is to be observed, are 1

A Guide to Early Iron Age Antiquities, British Museum. * Op. cit., p. 47. Sir William Ridgeway, The Early Age of Greece, I, p. 410. 4 As has been pointed out by several authorities, the upper Rhine burials are relatively poor in iron, though rich in pottery and other Greek ware of the fifth century. Burials in the Champagne area, however, have yielded not only a considerable amount but a wide variety of iron weapons and implements, swords, spear-heads, shield-bosses, razors, twisted link-chain sword-belts, brooches; bridle-bits, pole-fittings, wheel-tires, are other items common to the chariot-burials and warrior graves found in the Department of the Marne. 5 Dechelette establishes a La Tene IV period for Britain, dating it in the first century A.D. Obviously this is drawing the line very fine between Roman and Keltic influence on first century cultures in 6 1 Britain. A Guide to Early Iron Age Antiquities, British Museum, p. 79. Op. cit., p. 7. 8 Ridgeway, op. cit., I, p. 606. » James M. Swank, The Manufacture of Iron in All Ages, p. 76. 3

568

H A R R Y CRAIG RICHARDSON

within the borders of what later became the Roman province of Noricum. B u t of greater significance to the antiquary is t h e wealth of evidence uncovered in the Bernese Jura. Here within a limited area t h e complete cycle of early iron production —mining, refining and fabricating—has come into view. N o t only t h a t , but it has also been possible to date a large number of these various sites with reasonable accuracy by the tools and implements found with the remains. 1 There is little doubt t h a t the iron products of Jura travelled far; and it is more than probable t h a t a great deal of t h e iron from La Tene itself originated in this region. Obviously there must have been a wide variation in the quality of iron produced; and in those localities where good ores were rarely obtainable Keltic iron was unquestionably a very inferior product. Polybius, in his account of the wars with t h e Cisalpine Gauls, unmistakably points to a superiority of R o m a n over Keltic iron in the third century B.C.2 On t h e other hand, those tribes who most stubbornly contested Caesar's conquest of Gaul—the Aquitani, Bituriges, Sequani, Helvetii and Boii—were, one and all, located at, or near, the best iron ores of western Europe. 3 T h e temptation here is strong to ascribe the more determined resistance of these Gallo-Keltic tribes to better iron weapons—a speculation t h a t borders upon conviction when it is also observed t h a t the " m o s t courageous" of all t h e Germans, the Belgae, dwelt near the spathic deposits along t h e Sieg, and t h a t the " m o s t war-like" Suebi occupied Noricum. In later times, the Siegerland was t h e home of those Germanic Cherusci who destroyed the legions of Varus; there, too, lived t h e Chatti of whom Tacitus said, " t h e i r whole strength lies in their infantry whom they load with iron tools and baggage; other Germans m a y be seen going to battle, but the Chatti go to war." 4 Great as it undoubtedly was, Keltic iron-working had little effect on civilization south of the Alps or east of the Bosphorus. In this respect the late Iron Age (La Tene) is less vital than the early (Hallstatt) period, traces of which long survived in t h e ancient East. B u t to the growth of Teutonic power, Keltic La Tene contributed much. 5 How much, it is difficult even to approximate, for when the record a t last becomes clear, Teutonic industry has been partially Romanized. Greece, even a t the zenith of glory and power, was never outstanding as a producer of iron. She did acquire, it is true, a considerable facility in working it, but the best, and by far the greater proportion of her iron was imported in semi-finished condition. Sparta is perhaps the single exception. T h e mines of Laconia 6 were apparently adequate for her slender needs, for, though iron was used in every conceivable product, the amount required was relatively small. 1

Ridgeway, op. cit., I, p. 604. 2 Polybius, II, 33. Ebert, commenting on the Keltic finds at Steinsburg, says that, "Work tools in which special hardness is required, such as, knives, files, axes and picks were made of hardened steel; while for other implements (scythes, plough-shares, pokers) softer iron was used." Cf„ "Eisen," Reallexikon der Vorgeschichte, Vol. I l l , Section 1. 5 * Tacitus, Germania, 30. A Guide to Early Iron Age Antiquities, British Museum, p. 79. 8 "There was not much iron in the soil of Greece. The ancient authors speak of it, or traces of workings have been found, on the peninsula of Taenaron in Laconia, in Boeotia, in Euboea, and in several islands of the Aegean—Andros, Syros, Seriphos and Skyros. According to the legends the Greeks obtained iron and learned how to work and use it from various peoples of Asia Minor, especially the Phrygians and Chalybes." Jules Toutain, The Economic Life of the Ancient World, p. 51. 3

IRON, PREHISTORIC AND ANCIENT

569

T h e Greeks of the epics, while acquainted with iron, are seemingly without knowledge of mining or production methods. There is no hint of such knowledge, at least, among t h e forty-eight references in the Iliad and Odyssey. And curiously enough the arrow of Pandarus 1 and the mace of Areithous 2 are t h e only weapons of iron in t h e Homeric legend. 3 I t is quite clear, in fact, t h a t the Greeks of Homer regarded iron as a semi-precious metal 4 to be used sparingly for implements; occasionally, perhaps, as utensil-currency. 5 In Homeric Greece every community had its forge, which was, indeed, the only workshop. Thither came the artisans and landowners for the ever necessary tools and implements. Many brought with them unworked lumps of iron, bronze or copper which the forge-master (chalkeus) fabricated to order. N o t infrequently the working of iron was a part of domestic industry on the larger estates; 6 or, if the job was too complicated, the chalkeus would be sent for to do his work on the premises. In such cases the metal was always furnished by the proprietor from his " t r e a s u r y . " T h e equipment and tools of the forge-master were of the simplest kind—anvil, tongs, hammer and hand-bellows. T h e fuel was usually charcoal. Unquestionably, through long experience, the chalkeus learned t h a t certain heating conditions tended to harden (carburize) the iron, and t h a t further hardening was possible by a water quench. 7 B u t the subsequent refining and toughening by reheating was beyond the early Greek iron-workers, as they lacked the proper facilities to determine, or control, temperature. One hundred years after Homer, or late in the eighth century, Hesiod reveals a considerable knowledge of metallurgy; and he skilfully differentiates between the melting of tin by a crucible process and the " s o f t e n i n g " of iron in "glowing mountain fires." 8 B u t , by then, knowledge of iron had become universal. I t was the age of Sargon and the hoards at Nineveh. And while Hesiod was lamenting in lofty Greek verse the approach of an iron age, 9 even then, the Chalybes were settling on the Black Sea coasts and late Hallstatt Europe was preparing the way for Keltic La Tene. I t was the needs of her colonies which ultimately industrialized Greece. Ionia, whose merchants and traders had long navigated the Aegean and the more treacherous waters of the Black Sea, felt the impetus first. Through such ports as Phasis and Trapezus t h e products of central and western Asia—skins, furs, gold, and foodstuffs —flowed down on the islands. Copper came from Cyprus; iron from Sinope; tin from the west; fabrics, spices and perfumes from Phoenicia and the Egyptian coasts. W i t h raw materials in abundance, with ever expanding markets for the finished products—craftsmanship developed and industrialization began. Metallurgy, concentrated first at Miletus, Ephesus, Samos, passed to Euboean Chalcis, and early in t h e seventh century was a highly developed craft on the mainland 1

Homer, Iliad, IV, 123. a Ibid., VII, 141. This in itself carries an implication t h a t the Dorians rather t h a n the Achaeans brought iron into Greece, for it is inconceivable t h a t the Achaean conquerers would have abandoned iron for the Mycenaean bronze. The Dorian Spartans, on the other hand, were consistently workers and users of iron from 4 5 first to last. Homer, Iliad, VI, 48; X I , 133. Ibid., X X I I I , 850. «Ibid., X X I I I , 834. 8 ' Homer, Odyssey, I X , 392. Hesiod, Theogony, 862-866. « Hesiod, Works and Days, 176-200. 3

570

HARRY CRAIG RICHARDSON

at such centers as Corinth, Sicyon, Aegina and Athens.1 From the mother cities, metal-working spread to the colonies; the metallurgists of Magna Graecia in their turn becoming the instructors of Etruria and Rome. By the end of the seventh century the simpler Homeric methods of hammering and casting had been superseded by a more developed technique. Glaukos the Chian had then invented the welding of iron, and the Samians had discovered, or borrowed, a process of hollow-bronze casting. 1 Both inventions, especially the welding of iron, immeasurably advanced the use of metals. It was shortly thereafter that the iron deposits of Euboea and Boeotia began to be worked. In the Athens of Pericles iron-working was carried on chiefly by resident aliens.2 They were the smiths, the manufacturers of tools, implements and weapons. Two of the largest workshops ever known in Greece were the armor factories of the aliens Kephalos and Pasion. Sophocles' father was a blacksmith, and the patrimony of Demosthenes included a sword factory. 1 Until about 330 B.C. prices for iron ore appear to have fluctuated between $1.25 and $1.50 (silver) per hundred pounds.1 Then a boom, due partly to the speculative opportunities created by the wars of Alexander, quadrupled the price. For in Greece of the fourth and third centuries speculation frequently upset supply and demand, and the "corners" in oil, manipulated by the astronomer Thales, were imitated many times with metals and other commodities. I t is on record that a Sicilian banker of the fourth century, having bought up all of the available and anticipated output of iron, once cleared a profit of over two hundred per cent. Early in the second millennium Bronze Age invaders from beyond the Alps swarmed down upon and seized the fertile plains of north Italy. A few centuries later other invaders, seemingly a kindred people, have crossed the Po and are taking up land as far south as the Tiber. Primarily agriculturists, these Villanovan newcomers are now credited with the introduction of iron into Italy. And it was a southern branch of this race, the so-called Italici, to whom is attributed the founding of Rome. The best known and most carefully studied evidence of this civilization has been collected in the Bologna district. 3 There iron was in daily use not later than 900 B.C. Not only has it been possible to trace here the gradual transition from bronze to iron, but Villanova also reveals many features characteristic of Hallstatt—analogies striking enough at least to warrant belief that both cultures developed from a common stem. Gustave Glotz, Ancient Greece at Work, 1926, pp. 128, 132, 205, 307. An excellent technical study of Periclean iron has recently been made by William Campbell and Ernest E . Thum (Cf., "Ancient Greek I r o n , " Metal Progress, Nov. 1931). Two "bonding clamps," found by Prof. W. B . Dinsmoor on the Acropolis, were examined microscopically and, while their architectural purpose did not require a quality product, they were not only poorly made iron, but inconsistently poor. Structurally, one of the clamps "resembled ordinary wrought iron," while the other, due to a carbon content ranging from .10% to .90%, might more properly be classified as steel. This report tends to confirm a reasoned belief that only the most skilful operators could control the pick-up, or loss, of carbon through repeated heating in a charcoal fire. I t is quite probable, in fact, that the carbon content in many of the earlier specimens was purely fortuitous rather than the result of deliberate intent. 3 A complete and carefully compiled record of this evidence has been published by D . RandallMaclver, VillanovaTis and Early Etruscans, 1924. 1

