PREHISTORIC COPPER TOOLS FROM

THE TERRITORY OF SERBIA

D. Antonović #

Institute of Archaeology, Belgrade, Serbia

(Received 11 December 2008; accepted 10 February 2009)

Abstract

Around four hundreds prehistoric copper tools and weapons have been recorded in the territory of Serbiaso far. They had been in use for a rather long period of time – from the end of the early phase of the Vinčaculture until the Middle Bronze Age and some types of these objects even until the very beginning of the IronAge. The copper alloyed with small quantities of arsenic, lead and tin started to appear already by the end ofthe Eneolithic indicating the attempts of prehistoric metallurgist to improve technical characteristics of thecopper. On the copper tools from the territory of Serbia could be followed the evolution of shapes starting fromthe specimens, which completely imitated stone tools and which appeared in the beginning of the EarlyEneolithic to the completely developed Bronze Age shapes, which confirm that prehistoric metallurgist entirelyunderstood and accepted the advantages offered by metalworking. The analyses of metal composition havebeen performed on around 50% of prehistoric copper tools. Nevertheless, in spite of all relatively numerousanalyses there is still no answer to the question concerning the primitive technology of copper ore processingand the metallurgical process of obtaining copper for the production of copper and sometime later the bronzeartifacts.

Keywords: Copper tools; Eneolithic; Bronze Age; Serbia

#Corresponding author: d.antonovic@ai.sanu.ac.rs

DOI:10.2298/JMMB0902165A

J o u r n a l o f

M i n i n g a n d

M e t a l l u r g y

Journal of Mining and Metallurgy 45 (2) B (2009) 165 - 174

1. Introduction

Around four hundreds prehistoric coppertools and weapons have been recorded in theterritory of Serbia so far. There are alsodecorative objects encountered in aconsiderably smaller quantity but stillrelatively abundant although they are not the

topic of this work. The largest quantity ofcopper jewelry comes from the necropolis inMokrin near Kikinda dated in the EarlyBronze Age. Large number of diversejewelry pieces – from simple hoops withsingle coil through necklaces, finger rings,torques to complex multipartite diadems hasbeen found in 312 burials [1]. The copper

tools and weapons had been in use duringrather long period of time – from the end ofthe early phase of the Vinča culture (end ofVinča-Tordoš phase and Gradac phase) to theMiddle Bronze Age. In fact, certain types ofweapons like double axes and axes withsingle cutting edge of Montenegro-Albaniantype continued until the beginning of the IronAge.

The beginnings of metallurgy in theterritory of Serbia are closely connected withthe rich ore deposits in our country. Theterritory of the central Balkans was naturallypredestined for very early emergence ofmetallurgy. The rich ore deposits, whichwere at many places close to the surfaceground almost until the modern times andtherefore easily available, must have beendiscovered very early by the Neolithicagricultural population.

There are three main groups of copper oredistinguishable in Serbia: 1. sulphide ores,most widely distributed, that occur in theform of chalcopyrite, chalcocite, covellite,etc; 2.oxide-carbonate ores including mostlycuprite, malachite and azurite and whichappear in the zones of oxidation of thesulphide copper ores and mostly near thesurface; 3. native copper, which is todayexceptionally rare in the sulphide and oxide-carbonate ores and which was most probablyexhausted already in the prehistoric periodbecause of the intensive demand for such orein the earliest copper metallurgy [2]. Thecopper ore is distributed in our country in 3metallogenetic zones: 1. Carpatho-Balkanicprovince in Eastern Serbia, 2. Serbian-Macedonian and 3. Dinaric province. (Fig.1).The richest is the first one, the Carpatho-Balkanic province where are today thelargest copper mines in this part of the worldbut where has also been discovered the

earliest copper mine in Europe – RudnaGlava. Considering the quantity anddistribution of the prehistoric copper artifactsit is absolutely certain that ore exploitationduring prehistory was equally intensive alsoin the Serbian-Macedonian and Dinaricprovince.

