Does the Bronze Age “have” to happen?

So, apparently we have carbon steel fragments (likely for jewelry) dating from circa 1800 BC from Kaman-Kalehöyük in Turkey, which means that the people DID in fact have the capacity to work iron at the time. The question is therefore not as much about being able to (we know that they were, at least in some places), but applying this smelting capability to tools and weapons instead of decorative items. Is it possible that the use of bronze was just so institutionalized by this time that groundbreaking advances in metallurgy would have threatened a cultural elite?
I think it more likely that their ability to smelt iron was undeveloped enough that while they could smelt small pieces as decorative curiosities, they could not smelt the larger pieces needed to make tools, weapons, or armor, possibly either practically or economically.

Consider, for instance, Albidoom's comment about aluminum. It was possible, but expensive and difficult, to smelt aluminum until the invention of the Hall-Héroult process. For this reason, the main uses of aluminum until then were in decorative applications, much like the iron you mention being used in jewelry. Of course, we know now that it has many other applications besides, but it would be useless to ask whether it was possible for the people of, say, 1850 to "apply their smelting capacity to tools and weapons," because their smelting capabilities weren't able to produce sufficient quantities at a sufficiently low price for that kind of application. The same was probably true of whoever made the jewelry you mention with regards to iron.

(Not to mention, as Analytical Engine did, that bronzes are better than early irons in a lot of applications...the latter is just cheaper if you have a developed smelting capability)
 
What places benefit though?
Difficult to say because in the Iron Age, having easily accessibl surface iron (like Northern Germany) or abundant ore mines (like Thrace, Lorraine or Southern Westphalia) didn't really equate to being powerful in any way comparable to the Bronze Age situation.
 
One of the ideas behind the Bronze Age Collapse is that tin only has a few sources and is easily controlled, leading to the creation of the large centralized states of the period. The widespread working of iron meant their tin monopolies were largely irrelevant leading to a fracturing of their power base, and as a result local and regional powers broke off. It seems plausible to me that skipping straight to iron means we don't see the great empires of the Bronze Age and more smaller regional powers.
 
If sourcing, & hot-burning fuel, are an issue, might Britain actually be better off than other places? AIUI, it was co-location of iron & coal that helped power the Industrial REvolution...

The hot-burning fire problem might be cured by superior bellows, a double-acting variety, like the Chinese used, but AFAIK, Europeans never did: it keeps the fire hotter, & more easily.
 
If sourcing, & hot-burning fuel, are an issue, might Britain actually be better off than other places? AIUI, it was co-location of iron & coal that helped power the Industrial REvolution...

The hot-burning fire problem might be cured by superior bellows, a double-acting variety, like the Chinese used, but AFAIK, Europeans never did: it keeps the fire hotter, & more easily.

In that period most of Europe was heavily forested so fuel isn't very much a concern. There will be plenty of trees for making charcoal. If I remember correctly Europe as a whole didn't really have a lasting shortage of lumber/charcoal until the 17th and 18th centuries. Even with the earlier adoption of iron I don't think we'll see much coal use for many centuries.
 
In that period most of Europe was heavily forested so fuel isn't very much a concern. There will be plenty of trees for making charcoal. If I remember correctly Europe as a whole didn't really have a lasting shortage of lumber/charcoal until the 17th and 18th centuries. Even with the earlier adoption of iron I don't think we'll see much coal use for many centuries.

Some countries became deforested more quickly than others, though.

Also, coal was mined in Britain for a long, long time, from exposed seams, even before the iron age. Deforestation didn't seem to be a factor - if coal was accessible, then it was mined.

EDIT: Having looked into this further, coal mining has been done all over the place, for thousands of years. Even the Aztecs were mining for it.
 
Last edited:
In that period most of Europe was heavily forested so fuel isn't very much a concern. There will be plenty of trees for making charcoal. If I remember correctly Europe as a whole didn't really have a lasting shortage of lumber/charcoal until the 17th and 18th centuries. Even with the earlier adoption of iron I don't think we'll see much coal use for many centuries.
No, that's true enough. Just a thought...
 
Top