nickel, and lead itself, are present; but in small quantities, not having been purposely introduced, but only occurring as impurities.
In Plutarch's Essay On the Pythian Responses, Philinus describes certain ancient bronze statues which were of a peculiar colour, and says: Was "there then some mode of alloying and preparing the bronze used by the ancient artificers, like the traditional tempering of swords, which process being lost, bronze obtained exemption from warlike employment"?[1]
The reasons, then, which satisfy me that our bronze weapons cannot be referred to Roman times, may be summed up as follows:—
Firstly. They have never been found in company with Roman pottery, or other remains of the Roman period.
Secondly. They are very abundant in some countries, as, for instance, in Denmark and Ireland, which were never invaded by Roman armies.
Thirdly. The bronze swords do not resemble in form those used by Roman soldiers.
Fourthly. The Latin word "ferrum" was used as synonymous with a sword, showing that the Romans always used iron.
Fifthly. The ornamentation is not Roman in its character.
Sixthly. The bronze used by the Romans contained, generally, a large proportion of lead, which is never the case in that of the Bronze Age.
Nor is there any subsequent period to which we can refer the weapons and implements of bronze. Great numbers of Saxon interments have been examined both in this country and on the Continent, and we know that the swords, lances, knives, and other weapons of that time were all of iron. Besides this, if the bronze implements and weapons had belonged to post-Roman times, we should certainly, I think, have found some of them in the ruined towns, and with the pottery and coins of that period. Moreover, the similarity to each other of
- ↑ Plutarch, On the Pythian Responses.
