1
Abstract
This paper focuses on the important status that is often
ascribed to metalworking and critically questions whether
this reflects a prehistoric reality. Following from this it also
questions the role of metalworking with regards to the pres-
ence of elites. It is argued that explaining metalworking as
a ‘ritual’ craft does not lead to a better understanding of the
organisation of metalworking in the Bronze Age. Finally a
suggestion is made for a different approach towards met-
alworking technology, in which the choices, made by the
prehistoric metalworker and recorded in the objects them-
selves, are the main focus.
Introduction
Since the Three-Age classification by Thomsen
bronze is set apart from stone and seen as one step
higher in an evolutionistic process of advancing so-
cieties and technology. Moreover, metalworking
technology is often regarded as an active agent that
dictated the course of social development (cf. Childe
1944 “archaeological ages as technological stages”).
More often than not, metalworking is put on a pedes-
tal and seen as the most important craft and driving
force of the Bronze Age. In other words, it is taken
out of its context and dealt with as a technology that
is self evidently more advanced and carries inherent
important status, advancement, confined knowledge,
rituals and the capability to change society. Follow-
ing, a close relationship between skilled metalwork-
ers and elites is often argued for.
1
My concern is that
this technological determinism is a too simplistic
explanation for the acceptance of bronze technol-
ogy and the effect of this technology on societies in
the Bronze Age. Technological determinism does not
take into account the social context in which metal-
working was taken up and metal objects found their
place. Only rarely is it questioned whether bronze re-
ally dominated the life of prehistoric people (Bradley
2007: 31; Kienlin 2007: 7) and in what way (Needham
1 E. g. Kristiansen 1987; Budd/Taylor 1995; Winghart 1998;
Vandkilde 2010.
2007). Recently, Bartelheim (2009) made an interest-
ing case that there are no pressing reasons to ascribe
an important economic role to metallurgy. Instead,
he advocates, agriculture appears to be the primary
mover and agricultural based prosperity stimulated
the development of metal production in Early Bronze
Age Central Europe. Hereby arguing against the idea
that metal “made the world go round” (cf. Pare 2000).
This example foremost reminds us of the possibility
that metallurgy may not necessarily be a condicio sine
qua non
for the changes that we witness during the
Early Bronze Age. Nonetheless, the focus of this pa-
per will not be on the debate whether there are other
forms of either wealth or stable finance that might
have brought elites to power (see Vandkilde 2010 for
a discussion). Instead, it critically assesses some of
the argumentation used to associate metalworking
with the ruling class.
Whilst the exclusiveness of each society is seen
as a decisive factor in the configuration of each so-
ciotechnical-system (Pfaffenberger 1992: 500) inter-
pretations on the organisation and importance of
metalworking still lean towards descriptive grand
narratives, generalizing the image for large parts of
Europe. Furthermore, the (unaware) transposition
of our present-day sensibilities of what constitutes
technology leads to a biased approach towards met-
alworking. Cartesian dichotomies such as ritual-pro-
fane, mind-body and commodity-gift can easily be
noticed in the interpretation of this prehistoric tech-
nology (WASP’s according to Martinón-Torres 2002:
36). They are more often than not used to advocate
the special status of metalworking. Interpretations
following from these dichotomies tie in with assump-
tions about the organisation of societies, power struc-
tures and hence the link between metalworking and
elites. I will critically assess some of the dichotomies
and see whether they are helpful in achieving a better
understanding of the role of metalworking in Bronze
Age societies. Furthermore, studies of the technology
itself appear to conceive a formal engagement with
the material, building on discursive knowledge only.
In this article it is advocated that the effects and im-
portance of metalworking can only be understood if
the technological process itself – as a whole – is stud-
ied, and not only its outcome (i. e. the objects).
Towards a Deeper Understanding of Metalworking
Technology
Maikel H. G. Kuijpers
2
Maikel H. G. Kuijpers
Scrutinizing the literature, two questions seem to
be of paramount importance, which tend to become
intertwined. Why was metalworking taken up? and What
was the role of metalworking in Bronze Age societies?
This
article will mainly focus on the latter. I will argue that
to answer this question we need to achieve a deeper
understanding of the organisation of the craft of met-
alworking, through its technology and its producers.
This may also indirectly help to explain the first ques-
tion.
How do we look at metalworking
technology?
