Associazione Nazionale per Aquileia

Casa Bertoli
Dipartimento di Ingegneria dei Materiali e Chimica Applicata
Universita di Trieste

Ancient Metallurgy
between Oriental Alps and Pannonian Plain
Workshop - Trieste, 29-30 October 1998

Alessandra Giumlia-Mair ed.

Trieste 2000

Christoph Huth
QUALITY AND QUANTITY IN LATE BRONZE AND EARLY IRON AGE
EXCHANGE SYSTEMS

Recent analyses of metal finds from Slovenian hoards revealed that some objects of
the Late Bronze Age were made from lead/copper and lead/tin/copper alloys instead of tin
bronze as one would have expected (Trampuz-Orel 1996; Trampuz-Orel, Heath 1998;
Trampuz Orel, Heath, Hudnik 1998). Among these artefacts are shaft-hole axes and winged axes of a form which is mainly known from Italy (fig. 1,9-10). Both axe types contain
high amounts oflead, ranging from 11 % up to 57%, while in the shaft-hole axes tin is found
in traces or in very little quantities only (0.05%-3%). In fact most of the shaft-hole axes
consist of a binary lead/copper alloy. The alloys were probably made by adding metallic
lead to the copper prior to the casting process. Alternatively, highly-leaded copper ingots
may have been used for making the axes. Such ingots are also known from Slovenian Late
Bronze Age hoards.
The raised levels of lead may have many causes. Through the addition of lead it was
possible to improve the casting process by lowering the metal's melting point and its viscosity. Lead could also have been used as a substitute for tin, though it seems that there was
always enough tin available in form of used bronze objects or scrap (as being found in so
many hoards). However, a high amount of lead will also have negative effects on the artefact. Since lead tends to build globules in the metal, too much of it may seriously deteriorate the mechanical properties ofthe cast object. Lead will also reduce the metal's ductility
and enhance the artefact susceptibility to corrosion.
As the bronze smiths of the Late Bronze Age were craftsmen of outstanding skillfulness the use of highly leaded alloys for certain artefacts can hardly result from carelessness
or ignorance. In their study Trampuz-Orel and Heath (1998) point to similar finds from
other parts of Europe, especially from Brittany and N-W Iberia, and even from China of
the Western Chou Dynasty (1100-771 BC). They discuss several theories trying to explain
the occurrence of these highly leaded bronzes. Some researchers see them as a premonetary means of exchange, i.e. a standardised and easily recognizable object; others
think that these axes were made (and deposited) for votive purposes; finally, they could
have been ingots exchanged for their value as raw material, though this does not explain
the fact that the metal was buried and never recovered.
Axes made of alloys containing large quantities of lead or tin are in fact known from
many parts of Europe (fig. 2). Very often they were rather carelessly manufactured and
deposited in great quantities. Many hoards consist entirely of axes, thereby giving the
impression of mass fabrication or dumping respectively. Such hoards can be found among
quite different cultural groups of the Bronze Age. Although the axe finds regularly appear
in a certain period, that is at the very end of the Bronze Age, they are by no means con-

'"
26

Christoph Huth

temporaneous in terms of absolute chronology. Depending on the moment at which a specific region adopted iron technology by giving up the traditional bronze economy, the axes
date from a period beginning in the 12th and ending in the 6th c. BC. Nevertheless this
combination of artefact type, alloy type and manufacture of large quantities of low quality
products not fit for practical use along with its appearance at the Bronze Age/lron Age transition is indeed a phenomenon so typical that it must have the same background in whatever region of the Bronze Age world it occurred.
Certainly the best known hoards of this type are those from Brittany and Lower
Normandy (fig. 1,1- Briard 1965; Briard, Verron 1976; Rivallain 1977). It should be noted
that they are the only type of hoard in the Early Iron Age of north-west France. Scrap
hoards of Late Bronze Age tradition no longer occur. In 1965 Briard counted almost 300
hoards containing more than 30000 axes, the biggest one has 4000 pieces (Maure-deBretagne, Dep. Ille-et-Vilaine: Briard 1965, p. 313, no. 311). In the meantime a few more
have been discovered, some of them comprising more than 1000 axes (e.g. Riec-sur-Belon,
Dep. Finistere: Le Roux 1990). The average hoard consists of about 100 axes. Briard
(1965; 1987) distinguished between nine types of Armorican axes, mainly according to
their length and their morphological features. It is important to note that these axe types do
not constitute weight groups, due to the heterogeneity of the alloys used and the fact that
many axes still contain their core of clay. Nearly all specimens are of poor quality. Many
of them are miscasts. The edges are never sharpened. Obviously the axes were never intended to be used as tools or weapons.
One reason for the poor quality of these axes is the heterogeneity of the alloys used
by the bronze smiths. High levels of lead are a typical feature of the Armorican axes.
Amounts of 30 to 40% of lead are common, while higher levels of up to 80% are not unusual. Axes of the Pleucadeuc type are made entirely of lead. Tin is found in much smaller
quantities. 3 to 4% seem to be the rule, but occasionally the amount of tin can reach more
than 20%. Generally there is no congruence between alloy type and axe form. The alloys
used vary considerably among the axes of a single type. Some of the Armorican axe types
seem to be particularly frequent in certain areas, while others do not show any marked spatial distribution. Outside Brittany and Lower Normandy many single finds of Amorican
axes are known, yet very few hoards. Usually Armorican axes were deposited irregularly,
i.e. buried as a heap of axes without any discernible order. However, some are reported to
have been hoarded in layers with the edges pointing inwardly (e.g. Langonnet, Dep.
Morbihan: Le Roux 1979, pp. 550-552). The result is a deposit of cylindrical shape requiring a minimum of space. In a pit 50 cm deep and 80 cm wide, 1000 axes weighing about
280 kilograms can easily be stored. Moreover, by depositing axes in layers one can immediately tell if part of the hoard is missing. Many authors (the more important ones discussed by Briard 1987) took the Armorican axes for a kind of primitive money, however this
does not seem very likely. This point will be discussed further below.
A phenomenon similar to the Armorican axe hoards is known from southern England.
These hoards belong to the Early Iron Age Llyn Fawr phase. They contain either axes of
the so-called Sompting type (fig.!, 3) or faceted axes (fig. 1, 4). While hoards with
Sompting axes are mainly found in the south and the south-east of lowland England (e.g.
Figheldean Down, Wiltshire: Coombs 1979), those with faceted axes are concentrated in

