A mold for a copper spear head.
Very early copper working may have been done by just one or two people. But it quickly becomes evident that superior items can be produced at a faster rate by several people working in sequence. You need someone to dig the ore, someone to smelt it, a master maker to carve or mold the master, someone to make the molds, someone to cast and pour the metal. You will also need someone to gather the wood for the fire. The culture was much different then. You couldn't call up and order coal, or turn on the electric furnace. In short, this was a cooperative venture involving a large number of people, and remained that way even until modern times. The casual solo blacksmith who took iron ore and forged a blade, ground it to shape, filed, sharpened and polished, then made a hilt, balanced it, and also made a scabbard, is so much romantic nonsense. Oh, I wouldn't say that it never happened; it is quite possible that a few tried it that way. Certainly legends tell of this happening, and always a very special sword is produced. But there were romantics back then, too, and since the sword was venerated in most societies, special blades were even more desired and sought after. But it really didn't work. Today you have some superb sword and knife makers who do each part of the whole process, but today's swords are art items, and not utility pieces. But I digress; we are still talking about copper and bronze.
Knives, axes, spears and clubs can all be made from copper. And all can be capable weapons, just not good ones. But the same is not true of swords. Copper simply does not have the strength to support a long blade. However, with the addition of about ten percent tin to the mixture, it becomes a very tough material, of surprising strength and durability.
Bronze weapons soon began to dominate the battlefields of the world. The spread of bronze is the cause of much speculation, and is likely to remain more speculation than fact. Was it because of trade, war, or simply spontaneous development in many different places? We simply do not know how the knowledge of bronze working was spread. What we do know is that there was a surprising amount of trade between the Mediterranean and England and Ireland and even China at that time.
THE BRONZE AGE
The invention of bronze was a significant event in the history of man. With bronze, man was at last able to develop a tool that was pure weapon: the sword! Compared to flint, obsidian and copper, bronze was really a magical material. Bronze is hard enough to take a sharp edge, and yet not become brittle, and it was quickly made into that familiar shape we call a sword.
Reproduction bronze dagger. HRC175.
It would be interesting to create a neat chart of the development of the sword, but while a great deal is known, not enough is known to be able to state that bronze was developed in a specific area, and spread in such a way. It appears to be an invention that occurred within a few hundred years around 2000 BC in the Middle East as well as China.
As far as I have been able to determine, there does not seem to be a "national" or "ethnic" grouping to these swords. One is as likely to show up in Turkey as in Ireland. Let me also add that I have handled many more steel weapons than bronze ones, and I am aware that my knowledge of bronze weapons is limited.
Bronze spread throughout the Middle East, and then into Europe. Mercantile trading must have been quite an adventure back then, taking bronze tools and weapons into Europe to trade for amber and raw materials. The traders who followed the rivers into Northern Europe were probably a tough, hardy lot, and well able to defend their wares. The dangers of sea and forest were not undertaken lightly four thousand years ago.
The merchants traveled the Mediterranean to Iberia, maybe into the vast Atlantic and the frozen seas to the north, England, or the Scandinavian countries. All with storm and shipwreck and pirates a constant threat, and not even knowing how they would be received when they got there. Or maybe they took the land route through what we call the Balkans into what is now Germany, trading ingots of bronze or even weapons for tin and amber and furs. They faced unknown tribes, and could never be sure if they were saying the right thing or insulting the chief beyond all recall.
Could you trade with this new tribe, or would they attack and try to take your goods? You would never know until the transaction was finished. Wild lands, wild animals, and even wilder men: facing these required toughness, cunning and determination. One thing is for certain. It could not have been a dull life.
Not only were items made of bronze spread throughout Europe, but the knowledge of how these items were made was also disseminated. Soon there were bronze manufacturing centers all through Europe. This spread of information and goods was not done overnight. Indeed, it took several hundred years at least. For many years stone and bronze existed side by side. As mentioned earlier, there are several examples of stone daggers that are copies of bronze daggers, and flint swords as well. This is both pathetic and heroic.
MANUFACTURING IN BRONZE
Just like manufacturing in copper, manufacturing in bronze is not a simple procedure and requires more than one or two men. It also requires the extra step of alloying the tin and the copper. A bronze sword must be cast. It cannot be forged like iron. In order to make a sword, one must have the required amount of bronze, a good furnace in which to melt it, and molds in which to pour it. First a pattern must be made. This was probably done in wood, although I do not know of extant archeological remnants that would verify this. After the pattern was completed, a mold was made. This was done in clay, with a coarse clay on the bottom, and a much finer clay on the top. The pattern was then impressed into the clay and another mold for the top was made. After the molds were completed, they were then baked until it was dry and hard. (Dry was very important: molten bronze poured on water could have an interesting effect on those standing around.[1] ) Gates were provided so that gasses could escape, and the sword was cast.
