62 replies to this topic

[stonecarver]

A while ago I promised to clarify the dates for the first metal objects in the archaeological record in Britain. Here goes...

A bronze axe was found at Mount Pleasant in Dorchester and has been dated to c2500 BC.

In Ireland, the Corlea wooden trackway is dated to between 2268 and 2251 BC through dendrochronology/radio-carbon dating, and the timbers were felled with a metal axe (from micro-analysis of the cut-marks).

Copper axes in Ireland from Casteltown Roche include imports dated to before the arrival of Beaker pottery, as well as indigenous types (c2700 BC).

Copper-mining was taking place in Ireland as early as c2400BC at Ross Island.

There was a very short Chalcolithic (Copper Age) in Britain (if at all), and bronze objects appear alongside copper versions here almost simultaneously. This in part may be due to the fact that Britain has the largest tin-resources in Europe (Cornwall).

Incidentally, the earliest phase at Stonehenge, the circular ditch, bank and counterscarp are dated to c2800 BC, but the megalithic component (the stones), date to c2000 BC - some 700 years AFTER the first evidence for the appearance of metal tools in Britain. It should be noted that copper and bronze can be remelted when a tool is damaged or worn-out and there is every likelihood that prehistoric metals were reused in this way.

This leads me on to say that I think the carvings at Stonehenge are of axes -  they are a very particular early type, which would would fit in with all the other evidence. These are not skeumorphs, but actual representations of a particular kind of axe dating from the period. The carvings are identical to certain axes.

The two so-called 'dagger' carvings... represent a class of object that has thus far not been identified (and they are NOT a Mycenean type).

Hope that clears that up...

[Anew]

stonecarver, on 24 March 2007, 9:06, said:

...

There was a very short Chalcolithic (Copper Age) in Britain (if at all), and bronze objects appear alongside copper versions here almost simultaneously. This in part may be due to the fact that Britain has the largest tin-resources in Europe (Cornwall).

Incidentally, the earliest phase at Stonehenge, the circular ditch, bank and counterscarp are dated to c2800 BC, but the megalithic component (the stones), date to c2000 BC - some 700 years AFTER the first evidence for the appearance of metal tools in Britain. It should be noted that copper and bronze can be remelted when a tool is damaged or worn-out and there is every likelihood that prehistoric metals were reused in this way.

This leads me on to say that I think the carvings at Stonehenge are of axes -  they are a very particular early type, which would would fit in with all the other evidence. These are not skeumorphs, but actual representations of a particular kind of axe dating from the period. The carvings are identical to certain axes.

The two so-called 'dagger' carvings... represent a class of object that has thus far not been identified (and they are NOT a Mycenean type).

Hope that clears that up...

In the back of Hengeworld by Mike Pitts, (0-09-927875-8), are appendices which provide estimated dates, (I will quote the range considered of 95% confidence, from the column-final summary figures, where available).

>  On page 323:  The excavation of the ditch is estimated to have been between 3015 & 2935 bce.
>  On page 324:  The large sarsen structures are said to date from between 2461 & 2205 bce.
>                        The bluestone circle and oval is/are said to date from between 2267 & 1983 bce.
>                        The last Y hole is said to date from between 1640 & 1520 bce.
>                        A human skeleton:  An apparent archer who, also apparently, died in battle, (possibly a retainer buried by the enemy as an honor to a brave opponent), (please see figure 22 on p.90), is said to date from 2398 - 2144 bce.  This places him contemporary with the 'main phase' of the monument.  His death was, in all likelihood, caused by a number of flint-tipped arrows.  Though I didn't re-read the whole subject, I remember no mention of metal -- on or in him.  Bronze arrowheads, if this were fully the bronze age, might have been expected.

It is not a forgone conclusion, to me, that the copper-age here is irrelevant.  Tin ores are toxic, and may have been avoided for a time.  More-over, early bronze finds, (or evidence of bronze cutting tools), could have been, (reflected), imported and/or trophy pieces from raids or from raiders.  A look at the full chronology, appendix 3 of Mr. Pitts' book, reveals a scattering of gold and/or copper finds, (usually in graves), before the first mention of bronze, (Amesbury 51, an awl, 2294-1978 bce.).  This places it roughly contemporary with the bluestone circle, (which itself is food for thought); but unlikely to have been so with the sarsen work.