2. Beginnings of prehistoric metallurgy

The copper metallurgy in Serbiadeveloped in few phases.

1. Pre-metallurgical phase (6300 – 5000BC). First phase is actually pre-metallurgicalbut very important for the first acquaintance

D. Antonović / JMM 45 (2) B (2009) 165 - 174166

Fig. 1. Prehistoric copper finds and copper-oredeposits in Serbia: A.Carpatho-Balkanicprovince in Eastern Serbia, B. Serbian-Macedonian province and C. Dinaric province[2]

with the metal so it certainly should be takeninto account in the archeometallurgicalstudies. It lasted from the beginning of theEarly Neolithic continuing during the entireVinča culture, i.e. throughout the LateNeolithic and the Early Eneolithic periods.In fact, only the appearance of malachiteduring the Early Neolithic and at thebeginning of the Vinča culture could beidentified as pre-metallurgical while thefinds of malachite in the later periods couldbe related to the copper ore processing. Thefirst encounter with the basic raw material inprimitive metallurgy, the malachite, isdemonstrated in the production of pendantsand the use of malachite is related first of allto the affinity for the green-color stones ofthe bearers of the Early Neolithic cultures inthe southeast Europe [3].

2. Production of massive copper tools andweapons (5000 – 4500 BC) of primitiveappearance and having models in the stonetools followed immediately after the‘malachite’ phase. It lasted from the end ofthe Early to the beginning of the Late Vinčaculture (end of Vinča-Tordoš II – VinčaPločnik I). It is interesting that before thisphase and after the ‘malachite’ phase has notbeen identified the phase of production ofsmall decorative copper artifacts as it is thecase in Bulgaria [4]. It is hard to believe thatthis phase as logical continuation after theacquaintance with malachite as basic ore inthe earliest copper metallurgy did not exist inthe evolution of the early metallurgy in thisarea. It is possible that this type of findsbecause of their fragility and oversensitivityto the acid soil, which is frequent at our sites,did not survive in the Late Neolithic/EarlyEneolithic layers in the territory of Serbia.

3. Degradation in copper productionduring the Vinča culture period (4500 – 4200

BC). It is evident in production of smalldecorative objects while production ofmassive tools known in the preceding phasedied out completely. During this phase smalldecorative copper objects of simple shape(hoops, bracelets, wire) have been foundvery rarely on the Late Vinča sites along withthe increased quantity of malachite, whichwas found mostly in the form of lumps [5].This phase is partially parallel with the nextone - phase 4.

4. The ‘mass’ production of copper toolsand weapons from the end of the EarlyEneolithic (after 4000 BC). The largestnumber of the mentioned 400 pieces ofcopper tools could be attributed to this phaseof evolution of the primitive metallurgy inthe territory of Serbia. This group includesall axe-adzes, adzes, awls and hammer-axes.It is probable that mentioned tools originatefrom these areas but it is also possible thatthey were imported from the neighboringregions.

3. Development of prehistoric copper

tools

The earliest copper tools from ourterritory, these dating from the period of theMiddle Vinča culture clearly show that theywere made using stone tools as models. Theearliest adzes and wedges imitate entirelytheir stone models even retaining thesemicircular cross-section, which ischaracteristic of the stone tools andcompletely unusual for the metalimplements. The tools are massive andunnecessarily thick because the experienceacquired in production of stone toolssuggested that greater thickness reduces thepossibility of breaking. This causalcorrelation, however, was no more valid for

D. Antonović / JMM 45 (2) B (2009) 165 - 174 167

the metal tools. The surface of somespecimens is coarse indicating still imperfectcasting technique but also the possibility thatthe tool was finally trimmed by grinding as itwas the case with stone tools [6].