After the sword cooled, the mold was broken and the sword taken out and finished. The blade edges were hammered thoroughly. The hammering was very necessary, as this work added about twenty percent to the hardness of the edge. The sword was then polished and decorated.
Without a doubt the manufacturing process was quickly streamlined. We can see this from the recent excavations in Jordan. This was not a small operation, as it had sections devoted to certain tasks. This is practical and economical. There is a tendency today to think that our ancestors were not nearly as bright as we are. This is nonsense. They did not have the amount of knowledge available that we do, but for sheer IQ and ingenuity they were easily our equals.
In the manufacture of items with a specific usage, you are limited by the material being used. All swords can be broken down into swords used for cutting, for thrusting, and for both cutting and thrusting. You can't make a practical sword out of rock, bone, wood or glass. Rock and bone are too brittle, wood too dull and glass too fragile. Bronze, on the other hand, can make a pretty decent sword. It is easily seen that a sword designed for a single purpose will do that one thing better than one that attempts to do both. Bronze Age weapons are no exception to this rule.
Weight can be a problem, and bronze is almost one-third heavier than iron. While bronze is heavy, it is also attractive. Many Bronze Age swords are as elegantly beautiful in shape and design as anything ever produced in steel. They have the additional advantage that the metal itself, when properly polished, is strikingly beautiful.
In today's world we are used to brass, a copper-zinc alloy, and encounter bronze only rarely, and never in swords. This can easily lead to a misunderstanding of the bronze swords in their design and use. Because bronze is heavier than iron, and because it is also softer, it requires more metal to give it strength, and this makes it even heavier. This leads to a certain similarity in the forms of all bronze swords, even from widely separated areas. It seems likely that this was due to several things: dispersion of both knowledge of manufacture and the weapons themselves, plus the fact that the designs are quite effective.
A shotel is usually sharpened on the inside, but many are sharpened on both edge
s.
There is one exception to this statement: early Egyptian and Assyrian swords are quite different, but both show a mutual influence. There are many illustrations of Egyptian swords, and one or two originals, that show swords that are a long triangle in shape, and are cut and thrust weapons. These are, in both form and function, almost identical to many swords shown on Assyrian bas-reliefs. But one Egyptian sword, the kopesh, is believed to be the ancestor of the Greek kopis, and subsequently the falcata and then the kukri. Now, the kopesh is sickle-shaped, but in the few that I have seen, the edge is on the outside of the curve in some of the swords, and on the inside in others. (On the kukri and falcata, the edge is always on the inside, and the lineage attributing the kopesh as their ancestor may simply be apocryphal.) When the edge is on the outside of the curve, it bears a great deal of resemblance to some Assyrian and Sumerian swords that have been excavated. In Abyssinia a sword that was in use until quite recently is the shotel. This is a highly curved sword that is usually sharpened on the inside, but many, including one in my possession, are sharpened on both edges. Although we cannot know for sure, it seems reasonable to assume that it is a descendent of the kopesh.
There has not been an in-depth study of Chinese bronze weapons. I feel that this has been due to political climates and proximity rather than a lack of interest. The few Chinese weapons that I have been able to see, both in photographs and in person, are quite attractive, well made, yet with a definite touch of the exotic about them. I would dearly love to see a good study made of all of them, and not just the sword.
THE SHAPE OF THE BRONZE SWORD
Bronze Age swords did show some variation because they varied in their use. There were cut-and-thrust swords, short cut-and-thrust weapons, rapiers, and long slashing weapons. But due to the limitations of the material the weapons were heavier, thicker, and slower than comparable ones made of iron. Nevertheless, they were still effective enough to kill people.
The classic Bronze Age rapier is found from Ireland to Greece and from Denmark to Italy. We do know that there were extensive trading networks linking Europe with the Middle East, so it is impossible to tell from whence the sword originated. However, we also know that many were made in separate locations such as Ireland and Crete, as we have archeological evidence of this. There is a sword found in Lissane, Ireland, dated between 1500–1000 BC, that is almost completely identical to a Cretan rapier of a slightly earlier date. It is not only the rapiers that are similar, but the cutting swords as well. From the accompanying drawings you can see the great similarities of these swords, although they come from different parts of the world.
The Lissane (left) and Cretan (right)
blades are surprisingly similar.
Most of these weapons were rather long, with blades of more than thirty inches. All of the thrusting swords have thick and rigid blades. The thickness gives them great power in a thrust. It is doubtful that they were used in what we would consider "fencing"; the sword is simply too heavy. Although a blow from one of these might be as severe as a blow from a mace or club, undoubtedly the blade would bend. But I do believe that a style of fighting did evolve around this type of sword. I have no proof of this, just a strong hunch. Possibly they were used with the right hand on the grip, and the left hand on the blade, such as you might use a short spear. Certainly the thickness and the weight of the sword would give them enough power to penetrate most armor of the period.