As to the carvings:  A look at pages 27 & 266 of the same has me holding to the prospect, (described in the Psychedelic Mushrooms & Stone Circle Culture thread on the Alternative theories forum),  that the 'axes' could be toadstools; the 'dagger' of copper and used to cut them. Although there's also the possibility that they are indeed "actual representations of a particular kind of axe", but were added at a later date.

'Stonecarver', please clarify your use of the words 'skeumorphs', and 'Mycenean'.  Did you mean Mycenaean..?  It's an unexpected point to be stress.

[stonecarver]

Hi,

Thanks for the more precise dating for Stonehenge (I was working from memory with that - and the strongest memory is weaker than the faintest ink!).    

The dates for the metalwork however were taken from books/papers.

Essentially, my point was (and remains) that  metalworking was extant in the British Isles at the time the megalithic components of Stonehenge were erected.

As far as I am aware, barbed-and tanged flint arrowheads continued in use well into the Bronze Age.

As early metalworkers were happy to use arsenical bearing copper-ores, I don't think the same people whould have been bothered about the possible dangers of using tin-ores. In any case, they soon started using tin ores in quantity despite its inherent dangers, for a very long time (the whole of the Bornze Age).

The axe carvings are exactly like a particular axe type contemporary with the sarsen monument.

Whilst some people think the carvings look like mushrooms - you might consider the ersosion the sarsens have been subject to has taken away the crispness of the original carvings... the nearest thing we have to them are actually one-piece (open) stone axe moulds.

There was an interesting paper at the TAG conference last year on this subject.

I made a couple of typos - I guess you know what Skeuomorphs and Mycenaen mean...

[Anew]

But if these were axes, or ax molds, why are they all facing skyward, rather than across -- perhaps in book-matched sets?  And why haven't these have been fleshed out with hafts?  Skeuomorphics aside, (Wikipedia on Skeuomorph), to immortalize the head alone seems puzzling.  I think the myco- explanation fits the picture better.  (But the apparent dagger could be explained as sacrificial, thus its downward orientation, though not a part of it, isn't confusing.)

As to people being "happy to use arsenical bearing copper-ores"; you must overstate.  Hard rock mining, (particularly without modern equipment), is by reputation a dangerous, grueling endeavor.  When what they were going after was unhealthy besides -- doubly so.  What the Bronze Age likely saw was the rise of a class system in some regions -- where those who dug, crushed and smelted the raw ore were far below those who carried the finished product.  As rich people often like to go wealthy to the hereafter, a good barometer for the rise of these practices might be the single barrow-burials which sprouted on the Stonehenge landscape -- to my understanding, after it was complete.

The items that appear beforehand may be, as stated above, from afar -- or the result of small-scale indigenous efforts which grew over time as the 'cyclone', (that of change) ...developed.


postscript:

I'm looking at page 221 in chapter 5, The early bronze age of Introduction to British Prehistory, (Megaw & Simpson 0-7185-1122-0).  Figures 5-7 show ax heads with flanges as developed as any, (I'd have to agree they're not intended to resemble stone models, see 'skeuomorph', above), but the rounding which supports these flanges from behind is conspicuously absent in the drawings, (not to great detail, unfortunately), of the carvings from Mr. Pitts' book.

However, on p 203 of Stonehenge Complete, (Christopher Chippindale, 0-500-28467-9), there are close-up oblique-light photos of the Mycenaean Dagger carving, (I think it's pretty clearly a dagger -- whether it was Greek, who knows, but if so it might also have been of some gold or gold alloy and well worth their collection); and one reputed 'flat axe'.  Here, they say the haft is included -- to me it seems much too short, (as do most, if not all of them).  If these are axes, I would see them as heads -- with pronounced flanges.  It's a matter of interpretation whether one believes the necessary rounding backs up these flanges.  From what little I've seen, I'd say no.  They would be unnecessarily fragile as tools or weapons.  But not as toadstools...

[stonecarver]

Hi Anew, I recommend you look-up the paper from the TAG conference 2006 to appreciate why the axes are where they are... and Why they are, you appear not to have appreciated the point (forgive the pun)... but the very reason why they just carved the axe heads... is because that was their Intention.