2

IRON, PREHISTORIC AND A N C I E N T

571

I t cannot be claimed t h a t Villanovan civilization itself directly influenced Rome, b u t indirectly, in its Etruscanized form, it created t h a t city. For those Tyrrhenian immigrants who la!nded on the Italian coasts in the eighth century mixed with the autochthonous Villanovan stock and became the Etruscans of history. 1 There is nothing to indicate t h a t these immigrants from the East brought a knowledge of iron with them, b u t there is evidence for a belief t h a t long before they arrived the Villanovan populations had worked the iron deposits of Tuscany and possibly those of the Island of Elba. 2 Iron-working thus acquired was a developed Etruscan indust r y by 700 B.C. 3 One hundred years later Etruscan armies overwhelmed Rome, and all of Campania and Latium became subject to the Etruscan kings. In a century of dominance which followed (616-510 B.C.) R o m a n civilization began to take form. R u d e farm villages, rapidly expanding to cities, became thriving centers of trade where Greek, Punic and Massiliot merchants bartered their wares and "Corinthian artists and craftsmen found employment in t h e adornment of temples, palaces and tombs." 4 R o m a n metallurgy, and the working of iron, unquestionably date from this period, 5 when, in addition to the then available mineral resources of Etruria, traders were bringing in tin from Britain and iron from Spain and Gaul. T h e expulsion by R o m e of her Etruscan kings was seemingly followed by a general migration of the commercial and industrial classes; in any event, Republican R o m e turned again to the soil, and for nearly two hundred years communication and t r a d e with the outside world are greatly diminished. 6 B u t the lessons learned in the regal period were never forgotten, and, though R o m a n statecraft from first to last was chiefly political, it never again was entirely blind to economic-industrial factors. If, as m a n y historians claim, it was land-hunger and density of population which forced Rome, in t h e fourth century, to a t t e m p t the subjugation of all Italy, it is not inconceivable t h a t the first steps taken were part of a deliberate plan. I t is significant of this t h a t without adequate mineral resources of her own, 7 R o m e struck first at Etruria, t h e richest region of Italy in deposits of iron. From then (351 B.C.) until t h e end of t h e Second Punic W a r (201 B.C.) the mines of Elba and the celebrated Etruscan metallurgical centers, Populonia and Volterra, were the chief arsenals of the Republic. W i t h an abundance of iron assured and with unlimited man-power to draw upon, it was a relatively simple task for the strong centralized government of Republican R o m e to build up t h a t irresistible army which, in the space of a hundred years, conquered Italy and forced Carthage to relinquish Sicily. In the century of conflict which followed (241-146 B.C.) Carthage was destroyed; 8 Spain, Illyria and Greece became subject provinces; and R o m e ruled supreme in t h e western world. 1

Tenney Frank, An Economic History of Rome, 1927, p. 16. Jules Toutain, The Economic Life of the Ancient World, 1930, p. 208. 3 4 Paul-Louis, Ancient Rome at Work, 1927, p. 06. F r a n k , op. cit., p. 23. 5 " T h e eight guilds of the seventh century were those of the flute-players, gold-smelters, smiths, dyers, cord-wainers, curriers, brass-workers and potters. I t has been remarked t h a t the workers in iron did not at t h a t time form a group, which proves t h a t iron-working was still either unknown in Rome, or in any case rarely practiced." Paul-Louis, op. cit., p. 48. 7 < F r a n k , op. cit., p. 67. Paul-Louis, op. cit., p. 68. « Cf., Jules Toutain, op. cit., p. 193. 2

572

HARRY CRAIG RICHARDSON

It must not be inferred that with the acquisition of the iron of Elba Rome abandoned the use of copper and bronze. On the contrary, iron never replaced those nonferrous metals for household utensils, implements of the simpler forms, and for articles of adornment or general utility. But from the fourth century onward, cutting tools, farm implements,1 and the like, are usually of iron, as are the swords, daggers, spear-points and arrow-heads used by the army. 2 Defensive armor, on the other hand—helmets, breast plates, mail, greaves—were usually of bronze; a fact readily accounted for by the many technical difficulties involved in hammering iron blooms into thin pieces or shapes. Until the closing years of the Republic, Roman iron-working was Homeric in its rudimentary simplicity. Every community had its local forge, as in Greece of that earlier period. There is the same tendency, too, among the wealthy landowners to employ freedmen or slaves skilled in the working of iron. Varro, a contemporary of Caesar, tells, in De Re Rustica (1, 16, 4), of travelling smiths who, in his day, went from farm to farm doing whatever iron work might be required. Nothing better illustrates the primitive character of the iron industry in Republican Rome than those surviving monuments which depict the community forge with its meagre equipment, and the racks of cutlery and tools along the wall ready for sale direct to the householder, farmer or artisan.3 Naturally, in the larger communities, specialization developed with increasing demand; at Puteoli, for example, the iron industry of the first century is represented by sword-makers, sickle-makers, cutlery-makers, each more or less a specialist in his own particular line. In many respects, however, the iron industry of early Rome differed materially from that of the Homeric Greek world. From its very inception there seems to have been superficial knowledge, at least, of mining and of the refining of ores. Then, too, an almost continuous warfare necessitated huge standing armies, hence a considerable part of Rome's iron-workers were always afield with the legions.4 Presumably it was military necessity which in the second century B.C. led to a concentration of iron-working at such points as Puteoli, Syracuse, Rhegium, Sulmo and Venafrum, in addition to those older, and then thriving centers of Populonia, Volterra and Minturnae. The way was thus paved for government participation in the last years of the Republic and ultimately for state control and operation of arsenals under the Empire. It was in the first half of the Empire that the mineral resources of Europe were really exploited to meet the growing demands of a Roman world. Iron, which under the Republic had been supplied chiefly by the mines of Elba and those of Spain, in the days of Hadrian (117-138 A.D.) was coming also from Gaul, Britain, Noricum, Illyria and Thrace. Not that much of the iron produced in those regions actually appeared on the market at Rome; that output, indeed, was almost wholly absorbed 1 Iron farm implements from the late Republic or early Empire have been found in the ruins of the buried villa of P. Fannius Sinister near Boscoreale (Pompeii). Some of these are in the collection of the Field Museum of Natural History at Chicago; others in the Museum of Naples. Excellent reproductions of the Field Museum collection are shown on Plate X of M . Rostovtzeff's, Social and Economic History of the Roman Empire. 2 Polybius, VI, 23. 3 Such a shop is represented upon a tombstone in the Vatican Gallery. Frank, Economic History of Rome, p. 235. 4 Frank, np. cit., p. 235.

IRON, PREHISTORIC AND ANCIENT

573

by the enormous arms factories long since established at strategic points near the various mines. T h u s Noricum, which produced the best iron of the Roman world, served principally t h e many state arsenals on the Danubian frontier. 1 Nor was the iron used by Imperial Rome altogether the product of its own mines and forges. Swords and cutting tools, possibly t h e only true steel ever used by the Romans, were imported in quantity from India and Parthia. 2 T h a t Roman iron-making did not progress greatly beyond broadening the field of industrial application is due largely to the abundance of cheap labor and a traditional contempt of the ruling classes for industry in general. 3 Man-power, capital, and a directing intelligence capable of technical advance far beyond the inherited primitive methods were always available in the Roman state. B u t labor alone could not be expected to supply the necessary initiative; capital, otherwise actively engaged or indifferent, would not; and the task of revolutionizing the iron industry passed to Europe of the late Middle Ages. 4 V I t can no longer be doubted t h a t primitive man used meteoric iron. And t h a t its use was continued until historical times is amply attested by the earliest objects, some of which are known now to have been made from the celestial metal. 5 This by no means implies utilization, or even the presence, of any considerable quantity. Less than three hundred tons the world over is known to science today, most of which has been found on the American continent. 6 Unaccounted for yet by natural law, this preponderance in the west is frequently cited as proof t h a t primitive races in Europe and Asia must have utilized equal, perhaps larger, amounts. Such speculation is apt to ignore t h a t its premise also connotes meteoric iron as scarce in those areas. T h e probabilities are t h a t it not only was rare but t h a t its bulk was untouched in primitive times. 7 Only detachable protuberances 8 from some of the larger 1

Toutain, op. cit., p. 254. E. H . Warmington, The Commerce Betrveen the Roman Empire and India, 1928, p. 258. 3 Frank, op. cit., p. 274. 4 T h e earliest known blast furnace and the beginning of the modern fusion process in Europe date from about 1340 A.D. 6 T h e pre-dynastic beads of El Gerzeh and the dagger of Ur are reported to show by analysis a nickel content in excess of 7.00 per cent, and therefore presumably are meteoric iron. A meteoric origin has also been claimed for the cube of Knossos, the rings of Vaphio and Kakovatos, and the dagger of Tut-ankh-amen, but laboratory confirmation of this appears to be lacking. T h e Abydos lump, owing to oxidation is at best doubtful evidence. Even the much discussed fragment from the Great Pyramid, though still in dispute, is probably meteoric iron. Cf., C. H . Desch, The Journal of the Iron and Steel Institute, No. II, 1929, p. 343; T . A. Rickard, The Journal of the Iron and Steel Institute, No. I I , 1929; A Guide to Antiquities of the Bronze Age, British Museum. « G. F . Zimmer, " T h e Use of Meteoric Iron by Primitive M a n , " The Journal of the Iron and Steel Institute, No. II, 1916. 7 " W e thus see t h a t the cosmic sources of meteoric iron available (if we judge from the present day knowledge of similar masses) to primitive man were: (a) Projecting portions of the larger masses; (b) Siderites of a friable crystalline structure; (c) Ramified iron or the nodules of siderolites; (d) Complete meteoric individuals of eleven pounds, and under, in weight. 2

8

The Descubridora meteorite, or rather t h a t portion of it now in the Vienna Museum, reveals one

374

H A R R Y CRAIG RICHARDSON

siderite masses and small, but complete, individuals could be cold-worked. Seldom, indeed, would a malleable fragment be found large enough to shape into weapon or implement; hence utilization, as the evidence shows, must have been chiefly confined to such objects as amulets, beads, rings and images. 1 Telluric (native) iron is even less likely to have been a contributing factor. Rarely found now, 2 it is highly I t is impossible t o f o r m a n y idea as t o t h e q u a n t i t y t o be obtained u n d e r (a) a n d (b); F o r (c) possibly F o r (d) 00 masses 219 2,000 G. F . Zimmer, op. cit., p. 341.

