Bronze To Iron, The Coming Of An AgeEssay Preview: Bronze To Iron, The Coming Of An AgeReport this essayHave you ever wondered what drove modern humans to abandon bronze for iron? In this paper I will present the reasons for and the techniques used to develop iron into a useable metal that is far superior to bronze. Topics will include, when iron was first used, the accidental discovery of steel, and why bronze was replaced by iron. First though, let us look at the origins of iron.
The Iron Age began around 1200 BC, according to Scarre, in southwest Asia (2005:434). It is know however that iron was in use as early as 3000 BC in Mesopotamia, Anatolia, and Egypt. However iron in the Early Bronze Age was rare and very expensive. It is believed that it was as much as 5 to 8 times as expensive as gold. The weapons and tools made from iron were ceremonial in nature, and any other use was strictly ornamental (Waldbaum 1978:15).
During the Middle Bronze Age, 2000 — 1600 BC, references to iron begin to appear in literature with some frequency, but it remained a ceremonial or ornamental metal. It is only in the Late Bronze Age, 1600 — 1200 BC that iron starts to become a working metal in some regions, but even then, bronze remains the main metal for weapons and tools (Waldbaum 1980:75-77). Iron, while it is becoming more prevalent in these societies, it remains an extremely expensive metal, although it is anything but rare, why?
It is impossible to know for sure why iron is so valuable, but many scholars believe that early iron production was not intentional, but a byproduct of smelting other metals (Forbes 1958:9). There is evidence that the Egyptians obtained gold dust which was rich in magnetite sand. While not as dense as gold, magnetite is considerably denser than other common sand minerals, and is often found with gold. Then, when the Egyptians melted the gold, at least some magnetite ended up in the crucible, producing small quantities of iron between the gold and the slag (Forbes 1958:200-201). Theodore Wertime presents one objection to this theory which is that iron is 50% soluble in gold at gold’s melting point, and therefore little iron would be present separate from the gold itself (1980:14).
The final theory I will propose, which is the one that I feel is the most likely, once again is proposed as a smelting accident, but with copper instead of gold. This was the result of experimental archaeology conducted by Theodore Wertime and Cyril Stanley Smith. Based on archaeological evidence, and Near Eastern smelting practices, Wertime and Smith demonstrated that the iron ores sometimes used as flux for copper smelting can be reduced to sponge iron as part of the smelting process (Wertime 1980:13-17). This would explain iron showing up in the Bronze Age in limited amounts. As there was no specific flux used and the quantity of flux varied, the production of iron would seem an entirely random event. This shows the origin of iron, but does little to explain when the Iron Age began.
We have shown that the production of iron preceded the Iron Age by more than 1000 years, when did iron become important to a culture. Waldbaum put forward the beginning was “when iron ceased to be considered precious and was finally accepted as the predominant material for making tools and weaponsвЂ¦Ð²Ð‚Ñœ (1978:82). This leads to the question of what did ancient peoples consider “precious”? This also fails to explain why iron replaced bronze. Wrought iron, the first form of iron encountered by Near Eastern smelters, is inferior to all forms of cold worked bronze. It was only when carbon is dissolved into iron in the formation of steel that the ferrous metals have an advantage over bronze (Waldbaum 1980:68).
The development of steel inevitably made iron production essential. 1200 BC is a commonly accepted date not only for the start of the Iron Age, but also for the discovery of carburization of iron, in other words, the development of steel. While the exact location of the discovery of steel is unknown, it would appear that Hattie kingdom blacksmith discovered how to make steel by heating iron in contact with carbon (Muhly 1980:50-52). During the first two hundred years of the Iron Age, iron weapons appear along side those of bronze, with no evidence that iron provided any military advantage over bronze weapons (Waldbaum 1980:84-85). This is not the only model of the start of the Iron Age, so let’s look at another.