“If craft objects are to be central in interpretations
of social and political relationships, an effort must be
made to determine who made them so as to under-
stand the perspective being communicated” (Costin
2001: 279). Nonetheless the ‘smith’ or metalworker
is still an elusive person. The importance of his/her
craft is mainly deduced from the numerous finished
objects found deposited all over Europe. Extrapolated
from their perceived socio-economic significance is
the idea that metalworking technology is a highly
specialised craft and hence that the people involved
must be skilful (ritual) specialists. However, as Dobres
(2010: 105) mentions, “the material remains of an-
cients life ways do not necessarily preserve in direct
proportion to their evolutionary or sociocultural sig-
nificance”. Hence, we must be aware of the potential
bias being created by the archaeological record, both
in terms of preservation but also the fact that most
of the metalwork found are intentionally deposited
objects. One could question whether these objects,
which have come to us through selective deposition,
are representative of the metalwork actually in use
and circulating in the Bronze Age, i. e. the life-assem-
blage
(Needham 2007). Furthermore, deposition does
not tell us how the object was produced, used, traded
or recycled. It tells us how the object was perceived
when it was deposited which does not need to be the
same when it was used. For ‘normally’ used tools and
objects, the most common end of their cultural biog-
raphy may have been re-melting (see Fontijn 2002:
247–249; Kuijpers 2008: 22–23). Hence, deposited ob-
jects do not give a representative image of what was
produced and used. Following from the ‘archaeologi-
cal record bias’ is the (unavoidable) preoccupation
of archaeologists with (the production of) special
classes of artefacts. The work of Helms (1993) is of-
ten cited to support interpretations on the ritual na-
ture and importance of metalworking, but her work
primarily deals with the production of items that
serve non-utilitarian functions and were empowered
with strong political and ideological meanings. It is
debatable whether these interpretations also apply
for the production of simple tools and implements
(fig. 1). In line with Costin’s (2001: 303) observation
that “assumptions about how local production is or-
ganized (and how it will ‘look’ like archaeologically)
are based on the general types of objects under study
(e. g. prestige goods as opposed to utilitarian tools)
and whether there were many or few in use” we may
be overemphasizing a particular part of metalwork
production at the expense of ‘simple’ metal tools,
but also at the expense of other crafts. For instance,
glass and faience production, also a Bronze Age in-
novation and a technology that has much in common
with metalworking (pyrotechnics, ‘alloying’ of cer-
tain ingredients), is assumed to be widely available
(Harding 2000: 266). The argument is that, although
complex, once mastered there “is no reason why the
technology should not have become widely available”
(Harding 2000: 266). Hence, no special role is attrib-
uted to its producers. In contrast, the argument that
the role of the metalworker is important is simply a
“given” (Harding 2005: 240–241). These assumptions
arose from the idea that metalworking has a ration-
al and scientific nature in contrast to “unscientific”
crafts (Budd/Taylor 1995: 134). There appears to be
a clear emphasis on discursive (rational and scien-
tific) knowledge, yet scholars often mention the skill
of the metalworker (e. g. Earle 2004: 161; Kristiansen/
Larsson 2005: 51–61; Vandkilde 2010) to argue for the
specialised nature of metalworking. Skill nonethe-
less has much more to do with technique (sensu In-
gold 1990: 7) and is acquired by the repeated bodily
engagement with the material, which can be seen as
non-discursive (see Kuijpers in prep. for a more thor-
ough discussion). In regard to these issues, on what
(archaeological) grounds, besides the vast amount of
bronze objects found, is metalworking to be consid-
ered a more special and confined craft?
Another bias is the androcentric attitude towards
metalworking (but see: Sørensen 1996). Even though
ethnography tells us metalworking is predominantly
practiced by males, there is very little to go on in the
archaeological record. We simply do not know. Ongoing
research on possible metalworkers’ burials will surely
Fig. 1: Structure of the Bronze Age metalwork repertoire. Special-
ist metalworking only forms the top of the pyramid. The current
explanatory and analytical frameworks somewhat neglect the
producers of group 4 and 5 items, the bulk of the metalwork rep-
ertoire. We might even add a sixth group here; simple tools (figure
taken from Fontijn 2002).
3
Towards a Deeper Understanding of Metalworking Technology
solve the biological sex issue. From the perspective of
gender, the issue, however, is more challenging, as en-
gendering of technology can be very complicated (cf.
Dobres 1999: 132–134).
Let us turn to some of the specific arguments that
have been made to explain the inherent more diffi-
cult nature of metalworking over other technologies.
Bridgeford, for instance, argues that more special-
ised knowledge is needed for metalworking because
the completed object has to be fully conceptualised
by its maker in the first stages of production (when
producing the mould). This, in contrast to flint, stone,
wood and bone, which are gradually changed from
the unworked shape to that of the final object (Bridg-
eford 2002: 124). Although she is right that the pro-
duction process is profoundly different, she takes the
argument much too far, as her reasoning implies that
craftsmen working with other materials than metal
would not have been working from a fully precon-
ceived conceptualised idea. However, the difference,
I would argue, is not in the conceptualisation, but in
the technology and techniques used and subsequent-
ly the ideas attached to them (see below).
A second example can be found in Kristiansen and
Larsson (2005: 53): “The rise of the smith and of metal-
lurgy is accompanied by a new specialised knowledge
of firing and pyrotechniques, which could be used for
other purposes as well. They included improved firing
techniques for pottery production, new skills in glass
and bead production, but also new fire rituals and new
traditions in cooking and chiefly cuisine.” Again, the
argument, in my opinion, is taken too far as it implies
only one-way traffic of techniques (from the ‘better’
technology towards the more mundane). Yet, pyro-
technical knowledge for instance, mainly for the pro-
duction of pottery, had been around for thousands of
years and the assumption that this knowledge facili-
tated metalworking technology in the first place could
be equally valid. The exact relationship and manner
in which indigenous pyrotechnology was adapted to
facilitate smelting is still a matter of debate (Roberts
2009: 133–134). We do not yet have answers to these
question and most likely influences and technological
knowledge between crafts went both ways. As mould-
ing is such an important aspect of metalworking and
moulds are often made from clay, there is an obvious
and important link with pottery. Possibly, we need to
think of metalworking as a composite technology and
question whether we can even draw a line between
potters and metalworkers (Heeb 2009: 418). This con-
cept of technical relationships was also recently ad-
dressed by Sofaer (2006) who sees the exchange of
techniques in a social network of craftsmen. Both as-
sumptions discussed above on metalworking technol-
ogy are by no means evident from the archaeological
record but seem to stem from the aspiration to ad-
dress metalworking as an esoteric craft set apart from
more ‘mundane’ crafts such as basketry, pottery, tex-
tiles, stone or woodworking. The argument made by
Kristiansen and Larsson (2005) indirectly also clearly
implies progress, with metallurgy giving way to new
specialised knowledge. Technology, however, is not
simply about progress or improvement. Analyses of,
for instance, Early Bronze Age axes in Central Europe
show that the best method of production was con-
sciously not always followed (Kienlin 2008: 133–136;
2010). Furthermore, it has long since become clear
that especially the early copper and bronze objects
were not necessarily made with functionality in mind.
