Pointed Bronze Helmet from Urartu

Pointed Bronze Helmet from Urartu

Incredible & Important Urartu Bronze Helmet

Selling antiquities, ancient and ethnographic art online since 1993, Artemis Gallery specializes in Classical Antiquities (Egyptian, Greek, Roman, Near Eastern), Asian, Pre-Columbian, African / Tribal / Oceanographic art. Our extensive inventory includes pottery, stone, metal, wood, glass and textil. Read more


Origins Edit

The Pickelhaube was originally designed in 1842 by King Frederick William IV of Prussia, [3] perhaps as a copy of similar helmets that were adopted at the same time by the Russian military. [4] It is not clear whether this was a case of imitation, parallel invention, or if both were based on the earlier Napoleonic cuirassier. The early Russian type (known as "The Helmet of Yaroslav Mudry") was also used by cavalry, which had used the spike as a holder for a horsehair plume in full dress, a practice also followed with some Prussian models (see below).

Adoption Edit

Frederick William IV introduced the Pickelhaube for use by the majority of Prussian infantry on 23 October 1842 by a royal cabinet order. [5] The use of the Pickelhaube spread rapidly to other German principalities. Oldenburg adopted it by 1849, Baden by 1870, and in 1887, the Kingdom of Bavaria was the last German state to adopt the Pickelhaube (since the Napoleonic Wars, they had had their own design of helmet called the Raupenhelm, a Tarleton helmet). Amongst other European armies, that of Sweden adopted the Prussian version of the spiked helmet in 1845 [6] and the Russian Army in 1846. [7]

From the second half of the 19th century onwards, the armies of a number of nations besides Russia (including Argentina, [8] Bolivia, Colombia, Chile, Ecuador, Mexico, Portugal, Norway, Sweden, and Venezuela) adopted the Pickelhaube or something very similar. [9] The popularity of this headdress in Latin America arose from a period during the early 20th century when military missions from Imperial Germany were widely employed to train and organize national armies. Peru was the first to use the helmet for the Peruvian Army when some helmets were shipped to the country in the 1870s, but during the War of the Pacific the 6th Infantry Regiment "Chacabuco" of the Chilean Army became the first Chilean military unit to use them when its personnel used the helmets—which were seized from the Peruvians—in their red French-inspired uniforms. [10] These sported the Imperial German eagles but in the 1900s the eagles were replaced by the national emblems of the countries that used them. [ citation needed ]

The Russian version initially had a horsehair plume fitted to the end of the spike, but this was later discarded in some units. The Russian spike was topped with a grenade motif. At the beginning of the Crimean War, such helmets were common among infantry and grenadiers, but soon fell out of place in favour of the forage cap. After 1862 the spiked helmet ceased to be generally worn by the Russian Army, although it was retained until 1914 by the Cuirassier regiments of the Imperial Guard and the Gendarmerie. The Russians prolonged the history of the pointed military headgear with their own cloth Budenovka adopted in 1919 by the Red Army. [11]

In 1847, the Household Cavalry, along with British dragoons and dragoon guards, adopted a helmet which was a hybrid between the Pickelhaube and the traditional dragoon helmet which it replaced. This "Albert Pattern" helmet was named after Albert, Prince Consort who took a keen interest in military uniforms, and featured a falling horsehair plume which could be removed when on campaign. It was adopted by other heavy cavalry regiments across the British Empire and remains in ceremonial use. [12] The Pickelhaube also influenced the design of the British army Home Service helmet, as well as the custodian helmet still worn by police in England and Wales. [13] The linkage between Pickelhaube and Home Service helmet was however not a direct one, since the British headdress was higher, had only a small spike and was made of stiffened cloth over a cork framework, instead of leather. Both the United States Army and Marine Corps wore helmets of the British pattern for full dress between 1881 and 1902.

The basic Pickelhaube was made of hardened (boiled) leather, given a glossy-black finish, and reinforced with metal trim (usually plated with gold or silver for officers) that included a metal spike at the crown. Early versions had a high crown, but the height gradually was reduced and the helmet became more fitted in form, in a continuing process of weight-reduction and cost-saving. In 1867 a further attempt at weight reduction by removing the metal binding of the front peak, and the metal reinforcing band on the rear of the crown (which also concealed the stitched rear seam of the leather crown), did not prove successful.

The version of the Pickelhaube worn by Prussian artillery units employed a ball-shaped finial rather than the pointed spike, a modification ordered in 1844 because of injuries to horses and damage to equipment caused by the latter. [14] Prior to the outbreak of World War I in 1914 detachable black or white plumes were worn with the Pickelhaube in full dress by German generals, staff officers, dragoon regiments, infantry of the Prussian Guard and a number of line infantry regiments as a special distinction. This was achieved by unscrewing the spike (a feature of all Pickelhauben regardless of whether they bore a plume) and replacing it with a tall metal plume-holder known as a trichter. For musicians of these units, and also for Bavarian Artillery and an entire cavalry regiment of the Saxon Guard, this plume was red.

Aside from the spike finial, perhaps the most recognizable feature of the Pickelhaube was the ornamental front plate, which denoted the regiment's province or state. The most common plate design consisted of a large, spread-winged eagle, the emblem used by Prussia. Different plate designs were used by Bavaria, Württemberg, Baden, and the other German states. The Russians used the traditional double-headed eagle.

German military Pickelhauben also mounted two round, colored cockades behind the chinstraps attached to the sides of the helmet. The right cockade, the national cockade, was red, black and white. The left cockade was used to denote the state of the soldier (Prussia: black and white Bavaria: white and blue etc.).

