But certainly some centuries before the time of Herodotus, and probably as early as that of Homer, the Chalybes on the shores of the Euxine practised the manufacture of iron on a considerable scale, and from them came the Greek name for steel, χαλυψ.[80] Daïmachus, in the fourth century b.c., records that different sorts of steel are produced among the Chalybes in Sinope, Lydia, and Laconia. That of Sinope was used for smiths’ and carpenters’ tools; that of Laconia for files, drills for iron, stamps, and masons’ tools; and the Lydian kind for files, swords, razors, and knives. In Laconia iron is said to have formed the only currency in the days of Lycurgus.
Taking all the evidence into consideration, there can be no doubt that iron must have been known in Greece some ten or twelve centuries before our era, though, as already observed, it was at that time an extremely rare metal. It also appears that as early as b.c. 500, or even 600, iron or steel was in common use, though bronze had not been altogether superseded for offensive arms such as spear-heads and battle-axes.
The tradition of the earlier use of bronze still, however, remained even in later times, and the preference shown for its employment in religious rites, which I have mentioned elsewhere,[81] is a strong witness of this earlier use. It seems needless again to do more than mention the bronze ploughshare used at the foundation of Tuscan cities, the bronze knives and shears of the Sabine and Roman priests, and the bronze sickles of Medea and Elissa. I must, however, again bring forward the speculations of an intelligent Greek traveller, who wrote in the latter half of the second century of our era, as to the existence of what we should now term a Bronze Age in Greece.
Pausanias[82] relates how Lichas the Lacedæmonian, in the fifth century b.c., discovered the bones of Orestes, which his countrymen had been commanded by an oracle to seek. The Pythia[83] had described the place as one where two strong winds met, where form was opposed to form, and one evil lay upon another. These Lichas recognised in the two bellows of the smith, the hammer opposed to the anvil, and the iron lying on it. Pausanias on this observes that at that time they had already begun to use iron in war, and that if it had been in the days of the heroes it would have been bronze and not iron designated by the oracle as the evil, for in their days all arms were of bronze. For this he cites Homer as his authority, who speaks of the bronze axe of Pisander, and the arrow of Meriones. A farther argument he derives from the spear of Achilles, laid up in the temple of Minerva at Phaselis, and the sword of Memnon in that of Æsculapius at Nicomedia, which is entirely of bronze, while the ferrule and point of his spear are also of that metal.
The spear-head which lay with the bones of Theseus[84] in the Isle of Scyros was also of bronze, and probably the sword likewise. There are no works of Latin authors of a date nearly so remote as that of the earlier Greek writers, and long before the days of Ennius, iron was in general use in Italy. If the Articles of Peace which “Porsena, King of the Tuscans, tendered unto the people of Rome” were as Pliny[85] represents them, the Romans must even in those early days have had iron weapons, for they were forbidden the use of that metal except for tilling the ground. In b.c. 224 the Isumbrian Gauls who fought with Flaminius were already in possession of iron swords, the softness and flexibility of which led to the discomfiture of their owners. The Romans themselves seem but to have been badly armed so far as swords were concerned until the time of the Second Punic War, about b.c. 200, when they adopted the Spanish sword, and learnt the method of preparing it. Whether the modern Toledo and Bilbao blades are legitimate descendants of these old weapons we need not stop to inquire. In whatever manner the metal was prepared, so thoroughly was iron identified with the sword in classical times that ferrum and gladius were almost synonyms.
Pliny mentions that the best steel used in Rome was imported from China, a country in which copper or bronze swords are said to have been in use in the days of Ki,[86] the son of Yu, b.c. 2197-48, and those of iron under Kung-Kia, b.c. 1897-48, so that there also history points to a Bronze Age. But this by the way.
Looking at the fact that iron and steel were in such general use at Rome during the period of her wars in Western Europe, we may well believe that had any of the tribes with which the Roman forces came in contact been armed with bronze, such an unusual circumstance could hardly have escaped record. In the Augustan age the iron swords of Noricum were in great repute, and farther north in Germany, though iron did not abound, it was, according to Tacitus, used for spears and swords. The Catti had the metal in abundance, but among the Aestii, on the right coast of the Baltic, it was scarce. The Cimbrians in the first century b.c. had, according to Plutarch,[87] iron breast-plates, javelins, and large swords.
The Gauls of the North of France had in the time of Julius Cæsar[88] large iron mines which they worked by tunnelling; the bolts of their ships were made of that metal, and they had even chain cables of iron. The Britons of the South of England who were in such close communication with the opposite coast of Gaul must have had an equal acquaintance with iron. Cæsar mentions ingots or rings of iron as being used for money, and observes that iron is obtained on the sea-coast, but in small quantities, and adds that bronze was imported.[89] Strabo includes iron, as well as gold, silver, and corn, among the products of Britain. In Spain, as already mentioned, iron had long been known, so that from the concurrent testimony of several historians we may safely infer that in the time of Julius Cæsar, when this country was first exposed to Roman influences, it had already, like the neighbouring countries to the south, passed from the Bronze into the Iron Age.
Notwithstanding all this historical testimony in favour of the prior use of bronze to that of iron, there have been not a few authors who have maintained that the idea of a succession of stone, bronze, and iron is delusive when applied to Western Europe. Among these was the late Mr. Thomas Wright, who has gone so far as to express[90] “a firm conviction that not a bit of bronze which has been found in the British Islands belongs to an older date than that at which Cæsar wrote that the Britons obtained their bronze from abroad, meaning of course from Gaul.” “In fact these objects in bronze were Roman in character and in their primary origin.” As in the same page he goes on to show that two hundred years before Christ the swords of the Gauls were made of iron, and as his contentions have already been met by Sir John Lubbock,[91] and will, I think, be effectually disposed of by the facts subsequently to be mentioned in this volume, it seems needless to dwell on Mr. Wright’s opinions. I may, however, mention that,[92] while denying the antiquity of British, German, and Scandinavian weapons and tools of bronze, he admits that in Greece and Italy that metal was for a long period the only one employed for cutting instruments, as iron was not known in Greece until a comparatively late date.
About one hundred and thirty years ago,[93] in 1751, a discussion as to the date of bronze weapons took place among the members of the Académie des Inscriptions et Belles Lettres of Paris, on the occasion of some bronze swords, a spear-head, and other objects being found near Gannat, in the Bourbonnais. Some antiquaries regarded them as weapons made for use; others as merely made for show. The Count de Caylus considered that the swords were Roman, though maintaining that copper or bronze must have been in earlier use than iron. Lévesque de la Ravalière maintained, on the contrary, that neither the Greeks, Romans, Gauls, nor Franks had ever made use of copper or bronze in their swords. The Abbé Barthélemy showed from ancient authors that the earliest arms of the Greeks were of bronze; that iron was only introduced about the time of the siege of Troy; and that in later times among the Romans there was no mention of bronze having been used for weapons of offence, and therefore that these swords were not Roman. Strangely enough, he went on to argue that they were Frankish, and of the time of Childeric. Had he been present at the opening of the tomb of that monarch in 1653 he would, however, have seen that he had an iron sword.[94]