But what choices were made then and why? Which
characteristics of metalworking were regarded as
important? Hardness, colour, maybe even sound (cf.
Pearce 2007; Hosler 1995)? Clearly, archaeometallurgy
is not only about understanding the scientific analysis
of metal objects (discursive) and it is not only about
theorizing on metalworking as human behaviour.
It is the dialectic between these two, resulting in ar-
chaeologically and scientifically founded theories and
a technology with a human face (cf. Ottaway 2001;
Thornton 2009). “Without attention to the hows and
whys of everyday technical agency and the social con-
texts of those activities, descriptions will be little more
that static (albeit sequential) rather than dynamic ac-
counts of anthropological processes played out in and
on the ancient material world.” (Dobres 1999: 126). If
we truly want to understand metalworking technol-
ogy, we should perceive it as a process, not as static
finished artefacts, nor solely as a discursive technol-
ogy and devoid of any human agency.
It is here that I wish to address the long under-
stood, yet underused concept of technology as a total
social phenomenon
(Mauss 2002; Pfaffenberger 1988:
244). Technology is a product of human choices and
social processes (Dobres/Hoffman 1994; Dobres 1999;
Pfaffenberger 1988; 1992) and hence understanding
technology goes beyond mere practicalities. Although
clearly a social constructionist approach (cf. Killick
2004), this is not an attempt to discredit the scientific
approach. The latter provides the framework within
the possibilities, and thus choices, have to be made.
It is these choices, visible in the objects and made by
the prehistoric metalworker, that might tell us more
about the people involved and the organization of the
craft. Hence, instead of studying the products of this
technology as a goal in themselves and extrapolating
interpretations backwards onto the technology and
producers, the objects are better studied as a means
to understand the (technological) process from the
perspective of the prehistoric metalworkers. What
were their interest? (cf. Kienlin 2008) and how did
they go about their craft? In a sense, it is exploring
what it means to become a metalworker (cf. Budden/
Sofaer 2009). I am making the assumption here that
from the choices and skill involved we may postulate
what was created by whom, because you are what you
make (Marx/Engels 1970: 42). Following, if we have a
4
Maikel H. G. Kuijpers
better understanding of who crafted this in turn also
leads to a better understanding of the perspective
communicated and hence a reassessment of the im-
portance of metal.
Ritualizing metalworking, mystify-
ing understanding?
Recently, Dobres (2010) discussed two of the ‘main-
stream’ approaches towards technology to which she
refers as the “practical” and the “cultural” reason
ontology.
2
The former of which “employs a methodo-
logical and epistemological hierarchy cautioning ar-
chaeologists first to indentify and hold constant the
material (and hence knowable) aspects of the tech-
noenvironmental dyad before addressing the ‘softer’
aspect of ancient technology, such as social relations
or beliefs” (Dobres 2010: 105). Her analysis appears to
apply well to the metallurgical discourse. Although
Childe already mentioned the importance of the so-
cial aspects of technology, metallurgical research in
the second half of the twentieth century has empha-
sized the knowable or ‘hard’ aspect of metallurgy.
3
In
the wake of post-processualism, this was followed by
a sudden and passionate focus on ritual and symbolic
(‘soft’) aspects. Scholars convincingly argued that the
‘industrial model’ was not a satisfactory explanation
(notably Budd/Taylor 1995) and shifted the focus to-
wards the ‘soft’ aspect of metalworking technology;
rituals, magic, symbolic meaning and the control over
esoteric knowledge. What Budd and Taylor effective-
ly did in their pivotal paper was discredit the biased
‘industrial model’ (which they saw as an anachronis-
tic back-projection of the modern notion of techno-
logical change) only to replace it with a ‘ritual model’
that can be seen as equally biased. Even though they
argue that the ‘industrial model’ is not supported by
archaeological data, they themselves too fail to sup-
port their idea of ritual metalworking with empirical
data and base the whole argument on ethnographic
analogies and folklore. Even today the supposed rit-
ual dimension of metalworking is seldom corrobo-
rated by archaeological data. Instead, arguments are
usually rooted in uncritically applied ethnographical
analogies (Roberts 2008: 357).
The sparse available archaeological evidence that
is used to argue in favour of a ritual explanation can
generally be placed in two groups. (1) Metalwork-
ing debris and/or equipment that is found in a non-
domestic context such as burials, caves, ponds or the
2 Practical reason ontologies are explicitly materialists and
focus on the artefact itself and the universality of artefact
physics, while the cultural reason ontologies approach
ancient technology “as if people mattered” (Dobres 2010:
104–105).
3 E. g. Coghlan 1975; Craddock 1995; Ottaway 1994; Tylecote
1987 and the SAM series.
deliberate deposition of metalworking related arte-
facts.
4
(2) Metalworking debris and/or equipment in
a domestic context, but treated in a ‘ritual manner’
(the carefully deposited debris in a certain part of the
settlement).
5
Besides the ambiguous nature of some
of these finds there are two theoretical issues I wish
to address.
6
First of all, there is the well-known and intensely
discussed problem that interpreting finds as ‘ritual’
remains a precarious task. Identifying ritual as such
is often based on the fact that it is regarded as an irra-
tional, non-functional act. In this manner, finds such
as the depositions from Springfield (Needham 1993)
or Norton Fitzwarren (Ellis 1989) may then be used as
evidence for the ritual dimension of metalworking.
However, it is our definition of the term ‘ritual’ that
makes this find stand out rather than its actual mean-
ing, which we do not know exactly.
7
It is our defini-
tion of ritual that dictates our ability to find ritual
in the archaeological record. In this manner ‘ritual’
becomes an analytical tool, because these a priori def-
initions of ritual create the conditions by which to
recognise ritual practices in the archaeological data.