All-metal versions of the Pickelhaube were worn mainly by cuirassiers, and often appear in portraits of high-ranking military and political figures (such as Otto von Bismarck, pictured above). These helmets were sometimes referred to as lobster-tail helmets, due to their distinctive articulated neck guard. The design of these is based on cavalry helmets in common use since the 16th century, but with some features taken from the leather helmets. The version worn by the Prussian Gardes du Corps was of tombac (copper and zinc alloy) with silver mountings. That worn by the cuirassiers of the line since 1842 was of polished steel with brass mountings,

In 1892, a light brown cloth helmet cover, the M1892 Überzug, became standard issue for all Pickelhauben for manoeuvres and active service. The Überzug was intended to protect the helmet from dirt and reduce its combat visibility, as the brass and silver fittings on the Pickelhaube proved to be highly reflective. [15] Regimental numbers were sewn or stenciled in red (green from August 1914) onto the front of the cover, other than in units of the Prussian Guards, which never carried regimental numbers or other adornments on the Überzug. With exposure to the sun, the Überzug faded into a tan shade. In October 1916 the colour was changed to feldgrau (field grey), although by that date the plain metal Stahlhelm was standard issue for most troops.

All helmets produced for the infantry before and during 1914 were made of leather. As the war progressed, Germany's leather stockpiles dwindled. After extensive imports from South America, particularly Argentina, the German government began producing ersatz Pickelhauben made of other materials. In 1915, some Pickelhauben started to be constructed from thin sheet steel. However, the German high command needed to produce an even greater number of helmets, leading to the usage of pressurized felt and even paper to construct Pickelhauben. The Pickelhaube was discontinued in 1916. [16]

During the early months of World War I, it was soon discovered that the Pickelhaube did not measure up to the demanding conditions of trench warfare. The leather helmets offered little protection against shell fragments and shrapnel and the conspicuous spike made its wearer a target. These shortcomings, combined with material shortages, led to the introduction of the simplified model 1915 helmet described above, with a detachable spike. In September 1915 it was ordered that the new helmets were to be worn without spikes when in the front line. [17]

Beginning in 1916, the Pickelhaube was slowly replaced by a new German steel helmet (the Stahlhelm) intended to offer greater head protection from shell fragments. The German steel helmet decreased German head wound fatalities by 70%. [ citation needed ] After the adoption of the Stahlhelm, the Pickelhaube was reduced to limited ceremonial wear by senior officers away from the war zones plus the Leibgendarmerie S.M. des Kaisers whose role as an Imperial/Royal escort led them to retain peacetime full dress throughout the war. [18] [19] With the collapse of the German Empire in 1918, the Pickelhaube ceased to be part of the military uniform, and even the police adopted shakos of a Jäger style. In modified forms the new Stahlhelm helmet would continue to be worn by German troops into World War II.

Kaiser Wilhelm II, August von Mackensen and others wearing Pickelhauben with cloth covers in 1915

Hixenbaugh Ancient Art Unveils Rare and Important Ancient Neo-Assyrian Royal Armor

New York, NY, November 15, 2011 --(PR.com)-- Hixenbaugh Ancient Art Ltd announces the exhibition of two rare and important Neo-Assyrian military artifacts dating to the 9th century BC: a bronze quiver inscribed with the name of King Shalmaneser III, ca. 859-824 BC, and a unique bimetallic helmet. These rare objects are among the few surviving examples of the military technology of what is considered to be the first substantial military power in history.

The Neo-Assyrian bronze quiver assemblage is decorated with incised scenes of winged demons, holding buckets and pine cones, pollinating the intertwined tree of life. A cuneiform inscription labels the quiver "property of Shalmaneser, king of Assyria, son of Ashur-Nasirpal, king of Assyria, son of Tukulti-Ninurta, king of Assyria." Only a handful of Neo-Assyrian quivers are known, including examples in the Metropolitan Museum of Art and the Louvre. Their example was published in 1960, and thereafter was in the respected collection of Arthur M. Sackler (1913-1987). The quiver is accompanied by a metal analysis confirming its authenticity and age.

The Neo-Assyrian bronze helmet was originally a bimetallic, bronze and iron, pointed conical helmet of very elaborate design. Although the iron section is now preserved only in fragments, having deteriorated long ago, the bronze half remains in excellent condition. The ostentatious use of iron at this early date, when the technology of smelting iron ore was still unknown outside of the Eastern Mediterranean, is especially significant. This is the only known helmet of this type to survive from antiquity. The form is depicted on numerous contemporary Neo-Assyrian palace reliefs at Nineveh and Nimrud. The metallurgy and composition of this helmet have been thoroughly analyzed and published by Hermann Born and Urusula Seidl in Schutzwaffen aus Assyrien und Urartu, Sammlung Axel Guttmann, vol.4, (Mainz, 1995), pp. 134 ff., pl. XIII-XV, ills. 103-115. The helmet comes from the world renowned collection of ancient arms and armor assembled by the German collector Axel Guttmann (1944-2001).

The Neo-Assyrian Empire flourished from the 10th Century BC through the late 7th Century BC becoming the most dominant entity in the Middle East. At its peak, it controlled all of Mesopotamia, the Levant, and Egypt. The Neo-Assyrian Empire is regarded as the first substantial military power in history. Their army utilized large units of cavalry and skilled archers. Mobile workshops and smiths were dedicated to producing vast amounts of arrows and spears that were required while on campaign. The royal palaces of Nineveh, Ashur, and Nimrud were adorned with reliefs depicting Neo-Assyrian troops including archers with long quivers, horseman bearing lances, and masses of foot soldiers in pointed bronze helmets.

Antiquities of this rarity and quality are highly sought after by both museums and private collectors, not only for their beauty and historical significance but also for their investment value. &ldquoArchaeological objects of this importance have become increasingly difficult to obtain,&rdquo said gallery director Randall Hixenbaugh. &ldquoIn light of recent events in the region, it is vital that ancient Near Eastern antiquities on the market not only have clear provenance but also have been previously published, as is the case with both of these objects.&rdquo

These Neo-Assyrian pieces along with hundreds of other examples of fine quality Greek, Roman, and Egyptian art are on display at Hixenbaugh Ancient Art Ltd, 320 East 81st Street, New York, Tuesday through Saturday 11 to 6, and by appointment.

