Copper metalwork

Determination of metalwork as copper or bronze is especially pertinent to daggers and halberds in the light of their typochronological ambiguity. Diachronic differentiation in compositional signatures may help to attribute these objects to specific (late) Copper Age and/or EBA phases, similar to axes and metal-hilted daggers (§4.1). Composition analyses are also relevant in the case of axes from single finds attributed to ‘horizon II’, in order to address the question to what extent bronze metallurgy was limited to axe hoards (§4.1.2; Table 4.4) or already more widespread in Abruzzo and Lazio at this ‘early’ stage. In general, a comparison with composition analyses of (late) Copper Age metalwork can reveal (potentially) distinctive compositional signatures that can be interpreted in a diachronic sense. For this reason, analyses of copper metalwork from Copper Age funerary contexts, which were to a large excluded from the discussion of depositional contexts (§4.2), have been added to the samples of axes, halberds and daggers (Tables 4.16 & 4.17). Finally, in a ‘synchronic’ sense, composition analyses may reveal distinctive compositional signatures related to different classes of metalwork, as well as regional differentiation.

Axes

The sample of copper axes from Abruzzo [n=4] and Lazio [n=15] subjected to composition analysis, includes axes from which tin is absent or in which it is only present as a trace element (Table 4.16). On the basis of copper contents, a distinction can be made between ‘pure’ copper axes (~100%) and copper axes with somewhat higher levels of arsenic and/or antimony (~98.5-99.5%), with two outliers (see below). It has been suggested that the occurrence of ‘pure’, ‘arsenic’ and ‘arsenic-antimony’ copper axes should be explained in a diachronic, sequential sense. De Marinis (2001, 263) interprets these in terms of changing copper sources or metallurgical traditions with distinctive compositions, but mainly refers to the situation in Northern Italy. However, typochronologies of Copper Age metalwork are

presently too debated to be used as a relative chronology, let alone as an interpretive framework that incorporates metallurgical knowledge.99 _{In this respect, the issue of regional differentiation in the}

availability of technological knowledge and access to raw material should not be overlooked. Copper

(Cu) Tin (Sn) Arsenic (As) Antimony (Sb) Other element(s) References Copper Age [#A1] “Abruzzo” 100.9 [i.e. ~100] <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 Ag (.022) > Bi (<.01), Pb (<.01), Zn (<.01), S (<.01) > Fe (.005) > Ni (<.003), Co (<.003) Hook 2007 [no. 4]

“Loreto Aprutino” (PE) ~100 ? ? ? ? Bietti Sestieri &

Giardino 2003, 425

[#7.1] Alanno (PE) ~100 ? ? ? ? Bietti Sestieri &

Giardino 2003, 425 EBA (horizon II)

[#11] Caramanico (PE)

~94.5 trace 0.6 2.5 Ni (1.65) > Ag (.57) > Bi (~.003) Junghans et al. 1974 [no. 20288] Copper Age

Rinaldone [tomb 3]

(VT) ~100 - - 0.12 Ag (.05) > Bi (trace) Junghans et al. 1974 [no. 19777]

Rinaldone [tomb 3]

(VT) ~99.5 - ~0.006 0.34 Ag (.22) > Bi (.015) > Ni (trace) Junghans et al. 1974 [no. 19778] Rinaldone [tomb 4]

(VT) ~98.5 - 0.46 0.82 Ag (.23) > Pb (.03), Ni (.03) > Bi (.004) Junghans et al. 1974 [no. 19781] Ponte S. Pietro [tomb

1] (VT) ~100 - trace 0.02 Ag (trace), Fe (trace) Junghans et al. 1974 [no. 20259]

Ponte S. Pietro [tomb

20 (formerly 14)] (VT) ~99.5 - 0.11 0.35 Ag (.22) > Ni (trace), Fe (trace) Junghans et al. 1974 [no. 19786] Ponte S. Pietro [tomb

21 (formerly 15)] (VT) ~99 - 0.28 0.51 Ag (.17) > Ni (.01) > Pb (~.01) Junghans et al. 1974 [no. 20261] [#32] Vetralla-Le

Dogane (VT) [or halberd, cf. Dolfini 2011]