The link is:- http://www.sogaer.ex...ions/bray.shtml (last paper, explains it all).

Analysing the micro is all very well - the point you had made was, (quoting you) -

"Tin ores are toxic, and may have been avoided for a time."

self-evidently false in light of the fact they were using arsenical bronzes which were More dangerous.... why would they avoid the Less dangerous tin ore when they were killing them selves with that arsenical copper? And then, in Britain at least - there Was no discernoble chalcolithic - binary alloy tinned bronze appears pretty quickly alongside copper - which they dropped in favour of the safer tinned bronze (which has attributes which make it much more attractive than pure copper, metallurgically,  
and a heck of a lot safer than arsenical bronze).

Also, I was talking in very general terms... we could go right down to the micro level and ask why any person would have done this or that in the past  - the Fact remains that a people were indeed using dangerous materials for a very long time without any of the benefits of modern protective foundry equipment.

You seem to be confusing your axe terminolgy.

There are no flanges visible on Any of the carvings because the axe carvings are shown in side-section and they are of a type of Flat axe which did not (generally) have flanges. The sides could be hammered after casting to create flanges if desired (though this type generally does Not have flanges).

Take a look at some of the moulds used to cast flat axes, there are plenty of illustrations out there in the literature, and there are plenty of illustrations of flanged axes to compare them with. Flanged axes come slightly later and were often cast in two-part or clay moulds.

And of course - they are only the axe heads - the handles were made of wood (and did not need to be cast therefore).

Furthermore, you obviously have little awareness of the effectiveness of this type of flat axe. They were and can be used to cut down very substantial trees. The axe carvings at Stonehenge are the same size as the bronze axes we find. Useable bronze axes are often smaller and equally effective carpentry tools.

There are no Mycenaen daggers of the type carved at Stonehenge. The Only point I was ever making respect of that statement.

[Anew]

Well, it seems like an interesting program they've got at Exeter; but the link is to the abstracts, is there one to the full text?

Ah, yes, I believe you're right.  By 'flanges' I had meant the two extended 'wings', 'tips' or 'ends' of the crescentic cutting edge.  My usage was wrong.

But the question remains.  With the ends drawn out to the point where they could be 'confused' with toadstools, (a geometry more radical than any illustration I've come by), substantial support would be expected behind the edge, if they are to be in keeping with the figures I have.  Instead, the carvings seem to show a flat or nearly flat back leading to a sharp corner, (which would have been sharper before the weathering of 4300 odd years).  It seems like a stretch, by any rationale, to call these ax heads of the type I see in Introduction to British Prehistory, (as above); including the one found at Bush Barrow, (p 213).  Can you provide a link to an illustration of the type of ax you mean, if it's not these?

More dates from Hengeworld Appendix 3, (these being years ago as of 2000 from the calibrated bce mean):

> Radley 919; burial with Beaker and copper rings; 4385
> Shrewton 5k; burial + Beaker and tanged copper knife; 4340
> Radley 4A; burial with Beaker and two gold ornaments; 4330
> Chilbolton; burial + copper knife and gold ornaments; 4190
> Barnack; burial + Beaker, copper dagger and gold; 4165
> Amesbury 51; burial with Beaker, bronze awl etc.; 4135

So we seem to have a period of about 250 years, many generations, between the first appearance of copper and that of bronze; by this record.

[stonecarver]

Firstly, TAG isn't a programme - it is the Annual Conference of the Theoretical Archaeology Group which has been running as the major archaeology conference (in terms of the number of pepole who attend/the number of sessions and articles) here in the UK since its inception. Exeter University was simply the host university for the last one. It is an annual conference.

The abstract (which perhaps I should have copied here in full), explains succinctly the points I was trying to get accross, but I think now I have covered them all.

I knew immediately you had your axe nomenclature confused from what you were trying to explain, yes you're right - the things you described as 'flanges' are merely the crescentic blade.

This type of axe is particular to the Early Bronze Age in Britain, was there is good evidence it continued to be popular regionally after other types had appeared - there are many papers on the regional style of prehistoric bronze implements.