The hammer-axes of the Pločnik type(Fig. 2) also represent the earliest coppertools from this area. It is not certain whetherthese objects imitated stone models as thiskind of tools was not recorded before theirappearance or the process was just the

opposite, i.e. that stone tools imitated metalmodels what is more probable. The Pločnikhammer-axes represent the original productof these areas and the earliest appearance ofthe massive copper tools in Europe. Thisshape existed during rather short period oftime in contrast to the other types of coppertools, which remained in use long after theperiod of their emergence.

Already from the end of Early Eneolithicwe encountered copper tools and weapons

D. Antonović / JMM 45 (2) B (2009) 165 - 174

Fig. 2. Eneolithic copper hammeraxe: 1 – 3. Type Pločnik, 4. Type Vidra, 5. Type Gulubinje, 6. TypeČoka, 7. Type Deč, 8. Type Mezőkeresztes.

168

demonstrating that prehistoric metallurgistscompletely adopted technologicaladvantages offered by the metal. The copperobjects (tools and weapons) reveal that theydo not copy any more the stone models whenshapes are concerned. The tools and weaponswith curved edges and fan-shaped blades hadbeen produced in an attempt to increase theworking surface and reduce the tool body,which was of no use. In the course of time

the tools became thinner so the specimensfrom the end of the Eneolithic are of verysmall thickness suggesting thoroughknowledge of the resilience of metal (Fig. 4).By the end of the Eneolithic there alsooccurred the copper alloyed intentionallywith arsenic, lead and tin.

The tools produced in largest quantities inthe Copper Age in central and southeasternEurope are the axe-adzes. This universal

D. Antonović / JMM 45 (2) B (2009) 165 - 174

Fig. 3. Eneolithic copper axe-adzes: 1. Type Jászladány, 2. Type Jászladány, variant Ruma, 3. TypeJászladány, variant Barice, 4. Type Jászladány, variant Donji Milanovac, 5. Type Jászladány, variantŠabac, 6. Type Tîrgu Ocna, 7. Type Ariuşt, 8. Type Kladari.

169

shape existed until the end of the Cooper Ageand was also used in the beginning of theBronze Age when finally the prehistoricmasters decided on more advanced toolshapes of smaller weight for production of

which the smaller quantities of metal werenecessary. The axe-adzes alreadydemonstrate an elaborate metal form,elegantly curved shape impossible to achievein stone, so these axes could be considered as

D. Antonović / JMM 45 (2) B (2009) 165 - 174

Fig. 4. Eneolithic and Early Bronze Age copper flat axes and adzes: 1 – 2. Wedges, 3 – 7. Massiveaxes (3-4. Type Belovode, 5-7. Type Pločnik), 8 – 19. Adzes (8. Type Pločnik, 9. Type with fan-likeexpanded blade, 10. Type Veliki Gaj, 11-12. Type Ponikve, 13. Type Altheim, 14-16. Narrow-bodyadzes, 17. Fan-like adzes – variant Leget, 18. Fan-like adzes – variant Dobanovci, 19. Adzes withrounded edges).

170

first authentic metal tools in contrast to thepreviously discussed hammer-axes. Theywere cast from two longitudinal pieces andthat resulted in constant asymmetry of thisimplement.

The most frequently found shape in theterritory of Serbia is the axe of Jászladánytype and the variants of this type. A total of163 specimens of this type and its variantshave been found so far. It is interesting thatjust one of them was found in thearchaeological layer while all the other arechance finds or they were found in thehoards and could have been dated onlytypologically. Within the Jászladány typefive more variants of this type of axe-adzeshave been recorded in the territory of Serbia.All these variants maintained the basiccharacteristics of the Jászladány type anddifferences could be noticed only on thebasis of small deviations from the basiccharacteristics (Fig. 3). There are also othertypes of the axe-adzes (Čepin, Tîrgu Ocna,Ariuşt and Kladari) and the later specimensare of more advanced shape and confirmgood knowledge of the prehistoricmetallurgist about the advantages of metal.