About Hixenbaugh Ancient Art
Hixenbaugh Ancient Art Ltd is one of the world&rsquos leading antiquities dealers. The gallery, located on the Upper East Side of Manhattan, is dedicated to handling fine authentic antiquities. All of the pieces we handle are legally acquired, in complete accordance with US and international regulations and laws concerning the import and sale of ancient objects. All objects are guaranteed genuine and as described. Hixenbaugh Ancient Art is a member of the Art and Antique Dealers League of America (AADLA), the Confederation Internationale des Negociants en Oeuvres d'Art (CINOA), the Appraisers Association of America (AAA), and the International Association of Dealers in Ancient Art (IADAA).

At Hixenbaugh Ancient Art, we believe that responsible collecting of antiquities is not only a pleasurable pursuit and wise investment, but an important responsibility. Today's collectors are custodians of the past, links in a chain, preserving the past for future generations by passing their collections on to their heirs, reselling them to eager collectors, or donating them to museums. In doing so, the collector of ancient art reaps the many benefits of acquiring truly unique and thought provoking objects that have come down to us from the ancients, whose influences pervade every aspect of the modern world.

Event #5406: Urartu, Ararat, Vannic Kingdom, successor of the Late Bronze Age Hurrian state of Mitanni

The discovery of Urartu has come to play a significant role in 19th and 20th-century Armenian nationalism.

Please view our Legal Notice before you make use of this Database.

See also our Credits page for info on data we are building upon.

The QFG Historical Database is a research project undertaken by Quantum Future Group Inc. (in short "QFG") under the supervision of senior executive editor Laura Knight-Jadczyk with an international group of editorial assistants.

The project's main effort is to survey ancient and modern texts and to extract excerpts describing various relevant events for analysis and mapping.

This database, The Chronicle of the Fall of the Roman Empire (in short "QFG:COF" ) focuses on a chronological and categorized collection of various environmental and social events that accompanied the Fall of the Roman Empire.

With incised images of royal figures in the center with a winged sun disc over the tree of life, all surrounded by repoussé giant serpents with animal heads. The sides and back are decorated with incised figure of worshippers.

The Urartian craftsmen were especially famous for their skills in producing the metalwork. Among them the bronze helmets, quivers, and shields are most renowned for bringing together the hammering, repoussé, and engraving techniques. In the history of the Urartian kingdom, which was abundant in battles with its adversary of the Assyrian empire, the weaponry was in high demand while social status of warriors influenced the decoration of the practical things. It is known from the dedicatory inscriptions that in ancient Urartu weapons and armor were often dedicated to the temples as votive objects this was especially the case for the richly decorated pieces. The Urartian helmets are classified by two types: crested and conical helmets the latter has three subgroups &ndash plain helmets, decorated with Lightning Symbol, and with figured decoration. This headgear has a high conical shape which tapers to a point, and presents a sinuous profile. It was hammered from a single bronze sheet. Two pairs of holes perforated on each side served, most likely, for the attachment of bronze cheek - pieces or leather chin straps, which held the helmet in place. The opening of the helmet is surrounded by three horizontal ribs in low relief.

The relief decoration made in repoussé represents giant serpents with animal heads. These magical creatures, three on the sides and one on the central rib, incline downward as if to protect the royal figures in the center. These are incised and represented in the heraldic composition, facing each other, on the sides of the winged sun disk of Shamash and flanking the Tree of Life. Their raised hands indicate the attitude of adoration, and the entire scene should have a cult significance. The details of ornamented costumes, headdress, and weapons are represented however, the attributes, as well as the feet are not shown. The sides and the back of the band are decorated with smaller figures of adorants. The iconography of the engravings is close to the Assyrian art and reflects the cultural exchanges of the time.

Bronze Historic Menses Helmets Constitute Inwards Eastern Slovakia

The Eastern Slovakia Museum inwards Košice has presented 2 unique bronze helmets from the belatedly Bronze Age. H5N1 mushroom picker constitute them final yr virtually the hamlet of Trhovište inwards Michalovce county. The finder brought the objects to the museum inwards Jan of this year. The museum's archeologist Dárius Gašaj informed the Regional Monument’s Board.

Bronze Age helmets, cheek protectors, arm guards, ca. 3200 years former
[Credit: František Iván, TASR]
“This precious finding consists of 2 Bronze helmets, partly stuck to each other. There were also 2 pairs of protective cheek pads together with 2 spiral arm guards,” said Róbert Pollák, manager of the museum, equally quoted yesteryear the SITA newswire.

The finder wishes to rest anonymous. The archeologist alongside a colleague from the Regional Monument’s Board examined the site of the honour inwards detail.

Eastern Slovakia Museum archeologist Dárius Gašaj alongside ane of the helmets
[Credit: František Iván, TASR]
The discovery, worth unopen to 󌍬,000, is the belongings of the soil now. As Pollák said, the museum, together alongside the Košice Self-governing Region requested it endure added to the collection of the museum.

Discoveries of helmets from the Bronze Age are rare non exclusively inwards Slovakia simply inwards the whole of Europe, according to Gašaj. The helmets from Trhovište are western European agency made from 2 shaped bronze plates. The decorated sides are connected alongside a fundamental three-toothed comb that has a hole for attaching a decorative plume. Other holes at the sides together with at the bottom border are to attach the protective cheek pads.

Protective cheek pads [Credit: František Iván, TASR]
Only 3 like pieces had been found, all of them inwards the Eastern Alpine area.

The root of the helmets from Trhovište remains unclear. They were in all probability traded objects imported for the highest guild elite – armed services chiefs. The helmets were used together with repaired. They were to a greater extent than a symbol of the condition of the bearer, a symbol of his position together with ability than protective equipment.

Spiral arm guards [Credit: František Iván, TASR]
The display also includes the dorsum operate of some plate armour plate that was constitute long agone inwards Čierna nad Tisou together with also some fragments discovered inwards Šarišské Michaľany.

