REPORT ON THE ANALYSES OF THE "MAKARSKA" TOOLS AND SOME IMPLICATIONS

by PRENTISS S. DE JESUS

Since the first publication of the "Makarska hoard," 1 analyses have been made of the pieces and of some related shaft-hole axes. These analyses are listed in the Table at the end of this article. As originally suspected, all the Makarska pieces are tin-bronze. Mrs. Vagnetti has proposed a date of Middle Cypriot II/III for the two shaft-hole axes, most likely the earliest pieces in the group as well as the most interesting and controversial. She has pointed out that we cannot legitimately call this collection of artlifacts a hoard due to the non-homogeneous dates of individual pieces. But it is possible that they are all of Cypriot origin.

Although the analyses have shown that tin was intentionally added to the copper to make the bronze, there is little one can say about the origins of the copper and tin ores used to make the metals. One can generally say that the tin content hovers between 7-9%, the flat axes being the exceptions. As the latter were probably cast in an open mould, the difficulties in casting are fewer than casting in a closed mould. Therefore, here would be less a need for tin which is added to copper .primarily for its ease in closed mould casting. For an explanation the relatively high percentage of tin in the Alhambra and Nicosia Museum axes cf. Table, n. 2.

We stress the point that all the shaft-hole axes analyzed are tin-bronze.

1 1. Vagnetti, "Osservazioni suI Cosiddetto Ripostiglio di Makarska," Studi Ci-prioti e Rapporti di Scavo, Fasc. 1, 1971, pp. 203-16, hereafter, Makarska. The axe from the recently excavated site of Kafkallia has been published in J.c. Overbeck and S. Swiny, Two Cypriot Bronze Age Sites at Kalkallia (Dhali), GOterborg 1972, p. 21, ag. 6 (= Makarska, p. 205, n. 4 i). The authors list 12 shaft-hole axes, but they include one type (H. Catling (infra n. 2) 66, no. 6 = E. Gjerstad, Studies on Prehistoric Cyprus, Uppsala 1929, p. 233 Type 6) which does not resemble those listed by Mrs. Vagnetti.

222 Prentiss S. de Jesus

This makes six bronze axes of this type out of the eleven currently known. It would not be surprising if the other five showed analyses similar to ours. A minor detail about these axes might be worthy of mention. Most of them seem to either have been broken in some way or show signs of hard use, even mis-use. In some cases the shaft has suffered severely from fractures, and in the case of one axe, it has been broken off. It is clear that these axes were used in their time and were not ceremonial artifacts. One must point out that although these axes look very much alike and are of the same type, they all differ in some minute detail, usually in the number and arrangement of the ribs on the shaft. This would seem to suggest that many moulds, not just a few, were used in their production.

In order to better understand the metallurgical setting in MBA Cyprus let us look briefly at some of the data and background. To date, no prehistoric or Bronze Age mine workings have yet been identified, although at one time they no doubt existed. In view of the later and modern exploitation of rich copper deposits, all evidence of early mining in Cyprus may have been irre-trievably erased, and the chapter on prehistoric mines and mining methods in Cyprus may never be written. The Skouriotissa mine has been cited as a possible prehistoric mine, but attempts to identify the actual prehistoric workings are unconvincing. C. Schaef.fer has attempted to link the ore of Skouriotissa to the slags of Skouriotissa, Enkomi and Ras Shamra, but his method of comparison is too oversimplified to validate his interpretations scientifically. 2

Slag dumps in Cyprus prove to be equally disconcerting, though some work has already been done. 3 The main problem is dating them, and up until now we have only rough designations as to their millennia. 4 At best, most of the slag dumps are labeled "Roman," "Pre-Roman," and occasionally

2 C. Schaeffer, Missions en Cbypre 1932-5, Paris 1936, pp. 94-101. For a cursory look at some modern ore types in Cyprus, cf. R. Maddin and J. Muhly, Journal of Metals, May 1974, p. 5, Table Ill; A. Steinberg and F. Koucky in 1. Stager et al., American Expedition to Idalion, Cyprus, Cambridge, Mass. 1974, p. 170; H.G. Buchholz, Berl. Jahrb. Vor- Friihg., 1967, p. 234, nos. 1, 2, 3, 4, and 6. For Cypriot ore analyses not included in Buchholz's catalog, cf. O. Davies, BSA, XXX, 1929/30, p. 83, n. 7. Some general remarks are also found in H. Catling, Cypriot Bronuwork in the Mycenaean World, Oxford 1964, p. 21. For mines and mining techniques of a much later period, cf. the interesting and informative remarks by the Cyprus Mines Corporation in Swedish Cyprus Expedition, Stockholm 1939, Vol. Ill, pp. 647-674.