Total Weight 22,000 lbs. 31.5 lbs. 296 lbs. 2,200 lbs.

Average

Weight

3 . 2 5 lbs. 1 . 3 3 lbs. 1 . 1 0 lbs."

of t h e failures in a n a t t e m p t t o obtain meteoric iron with primitive tools. Wedged in a groove, obviously c u t for t h e purpose of detaching a f r a g m e n t , is t h e broken end of a copper chisel. 1 An experiment b y t h e a u t h o r , t h o u g h b y no means conclusive, does indicate some of t h e difficulties p r o b a b l y encountered b y primitive m a n in his a t t e m p t s to work meteoric iron. T h e experiments were carried o u t w i t h a p p r o x i m a t e l y one p o u n d (11 small pieces) f r o m t h e San Angelo, a m e d i u m octahedrite, t h e analysis of which as given b y O. C. F a r r i n g t o n , The Catalogue of the Meteorites of North America, is as follows: Iron 91.96% Silicon .011% Nickel 7.86 Phosphorus .099 Carbon Sulphur . 032 Manganese Cobalt .... Copper . 04

All of t h e pieces were etched a n d showTed a typical W i d m a n n s t a t t e n s t r u c t u r e . H a r d n e s s was approxim a t e l y 230 Brinell. I n t h e experiment t e n of t h e eleven pieces were melted, a n d one piece was subjected to a crude a t t e m p t a t h o t forging. Melting: C h a r g e d 314 grams in a small magnesite crucible a n d melted in an A j a x high-frequency induction f u r n a c e operated b y a n oscillator. A f t e r cooling t h e m e l t was knocked o u t of t h e crucible where it h a d solidified in t h e f o r m of a b a r 1" dia., 2 l/i' long. Loss in weight d u e to melting was 29 grams. E x a m i n a t i o n revealed a pipe c a v i t y extending t o a d e p t h of a b o u t one half t h e total length of t h e piece. Polished a n d examined a t 130 magnifications specimen showed large areas of oxide inclusions surrounding t h e pipe c a v i t y . E t c h e d in 3 % nitric solution, dendritic crystals were visible a t 63 m a g nifications scattered irregularly t h r o u g h o u t t h e field. C o m m e n t s b y J . W . P e r c y on t h e micro-photographs t a k e n are as follows: "Again we are sending you a rather belated reply to your letter of July 2.5 th, in relation to the micrograph of the melted meteoric iron. I am inclined to agree with you that the sample after remelting seems to he more typically meteoric than the micrograph which we took shows. However, I am not exactly inclined to agree that the condition is a Widmannstatten structure. I will agree, however, that it certainly shows axial crystallization. Crystallization roughly appears to be at approximately 60° and not cubic which would be the case with pure iron. I do note, also, the total absence of the two constituents which are supposedly typical of meteoric iron. These are quite evident in the micrograph which we sent which showed the exceedingly large and small grains. It seems the remelting has destroyed or dissolved these two constituents." Forging: H e a t e d one piece, weighing 66 grams, t o m e d i u m cherry red (1230° F.). S t r u c t u r e n o t obliterated a t this t e m p e r a t u r e , a n d on etching in 3 0 % hydro-chloric solution W i d m a n n s t a t t e n m a r k i n g was as distinct as in original specimen. R e h e a t e d t o light cherry (1330° F . ) , to salmon (1630° F.) a n d forged on anvil with ball pein h a m m e r . T h e piece, while ductile a n d yielding u n d e r t h e h a m m e r blows, showed t e n d e n c y t o open u p along t h e boundaries of t h e k a m a c i t e plates. Specimen w i t h o u t going cold was r e h e a t e d t o welding h e a t (white, 2200° F.), but could not weld or flow into solid piece because of cracking along t h e cleavage planes; due, in all probability, t o t h e f o r m a t i o n of films of r u s t a t these points. Conclusion: I t is perhaps reasonable t o conclude, if conclusions a r e possible f r o m a single experiment, t h a t m o s t of t h e hexahedrites a n d m a n y of t h e m e d i u m octahedrites were beyond t h e simple technique of primitive men. 1 " T h e specimens of telluric iron in our own n a t i o n a l collection (if we except t h e dubious finds on t h e west coast of Greenland) can be held in t h e hollow of one h a n d ; there m i g h t be enough for a few beads, b u t n o t for larger o b j e c t s . " G. F . Zimmer, op. cit., p. 307.

IRON, PREHISTORIC AND A N C I E N T

575

improbable t h a t it was available in quantity when m a n began to use metals. Judged solely from their metallurgic-geological aspects both meteoric and terrestrial iron were beyond the simple technique of early primitive man. Native copper presented a less complex problem. I t was certainly common, if not abundant, and could be readily mined with the simplest of tools. To a chalcolithic artisan copper would seem surprisingly plastic and t h e first forms, though crudely cold-worked, a tremendous improvement over similar objects in flint or stone. With experience, moreover, it would soon become known t h a t malleability increases when copper is heated; this leading in turn to diversification and, ultimately, to the knowledge t h a t copper would melt. 1 T h e first copper smelting furnaces were unquestionably shallow holes or trenches, perhaps two feet wide and deep, lined with refractory clay. H a n d fanning or blowpipes would be employed to raise the temperature. I t is entirely reasonable to assume t h a t a t t e m p t s to melt iron would be made in these furnaces. Such attempts were, however, foredoomed to failure for the simple reason t h a t even if the temperature could be raised to 2768° F., it could not be maintained at t h a t point long enough to melt the iron. I n other words, these units were far too small to develop heat in the required volume. Something akin to the semi-fused product of a later antiquity might be achieved, but pound for pound as compared with copper the yield in iron would be less than one fourth 2 and the fuel consumed a t least twice as much. Except in some cases of rare necessity this was probably more than the "traffic " would bear. Such are conceivable aspects in t h e primitive background when the working of metal first comes within the vision of history in Sumer, E g y p t and Crete. I t is not to be wondered t h a t little iron had been used. And with the introduction of crucibles and invention of moulds in the third millennium 3 the adequacy of cast copper did not escape those alert civilizations then clustered around the eastern Mediterranean basin. Here larger objects and a greater variety reflect the steady advance of nonferrous metallurgy in the next thousand years. Skill, grown inventive, 4 is itself re1 I t is improbable t h a t the copper sulphides, oxides and carbonates were successfully reduced in this epoch. To admit t h a t is to imply a knowledge of metallurgy capable of alloying tin and copper in the proper proportion t o make serviceable bronze. 2 This is, of course, an arbitrary figure based on a concept of the probable working conditions. I t is not so simple, as many modern writers seem to believe, to reduce iron in a shallow hole either with or without an artificial blast. A series of ten unsuccessful attempts has convinced the author, a t least, t h a t this is a fact. In only two of the ten was there evidence of reduction and the process appeared incomplete in the one, while the other was over-carburized. Lack of success now does not mean t h a t it cannot be done. But would t h a t conviction be equally strong where there had been no prior experience? The answer is undoubtedly—no. As an original quest, repeated failure with low grade ores would at some point call a halt and the primitive interest would only rekindle as actual evidence appeared t h a t other peoples had been more successful. Such tangible evidence would be most likely to come from those areas where good ores were found. 3 While no precise dating is possible, the evidence, as a whole, tends to support the citation. Broken crucibles have been found associated with third millennium remains, b u t none t h a t are assignable to an earlier period. Universality also is indicated by the fact t h a t crucibles occur, not only in the Mediterranean area, b u t east to the Urals and as far north as Britain. Necessarily, the invention of moulds would follow, rather than precede, the introduction of crucibles. 4 The inventions of this period, which in no small measure account for the increase in size, include riveting and hollow casting. T h e hardening of copper by cold hammering m a y also be assigned to this period.

576

HARRY CRAIG RICHARDSON

created in the changing image of its own technique. Then, without perceptible break, eastern supremacy wanes, and late in the second millennium pre-eminence in metals passes to Central Europe. Whether the working of metal was indigenous or an intruding culture in Europe may never be known. I n Spain and along the coasts the accumulating evidence suggests Oriental influence. B u t in the D a n u b e valley and on the Rhine a distinctive metallurgy appears, stimulated, no doubt, by the available supplies of good ore and the abundance of timber for fuel. In the last analysis it is raw material supply which accounts for the metallurgical ascendency of Europe, and the appearance there rather than in Asia of huge battle-axes, formidable leaf-shaped swords, and finally the enormous bronze and iron weapons of an eleventh century Hallstatt cemetery. Who these Hallstattians were and whence came their knowledge of iron is not known. One thing is certain; skill such as theirs was never attained in a single century. Nor is it yet possible to determine precisely the form of furnace employed, for of the many prehistoric iron-works found none can with safety be assigned to this period. 1 I t is possible, however, by working backward from types known to have been used by the Kelts to arrive at a reasonably accurate conception. 2 Like its copper-smelting prototype, the Hallstatt furnace would be a shallow excavation, about two feet square and deep, lined with refractory clay. B u t where this excavation had formerly comprised the entire unit it was now merely the hearth; the melting chamber proper rose above ground to a height of two or three feet. I t s inner wall, banked with sod, was enclosed by a rough stone facing. Possibly twelve inches square a t the top, this chamber gradually widened to twice t h a t dimension a t the hearth, into which a free flowing stream of air was admitted through an opening pointed into the wind. Furnaces of this type might conceivably produce in eight or ten hours a semifused mass weighing fifty pounds. I n this operation alone approximately two hundred pounds of charcoal would have been consumed, while subsequent heating and working required at least one fourth as much more. 1 The Tarxdorf furnaces referred t o by E b e r t (cf. op. at., sect. 2) are probably of a later period. From his description of the accessory remains it is quite possible, in fact, t h a t these were calcining rather t h a n reducing furnaces. I n any event, it is certain t h a t iron was never "smelted " in these small units. 2 The reconstruction as here presented is predicated on an article appearing in Slahl und Eisen, 49, N o . 15, April 11, 1929: "Evolution of the High Furnace in S t y r i a , " a part of which follows:

" W i t h t h e early m e t h o d a forgeable iron was obtained f r o m impurity free ores b y direct reduction. As long as only a n a t u r a l d r a f t was used, these fires were deep pits, on steep slopes, provided a t t h e b o t t o m with a d r a f t channel. L a t e r on, square or cylindrical shafts were built, a b o u t one meter high and wide, which were provided with bellows operated b y h a n d or foot. " F i g u r e 1 shows a f u r n a c e d a t i n g f r o m p r e - R o m a n occupation in t h e J u r a M o u n t a i n s . " I t h a d a so-called obliquity t o t h e extent of one half t h e diameter of t h e t h r o a t so t h a t t h e coal a n d ore could go down a t t h e hearth a n d t h a t t h e air—only n a t u r a l d r a f t was used—could circulate freely. " T h e oven was first filled with charcoal a n d quantities of ore broken t o n u t size. T h e charge for these furnaces was a b o u t four t e n t h s of a cubic meter which produced 150 t o 200 kilograms of metallic iron with 430 t o 480 kilog r a m s of charcoal. " I n t h e operation of these furnaces t w o or t h r e e men were sufficient, t h e fire usually being k e p t up only 8 t o 12 hours. After each melt it was necessary t o completely rebuild t h e f u r n a c e . "

From the fact t h a t the known prehistoric blooms average less than twenty-five pounds each in weight the estimated yield, as used in the article quoted above, is unquestionably high. For the distribution and a description of prehistorics, bloom cf., M a x Ebert, " E i s e n , " Reallexikon der Vorgeschichte Vol. I l l , Section 2.