By no means, however, can we be sure that these con-
ditions also applied in prehistoric time. More impor-
tantly, are we really advancing our understanding of
the craft when we work with these preconditioned
ideas on ritual? How does labelling these finds ‘rit-
ual’ in contrast to ‘mundane’ help us understand the
organisation and importance of the craft? As Goody
(1961: 160–161) argued, “because the elucidation of
these relationships is given explanatory force, there
is a tendency to assume the presence of such con-
cepts on evidence of a rather slender kind”. What ex-
actly it explains is questionably vague. ‘Ritual’ is not a
proper explanation of why the depositions are there,
it simply acknowledges the anomaly. More impor-
tantly, this should not be extrapolated to explain the
role of metalworking. Therefore, I would argue that
we have to be cautious about using these exceptional
cases to argue for the importance or special nature
of metalworking in the Bronze Age. We do not know
whether the people who deposited these artefacts
saw this action as a non-functional or indeed ritual
(cf. Bell 1992; Brück 1999).
4 E. g. metalworking evidence found amongst cairns at Dain-
ton, Devon, UK (Needham 1980); or a ceremonial site (The
King’s stables, County Armagh, Northern Ireland) (Lynn
1977).
5 E. g. clay refractories deposited in a ditch at Springfield
Lyons, Essex, UK (Buckley/Hedges 1987; Needham 1993). A
deposition of a pot filled with clay mould fragments in a pit
at Norton Fitzwarren, Somerset, UK (Ellis 1989).
6 For a more thorough discussion on the problems of the
‘ritual’ evidence see Kuijpers (2008: 27–30, 58–66).
7 Interpretation for the Norton Fitzwarren deposit vary from
being a foundation deposit (Ellis 1989), the representation of
fertility rituals (Brück 2001) or referring to everyday society
and economy (Bradley 2005).
5
Towards a Deeper Understanding of Metalworking Technology
This brings us to the second point. Several au-
thors have recently argued that clear distinctions
like ‘gift – commodity’ or ‘ritual – profane’ do not re-
ally exist.
8
One way to deal with this problem is to
work from the archaeological record and look for
categories made by the people being studied. This
emic
approach involves trying to recognize specific
practices of social action that are distinguished from
other activities as a separate ‘field of discourse’ by
the people involved (Fontijn 2002: 21). Fontijn’s work
on depositions follows such an approach. He is in-
terested in patterns that occur in the deposition of
bronzes, without taking a pre-determined stance in
the ritual debate. In his concluding chapter on depo-
sitions, he writes that these depositions are ‘ritual-
ised’, but explicitly notes that there is no evidence
that this reflects the profane-ritual dichotomy in
which ritual is a meaningless, traditional behaviour,
nor to the theory that ritual permeates all fields of
life (Fontijn 2002: 276–277). Hence, the title of his
book: selective deposition (personal communication
Fontijn, October 2009).
Coming back to metalworking; neither when ad-
hering to the traditional evidence (i. e. the evidence
we deem non-functional) nor in the vein of Fontijn’s
emic approach, a strong case can be made for ritual
metalworking (Kuijpers 2008: 60–66; Sørensen 1996:
49; contra: Meurkens 2004). At present no clear pat-
tern can be discerned from the evidence related to
metalworking, although Jantzen’s work in Northern
Germany and South Scandinavia shows that there is
the possibility of metalworking production deliber-
ately being practiced at the foot of burials mounds
(Jantzen 2008: 311). Furthermore, as mentioned
above, it raises other questions. Even if we assume
that rituals were an important aspect of metalwork-
ing, does this help us understand the organisation of
the craft of metalworking? It appears to be a blind al-
ley as assuming ritual often stops further explanation
and examination of the available evidence.
Ethno-archaeological and anthropo-
logical informed interpretation
With the lack of conclusive archaeological data on
metalworking, archaeologists have turned after an-
thropological and ethnographic examples. In our
modern-day world, where science and technology
could not be further away from ritual and myths, this
might help us understand the unfamiliar concept of
societies where ‘science’ and technology have not yet
witnessed a break from the sacred (e. g. the concept
alchemy). It should, however, not lead to the uncriti-
cal use of just any ethnographic or anthropological
analogy. We very much run the risk of applying ex-
8 E. g. Bazelmans 1999; Brück 1999; Fontijn 2002; Bradley 2005.
amples from cultural contexts that have little in com-
mon with the Bronze Age. Both Rowlands (1971) and
Herbert (1984: 33) noticed that the way in which the
metalworker is perceived differs considerately per
society. The status given to metalworkers varies from
awe and respect to fear and contempt. Furthermore,
by highlighting only the craft of metalworking and
certain ritual aspects of that craft, we de-contextu-
alise it at the same time; effectively denying its links
with other crafts and aspects of society. Whilst the
plethora of myths and rituals, ranging from singing
to human sacrifice in the furnace, strongly suggests
that metalworking is a ritualized practise in many
societies,
9
it cannot tell us anything more (besides ar-
chaeologically unfounded suggestions), about rituals,
the importance, or the organisation of metalworking
in the Bronze Age. Additionally, technology in small-
scale societies is often regulated with rituals, taboos
and regulation, which are an integral part of the tech-
nological process. Rituals help co-ordinate labour and
impose a framework of organization (Gell 1988: 3–4,
Pfaffenberger 1992: 501). To the people involved, rit-
uals are thus often as functional as the actual work
itself. However, even if people believe that one ac-
tion, for instance mining, cannot take place without
the slaughtering of a white sheep
10
and see both as
equally important, the observant anthropologists
and ethno-archaeologists may distinguish between
the functional actions and non-functional (ritual) ac-
tions taken. Thus a decision has to be made by the
researcher for either an emic or etic approach. Inter-
pretations coming from both approaches are legiti-
mate but produce conclusions that are partly reveal-
ing, partly concealing. Singling-out a ritual act might
reveal an intriguing action, but at the same time de-
contextualises the act and hence conceals the wider
framework of processes and societal organisation in
which it should be placed, losing the “thick descrip-
tion” (Geertz 1973) and hence deeper understanding
of the act. Trying to describe process from an emic
perspective may reveal the enormous complexity
of social actions (of which technology is one), but
does not necessarily make it more comprehensible
for researchers with a Cartesian background. Ethno-
archaeologists already have so much trouble under-
standing production practices from an emic view
and in this regard Roberts makes a depressing, yet
fair, point when he mentions that: “Archaeologists
will never be able to observe metal production or
deposition being performed in its social setting while
painstaking experimental reconstructions based on
archaeological, archaeometallurgical and even (eth-
no) historical data will never be as immediately illu-
9 E. g. Barndon 2004; Bekeart 1998; Childs 2000; Haaland 2004;
Herbert 1984.