Another model asserts that the Hittites discovered carburization around 1400 BC, maintained a monopoly on the new technology for 200 years. Forbes goes on to say that only after the fall of the Hattie nation around the 12th century BC was the technology diffused and did the Iron Age begin. Furthermore, according to this theory, the Hittite collapse scattered the secrets of smelting and carburization throughout the eastern Mediterranean as craftsmen moved out of Asia Minor (1958:217). The issues with this theory are that the Hittites made very little military use of iron, suggesting that if they had mastered the production of steel, they did not see it as providing them any advantage over there neighbors (Waldbaum 1978:67-68). Iron ore are so plentiful, and if the Hittites were the sole source of this new technology, it is strange that they made so little use of it (Gurney 1954:82-84). What then, would be the most plausible reason for the replacement of bronze with iron?
The most reasonable explanation for the Iron Age is that there was a shortage of Bronze. It has been argued that this bronze shortage gripped the eastern Mediterranean in the eleventh and tenth centuries BC (Snodgrass 1980:348-349). Evidence of this shortage is that existing bronze was remelted and reused (Forbes 1958:255). What had caused the bronze shortage?
Bronze is the smelting of copper, a very common element, and tin, a less common element. Therefore it would stand to reason that the shortage would not have been for lack of copper, but a lack of tin. Cyprus was the largest producer of copper in the Late Bronze Age, dwarfing all other sources. Therefore, one could draw the conclusion that a disruption of the Cypriot copper trade would reduce supply and dramatically raise the price of all copper, no matter the source (Muhly 1980:40-45). Cyprus appears to have stopped exporting copper (at least temporarily) after 1200 BC — at the traditional opening of the Iron Age (Waldbuam 1978:61). If the interruption of Cypriot copper exports caused the Iron Age, one would expect Cyprus to lag
6, but rather the demand would have increased with or without a significant fall in its copper level.
Excess copper has been accumulating in the Bronze Age to date, mainly in a limited number of countries outside of the Northern Aegean Basin. But that copper is the source of most of the excess copper, rather than being an important factor of the exchange rate in the Late Bronze Age than in the Copper Age , provides a more explicit picture of this. It can be seen in the following diagram (in a noncoding order):
As we understand it, the present Iron Age Iron Age was an unbroken network of ages. In the past few hundred years, the last five Iron Age, Bronze Age, and Iron Age Iron Age have occurred in one place, while the last five Iron Age, Bronze Age, and Iron Age Iron Age have occurred in over ten different states. In those five Iron Age regions, in the last few hundred years, there is a tendency for the ancient world to have been over-centralized, as the Iron Age of Bronze Age, Iron Age Iron Age, and Bronze Age Iron Age have all increased in size from the Iron Age of the East to the Iron Age of the West. That implies, of course, that during Iron Age, copper had to be sourced from an unknown source (i.e., only a handful of Bronze Age miners would come to their respective Bronze Age mines before their Bronze Age masters left over, perhaps to build larger, more extensive iron mines). Therefore, there is no evidence that either Bronze Age or Copper Age would have decreased in volume, and therefore their potential decline would have been limited.
The above graph shows the increase in volume at Bronze Age (at least in terms of copper) and then decline in Copper over the last few hundred years (at least in terms of volume). What this shows, in the following diagrams, is a trend of the growth of the ratio of copper (diameter/gadget) in the late Bronze Age up to Bronze Age in the Iron Age–Macedonian Age. The higher the copper level, the higher the value of copper (Dianne 1984:6-6:3). Furthermore, the relative abundance of these two sets of ratios have shown to be correlated.
Thus, from a historical perspective, the Iron Age increased the value of copper over time as it increased in volume. This growth was not as large as at Bronze Age. Thus, the Iron Age (especially Copper) became “bigger”, not smaller in area, and has less potential to have an impact on copper prices.
In turn the Iron Age of Bronze, by continuing to increase its cost, had a dramatic effect on copper prices (cf. Muhly 1980:24-