IRON, P R E H I S T O R I C AND ANCIENT

577

Elemental as it appears now, this operation presupposes a technique developed through long experience. Even at best the results were always uncertain. Excess carburization on the one hand, an incomplete reduction on the other, would repeatedly frustrate the unwary or baffle the unskilled. Nor were the difficulties of these early metal-workers at an end with reduction successfully achieved. The iron mass as it came from the furnace was impregnated with slag most of which had to be eliminated before the product was forgeable.1 With crude equipment, tongs, anvils and hammers, this in itself was no inconsiderable problem. Immediately the reduction process had been judged complete, and the furnace had sufficiently cooled, the front wall would be broken down and the slag-iron mass removed. Some of the cinder and dirt might be loosened by cold-hammering, but the greater proportion, being intimately mixed with the iron, was laboriously squeezed out by repeated heating and hammering. After this, and again with many reheatings, the bloom would be drawn into bars of suitable size and shape to produce the object desired. Starting perhaps with an ore charge of three hundred pounds, the successful operator would have produced at the end of his arduous task about twenty-five pounds of reasonably good iron for forging into weapons or implements.2 Such may have been the method employed at Hallstatt, whereby iron-working took rank as a basic industry. And it was this, or a process akin, that the Dorian invasions carried to Greece and which in north Italy reached Villanova (1000 B . C . ) . Of more enduring significance is the propagation and spread of the process by the conquering Kelts (700-100 B.C.) from whom, in an Etruscanized form, it descended to Rome. And as lip-fires, so-called, Roman type furnaces survived until the end of the eighteenth century A.D., when they gradually gave way to the more economical puddling process invented by Henry Cort. Possibly a Keltic iron-master would have failed to detect the slightest resemblance between his crude furnace and a European lip-fire, but in spite of the improvements of two thousand years iron was still made direct from the ore at temperatures considerably below the melting point.3 Nothing had been learned of furnace reactions, and the chemistry of the process was as vague to the European of 1700 a.d. as it was incomprehensible to his Keltic predecessor. Of the elements usually in combination with iron neither had knowledge of any except sulphur. Both comprehended, without knowing why, the necessity for oxygen, and, in lesser degree, the resulting effects from the presence of carbon. 1 " I r o n oxide when reduced at temperatures below 900° C. (1652° F . ) forms a dark gray substance, very porous, but otherwise in almost the same form as the original particles of ore. If the final temperature ranges from 1000 to 1050° C. (1832 to 1922° F . ) the product is partly sintered to a loosely coherent mass still showing the outlines of the original particles of ore. With yet higher temperatures, 1100 to 1150° C. (2012 to 2102° F . ) , the iron begins to flow together, forming a pasty, semi-fused, somewhat porous mass, called a " b l o o m " which can be taken out and worked under a hammer to form a product similar to wrought iron; it usually contains some inclusions of slag and is too low in carbon to make steel." C. E . Williams, E . P. Barrett, B . M . Larsen, Production of Sponge Iron, Department of Commerce, Bureau of Mines, Bulletin 270, 1927. ! Analyses of iron scoria, or slag, found near the various sites attest the relatively low iron yield from the direct process methods of prehistorical times. Cf. Swank, op. cit., p. 76. 3 This is not literally correct, as the first European cast iron was produced about 1340 A.D. The new process, however, did not at once put an end to the old, and until the invention of the Bessemer converter (1856) cast iron was as distinct from the wrought as bronze is from copper.

578

HARRY CRAIG RICHARDSON

T h e advance, in a word, was more apparent than real. T h a t the mediaeval furnace was larger 1 and better controlled is due chiefly to the increased efficiency of the bellows. 2 When or where these first were made applicable is not known, but the probabilities are t h a t the discovery was made south of t h e Balkans, and no earlier perhaps than the seventh century B.C.3 Shortly thereafter they appear in the D a n u b e area. Ridgeway, and others, following Quinquerez, have identified pre-Roman furnaces in the Bernese J u r a which they claim had been operated with an artificial blast. I t may be safely assumed t h a t bellows were employed throughout Keltic La Tene (500-1 B . C . ) , and, after the Etruscan collapse (351 B . C . ) , by the Romans. As far as the Kelts are concerned, the observable effect is one of accelerated diffusion rather than a step-up in unit production. Roman furnaces, too, are seemingly unchanged until the end of the Second Punic W a r (201 B . C . ) , when the mineral resources of Spain were wrested from Carthage. Thenceforth, and impelled no doubt by a widening political horizon, Rome grows "iron-minded." I n the last years of the Republic her output had risen enormously and was further augmented under the Empire by the accession of Noricum (16 B.C.). T h a t this increase was due chiefly to t h e multiplication of units is self-evident, for, though furnaces were then larger, the yield in forgeable iron rarely exceeded one hundred pounds. B u t if unit production was only slightly increased by the employment of bellows, a marked improvement in quality may be traced to their use. This would be especially true with the manganiferous spathics of Noricum, from which, and at will, the iron-master of the Empire produced steel or high carbon iron. If a hard iron were desired, more and thicker charcoal would be added and, by continuing the process longer with a reduced draft, carbon was absorbed in approximately the required amounts. Obviously, to obtain a soft iron the process would be reversed. Under spur of necessity R o m e might have devised mechanical means for creating a blast, thereby anticipating by more than a thousand years smelting of iron on a large scale. Excellence for its own sake was, however, no concern of the Romans, and with iron, as in other industrial activities, mere superiority was the ultimate goal. This may serve to explain why greater progress was made in fabricating and finishing. I t was the technique of the E a s t first tapped by Rome in the conquest of I t a l y (358-266 B.C.) which lay a t the base of this branch of her metallurgy. Pliny and Diodorus are most informing of all the contemporary writers, b u t as they merely record what they observed, or were told, theirs are the comments of laymen dealing only in episodes. Both make it equally clear t h a t decarburization had long been the bane of the R o m a n metallurgist; and t h a t to retain hardness, or 1 T h e direct process f u r n a c e described b y Agricola (1494-1555 A.D.) h a d a r a t e d capacity of " t w o to three c e n t u m p o n d i a , " or approximately 175 t o 200 pounds, of forgeable iron. ! " T h e first k n o w n representation of a n y mechanical means for producing a blast is f r o m t h e walls of a t o m b of t h e period of T h u t m o s e I I I , supposed t o be a b o u t 1500 B.C." H e n r y Louis, "Presidential Address," The Journal of the Iron and Steel Institute, N o . 1 , 1 9 29. 3 " A n d when he calls Anacharsis (a Scythian prince a n d philosopher resident in Athens a b o u t 590 B.C.) ' w i s e ' E p h o r u s says t h a t he belongs to this race, a n d t h a t he also was considered one of t h e Seven Wise M e n because of his perfect self-control a n d good sense. And he goes on t o tell t h e inventions of Anacharsis—the bellows, t h e two-fluted anchor a n d t h e p o t t e r ' s wheel," Strabo, V I I , 3, 9 (Trans. H o r a c e L . Jones).

IRON, PREHISTORIC AND A N C I E N T

579

to restore it in the cutting edge was a most difficult problem. 1 How well they succeeded may be judged from the increasing numbers of intricate and highly purposeful tools. T h a t some method of carburization was employed has been convincingly established by the recent metallographic studies of Carpenter and Robinson. 2 Neumann, 3 who has also examined a number of specimens, concludes t h a t the Romans of 200 A.D. were acquainted with carburizing. As to the method itself, Pliny's reference suggests the "boiling in sow m e t a l " process of the late Middle Ages described by Agricola. 4 Certainly the "nucleus Jerri especially adapted for h a r d e n i n g " was high carbon iron, since, "prepared in another manner it is suitable for making thick anvils or heads of hammers." 5 I t is highly improbable t h a t such a method of carburizing was ever in general use. Comparable results were more readily attainable, for, as Stead 6 points out, " i t is easy to conceive how pieces of iron could be carburized by embedding them in the heart of a charcoal fire and maintaining them at a high temperature by using a blast insufficiently strong to penetrate to t h e center of the h e a r t h . " Water was the recognized quenching medium, although, on the authority of Plinv, 5 m a n y small objects were hardened in oil. Bilbilis, Turiasso, Comum and other localities renowned for their iron may have evolved a tempering process which they adroitly concealed from prying competitors by attributing excellence to the " q u a l i t y of water into which the red-hot metal is plunged." 6 I t is impossible as yet to affirm or deny t h a t the Romans tempered their carburized iron. T h e broad assumption is t h a t they did, for it is quite inconceivable t h a t having advanced to this final, all-important phase of heat-treatment they could fail to complete the cycle. On the other hand, successful tempering requires controlled temperatures regulated to the varying composition of the iron-carbon alloy. Tempering would, therefore, be only possible in those favored localities where repetitive operations with a uniform product afforded opportunity for observing the effects as measured by the various oxidation colors. Even at best the difficulties were enormous and the results always uncertain. There is nothing to indicate t h a t the Romans ever made iron or steel by a fusion process. T h a t they occasionally produced an amorphous iron carbide is apparent from the statement of Pliny 5 : " I t is a remarkable fact t h a t when iron ore is fused it becomes liquefied like water and afterward acquires a brittle, spongy texture." As no further comment is made, and as no other Latin writers refer to a fusion process, it is reasonable to assume t h a t such fortuitous production was considered a 1 One of the most unique solutions of this perplexing problem is attributed by Diodorus, V, 11, to the Celtiberians: " T h e y make weapons and darts in an admirable manner; for they bury plates of iron so long under ground till the rust hath consumed the weaker part, and so the rest becomes more strong and firm. Of this they make their swords and other warlike weapons; and with these arms, thus tempered, they so cut through every thing in their way t h a t neither shield, helmet nor bone can withstand them." 2 Sir H. C. H . Carpenter and J. M . Robertson, " T h e Metallography of Some Ancient Egyptian Implements," The Journal of the Iron and Steel Institute, No. I, 1930. 3 B. Neumann, "Römisches Eisen," Zeitschrift fur Elektrochemie, X X I X , p. 177. ' Georgius Agricola, De He Metallica, Ch. I X (Trans. Herbert C. Hoover—Lou Henry Hoover). s Pliny, N. II. X X X I V , 14, 41. s J. F. Stead, The Journal of the Iron and Steel Institute, No. I, 1912, p. 133.