Similar helmets accept been constitute inwards Lúčky, Spišská Belá together with Žaškov simply they were made exclusively from ane canvas of bronze. They originated betwixt the twelfth together with tenth century BC.

BRONZE i. In pre-Islamic Iran

When tin is alloyed with copper, it decreases the temperature at which the two metals will melt, increases fluidity during casting, and acts as a deoxidant (Ber­thoud et al., 1982, pp. 48-49). Although the amount of tin that must be present for bronze to be considered an intentional alloy is still much debated (e.g. Heskel, 1982, pp. 318-19 Moorey, 1985, p. 18), a low tin content does little to enhance the mechanical properties of an artifact. For example, copper becomes noticeably harder when the tin content is above a few percent, and a bronze with 10 percent tin is the optimum compo­sition for implements like chisels or daggers, when cold hammered during final working. When tin content is above about 15 percent, the bronze becomes brittle and between 20 and 30 percent it can take on a silvery hue. In order to shape high-tin bronzes (the &ldquowhite bronzes&rdquo of the early Islamic period see below) containing 22-24 percent tin, they must be forged at high temperature, followed by quenching (plunging into a liquid for rapid cooling), for a functional finished product (Goodway and Conklin).

Although copper deposits occur with reasonable frequency throughout the highland zones of south­western Asia (defined here as the entire portion of Asia west of the Indian subcontinent Figure 27), sources of tin are far less common. The only traces of tin that have been geologically documented within the modern political boundaries of Iran are in the southeast, at several locations in the Da&scaront-e Lūt near Sīstān (Stöcklin et al., p. 58). Strabo mentions in his Geography (15.2. 10) that tin was present in Drangiana (modern Sīstān). Large deposits of tin were, however, identified elsewhere in neighboring Afghanistan (Figure 28) during joint Afghan-Soviet geological surveys sponsored by the United Nations Economic, Social and Cultural Organization (UNESCO Chmyriov Shareq et al.) and by a French archeometallurgical survey (Cleuziou and Berthoud Berthoud et al., 1982). Two primary zones of occurrence are known, the first extending from south of Qandahār to Badaḵ&scaronān province in the northeast, the second running north from Sīstān to the vicinity of Herat (Shareq et al., pp. 165-90 summary and map in Stech and Pigott, pp. 40, 44-45 cf. Muhly, 1987, p. 101, contra Penhallurick, p. 31). These tin deposits are the most extensive so far documented in southwestern Asia and constitute the most likely source of the earliest tin used in the region.

At least twelve major copper-rich zones encompass­ing more than 200 deposits have been documented in Iran by G. Ladame and by the Geological Survey of Iran (Bazin and Hübner). In Afghanistan a total of 241 copper deposits have been recorded (Shareq et al., 1977, pp. 101-35, map 6 see also Berthoud et al., 1977 Heskel, 1982, pp. 340-81). The abundance of copper on the Iranian plateau and in Afghanistan, together with the availability of tin, has led to speculation that this entire region may have been a &ldquoheartland&rdquo of the early development of bronze metallurgy (Stech and Pigott, p. 48).

Current understanding of early developments in copper-base metallurgy on the Iranian plateau is based largely on archeological excavations, archeometallurgical field surveys conducted by Theodore A. Wertime and colleagues (1964 1968 1973 Caldwell, 1967, pp. 318-405 Tylecote, 1970) and a team led by Thierry Berthoud (Berthoud et al., 1975 1976 1978 1979 1990a-b 1982), and from independent research by such scholars as D. L. Heskel (1982), P. R. S. Moorey (1969 1982 1985), J. D. Muhly (1973 1976 1983 1985), and A. R. Vatandoost-Haghighi (for a bibliography of the archeology and art history of metals in ancient Iran, arranged by periods, see relevant sections in Vanden Berghe, 1979 Vanden Berghe and Haerinck, 1981 idem, 1987).

The Neolithic (ca. 7500-5500 B.C.) and Chalcolithic eras (ca. 5500-3300 B.C.). The term &ldquobronze&rdquo has frequently been applied to copper-base metals, regard­less of composition. For that reason, though the alloy did not appear on the Iranian plateau until the 4th millennium B.C., discussion begins with the earliest occurrences of copper. Current evidence suggests that native copper was first used in the Neolithic and continued in use through the Chalcolithic (Heskel, 1982, pp. 384-88). A 9th-millennium B.C. mineral-­copper pendant from Zawi Chem Shanidar (Zevī Čemī &Scaronānedār) in the Iraqi Zagros mountains (Solecki, 1969, p. 361) indicates early familiarity with copper ore. Among the earliest excavated metal artifacts that are arguably composed of native copper are a tolled bead (ca. mid-7th millennium) from the site of Ali Kosh (ʿAlīko&scaron) in the Deh Luran (Dehlorān) plain of northern Ḵūzestān (Smith, 1969) several awls (ca. mid-6th millennium) from Tepe Zagheh (Zāgā) on the Qazvīn plain (Shahmirzadi ca. 5th millennium) copper fragments from Chogha Sefid (Čoḡā Safīd Hole, 1977, p. 245) and pins, projectile points, awls, and spiral coils (ca. mid-5th millennium) from Tepe Sialk (Sīalk) near Kā&scaronān (Halm, 1939 Coghlan, 1942, pp. 22-34 Lamberg-Karlovsky 1967, pp. 145-46). Analy­ses of the Ali Kosh bead and a Sialk pin indicate that they are of cold-worked native copper (Smith, 1968, pp. 239-40 1965, pp. 28-30 Wertime, 1964, p. 1260 Knauth, p. 40). The earliest metal found at Tepe Yahya (Yaḥyā mid-5th millennium) consisted of two copper awls, one of which was shown by analysis to have been shaped from native copper (Heskel and Lamberg-­Karlovsky, 1980, p. 232 see Heskel, 1983, p. 364, table 1, for the earliest metal artifacts in southwestern Asia). It can be argued that in the Neolithic experimentation with native copper (and other raw materials as well) was stimulated throughout southwestern Asia by the desire to achieve decorative effects. Such experimentation could have led to inadvertent technological innovation (Smith, 1976).

