Oldest Known European Metal Tool ? The Start of it all

[Silver Shield]

This small copper hand axe highly corroded, hammered from one large piece of natural occurring copper , much older than say the "ICE MANS" copper axe which dates around 3300 BCE. This axe is a very good candidate as being the" Oldest Known European Metal Tool" Certainly at or before 5500 BCE , from Bulgaria . It fits in the hand just as a Stone Hand Axe with swollen central body, hammered not cast , hammer hardened cutting edge . The oldest reconized published metal tool dates about 5500 BCE , from the Vinca Culture from Plocnick, Serbia
This tool which dates from the initial period of metal use for tools, and weapons , the starting point of all these wonderful metal weapons and Armour ect !

Copper Hand Axe Circa 5500 BCE
Materia: Natural Occurring Copper Nugget or Mass
Weight 238 Grams
Length 13.5 cm
width at widest 1.5cm

[Roland_M]

Originally Posted by Silver Shield

It fits in the hand just as a Stone Hand Axe with swollen central body, hammered not cast , hammer hardened cutting edge .

Hello,

interesting example. It was definitely casted before cold hammering, because modern researchers found copper slag in Serbia from 6th millenium B.C..
I added an example of raw copper. I think one cannot forge an axe or chisel directly from raw material, except from copper nuggets but they are quite small.
The manufacturing of copper started around 7500 B.C. in Mesopotamia.

I'm not sure, if we see a chisel or an axe.


Regards,
Roland

[Silver Shield]

I have not read a paper of casting this early ? do you know the author? and Paper? I have look at the open surfaces and seen no micro-porosity under magnification on any exposed surfaces as would be expected in melted or " cast" and the And since I'm not as well versed as I'd like , and slightly dull of mind , I would make a few comments . First slag does not necessarily mean casting but certainly would indicate melting . Second have moulds or patterns been found ? This piece as my comments indicated is heavily corroded , its not flaws in a " Casting " and the Northwestern Indians for one made even large Knifes and such where made from copper masses by hammering . Also this Object is centrally swollen and the distal end has no evidence of percussion on its surviving surfaces nor on the faces around it , the swelling alone would not make sense as a " Chisel" but would and it does as a hand axe. As far as dates we constantly back date as we see how these late stone age humans where amazingly complicated in their technologies .I mainly put this piece on as a curiosity, so members can think back to the beginnings of these wonderful weapons and pieces of armour .

[Roland_M]

Originally Posted by Silver Shield

I have not read a paper of casting this early ? do you know the author? and Paper? I have look at the open surfaces and seen no micro-porosity under magnification on any exposed surfaces as would be expected in melted or " cast" and the And since I'm not as well versed as I'd like , and slightly dull of mind , I would make a few comments . First slag does not necessarily mean casting but certainly would indicate melting . Second have moulds or patterns been found ? This piece as my comments indicated is heavily corroded , its not flaws in a " Casting " and the Northwestern Indians for one made even large Knifes and such where made from copper masses by hammering.

I made a little research and I found out that the biggest copper nuggets have a weight of more than 2 kg or 65 oz. This is big enough to forge a tool without melting.
I think it was melted because they had no tools to forge metal.
I believe, this tools were casted (like the axe of Ötzi) and grinded on a stone.
The corrosion means not much, maybe it got lost in an acid environment.

Here are some sources: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chalcolithic

and probably useless for you but much more informative: https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kupfersteinzeit

[Silver Shield]

This thread was started for discourse about origins or weapons ect, and it is good to have discussion of facts and beliefs in a friendly manner . I'm not stating that this axe " Is the Oldest" but it represents the early starting technologies of metal use , and your input of information is good and welcome .Well, as most students of Archeology and Paleoanthropology understand and make allowances for , there is constant changes in ideas and understanding of our past with new information . As far as date .. 7,500 years equals 5,500 BCE( Before the Common Era) BCE used to be call BC but now its consider Politically Incorrect to use "Before Christ". Copper occurs in very Large masses , the largest know mass , was found in 1857 in the US State of Michigan weighing 420 tonnes .As far as casting verses just hammered into shape , maybe I did not include enough information as I did not want to make long and boring thread. The object shows distinct directional layering in its decomposition as would be expected in hammering vs casting , and has" inclusions" that is naturally occurring foreign matter in its composition , and does not have the somewhat characteristic gas bubbles, micro porosity nor rounded pits of casting . The pits that do exist are irregular in their structure and form . I have dug a lot of metal in excavations , and I disagree that the patina is not indicative of its age vs a acidic environment , natural copper is amazingly pure vs other naturally occurring metal masses and its decomposition would usually be a little more uniform in most environments . I have studied a lot of copper dug in the same region too . And the Objects of the period I am suggesting from know sites. I have been as a guest of several foreign governments for Archaeological related reasons , have had easy access to the collections not on display and objects from the same areas usually have a certain look . On hammering , give me a good copper mass, a heat source as in a fires coals and some good hard stone , such as Quartzsite and I guarantee you in a hour or two I could reproduce this Object . Stone as a tool is highly underrated by those who have not used it :-) This is all friendly and I'm not a expert in anything but a student . plus I cannot write nor spell .

Michael P.
Former president and founder of the Central AZ Chapter of the Archeological Institute of America

[David]

Originally Posted by Silver Shield

Michael P.
Former president and founder of the Central AZ Chapter of the American Institute of Archeology

Michael, it's nice to know that we have a former representative from such a prestigious organization, but i am having some trouble locating any informational reference to the American Institute of Archeology on the internet.
I can find the Archaeological Institute of America, the Society for American Archaeology, the Society for Archaeological Sciences, the Society for Historical Archaeology, etc., but no website for your organization. I do find it sometimes listed in resumés here and there so obviously it exists in some capacity. Is it a defunct organization? If not, is there a website we can visit that can explain the work this organization has done?