~99.5 - trace 0.06 Ag (.27) Junghans et al. 1974

[no. 20599] [#36.1] Corneto (VT) 94.5 [i.e. ~98] 0.01 1.81 0.02 Bi (.12) > Ag (.088) > Pb (.03) > Ni (.01) > Zn (<.01), S (<.01) > Fe (<.005) > Co (<.002) Hook 2007 [no. 5] [#33] “Agro Falisco”

(VT) ~99.5 - 0.07 0.39 Ag (.09) > Ni (.02) > Bi (trace) Junghans et al. 1974 [no. 19798] [#33] “Agro Falisco” (VT) ~99 - 0.16 0.8 Ag (.07) > Ni (.03) > Bi (.004) > Fe (trace) Junghans et al. 1974 [no. 19799]

“Rome” (RM) ~100 - trace 0.12 Ag (trace); Bi (trace) Junghans et al. 1968,

1974 [no. 4035] [#47.1] Roma-

Esquilino (RM) ~99 - 0.83 trace Ag (.09) > Ni (.02) > Bi (.01) Junghans et al. 1974 [no. 19812] [#57.1] Sgurgola (FR) ~99.5 - 0.44 0.07 Ag (.06) > Bi (.03) > Ni (trace),

Fe (trace) Junghans et al. 1974 [no. 19800]

[#57.2] Sgurgola (FR) ~100 - - - Ag (trace), Bi (trace) Junghans et al. 1974

[no. 19801] EBA (horizon II)

[#34] Civita Castellana

(VT) ~100 - trace ~0.007 Pb (trace), Ag (trace), Bi (trace), Zn (trace) Junghans et al. 1974 [no. 19803]

Table 4.16: overview of composition analyses available for copper axes from Abruzzo and Lazio, dated to the Copper Age and ‘horizon II’ (with reconstructed copper contents included for comparison) [nos. refer to Appendix 1 & Figure 4.5].

For instance, regional differentiation can be discerned in the small sample of Copper Age axes from ‘coastal Abruzzo’ that invariably show a ‘pure’ copper signature, whereas axes in the larger collection from ‘coastal Lazio’ tend to include both arsenic and antimony (Table 4.16). This could indicate the existence of separate Copper Age metallurgical spheres on opposite sides of the peninsula, divided by the APENNINES, or culturally divided between a larger ‘Central Italian’ and a larger ‘Southern Italian’ sphere. The provenance of the ‘pure’ copper axes in southern Abruzzo (LORETO APRUTINO; ALANNO) and the purest of two axes from SGURGOLA in southern Lazio (Table 4.16) could add up to a ‘Southern Italian’ sphere distinctive from a ‘Central Italian’ sphere. This seems to be corroborated by the presence of silver (Ag) and nickel (Ni) in somewhat higher levels in axes from Lazio (including the second axe from Sgurgola) and only as trace elements (or absent) in axes from

99 _{Recently, a new project with a focus on early copper metallurgy in Central Italy has started (Dolfini et al. 2007), but none of}

the compositional analyses has been published yet (personal communication Andrea Dolfini; but cf. Dolfini 2011 for a more recent discussion).

Abruzzo and the purest axe from SGURGOLA. Unfortunately, the composition analyses of two copper flat axes from Abruzzo (LORETO APRUTINO; ALANNO) have not been published in full detail yet (Bietti Sestieri & Giardino 2003, 425). These could, for instance, also corroborate the hypothesis that tin is a network specific trace element of copper in a larger ‘Adriatic’ sphere (Table 4.16).

