From bronze to iron
In the last couple of years I keep picking up books attempting to explain the abrupt collapse of Bronze Age civilizations in the Near East in the first half of the 12th century B.C. This week I've been listening to a series of YouTube lectures on the subject while I do work that occupies my hands but not my ears. One used a phrase that caught my imagination. After most of the other prominent regional civilizations had crumpled under what appears to have been the onslaught of what we now call the "Sea Peoples," Egypt alone managed to put up a more robust defense. Not an entirely successful one, though; the lecturer noted drily that while official propaganda as recorded on engraved stones would never quite admit defeat, it did acknowledge that the glorious victories were occurring "closer and closer to home."
The picture I'm getting is of a very old, very stable Bronze Age system of leaders who might be called capable or despotic, depending on your perspective. Bronze-based military culture relied on large quantities of copper and small quantities of tin. Copper was available in many locations, though concentrated and therefore fairly easily controlled by local rulers. Because tin, in contrast, was terribly rare and exotic, with some of the best sources located in Britain and Afghanistan, the production of bronze required stable long-distance trade, which in turn depended on widespread law and order. Something wrecked this delicate network and precipitated an abrupt systemic collapse, perhaps some unknown social or climate catastrophe that set the half-dozen or so allied Sea Peoples on the move from the western reaches of the Mediterranean. From Mycenae to Assyria to Cyprus to Babylon, the archaelogical evidence records conflagrations and violent death, whether of entire cities (presumably by invaders) or at least of palace-temples (presumably by local revolts). Large areas were depopulated. The written history goes dark for centuries; the Greeks had to develop writing all over again, with an entirely new alphabet borrowed from the Phoenicians.
In the new world that followed, iron replaced bronze. Iron ore is much more common than copper or tin, its disadvantage being that refining it requires mastery of much hotter forges. Once the technology of sustaining enough heat was mastered and spread, however, the new ruling classes had nothing like the ability of Bronze Age rulers to monopolize the supply of raw materials for iron production. After the Bronze Age collapse, then, following an agonizing period of chaotic destruction and famine, the Near East saw a flowering of completly new cultures. This is the era of the post-Exodus Jews in Canaan, of the many rich, independent Phoenician trading centers along the coast of modern Israel and Lebanon, and of the birth of the Phoenician sea-faring trading culture that would colonize the coasts of Africa and Southern Europe and the island of the Mediterranean, including the largest and most successful city-state, Carthage. They had a good run before the next new batch of expanding empires devoured them: Babylonia, Persia, Alexander, and Rome.
I saw a movie several years ago (OK, several decades...) that illustrated a perhaps additional factor. I don't recall the movie, but I do recall the scene--which was typical Hollywood, but maybe indicative in its own way.
ReplyDeleteIt seems the Egyptians had encountered a mysterious civilization to their north, a menacing one, up around the eastern end of the Med. Pharaoh sent one of his staff up there to scope things out and report back.
The staffer returned after some time, and he had a dark metal sword. He challenged Pharaoh's best swordsman to a demonstration duel. Pharaoh's Own took a mighty swing, easily parried by the staffer and his sword. After the third such swing, the Pharaoh's Own's bronze sword broke on the staffer's iron sword.
Perhaps technology, potentiated by the disruptions of the migrations, played a part.
Eric Hines
This is really interesting. Could you tell us what sources you've found most useful or interesting?
ReplyDeleteSimilar question to Tom: can you recommend an available article (maybe not book length), that would be accessible to the average layman?
ReplyDeleteThere is now considerable thought - Eric Cline alludes to it - that the Sea Peoples were pushed out of their own lands by the Steppe Indo-Europeans in more than one place. What the Mediterranean saw was the downstream effect. As the Huns later pushed out the Goths and Vandals, and later descended upon the Romans themselves, steppe nomads at a dozen places seem to have driven history even when they aren't there. See also Sintashta Culture and India.
ReplyDeleteThey're just everywhere, ain't they?
It is one of the great mysteries. The lights went out all over, and when they came back on everything was different.
ReplyDeleteYet some things were preserved. Writing systems weren't always what was lost: Linear A was preserved as a writing form (the subsequent "Linear B"), but the language it was used to write was lost completely. Linear B is Greek. Linear A was some other language, and we don't know exactly whose or exactly what happened to them.
