PRE-HISTORIC TIMES.

CHAPTER I.

ON THE USE OF BRONZE IN ANCIENT TIMES.

HE first appearance of man in Europe dates back to a

THE

period so remote, that neither history, nor even tradition, can throw any light on his origin, or mode of life. Under these circumstances, some have assumed the past to be hidden from the present by a veil, which time would probably thicken, but could never remove. Thus, the memorials of antiquity have been valued as monuments of ancient skill and perseverance, but it has not been supposed that they could be regarded as pages of ancient history; they have been recognized as interesting vignettes, not as historical pictures. Some writers have assured us that, in the words of Palgrave, "We must give it up, that speechless past; whether fact or chronology, doctrine or mythology ; whether in Europe, Asia, Africa or America; at Thebes or Palenque, on Lycian shore or Salisbury Plain: lost is lost; gone is gone for ever." While if others, more hopefully, have endeavoured to reconstruct the story of the past, they have too often allowed imagination to usurp the place of research, and written rather in the spirit of the novelist, than in that of the philosopher.

But of late years a new branch of knowledge has arisen;

2

DIVISION OF PRE-HISTORIC

among us,

a new Science has, so to say, been born which deals with times and events far more ancient than any of those which have yet fallen within the province of the archæologist. The geologist reckons not by days or by years; the whole six thousand years, which were until lately looked on as the sum of the world's age, are to him but as a unit of measurement in the long succession of past ages. Our knowledge of geology is, of course, very incomplete; on some points we shall no doubt see reason to change our opinion, but on the whole, the conclusions to which it points are as definite as those of zoology, chemistry, or any of the kindred sciences. Nor does there appear to be any reason why the methods of examination, which have proved so successful in geology, should not also be used to throw light on the history of man in pre-historic times. Archæology forms, in fact, the link between geology and history. It is true that in the case of other animals we can, from their bones and teeth, form a definite idea of their habits and mode of life, while in the present state of our knowledge the skeleton of a savage could not always be distinguished from that of a philosopher. But on the other hand, while extinct animals leave only teeth and bones behind them, the men of past ages are to be studied principally by their works; houses for the living, tombs for the dead, fortifications for defence, temples for worship, implements for use, ornaments for decoration.

From the careful study of the remains which have come down to us, it would appear that Pre-historic Archæology may be divided into four great epochs.

Firstly, that of the Drift; when man shared the possession of Europe with the Mammoth, the Cave bear, the Woollyhaired rhinoceros, and other extinct animals. This we may call the "Palæolithic" period.

Secondly, The later or polished Stone age; a period characterized by beautiful weapons and instruments made

ARCHEOLOGY INTO FOUR PERIODS.

3

of flint and other kinds of stone, in which, however, we find no trace of the knowledge of any metal, excepting gold, which seems to have been sometimes used for ornaments. This we may call the "Neolithic" period.

Thirdly, The Bronze age, in which bronze was used for arms and cutting instruments of all kinds.

Fourthly, The Iron age, in which that metal had superseded bronze for arms, axes, knives, etc.; bronze, however, still being in common use for ornaments, and frequently also for the handles of swords and other arms, but never for the blades. Stone weapons, however, of many kinds were still in use during the age of Bronze, and even during that of Iron. So that the mere presence of a few stone implements is not in itself sufficient evidence, that any given "find" belongs to the Stone age.

In order to prevent misapprehension, it may be well to state, at once, that, for the present, I only apply this classification to Europe, though, in all probability, it might be extended also to the neighbouring parts of Asia and Africa. As regards other civilized countries, China and Japan for instance, we, as yet, know nothing of their pre-historic archæology. It is evident, also, that some nations, such as the Fuegians, Andamaners, etc., are even now only in an age of Stone.

But even in this limited sense, the above classification has not met with general acceptance; there are still some archæologists who believe that the arms and implements of stone, bronze, and iron were used contemporaneously.

Leaving the consideration of the Stone age for future chapters, I shall endeavour in the present one to show that, as regards Europe, the bronze arms and implements characterise a particular period, and belong to a time anterior to the discovery, or at least to the common use, of iron. In support of this we may appeal, firstly, to the testimony of

4

FIRST DISCOVERY OF METAL.

the most ancient writers; and secondly, to the evidence of the objects themselves.

In fact, the weapons of bronze, and especially the swords and celts, are, not only in form, but also in ornamentation very similar all over Europe, and very different from those of iron. And, though there are many cases, in which quantities of arms have been found together, there is scarcely an instance on record, in which any of these "finds" has comprised objects of the two classes.

For instance, at Nidau in the Lake of Bienne, Col. Schwab has obtained more than two thousand objects of metal from the site of an ancient Lake-village; these were almost all of bronze, only three fragments of iron having been met with, and even these being probably modern. On the contrary, at Tiefenau, near Berne, where a large number of iron arms were discovered, including no less than a hundred swords, not a single weapon of bronze was found.

It is probable that gold was the metal which first attracted the attention of man; it is found in many rivers, and by its bright color would certainly attract even the rudest savages, who are known to be very fond of personal decoration. Silver does not appear to have been discovered until long after gold, and was apparently preceded by both copper and tin, as it is rarely, if ever,* found in tumuli of the Bronze age; but, however this may be, copper seems to have been the metal which first became of real importance to man: no doubt owing to the fact that its ores are abundant in many countries, and can be smelted without difficulty; and that, while iron is hardly ever found except in the form of ore, copper often occurs in a native condition, and can be beaten at once into shape. Thus, for instance, the North American Indians obtained pure copper from the mines near

*Horæ ferales, p. 60.

COPPER. TIN. IRON.

5

Lake Superior and elsewhere, and hammered it at once into axes, bracelets, and other objects.

Tin also early attracted notice, probably on account of the great heaviness of its ores. When metals were very scarce, it would naturally sometimes happen that, in order to make up the necessary quantity, some tin would be added to copper, or vice versa. It would then be found that the properties of the alloy were quite different from those of either metal, and a very few experiments would determine the most advantageous proportions, which are about nine parts of copper to one part of tin. No implements or weapons of tin, have yet been found in Europe, and those of copper are extremely rare, whence it has been inferred that the advantage of combining the two metals was known elsewhere, before the use of either was introduced into Europe. Many of the so-called "copper axes," etc., contain a small proportion of tin; and the few exceptions indicate probably a mere temporary want, rather than a total ignorance of this metal.

This valuable alloy can

The ores of iron, though more abundant, are much less striking than those of copper or tin. Moreover, though they are perhaps more easily reduced, the metal, when obtained, is much less tractable than bronze. very easily be cast, and, in fact, all the weapons and implements made of it in olden times, were cast in moulds of sand or stone. The art of casting iron, on the other hand, was unknown until a comparatively late period.

In the writings of the early poets, iron is frequently characterised by the epithet πολύκμητος, and its adjective, σιδήρεος, is used metaphorically to imply the greatest stubbornness.

While, however, these facts tend very much to remove the à priori improbability that a compound and comparatively expensive material like bronze, should have been in general use before such a common metal as iron, we must, of course, seek elsewhere for evidence of the fact.