580

H A R R Y CRAIG RICHARDSON

total loss, and the resulting metal either scrapped or reworked with subsequent charges. B u t if Rome was ignorant of, or oblivious to, the merits of a fusion process, there is tacit recognition of it in the fact that steel for their best implements and weapons was brought in from the East. 1 Pliny wrongly credits the Chinese, but in this he is purposely misled, as were the more skeptical Roman ambassadors referred to by Gibbon. 2 I t is now known that this steel, so highly prized by the Romans, was a product of India, made from the black magnetite sands of Hyderabad. And as Damascus or Wootz, this Indian-made steel was held in equal esteem by mediaeval and modern Europe. Around its production the craftsmen of the E a s t drew a veil of secrecy, and it is only in recent years that the researches of Anossof, Belaiew, Zschokke and others, separating legend from fact, have laid bare the essential characteristics of the process. T h e charge, consisting of black magnetite ore, bamboo-charcoal and the green leaves of certain carbonaceous plants, was sealed in a crucible made from native clay. Several of these would be set in the hearth which was then filled with charcoal and the furnace lighted. Gradually raising the temperature to a point where the charge became molten (approximately 3000° F . ) , an iron-carbon alloy was thrown out of solution and solidified in mass at the bottom of the crucible. This metallic button or mass, mechanically separated from its slag, was then alternately melted and cooled again four or five times — each complete operating cycle requiring a day. Then in round cakes about five inches in diameter and one-half inch thick, each of which weighed approximately two pounds, the metal was carried overland by caravan to the arms-making centers of western Asia; or if for export, to the various shipping points. A long normalizing treatment preceded the forging operation which was done with great care, flowing the metal in two or more directions with light blows of the hammer. After prolonged annealing the blades were quenched and drawn to the desired hardness, then polished and etched. This last operation brought to the surface the damask inherent in the steel; and its pattern and background color determined the quality. 3 Belaiew 4 contends that the best Damascus is a hyper-eutectoid steel and gives the analysis of an unusually beautiful blade as: _C_

Mn

Si

S

F

1.49

.08

.005

.0,5

.10

True Indian steel was in no way related to the degenerate wrought product composed of bars and wire welded together, and then falsely damascened by cross forging. I t is also distinct from the Persian, where the charge, although melted in crucibles, was wrought iron and charcoal. 5 Pliny 6 is undoubtedly referring to steel E . H. Warmington, op. cit., p. 258. Edward Gibbon, The Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire, Ch. X L I I , Note 24. ! The description of the process is adapted from the text of an article by T. O. Court in the Iron Trade Review, February 11, 1926, supplemented by, and compared with, the more specific information contained in the treatise of Col. N. Belaiew, "Damascene Steel," The Journal of the Iron and 4 N . Belaiew, op. cit., p. 427. Steel Imtitute, No. I, 1918. 5 Such a process is described by Swank, The History of the Manufacture of Iron in All Ages, 1892, as contemporary in the Trichinopoli district of the Madras Presidency, India. The description, interesting 1

2

IRON, P R E H I S T O R I C AND ANCIENT

581

produced by this process when he rates Parthian iron as next in rank to iron made by the " S e r e s . " No precise information exists as to the method employed by the Chalybes. Strabo 1 mentions their iron mines and Pliny 2 their forges. Aristotle's brief account 3 holds the only clue, implying as it does that a crucible process was used. 4 Nor is it impossible that the writers again were deliberately misled and that the Chalybe, after all, merely served as a cloak for the actual producer. B e that as it may, they and their iron were already a tradition in the days of Aeschylus, a tradition that still lives in Anglicized form in our word, " c h a l y b e a t e . " Other than the Indian and the Chalybian, iron-making in the East seems to have followed the European method, or, in the less accessible areas, to have been a yet cruder survival of neo-primitive forms. Subsequent research may perhaps prove the Assyrians an exception. Judged solely by amount, the iron at Nineveh represents either a gradual accumulation through conquest and trade or the large-scale production of a super-technique. As a dynamic entity ancient civilization ends with the reign of Hadrian, though outwardly it lingers a few centuries more. And it is from this, the post-ancient period, that two most remarkable specimens of iron have come down. T h e Delhi column, from which the Indian city takes its name, is dated approximately 300 A.D. Whether built-up by welding small sections or forged in a single unit, it attests the skill of the unknown iron-master of sixteen centuries ago. T h e shaft itself, 1 2 ^ inches in diameter at the top and inches at the base, is nearly 24 feet long, and weighs by estimate somewhat more than six tons. Hadfield, 6 who microscopically examined a small section, reports the analysis as follows, C

Mn

_Si_

.08

Nil

.046

P_ .006

.114

Fe 99.70

with specific gravity at 7.81 and a Brinell hardness of 188. Obviously the hardness is not representative, for it compares with the working maximum obtainable from a heat-treated .40 to .50 carbon steel of equivalent mass. Neither microscope nor analysis have yet given a clue to what is metallurgically the most significant characteristic of this remarkable column: its corrosion resistance. There it stands after sixteen hundred years of exposure to the elements in as perfect condition as when first erected. I t is decidedly questionable whether modern iron or steel, similarly exposed, could have endured that long. T h e site of Roman Corstopitum lies immediately west of the English village of Corbridge on the north bank of the Tyne. Here the largest known mass of Roman iron was found in 1909. From the collateral evidence a fourth century A.D. dating in itself, is significant of tile many reasons why the primitive metallurgist did not generally adopt a crucible process in the making of iron. The clay is far from being refractory; the yield is meagre with an enormous expenditure of effort; bellows arc necessary to raise temperature within the crucible to the 6 Pliny, I. c. 1 Strabo, X I I , 3, 19-20. 2 Pliny, N. H. V I I I . melting point of iron (2768° F.). 3 Aristotle, He Mirabilibus 4 See note 0, p. 566. Auscultationibus, Ch. 48. 5 Sir Robert Hadfield, "Science Analyzes the Iron Pillar of Delhi," Iron Trade Review, November 26, 1925.

HARRY CRAIG RICHARDSON

582

may be safely assigned. The examinations of Louis and Stead 1 have disclosed not only the characteristics of the bloom itself, but in general the difficulties inherent to the production of large masses by the ancient methods. Found in what appears to have been a reheating furnace, the bloom measures 39 inches in length, and is approximately 7 inches square at one end and 5 inches square at the other. Its net weight is 344 pounds. That work was in progress when the bloom was abandoned is apparent from a photograph of the longitudinal section, which also reveals what has long been suspected, that the larger masses of ancient iron were composed of small sections welded together. Based on Stead's drawing, the largest single unit in the Corstopitum bloom did not exceed forty pounds in weight. Chemical analysis showed the usual variation in carbon for direct process iron, this ranging from .02% in one section of the lower end to .29% in another near the top. The average composition according to Stead is C .097

Mn 704

Si 7O46

S 7O25

P 7044

Cu ^01

Slag 738

Compared with the Delhi iron, the essential difference is a lower phosphorus content and the inclusion of slag. Surface corrosion, non-existent in the column, has penetrated the bloom to a minimum depth of one quarter inch. It is interesting to observe that Hallstatt and La Tene iron, judged by analysis alone, is not inferior to either the Delhi or Corstopitum metal. It also compares favorably with modern wrought iron.

c Mn Si P

s

Sword .17

Hallstatt 2 Lance .63

.04 .01 .008

.046 .045 trace

La Tene Lance . 10 to . 53 .255 .05 .019

Ring .21 .056 .122 .031

Modebn Muck Bar .06 .07 .15 .10 .016

Possibly the higher carbons of the La Tene and Hallstatt iron were intentional but, if so, they reflect the indeterminate technique of the primitive iron-master. If the iron anchor found in Lake Nemi can be authoritatively dated to Caligula's reign, that, and not the bloom of Corstopitum, is the "largest known mass of Roman iron." According to Speziale (The Mariner's Mirror, XVII, No. 4, October 1931), the Nemi anchor weighs 1275 pounds, and is "forged from four lumps of metal— three for the shank and arms and one for the stock." ADDENDA

In the 1932-33 excavations at Tell-Asmar a bronze lattice-work dagger handle was found, to which a 28th century B.C. dating has been assigned by Dr. Frankfort. Sir Hugh Bell, "Notes on a Bloom of Roman Iron Found at Corstopitum," The Journal of the and Steel Institute, No. I, 1912. 2 There is apparently only a meagre literature on Hallstatt iron. This is regrettable, for much could be learned from metallographic studies of specimens now in the British and Vienna Museums. The analyses given (the only ones published of which the author has knowledge) are taken from an article by B. Neumann, "Romisches Eisen," in Zeitschriftfiir Elektrochemie, X X I X , p. 175. 1

Iron

IRON, P R E H I S T O R I C A N D A N C I E N T

583

A metallic fragment wedged in the slot and another trapped inside the handle were analyzed by Cecil H. Desch, who reports both specimens to be "rusted iron, converted as usual by long contact with the earth into a hard, magnetic, crystalline mass. Moreover, analysis shows that this iron is free from nickel and is therefore not of meteoric origin." As the associated remains were dedicated to temple service, the dagger itself may be classified, perhaps, as a ceremonial object. For such service, any kind of iron would suffice, even unsmelted, hard hematite. In any event, as far as the purpose of the present study is concerned, the Tell-Asmar dagger is another "sporadic" exhibit. Cf., Henri Frankfort, Iraq Excavations of the Oriental Institute 1932/33, University of Chicago Oriental Institute Communications, No. 17, pp. 59-61. B u t the Tell-Asmar dagger, and similar finds, call for constant restatement of the main issue. Is "sporadic" iron from the Near East to be taken as evidence of origin? Peake, Cumont and others (cf., Harold Peake, " T h e Origin and Spread of Early Iron Working," Geographical Review, Vol. X X I I I , No. 4, October 1933; Franz Cumont, Etudes Syriennes, 1917), to mention only a few, view such objects in that light. They seem to ignore the possibilities of diffusion from some other point through the medium of trade. The problem, indeed, is complex. In the final analysis, it comes down to a choice between the literary testimony of the ancient East and the objective evidence from Hallstatt, Glasinatz and Bologna. H A R R Y C R A I G RICHARDSON REPUBLIC STEEL CORPORATION Cleveland, Ohio