3 A. Steinberg and F. Koucky (supra n. 2) 149-178, and C. Schaeffer (supra n. 2). 4 I have been informed by Dr. E. Ralph of the University Museum, Pennsylvania that

thermoluminescent dating of slag is possible and with satisfactory results. In addition, most slag dumps contain adequate amounts of carbonized wood bits, more commonly dust, which can be collected. A comprehensive program in C-14 dating of this carbonized material would give excellent guidelines to the dating of the many hundreds of slag dumps in the Near and Middle East.

Report on the ;lnQlyses of the «Maklaorska» too1'S 223

"Phoenician," but even these attributions are largely guesswork.s Work in this area is continuing, and in spite of doubt e~pressed by some archaeo-logists as to the usefulness of analyses 6 the latter do offer us enlightenments which otherwise would go undetected. For example, the analyses of slag from Skouriotissa ("Roman" and "Pre-Roman") indicate that zinc was an element in the original ore-body. 7 Zinc is characteristically absent from other Cypriot slags, thereby indicating that the ore-body was not the same. 8

The most common copper-zinc ore treated in antiquity was probably chalcopyrite-sphalerite, a relatively abundant type. Zinc in this ore can be carried through the smelting stages, and small percentages can occur in the finished artifact. Hence, the presence or absence of an element such as zinc can reflect differences in the genealogy of the metal. One cannot go much further than that in depicting original ore deposits. As Maddin and Muhly put it, the ore bodies themselves cannot be identified "until the chemical content of the ore bodies in the entire Middle East region are compared." 9 Then, in most cases all we can say from the analyses -with any amount of precision- is that the ore bodies are alike or different. We must place a further caution on over-zealous interpretation of analyses, for even the same ore-body can change in chemical composition. Profiles of copper deposits will often show that not only will a deposit generally change from an oxide on the surface to a sulfide below, but major trace elements can also vary with depth. Hence, analyses of an ancient ore deposit may not reflect the characteristics of the ore extracted in antiquity.

Yet, even though we have a problem in locating specific ore deposits from analyses of slag and artifacts, trace elements of high percentages can

5 Buchho1z lists some of the available analyses of Cypriot slag as well as pertinent metalwork in the Near and Middle East (supra n. 2), 189-256. N.B. Item no. 4, p. 234 is an ore, not a slag. The American expedition to Idalion has attributed the beginnings of smelting there to the 5th century B.c., 1. Stager (supra n. 2), 82. A Late Bronze Age slag was analyzed from Apliki, J. DuP1att Taylor, Ant. ]., 1952, p. 152. For recent analyses of slag cf. U. Zwicker, H. Rollig, and U. Schwartz, RDAC, 1972, pp. 34-45. The only evidence for an EBA smithy is at Ambelikou, P. Dikaios, ILN, March 1946, pp. 244-5. This site is not a mine, but smelting seems to have been performed here.

6 Cf. remarks by Catling (supra n. 2), 9-13. 7 Buchholz (supra n. 2), 234, nos. 7-10. 8 Compare, for example, the Skouriotissa slag analyses with those from Enkomi,

Buchholz (supra n. 2), no. 12 and Steinberg and Koucky (supra n. 2), 163, nos. 88 and 89. Although zinc is present in minute amounts in the last two examples, it is not high enough to be considered a strong characteristic of the ore. Cf. also Zwicker, et al. (supra n. 5), Table I, p. 37.

9 Maddin and Muh1y (supra n. 2), 4-5. We normally associate the smelting of zinc ores such as sphalerite with relatively sophisticated metallurgies. It is usually assumed that it was probably not until Roman times that technology had advanced enough to deal with this complex ore.