This type of axe is certainly not unfamiliar to British prehistorians - whether or not the cresecntic blade is (Quoting you)    :-

"with the ends drawn out to the point where they could be 'confused' with toadstools (a geometry more radical that any illustration I've come by)".. and that's the point. They Are well documented in the archarhaeological literature, and there are many examples in museums here in the UK.

This type of axe are certainly not a 'radical' form, but a natural progression (in axe typologies) from an earlier flat axe type which had similar blade width but which were not crescentic, so they used more metal (in the earlier type) to achieve the same cutting edge. The crescentic blade was a technological innovation designed with performance and maximum efficiency in mind (before the innovation of flanges and two part moulds).

The dates you quote are accurate. But they paint a false picture if you are trying to argue for a Chalcolithic in Britain, because metallugical analysis shows that bronze objects appear simultaneously with copper in the British Isles. I had not said there was NO chalcolithic if you read my earlier post carefully, but that it was very short (and something in the region of 250 years is very short in that context). This statement is verified in the extant literature. In the rest of the prehistoric metal-working world, the Chalcolithic lasted thousands of years... so it is the great Difference between the length of the Chalcolithc here and elsewhere that leads to that statement.

Here are pics of an earlier type of bronze axe, and the crescentic type we see at Stonehenge.

 early_axe.JPG   45.59K   17 downloads  crescentic_axe.jpg   404.27K   16 downloads

[Anew]

stonecarver, on 25 March 2007, 10:43, said:

crescentic_axe.jpg

Okay, that is constructive .. I have to admit this ax head looks very much like the carvings; making the interpretation reasonable -- even likely.


It also looks somewhat like a toadstool, which is curious; as the practice of eating fly-agaric, (if they did so), could have influenced them in the design .. It has  been speculated that the, (later), Vikings tripped in battle; and if these did likewise, (and held such weapons), one could argue that the blade up profusion of ax heads was not a representation of "conspicuous consumption", but a statement of "the art of war", as they saw it: They'll spring up like mushrooms, drug-fueled and deadly .. It isn't a nice image, but one can imagine the esprit de corps.


My supposition that these extended ends would be unnecessarily fragile, (or perhaps, prone to getting caught in an opponent's body), was based on those figures I have .. It was their own smiths and armorers who decided to move away from an unsupported cutting edge at the blade's ends, so I stand by that .. Though, as I see, there was such a model.

[stonecarver]

Here's an illustration from the Cumberland and Westmorland Antiquarian and Archaeological Society Transactions, XCVIII 1989 pp299. This type of axe was quite common in Cumbria apparently (but occurs most everywhere, and especially in Ireland).

 trans_XCVIII_1998_299.jpg   165.5K   10 downloads

Bronze is such a strong metal that the thickness of the axe means that the crescentic type blades were more than capable of working efficiently whilst simultaneously reducing the overall weight of the axe. Subsequently, the edges of these axes started to be hammered down so that flanges start to appear. The flanges were designed to make the hafting more secure... and these evolved to the point where they were sometimes as much as a couple of centimetres proud of the blade itself on each side... and hence the development of what are termed palstaves. Flanged axes with a stop-ridge. The stop-ridge itself was another development (usually half-way along the axe body) to prevent the axe cutting into the handle in use. I'll try and find some more pics of the relevant implements to assist with the description.

Regards, Stonecarver.

[shiny]

If you haven't been already, I'll recommend a trip to The Great Orme Mines, near Llandudno in Wales.
The mines are  bronze age copper mines, where visitors can look round underground.


http://www.greatormemines.info/



A visit here brings you very close to the people who worked the mine 4,000 years ago.

[Anew]

shiny, on 25 March 2007, 14:52, said:

If you haven't been already, I'll recommend a trip to The Great Orme Mines, near Llandudno in Wales.
The mines are  bronze age copper mines, where visitors can look round underground.


http://www.greatormemines.info/



A visit here brings you very close to the people who worked the mine 4,000 years ago.

Sounds like a stop .. It's a trip I'll probably never take, but, it does sound like a stop ..

[stonecarver]

The question of whether these bronze axes were weapons or tools is open to debate. There is no conclusive evidence they were used as weapons, where-as there is evidence they were used as carpentry tools.