In general, the ‘isolated’, single finds of copper axes cannot be distinguished from those found in collective tombs (Table 4.16). Arguably, this corroborates the interpretation of funerary and ‘non- funerary’ copper metalwork deposition as parallel practices (§4.2). Significantly, the two outliers in the composition of copper axes cannot be interpreted in a diachronic, typochronological sense (i.e. as later axes). These two outliers concern one copper axe with arsenic as a major element and the other with higher levels of antimony, nickle (Ni), arsenic and silver (Ag) (Table 4.16). The former (CORNETO [#36.1]) is definitely a Copper Age axe and shows a composition that is characteristic of halberds (see below). The latter concerns an ‘horizon II’ axe (CARAMANICO [#11]) with a composition that is similar to the axes in the FERMIGNANO hoard, including the presence of tin as a trace element (§4.1.2; Table 4.4). The location of this single find in the MAJELLA MOUNTAINS (Figure 4.5) extends the ‘northern Adriatic’ metallurgical sphere (§4.1.2) into southern Abruzzo, beyond the PESCARA river. Taken together, the ‘northern Adriatic’ axe from CARAMANICO and the ‘true bronze’ axe from the ALANNO hoard (§4.1; Table 4.4) leave the impression that two ‘horizon II’ metallurgical spheres intersected in southern Abruzzo (§4.4). Future composition analyses of the many other ‘horizon II’ axes from the larger UPPER PESCARA micro-region (Figure 4.6) could shed light on this issue of (potential) overlap between the ‘northern Adriatic’ and ‘Southern Italian’ metallurgical spheres.

To sum up, the contrasting compositions of ‘horizon II’ axes suggests that the proliferation of bronze metallurgy had only started in this typochronological phase. For instance, another ‘horizon II’ axe (CIVITA CASTELLANA [#34]) has ended up in this sample because of a ‘pure’ copper signature (Table 4.16), which makes it indistinguishable from Copper Age axes. Here the ‘true bronze’ composition of axes from the ‘horizon I’ hoard in Tuscany (§4.1.2; Table 4.4) should also be recalled. Such a high degree of variability in compositional signatures of ‘horizon I’ and ‘horizon II’ axes could refer to the first stage in the proliferation of bronze metallurgy. This scenario is consistent with the relatively low (or virtually non-existent) tin contents in axes from ‘horizon II’ hoards in Central Italy (§4.1.2; Table 4.4). Above all, it highlights that some EBA1 types of axes attributed to ‘horizon II’ on typological grounds cannot be distinguished from Copper Age axes by their composition, especially in Lazio. Therefore a focus in composition analysis on ‘horizon II’ axes to chart ‘initial’ variability would be invaluable for the study of a trajectory of technological innovation such as the introduction of bronze metallurgy (§4.3.2).

Daggers and halberds

The sample of copper daggers and halberds from Abruzzo [n=1] and Lazio [n=15] subjected to composition analysis, shows that these objects are relatively ‘impure’ (<98%) in terms of copper contents (Table 4.17), compared with the generally ‘pure’ composition (~99-100%) of copper axes (Table 4.16). Moreover, daggers (~96-98%) and halberds (~95%) can generally be distinguished in terms of (reconstructed) copper contents, i.e. the amount of additional elements. This distinction is created by a consistent pattern in the next main components, with high arsenic contents (~1.5-2.5%) as well as antimony (~1-2%) in daggers, whereas the few analyses of halberds show mainly arsenic (~2.5- 4.5%), with or without antimony (Table 4.17). This general pattern is broken by four outliers, including a dagger & halberd group (MONTALTO DI CASTRO [#30]), a dagger from a Copper Age funerary context (PONTE S.PIETRO-TOMB 21) and the only dagger from Abruzzo (FUCINO [#19]) in the sample (Table 4.17).

In the case of the ‘unprovenanced’ dagger and halberd group from a clandestine excavation (MONTALTO DI CASTRO [#30]) such compositional ‘disparity’ could indicate deliberate variability. The possibility of a sample switch (or an error in publication) is contradicted by the fact that their compositions are not exactly reversed. The dagger shows arsenic contents similar to halberds but at the same time dagger-like antimony contents, whereas the antimony contents in the halberd almost reach that in daggers, but its arsenic contents are also uncharacteristic of daggers (Table 4.17). The dagger from the Copper Age funerary context (PONTE S.PIETRO-TOMB 21) shares its composition with axes from the same cemetery. Finally, the only dagger from Abruzzo (FUCINO [#19]) shows a composition that is similar to the CARAMANICO axe (see above) and the FERMIGNANO axe hoard (§4.1.2; Table 4.4). This suggests that its raw material should be attributed to the same, ‘northern Adriatic’ metallurgical sphere or, alternatively, that it was cast from such an ‘horizon II’ axe. In turn, this composition shows

that we can probably exclude a (late) Copper Age date for this dagger, most likely in favour of an EBA1 date. Notwithstanding this group of outliers, the generally high degree of similarity in composition of, on the one hand, copper daggers and, on the other, copper halberds is significant. It means that objects that have been regarded as generically (or potentially) EBA in date on typochronological grounds (GERMANIGNANO [#25]; COLLE S.STEFANO [#49]) cannot be distinguished from Copper Age objects by their composition (Table 4.17).