It is generally believed that these weapons were the first true swords, and that they developed from the knife. There is a lot of evidence in support of this. There are many bronze knives that have been sharpened to such an extent that they no longer resemble knives, but rather stilettos. It does not take much imagination to see a bronze knife maker looking at one of these, and thinking about making a longer knife. Since these are weapons, it is obvious that a much longer blade would be better in combat than a short one. To strengthen the case even more, grips are attached in such a way as to make it impossible to use the sword in any cutting actions. Some of the early rapiers have the handles fixed by a rather odd method. The grip is a separate piece, and is fastened to the sword blades by rivets. The butt of the sword blade is curved, and the handle riveted over it. This grip is weak, and this is why I began to wonder if they may not have been used with two hands. The grip attachment is so weak that if a thrust was made and hit slightly off center, it could cause the grip to break. Again, pure speculation on my part, with no evidence except my own playing around to support it.
A riveted grip is weak and better suited for thrusting.
While this kind of riveted handle is not very strong, as long as the user's force is directed forward in a thrust, it is sufficient. The moment you tried to cut with it, though, or should the blade be struck hard from the side, the rivets would start popping and the blade come loose and fall off. This leaves one with only the grip. Not only is this disconcerting and dangerous, it also plays holy hell with the Heroic Image that we warriors like to cultivate.
The majority of the extant swords with this construction show damage, and are oft times missing their grips. As a result, this particular method of attaching the hilt was discarded, and two other methods were used, both of which worked very well. One was to draw the blade out into a tang, and attach the grip to this. This method was a forerunner of the way sword grips were attached in the Middle Ages, and how most modern functional reproductions are produced. Although superior to the first method, it was still not as optimal as it could be. While this method works very well in steel, bronze is not strong enough and it often broke. Again, I'm sure this was rather disconcerting to the warrior in the middle of a vicious fight. I can imagine what it would be like to land a blow, swing your sword aloft for a killing strike, only to have the blade fly away from you like someone who owes you money!
Bronze sword with leaf-shaped blade, 950 BC.
Cutting swords appear to have arrived slightly later than the rapier, but again, this is something that we can only speculate about. Certainly the cutting swords have a much stronger grip. With the development of the improved grip, we now encounter what we can call the typical Bronze Age sword. This is a leaf shaped blade with a narrow waist, swelling to a very effective cutting section, and then tapering to a deadly point. This is one of the most beautiful of shapes, and is also quite effective. This blade shape shows up in many places, even as far away as Africa, and two thousand years later. Most of the cutting and cut-and-thrust swords have grips that are cast integral with the blade. This is much stronger, as the grip is part of the sword. Of course this also adds weight, and the weight may be the reason that two other methods were tried. One method was the tang construction that was later so successful with steel swords.
Bronze sword, 400 BC, 23 inches long.
The other method was much more successful in bronze weapons. In this the grip is made with two extended flanges. Then a piece of material is inserted between them, and the flanges folded over. The material could be plain wood or ivory or any decorative material. These grips follow a timeline. Once the grip was cast integral with the blade, they never went back. But flanged and solid bronze grips coexisted until the bronze sword was replaced by the steel ones.
Reproduction steel leaf-shaped blade. HRC198.
The cross sections of bronze swords do not vary as much as those later ones made of steel. Indeed, on many of these bronze swords it is difficult to tell what the original shape actually was. A sword could have been quite broad, and yet over years of use be transformed into a much more narrow sword, with much thicker cutting edges. There are swords whose edges are so thick as make you wonder if they were really maces. However, a closer inspection leads one to think that they are swords that saw a great deal of use, and whose edges have simply been worn away. Some blades were made with a well defined central ridge that strengthened the blade. Others had thick diamond cross sections, and still others had thick center sections, and wide flat blades.
A mid-rib cross-
section provided the strength needed for cutting blows.
The most common form of cross section is that of a raised center section, almost a mid rib, with the blade sloping down to the edges. This provided the strength needed for cutting blows. It appears that some swords were made with blades that are thick on the edge, while some have much thinner blades and thin, very sharp edges. It is difficult to tell how much of this is intentional, and how much is due to use, corrosion, and sharpening. Certainly many of them do show file marks. I believe that some swords were made with a thicker edge simply to enable them to cut through some of the armor worn, and I also believe that there are others that were made with thin, flat edges. It should always be remembered that the swords, even mass-produced, were still individual items. A Bronze Age warrior might easily grind and file his sword into a shape that he preferred. (Steel swords would always show a greater variety in shape, since they were individually forged, and bronze weapons were cast). There are a few bronze swords that are flat and would be capable of delivering a terrific cut. How well they would hold up is the question. I do not know of any research along these lines for Bronze Age swords. A larger number of these swords have the flattened diamond cross section of many medieval swords.
Hank Reinhardt's The Book of the Sword Page 2