It's interesting that there are many barbed-and-tanged flint arrowheads in the Bronze Age, and stone battle-axes (which are morphologically very different from any British metal axes)... but I don't recall ever seeing a bronze arrowhead (from this period - the Age of Stonehenge).

The Great Orme mines are amazing...

[Anew]

stonecarver, on 25 March 2007, 19:30, said:

The question of whether these bronze axes were weapons or tools is open to debate. There is no conclusive evidence they were used as weapons, where-as there is evidence they were used as carpentry tools.

It's interesting that there are many barbed-and-tanged flint arrowheads in the Bronze Age, and stone battle-axes (which are morphologically very different from any British metal axes)... but I don't recall ever seeing a bronze arrowhead (from this period - the Age of Stonehenge).

The Great Orme mines are amazing...

The Age of Stonehenge spans time .. It may be that in the early bronze age, the metal was considered too expensive for arrows, (which might be lost), so their absence from the 'fallen retainer' could be explainable as an economy .. Indeed, any bronze tipped arrows which struck may have been removed .. However, again by the chronologies in the Hengeworld's Appendices, the 'retainer' died about 135 years before the first bronze turned up in a burial .. but the Bluestone circle and Oval were put together about 10 years after that first bronze, (working from calibrated means) .. It does not seem to me unreasonable to think the toadstool-shaped ax carvings were made at this later time -- (give or take) 210 years after the Sarsens went up ..


Addressing the first point second .. I see a serious design drawback in terms of fatigue during regular use breaking those ends off, or of them simply snapping in battle, safety glasses please, should they met a hard stone ax edge to edge .. There is also the chance that they, as stated before, would catch in the opponents' flesh, (cruelly), but potentially disastrously in the fast-moving fray .. Perhaps for these reasons the design seems to have evolved away quickly .. But as these are the first on the scene, and I imagine surviving from grave finds, let me modify the proposal to suggest that they were a chieftain's weapon .. This would give them license to carve on the temple stone, but makes it less likely, (and reasonably so), that the expensive bronze was general issue .. On one of these forums a study of severe head-blows from the long-barrow tradition came up .. Are you aware of a comparative study of bone-preserved ax wounds ?. Most bones being either narrow or curved themselves, this might be difficult research if one wanted to state unambiguously what model ax was used, (particularly with respect to non-cutting metal) ..


Question: General carpentry or ritual carpentry ?. And is the evidence unambiguous that this particular model was employed ?.

[stonecarver]

The oft-quoted term - the 'Age of Stonehenge' originated in a scholarly book of that title by Colin Burgess,
ISBN 1-84212-423-3, an excellent read.

Hengeworld by Mike Pitts is rather less of text-book about the archaeology of the period - it's more of an introductory account of the history of research and the way some more recent discoveries relate to that... there are many more comprehensive and detailed accounts of the archaeology of Stonehenge, and of Bronze Age axes in particular.

Burials are not the key indicator for the advent of metals. The sepulchral practices of prehistoric communities in Britain were varied... depending upon region and time.

Quoting the dates for the bronze objects found with burials does not help ascertain the first use of metal. It just tells us the first time they began to be buried with people, which is an entirely different matter. There is good evidence that metal axes were around for many hundreds of years before being they were ever incorporated in burials.

The crescentic axes are not referred to as toad-stool shaped here in the UK... because they are only 'toad-stool shaped' in the minds of a few people. I have spoken with several archaeologists, museum staff and many more interested members of the public about this, and whilst everybody knows it has been suggested the carvings vaguely resemble toadstools (and not very well either if you actually look at the morphology), it is not something people generally subscribe to. It is a bit like saying a wheel is the shape of the sun. It indeed is - but the shape of a wheel is a technological requirement for its proper function and its similarity is merely ancillary.

The same is very probably true of these axes. If toadstools were so important to prehistoric society - we would have found hundreds more carvings of them. I can think of Not a Single One. But - there are Very many other carved axes in stone -  the stone moulds people used to cast them in… (Have a proper read of the TAG abstract).