Copper

(Cu) Tin (Sn) Arsenic (As) Antimony (Sb) Other element(s) References Daggers

[#19] “Fucino” (AQ) ~97 ~0.03 0.19 1.5 Ni (1.05) > Ag (.5) > Co

(~.04) > Bi (.004) > Fe (trace) Junghans et al. 1974 [no. 20290]

Rinaldone [tomb 3] (VT) ~97 - 1.75 1.1 Ag (.02), Ni (.02) Junghans et al. 1974

[no. 19779] Rinaldone [tomb 3] (VT)

[foil fragment] ~97 - 1.4 1.4 Ag (.13) > Ni (.04) > Pb (.02) Junghans et al. 1974 [no. 19780] Rinaldone [tomb 4] (VT)

[blade fragment] ~95.5 - 1.6 1.9 Ag > Fe (trace) (.91) > Ni (.07) > Pb (.05) Junghans et al. 1974 [no. 19782] Rinaldone [tomb 5] (VT)

[knife?] ~95.5 - 2.7 1.65 Ag (.18) > Ni (.09) > Pb (.03) Junghans et al. 1974 [no. 19783] Rinaldone [tomb 5] (VT)

[fragment] ~97 - 1.2 1.65 Ag (.26) > Pb (.09) > Ni (.02) > Fe (trace) Junghans et al. 1974 [no. 19784] Ponte S. Pietro [tomb 3a]

(VT)

~96 - 2.7 1.2 Ag (.11) > Ni (.06) > Fe

(trace)

Junghans et al. 1974 [no. 20257] Ponte S. Pietro [tomb 15?]

(VT) ~96.5 - 2.2 1.25 Ag (.12) > Pb (~.01) > Ni (<.01) > Fe (trace) Junghans et al. 1974 [no. 20262] Ponte S. Pietro [tomb 20

(formerly 14)] (VT) ~96.5 - 1.7 1.75 Ag (.11) > Ni (.05), Pb (.05) > Fe (trace) Junghans et al. 1974 [no. 19785] Ponte S. Pietro [tomb 21

(formerly 15)] (VT) ~99 - 0.34 0.44 Ag (.06) > Ni (.02) > Fe (trace) Junghans et al. 1974 [no. 20255] [#30.2] Montalto di Castro

(VT) ~93 - >5 1.65 Ni (.29) > Ag (.26) > Pb (.06) > Fe (trace) Junghans et al. 1974 [no. 19830]

Sgurgola-tomb (FR) ~95.5 - 1.95 1.9 Ag (.31) > Ni (.12) > Bi (.006)

> Pb (trace) Junghans et al. 1974 [no. 19775] Halberd (or dagger)

[#25] Germanignano (VT) ~97 - 2.5 - Ag (.22) > Bi (.04) Junghans et al. 1960

[no. 605] Halberds

Rinaldone [tomb 3] (VT) ~95 - 4.1 0.68 Ni (.02) > Ag (trace) Junghans et al. 1974

[no. 19776] [#30.1] Montalto di Castro

(VT) ~98 - 0.8 0.96 Ag (.08) > Pb (.06) > Ni (.03) > Fe (trace) Junghans et al. 1974 [no. 19829] [#49] Colle S. Stefano

(RM) ~95 - 4.6 - Ag (.03) > Ni (<.01) > Bi (.006) > Fe (trace) Junghans et al. 1974 [no. 19828]

Table 4.17: overview of composition analyses available for copper daggers and halberds from Abruzzo and Lazio (with reconstructed copper contents included for comparison) [nos. refer to Appendix 1 & Figure 4.5].