Quality and Quantity in Late Bronze and Early Iron Age Exchange Systems

27

the south-west, particularly in Dorset (Pearce 1983). At the same time a few scrap hoards
of Late Bronze Age tradition are known (Huth 1997), some of which contain socketed axes,
yet never in as-cast condition. The axe hoards of England are much smaller and much less
numerous than their Armorican counterparts. Nevertheless, the hoarding of as-cast axes of
poor quality at the time of the Bronze Age/Iron Age transition is certainly no coincidence.
Unfortunately there are no metallurgical analyses of the hoards of Sompting axes, while the
faceted axes from south-west England typically contain high levels of tin, sometimes more
than 20%, and very small quantities oflead (Northover 1980a, pp. 66-68; Northover 1980b,
pp. 234-235; Northover 1983, p. 67; Northover, Sherratt 1987, p. 17; Northover in Cunliffe
1988, p. 79). In this respect they differ strongly from the Armorican axes, where the situation is just the reverse.
Hoards of as-cast axes are also known from Belgium and west Germany (fig. 1, 5 van de Weerd 1938; Kibbert 1984). In fact all Early Iron Age hoards of this region consist
exclusively of socketed axes. However, they are very few in number and metallurgical
analyses are still lacking. The axes of these hoards mainly belong to the so-called
Geistingen type. They show the typical features of so many axes dating to the Bronze
Age/Iron Age transition: casting flaws, blunt edges and careless manufacturing.
A situation comparable to both north-west France and southern England prevails in
the north-west of the Iberian peninsula. Again the Early Iron Age sees quite a number of
hoards containing as-cast axes (Coffyn 1985, pp. 230-235). Like always the axes belong to
the local repertoire, i.e. in this case palstaves (fig. 1, 6). Two types can be discerned: the
Paredes de Coura type in Portugal and the small Samiera type in Galicia. The Portuguese
axes contain very high levels of lead reaching from 46 to 73%, while tin sometimes occurs
in traces only. In Galicia two types of alloys can be found: a usable ternary bronze with 2
to 3% of lead and slightly higher amounts of tin and another one containing between 8 and
20% of lead and between 11 and 21 % of tin. Many axes still have casting risers. The hoards
are comparatively big. One contained more than 200 axes. One reason for the poor quality
of these axes is the heterogeneity of the alloys used by the founders.
In southern France the hoards of the Early Iron Age Launacien phase are accumulations of scrap and copper ingots, very much like the hoards of most parts of Late Bronze
Age Europe (Guilaine 1972). However, they do contain as-cast socketed axes of poor quality in some quantity (fig. 1, 2 - Chardenoux, Courtois 1979). Unfortunately there are
hardly any metallurgical analyses available. Those taken from the hoard of Peret, Dep.
Herault, indicate that apart from pure copper for the bun-shaped ingots, two different alloys
were used: one containing frequently less than 4% of tin for the socketed axes and another
one with 7 to 10% of tin for the other objects like spearheads and ornaments (Garcia 1993).
The objects of the Agde shipwreck seem to fit into this pattern, too (Junghans, Sangmeister,
Schroder 1974). In this respect Peret and the Agde cargo resemble typical Late Bronze Age
hoards, although they date to the Early Iron Age. The hoards of the Launacien are again
comparatively big. The cargo of the Agde shipwreck (Bouscaras, Hugues 1967;
Chardenoux, Courtois 1979) with its 1700 bronzes, 800 kilograms of copper ingots, 36 tin
ingots and lead (Penhallurick 1986), clearly shows that at least some of the collected metal
was traded. This can hardly be surprising, considering that at this time Phoenicians, Greeks
and Etruscans were in close contact with the barbarians. The Agde shipwreck can be dated

I
CL ' ,

ll.
-{J

/\
u

8 ___----...,

8Z

Quality and Quantity in Late Bronze and Early Iron Age Exchange Systems

29

Fig. 2. Early Iron Age hoards consisting of as-cast axes, related hoards from Slovenia, and scrap hoards with ascast axes of southern France.

Fig. 1. As-cast axes from France (1-2), England (3-4), west Germany (5), the Iberian peninsula (6), Albania (78); as-cast axes (9-10), cast ingots (11-12) and wheel-shaped pendant from Slovenia - 1-2 after Chardenoux,
Courtois 1979, 3 after Coombs 1979, 4 after Pearce 1983, 5 after Kibbert 1984, 6 after Monteagudo 1977, 7 after
Prendi 1984, 8 after Prendi 1982, 9-13 after Terzan 1996.

r
!