Oral epic poetics -- Homer's tradition -- somehow preserved amazing details about what life had been like in the Beyond Times, which archaeology has often found to be accurate. Yet the epics don't tell us what happened. Everyone was too busy to compose one, I suppose. They just kept singing the old tales.
The book that got me interested was Eric Cline's "1177: The Year Civilization Collapsed." This week was just a series of YouTube lectures, such as you'll find if you search "Bronze Age Collapse." They're mostly between one and two hours long.
ReplyDeleteE Hines: I assumed the story would include iron weapons outclassing bronze ones, but as far as I can tell that's not the prevailing thought, and I suppose the archaeology would have left clues if that had been the case. There are indications of a centuries-long drought, crop failures, and an extraordinary spate of earthquakes, but nothing really definitive. And yet it was fantastically sudden and complete, with only Egypt limping along for a while.
If the invaders, even the ones the Sea People were fleeing and not the Sea People themselves, had iron tech there would be no mystery as we'd have the evidence of their ancient forges and other workings. As Tex noted in the post, the start of the Iron Age is well known and the mystery is why the Collapse appears to have occurred first.
ReplyDeleteAnd was it just a coincidence that when civilization rebooted it did so with iron technology? Was the old system suppressing the new technology somehow, no one interested in upsetting the applecart? Or were people forced to learn to make use of iron when the complex systems needed to bring tin to the copper-mining areas were too disrupted?
ReplyDeleteEarly iron apparently did not enjoy an obvious advantage over bronze, as long as copper and tin could be had. Apparently some iron artifacts start showing up as early as 3000 B.C., though they were hammered from rare meteorites rather than mined and produced from ore. This kind of iron is soft, more a novelty than a useful new tool metal. Producing iron from ore rather than meteorites requires very hot fires, but once this process is mastered--perhaps under extreme social duress--it has the lucky advantage of automatically adding the carbon that gives cast or wrought iron its strength advantage over meteoric iron. It has also the huge advantage of widespread access to a material that is the fourth most common element in the Earth's crust. There is some evidence of iron ore smelting in the Near East as early as 1300 B.C., with large-scale sustained production showing up in Jordan around 800 B.C.
Wikipedia says "Smelted iron appears sporadically in the archeological record from the middle Bronze Age. Whilst terrestrial iron is naturally abundant, the high temperatures required to smelting iron ore [2,300 °F] placed it out of reach of common use until the end of the second millennium BC. Tin's low melting point of [450 °F] and copper's relatively moderate melting point of [2000 °F] placed them within the capabilities of the Neolithic pottery kilns...."
Quenching, hammering, and various other techniques I don't understand also added strength and flexibility from very early periods. There is a reference to quenching iron in the Odyssey, probably dating back to at least 800 B.C. Not until the 19th or 20th century, though, did we start adding trace elements such as nickel and chromium to produce modern steel that resists corrosion and adds hardness and strength in compression or tension. I find this part confusing, but evidently it's technically "steel" as soon as you add the carbon, which basically happened at the beginning of what we call the Iron Age, though what we now generally call "steel" is the product of adding the fancy new bits of nickel, chromium, etc.
Something else I find confusing is the convention for the "end" of the Iron Age. Sometimes we speak of the Iron Age continuing to the present, but sometimes the convention is that the Iron Age ends with the beginning of written history, so we entered into the Historiographic Age, followed by the Industrial Revolution and the Space Age or Nuclear Age.
Even after the end of the Bronze Age, it didn't all go iron's way. Even today bronze has some advantages over iron or even steel. It abrades faster and doesn't hold an edge as well, but it resists corrosion better, which is why it's still preferred for outdoor statues and marine applications.
Thanks, Tex!
ReplyDeleteFrom the description of Cline's book:
"In this major new account of the causes of this "First Dark Ages," Eric Cline tells the gripping story of how the end was brought about by multiple interconnected failures, ranging from invasion and revolt to earthquakes, drought, and the cutting of international trade routes. Bringing to life the vibrant multicultural world of these great civilizations, he draws a sweeping panorama of the empires and globalized peoples of the Late Bronze Age and shows that it was their very interdependence that hastened their dramatic collapse and ushered in a dark age that lasted centuries."
Hmmm "...it was their very interdependence that hastened their dramatic collapse ..."
So, globalization isn't a new vulnerability?
Excellent point, Tom.
ReplyDeleteI think the recent supply chain issues have shown us already just how vulnerable we can be, to those willing to listen and learn.