The crescentic blade was a technological innovation designed with performance and maximum efficiency in mind. Most people fail to appreciate how strong cold-worked bronze is - it's nearly as strong as high-carbon steel. There are no examples of this type of axe with broken blades that I am aware of (and bronze axes are something I have studied relentlessly for a good few years now), through the literature, museum collections and conversations with other Prehistorians. If you had held one of these axes and examined it first-hand - you would realise that in fact there is very little likelihood of the crescentic blade breaking - the axes are too thick, the metal is too strong - they are a perfectly functional design which was only superseded by the advent of the stop-ridge and flanges.

You (Anew) are assuming these axes were used as a weapon, but that is a rather outdated perspective. The evidence points towards them being a carpentry tool. I am actually conducting a micro-wear study of their blades at the present time. The type did not disappear quickly as you seem to suggest. They were still in use in some areas hundreds of years after they appear and after flanged axes and palstaves were in use - and the difference between the crescentic axes and these innovative types is the development of stop-ridge and flanges. The typology of British bronze axes is very detailed and is well established.

I think you have entirely missed the point of the academic paper I referred you to from the TAG conference (see link in a previous post). The author makes it clear that the carvings were used as moulds to cast particular axes, and only Then were the stones set upright. Ergo - they actually Were axe moulds. Morphologically, materially, chronologically - -they are exactly the same as the portable moulds we find in the archaeological record. The whole Point was about conspicuous consumption. By doing that with them, the moulds could not be used again to make more axes - so they were probably cast for particular individuals and the act of putting the moulds out of further use lent Those axes great value... but the TAG paper explains that quite clearly, in the abstract, maybe you missed it.

Carpentry in the Neolithic and Bronze Age was particularly advanced in the British Isles. One only has to look at the examples of the exceptionally well-constructed sea-faring sewn-plank boats from Britain (and other types), to realise that they were a maritime community, and were adept carpenters. If axes weren't carpentry tools - what were they using to make all their wooden palisades, huts, boats, trackways and other wooden structures with in the Bronze Age? There is evidence for the use of metal axes - from the cut-marks and tooling marks on timbers (we can differentiate between stone and metal axe-marks).

There are some studies of damaged human skeletons from the period and they are not conclusive except in one respect - most deaths/injuries occurring through violence appear to have been caused by flint arrowheads.

[Anew]

(-; What, no 'regards' ?

Quote

I think you have entirely missed the point of the academic paper I referred you to from the TAG conference (see link in a previous post). The author makes it clear that the carvings were used as moulds to cast particular axes, and only Then were the stones set upright. Ergo - they actually Were axe moulds. Morphologically, materially, chronologically - -they are exactly the same as the portable moulds we find in the archaeological record. The whole Point was about conspicuous consumption. By doing that with them, the moulds could not be used again to make more axes - so they were probably cast for particular individuals and the act of putting the moulds out of further use lent Those axes great value... but the TAG paper explains that quite clearly, in the abstract, maybe you missed it.

I guess here it's a case of 'choose your poison' .. I refuse the above idea, (not withstanding good Young name) .. As too callous .. Too mercantile .. ( Too current ) .... I'd rather see them I suppose as, (sometimes), XXX; than to believe they built one of their greatest works to drive up the value of some axes ..

[Administrator note: please refrain from posting personal opinions that other users may find deeply offensive.]

To me these were a Chieftain's weapon .. and one can hope there was some point of honor by which the same were required to fight each-other .. I've heard that in Old Japan, should leaders duel fairly before the troops, a battle could with honor be forgone .. Don't you wish it was still that way ?

The bow more lethal than the ax ?. Yes, I suppose that could be the case .. Note, however, that spears turn up -- often in the company of axes -- at about this moment .. And that they were not carpenter's tools ..

At one point I picked up the book: Introduction to British Prehistory, (mentioned in prior posts) ..  Should you by any means have or have route to a copy, please see the figures on pages 180 & 217; and in particular 198, 218 & 221, where you'll see it was their own choice to place/add metal behind the cutting edge .. I think it would be difficult to differentiate, without the ax in question, whether a cut was made by one of these or a toadstool-ax .. One could also look to page 248 for casting molds of 'earlier' Bronze Age flat axes which have little, if any, 'under-supported' edge .. Once again, I see the toadstool-ax as bearing symbolism, rather than being purely practical; and that part of this symbolism was the toadstool itself.

Question: What are "toad-stool" (s) ...in your lexicon ?

Regards ;-)