30

Christoph Huth

to 600 BC or shortly afterwards (for a detailed discussion of the chronology of the Launac
hoards see Huth 1997). By the early 6th c. Greek craftsmen, very probably Phoceens, had
settled down in Languedoc, and particularly in the region of Agde, the ancient Agatha
(Nickels 1983).
Hoards with as-cast axes are again known from south-east Europe, especially from
northern Albania (Prendi 1984). They contain shaft-hole axes of the Albano-Dalmatian
type (fig. 1, 7) as well as socketed axes of a local type (fig. 1,8). As everywhere else, this
type of hoard appears at the very end of the Bronze Age. Some of the hoards are quite big,
such as Torovice (Prendi 1984), which contained more than 120 axes. Unfortunately, no
metal analyses are available. However, it would not be surprising to find alloys with high
levels of tin or lead.
In Slovenia careful and systematic research provides us with a clearer picture of the
situation at the end of the Bronze Age (Trampuz-Orel 1996; Trampuz-Orel, Heath 1998;
Trampuz-Orel, Heath, Hudnik 1998). The highly leaded shaft-hole axes (fig. 1, 9) and the
winged axes (fig. 1, 10) of Slovenia have already been mentioned. However, apart from
these axes there are other artefacts showing high amounts of lead, tin and sometimes also
antimony. Thus the typical Late Bronze Age pIano-convex copper ingots that were in use
until Hallstatt A were replaced by a variety of cast ingots during Hallstatt B (fig. 1, 11-12).
These, too, are made of a binary copper and lead alloy with raised levels of lead (24.8% on
average, with a maximum of 89.1 %). In fact all objects of this phase reveal a deliberate
addition oflead, though generally to a much lesser degree (4.3% on a average). In addition,
a ternary bronze with high levels of tin was used in casting wheel-shaped pendants (fig. 1,
13) and to a lesser extent also rings (generally 10-20% tin, lead ranging from 1.4 to 3.7%
on average). Like the axes, the pendants were hoarded in as-cast condition. Trampuz-Orel
(1996) was able to show that the pendants of the Kanalski Vrh find were made at the same
time as the remaining objects of the hoard. Altogether three castings were carried out, each
charge of bronze containing a specific amount of deliberately added lead or tin. Moreover,
similar impurity patterns show that the same raw copper was used for all three alloys. There
is strong evidence that the whole series of objects had been buried right away after casting,
and had therefore never entered metal circulation, nor did it contain any recycled material.
Even more important however, Kanalski Vrh shows that at least some ingot metal was
hoarded in the shape of amulets (for the amulet character of pendants see Kossack 1990).
Finally it should be said that some of the objects mentioned above (especially cast ingots,
but also pendants, rings and one socketed axe) contain high levels of antimony. These can
reach as much as 20.6%. Very often, although not always, objects with elevated contents of
antimony contain very little tin (Trampuz-Orel 1996). Similar alloys are known from
Switzerland (Rychner 1995) and western Hungary (Helm 1900; Maclean, McDonnell
1996). Trampuz-Orel (1996) suggests that the high levels of antimony may be related to a
change to copper of the Jahlerz type during Hallstatt B. However, such high quantities of
antimony could have also been added deliberately as a substitute for tin (Davies 1935).
A ritual background has been discussed for the deposition of these serially produced
axes (Verron 1983), yet convincing archaeological evidence remains to be brought forward.
A very popular theory sees the as-cast axes of standardised form as some kind of money
(for the Armorican axes summarised and discussed by Briard 1987). However, these paleo-

Quality and Quantity in Late Bronze and Early Iron Age Exchange Systems

31

monetary models suffer from serious shortcomings, all the more since the pre- and protohistory of monetary exchange systems is a highly complicated affair far from being satisfactorily understood. Very often, therefore, these paleomonetary theories rather reveal a
modernistic understanding of archaic societies instead of explaining the archaeological evidence in its own terms. Without entering into a discussion on prehistoric exchange systems,
on goods, gifts and commodities, on barter, trade and markets and so forth, it will be enough
to point out a few specific problems with this theory in relation to the axe hoards: first of
all, why should bronze be used as a standard object of exchange at a time when it is
becoming increasingly superfluous? Secondly, these axes do not conform to any standard
of weight, which could be expected if they were used as a means of exchange. Thirdly, we
are dealing with loosely connected agricultural communities of a rather small size, whereas
a common standard of exchange requires centralized political control (cf. Ercolani Cocchi
1987; this is, by the way, the reason why money as a universal means of exchange only
occurs in statelike societies). Fourthly, why did these paleomonetary systems appear in just
some regions? Why did they vanish within a few decades only to reappear in an entirely
different form and context several centuries later?
Explanatory evidence might instead come from a comparison of the axe deposits with
the hoards of the preceding Late Bronze Age. Typically these hoards consist of a variety of
bronze scrap and pIano-convex ingots of pure copper (for Slovenia and the neighbouring
regions see Ter.zan 1996 and Turk 1996; for west-central and north-west Europe Huth 1997;
for the Iberian peninsula Coffyn 1985; for Italy Ercolani Cocchi 1987). These copper ingots
show that even in the Late Bronze Age, that is after a time of more than 1000 years ofbronze metallurgy, new raw material still entered the metal in circulation. The bronze objects
are scrapped depending on their original dimensions. Bigger objects like swords are always
fragmented, while small objects like jewellery or tools are very often deposited in a fairly
intact condition (Huth 1997, pp. 149-152). Actually the maximum length of the hoarded
objects seems to correspond to the diameter of the crucibles used by the bronze smiths
. (Mohen, Bailloud 1987, p. 135). At any rate the scrapping of the bigger objects facilitated
storage and transport of the metal. Generally the fragments in the hoards do not fit together,
which in fact shows that objects were continuously taken from and added to the hoards.
This means that the hoards were existing over a certain period of time. What is known to
us today is just the final moment in the life span of the hoards, that is the state at the time
of their final deposition, no matter for what reason this may have happened. Finally, a
further point of utmost importance for the interpretation of the Bronze Age hoards must be
made. Bronze smiths were using specific alloys according to the function of their products
(Trampuz-Orel 1996; Brown, Blin-Stoyle 1959). Tin or lead (and possibly antimony:
Maclean, McDonnell 1996) was carefully added either to improve the casting process, as
is the case with lead, or to obtain certain properties of the artefacts like the desired degree
of hardness or malleability, as is the case with tin and lead (for lead see Staniaszek,
Northover 1982). By adding tin, lead or antimony it was also possible to produce certain
color effects. Antimony and lead were possibly used as a substitute for tin (though there
does not seem to have been any long-term shortage of tin), or to lower the melting point of
the alloy. Antimony would also facilitate the manufacture of objects as it expands on solidification, thus filling out moulds and enabling finer detail in the casting (Maclean,