10 The slaughtering of a white sheep is necessary to ensure that
the ore in the mine would not die (Childs 2000: 205).
6
Maikel H. G. Kuijpers
interpretations.
11
To put it simply, for the “complex”
society we postulate in the Bronze Age, the emphasis
on bronze is surprising. In our contemporary society
it would be hard not to see the importance of plastic,
yet one would agree that any interpretation of West-
ern society based too much on plastic artefacts only,
would not lead to a very balanced interpretation.
Conversely to the arguments given above, my inten-
tion is not necessarily to downplay the importance of
metalworking, but rather to put it in its proper con-
text, together with other crafts.
With regards to the introduction of metallurgy,
I advocate that it did not create its own necessity, it
simply brought a new set of possibilities to a situation,
which had to be negotiated and bargained for (cf. So-
faer/Sørensen in press). Or, as argued by Roberts et.
al. (2009: 1012), people did not need metal, they wanted
metal. And why they wanted metal cannot simply be
explained by a supposed superiority of metal over
other materials and technologies or its assumed eco-
nomical importance. It is questionable whether tech-
nology carries with it any necessary or consequent
pattern of social and cultural evolution (Costin 2001:
288–289; Pfaffenberger 1988: 240).
12
In line with this
we have to be careful that the argument for metallur-
gy as the driving factor behind complexity, individu-
ality, and a basis for power, wealth and elites, is not
reduced to a simple post hoc ergo propter hoc.
A final argument against the link between elites
and metal would be the circular reasoning which is
identifiable in the discourse. Metalworking is seen
as a high status, specialist job and consequently ritu-
als and magic must be attached to it. Or, ritual met-
alworking is surmised, as suggested by ethnographic
examples, and consequently Bronze Age metalwork-
ing must either be the work of specialist, chiefs or
other high-status, powerful persons (cf. Budd/Taylor
1995).
Conclusion
In this article I have explored and discussed the
two important questions that have been the focus
of research for several decades. Why was metalwork-
ing adopted?
And what was the role of metalworking in
Bronze Age societies (how important was bronze)?
The
latter question involves understanding the organisa-
tion and meaning of the craft. I have argued that this
can be best done by means of a thorough study of
its technology and especially its producers in order
11 For instance, in Harding’s (2000) “European Societies in
the Bronze Age”, there is a whole chapter devoted to metal
(ch. 6) and one chapter for all the other crafts (ch. 7: “Other
Crafts”). Sofaer (2006: 139) also points at the inconsistent
ranking of Bronze Age crafts given the links that she sees
between them.
12 Pfaffenberger even considers it as fundamentally wrong.
minating as actual observation.” (Roberts 2008: 357).
The opportunities for archaeologist to understand
social perspectives of a technology then seem rather
bleak. Ethnographical and anthropological analogies
are therefore a very welcome source of information,
providing us with different ideas and possibilities in
the manner in which metalworking may function in a
society. Yet, we should be aware not to simply ‘copy’
only the interpretation we are interested in. Moreo-
ver, in line with the emic-etic approach, archaeomet-
allurgists should ask themselves; are we trying to
understand Bronze Age metalworking technology on
our terms or theirs?
Metal and elites
There is no doubt that bronze played an important
role in the prehistory of Europe as new types of ob-
jects appear, especially weapons, and metal becomes
a widely used material, which implies that much of
Europe had to be involved in trade networks and
adapted to the ‘consequences’ of metallurgy (i. e. cop-
per and tin supply, charcoal production, production
of refractory materials etc.). Metalworking undoubt-
edly had a (disrupting) effect on society, challenging
familiar constitutions of society (Sofaer/Sørensen
in press), but possibly also changing the prehistoric
conceptions of production and time. The production
of bronze involves a period in which the process can-
not be interrupted without resulting in a failed prod-
uct (i. e. the casting). On the other hand, the inher-
ent qualities of bronze lend themselves to re-melting,
rendering the idea of the irreversible of former pro-
duction processes (e. g. stone, pottery after baking)
obsolete. Concepts of temporality may thus have
changed during the inception of Bronze Age tech-
nology. Furthermore, this technology opened up the
possibility of repetition as the same mould can be
used to cast multiple objects. All in all, we may as-
sume that this new technology could have lead to
whole new epistemologies (personal communication
T. F. Sørensen, February 2011). However, this does not
mean that metallurgy inevitable had to be adopted
and lead to the emergence of socio-political elites and
a more complex society. As mentioned before, there
are two distinct lines of questioning at play here. The
impact of metallurgy on Early Bronze Age societies
has been used to explain cultural and social change
and has been overtly painted in terms of elites, which
can be traced back to the rich graves of Varna but
is more problematic outside this site (Kienlin 2010).