During the Chalcolithic the use of copper expanded dramatically. In the early phases the repertoire of copper artifacts was modestly diversified, including needles, pins, tanged dagger blades, chisels, and both shaft-hole and flat axes. By the end of the era it had been expanded to include seals, midribbed daggers, shaft­-hole maceheads, spiral-headed pins, coiled bracelets, earrings, and finger rings. Similar objects were made of lead, silver, and gold (Moorey, 1982, p. 86). Analysis of artifacts from this period reveals the presence of varying amounts of arsenic. It is likely that native copper and ore were being drawn from sources on the Iranian plateau that contained arsenic naturally, for there are no indications that arsenical copper was being produced by intentional alloying. Unfortunately, the microstruc­ture of copper produced by simple melting is indistin­guishable from that of an artifact produced from smelted copper (Maddin et al.). The presence of arsenic in copper, regardless of whether the latter has been melted or smelted, improves mechanical properties in much the same way that tin does (Maréchal: cf. Coghlan, 1975, p. 83).

Smelting furnaces from the prehistoric periods on the Iranian plateau have so far been excavated only at the Bronze Age site of Shahdad (&Scaronahdād) in Kermān province (Vatandoost-Haghighi), but regrettably detailed information on them is unavailable. While fur­naces may eventually be excavated at other prehistoric sites, we must also recognize that the technologically simple process of smelting in a crucible could well have dominated the production of copper and copper alloys from early prehistory well into the Bronze Age. Crucible smelting would have required no permanent instal­lation. Archeometallurgical remains from Neolithic, Chalcolithic, and Bronze Age sites on the Iranian plateau support this observation. At Chalcolithic: Tal-i Iblis (Tall-e Eblīs) near Kermān large quantities of crucible fragments occurred with slag, ore, and copper­-base artifacts (Caldwell, 1967 1968 Caldwell and Shahmirzadi Dougherty and Caldwell). At Seh Gabi (Segābī) between the Kangāvar and Asadābād valleys (7 km northeast of Godin/Gowdīn Tepe) both fragmen­tary crucibles and possible ingot molds were excavated (Levine and Hamlin, p. 212). The earliest strong evidence for smelting, possibly in a crucible, comes from late 5th-millennium Tepe Ghabristan (Qabrestān) near Qazvīn, where 20 kg of malachite, what may have been a clay tuyère (a tentative identification of the only prehistoric example of such an artifact from the Iranian plateau), and a crucible and molds encrusted with slag, including molds for shaft-hole implements, were excavated (Majidzadeh). It is significant that, though the crucible itself can be used not only for melting native copper but also for smelting oxide ores like malachite (Tylecote, 1974) and mixtures of oxide and sulfide ores (Rostoker et al.), when malachite is smelted in crucibles or bowl furnaces, it produces little slag as residue (Tylecote, 1974). At Ghabristan slag in any quantity was not encountered, and the slagged molds probably resulted from the pouring of molten copper that had been smelted in the crucible directly into them (cf. Muhly, 1983, p. 352).

Current research supports the idea that copper deposits on the Iranian plateau were being mined for their arsenic-rich minerals and ores, and it is in these deposits that evidence of early workings must be sought. Unfortunately, very little archaeological research has been conducted on ancient mining. Deposits of copper including mineralized arsenic are not com­mon on the plateau. Although most ore deposits show indications of &ldquoold workings&rdquo (see Berthoud et al., 1976, 1977, 1978 Bazin and Hübner), only the copper mine at Veshnoveh (Ve&scaronnova) near Qom has yielded any indi­cation of possible prehistoric exploitation (Holzer and Momenzadeh). A single ceramic vessel of the Sialk IV type (ca. later 4th millennium) was found in one of the many galleries, but no arsenical copper ores were reported at this deposit.

In the deposit at Taknar in northern Khorasan (Bazin and Hübner, p. 90), on the other hand, the arsenic-­bearing copper ores enargite and tetrahedrite are pres­ent but only in small amounts. It is possible that such a source could have supplied prehistoric sites on the northern plateau, including Tepe Hissar (Ḥeṣār), where Chalcolithic and later levels yielded artifacts almost exclusively of arsenical copper (Pigott et al.).

The single mining region on the plateau with arsenical copper ores present in sufficient proportions to have been exploited in the Neolithic period and later is the Anārak district (10,000 km²) about 200 km north­east of Isfahan on the southern border of the Da&scaront-e Kavīr (Bazin and Hübner, pp. 61-63). Over twenty occurrences of polymetallic mineralizations occur there, including copper, lead, zinc, silver, gold, bismuth, cobalt, iron, manganese, molybdenum, antimony, and uranium. Two adjacent deposits, Talmessi (Talmesī) and Meskānī are considered the primary sources. The richness of the former has been emphasized by Maczek and his colleagues (p. 65), who reported that in 1314 &Scaron./1935 native copper was being extracted from a depth of 80 m at the rate of 300 kg/m 3 . Not only is arsenical native copper found at both sites, but also these deposits are the only known southwestern Asian source with significant quantities of algodonite (Cu5 As) and domeykite (Cu3As Schurenberg Heskel, 1982, p. 9 Tylecote, 1970, pp. 289-90 Heskel and Lamberg-Karlovsky, 1980, p. 86), two copper arsenides that are quite easily reduced and would be ideally suited to smelting in a crucible.