r
32

Christoph Huth

McDonnell 1996; Maclean pers. comm.). It has been observed that some of the Late
Bronze Age hoards had been deposited in separate portions. For instance the hoard of
Egham in south England had been buried in two fractions, one of which contained objects
with small quantities of lead, while the other fraction contained highly leaded objects
(Needham 1990). Obviously some attempt has been made to control the lead content of the
metal according to the required properties of the artefacts to be made from the recycled
scrap. Clearly it was the metal that was of interest to the person who buried the hoard. The
separate storage of the hoarded metal has been reported for quite a lot of hoards from all
over Europe (for Slovenia see Cerce, Turk 1996), though in most cases it is impossible to
reconstruct which piece originally belonged to which fraction of the hoard.
By the Early Iron Age a fundamental change occurs. The characteristic mixed hoards
of the Late Bronze Age (consisting of a variety of recycled scrap and fresh raw material in
form of pIano-convex copper ingots) are replaced by single-type hoards of serially produced objects. These objects, whether axes or pendants, were deposited in as-cast condition
just as cast ingots of various shapes were. They do not consist of specific alloys depending
on the required properties of the object in practical use. Instead the artefacts contain high
amounts of lead or tin (or antimony in some cases). In addition, the supply with fresh raw
material comes to an end: copper ingots do not occur any longer. While the Late Bronze
Age hoards fit into a well functioning system of production and recycling, the Early Iron
Age hoards do not.
Yet it has to be asked why these hoards have been buried at all and never been recovered. If the Late Bronze Age had really seen a properly performing system of metal supply, recycling and subsequent manufacture, then there should be no hoards at all. No piece
of metal should have escaped recycling, and therefore no metal object should have entered
the archaeological record, unless it had been used for burial or votive purposes. There
seems to be a dilemma indeed, which in recent years many archaeologists tried to overcome by declaring all hoards as votive finds, including the scrap-cum-copper hoards of the
Late Bronze Age. However, this single explanation model has its very own shortcomings,
not least by consequently ignoring the metallurgical evidence described above. This is not
the place to discuss these theories, though - suffice it to say that a 100% rate of recycling
can only be expected in theory. In reality, it does not seem very plausible that metal
recycling should have left no trace at all, as no system works at a level of perfect efficiency
(certainly not over a period of many centuries). The occurrence of at least some scrap and
copper hoards is therefore nothing that cannot be explained in terms of supply, recycling
and craftsmanship. On the contrary, some hoards are to be expected. This opens up further
questions: just how much metal escaped recycling, and how much metal was in circulation
in the first place.
It is not an easy task to make assumptions about the quantity of metal that had been
in use by the Late Bronze and Early Iron Age. As prehistoric communities are only known
archaeologically, it is clear that the available evidence is likely to be biased by a variety of
prehistoric and recent factors (for hoards see Huth 1996; Huth 1997). Nevertheless there is
enough evidence for taking us a bit further in explaining the nature of the hoards under consideration. First of all it should be noted that there is a sharp increase in the number of
hoards at the end of the Bronze Age. This happened practically everywhere when iron tech-

Quality and Quantity in Late Bronze and Early Iron Age Exchange Systems

33

nology came into common use. It seems, therefore, that at a certain point in time comparatively large quantities of surplus metal were suddenly available. Yet, suppose Late Bronze
Age hoards were for the most part recycled metal intended for remelting, is then the increasing number of hoards at the end of the Late Bronze Age really indicating wealth? Is it not
rather indicating a crisis in the recycling system, taking into account that a well functioning
recycling system would not have left much over for the archaeologists? It would be similarly deceptive to infer from the rarity of metal grave goods in the Late Bronze Age that
there was a shortage in the metal supply. To sum up the number of metal artefacts coming
from hoards, graves, settlements, rivers and stray finds, and to deduce from the result the
wealth of a prehistoric community, would certainly be misleading. Obviously things were
much more complicated. Nevertheless tentative guesses can be made. For example
Cemych (1996; 1998) has estimated that during the Bronze Age not less than 1.5-2 million
tons of copper ore were worked from the mines of Kargaly on the southwestern periphery
of the Ural Mountains. Similar calculations have been made for the copper mines of other
parts of Europe (cf. Needham 1998). Consequently, the metalwork documented by
archaeological research can only be in the part per million range of what was in circulation
in prehistory.
Bearing in mind that the metal recovered during the last 150 years and documented
by archaeologists is just a small part of what had been buried in prehistory (cf. also
Kristiansen 1974), and even a tiny fraction of what had been in use without ever being
deposited, one can nevertheless identify an enormous increase of the hoarded metal at the
time of the Bronze Age/lron Age transition. This is not only true for the number of hoards,
but particularly for the amount of artefacts deposited in these hoards. While the sum of
hoards possibly indicates the frequency of occasions leading to the burying and subsequent
non-recovery of metal (filtered through conditions of recovery and documentation in recent
times), the number of artefacts gives a better picture of the quantity of metal that must have
been in circulation before deposition. In Brittany the axe hoards of the Early Iron Age contained some 30000 axes, equalling an estimated total of 9.1 tons or 27.3 kilograms per 100
km 2 This is about 7.5 times as much as during the preceding Carp's Tongue phase, which
also lasted about 150 years. Altogether only some 3.6 tons of bronze or 0.675 kilograms
per 100 km 2 are archaeologically documented from hoards of the whole country of France
during the Carp's Tongue phase. Lowland England has produced during its heyday ofhoarding (or one should perhaps say the most unfavourable time for recovery), the "Ewart
Park" phase, about one ton of metal equalling 1.1 kilograms per 100 km 2, while from west
and north-west Germany of the Rallstatt B3 phase as little as 212 kilograms (0.161 kilograms per 100 km2) have survived (Ruth 1997). Nevertheless this is much more than ever
before and yet considering the span of 150 years, not very much seems to have escaped
recycling. The 9.1 tons of metal documented from the axe hoards of Early Iron Age northwest France may therefore give us a faint idea of the quantity of metal in circulation.
The increasing number of hoards at the time when iron was introduced more likely
reflects a crisis in the system of recycling rather than prosperity and wealth of metal. While
it seems that many of the scrap hoards of the Late Bronze Age were simply left over because some (actually very little compared to the whole) of the metal in use could not be
exchanged any longer, there is strong evidence that the axe hoards at the start of the Iron