I

I

:1

'I

224 Prendss S. de Jesus

offer an aid in sorting, as we have seen above. Arsenic, lead, nickel and iron are some of the common metals which can occur as natural impurities in copper ore, and subsequently slag. ID Any of these metals can occur naturally in artifacts up to as high as 2 %. In the case of arsenic, it can be as high as 4 or 5 %. The presence of tin in an artifact is most likely an intentional inclusion when it is on the order of ca. 0.5%. JI

Due to the rarety of tin it is improbably that many tin slags will ever show up. However, a fragment from the Amuq in the G phase (ca. 3000-2750 B.c.) has been called a slag. 12 The copper content in this piece is more than 10% and the tin is between 1 - 10%. Nickel, lead, arsenic, and iron are also present in appreciable amounts. If this piece is truely a slag, then we have an extraordinary insight into the practice of smelting and alloying in this area at this remote period. We normally assume that in a bronze artifact the tin metal was added intentionally to the copper metal before the artifact was cast. In other words, we do not believe that copper ore and tin ore were customarily smelted together to produce bronze metal in one opera-tion. However, in the Amuq "slag" we may have a case where both copper and tin ore were, in fact, smelted simultaneously. The most common tin ore is cassiterite (Sn02), generally found in secondary river deposits and would have been the ore used here. Stannite, which often occurs as a copper-tin ore (Cu2SFeS.SnS2) is quite rare and was probably not used in antiquity. It is disconcerting that no cassiterite deposits have been discovered in the Near and Middle East. There have been the occasional claims that tin deposits exist in Central Turkey, Lebanon and Iran, but they are often results of misinterpretation, or they have not been substantiated by a reputable authority. J3

10 These are not the only elements. In copper metal and ore analyses metallurgists and geologists generally look for Cu, Sn, Pb, As, Sb, Ag, Ni, Bi, Au, Zn, Co. Fe, and occasionally S. Maddin and Muhly, for example, have recently argued for southeastern Turkey as the provenience of the copper metal used in the Cape Gelidonya ingots, using the high percentage of Co as their criterion (supra n. 2).

)) This is an arbitrary figure, for in most cases in first-generation metalwork the tin is either present on the order of 1 % or higher, or it is not present at all, except perhaps in very small amounts. It is common to have minute (natural) traces of tin in copper on the order of 0.01 % and occasionally as high as 0.1%. Therefore, 0.5% seems like a high enough figure to mle out this type of natural occurrence. In later periods of metallurgical practice (say, the Middle and Late Bronze Ages) many remeltings took place, thereby giving rise to a great many mixtures of metals of different proveniences and percentages.

12 R. Braidwood and L. Braidwood, Excavations in the Plain of Antioch, Vol. I, Chicago 1960 (OIP LXI), p. 314, no. X3024. But given this isolated occurrence, there is reasonable doubt as to whether this is indeed a slag.

13 But for one archaeologist's view of this problem, cf. Anadolu, XVI, 1972, pp. 129-140.

PLATE I

PLATE II

1. Shaft-hole axe from Alhambra. The Metropolitan Museum of Art, Cesnola Collection. Purchased by subscription, 1874-1876.

-,==(~:.: :.:.':': ·:.···::;:.·~::: .. l

I . i

~~r.: .. " ...... .. " ...... i

2. Shaft·hole axe of unknown provenience. Nicosia Museum.

C " """,

. t~' :- :', :~ : . /:'-.. r > .;- ' ', .... ' :' :'. ~ ;- '-;' ',- ·~~ :.J"o.'-.-7 ,,...:·?,:;.-~, !.w. ,' ... ':"' .. : .... .'.:.-~ .. '.' ~'; ot;.,' •• ~r.: ":.' . ,::.: ... ~ ... . . , . · ... :' ·~· :;:. r _?·,. " '.',~:" . ,'~: ' :- . .. ... ~ ~ '~" - ; -' . ~ . -. ,

-: ' . ',' , , ' . . , ', . .

. :.' '.:~.·~:.·: , l.'.·~~,·-:· · . . :.:. ',', :,',

. . '. ' , ' , -;- .:' .~ . . : r ' •• • •

3. Shaft-hole axe from Larnaca (? ). Nicosia Museum.

Report on the analyses of the «Maklarrska'» tools 225

One LBA slag from Apliki has been analyzed, 14 and due to the high sulfur content, may be a matting slag, as opposed to a 'smelting slag (i.e. the last phase when copper matte is reduced to copper metal). This characteristic also indicates that the smelting of sulfide ore took place at this period, but the practice probably began much earlier. 15

