On the origins of copper metalurgy

katja z · #1 by **katja z** » Jan 07, 2011 6:09 pm

On the origins of extractive metallurgy: new evidence from Europe

the abstract wrote:The beginnings of extractive metallurgy in Eurasia are contentious. The first cast copper objects in this region emerge c. 7000 years ago, and their production has been tentatively linked to centres in the Near East. This assumption, however, is not substantiated by evidence for copper smelting in those centres. Here, we present results from recent excavations from Belovode, a Vinča culture site in Eastern Serbia, which has provided the earliest direct evidence for copper smelting to date. The earliest copper smelting activities there took place c. 7000 years ago, contemporary with the emergence of the first cast copper objects. Through optical, chemical and provenance analyses of copper slag, minerals, ores and artefacts, we demonstrate the presence of an established metallurgical technology during this period, exploiting multiple sources for raw materials. These results extend the known record of copper smelting by more than half a millennium, with substantial implications. Extractive metallurgy occurs at a location far away from the Near East, challenging the traditional model of a single origin of metallurgy and reviving the possibility of multiple, independent inventions.

(from ScienceDirect)

Steviepinhead · #2 by **Steviepinhead** » Jan 08, 2011 12:09 am

I haven't read the research, but it seems reasonable to me that -- just as new species may form more easily in peripheral subpopulations -- some innovations may occur far from the centers of civilization, for whatever reason (availability of resources, of environmental challenges, of precursor technologies, or through the chance emergence of the innovative individual) and then the innovation may fairly quickly gravitate to the center, where novelty and new technologies will tend to be at a premium (and where the "capital" to more fully exploit them may be more available).

This might mean that we first find evidence of a new technology in ancient China or Egypt or Sumeria, then only after more detailed examination uncover earlier evidence of the same technique relatively far afield...

Spearthrower · #3 by **Spearthrower** » Jan 09, 2011 7:00 am

I think that prehistoric trade is ofter overlooked and was impressive in its reach. Naturally, ideas passed along trade routes as much as goods.

katja z · #4 by **katja z** » Jan 09, 2011 2:17 pm

Steviepinhead wrote:I haven't read the research, but it seems reasonable to me that -- just as new species may form more easily in peripheral subpopulations -- some innovations may occur far from the centers of civilization, for whatever reason (availability of resources, of environmental challenges, of precursor technologies, or through the chance emergence of the innovative individual) and then the innovation may fairly quickly gravitate to the center, where novelty and new technologies will tend to be at a premium (and where the "capital" to more fully exploit them may be more available).

Copper ore is apparently abundant in the vicinity of that Vinča site, and close to the surface.

But from what I've read, this particular site was destroyed in a fire around 5000 B.C. and metalworking in the Balkans didn't resume until much later, when the region entered the bronze age (and this time afaik the technology did come from elsewhere). So what we have here may have been a local innovation that didn't spread quickly enough, and was effectively a dead end? :scratch:

Spearthrower wrote:I think that prehistoric trade is ofter overlooked and was impressive in its reach. Naturally, ideas passed along trade routes as much as goods.

Why would you say that prehistoric trade is overlooked? From what I've read about the prehistoric Balkans (admittedly not much), the region's trade contacts with other regions are well recognised. Or was that a general remark?

Spearthrower · #5 by **Spearthrower** » Jan 09, 2011 6:30 pm

katja z wrote:
Spearthrower wrote:I think that prehistoric trade is ofter overlooked and was impressive in its reach. Naturally, ideas passed along trade routes as much as goods.

Why would you say that prehistoric trade is overlooked? From what I've read about the prehistoric Balkans (admittedly not much), the region's trade contacts with other regions are well recognised. Or was that a general remark?

I mean in a more extensive manner; intercontinental (Asia/Africa/Europe) trade in goods and ideas.

Spearthrower · #6 by **Spearthrower** » Jan 12, 2011 4:01 pm

I've been trying to find an article I read years ago citing evidence of very early copper smelting in S.E. Asia.... but I cannot for the life of me remember the title, author, or even the bloody journal it was in! :doh:

katja z · #7 by **katja z** » Jan 12, 2011 4:10 pm

Spearthrower wrote:I've been trying to find an article I read years ago citing evidence of very early copper smelting in S.E. Asia.... but I cannot for the life of me remember the title, author, or even the bloody journal it was in!

I know what you mean, it happens to me as well. If only our brain was indeed a product of intelligent design ... :naughty2:

kiore · #8 by **kiore** » Jan 12, 2011 4:31 pm

It always amazes me this leap from cold beating copper ore into useful shapes to the discovery that heating it to liquid or almost liquid and molding it this way must have been. An incredible technological advance.

katja z · #9 by **katja z** » Jan 12, 2011 5:34 pm

kiore wrote:It always amazes me this leap from cold beating copper ore into useful shapes to the discovery that heating it to liquid or almost liquid and molding it this way must have been. An incredible technological advance.

Of course, they didn't go from cold beating to furnaces like those found at Pločnik in just one step - from what I've read, the first techniques involving heating the metal were only useful for the manufacture of, say, jewellery, not tools and weapons. But it's still impressive.

kiore · **#10** by **kiore** » Jan 12, 2011 5:49 pm

Yes of course, but even the discovery the heated ore could be beaten more easily must have been a huge breakthrough.
Yes I would imagine jewelry etc would have been an big advance as copper surely couldn't really compete for tools with finely worked edged stone tools for things like knives and axes. I have seen microliths still in use in Central Australia and they are amazingly razor sharp. Also growing up in New Zealand I have an appreciation for how sophisticated stone tools could be, my father dug up a stone adze that always fascinated me as a child at how much work must have gone into its manufacture, smooth, balanced and really quite an amazing tool, made perhaps only 200 years ago.