That the Anārak deposits could have been supplying an extended region (Heskel, 1982 Berthoud et al., 1982) is supported by the existence of established trade routes as early as the Neolithic, when obsidian was traded extensively (Wertime, 1973, p. 876 Moorey, 1982, p. 84). Analyses of a native copper pin from Sialk suggest that Talmessi, some 200 km to the east, was the source of the copper (Smith, 1968). By the end of the Chalcolithic, interaction between plateau settlements and those in lowland Ḵūzestān and Mesopotamia was well developed (Moorey, 1982 Deshayes, 1960, I, p. 152). Analyses of arsenical-copper artifacts from 4th-­millennium Susa, in Ḵūzestān, show a strong elemental correlation with copper from the Talmessi deposit (Berthoud et al., 1982, p. 43).

This first flurry of metallurgical activity is attested on the Iranian plateau earlier than in Mesopotamia. Nevertheless, the first indications of bronze appear simultaneously on the plateau and in the lowlands in the 4th millennium. A bronze flat axe was excavated from the necropolis at Susa I(A) (Berthoud, p. 13 no. 974) and a bronze needle from Sialk III-5 (Ghirshman, 1938, p. 206). From Godin unpublished analyses indicate that bronze is present in period V, which dates to the second half of the 4th millennium into the early 3rd millennium B.C. (Godin Project Archives). These random initial occurrences of bronze may have resulted from trade with the east. Afghanistan, where abundant copper and tin deposits are juxtaposed, is a likely locus for the technological innovation of bronze.

The Bronze Age (ca. 3300-1400 B.C.). Arsenical copper continued dominant during the approximately two millennia of the Bronze Age. Bronze occurred with some frequency toward the end of the period but was still not common. Only at the dawn of the Iron Age did bronze become the dominant copper-base alloy, though its role was transformed as iron became more important.

After 3000 B.C. the bronze artifacts are found together with those in gold and lapis lazuli (Muhly, 1977, p. 76). The earliest simultaneous occurrence of these luxury materials is known from Mesopotamia (particularly in Early Dynastic III, ca. 2600-2350), though the sources lay considerably farther east. The northeastern Afghan province of Badaḵ&scaronān is a primary source of lapis lazuli (Herrmann Tosi, 1974), though small deposits are now being reported in northern Pakistani Baluchistan. Gold and tin for bronze are also found throughout much of Afghanistan, especially in the valleys of the major river systems (Shareq et al. see map in Stech and Pigott, p. 40).

Transporting these raw materials to Mesopotamia over land meant interaction with the populations on the Iranian plateau. Lapis lazuli found at sites like Tepe Hissar and Shahr-i Sokhta (&Scaronahr-e Soḵta), where there is ample evidence that it was worked locally (Bulgarelli), attest to such contacts. Nevertheless, metalworking at the plateau sites continued to be dominated by arsenical copper. Only at Susa is there evidence of bronze technology from the mid-3rd millennium: the &ldquovase à la cachette&rdquo containing four bronzes, sixteen arsenical coppers, and three artifacts containing both tin and arsenic (Amiet et al. Berthoud, p. 14). Analyses suggest that tin was being alloyed with arsenical copper (Stech and Pigott, p. 43). In the final centuries of the 3rd millennium, a period during which Susa had strong cultural ties with Mesopotamia (Amiet, p. 197), bronze was found with some frequency there by that time many plateau settlements, including those at Tepe Sialk, Tall-i Malyan (Tall-e Malīān), and Tepe Yahya had been abandoned.

The Sumerians were active in trade and the acqui­sition of exotic luxury materials. The rarity of tin may have enhanced its status in Mesopotamia, whereas the peoples of the Iranian plateau remained uninfluenced by such pressures (Stech and Pigott, p. 48). At any rate, tin &ldquobypassed&rdquo the plateau en route to Mesopotamia (Beale, p. 144 Moorey, 1982, p. 88). Iranian metallurgi­cal traditions can thus be characterized as technologi­cally conservative, for, though copper artifacts were manufactured in quantity and in a variety of forms, simple smelted or melted arsenical copper was the main material used. At Tepe Hissar, for example, the quan­tities of slag, fragments of furnace lining, and molds suggest large-scale production of arsenical copper: tools, weapons, and elaborate ornaments (Schmidt, 1937 Pigott et al.). There is also evidence of lead and silver production. Bronze, however, was found only very rarely in the analysis of metal artifacts from the site (Pigott et al., p. 230 Berthoud et al., 1982, p. 50 n. 66 Reisch and Horton apud Schmidt, 1937, p. 359). Assemblages from Shahr-i Sokhta to the southeast, Tepe Yahya to the south (Heskel and Lamberg-Karlovsky, 1980 1986 Heskel, 1982, pp. 73-97 Tylecote and McKerrell, 1971 1986), and probably Shahdad, also to the south (Vatandoost-Haghighi Moorey, 1982, pp. 83, 90-91 Salvatori Salvatori and Vidale), consist primarily of arsenical copper artifacts, with rare bronzes (Heskel 1982, pp. 97-120 Hauptmann see also Tosi, 1993). An arsenical-copper shaft-hole axe from a burial at Khurab (Ḵᵛorāb Stein, 1937, p. 121) in Baluchistan has been the subject of several studies (Maxwell-Hyslop Zeuner During Caspers), including a detailed metallurgical analysis of its composition and manufacture (Lamberg-Karlovsky, 1969 Lechtman). Farther west at Tall-i Malyan in Fārs province artifacts from the late 4th- and early 3rd-millennium Banesh (Bane&scaron) phase (Nicholas, 1980 forthcoming) are exclu­sively of arsenical copper, but preliminary analyses of finds from the subsequent Kaftari phase (early 2nd millennium) indicate that several are of bronze (Pigott, 1980, pp. 107 unpublished analyses of the Museum of Applied Science, Center for Archaeology/MASCA). Slags with entrapped metal prills from Malyan have been shown by analysis to be derived from copper/bronze production (Carriveau, pp. 63-66). Unpublished analyses from the site of Godin indicate that a number of bronze artifacts occur in period III contexts, about early 3rd to early 2nd millennium B.C. (Godin Project Archives). Thus the Godin III and Kaftari Malyan contexts may be the earliest on the plateau to contain bronze with some frequency, probably reflect­ing the geographical and cultural proximity of these sites to the lowlands of Mesopotamia and Ḵūzestān.

