While this conclusion of the study seems expected and obvious, the study has nonetheless been very valuable, because previously the majority opinion was that such bronze daggers were not tools, but just ornaments for the rich.
The study has included both the analysis of the residues from the surface of the ancient daggers and the making of bronze replicas, which have been tested successfully as butcher knives, so the previously accepted opinion about their purpose has been proven to be wrong.
Yeah, looking back it is strange that so many things are some how associated with religion or status. It does make sense with jewellery and some burial goods.
But at time why would something new and not useful be a status item? And if it was useful, but rare surely it will get lot of use? Good working cutting tools is extremely useful thing.
A consideration no one was going to make a knife out of a super expensive material like bronze that's 'plain'. Wouldn't surprise me too if your typical bronze age village had at most a few metal knives which were semi-communal property.
I suspect part of the reason is that as an archeologist discovering a kitchen knife does not get you much recognition, whereas if you discover status symbols and fertility charms people pay attention. It makes it easier to get your artifacts into a museum also or to sell them (which while often illegal does happen.)
yeah the why-not-both gif could possibly apply here.
A thing can be an everyday tool AND a status symbol. But in this case, WHEN in the bronze age has a lot of bearing. Early on, yeah copper-alloy objects were relatively rare and expensive, but later as more mining put a LOT of copper alloy into trade and those trade networks became more extensive, they were less so, and thus you could have finds like I think one in England where EVERY HOUSE had copper and bronze implements.
The Pragatto finds in the article come from relatively late in the Bronze Age, so what they answer is AT THIS RELATIVELY LATE DATE, bronze daggers were common enough, even though still expensive and rare, to be used as everyday implements of slaughter rather than being strictly ornamental heirlooms.
*late Bronze age daggers from this excavation were used as kitchen knives.
The Bronze age was very long and the implements produced during it were used for all kinds of things, including warfare.
It bums me out to see this, because it seems to boil good science down to FACTS and ANSWERS. Were you really dying to know what bronze age daggers were used for for your next board meeting?
If it's just for curiosity, isn't the methodology and capability atleast as interesting and much more important?
Valuing how we know things, not just what we think we might know is actual science.
> This allowed the team to identify micro-residues of collagen and associated bone, muscle, and bundle tendon fibers, suggesting that the daggers had come into contact with multiple animal tissues and were used to process various types of animal carcasses. Uses seem to have included the slaughtering of livestock, butchering carcasses, and carving the meat from the bone.
>This allowed the team to identify micro-residues of collagen and associated bone, muscle, and bundle tendon fibers, suggesting that the daggers had come into contact with multiple animal tissues and were used to process various types of animal carcasses.
Humans also have bone, muscle, and bundle tendon fibers. Do we know these residues are non-human? Another explanation could be that they were extensively in warfare.
"Used for ceremonial purposes" is the default answer for absolutely everything that are found by or studied by archaeologists. In fact there was a tongue-in-cheek book that showed a future archaeologist trying to explain what all our modern things were used for. Toilet brush - ceremonies. Toilet seat - worn around neck - during ceremonies. I wish I could remember the book name.
One of my favorite fringe theories on the birth of agriculture is that it was initially used for... ceremonies, and then grew to staple crops over time.
In some very important ways, celebrations are a playful exercise in logistics. Some events are essentially celebrations of successful logistics - if you reduce Oktoberfest to its essence, you are drinking last year's beer as soon as next year's supply is guaranteed.
Humans have a long history of conserving limited supplies of intoxicants for celebrations. Given how many of our early crops have a recipe for intoxication - wheat, barley, honey, apples, the notion that agriculture started for celebrations is not that gonzo.
19 comments
[ 4.8 ms ] story [ 49.5 ms ] threadExcept then it sounds like it comes out of the no-duh institute of obvious studies.
The study has included both the analysis of the residues from the surface of the ancient daggers and the making of bronze replicas, which have been tested successfully as butcher knives, so the previously accepted opinion about their purpose has been proven to be wrong.
But at time why would something new and not useful be a status item? And if it was useful, but rare surely it will get lot of use? Good working cutting tools is extremely useful thing.
A thing can be an everyday tool AND a status symbol. But in this case, WHEN in the bronze age has a lot of bearing. Early on, yeah copper-alloy objects were relatively rare and expensive, but later as more mining put a LOT of copper alloy into trade and those trade networks became more extensive, they were less so, and thus you could have finds like I think one in England where EVERY HOUSE had copper and bronze implements.
The Pragatto finds in the article come from relatively late in the Bronze Age, so what they answer is AT THIS RELATIVELY LATE DATE, bronze daggers were common enough, even though still expensive and rare, to be used as everyday implements of slaughter rather than being strictly ornamental heirlooms.
If it's just for curiosity, isn't the methodology and capability atleast as interesting and much more important?
Valuing how we know things, not just what we think we might know is actual science.
Saved you most of an article.
Humans also have bone, muscle, and bundle tendon fibers. Do we know these residues are non-human? Another explanation could be that they were extensively in warfare.
In some very important ways, celebrations are a playful exercise in logistics. Some events are essentially celebrations of successful logistics - if you reduce Oktoberfest to its essence, you are drinking last year's beer as soon as next year's supply is guaranteed.
Humans have a long history of conserving limited supplies of intoxicants for celebrations. Given how many of our early crops have a recipe for intoxication - wheat, barley, honey, apples, the notion that agriculture started for celebrations is not that gonzo.
Anyway articles like this are humbling about how little we know about our in the scheme of things not too distant ancestors.