This causal link between powerful elites and metal
fits in rather well with the notions of Bronze Age
complexity and advancing societies, but is far less ev-
ident from the archaeological record. There is more
to the Bronze Age than only metal, yet other crafts
literarily seem to have to fight for their place in our
7
Towards a Deeper Understanding of Metalworking Technology
to understand the perspective being communicated.
Metalworking is often regarded as a highly special-
ized and ritual craft for which the skilfully made ob-
jects are used to argue for the control over esoteric
knowledge. In this paper I have advocated that these
assumptions should not yet be taken for granted.
In contrast to the discursive knowledge needed for
metalworking, the non-discursive aspects are under-
studied and hence the perceived link between skill
and confined knowledge is questionable. Further-
more, the postulated ritual aspects are problematic.
Nonetheless, this article has not been an attempt to
dismiss the ritual or symbolic interpretations, nor to
delve into the discussion of how to recognize ritual.
Rather, I hope to have highlighted that in under-
standing the craft of metalworking and its impor-
tance in Bronze Age societies we must be aware not
to overplay the term ‘ritual’. This interpretation may
not be helpful at all as it is seen as an explanation
in itself and thus prevents further explanation and
examination of the available evidence. The assump-
tion that the technological act of metalworking is a
very skilful one does not provide the necessary evi-
dence to set it apart as a separate practice or indeed
ritual. The organisation of metalworking may well
be accessed through a very thorough understanding
of the technology itself both on a scientific as well
as a theoretical level. Hence, following other lines of
questioning, such as investigating the choices made
by the prehistoric metalworker and recorded in the
objects (i. e. their experience with the material), may
provide a more fruitful approach to achieve a deep-
er understanding of metalworking technology and
what role it played in Bronze Age societies.
References
Barndon 2004
R. Barndon, A Discussion of Magic and Medicines in East
African Iron Working: Actors and Artefacts in Technology.
Norwegian Archaeological Review 37, 2004, 21–39.
Bartelheim 2009
M. Bartelheim, Elites and metals in the Central European
Early Bronze Age. In: T. L. Kienlin/B. W. Roberts (eds.),
Metals and Societies. Studies in honour of Barbara S. Ot-
taway. Bonn: Habelt 2009.
Bazelmans 1999
J. Bazelmans, By weapons made worthy. Lords, retainers
and their relationship in Beowulf. Amsterdam: Amsterdam
University Press 1999.
Bekeart 1998
S. Bekeart, Multiple levels of meaning and the tension of
consciousness. How to interpret iron technology in Bantu
Africa. Archaeological Dialogues 5, 1998, 6–29.
Bell 1992
C. Bell, Ritual theory, Ritual practice. New York: Oxford
University Press 1992.
Bisson 2000
M. S. Bisson, Precolonial Copper Metallurgy: Sociopolitical
Context. In: J. O. Vogel (ed.), Ancient African Metallurgy.
The Sociocultural Context. New York: Altamira Press 2000,
83–147.
Bradley 1990
R. Bradley, The passage of arms. An archaeological analy-
sis of prehistoric hoards and votive deposits. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press 1990.
Bradley 2005
R. Bradley, Ritual and Domestic Life in Prehistoric Europe.
Londen: Routledge 2005.
Bradley 2007
R. Bradley, The prehistory of Britain and Ireland. Cam-
bridge: Cambridge University Press 2007.
Bridgeford 2002
S. D. Bridgeford, Bronze and the First Arms Race – Cause,
Effect or Coincidence? In: B. S. Ottaway/E. C. Wager (eds.),
Metals and Society. Papers from a session held at the Euro-
pean Association of Archaeologists Sixth Annual Meeting
in Lisbon 2000. Oxford: Archaeopress 2002, 123–133.
Brück 1999
J. Brück, Ritual and Rationality: some problems of inter-
pretation in European Archaeology. European Journal of
Archaeology 2, 1999, 313–344.
Brück 2001
J. Brück, Body metaphors and technologies of transforma-
tion in the English Middle and Late Bronze Age. In: J. Brück
(ed.), Bronze Age landscapes, tradition and transforma-
tion. Oxford: Oxbow, 2001, 149–60.
Buckley/Hedges 1987
D. G. Buckley/J. D. Hedges, The Bronze Age and Saxon settle-
ments at Springfield Lyons, Essex: an interim report. County
Council Archaeology Section Occasional Paper 5, 1987.
Budd/Taylor 1995
P. Budd/T. Taylor, The faerie smith meets the bronze indus-
try: magic versus science in the interpretation of prehis-
toric metal-making. World Archaeology 27, 1995, 133–143.
Budden/Sofaer 2009
S. Budden/J. Sofaer, Non-Discursive Knowledge and the
Construction of Identity. Potters, Potting and Performance
at the Bronze Age Tell of Százhalombatta, Hungary. Cam-
bridge Archaeological Journal 19, 2009, 203–220.
Childe 1944
V. G. Childe, Archaeological Ages as Technological Stages.
Journal of the Royal Anthropological Institute 74, 1944,
7–24.
Childs 2000
S. T. Childs, Traditional Iron Working: A Narrated Ethnoar-
chaeological Example. In: J. O. Vogel (ed.), Ancient African
Metallurgy. The Sociocultural context. New York: Altamira
Press 2000, 199–253.
Coghlan 1975
H. H. Coghlan, Notes on the prehistoric metallurgy of cop-
per and bronze in the Old World. Oxford: Oxford Univer-
sity Press 1975.