Metallurgical knowledge

Overall, copper metalwork from Abruzzo and Lazio shows a high degree of compositional similarity (Tables 4.16 & 4.17). Moreover, this sense of similarity follows the distinction between classes of metalwork (i.e. axes, daggers and halberds). This gives the impression of ‘standardisation’ in metallurgical practices with a considerable time depth, perhaps extending into the earlier Copper Age at one extreme and into EBA1 at the other. As copper in its ‘purest’ form took shape as axes (Table 4.16), it can be argued that raw material circulated in the form of this class of metalwork (rather than ingots). In the light of the high arsenic and/or antimony levels in daggers and halberds (Table 4.17), these were either cast from raw material with a distinctive composition, or arsenic and/or antimony were added to ‘pure’ copper. The former scenario is partly corroborated by the outlier of the arsenic copper axe (CORNETO [#36.1]) (Table 4.16). It suggests that ‘arsenic’ copper was available in the form of axes (or basic raw material), too. In this respect, the arsenic levels in the composition of this particular axe are not dissimilar from the standard in daggers (Table 4.17). At the same time, its arsenic levels do not reach those in halberds, which means that the possibility cannot be excluded that arsenic was deliberately added to ‘pure’ copper in the production of daggers and halberds. In a similar vein, the use of ‘arsenic’ copper does not explain higher levels of antimony in daggers, contrary to the lower levels of antimony in halberds that are similar to those in some of the ‘impure’ axes (Tables 4.16 & 4.17).

Concerning the deliberate use of additives, there is evidence that antimony would have been available in a ‘pure’ form and could have been used as such in daggers. A couple of tombs in several of the many Copper Age cemeteries in northernmost Lazio included ‘pure’ antimony beads and necklace elements as grave goods. This concerns two of the tombs [nos. 20-21] in the cemetery of PONTE S. PIETRO (Miari 1993, 121-134), which incidentally each also contained a copper axe (Table 4.16) and a copper dagger (Table 4.17). A tomb in the same micro-region (SELVICCIOLA-tomb 23) included a silver bead (3 cm), possibly in association with an earlier articulated burial [radiocarbon date (GrA-16882): 4715±40 BP], and a group of beads of antimony at the entrance to the tomb (Petitti et al. 2002, 526- 528). The distinctive position of the antimony beads in the latter context seems to single these out as a later act of deposition than the silver bead. Composition analysis of the beads from SELVICCIOLA and PONTE S.PIETRO has confirmed the determination of the metals used as antimony and shows that the beads would have been produced in a (double) mould (Pallecchi et al. 2002). Although generally a minor component of copper metalwork, the frequent and consistent presence of silver (Ag) above the levels of trace elements (Tables 4.16 & 4.17) could suggest a similar scenario for small silver ornaments. However, composition analyses of silver ornaments found in (late) Copper Age cemeteries in the province of Rome (RM) in southern Lazio show that silver ornaments were not as ‘pure’ as those in antimony (Anzidei et al. 2007b).

The scenario that these small metallic objects could have carried a technological connotation (showing the availability of metallurgical knowledge) could be at odds with their incorporation in another field of Copper Age practice. The use of smaller ornaments in the ‘adornment’ of the dead does not necessarily equal ‘local’ metalworking and/or the availability of technological knowledge. Only one of the daggers in the two PONTE S.PIETRO tombs with antimony beads [no. 20] shows the higher level of arsenic and antimony (Table 4.17), whereas the dagger from the other [no. 21] shows an ‘axe- like’ composition (see above). This seems to suggest that the use of antimony as an additive would not have been common (technological) knowledge. It means that these small ornaments could also have circulated without being accompanied by technological knowledge and were appreciated for their ‘non- local’ connotations. This interpretation has, for instance, been put forward for early tin beads dated to the Copper Age or Early Bronze Age elsewhere in Europe (Primas 2002, 311-312). In this context, it should be appreciated that Copper Age funerary contexts served as a locale where ‘non-local’ elements were incorporated in a ‘local’ context. At a later stage I will argue that Copper Age ‘collective’ tombs in Central Italy served as a locale for the definition of social groups in a wider context of supra-regional connectivity (Chapter 5). This would have made these cemeteries appropriate depositional contexts for rarities such as antimony and silver beads, without the strings attached of the metallurgical knowledge that they also carried.