Returning to the Cypriot material analyzed here, a few general remarks about how they fit into the general scheme of metallurgy in this part of the Mediterranean are now in order. The shaft~hole axes, such as those from the Makarska group, represent an already advanced stage of smithing techniques. The thin socket walls and the long projecting blade are the earmarks of a master smith. Controversies as to the origin and development of this tool type has been expressed previously by Mrs. Vagnetti. III All of the eleven examples of this type of axe now known are linked somehow with Cyprus (either by inference or they were actually found there) and not with the Asian mainland. That the axes were produced on Cypriot soil cannot be success£ully challenged. However, Catling feels that they are of foreign inspiration. In fact, he classifies them as "Foreign Tools." 17 Picking up the idea from Astrom that the moulds that produced these axes were foreign, Catling further states that if it were not for outside influence "the metallurgical skill needed [to produce these axes] would otherwise be unparalled in Cyprus before an advanced date in the Late Bronze Age." 18 But that they were produced by "foreigners" is somewhat of a moot point. Although foreign influences are definitely at work, a few possibilities are open to us to explain the ex-traordinary craftsmanship of these axes in comparison to contemporary Cypriot metalwork. For example, a native Cypriot smith could have learned bi-mould and shaft-hole casting abroad and brought the practice back to his homeland. It could have been introduced in Cyprus a generation or two before our axes and could have undergone a subsequent transformation on a regional scale. In this way we are able to explain the regional character of our axes. Or -though less likely- these axes represent some kind of limited and sophisticated metallurgical tradition operating in Cyprus, but the full reper-toire of which we have not yet discovered. The are no exact parallels of this

14 J. DuPlatt Taylor (supra n. 5), 152 and 166. 15 The presence of sulfur in slag does not, however, conclude beyond doubt that

the ore body was a sulfide (although it is likely). It could be, for example, that the smelter added some form of sulfide material to the smelting load, mistaking it for an efficient fIuxing agent. In our interpretations of smelted material we must allow for a certain amount of variation due to the empirical methods employed by the ancient smelter.

15

16 Makarska, pp. 296-7. 17 Catling (supra n. 2), 66. 18 Ibid.

226 Brentiss S. de Jesus

type of shaft-hole axe outside of Cyprus, and the strict conformity of the type does indicate a local school. 19

Similarities with Middle Eastern metalwork, however, are not lacking, and one can easily see that these axes are somehow a spin off from metal-lurgical techniques as practiced in Asia.20 It is true that the mainland had a greater tradition in this type of casting, and at this point in time it is more advanced than Cyprus. But there is no need to see the Cypriot axes strictly as imports. The great majority of Bronze Age Cypriot metalwork comes from tombs, and we know very little about native metallurgical workshops. 21 Until we ' do have more information the extent to which the Bronze Age Cypriot smith participated in the metallurgical development of the island will remain recondite.

Although one might argue successfully for local manufacture of many Cypriot bronzes, it is nevertheless certain that the tin was imported. If not for other reasons, this importation constitutes the Cypriot smith's link with the outside world. Tin-bronzes are known in Cyprus before our shaft-hole axes, more specifically by the presence of Minoan and local metalwork from graves at Vounous and Lapithos. 22 Buchholz places the earliest tin-bronzes at EC I which would be no later than 2300 B.C.

Suggestion for maritime tin trade in prehistoric times has been expressed elsewhere.23 The pattern need not have been the same in the Middle Bronze Age as it was earlier, but it is more than a coincidence that sites which have yielded a great number of bronzes had links --directly or indirectly- with sea trade. 24 It has been noted in a text from Mari that at least one source of tin comes from what is thought by some scholars to be Elam.2S It has

19 R. Maxwell-Hyslop, Iraq, XI, 1949, p. 114. Cf. Type 23 . 20 Astrom felt that ".it is tempting to regard them as of Cypriot manufacture imitating

foreign prototypes,» The Cypriot Middle Bronze Age, Lund 1957, p. 245, but he appar-ently later came up with the idea that foreign moulds may have been used, Catling (supra n. 2), 66, n. 5. Cf. also Maxwell-Hyslop (supra n. 19), 114-115; J. Deshayes, Outils de Bronze Vol. I, Paris 1960, pp. 173-5.