Costin 2001
C. L. Costin, Craft Production Systems. In: G. M. Feinman/D.
Price (eds.), Archaeology at the millenium A sourcebook.
New York: Kluwer 2001, 273–329.
Craddock 1995
P. T. Craddock, Early Metal Mining and Production. Edin-
burgh: Edinburgh University Press 1995.
Dobres 1999
M.-A. Dobres, Technology‘s Links and Chaînes: The Proc-
essual Unfolding of Technique and Technician. In: M-A.
Dobres/C.R. Hoffman (eds.), The Social Dynamics of Tech-
nology: Practice, Politics, and World Views. Washington
D. C.: Smithsonian Institution Press 1999.
Dobres 2010
M.-A. Dobres, Archaeologies of technology. Cambridge
Journal of Economics, 34, 2010, 103–14.
8
Maikel H. G. Kuijpers
Dobres/Hoffman 1994
M.-A. Dobres/C. R. Hoffman, Social agency and the dynam-
ics of prehistoric technology. Journal of Archaeological
Method and Theory 1, 1994, 211–256.
Earle 2004
T. Earle, Culture Matters: Why Symbolic Objects Change.
In: E. DeMarrais/C. Gosden/C. Renfrew (eds.), Rethinking
materiality. The engagement of mind with the material
world. Cambridge: McDonald Institute for Archaeological
Research 2004, 153–167.
Ellis 1989
P. Ellis, Norton Fitzwarren hillfort: a report on the exca-
vations by Nancy and Philip Longmaid between 1968 and
1971. Somerset Archaeology and Natural History 133, 1989,
1–74
Fontijn 2002
D. R. Fontijn, Sacrificial landscapes. Cultural biographies of
persons, objects and ‘natural’ places in the Bronze Age of
the Southern Netherlands, c. 2300–600 BC. Analecta Prae-
historia Leidensia 33/34, 2002.
Geertz 1973
C. Geertz, The interpretation of cultures; selected essays.
New York: Basic Books 1973.
Gell 1988
A. Gell, Technology and Magic. Anthropology Today 4,
1988, 6–9.
Goody 1961
J. Goody, Religion and Ritual: The Definitional Problem.
British Journal of Sociology, 12, 1961, 142–64.
Haaland 2004
R. Haaland, Technology, transformation and symbolism:
ethnographic perspectives on European iron working.
Norwegian Archaeological Review 37, 2004, 1–19.
Harding 2000
A. F. Harding, European societies in the Bronze Age. Cam-
bridge: Cambridge University Press 2000.
Heeb 2009
J. Heeb, Thinking Through Technology – An Experimental
Approach to the Copper Axes from Southeastern Europe.
In: T. L. Kienlin/B. W. Roberts (eds.), Metals and Societies.
Studies in honour of Barbara S. Ottaway. Bonn: Habelt
2009, 415–420.
Helms 1993
M. W. Helms, Craft and the Kingly Ideal. Art, trade, and
power. Austin: University of Texas Press 1993.
Herbert 1984
E. G. Herbert, Red gold of Africa. Copper in Precolonial His-
tory and Culture. Wisconsin: The University of Wisconsin
Press 1984.
Hosler 1995
D. Hosler, The Sounds and Colors of Power: The Sacred
Metallurgical Technology of Ancient West Mexico. World
Archaeology 27, 1995, 100–115.
Ingold 1990
T. Ingold, Society, nature and the concept of technology
Archaeological Review from Cambridge 9, 1990, 5–17.
Jantzen 2008
D. Jantzen, Quellen zur Metallverarbeitung im nordischen
kreis der Bronzezeit. Prähistorische Bronzefunde XIX,2.
Stuttgart: Franz Steiner 2008.
Kienlin 2007
T. L. Kienlin, Von den Schmieden der Beile: Zu Verbreitung
und Angleichung metallurgischen Wissens im Verlauf der
Frühbronzezeit. Prähistorische Zeitschrift 82, 2007, 1–22.
Kienlin 2008
T. L Kienlin, Frühes Metall im Nordalpinen Raum. Eine Un-
tersuchung zu technologischen und kognitiven Aspekten
früher Metallurgie anhand der Gefüge frühbronzezeitli-
cher Beile. Bonn: Habelt 2008.
Kienlin 2010
T. L. Kienlin, Traditions and Transformations: Approaches
to Eneolithic (Copper Age) and Bronze Age Metalworking
and Society in Eastern Central Europe and the Carpathian
Basin. BAR International Series 2184. Oxford: Archaeo-
press 2010.
Killick 2004
D. Killick, Social Constructionist Approaches to the Study
of Technology. World Archaeology 36, 2004, 571–578.
Kristiansen 1987
K. Kristiansen, From stone to bronze – the evolution of so-
cial complexity in Northern Europe, 2300–1200 BC. In: E.
M. Brumfield/T. Earle (eds.), Specialization, exchange and
complex societies. Cambridge. Cambridge University Press
1987, 30–51.
Kristiansen/Larsson 2005
K. Kristiansen/B. Larsson, The rise of Bronze Age society.
Travels, Transmissions and Transformations. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press 2005.
Kuijpers 2008
M. H. G. Kuijpers, Bronze Age metalworking in the Nether-
lands (c. 2000–800BC). A research into the preservation of
metallurgy related artefacts and the social position of the
smith. Leiden: Sidestone Press 2008.
Kuijpers in prep.
M. H. G. Kuijpers, Sound of fire, smell of copper, feel of
bronze, colours of the cast – sensory aspects of metal-
working technology. In: M. L. S. Sørensen/K. Rebay/L. B.
Jørgensen/J. Hughes (eds.), Embodied Knowledge: Histori-
cal Perspectives on Technology and Belief.