1'""

"l

34

Christoph Huth

Age were deposited as metal stocks without the intention of recovery within the near future, yet probably with the hope that the metal could be used again one day. Late Bronze Age
hoards do contain copper ingots and damaged or broken objects, while scrap and pure copper are entirely missing in the axe hoards of the Early Iron Age. Scrap hoards fit into a functioning system of supply with new metal and recycling, whereas axe hoards do not. Instead
they consist entirely of recycled and subsequently recast material. While the southern
French hoards of the Launacien group and particularly the cargo of the Agde shipwreck
clearly demonstrate that as late as in the 7th c. BC bronze could be, and in fact was, exchanged in great quantities as long as there were consumers like the Etruscans, Phoenicians and
Greeks, the networks of exchange in other areas were obviously disrupted. The Late
Bronze Age type of hoarded material intended for remelting and further exchange was
replaced by serially produced ingots. At the same time the metal was separated according
to its components.
Therefore, a change took place both in the form in which the material was hoarded
and in the metal that was stored. To give ingots the shape of everyday objects was not unusual. On the contrary, it was the rule in prehistoric communities. Moreover, axes were to a
certain extent used as ritual objects in the Bronze Age (Jankuhn 1973), and there are many
Late Bronze Age axes from rivers in western Europe (for river finds see e.g. Torbrugge
1972; Wegner 1976; Needham, Burgess 1980; Bonnamour 1990; Muller 1993). River finds
also show that bronze played an important role in ritual activities. Thus it could easily be
the case that ingots were given the shape of axes because these were connected with supernatural qualities. Likewise the tin-rich bronze of Kanalski Vrh was moulded into the form
of amulets.
There is ample evidence that even at times when the exchange networks still worked
perfectly, axes were a preferred form of ingot. No other metal artefact can be found so often
in scrap hoards in an as-cast condition as axes of all types (cf. for example Early Urnfield
Vulpe
hoards of Romania with disk-butted axes [Sarasau, Sirbi, both Jud.
1970; for the axe type see also Kroeger-MicheI1983], Italian protovillanovian hoards with
shaft-hole axes and socketed axes [Soleto, Reinzano, both Apulia: Carancini 1984], several French Middle Bronze Age hoards with copper (!) axes [Nicolardot, Verger 1998] or
two Iberian hoards with as-cast trunnion axes - the Iberian hoards may even be taken as
ingot hoards of the Early Iron Age type, as they contain axes only and date in fact to the
very end of the Bronze Age [Elche, Prov. Alicante; Sant Francisco Javier, Island of
Formentera: Wesse 1990)). Mention must also be made of Italian hoards with pick-shaped
ingots like Madriolo in Friuli (Borgna 1992).
But why do the Early Iron.Age axe ingots contain alloys with high levels of lead or
tin? One explanation might again be the interruption of the Bronze Age exchange networks
by the introduction of iron technology. Lead may have been used as a substitute for tin (as
may have indeed been antimony). At any rate the lead in the axes does not appear to have
been used for silver extraction (Harrison, Craddock, Hughes 1981). Therefore it seems to
come from recycled scrap, or may have been freshly added to the metal in circulation. The
storage of a most valuable raw material like tin in alloyed form is self-evident, all the more
since pure tin would have corroded quickly. The separate storage of different alloys, in
order to obtain certain alloys by mixing single pieces of scrap when casting new objects,

and Quantity in Late Bronze and Early Iron Age Exchange Systems

35

can already be observed in the Late Bronze Age such as in the two fractions of the Petters
Sports Field hoard from Egham, Surrey (Needham 1990). In any case the hoarded metal
could always have been reused, as probably most of it in fact was. As has been repeatedly
pointed out, the amount of metal documented today can only be a tiny portion of what had
been in use in prehistory.
The change from the Late Bronze Age triad of copper ingots, scrapped objects and
deliberate alloying according to object function, to serially produced ingots of separated
alloy components in the Early Iron Age, happened by no means at the same time all over
Europe. Nevertheless these changes occurred at a certain point in time, that is exactly when
the traditional Bronze Age economy of extended exchange networks collapsed by the introduction of iron. As this happened earlier in the east than in the west, and still later in the
north and north-west, there can be no doubt that there was indeed a time lag between the
east and the west in prehistory. Yet this time lag does not manifest itself by the belated
adoption and use of objects that were already outdated in more progressive regions as had
been thought for such a long time. Instead it can be seen in the prolonged retention of the
specific economic relations of the Bronze Age.
Long-distance exchange is systemic to the Bronze Age economy, due to the unequal
spatial distribution of copper and tin resources. Obviously the networks of exchange had to
be reorganised repeatedly. This is also mirrored by changing impurity patterns of the metal
in use, as new impurity patterns indicate new metal sources. In fact the changing of impurity patterns seems to follow the same rhythm as do changes in object morphology and
design, and sometimes also casting technology (Northover 1983; Rychner 1995; TrampuzOrel 1996). As the exchange systems were also networks of communication, it may very
well be that their reorganisation was one of the driving forces, if not the ultimate impulse,
for innovations in artefact design and casting technology, and presumably in many other
spheres of Bronze Age society.
Looking again at the evidence from Slovenia, it does not appear to be mere coincidence that many of the Late Bronze Age objects are of a form which is not indigenous to
the east alpine region. The southerly inspired artefact morphology evidently reflects the
orientation of a newly structured exchange network. Indeed, some significant cultural traits
of the Slovenian Hallstatt culture have their roots in the south. Yet it did not take very long
until iron working was adopted from Italy, too. The new technology radically changed the
existing economic relations based on long-distance exchange. The Slovenian as-cast bronzes with high levels of tin, lead or antimony therefore do not only stand for the interruption
of the traditional exchange systems, they also mark the end of an epoch, the Bronze Age,
and the dawn of the Iron Age.