The suggestion of Afghanistan as an early locus of bronze metallurgy, though attractive, cannot yet be fully substantiated archeologically. The only well-­documented artifacts in bronze from the region were excavated at Mundigak (Mondīgak), in levels dating from the mid-4th through the 3rd millennium (Shaffer, p. 144 Jarrige, p. 291 see also Lamberg-Karlovsky, 1967, pp. 146-48). A few were of bronze, principally axes and a single adze, and their occurrence over a long span of time may indicate regular use of the alloy (Stech and Pigott, p. 47). Unfortunately, the bronze artifacts from Ghar-i Mar (Ḡār-e Mār &ldquosnake cave&rdquo) in northern Afghanistan cannot be firmly dated (Caley, 1971, 1972, 1980 Shaffer, p. 89 cf. Moorey, 1982, p. 99 n. 62).

In Turkmenistan bronze is not recorded at all until the late 3rd millennium (Terekhova, p. 319). Artifacts from Anau (Anāv see anaw) include at least four bronzes and six arsenical-copper artifacts from Bronze Age deposits (Gooch, pp. 238-39 see also Chernykh). Analyses of bronzes of this period from Sarazm on the Zeravshan (Zaraf&scaronān) river in Tajikistan revealed only unalloyed copper (Isakov et al.), particularly significant in view of the proximity of known tin sources in the Zeravshan valley (Stech and Pigott, p. 44) southwest of Samarkand and along the Köksu river in Uzbekistan (Ryzanov).

The most comprehensive typological studies of a large corpus of Iranian copper-base artifacts from the region between the Indus and the Danube have been published by Deshayes (1958 1960 1963 1965 De­shayes and Christophe). They include extensive dis­cussions of techniques of fabrication and evolution of forms, as well as of the general development of metal­lurgy in various culture areas of southwestern Asia and adjacent regions.

The Iron Age (ca. 1400-600 B.C.). Among copper-­base artifacts from Iron Age sites that have been analyzed bronze is by far the most common alloy: from Geoy (Gūy/Gök) Tepe (Burton Brown, pp. 179-97 Crawford, pp. 26-27 Eaton and McKerrell), Tepe Giyan (Halm, 1935, pp. 135-38), Sialk (Halm, 1939, pp. 205-08), and several sites in Deylamān (Egami et al. Sono and Fukai Fukai and Ikeda). As a result it is assumed that most Iron Age copper-base artifacts were of bronze and that the use of arsenical copper had waned significantly.

Bronze is not necessarily functionally superior to arsenical copper, and it has the disadvantage of requir­ing imported tin. On the other hand, whereas the amount of arsenic in a copper alloy is determined by the amount present in the copper ore and on smelting conditions, in bronze the proportions of copper and tin can be controlled to a useful degree by the metalworker. Products of predictable color and mechanical properties became possible after the innovation of bronze metallurgy. There are indications that in the Iron Age alloying techniques produced bronzes of controlled composition, close to the optimum 10 percent tin and 90 percent copper, which were then hardened by working. Mesopotamian texts of the 2nd millennium record alloying proportions for bronze (see Muhly, 1973, pp. 243-44, and 1983, p. 350). Mesopotamia, particu­larly Assyria, strongly influenced western Iranian craft traditions, including metalworking. A desire to emulate attractive items from neighboring lands in &ldquolocal styles&rdquo (Winter, 1977) has been argued from stylistic similarities and must also have influenced the techniques of working materials such as copper and bronze.

Whereas in earlier periods settlements had been spread across the Iranian plateau, by the Iron Age evidence of settled occupation is limited primarily to western Iran, in and along the Zagros mountains and in Ḵūzestān (see Hole, 1987). Most Iron Age sites in these areas have yielded copper or bronze artifacts and from the 10th-9th centuries onward both bronze and iron (for discussions of iron on the Iranian plateau see Pigott, 1980, 1981 [see bibliog., p. 41], 1984 Moorey, 1982, pp. 92-93). A primary indicator of the transition from bronze to iron in the region is the occurrence of bimetallic artifacts, for example, iron objects with cast-­bronze decoration or bronze rivets (Moorey, 1971, p. 315 Pigott, 1981, p. 181).

Among the large number of excavated Iron-Age sites several are of particular archeometallurgical interest. From Haft Tepe (Middle Elamite period, ca. 13th century) in Ḵūzestān an unusual pyrotechnological installation was associated with a craft workroom containing such materials as mosaics of colored stones framed in bronze, a dismembered elephant skeleton used in manufacture of bone tools, and several hundred bronze arrowpoints and small tools. &ldquoSituated in a courtyard directly in front of this workroom is a most unusual kiln. This kiln is very large, about 8 m long and 2 and one half m wide, and contains two long compart­ments with chimneys at each end, separated by a fuel chamber in the middle. Although the roof of the kiln had collapsed, it is evident from the slight inturning of the walls which remain in situ that it was barrel vaulted like the roofs of the tombs. Each of the two long heating chambers is divided into eight sections by partition walls. The southern heating chamber contained metallic slag, and was apparently used for making bronze objects. The northern heating chamber contained pieces of broken pottery and other material, and thus was apparently used for baking clay objects including tablets . . .&rdquo (Negahban, 1977 and forthcoming).

