See also Lord Avebury, Prehistoric Times, pp. 71–72, who gives 3730 for copper-working in Sinai, and its first appearance about 5000 B. C. Montelius, 1, p. 380, gives copper in Cyprus as about 2500 B. C., hardly 3000; and for Egypt 5000; he regards it as having been known in Babylon at about the same time. Breasted, Ancient Times, assigns the date of the earliest copper as at least 4000 in Egypt.
125 : 27. Eduard Meyer, 1, p. 41. But cf. Reisner, Naga-ed-Dêr, I, p. 126, note 3. Also Hall, Ancient History of the Near East, p. 28.
126 : 1. Elliot Smith, 1, p. 8: “Most serious scholars who concern themselves with the problems of the ancient history of Egypt and Babylonia have now abandoned these inflated estimates of the lengths of the historical periods in the two empires; and it is now generally admitted that Meyer’s estimate of 3400±100 B. C. is a close approximation to the date of the union of Upper and Lower Egypt and that the blending of Semitic and Sumerian cultures in Babylonia took place shortly after the time of this event in the Nile valley.” See also Hall, Ancient History of the Near East, p. 3.
126 : 7. Bronze. Rice Holmes, 1, p. 125: “The oldest piece of bronze that has yet been dated was found at Medûm, in Egypt, and is supposed to have been cast about 3700 B. C. But the metal may have been worked even earlier in other lands; for a bronze statuette and a bronze vase, which were made twenty-five centuries before our era have been obtained from Mesopotamia and the craft must have passed through many stages before such objects could have been produced. Yet it would be rash to infer that either the Babylonians or the Egyptians invented bronze for neither in Egypt nor in Babylonia is there any tin. The old theory that it was a result of Phœnician commerce with Britain has long been abandoned and British bronze implements are so different from those of Norway and Sweden, Denmark and Hungary, that it cannot have been derived from any of these countries. German influence was felt at a comparatively late period, but from first to last British bronze culture was closely connected with that of Gaul and through Gaul with that of Italy.”
126 : 9. Gowland, p. 243: “It has been frequently stated that the alloy used by the men of the Bronze Age generally consists of copper and tin in the proportions of 9 to 1. I have hence compared the analyses which have been published with the following results:
| EARLY WEAPONS AND IMPLEMENTS. 57 ANALYSES | ||
|---|---|---|
| In | 25 | the tin ranges from about 8 to 11 per cent. |
| „ | 6 | „ „ „ „ „ 11 „ 13 „ „ |
| „ | 26 | „ „ „ „ „ 3 „ 8 „ „ |
| LATER PALSTAVES AND SOCKETED AXES. 15 ANALYSES | ||
| In | 13 | the tin ranges from about 4.3 to 13.1 per cent. |
| „ | 2 | „ „ was about 18.3 per cent. |
| SPEAR AND LANCE HEADS | ||
| In | 5 | the tin ranges from about 11.3 to 15.7 per cent. |
| STILL LATER. SWORDS. 33 ANALYSES | ||
| In | 14 | the tin ranges from about 8 to 11 per cent. |
| „ | 12 | „ „ „ „ „ 12 „ 18 „ „ |
| „ | 7 | „ „ is less than 9 per cent. |
“It is obvious, therefore, that these statements do not accurately represent the facts. And if we consider the different uses to which the implements or weapons were put, it is evident that no single alloy could be equally suitable for all.... It is worthy of note that these proportions (i. e., different hardnesses for different implements) appear to have been frequently attained, and for this the men of the later Bronze Age are deserving of great credit as metallurgists and workers in metal.”
On the percentages of tin with copper for bronze see also Montelius, 1, pp. 448 seq.
126 : 12. Schenck, p. 241, describes a copper axe exactly like those of polished stone, and another of bronze, of very primitive pattern, showing that these were copied from the earlier stone models.
Some authorities think that iron, in Egypt at least, came in about the same time as bronze, or even earlier. Certain peoples missed altogether one or another of these stages, as the absence of remains indicates. For instance, the central Africans had, as far as is known, no bronze age, but passed directly from the use of stone to that of iron. (See Rice Holmes, Ancient Britain, p. 123.) See the notes to p. 129 on the value of iron. Occasional implements of any material better than that ordinarily in use, which had been introduced by trade or acquired by fighting, were very highly prized. Any books on primitive peoples contain references to the value of such “foreign tools.”