21 P. Dikaios (supra n. 5) and J. DuPlatt Taylor (supra n. 5). 22 Catling (supra n. 2), 62. K. Branigan later re-dated the Minoan daggers to Middle

Minoan la, Aegean Metalwork, Oxford 1974, p. 11. Cf. Also Catling, C.A.H. Fasc. 43, p. 33, n. 4. Bibliography of analyses of Cypriot metalwork is well documented in Buchholz (supra n. 2). For analyses not included in Buchholz's catalog, cf. P. Astrom, The Cypriot Middle Bronze Age, Lund 1956, p. 241, n. 6; P. Dikaios, RDAC, 1936, p. 50; D. Goorieckx, Bulletin de l'Institut Royal du Patrimoine Artistique, 2, 1959, pp. 132-7.

23 Supra n. 13. 24 The 13th century B.c. Cape Gelidonya shipwreck - albeit much later than the

period under discussion - provides maritime evidence. 2S G. Dossin, Revue d'Assyriologie, LXIV, 1970, no. 2, pp. 97-106. Also J. Sasson,

JESHO, IX, 1966, p. 164 and notes 5, 6, 7 and 8.

Report on the analyses of the «Mak.a

228 P,rentiss S. de Jesus

Cy.prus, Catling suggests that the Cypriots could possibly have traded raw copper for finished Minoan goods. The suggestion is a good one, for we now know from recent surveys in Crete that there was not enough Cretan copper and ancient workings extensive enough to have produced all the metal-work found in Crete. 31

The picture of maritime trade in the early stages of the Middle Bronze Age are now becoming a little clearer, if not more complex. 32 The advent of the Middle Br:onze Age saw increased contacts between the Levantine coast and Crete, and it now seems reasonable that Cyprus would be consequently affected. Not only was Cyprus a logical intermediary stop from either of these two areas, but it eventually evolved into a full-fledged trader with both. 33 As Catling put it, "what in MC Il had been a mere trickle of exports to the eastern markets became a flood in MC Ill." 34 But we must not forget that tin was somehow reaching Cyprus in EC I, either through trade or by the influx of new people who brought their tin contacts with them. In the light of this it is not impossible to see commercial links with the Asian mainland. Syria seems to have possessed and worked some copper deposits,3S but they were definitely not rich enough to supply the Syrian merchant's trading commitments. \Vith the rise of commercial activity in the Middle Bronze Age, imports of Cypriot raw copper were likely an important factor in keeping Syria's markets thriving. Outside of metal, we are not sure of the nature of the commercial links between Cyprus and Syria. In any case, this trade was thanks principally to the Minoans and their contacts.

Although not as ressourceful and as well-organized as the Old Babylonian or Assyrian merchant, the Minoans managed nevertheless to spread their influence quite far over the waters. 36 They were of course not alone in the

31 As reported by Professor Muhly at the Annual Meeting of the AlA in Chicago, 1974, also in infra n. 48.

32 Cretan contact with Egypt in EM III has been elucidated by W. Ward, JESHO, VO!. 6, 1963, pp. 29-33. S. Hood points out that links between Crete and the East may go back as early as Sargon's time, The Minoans, London 1971, pp. 123-6. Branigan argues for close EBA Il contacts between Crete and Byblos, AJA, 71, 1967, pp. 117-21. He points out that the rounded-tang dagger is a feature of Syro-Cilician metalwork in EBA Ill. He further indicates that Crete and the Aegean drew on Syrian metallurgical technology. This does not seem to conflict with the general picture of maritime trade expressed here.

33 Cading, C.A.H., Fasc. 42, p. 36. 34 Ibid., p. 44. 3S Sasson (supra n. 25), 18-9 and p. 168, n . 2. Muhly points out the inconsistency

of claims to Syrian copper deposits (supra n. 28), 209-211. However, l.M. Toll seems convinced that there are copper deposits in Syria: "Copper deposits have not been devel-oped in Syria, although they are found in every Vilayet," Engineering and Mining Journal, Vo!. 112, 1921, p. 847. Cf. also accompanying map of ore deposits.

36 C.A.H., Il, Pt. 1, pp. 162-4.

Report on the an-a,lyses of the «Makl3'tska» tools 229

sea trade, but they were unquestionably masters of it. It would not be brash to consider them as the major link between Crete and Cyprus and between Cyprus and the Levantine coast. Nor would it be an overstatement to say that it was the Minoans who drew Cyrus out of its semi-isolationism of the Early Bronze Age to its overt commercial activity of the late Middle Bronze Age.

