Animals are frequently represented, but are very poorly executed, while the geometrical patterns are well drawn. Coins are entirely absent. That the transition was from bronze to iron, and not from iron to bronze, is clear; because here, as elsewhere, while iron instruments with bronze handles are common, there is not a single case of a bronze blade with an iron handle. This shows that, when both metals were in use, the iron was preferred for blades. Another interesting point in the Hallstadt bronze, as in that of the true Bronze Age, is the absence of silver, lead, and zinc (excepting, of course, as mere impurities in the bronze). This is the more significant, inasmuch as the presence, not only of the tin itself, but also of glass, amber, and ivory, indicates the existence of an extensive commerce.
Fig. 6.—Socketed celt from Ireland, one-third of the actual size.
Moreover, as Morlot well pointed out, the absence of silver cannot be accidental, because the bronze of Hallstadt contains no lead, and the absence of lead entails that of silver, since the latter could not, at least in Europe, be obtained without the former.[1]
In the fifty years which have elapsed since this chapter was written much more evidence has accumulated, and archæologists are now agreed that the use of iron was preceded by that of bronze, and that iron dates back to a very early period, which in Egypt, Assyria, and the South of Europe may be estimated as at least 1500 B.C. In our own country I estimate the introduction of iron as having occurred about 1000 B.C.
- ↑ For further information on the subject of this chapter I may refer to Sir John Evans' admirable Ancient Bronze Implements of Great Britain and Ireland, which has appeared since the 4th edition of this work; to Sir C. H. Read's British Museum Catalogue, The Bronze Age; and to various works by Montelius.