[Silver Shield]

Here is Site for the Archaeological Institute of America, the oldest and a well respected Society in the USA . Most professional archaeologists and hordes of those interested , amateur archaeologists and mentally deranged are members . They support work and publish some studies and put out the magazine " Archaeology". In the meetings once a month they bring in Well respected and important Academics from around the US and world ,even such people as Salema Ickrum , of the Egyptian Museum . Some of my house guests at the time where just plain , Cool. The only complaint I ever had was one middle aged Archaeologist who did not like getting in and out of the Corvette I was driving at the time . The Chapter I formed was based at Arizona State University, which has a very respected Archaeological department . I was not a ASU staff member , but have always been a independent professional in related fields .


https://www.archaeological.org/

[Silver Shield]

I never get title right its been awhile and I am old .. LOL also a couple pictures of a more solid nature , naturally occurring , Copper can be found in very large masses and does not always have such a spidery shape or such obvious attachments of inclusions as shown in a previous post . One nugget in these pictures weighs 44g. Easy to work with it actually.

[David]

Originally Posted by Silver Shield

Here is Site for the Archaeological Institute of America, the oldest and a well respected Society in the USA .
https://www.archaeological.org/

Thanks. I couldn't find it because to used the wrong spelling in your original post, an acceptable, though lesser used version of the word "archaeology" that drops the second "a".

[Silver Shield]

David ,
Thank you for your comments sir, and interest . Yes I am a archaic and cannot spell nor write ,otherwise I would have most likely been in a different field .I'm just a stylistic analyzer in life . LOL

[ChrisPer]

Interesting discussion, thank you.
Has the object been subjected to spark spectroscopic analysis? I would expect native copper to have a clear compositional signature.

[Silver Shield]

ChrisPer thank you for your question , that's a good one . I never had a doubt about composition , as I have seen other items including bronze and brass in similar states of decay and have always found that the migration of copper and its salts in these alloys even if strongly present on the surface always is very thin in its depth. So usually with just a scratch test you get through it and you get the yellow metal alloy color if your test the object. Now I never said it was not heated or partially melted but melting (Cu 1085 C ) leaves slag which gets smooth surfaces being composed of associated minerals attached or inclusionally in the mass . If encapsulated it leaves cavities with rounded or smooth surfaces in the cavities ,until distorted by percussion ect. . The voids and cavities in this object have sharp angular profiles , generally. Now copper as found in nature is always pure while such metals as Gold and Silver always have at least trace amounts of each other as found in natural occurring mass .That's why the first coins where Electrum .
The object has no value , it has no provenance other than" found around there" . The deep patina is from a marine environment , it was found in the Black Sea area of Bulgaria . I scratch tested it , its copper . It is only a curiosity ,and is only a representative piece with the properties expected of the 1st metal tools , but its form makes no sense other than used as a hand held tool ie a "Hand Axe" , at least that after years of thought and input have suggested . From field work over many decades, my experience , well my rather percussion damaged mind , says it copper . But as I know, I could always be wrong as it is the Human Condition.

[ChrisPer]

Very interesting, thank you Silver Shield.

[JamesKelly]

With respect to chemical analysis, the word "spark" gives me the shivers.

There is a process, known as X-ray fluorescent analysis which may be applied with absolutely no marking of the metal. I am retired Director of Technology from a specialty metal supplier, Rolled Alloys. They have a wonderful device in the lab, at least the one I used was called: Innov-X Systems Model #XT-245S spectrometer. I was able to test the brass/bronze on a number of 19th century firearms, and the odd old coin with this device. Somewhere at the U of Az someone must have a similar machine.

If you do not already know this, NEVER leave your artifact with a lab technician to analyze.

You must have your personal body present at all times. Otherwise he may well cut it up or melt it to give you an even Better analyses. Learnt this at first job, Black & Decker. A salesman for B&D collected Civil War items, and came in with a short artillery sword, might even have been Confederate. Wanted us metallurgists to take a look at it. My boss had a wonderful sense of humor, he planned to cut the blade in half, then mount & polish as specimen for metallography. We were able to talk him out of this approach, therefore avoiding potential homicide.

Lab guys have absolutely NO sense of humor, nor can they appreciate ancient things. This can hold true for archaeology students as well, in my experience. Well, I did see only one such student cheerfully chopping up early bronze age axes for metallographic examination. She told me they had plenty of them.

Anyway, X-ray fluoroscopy is the way to go, just make sure you are present. Lest they polish or grind some area to get a Better reading.

[Rick]

Do you fellows have any thoughts on this?
http://www.express.co.uk/news/scienc...-alien-ancient

[Roland_M]

Originally Posted by Rick

Do you fellows have any thoughts on this?
http://www.express.co.uk/news/scienc...-alien-ancient

"Some scientists have disputed the age, claiming that it could be anywhere between 400-years old and 80,000-years old"


My first question would be, how did they found out the age of the piece? Is it just an assumption or measured with technical methods like Radiocarbon dating?

I believe this piece is pretty young and was used under very aggressive environemt conditions. Maybe in the area of a blast furnace or in a chemical plant.

Nothing esoteric, no Aliens. Raw Aluminium is too soft for a fast ufo and have a melting point of only 660°C.

If it would be Alien-material, it must be a composite material. Raw Aluminium is not the best choice for an air-vehicle.


Roland

PS: Oh and the tool is 100% no cold hammered natural occuring copper, it was melted and casted.

[JamesKelly]

With all possible respect, I am considering placing some portions of that story about the old aluminum thing about Wife's roses next spring. I understand it is also good for rhubarb.