In all of these considerations one cannot underrate the role of Anatolia's resources. It no doubt participated in Mediterranean trade, prehistoric and historic. Copper was an important trading commodity in prehistoric times as it was in the Middle Bronze Age. But due to our lack of archaeological data related to smelting sites and mines, it is not possible a this point to discuss which areas of Anatolia were actually exploited at that time. Right now, speculation might confuse the issue. Ergani Maden is traditionally cited as a Bronze Age source of copper, but outside of the inferences one gets from Assyrian merchant texts or from the many prevalent present-day rumors about slag and ancient mines, not one shred of archaeological evidence from Ergani has yet been produced. This does not mean, however, that one day this evidence will not be provided, but we should not see Ergani as unique or as a panacea. Recent surveys of slag dumps and mines in Turkey have reavealed the scope of the problem. Well over 100 smelting sites and a few mines are now known to exist in various parts of Anatolia. Unfortunately, only a few of these have been dated. 37 As far as copper is concerned, Anatolia did not play an important role in Cyprus. Perhaps because the two could easily meet their own demands for copper, the metalwork of the two areas remained culturally distinct until the Late Bronze Age.

Mrs. Vagnetti has adequately discussed the other pieces in the Makarska collection. But a few more words might be said about the miniature bronze ingot in the light of Maddin and Muhly's recent article on the Cape Gelidonya ingots. 38 Normally ox-hide ingots date somewhere between 1500-1200 B.C. 39 The date of our miniature example most likely falls toward the end of this period. It has been pointed out that full-sized ox-hide ingots are generally unalloyed copper. 40 and are commonly associated with Cyprus. Some authors like to see many of the ingots originating elsewhere, but the latter's arguments

37 Cf. Archaeology, July 1974, Vol. 27, no. 3, p. 201. N.B. The EBA slag reported here was based on a C-14 date which, when recounted, proved erroneous. More details on these surveys have been prepared for publication. The research was carried out under the auspices of the Turkish Mineral Exploration Institute of Ankara (MTA).

38 Maddin and Muhly (supra n. 2), 1-7. 39 The use of ox-hide ingots persisted into the 12th century B.c. on a very limited

scale at Enkomi, but soon afterwards they were discontinued. 40 Buchholz (supl'a n. 2), 236-7, nos. 60-80.

I ,

230 p.renti~s S. de Jesus

are often seen as somewhat weak. 41 Buchholz calls the Cretan and other examples "Cypriot," whereas Maddin and Muhly have suggested Ergani as a possible source of the metal used in their Gelidonya ingot. 42

Of bronze ox-hide ingots there is only one other example known. It is a full-sized ingot and is currently in the Metropolitan Museum 43 It was analyzed and shown to be 89.9% copper, 7.5% tin, along with 1.5% lead and 0.5% iron and aluminium, and 0.6% silica. Deshayes suggested that bronze was manufactured within proximity of the tin sources and made directly into ingots. 44 In the light of recently analyzed ingots this seems to be more the exception than the rule. Bass reported tha all the Cape Gelidonya ingots are copper, 45 but the analytical process employed unfortunately was ineffective in showing whether the ingots are of unalloyed copper or of bronze.46 The analyses suggest, in fact, that there is a strong trace of lead and, in some cases, tin. Maddin and Muhly's more precise analysis of an ingot fragment retrieved from the wreck before the excavation showed that tin is present on the order of 0.5 %, second only to the iron (10 % ). 47 This amount of tin is more than what would be expected from ordinary smelted copper. However, Maddin and Muhly have insisted on calling this ingot copper, or "unalloyed." But however one wishes to interpret it, it looks as though this particular ingot is a second-generation remelt. A closer look at the other Gelidonya ingots and those of the same type scattered throughout the Mediterranean may show that some of them are remelted scrap, and hence, they could contain tin in varying degrees and in addition to other impurities. This would account for the ambiguity or contradiction in various interpretations.

More recently, Wheeler, Maddin, and Muhly have published analyses of more ingots from the Eastern Mediterranean 48, no doubt in an effort to reach some conclusion about the ox-hide ingots. The almost-complete absence

41 Buchholz (supra n. 2), 202 contrasts with Catling (supra n. 2), 71. 42 Buchholz (supra n. 2), and Maddin and Muh1y (supra n. 2), 5-6. 43 G.M. Richter, Gl'eek, Etl'uscan and Roman Bronzes, N.Y. 1915, p. 456, n .. 1810;

C. Schaeffer, Enkomi-Alasia I, Paris 1952, p. 34, n. 1 and p. 357, pI. 4:3; H.G. Buchholz, PZ, 37, 1959, pp. 11 & 30, no. 8. Idem. (supra n. 2), 202 and 237, no. 81. However, a second and recent analysis of this same ingot announced by Muhly (supra n. 29) has indicated that it is copper, not bronze. As no explanation has yet been offered for the differences in these analyses this con tradition will be resolved only by a closer look at this artifact.

