The Bronze Age Collapse

That's exactly why I initially wondered whether iron played a role in the ending of the Bronze Age - while someone with a good bronze sword would generally win a fight against someone with a primitive iron sword, if it was possible to make a dozen iron swords for the cost of one bronze sword, that would change things significantly. However, since iron apparently didn't appear until after the Bronze Age collapse, perhaps people just didn't initially see the advantages of iron or realize that it could be used as a substitute for bronze. Or perhaps the Bronze Age elites did realize that iron had the potential to significantly democratize both economic activity and warfare, so they discouraged its use. Either one seems like a possibility to me, but in the absence of any evidence, perhaps we should just assume that people hadn't yet discovered how to use iron effectively.
One of the drawbacks and perhaps delay in using iron was its high melting temperature. Improvements to smelting furnaces need to be developed and spread before full iron revolution could start and price of iron items became affordable for ordinary people. Iron also needed new smiths (retrained smiths) who learned how to forge and work with this very malleable metal, unlike bronze which was mostly casted. It was parabola the time when every farmer could finaly afford a metal sickle, axe, hummer and probably first spikes to nail something. Iron might have been a bigger revolution for ordinary folks rather than for armies, till the steel was invented.
 
The debate continues as to the role of climate change in the Bronze Age Collapse.

"Archaeologists and environmental scientists from the University of Bradford, University of Leeds, University College Cork, Ireland (UCC), and Queen's University Belfast have shown that the changes in climate that scientists believed to coincide with the fall in population in fact occurred at least two generations later.

Their results, published this week in Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, show that human activity starts to decline after 900BC, and falls rapidly after 800BC, indicating a population collapse. But the climate records show that colder, wetter conditions didn't occur until around two generations later.


Their results, published this week in Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, show that human activity starts to decline after 900BC, and falls rapidly after 800BC, indicating a population collapse. But the climate records show that colder, wetter conditions didn't occur until around two generations later.

According to Professor Armit, social and economic stress is more likely to be the cause of the sudden and widespread fall in numbers. Communities producing bronze needed to trade over very large distances to obtain copper and tin. Control of these networks enabled the growth of complex, hierarchical societies dominated by a warrior elite. As iron production took over, these networks collapsed, leading to widespread conflict and social collapse. It may be these unstable social conditions, rather than climate change, that led to the population collapse at the end of the Bronze Age.


See Science article:
"http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2014/11/141117164123.htm

This is the link to the paper, but unfortunately I don't have access. If someone can read it, it would be great if you could report back.
Armit et al, Rapid Climate Change Did Not Cause Population Collapse At The End of the European Bronze Age
http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2014/11/12/1408028111

I have a few major questions or concerns about this paper. First of all, Cline's book is talking about a much earlier period, around 1150 BC. The subject of this paper is Phase II. They may be right that there was a big drop in activity around 950 but the climate downturn was around 750BC. However, what about the earlier period?

Also, these authors blame the peripheral new groups using iron weapons for the collapse:
"According to Professor Armit, social and economic stress is more likely to be the cause of the sudden and widespread fall in numbers. Communities producing bronze needed to trade over very large distances to obtain copper and tin. Control of these networks enabled the growth of complex, hierarchical societies dominated by a warrior elite. As iron production took over, these networks collapsed, leading to widespread conflict and social collapse. It may be these unstable social conditions, rather than climate change, that led to the population collapse at the end of the Bronze Age."

Cline also finds that invasions were a contributing factor, but in that earlier period they (the Sea Peoples) were supposedly still using Bronze weapons.

So, I'm not sure where we are....Don't you sometimes wish you could get them all in a room and not let them out until they've reached a consensus? :)
 
I haven't been able to access the paper, but I wonder whether we have enough information yet to be able to explain the Bronze Age collapse. Or the Mesolithic collapse in Europe that apparently happened prior to the arrival of the Neolithic farmers. Or the collapse of the early Neolithic culture in Europe that apparently allowed some hunter gatherer types to become incorporated into the Neolithic lifestyle, so that European farmers during the late Neolithic apparently had more Mesolithic European ancestry than European farmers did during the early Neolithic. The one pattern I'm seeing is that major changes in population or culture often seem to be preceded by some kind of collapse. So if I had to choose a side, my guess would be that the Bronze Age collapse preceded the introduction of iron tools and weapons. Why that happened still seems to be a mystery.
 
That's exactly why I initially wondered whether iron played a role in the ending of the Bronze Age - while someone with a good bronze sword would generally win a fight against someone with a primitive iron sword, if it was possible to make a dozen iron swords for the cost of one bronze sword, that would change things significantly. However, since iron apparently didn't appear until after the Bronze Age collapse, perhaps people just didn't initially see the advantages of iron or realize that it could be used as a substitute for bronze. Or perhaps the Bronze Age elites did realize that iron had the potential to significantly democratize both economic activity and warfare, so they discouraged its use. Either one seems like a possibility to me, but in the absence of any evidence, perhaps we should just assume that people hadn't yet discovered how to use iron effectively.

Iron did not fully replace bronze until steel was discovered, so from 800BC to 500BC , iron and bronze where basically equal in value and usage
 
Iron did not fully replace bronze until steel was discovered, so from 800BC to 500BC , iron and bronze where basically equal in value and usage

I'm aware that bronze continued to be used for certain things after the Bronze Age collapse, and in fact still is. Nevertheless, a Bronze Age collapse did in fact occur, and while it did involve a decrease in overall population and economic activity, it also apparently involved the production of much less bronze than previously. The issue we're trying to resolve is whether there was for some reason a decline in bronze production that caused the collapse or whether some other factor (climate change, disease, an invasion of iron wielding people from the periphery) disrupted the complex trading chains that allowed for bronze to be cast far from any deposits of tin or other suitable alloy. Nobody is suggesting that bronze production completely ceased.
 
the superiority of bronze against iron is rust,

from the nails that are found by archaiologists we know that they knew to harden iron, although made it heavy,
but iron rust easy, and loses his 'cut edge' quicker,
so an early iron needed to 'stones' to 'sharp' its edges, and did not last long due to rust, and it was very heavy,

mettals millenium before iron was founded place 'played' also the role of money,
one of the first money coin was cypriot talanton which had the size of a lamp fleece,
but from antique gold was consider superior than copper than iron,
why? I believe it is the resist against rust,

gold is softer than iron, yet more precious 6 milleniums now,
why? cause money should have a strong resist in time.

in ancient Makedonians a month was named Xanthos, due to that month they all brush and sharp their iron weapons,
consider such thing in early iron mettalurgy,
yet in areas were they needed hard metal they put iron,
but they use bronze in daylife in other things
 
Don't know how accurate this article is in terms of timelines. I know that Illyrians and the West Balkans in general were not good with iron until the 8-th Century BC. This is evident in the materials found in tombs; very few iron objects found before 8-th century BC. Their iron industry reached its potential between 8-7 century BC, in the same areas that were famous before for bronze and cooper, namely the areas of Kukesi and Korca. (Kukesi is where E-v13 is probably 40%, btw)
 
Don't know how accurate this article is in terms of timelines. I know that Illyrians and the West Balkans in general were not good with iron until the 8-th Century BC. This is evident in the materials found in tombs; very few iron objects found before 8-th century BC. Their iron industry reached its potential between 8-7 century BC, in the same areas that were famous before for bronze and cooper, namely the areas of Kukesi and Korca. (Kukesi is where E-v13 is probably 40%, btw)

The illyrians where the best with steel in east austria (Noricum area) .......it was called noric steel
It was already in use centuries befor ethe Romans arrived
 

This thread has been viewed 23354 times.

Back
Top