IRON: PREHISTORIC AND ANCIENT A N ANSWER TO M R . RICHARDSON

his very interesting article published under this title in the JOURNAL, of 1 9 3 4 , pp. Mr. Richardson declares : "There is no warrant for either bronze or iron in the Orient until after their appearance in Europe, where . . . the Bronze Age begins about 2000 B.C. and the Iron Age opens one thousand years later." And he adds: "Obviously such a chronology is concerned only with palpable evidence of industrial usage and it rejects as sporadic and therefore meaningless the occurrence of the following antiquities." There follows a list of bronze and iron objects, mostly found in Egypt, from which, evidently for the sake of his thesis, Mr. Richardson has carefully omitted the bronze implements from the great Royal Necroplis of Ur and from the older strata of Kish. 1 As even Mr. Weidner and Professor Christian do not place the Royal Necropolis of Ur later than 2600 B.C., I find it absolutely impossible to admit that the knowledge of bronze passed from Europe to Asia and not in the reverse direction. As to iron in the East, Mr. Richardson is perfectly right in regard to the fact that large quantities of worked iron are not found there before the seventh century B.C. But these finds exist, and sporadic or not, they are not meaningless, as they prove irrefutably that the process of melting iron from its ores was already invented, otherwise these objects could not have been executed at all. And in the invention of a new technical process, not in its more or less intense application, lies the progress of humanity. Furthermore, after the introduction of a new metal, much time is needed before its properties are sufficiently known to allow its free use. At first its application would be limited, and this would only spread with time. This is true in our period of quick technical progress, but it was even more so in remote times in the Ancient East. We must also take into consideration how much archaeological finds depend upon chance and how much we must therefore search for other sources of knowledge, especially for texts, which Mr. Richardson seems to regard as superfluous and not trustworthy. Certainly some of them are misleading, but it is the task of the historian to find out the truth, using archaeological finds to complete and confirm the texts. Where there is agreement between text and archaeological find, we can be absolutely sure of our material. I pass now to the use of iron in the Ancient East as presented in an article published by me ten years ago.2 Hittite texts show from the beginning of the second millennium B.C. objects of worship and ceremonial utensils of iron. The metal seems at this time to be valued less than silver but more than bronze. All the worked iron was presented to temples by the kings. It could not be otherwise, for the kings were the sole proprietors of the mines, as we see from the letter of Hattusil I I I , of which I shall speak later. We have IN

555-583,

Published by Mr. Peake, Antiquity 1928, pp. 425 ff.; Hardware Trade Journal, April 1, 1932, p. 9 ff. Am. Hertz, "L'histoire de l'outil en fer d'après les documents égyptiens et assyro-babyloniens," L'Anthropologie 1925, p. 75 et suiv. 1

2

441

THE ARCHAEOLOGICAL INSTITUTE OF AMERICA

442

AM. HERTZ

not the slightest cause to mistrust these texts, which are simply inventory lists of temples. Being responsible for the objects enumerated, the priests evidently were forced to tell the t r u t h . As long as t h e king was sole proprietor of the mines, the iron could not easily pass the frontier, and if it did, only in the form of tribute or voluntary gifts to other kings. So we find some objects of iron in the lists of presents sent by T u s r a t t a of Mittanni, one of t h e Hittite states, to Amenophis I I I of E g y p t (1411-1375 B . C . ) , e.g., gilded iron bracelets and a dagger with a thickly gilded iron blade and a gold handle studded with precious stones, very like the dagger deposited about fifty years later in the grave of T u t a n k h a m e n . As we see in this case, the evidence of the texts is confirmed by t h e archaeological finds. T h e iron dagger, however, is less " s p o r a d i c " in the texts than in the grave. Beside it, three other iron objects and an indefinite number of bracelets are enumerated. Here, also, we can be sure t h a t the list was not written to mislead scholars of the twentieth century A.D. T h e list accompanied t h e presents and could not contain what was not really sent. I n the well-known letter of Hattusil I I I to Ramses I I , the gift of an iron daggerblade is also spoken of. M r . Richardson thinks t h a t Hattusil was sending abroad for iron, because he speaks of writing for it and " w i t h his own subjects such a m a t t e r would scarcely take the form of official correspondence." Mr. Richardson m a y perhaps see in t h e letters of H a m m u r a p i to Sinidinna what trivial matters were treated in official correspondence. On the other hand, a letter abroad would have to be directed to an independent king, in which case we do not understand why Ramses I I needed the Hittite as mediator. There is not the slightest doubt, however, t h a t Kiswadna lay in Asia Minor and was in those times part of the H i t t i t e Empire. Besides, Hattusil speaks of " h i s closed storeroom" in Kiswadna and he was, evidently like his predecessors, proprietor of the mines. We see from the Hittite texts t h a t iron was first used for making sacred objects and ceremonial utensils; later, and more sparingly, for ornaments and state weapons, especially for daggers used by kings and possibly by great dignitaries. I n this stage, the metal was produced only by the Hittite kings for the benefit of their temples, for their friends and for their own use. There is no industrial use and sporadic finds in graves correspond very well to the very limited exploitation of the mines. Still, the process of melting iron from its ores and of working the more or less pure metal was already known. As to the quality of the ores or even of the iron itself, I do not see t h a t it should have had the slightest significance for the Hittite kings or for the m a t ter in hand. T h e invention of the process must have taken place before mankind was capable of discriminating between superior and inferior ores of iron, and for the few objects made of this metal, which for the most part were not destined for any practical use, any sort of iron available would have been used. T h e more intense use of iron was not the result, as M r . Richardson thinks, of the destruction of the H i t t i t e Empire by European peoples, which proves clearly t h a t they had no knowledge of the iron technique, but the consequence of the Assyrian conquests. T h e kings of this belligerent nation amassed as booty and tribute relatively great quantities of iron, which they used more extensively than the H i t t i t e kings, the latter being probably hampered by religious scruples. Tukulti Ninurta I I

IRON: PREHISTORIC AND ANCIENT. AN ANSWER

443

(890-884) gets sometimes as much as a talent of tribute (30, 3 kg.), another time one hundred daggers. He distributes iron to his dignitaries and already uses iron picks, the first tools of this metal mentioned in the texts. His successor, Assurnasirpal I I (883-859), boasts of one hundred talents of iron paid to him by vanquished Hittite kings, but only in the next century does the use of iron become general and the metal cheap. This shows that the Assyrians themselves have began to work it. From the texts, we see that Assyria possessed large quantities of iron in the ninth century, but we have been able to find only objects which the victorious Medes left in Assyrian palaces and storehouses after the complete destruction of the land in 606 B.C. Before this time weapons and tools were used and worked over, passing from hand to hand. If thrown away, they grew rusty, became corroded, and disappeared. Thus, they have not come down to us. We have stated that iron was first employed for the production of sacred objects, ceremonial utensils, ornaments, and state weapons, above all for daggers. Considerably later, weapons for real use and, still later, tools were made from this metal. 1 In the older phase, only the Hittites knew how to melt and work iron; in the later, the chief producers of worked iron were the Assyrians in the East. The Egyptian iron industry was probably still later than the Assyrian and of very small importance. There can be no doubt that about 1000 B.C. iron was more freely used in Central Europe than in the East. This was perhaps due to the fact that there were richer mines and better ores than in Asia. We have, however, not the slightest proof that the Kelts or other European peoples worked iron before this date. On the contrary, the fact that the iron weapons of Hallstatt imitate copper and bronze implements shows little familiarity with the new metal, which when used a longer time would lead to the elaboration of peculiar forms. Besides, the European races which destroyed the Hittite Empire about 1200 B.C. certainly did not work iron, for, as I have already said, their invasion had not the slightest influence on the increase of the production and use of iron. I t would be of interest to find out if Ramses I I I got much iron as booty after his victory over the so-called Sea peoples. This might decide the question. Having no material at hand, however, I cannot investigate this problem myself. But Mr. Richardson might rightly object that all that has been said up to now is no proof against the thesis of the European origin of iron working. According to Professor Hrozny, the Hittites came from South Russia and were, at least partly, IndoEuropeans. 2 I t is not important where the iron industry was practiced later, but where they first began to work iron. In my opinion, Mr. Richardson's thesis is not acceptable, not only because it does not explain the presence of iron objects in Egypt in times preceding the invasion of the Hittites, as, for instance, the lump found by Maspero in the pyramid of Unas from about 2650 B.C., but also because all historical experience teaches us that all technical progress, and therefore the introduction of a new metal as well, is the contribution of nations at the head of the civilized world in their time. Very instructive and characteristic is the history of platinum. This metal was 1

The same order was followed in the case of the newly introduced bronze. (Cf. my article in R . 1927, p. 48 et suiv.) 2 Archm Orientalni, 1931, p. 295.

Arch.

444

AM. HERTZ

first described by Scaliger in the sixteenth century and was known to Spanish metallurgists in Middle and South America, who, however, attached no importance to it. I t began to be known from the description of Antonio de Ulloa (1748), who accompanied a French geographical expedition to Peru. From this time platinum was studied by scholars and metallurgists, most of them, English, French and German, one of t h e m a Swede. Still, before the end of the eighteenth century it was put t o scientific use, just as the newly discovered iron, employed at first for the production of ceremonial utensils, later was used for industrial purposes. T h e sole European state which had platinum in its territory, Russia, was not in the least interested in the metal, and its mines began to be exploited only in 1819, about a hundred years later than the Spanish ones in America (1735). T h e Russians used their platinum for coins, though in Europe the metal in these times already had the most varied applications. All this reveals the inferiority of the Russian civilization in those days compared to t h a t of the rest of Europe, a difference rather slight and certainly not more important than t h a t which we observe between E g y p t and Babylonia on the one hand and t h e Hittites on the other. T h e influence of t h e great Eastern states on Asia Minor during the second millennium B.C. is f a r too clear not to show the Hittites distinctly inferior to the Egyptians and Assyrians. How could it be otherwise in t h e field of metallurgy? This t a n t a lizing enigma was solved for me only by the discoveries of Mr. Woolley and other archaeologists in I r a q and Elam. Here, at last, was the high civilization which could have achieved the great progress of melting iron and imparting this knowledge to others. This consideration induced me to ascribe the introduction of worked iron to prehistoric I r a q and Elam, and not to t h e iron find of Ur, which could very well be of meteoric origin. 1 From the use the Hittites made of iron a t the beginning of their Empire in Asia Minor we could conclude t h a t in prehistoric times on the shores of t h e Persian Gulf only ceremonial utensils were made from this metal, perhaps state daggers used in rites. And, indeed, a dagger with iron blade was found there. F r o m where did the ancient Sumerians, and we can safely add t h e inhabitants of prehistoric Susa I I , bring their iron ores? Evidently, from outside their territory, as t h e Spaniards did their platinum and the Egyptians their copper and gold. Being civilized men, they discovered the mines and invented the melting process which they probably imparted to the natives. Were those mines in the Caucasus? I think rather in South Russia, where very good iron ores are found (Kamenskoje, Kriwij Rog), besides traces of a strong influence of the old civilizations. There, Hittites and Kelts alike could learn to work and use iron. As m a n y features of Hittite civilization, namely, headgear, pottery, 2 seals, objects of art, e.g., animals on rein rings, show the influence of oldest Hither Asia, there must have been in the past some direct or indirect contact which could easily explain t h e imparting of iron metallurgy. There remains still one difficulty: how was it possible t h a t worked iron should have been known in Mesopotamia in prehistoric, and not in historic times? B u t a con1 !