44 Deshayes (supra n. 20), 15. 45 G. Bass et at, Cape Gelidonya: A Bronze Age Shipwreck, Philadelphia 1967

(Trans. Amer. Phil. So. 57/8), p. 62. 46 Bass (supra n. 46), 169. Analyzed by M. Han. 47 Maddin and Muhly (supra n. 2), 3 and Table 1. 48 T.S. Wheeler, R. Maddin, and J . Muhly, Expedition, Summer 1975, pp. 31-39.

Report on the anaJyses of the «MalMrsk'

232 P,rentiss S. de Jesus

TAB'LE OF ANALYSES 1

eu 2 Sn traces 3 remarks

Makarska

a. Socketed spear butt 4 93.9 7.0 Fe

b. Socketed chisel 5 88.0 7.7 Fe

c. Short socketed chisel 6 88.3 13.1 Fe

d. Flat axe 7 92.4 1.8 Fe slightly more Fe than a, b &c

e. Bent shaft-hole axe 8 90.6 9.2

f. Ox-hide ingot 9 95.2 7.3 Fe

g. Hammer 10 97.5 9.2 Fe

h. Flat axe 11 99.7 2.9 Fe, Zn 12

i. Shaft-hole axe 13 95.0 8.2 Fe

1 The instrument used for analysis was a Geoscan X-Ray Analyzer. Readings were compared with geometallic standa1"ds. The results are in the neighborhood of ca. ± 5%. Analyses performed at The Royal School of Mines, London.

2 The values for copper and tin are only approximations and do not represent true percentages. Rather, they are values relative to each other. Hence, the sum of all the figures will not necessari,ly add up to 100, but for our purposes they are close enough to the real quantitative value. In samples from Alhambra and the Nicosia Museum the value of tin will be disproportionate, since corrosion products were analyzed and the copper has been leached out to a great degree, but the tin being less soluable, has remained behind. This is especially true of the samples from the Nicosia Museum. The axe from Tamassos was analyzed by another laboratory, cf. infra n. 18.

3 Only elements found are indicated. The elements looked for in this series (a-I) were: eu, Sn, Pb, As, Bi, Mn, Co, Fe, Ag, Au, Zn, and Ni. Traces detected were less than 0.01 %.

4 Makarska, pp. 208, 215 and fig. 6. 5 Ibid., 207, fig. 5 (left). 6 Ibid., 207-8, fig. 5 (right). 7 Ibid., 207, fig. 4 (right). 8 Ibid., 205-7, fig. 3. 9 Ibid., 210-211, fig. 7. 10 Ibid., 211-213, fig. 8. 11 Ibid., 207, fig. 4 (left). 12 Much. less than Fe. 13 Makarska, 204-7, fig. 1.

"

Report on the analyses of the «Maklairska» tools 233

eu Sn traces remarks Alhambra 14 (pIs. I; II, 1)

j. Shaft-hole axe 15 i) 85.7 10.9 Green, soft, porous surface

ii) 85.1 11.5 ibid.

Ntcosia Museum

k. Shaft-hole axe 16 (pI. II, 2) 11.2 30.9 Sample very corroded 1. Shaft-hole axe 17 (pI. II, 3) 46.1 17.9 ibid.

T amassos-Chomazoudhia 18

m. Shaft-hole axe major 10.2 element

14 L. Palma di Cesnola, Cyprus, New York 1878, p. 93, pI. 5. Metropolitan Museum No. 74.51.5389.

15 Two analyses were made of this axe. 16 BCH XCIU (1969), p. 494, fig. 127. Nicosia Museum. Unknown Provenience. 17 BCH LXXXV (1961), p. 270, fig. 22. Nicosia Museum No. LN 5612. From Lar-

naca (?). 18 Analyzed by J. Weeren. Cf. Buchholz, BJV (1967), p. 252, no. 408 and note 329.