r
''1

36

Christoph Huth

Zusammenfassung
,

Ausgehend vOll der Beobachtung, daB etliche spatbronzezeitliche Metallobjekte

Sloweniens nicht aus regularer Zinnbronze, sondern aus Kupfer-Blei- oder Kupfer-ZinnBlei-Legierungen hergestellt sind, werden analoge Erscheinungen aus anderen Regionen
Europas analysiert. In der Hauptsache handelt es sich urn in Serie hergestellte Axte und
Beile, deren ausnehmend schlechte Qualitat einerseits auf die Verwendung ungeeigneter,
weil iiberaus blei- oder zinnreicher Legierungen zuriickzufiihren ist, andererseits auf die
nachlassige Verfertigung und Bearbeitung der Artefakte, wie GuBfehler, GuBgrate, ungescharfte Schneiden und nicht entfernte tonerne GuBkerne zeigen. Zu den bekanntesten
Exemplaren gehoren die in mehr als 300 Horten dokumentierten armorikanischen
Tiillenbeile. Vergleichbare Stiicke gibt es auch aus Siid- und Siidwestengland, aus Belgien
und Westdeutschland. Stets handelt es sich dabei aber urn einheimische Beilformen.
Deshalb enthalten die entsprechenden Horte Portugals und Galiziens Absatzbeile, wahrend
in Albanien neben Tiillenbeilen vor allem Schaftlochaxte deponiert wurden. Gehortet WUfden iiberall ausschlieBlich Beile. Sie bestehen im Schnitt aus 20-70% Blei und bis zu 20%
Zinn. Nur die siidfranzosischen Horte des sogenannten Launacien enthalten neben seriell
verfertigten Tiillenbeilen auch noch Brucherz und KupferguBkuchen in spatbronzezeitlicher Manier. In Slowenien gibt es auBer Schaftlochaxten italischer Form auch noch radfOrmige Anhanger und Ringe sowie gegossene Barren verschiedener Form mit hohen Anteilen
von Zinn, Blei oder Antimon.
Neben der Deutung als Votivgaben sind in der Forschung vor allem Theorien popular,
die in den Beilen palaomonetare Zahlungsmittel sehen. Hingegen erklart si ch der
Wesensgrund der Beilhorte am ehesten aus einem Vergleich mit den spatbronzezeitlichen
Depots. Diese enthalten stets Brucherz und KupferguBkuchen als neu in den
Metallkreislauf eingespeistes Material. Typisch ist fern er eine Zerkleinerung der
Gegenstande auf GuBtiegelgroBe, die Trennung des Hortguts nach den in den Stiicken
enthaltenen Blei- und Zinnbeimengungen sowie die standige Entnahme und Beifiigung von
Hortgut, wie die fast niemals anpassenden Bruchstiicke zeigen. Im Gegensatz zu den spatbronzezeitlichen Brucherzhorten passen die friiheisenzeitlichen Beildepots nicht mehr in
einen funktionierenden Metallkreislauf. Sie unterscheiden sich sowohl hinsichtlich des
Metalls, das gehortet wurde (legierte Bronze mit reichlich Zinn-, Blei- und
Antimonanteilen, reines Kupfer fehlt unterdessen), als auch nach der Form des deponierten Metalls (nahezu ausschlieBlich Beile). Offenbar hat man es rnit einer Storung des
Rohstoffkreislaufes zu tun, wie auch die allerorten starke Zunahme von Horten am Ubergang von der Bronze- zur Eisenzeit nahelegt. Die rnit der neuen Eisentechnologie allmahlich iiberfliissig gewordene Bronze hat man augenscheinlich in Form von Barren gehortet,
sicherlich in der Hoffnung, sie eines Tages wieder verwenden zu konnen. Dies scheint auch
in den meisten Fallen gegliickt zu sein: selbst die groBe Menge iiberlieferten spatbronzeund friiheisenzeitlichen Metalls ist namlich im Vergleich zum in prahistorischer Zeit abgebauten Kupfererz und dementsprechend einst im Umlauf befindlichen Metall verschwindend gering. Den Barren gab man wie stets in vorgeschichtlicher Zeit dingliche Gestalt.
Die Form von Beilen wahlte man wohl, weil diese auch im Kultgeschehen eine besondere
Rolle spielten, wie zahlreiche Exemplare aus Gewassern und von naturheiligen Platzen