The hammer-axes although in muchsmaller quantity were produced alongsidethe axe-adzes but they were nothing like theearliest specimens from Pločnik (Fig. 2).They also have elegantly curved shape andbear witness to the excellent knowledgeabout the advantage of metal over stone. Thebattle-axes of Mezőkeresztes type probablyshow in a best way how important the copperwas for the Eneolithic communities of thesoutheast Europe. There is little likelihoodthat this type of objects was used as weaponsin a true sense of the word judging by thesize and first of all the weight, which alwaysexceeds 3 kg, but it is more probable that

they were the symbols of status.The adzes and wedges as primarily

working implements show in a best way theevolution of copper tools from the stonemodels to authentic metal tools. Since theemergence of the earliest copper tools therewere used the tools whose appearancedisclosed the stone model – simple form andconsiderable thickness of the tool. Theearliest shapes, those imitating exactly thestone forms were to remain in use only for ashort period of time. Somewhat later typesalso of ‘Stone Age’ appearance but showingtendency towards fan-like expanding of theblade were in use parallel with more elegantand more elaborate forms until the beginningof the Bronze Age (Fig. 4).The analyses ofmetal composition of the later specimensfrom the beginning of the Bronze Age revealthat copper was already intentionallyalloyed. However, parallel with thesemassive tools there appeared the authenticmetal tools – adzes of small thickness withnarrow butts and fan-shaped cutting edges inorder to achieve largest possible workingsurface. In the beginning they were producedof the pure copper while specimens from thebeginning of the Bronze Age were made ofthe alloyed copper.

The improving of shapes also continuedwhen the axes with single cutting edge areconcerned. The axe-adzes definitely fell outof use in the beginning of the Bronze Ageand were replaced with more elaborate axeswith single blade. This tool appeared duringthe Late Copper Age and was of relativelyawkward shape. The blade was of the samewidth as the rest of the axe body and thesegment with shaft-hole could not bedistinguished from the body mass. However,in the course of time the axes with singlecutting edge got the more elegant shape. The

D. Antonović / JMM 45 (2) B (2009) 165 - 174 171

cutting edge expanded in fan-like blade, thebody, which has no working function wasreduced to the size and thicknessguaranteeing that the tool would not breakand the shaft-hole was clearly distinguishedfrom the axe body. The shaft-hole on latertypes is more prominent than on the earlier

specimens and got the shape of tubularextension at the end of the axe (Fig. 5). Theevolution of shape was going together withalloying of copper with arsenic, lead and tinalready by the end of the Copper Age thusindicating the attempts of prehistoricmetallurgists to improve technical qualities

D. Antonović / JMM 45 (2) B (2009) 165 - 174

Fig. 5. Late Eneolithic and Bronze Age copper axes: 1. Type Bániabic, 2. Type Lozane, 3. TypeIzvoarele, 4. Type Jasika 5. Type Baranda, 6. Type Sokobanja, 7. Type Borač, 8 – 9. Montenegro-Albanian type, 10. Double-axe.

172

of copper. The experimenting with additionof the mentioned metals has been alsoencountered in the adzes from the end of theCopper Age. The proportion of tin was up to10%, of arsenic up to as much as 7.8% whilethe percentage of lead was smaller and doesnot exceed 4.7%.

In the end of the Bronze Age the copperartifacts definitely went out of use because ofthe advanced technology of production ofmore sophisticated bronze tools and weaponsevident first of all in production of hollow-cast axes – celts. The analyses of the latest‘copper’ tools, i.e. the tools resembling inshape the earlier objects of copper reveal thatsome of these artifacts were produced also ofbronze. Generally, bronze as metal, whichwas much more easily cast enabled theprehistoric metallurgists to produce hollow-cast objects for which considerably lessquantity of metal was necessary.

4. Conclusion

When the metal analyses are concernedthey have been performed on around 50% ofprehistoric copper artifacts. Most of themwere, however, performed half a centuryago, in the 1950s, and they provided just thechemical composition of the metal objects[7]. The more recent analyses were carriedout in the end of 1980s and the purpose ofthose investigations was to compare the oresfrom today known prehistoric and modernmines with the metal objects in order todetermine where from the ore had been takenfor the production of copper artifacts [8].These investigations as well as the earlierones did not deal with the analysis oftechnological process applied in productionof the studied objects.