Copper

(Cu) Tin (Sn) Arsenic (As) Antimony (Sb) Other element(s) References Ponte S. Pietro [tomb 1]

(VT) ~100 - - trace - Junghans et al. 1974 [no. 20260]

Ponte S. Pietro [tomb 2]

(VT) ~96.5 - 2 1.3 Ag (.12) > Ni (.06) > Fe (trace) Junghans et al. 1974 [no. 20256]

Ponte S. Pietro [tomb 3a]

(VT) ~96 - 1.15 2.5 Ag (.22) > Ni (.06) > Pb (.03) > Bi (~.005) > Fe (trace) Junghans et al. 1974 [no. 20258] Ponte S. Pietro [tomb 20

(formerly 14)] (VT) ~99.5 - <0.005 0.32 Ag (trace) (.21) > Ni (trace), Bi Junghans et al. 1974 [no. 19787]

Table 4.18: overview of composition analyses available for copper awls and needles from Lazio (with reconstructed copper contents included for comparison).

In general, the distinctive compositional signatures for copper axes, daggers and halberds suggests that the production of each class of metalwork required distinctive technological knowledge. At the same time, ‘standardisation’ could imply that such knowledge was not widely available, but probably confined to a small group of people in the know (‘specialists’). This leaves open the question whether these individuals or communities were resident in Abruzzo and Lazio or technological knowledge was introduced from elsewhere. Alternatively, standardisation could have derived from exchange of finished objects, originating in one or several areas of production outside the region. Smaller objects such as the copper awls and needles from several Copper Age tombs at PONTE S. PIETRO (Table 4.18) could shed light on this issue. The lack of standardisation in their composition is compatible with the raw material used in the production of either copper axes or daggers (Tables 4.16 & 4.17). This could highlight that awls and needles were by-products of axe and dagger production

events, or that axes and daggers were reused for their raw material. The latter scenario aligns with the one that raw material circulated in the form of finished objects such as axes (see above). In turn, this would mean that reuse of exchanged pieces of metalwork for smaller objects was the only form of ‘local’ metalwork production. In this respect, the present absence of direct evidence for copper metalworking in Abruzzo and Lazio could refer to past reality.100 _{If so, the ‘standardised’}

compositional signatures of copper axes, daggers and halberds are indications of distinctive production events, including areas of production outside the region, with the implication that the technological knowledge required was ‘locally’ unavailable.

A final consideration that starts from the distinctive compositions of copper axes, daggers and halberds is that these could refer to distinctive fields of signification, as well as distinctive spheres of exchange and social interaction. In particular, early daggers have been related to a male field of practice in reconstructions of Copper Age gender ideologies in Italy. This has to a large extent been based on numerous visual representations of daggers in Northern Italian rock art and statue-menhirs. The latter have also been found in the area of LUNIGIANA in the far north of Tuscany, incidentally in the vicinity of the Ligurian copper mines (§4.1.2; Figure 4.1). The rehearsed connotations proposed for Copper Age daggers are linked to phallic imagery and warfare (and violence) as a male domain (Whitehouse 1992; Robb 1994, 31-34; Robb 1997, 48-50; Barfield 1998, 143-145; Bevan 2001a, 80- 83; Whitehouse 2001, 77-83; Bevan 2006, 147-148). Recently, an explicitly cosmological connotation of copper daggers has been added to the spectrum (Keates 2002; Magail 2006), as part of the growing field that interprets the role of metalwork in terms of technologically inspired metaphors (cf. Jones 2002; Brück 2006b; Giles 2007). It is important, however, not to presume a universal meaning for daggers in the Italian peninsula as a whole throughout the Copper and Bronze Ages. The prominent place of daggers in visual representations is mainly connected with Northern Italy and evidence for direct links of daggers to buried individuals (as grave goods) in Central Italy is patchy to say the least.101 _{Nonetheless, the particular significance of copper daggers (and halberds) can be discerned in}

their spatially circumscribed distribution, with respect to wider distribution of copper axes in Abruzzo and Lazio (§4.2.4; Figures 4.5 & 4.6). A distinctive, ‘specialised’ role of daggers can be traced back to elaborate flint daggers, replaced by copper daggers in Copper Age funerary contexts, and can be followed through in the ‘specialised’ class of metal-hilted daggers that in their turn carried technological knowledge, i.e. ‘true bronze’ metallurgy (§4.1; §4.3.2).