This prevalence of lead is very remarkable in some of the small socketed celts found in very large numbers in Brittany, which from their diminutive size have been regarded as “votive” rather than as destined for actual use. In some of these Professor Pelligot[1606] found as much as 28·50 and even 32·50 per cent. of lead, with only 1½ per cent. or a small trace of tin. In others, with a large per-centage of tin, there was from 8 to 16 per cent. of lead. Some of the bronze ornaments of the Early Iron Period also contain a considerable proportion of this metal, which, in the early Roman as[1607] and its parts, is found to the extent of from 20 to 30 per cent. Although some such proportion as 9 to 1 appears to have been aimed at, there is great variation in the proportions of the principal ingredients even in cutting tools of the same general character, the tin being sometimes upwards of 18 per cent. and sometimes less than 5 per cent. of the whole.
This variation was no doubt partly due to occasional scarcity of tin; but, as Dr. W. K. Sullivan has pointed out,[1608] there are two other causes for it: first, the separation of the constituent metals in the fused mass, and the accumulation of the tin in the lower portion of the castings; and, second, the throwing off of the tin by oxidation when the alloys were re-melted. M. Dusaussoy[1609] found that an alloy containing 90·4 per cent. of copper and 9·6 per cent. of tin lost so much of the latter metal by six fusions that it ultimately consisted of 95 per cent. of copper and only 5 per cent. of tin.
With regard to the early sources of the copper and tin used in this country, and in general through Western Europe, it will not be in my power to add much to what has already been published on this subject.
It seems probable that gold, which commonly occurs native and brilliant, was the first metal that attracted the attention of mankind. The next metal to be discovered would, in all probability, be copper, which also occurs native, and has many points of resemblance with gold.
The use of this metal, as I have observed in the Introductory Chapter, no doubt originated in some part of the world where, as on the shore of Lake Superior, it occurs in a pure metallic state. When once it was discovered that copper was fusible by heat, the production of the metal from some of the more metallic-looking ores, such as copper pyrites, would follow; and in due time, either from association with the metal, or from their colour and weight, some of the other ores, both sulphuretted and non-sulphuretted, would become known.[1610]
When once the production of copper in this manner was effected, it is probable that the ores of other metals, such as tin, would also become known, and that tin ores would either be treated conjointly with the ores of copper, as suggested by Dr. Wibel, so as at once to produce bronze; or added to crude copper, as suggested by Professor Sullivan; or again, be smelted by themselves so as to produce metallic tin. At what date it was generally known that “brass is molten out of the stone”[1611] is, however, a question difficult to answer.
Native copper and many of its ores occur in Hungary, Norway, Sweden, Saxony, and Cornwall; but copper pyrites is far more generally distributed, and is found in most countries of the world. So far, therefore, as the existence of this metal is concerned, there was no necessity for the Britons in Cæsar’s time to make use of imported bronze, especially as tin was found in abundance in Cornwall, and long before Cæsar’s time was exported in considerable quantities to the Continent. And yet his account may to some extent be true, as a socketed celt of what is almost undoubtedly Breton manufacture has been found near Weymouth,[1612] and several instruments of recognised French types have been found in our southern counties. Bronze vessels also may have been imported.
Copper and its ores are abundant in Ireland, especially copper pyrites and gray copper.
Although tin was formerly found in abundance in some parts of Spain, and also in less quantity in Brittany,[1613] there can be but little doubt that the Cassiterides, with which either directly or indirectly the Phœnicians traded for tin,[1614] are rightly identified with Britain. But, with due deference to Professor Nilsson and other antiquaries, I must confess that the traces of Phœnician influence in this country are to my mind at present imperceptible; and it may well be that their system of commerce or barter was such as intentionally left the barbarian tribes with whom they traded in much the same stage of civilisation as that in which they found them, always assuming that they dealt directly with Britain and not through the intervention of Gaulish merchants.
The argument, however, that the Phœnician bronze would have been lead-bronze, because the Phœnicians derived their civilisation and arts from Egypt, and had continual intercourse with that country, where lead-bronze was early known, appears to me wanting in cogency. For though the Egyptians may have used lead-bronzes for statues and ornaments, the Egyptian dagger[1615] analyzed by Vauquelin gave copper 85, tin 14, and iron 1 per cent., and showed no trace of lead. Of one point we may be fairly certain, that the discovery of bronze did not originate in the British Isles, but that the knowledge of that useful metal was communicated from abroad, and probably from the neighbouring country, France. When and in what manner that and the other countries of Western and Central Europe derived their knowledge of bronze it is not my intention here to discuss. I will only say that the tendency of the evidence at present gathered is to place the original source of bronze, like that of the Aryan family, in an Asiatic rather than an European centre.