Therefore, despite all relatively numerous

analyses there is for the time being noanswer to the question concerning theprimitive technology of copper oreprocessing and the metallurgical process ofobtaining the metal for production of copperand later also bronze artifacts. Most of thecopper tools found in Serbia are chancefinds. Their cultural attribution is determinedonly on the basis of typology and technologyof manufacture. As the technology ofmanufacture remained, as we already said,mostly uninvestigated we still use almostexclusively the typological determination ofthe metal material. Therefore, it is notpossible to identify potential workshops andcenters for production of copper objects. Thestudy of copper objects from the territory ofSerbia, first of all the technology of theirproduction is an open field and as I assume achallenge for the archeometallurgists. Thisshould be one of the main and priorityobjectives in the future archeometallurgicalinvestigations.

References

1. M. Girić, Mokrin, the Early Bronze Agenecropolis, Ethnic museum, Kikinda, SmithsonianInstitution, Washington, 1971, p. 214 – 226.

2. D. Krajnović, S. Janković, Coppermineralization as potential raw material source ofancient copper metallurgy in Serbia, in Ancientmining and metallurgy in Southeast Europe:International symposium, Donji Milanovac, May 20-25 1990 (B. Jovanović, Editor), Archaeologicalinstitute, Museum of mining and metallurgy,Belgrade, Bor, 1995, p. 24–25.

3. Green - color stone, nephrite above all, andmalachite and serpentinite a bit less, had the greatvalue for the bearers of the Early Neolithic cultures inthe southeast Europ. R. I. Kostov, Arheo-mineralogijana neolitni i halkolitni artefakti of B’lgarija i tjahnotoznačenie v gemologijata (Archaeomineralogy ofNeolithic and Chalcolithic artifacts from Bulgaria and

D. Antonović / JMM 45 (2) B (2009) 165 - 174 173

their significance to gemmology), Sv. Ivan Rilski,Sofija, 2007, p. 10-17.

4. N. H. Gale, Z. Stos-Gale, A. Raduncheva, I.Panayotov, I. Ivanov, P. Lilov, T. Todorov, Earlymetallurgy in Bulgaria, in Mining and metalproduction through the ages (P. Craddock & J. Lang,Editors), British Museum, London, 2003, p. 124.

5. V. Bogosavljević-Petrović, D. Antonović, Earlycopper metallrugy in Central Serbia: newperspectives, in Reports of International symposium„Metallurgy in Southeast Europe from ancient timestill the end of 19th century“, Sozopol, Bulgaria, 2005,Union of Bulgarian metallurgists, Sofia, 2005, p. 38.

6. D. Šljivar, J. Kuzmanović-Cvetković, D.Jacanović, 2006, Belovode – Pločnik, newcontributions regarding the copper metallurgy in theVinča culture, in Homage to Milutin Garašanin (N.Tasić, C. Grozdanov, Editors), Serbian Academy forScience and Arts, Belgrade, 2006, p. 252, T. 1, 1-2.

7. S. Junghans, E. Sangmeister, M. Schröder,Kupfer und Bronze in der frühen Metallzeit Europas,in Studien zu den Anfängen der Metallurgie (K. Bittel,S. Junghans, H. Otto, E. Sangmeister, M, Schröder,Editors), Band 2, Teil 3, Römisch-germanischesZentralmuseum, Gebr. Mann, Berlin, 1968.

8. E. Pernicka, F. Begemann, S. Schmitt-Strecker,G. A. Wagner, Eneolithic and Early Bronze Agecopper artefacts from the Balkans and their relation toSerbian copper ores, Praehistorische Zeitschrift(Mainz), 68 (1) (1993) 1 – 57.

D. Antonović / JMM 45 (2) B (2009) 165 - 174174