Lynn 1977
C. J. Lynn, Trial excavations at the King’s stables, Tray
Twonland, County Armargh. Ulster Journal of Archaeology
40, 1977, 42–62.
Martinón-Torres 2002
P. M. Martinón-Torres, Chaîne Opératoire: The concept and
its applications within the study of technology. Gallaecia
21, 2002, 29–43.
Marx/Engels 1970
K. Marx/F. Engels. The German ideology. In: C. J. Arthur
(ed.), The German ideology. London: Lawrence and Wishart
1970.
Mauss 2002
M. Mauss, The Gift. The form and reason for exchange in
archaic societies. London: Routledge 2002.
Meurkens 2004
L. Meurkens, A matter of Elites, Specialists and Ritual?
Social and symbolic dimension of metalworking in the
North-west European Bronze Age. Unpublished Master
Thesis. Leiden: University of Leiden 2004.
Needham 1980
S. P. Needham, An assemblage of Late Bronze Age metal-
working debris from Dainton, Devon. Proceedings of the
Prehistoric Society 46, 1980, 177–215.
Needham 1993
S. P. Needham. The structure of settlement and ritual
in the Late Bronze Age of south-eastern Britain. In: C.
Mordant/A. Richard (eds.), L’Habitat et l’Occupation du
Sol à l’Age du Bronze en Europe. Paris. Comité des Travaux
Historiques et Scientifiques. Documents Préhistoriques 4,
1993, 49–69.
Needham 2007
S. P. Needham, Bronze Makes a Bronze Age? Considering
the Systemics of Bronze Age Metal Use and the Implica-
tions of Selective Deposition. In: C. Burgess/P. Topping/F.
Lynch (eds.), Beyond Stonehenge. Essays on the Bronze
Age in honour of Colin Burgess. Oxford: Oxbow 2007, 278–
287.
Ottaway 1994
B. S. Ottaway, Prähistorische Archäometallurgie. Espel-
kamp: Verlag Marie Leidorf, 1994.
Ottaway 2001
B. S. Ottaway, Innovation, production and specialisation in
early prehistoric copper metallurgy. European Journal of
Archaeology 4, 2001, 87–112.
9
Towards a Deeper Understanding of Metalworking Technology
Pare 2000
C. F. E. Pare, Bronze and the Bronze Age. In: C. F. E. Pare
(ed.), Metals make the world go round. The supply and cir-
culation of metals in Bronze Age Europe. Oxford: Oxbow
2000, 1–38.
Pearce 2007
M. Pearce, Bright Blades and Red Metal. Essays on North
Italian Prehistoric Metalwork. Accordia Specialist Studies
on Italy 14. London: Accordia Research Institute 2007.
Pfaffenberger 1988
B. Pfaffenberger, Fetishised Objects and Humanised Na-
ture: Towards an Anthropology of Technology. Man 23,
1988, 236–252.
Pfaffenberger 1992
B. Pfaffenberger, Social anthropology of Technology. An-
nual Review of Anthropology 21, 1994, 491–516.
Roberts 2008
B. Roberts, Creating traditions and shaping technologies:
understanding the earliest metal objects and metal pro-
duction in Western Europe. World Archaeology 40, 2008,
354 – 372.
Roberts 2009
B. Roberts, Production Networks and Consumer Choice in
the Earliest Metal of Western Europe.
Journal of World Pre-
history
22, 2009, 461–481.
Roberts/Thornton/Pigott 2009
B. W. Roberts/C. P. Thornton/V. C. Pigott, Development of
metallurgy in Eurasia. Antiquity 83, 2009, 1012–1022.
Rowlands 1971
M. J. Rowlands, The archaeological interpretation of pre-
historic metalworking. World Archaeology 3, 1971, 210–
223.
Sofaer 2006
J. R. Sofaer, Pots, Houses and Metal: Technological relations
at the Bronze Age tell at Százhalombatta, Hungary. Oxford
Journal of Archaeology 25, 2006, 127–147.
Sofaer/Sørensen in press
J. Sofaer/M. L. S. Sørensen, Technological change as so-
cial change: the introduction of metal in Europe. In: M.
Bartelheim/V. Heyd (eds.), Continuity – Discontinuity:
Transition Periods in European Prehistory. Forschungen
zur Archäometrie und Altertumwissenschaft.
Sørensen 1996
M. L. S. Sørensen, Women as/and metalworking. In: B.
Devonshire/B. Wood (eds.), Women in industry and tech-
nology from prehistory to the present day. Current Re-
search and the Museum Experience Proceedings from the
1994 WHAM conference. London: Museum of London 1996.
Thornton 2009
C. P. Thornton, Archaeometallurgy: Evidence of a Para-
digm Shift? In: T. L. Kienlin/B.W. Roberts (eds.), Metals and
Societies. Studies in honour of Barbara S. Ottaway. Bonn:
Habelt 2009, 25–33.
Tylecote 1987
R. F. Tylecote, The early history of metallurgy in Europe.
London: Longman 1987.
Vandkilde 2010
H. Vandkilde, Metallurgy, Inequality and Globalization in
the Bronze Age – a commentary on the papers in the met-
allurgy session. In: H. Meller/F. Bertemes (eds.), Der Griff
nach den Sternen. Wie Europas Eliten zu Macht und Reich-
tum kamen. Halle: Landesamt für Denkmalpflege und Ar-
chäologie Sachsen-Anhalt 2010, 903–910.
Winghart 1998
S. Winghart, Produktion, Verarbeitung und Distribution –
Zur Rolle spätbronzezeitlichen Eliten im Alpenvorland. In:
B. Hänsel (ed.), Mensch und Umwelt in der Bronzezeit Eu-
ropas. Man and environment in European Bronze Age. Kiel:
Oetker-Voges 1998, 261–264.