Am. Hertz, Die Kultur um den Persischen Golf, pp. 30, 76, 86. Pottier, L'Art Hittite, pp. 15 ff.

IRON: PREHISTORIC AND ANCIENT. AN ANSWER

445

siderable n u m b e r of c r a f t s a n d m u c h knowledge was lost between t h e f o u r t h a n d t h i r d millennia B.C. I will e n u m e r a t e some of t h e m . 1. T h e bronzes f r o m the great royal necropolis a t U r a n d t h e lower s t r a t a of K i s h are exceedingly beautiful, sometimes even composed of chemically p u r e metals, as is shown, e.g., b y t h e following analysis published by M r . P e a k e in Antiquity 1928, p p . 425 ff. Cu-85.01%; Sn.-14.52%; Pb.-0.47%; Ni.-traces. I do not t h i n k t h a t later such alloys could h a v e been obtained before the n i n e t e e n t h c e n t u r y a.d. 2. F r o m prehistoric times we know tools a n d weapons, principally socketed axes, beautifully cast in gold, electrum, silver, bronze a n d copper. F r o m t h e First D y n a s t y of U r onward, we observe a slow b u t m a r k e d decadence, ending u n d e r t h e D y n a s t y of A k k a d in a complete disappearance of cast axes, which are replaced b y r a t h e r badly h a m m e r e d ones. T h e rare cast objects are clumsy, as is s t a t e d b y M r . Woolley. T h e explanation of Prof. Gordon Childe t h a t t h e Sumerians ceased t o cast copper, because t h e y h a d no bronze, is for me incomprehensible. 3. I n M u s s i a n I I were f o u n d forked t o p pieces for arrow shafts, u n k n o w n in t h e historical period a n d evidently destined to protect t h e s h a f t f r o m splitting against t h e b e n t string. I n t h e royal necropolis of U r these t o p pieces are sometimes of such dimensions t h a t t h e y clearly could be used only for spears. As n o m a n was strong enough t o shoot spears f r o m a bow, it is clear t h a t there m u s t h a v e existed machines, in which t h e string was b e n t with t h e aid of some mechanism —in a word, t h e ballista, regarded till now as a R o m a n invention, was probably known in prehistoric Sumeria. 4. T h e representation of a horse came f r o m a s t r a t u m between Susa I bis a n d Susa l í a . T h e rein rings of Queen Shubad are s u r m o u n t e d b y t h e s t a t u e t t e of a mule. I n t h e D j e m d e t N a s r texts, t h e horse is mentioned, b u t in t h e historical period we find no horses or mules mentioned in t h e texts or represented on m o n u m e n t s before Cassite times (1746-1171 B . C . ) . I t seems t h a t t h e Cassites b r o u g h t back t o Mesopot a m i a t h e domesticated horse, as t h e H i t t i t e s brought back worked iron. 5. T h e m o u n d Y a t Kish a n d t h e great royal necropolis of U r contained vaults in which t h e dead king was buried, sometimes with a great n u m b e r of h u m a n victims. N o t h i n g in historical Sumerian graves reminds us of those rites. W e do not even find in t h e m dolls or s t a t u e t t e s destined like t h e E g y p t i a n ushabti t o replace wives a n d servitors. T h e c u r r e n t explanation for this r a t h e r strange phenomenon, viz., t h a t t h e vaults do not contain dead kings or queens a n d their retinue, b u t t h e victims of spring sacrifices, does not seem t o m e a satisfactory one. A stone vault in the middle of a necropolis, containing every c o m m o d i t y needed for a regal life, including wives a n d servitors, can be nothing else t h a n t h e t o m b of a king. As to t h e victims of t h e spring sacrifice, t h e y were destined for t h e E a r t h goddess a n d sometimes, p r e s u m a b l y t o r n to pieces, were buried in t h e fields, where their bodies were t o become one with t h e soil, in order to insure its fertility. I could expand this list considerably, because, in reality, very little of the a n c i e n t civilization survived in Sumerian historical times. H o w Orientalists can reconcile this fact with an u n i n t e r r u p t e d development is r a t h e r difficult to u n d e r s t a n d . Quite

446

AM.

HERTZ

evidently, there is a slow decadence and a very incomplete return to old crafts and arts, a condition resembling greatly the changes at the beginning of the European Middle Ages and the so-called Carolingian Renaissance. I assume, therefore, that in the first case, also, the cause of all these strange phenomena was an invasion of barbarians. I think this conception not only explains satisfactorily all the facts but allows us to put some order into the hopeless muddle of the chronology of the early historical Sumerian period. We are no longer obliged to regard Eannatum of Lagash as the contemporary of the kings buried in the great royal necropolis, if we remember that Charlemagne is no contemporary of Hadrian though his beautiful sarcophagus in Aix-la Chapelle could have very well belonged to a Roman Emperor of the second century A.D. AM. H E R T Z WARSAW, POLAND

IRON: PREHISTORIC A N D

ANCIENT

A REPLY TO MADAME HERTZ I AM g r a t e f u l t o M a d a m e H e r t z for her c o m m e n t s . A n d I welcome t h e o p p o r t u n i t y which her " A n s w e r " affords to expand m y own views t h r o u g h informal discussion. W h e n I first began t o collect m y m a t e r i a l several years ago, m y u l t i m a t e objective was also t h e absolute. I believed t h e n , as M a d a m e H e r t z does now, t h a t " i t is not i m p o r t a n t where t h e iron industry was practiced later, b u t where t h e y first began to work iron." As everyone knows, t h e r e is a voluminous literature on t h e subject. Some of it is merely opinion; some, scientific; b u t t h e greater proportion is deductive speculation based on thin layers of fact. Gradually, if reluctantly, I reached t h e conclusion t h a t to search for a t r u e beginning was to seek for t h e unknowable. I recognized t h e n , for t h e first t i m e I believe, t h a t confusion also existed regarding t h e a d v e n t of iron as a solid historical f a c t . A t t h e time, I recall, it seemed fairly simple to establish this f a c t beyond reasonable d o u b t . B u t t h e problem is still unsolved. I can claim only to h a v e cleared o u t some of t h e more obvious deadwood. A n d t h a t is prerequisite, in m y opinion, to a new, a n d a more accurate, speculation on t h e absolute. I would be last to a d m i t t h a t t h e texts are " s u p e r f l u o u s . " B u t for precise metallurgical distinctions t h e y are v a g u e a n d u n t r u s t w o r t h y . H o w could it be otherwise where t h e metal-workers themselves were empiricists? I t is impossible to ignore, or to critically appraise, those broad generalizations upon which M a d a m e H e r t z appears willing to rest her case. M a n y , indeed, fall with their own weight. T h u s : "All historical experience teaches us that all technical progress, and therefore the introduction of a new metal as well, is the contribution of nations at the head of the civilized world in their time,"

and: "Being civilized men, they (the Sumerians) discovered the mines and invented the melting process, which they probably imparted to the natives."

I challenge t h e s t a t e m e n t t h a t , " H i t t i t e texts show f r o m t h e beginning of t h e second millennium B.C. objects . . . of iron." T h e earliest d a t a b l e H i t t i t e text is t h a t of Telibinus, 1 who, according to Forrer, 2 reigned f r o m 1650 to 1600 B.C. Texts which refer to earlier kings are considered, I believe, t h e collected chronicles of a somewhat legendary period compiled a t a later date. 3 T h e only references to iron which I h a v e f o u n d occur in t h e T e s h u b t e m p l e texts. T h e s e are n o t d a t a b l e prior t o t h e N e w E m p i r e (1380-1200 B.C.), a n d t h e r e is some reason for believing t h a t t h e y m a y be as late as t h e reign of H a t t u s i l I I I (1283-1260 B.C.).4 1 2 3

F- Hrozny, "Hethitische Keilschrifttexte aus Boghazkoi," Boghazkoi Studien 1919, p. xi. Emil Forrer, Die Boghazkoi-Texte in Umschrift, 1932. John Garstang, The Hittite Empire, 1929, p. 93. < John Garstang, op. cit., p. 118. 447

THE ARCHAEOLOGICAL INSTITUTE OF AMERICA

448

H A R R Y CRAIG RICHARDSON

Altogether there are sixteen references to iron in t h e Teshub texts. 1 One of these speaks vaguely of iron utensils, while the others refer to statues or statuettes. Whether t h e latter were figures in t h e round or reliefs is not clear. Nor is it possible to do more t h a n hazard a guess as to their dimensions or weights. I n any event, and quite irrespective of t h e high or low date, I most emphatically question an iron hypothesis built up from these texts. T h e probabilities are t h a t in either case, the objects would have been meteoric. We can no longer doubt t h a t it was t h e iron of celestial origin which led to a use of t h a t metal for ritualistic purposes. I t is significant of this t h a t the word-name for iron in most ancient tongues connotes heaven-sent.2 M i t a n n i was not a " H i t t i t e s t a t e " until after T u s r a t t a ' s death. T h e gifts sent to Amenophis I I I by t h a t monarch have therefore no direct bearing on iron among t h e Hittites. If, as M a d a m e H e r t z implies, t h e T u s r a t t a gifts and t h e Teshub texts are acceptable evidence of an Anatolian origin, how then can we ignore t h e Egyptian texts a n d still earlier objects? And why not a Cretan origin based on Greek texts and t h e iron of Knossos? Or, to state the problem in another way, what could be more explicit, textually, than t h e ubiferrum nascitur of the Doliche plaque? 3 I t is quite impossible, in m y opinion, to draw absolute conclusions from any of these earlier texts or objects. I agree t h a t they are significant. They are the articulate heralds of a coming era. B u t I, for one, cannot accept them as evidence of invention, or t h e deliberate intentional making of iron by m a n . Size and the ceremonial purposes to which such objects are usually dedicated attest quite the contrary. To assume, as M a d a m e H e r t z does, from the Hattusil letter t h a t there were iron mines a t Kizzuwada is an unwarrantable stretching of the factual statement. T h e king's mention of a " s t o r e h o u s e " does not mean necessarily t h a t there were mines at t h a t point any more t h a n t h e hoard of Sargon implies t h a t iron was mined a t Nineveh. N o one believes t h e latter to be a fact, so why assume it for Kizzuwada? " W h y Ramses I I needed t h e H i t t i t e as m e d i a t o r " involves one's conception of t h e H i t t i t e State. D o m i n a n t in Asia Minor from Taurus to the Aegean, it is quite obvious to m e t h a t H i t t i t e influence could reach remote areas inaccessible to E g y p t . T h e Caucasus, t h e Black Sea littoral and the Balkans are conspicuous examples. T h a t an Indo-European infiltration h a d been going on for centuries is beyond question. I t is equally certain too, t h a t this movement was increasing rather t h a n diminishing during t h e years of the New Empire. Sayce is probably correct in saying t h a t " T h e power of the Hittite kings rested on t h e support of an army composed largely of men . . . who had come from Thrace and the D a n u b e valley . . . ancestors of the people subsequently known as Phrygians." 4 We know now t h a t these Indo-European intruders left their m a r k on the language; and we can be equally sure t h a t they exerted a powerful influence on Hittite c r a f t and 1

F . Hroznjr, op. cit. "Axel W . Persson, " E i s e n und_ Eisenbereitung in ältester Zeit." Arsberattelse, Upsala, 1933-1934, 3 4 pp. I l l ff. F r a n z C u m o n t , Études Syriennes, 1917. A. H . Sayce, The Hittites, 1925, p. 213.