Quality and Quantity in Late Bronze and Early Iron Age Exchange Systems

37

nahelegen. Analog ist die Amulettform slowenischer Barren zu verstehen. Die Trennung
des Metalls nach bestimmten Legierungen ist bereits in der Spatbronzezeit belegt, hat aber
zu dieser Zeit noch hauptsachlich guBtechnische Ursachen. Im Rohstoftkreislauf der friihen
Eisenzeit diente dagegen Blei wom6glich als Zinnersatz, ebenso vielleicht Antimon. Das
Rorten von Zinn in legierter Form erklart sich aus den Korrosionseigenschaften reinen
Zinns.
Der beschriebene Wandel im Rortgeschehen vollzieht sich keineswegs iiberall und
zur selben Zeit, stets aber am Ubergang von der Bronzezeit zur Eisenzeit. Da dieser im
Osten friiher als im Westen und Norden stattfindet, hat man es zwar mit einem zeittypischen, nicht aber mit einem gleichzeitigen Phanomen zu tun. Die Gleichartigkeit dieser
Erscheinung ist allerdings bezeichnend fUr die grundlegende Einheitlichkeit bronzezeitlicher Tauschsysteme, die ihrerseits in der Weitraumigkeit der Tauschbeziehungen aufgrund
der ungleichen geographischen Verteilung der Kupfer- und Zinnressourcen begriindet ist.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Bonnamour L., 1990, La Saone et les armes, in Bonnamour L. (ed.), Du silex a la poudre. 4000 ans d' armement
en val de Saone, Montagnac, pp. 11-18.
Borgna E., 1992,11 ripostiglio di Madriolo presso Cividale e i pani a piccone del Friuli-Venezia Giulia, Roma.
Bouscaras A., Hugues c., 1967, La cargaison des bronzes de Rochelongue (Agde, Herault), Rivista di Studi
Liguri, 33.1-3, pp. 173-184.
Briard I., 1965, Les Depots Bretons et l'Age du Bronze Atlantique, Rennes.
Briard I., 1987, DepOts de bronze, haches a douille, pre-monnaie et fausse monnaie, in I. Bousquet, P. Naster
(eds.), Melanges offerts au docteur I.-B. Colbert de Beaulieu, Paris, pp. 133-143.
Briard I., Verron G., 1976, Typologie des objets de l' age du Bronze, Fasc. IV: Haches (2), Herminettes, Paris.
Brown M.A., Blin-Stoy1e A.E., 1959, A Sample Analysis ()f British Middle and Late Bronze Age Material, using
Optical Spectrometry, Proceedings of the Prehistoric Society, 25, pp. 188-208.
Burgess C., Coombs D. (eds.), 1979, Bronze Age Hoards. Some Finds Old and New, in British Archaeological
Reports, British Series, 67, Oxford.
Carancini G.L., 1984, Le asce nell'Italia continentale 11, in Priihistorische Bronzefunde IX,12, Munchen.
Cerce P, Turk P., 1996, Depoji pozne bronaste dobe - najdiscne okolisCine in struktura najdb (Hoards of the
Late Bronze Age - The Circumstances of Their Discovery and the Structure of the Finds), in TerZan
1996, pp. 7-30.
Cemych E.N., 1996, The Dawn of Mining and Metallurgy in Eastern Europe: The New Discoveries, in Bagolini
B., Lo Schiavo F. (eds.), The Copper Age in the Near East and Europe, in XIII U.I.S.P.P' Congress
1996 - Proceedings (Forn, 8-14 September 1996), vo!. 10, Forn, pp. 85-93.
Cemych E.N., 1998, Ancient mining and metallurgy in Eastern Europe, in Hiinse11998, pp. 129-133.
Chardenoux M.-B., Courtois I.-C., 1979, Les Haches dans la France Meridionale, in Priihistorische
Bronzefunde IX, 11, Munchen.
Coffyn A., 1985, Le Bronze Final Atlantique dans la Peninsule Iberique, Paris.
Coombs D., 1979, The Figheldean Down hoard, Wiltshire, in Burgess, Coombs 1979, pp. 253-268.
Cunliffe B.W., 1988, Mount Batten Plymouth. A Prehistoric and Roman Port, Oxford.
Davies 0., 1935, Antimony Bronze in Central Europe, Mall, 35 no. 91, pp. 86-89.

l!"""
.<'

38

Christoph Huth

Ercolani Cocchi E., 1987, Unita - riserva di valore, strumenti di pagamento, mezzi di scambio in Emilia
Romagna e in Italia, in Bermond Montanari G. (ed.), Laformazione della dtta in Emilia Romagna,
Studi e documenti di archeologia Ill, Bologna, pp. 131-173.
Garcia D., 1993, Entre Iberes et Ligures. Lodevois et moyenne vallee de l' Herault protohistoriques, Paris.
Guilaine J., 1972, L' age du Bronze en Languedoc occidental, Roussillon, Ariege, Paris.
Hansel B. (ed.), 1998, Mensch und Umwelt in der Bronzezeit Europas, KieI.
Harrison R.J., Craddock P.T., Hughes M.J., 1981, A Study in the Bronze Age Metalwork from the Iberian
Peninsula in the British Museum, Ampurias, 43, pp. 113-179.
Helm 0., 1900, Chemische Analyse vorgeschichtlicher Bronzen aus Vetem St. Veit, Zeitschrift fur Ethnologie,
32, pp. 359-365.
Huth C., 1996, Horte als Zeugnisse kultischen Geschehens?, in M. Almagro-Gorbea et aI., Archiiologische
Forschungen zum Kultgeschehen in der jiingeren Bronzezeit und friihen Eisenzeit Alteuropas,
Regensburg, pp. 117-149.
Huth C., 1997, Westeuropiiische Horte der Spiitbronzezeit. Fundbild und Funktion, Regensburg.
Jankuhn H., 1973, s.v. Axtkult, in J. Hoops, Reallexikon der Germanischen Altertumskunde (2"d ed.), 1, Berlin,
pp. 562-566.
Junghans S., Sangmeister E., Schrbder M., 1974, Kupfer und Bronze in der friihen Metallzeit Europas. Katalog
der Analysen Nr. 10041-20000 (mit Nachuntersuchungen der Analysen Nr. 1-10040), Berlin.
Kibbert K., 1984, Die Axte und Beile im mittleren Westdeutschland II, in Prahistorische Bronzefunde IX, 13,
Miinchen.
Kossack G., 1990, Kultgeriit, Weihegabe und Amulett aus spiitbronzezeitlichen Seeufersiedlungen, Archaologie
der Schweiz, 13,2, pp. 89-100.
Kristiansen K., 1974, En kildekritisk analyse af depotfund fra Danmarks yngre bronzealder (periode /V-V),
Aarbjilger for nordisk oldkyndighed og historie, 1974, pp. 119-160.
Kroeger-Michel E., 1983, Les haches a disque du Bassin des Carpathes, Paris.
Le Roux c.-T., 1979, Circonscription de Bretagne, Gallia Pr6histoire 22, 2, pp. 526-556.
Le Roux C.-T., 1990, Riec-sur-Belon, Gallia Informations 1990, 1-2, pp. 38-39.
Maclean P.I., McDonnell J.G., 1996, New Archaeometrical Investigations of the Bronzes in the Carpathian
Basin, Acta Musei Papensis/Papai Muzeumi Ertesit6 6, pp. 77-82.
Mohen J.-P', Bailloud G., 1987, L' age du bronze en France 4: La vie quotidienne. Les fouilles du FortHarrouard, Paris.
Monteagudo L., 1977, Die Beile auf der Iberischen Halbinsel, in Prahistorische Bronzefunde IX, 6, Miinchen.
Mordant C., Pemot M., Rychner V. (eds.), 1998, L'Atelier du bronzier en Europe du XX, au VIII' sii!cie avant
notre ere. Actes du colloque international "Bronze '96", Neuchatel et Dijon, 1996, Paris.
MiilIer F., 1993, Argumente zu einer Deutung von "Pfahlbaubronzen", Jahrbuch der Schweizerischen
GeselIschaft fiir Ur- und Friihgeschichte, 76, pp. 71-92.
Needham S., 1990, The Petters Late Bronze Age Metalwork, London.
Needham S., 1998, Modelling theflow of metal in the Bronze Age, in Mordant, Pemot, Rychner 1998,3, pp. 285307.
Needham S., Burgess c., 1980, The later Bronze Age in the lower Thames valley: the metalwork evidence, in J.
Barrett, R. Bradley (eds.), Settlement and Society in the British Later Bronze Age, in British
Archaeological Reports, British Series, 83, Oxford, pp. 437-470.
Nickels A., 1983, Les Grecs en Gaule: l' exemple du Languedoc, in Modes de contact et processus de transformation dans les societes anciennes (Cortona 1981), Pisa and Rome, pp. 409-428.
Nicolardot J.-P., Verger S., 1998, Le depot des Granges-sous-Grignon (commune de Grignon, Cote-d'Or), in
Mordant, Pemot, Rychner 1998, 3, pp. 9-32.
Northover P., 1980a. Bronze in the British Bronze Age, in Oddy W.A. (ed.), Aspects of Early Metallurgy, London,
pp. 63-70.
Northover P., 1980b. The analysis of Welsh Bronze Age metalwork, in H.N. Savory, Guide catalogue of the
Bronze Age collections, Cardiff, pp. 229-236.
Northover P., 1983, The Exploration of the Long-distance Movement of Bronze in Bronze and Early Iron Age
Europe, Bulletin of the Institute of Archaeology 19, London, pp. 45-72.