IRON: PREHISTORIC AND ANCIENT. A REPLY

449

industry. I see nothing fantastic in a suggestion t h a t t h e Hittite king might have mediated for E g y p t in procuring iron from abroad. T h e paragraph next following is a veritable barrage of a priori conclusions, with never a qualifying perhaps or doubt. I protest particularly the sweeping deduction t h a t , " t h e process of melting (the italics are mine) iron from its ores . . . was already known." This is sheer dynamite; and M a d a m e Hertz knows better. I n any event, it is a complete reversal of her former dictum, " Q u a n t à la technique du fer chez les Hittites, elle ne comprenait pas nullement la fonte, impossible sans h a u t fourneau. Ils produisaient donc seulement du fer forgé." 1 I concur t h a t for t h e purposes cited, " t h e quality of t h e o r e " would be immaterial. I am willing to go even farther t h a n M a d a m e Hertz does and admit t h a t either meteoric iron or chipped and ground hematite 2 would serve equally well for votive statuettes and ceremonial daggers. As an integral entity the H i t t i t e Empire had been dead three hundred years when t h e Assyrian conquerers began to collect iron " b o o t y , " or to assess it as " t r i b u t e . " R a t h e r than diminishing this enlarges the problem. I have never yet met with a solidly workable hypothesis to account for the Sargonid iron a t Nineveh. Readers of m y paper will have observed t h a t I leave this door open. 3 And now M a d a m e H e r t z implies t h a t t h e Nineveh iron is not Assyrian at all, but was left in situ by t h e Medes. This is intensely interesting to me and I shall welcome a citation of her supporting authority. I t is gratifying to find t h a t M a d a m e Hertz and I are in substantial agreement on t h e iron of Central Europe. Nor is it necessary to my thesis to have even the " slightest p r o o f " t h a t iron was made there prior to 1000 B.C. I think it is only fair to wad the gun and tell M a d a m e Hertz t h a t Aberg dates Hallstatt a t 650 B.C.4 This would be disconcerting as an isolated treatment. B u t Aberg, it seems, is a thoroughgoing deflationist; Minoan, Mycenaean, Trojan, Cycladic and Helladic civilizations are brought down correspondingly. Furthermore, Childe, 5 M c l v e r 6 and M a h r 7 are of t h e unanimous opinion t h a t Aberg's Hallstatt dating is altogether too low. I t is true t h a t many of t h e earlier iron weapons from H a l l s t a t t imitate bronze weapon types, and t h a t , comparing the one with the other, there is no " elaboration of form." B u t to stop there is to miss the significance of Hallstatt. Compared with t h e then contemporaneous weapons of E u r o p e or Asia t h e H a l l s t a t t swords, both iron and bronze, reveal an amazing technical advance. Obviously those highly developed forms are not spontaneous creations b u t type-representatives of a long evolutionary process. Whether t h e European invaders of 1200 B.C. carried iron to Asia Minor is admittedly a debatable point. T h e testimony of the texts t h a t t h e Phrygians were 1 Am. Hertz, "L'histoire de l'outil en fer d'après les documents égyptiens et assyro-babyloniens." L'Anthropologie 1925, p. 84. 2 Objects of unreduced hematite are quite common among prehistoric remains. In the Alishar excavations, for example, a hematite macehead was found in the Hittite layer. Cf., "Anatolia Through the Ages," Erich F. Schmidt, Oriental Institute Communications, No. 11, 1931. 3 Iron, Prehistoric and Ancient, A.J.A. 1934. pp. 558, 581. •Nils Aberg, Rronzezeitliche und friiheisenzeitliche Chronologie, Toil II, Hallstattzeit, 1931. 5 Antiquity V, 1931, pp. 385-6. « Antiquity V, 1931, pp. 125 ff. 7 A personal communication.

HARRY CRAIG RICHARDSON

450

discoverers of iron 1 means something—or nothing—depending entirely upon one's interpretation of the collateral evidence. I happen to believe, for the reasons advanced in my paper, 2 that iron was first used industrially by European peoples; therefore, for me, these particular texts hold the germ of truth. Recent excavations of the Oriental Institute at Alishar mark the first actual, if slight, contribution toward a solution of this problem. In Strata IV and V, which Dr. von der Osten identifies as post-Hittite and Phrygian, respectively, approximately three times as much iron was found as in the preceding Hittite layer. 3 I am not aware that any record exists of the booty taken by Ramses III from the Sea-peoples in the north. Nor is iron mentioned in the Merneptah list 4 of plunder from the vanquished Libyans on the western front. Madame Hertz bears down rather hard in rejecting my thesis "because it does not explain the presence of iron objects in Egypt." I thought I had made it clear that accounting for sporadic iron in Egypt, or elsewhere, was no part of my task. But now that the issue is raised I will go on record with the only acceptable hypothesis I have met in a considerable amount of research. The suggestion is made by Axel W. Persson 5 that any non-meteoric iron from Egypt may have been a by-product, due to the presence of magnetite grains in the gold sands of Nubia. Gold melts at approximately 2000° F.; iron at 2800° F. Gold being the more fusible, whatever iron was in the charge would remain an inert, partially reduced residue in the solidified mass. As a theory this holds very well with the size, and the infrequency, of the Egyptian sporadics; it might also be extended to account for the presence of iron in early Macedonian slags, and those from Boz Euyuk. 6 Obviously the ultimate soundness of any such theory is dependent upon proof that Nubian gold was an alluvial deposit with free magnetite sand as a probable concomitant. If I felt it necessary (which, most emphatically, I do not) to postulate an iron ore supply for the Sumerians, I should not go as far afield as the Kriwig Rog. The ores from Kertch are equally good; and from there most of the haul could have been made by water. Furthermore, Kertch is the fabled homeland of the ScythianChalybe, whence, as foretold by Prometheus, Io is to begin her journey. 7 I have had several criticisms of my Bronze Age chronology, but Madame Hertz is unique in her implication that, "for the sake of my thesis (I) carefully omitted the bronze implements of . . . Ur and Kish." I was not aware of Peake's preliminary report 8 when my manuscript was sent to the publishers. And had it been otherwise, I doubt very much that I should have used the material. The official report, 9 containing Plenderlieth's splendid chapter on the metals of Ur, was released after my paper was published. Nor is the subject yet closed, as I infer from the fact that a selected committee is still trying to reconcile bronze at Ur with the known absence of tin deposits. I wish that the discoveries at Ur could be as magically convincing for me as they Strabo, X, 3, 22. * Op. cit., pp. 556, 559, 561, 576. Oriental Institute Publication, Vol. VI, p. 234. 4 James H. Breasted, Ancient Records, Egypt, III, 589. s Op. cit. 6 O. Davies, B.S.A. XXVIII, pp. 197-199. ' Aeschylus, Prometheus Bound, 707-735. 8 Antiquity II, 1928, pp. 452 ff. • C. Leonard WooIIey, Ur Excavations— The Royal Cemetery, II, 1934. 1 3

IRON: PREHISTORIC AND ANCIENT. A REPLY

451

appear to M a d a m e Hertz. B u t Ur, Alishar, Tell Asmar, Gerar, Torre Galli, to mention only a few of the more modern sites, merely enlarge t h e problem. I t is my own conviction t h a t a great deal of painstaking research still remains to be done; t h a t , cooper-wise, we m u s t continue pounding the hoops for a long time before upending the barrel to drive in the heads. H A R R Y CRAIG RICHARDSON 920 REPUBLIC BUILDING, CLEVELAND, OHIO

ADDENDUM I t appears now t h a t most of us have been far too credulous in the m a t t e r of t h e so-called H a t t u s i l Ramses letter. T h e a u t h o r s h i p of t h a t letter is b y no means an established f a c t ; moreover, in t h e opinion of D r . E . A. Speiser, Riamati[sa] (K. Bo. 1, 14, Vs., line 25) is n o t the H i t t i t e for Ramses as Meissner, Z.D.M.G. 72, 1918, p . 44, suggests. T h u s once again we are thrown back on conjecture. All t h a t we actually know is t h a t somebody was writing someone regarding iron, sometime a r o u n d 1200 B.C. I t is even possible t h a t t h e letter itself is a reply t o the request of a H i t t i t e king for " p u r e iron." (Cf., E . F . Weidner, Archiv fur Orientforsckung VI, 1930, p p . 299-300.) T o those of us who are interested primarily in t h e origin of iron, t h e authorship of this letter is vitally i m p o r t a n t . Luckenbill, A.J.S.L.L., 37, 1921, Wainwright, J.E.A. 18, 1932, and, more recently, Contenau, La Civilisation den llittites et ties Mitanniens," 1934, p . 162, h a d intimated t h a t the Hattusil-Ramses hypothesis was questionable. B u t it remained for Weidner, Goetze and Speiser to p o i n t o u t specifically t h e source of error. W'e a r e deeply indebted t o t h e m for t h a t . For recent discussions of this subject, see f u r t h e r , R. Arch. I X , 1937, p p . 174-175 (G. C o n t e n a u ) ; 2 4 / 2 5 Bericht der Rom.—Germ. Kommissum, 193b/35, Berlin, 1937, pp. 103, 109 f., etc. (F. T o m p a ) . —

EDITOR.