Quality and Quantity in Late Bronze and Early Iron Age Exchange Systems

39

Northover P., Sherratt A., 1987, Hoards and other groupings represented in the catalogue, in MacGregor A.
(ed.), Antiquities from Europe and the Near East in the collection of the Lord MacAlpine of West
Green, Oxford, pp. 17 ff.
Pearce S., 1983, The Bronze Age Metalwork of South Western Britain, in British Archaeological Reports, British
Series, 120, Oxford.
Penhallurick R.D., 1986, Tin in Antiquity. Its mining and trade throughout the ancient world with particular reference to Cornwall, London.
Prendi F., 1982, Die Bronzezeit und der Beginn der Eisenzeit in Albanien, in Siidosteuropa zwischen 1600 und
1000 v. Chr., Berlin, pp. 203-233.
Prendi F., 1984, Nje depo sepatash parahistorike nga Torovica e Lezhes (Un depot de haches prehistoriques it
Torovice de Lezha), liiria 14,2, pp. 19-45.
Rivallain I., 1977, Contribution it l' Etude du Bronze Final en Armorique, N'Djamena.
Rychner v., 1995, Arsenic, nickel et antimoine. Une approche de la metallurgie du Bronze moyen et final en
Suisse par l' analyse spectrometrique, Lausanne.
Staniaszek B.E.P., Northover I.P., 1982, The properties of leaded bronze alloys, in Proceedings of the 22"d
Symposium on Archaeometry University of Bradford, Bradford, U.K., March 30'h -April 3 nl 1982,
.
Bradford, pp. 262-272.
Terian B. (ed.), 1996, Depojske in posamezne kovinske najdbe bakrene in bronaste dobe na Slovenskem (Hoards
and Individual Metal Finds from the Eneolithic and Bronze Ages in Slovenia), Ljubljana 1996.
Torbriigge W., 1972, Vor- undfriihgeschichtliche Fluj3funde. Zur Ordnung und Bestimmung einer Denkmdlergruppe, Bericht der Rbmisch-Germanischen Kommissioll 51-52, pp. 1-146.
Trampuz-Orel N., 1996, Spektrometricne raziskave depojskih najdb pozne bronaste dobe (Spectrometric
Research of the Late Bronze Age Hoard Finds), in Terzan 1996, pp. 165-242.
Trampuz-Orel N., Heath D.I., 1998, Analysis of heavily leaded shaft-hole axes, in Hiinsel 1998, pp. 237-248.
Trampuz-Orel N., Heath D.I., Hudnik v., 1998, Chemical Analysis of Slovenian Bronzes from the Late Bronze
Age, in Mordant, Pemot, Rychner 1998, 1, pp. 223-237.
Turk P., 1996, Datacija poznobronastodobnih depojev (The Dating of Late Bronze Age Hoards), in Terzan 1996,
89-123.
van de Weerd H., 1938, B!jlen uit het bronst!jdperk, L'Antiquite Classique, 7, pp. 346-347.
Verron G., 1983, L' interpretation des depots de l' Age du Bronze it la lumiere de prospections et defouilles recentes, in Enclos funeraires et structures d' habitat en Europe du nord-ouest. Table ronde CNR.S. Rennes 1981 - (1983), Rennes, pp. 263-281.
Vulpe A., 1970, Die Axte und Beile in Rumdnien 1, in Priihistorische Bronzefunde IX, 2, Miinchen.
Wegner G., 1976, Vorgeschichtliche Fluj3funde aus dem Main und aus dem Rhein bei Mainz, Kallmiinz.
Wesse A., 1990, Die Armchenbeile der Alten Welt. Ein Beitrag zum Beginn der Eisenzeit im ostlichen
Mitteleuropa, Bonn.