Recent examination of the archeological evidence for bronze suggests that the district of Gīlān on the Caspian littoral was a production center (Haerinck). A number of graves excavated in the necropolis at Marlik (Mārlīk very late 2nd-early 1st millennium Negahban, 1964) produced abundant evidence of metalworking: a diverse array of bronze artifacts, including human figurines (1979a), vessels (1983), stamp seals (1977 1979b­-c), and weapons (e.g., maceheads, Negahban, 1981 see also Muscarella, 1984, for a discussion relating to fibulae and chronology). Iron was not common at Marlik. Analyses of finds from Deylamān (Egami, et al. Sono and Fukai Fukai and Ikeda), as well as analyses of Marlik metal by Vatandoost-Haghighi (1978), con­tributed to the following assessment of the metalwork industry in Gīlān: &ldquoArsenical copper and relatively pure coppers were still used, but a fully fledged tin-bronze production is evident. Even with the small existing group of analyses, a pattern has begun to emerge that correlates with comparable results from other parts of the Near East at the end of the second millennium B.C. The average Iranian tin-bronzes of the period have 5%-7% tin. Arrowheads fall generally below this range, spearheads and simpler dagger blades into it, or just above, whilst some of the fine swords of Iron I in northwest Iran may have tin percentages up to and above 12%. A double-headed hammer from Marlik weighing 1080 grammes, was at the top of the scale (13.5% Sn), suggesting that the smith knew the effective limits for an annealed and work-hardened alloy that would not be dangerously brittle . . . . With wax rather than clay as their medium . . . modelers easily found a cast metal counterpart foṛ . . . vessels and figures. Their lost-wax castings are not as accomplished as those of Luristan at this time. In Gilan, the wax parts of which the figure was built up are much more evident. But, as in Luristan, there seems to have been no appreciation that the controlled use of lead would have facilitated casting only the tin content seems to have been controlled, usually below the average for tools and weapons&rdquo (Moorey, 1982, pp. 94-95 see also Tylecote, 1972).

The adjacent region of Azerbaijan also produced distinctive bronzes in the Iron Age (de Schauensee, 1988). The Hasanlu (Ḥasanlū) project (see bibliography in Levine and Young) has provided the major portion of excavated bronze artifacts from the region. Aside from Hasanlu itself, the type site, Iron Age graves at Dinkha (Denḵā) Tepe to the southwest (Muscarella, 1974) yielded a number of bronzes, as did the Urartian occupation level at Agrab (ʿAqrab) Tepe (Muscarella, 1973).

The best indications of Iron Age bronze working come from the 9th-century levels at Hasanlu, where at least three distinct metalworking areas were found (Muscarella, 1973, pp. 46, 55-56). Sir Aurel Stein&rsquos 1936 sounding on the north side of the citadel mound produced a cache of artifacts, including some possible bronze bar ingots, strips, and at least three stone molds for small artifacts (1940, pp. 390-404, pl. 26). More recently excavations at the Artisan&rsquos House in the outer town have yielded remains of intense burning, crucible fragments, a possible ingot, a shaft-hole axe mold, and an open flat-axe mold, as well as other mold fragments, clearly suggesting a workshop. Heavy modules of hematite or magnetite also found there were probably used for working and planishing sheet bronze (Pigott, 1981, p. 48). In Burned Building III on the citadel mound crucible fragments, a pair of bivalve sandstone molds for a ribbed-bladed shaft-hole axe, and frag­ments of a similar mold in clay were excavated (Pigott, 1981, pp. 138-39).

Altogether Hasanlu produced more than 2,000 cop­per and bronze artifacts in the following major categories: equestrian gear, architectural and domestic decoration, vessels and handles, personal ornaments, tools, weapons and armor (de Schauensee, 1988, pp. 47­-55 see also Lamberg-Karlovsky, 1965). Many were ornamental and were themselves decorated. Very fre­quently artifacts in bronze had counterparts in iron. Only hoes, sickles, knives, and saws were exclusively made of iron (de Schauensee, p. 47). In fact, at Hasanlu the number of iron artifacts was approximately equal to that of copper and bronze.

Emission-spectrographic analyses of twenty Hasanlu artifacts indicates that they are of bronze with a tin content ranging from 2 to 9 percent (Hasanlu project archives). Proton-induced x-ray emission spectroscopy of a lion-shaped pin (12.7 Percent tin) and a snaffle bit (4.7 percent tin) further corroborates the existence of bronze at the site (de Schauensee, p. 58 no. 9). Stylistic analyses of bronze artifacts from Hasanlu have been undertaken by Irene Winter (a decorated bronze horse breastplate, 1980), Oscar White Muscarella (a fibula, 1965), and Maude de Schauensee and Robert H. Dyson, Jr. (horse trappings). The type of pointed bronze helmet found at Hasanlu and also worn by Assyrian and Urartian soldiers has been discussed by B. J. Overlaet (1979). Such studies have helped to define a &ldquolocal style&rdquo of artistic bronze production at Hasanlu, as well as influences from the north and west. The elaborate decoration suggests a sophisticated understanding of the properties of bronze and the technology of its production.

According to current opinion, Hasanlu was de­stroyed in about 800 B.C. by Urartian invaders from strongholds in northwestern Iran. The 7th-century fortress at Besṭām (Elamite Rusa-i URU.TUR) is the largest Urartian site in Iran to have undergone major excavation (Kleiss). The use of bronze there parallels that at sites elsewhere in western Iran, includ­ing both personal ornaments like rings, beads, bracelets, and fibulae, domestic decorations like bronze furniture fittings, bosses, and vessels, and bronze weaponry including trefoil and two-bladed arrowpoints. Unfortunately, none of the Besṭām finds has been analyzed (for discussion of bronzeworking in Urartu, see Seidl).

Perhaps the region that has received the most atten­tion in the study of Iron Age bronze artifacts is Luristan (see bronzes of luristan Muscarella, 1988), particu­larly ornate bronze lost-wax castings. Although most of these have no provenience, some have been found at Surkh Dum (Sorḵdom Schmidt, 1938 Muscarella, 1981 Van Loon et al.), Baba Jan (Bābā Jān Goff, pp. 38-39, 56, 63-65), and the cemeteries excavated by Louis Vanden Berghe (see references in Vanden Berghe, 1979 Vanden Berghe and Haerinck). The bronzes of Luristan apparently represent the culmination of a long tradition of bronze casting and sheet-metal working lasting from the 3rd millennium to the 7th century B.C.

Datable to the 7th-6th century B.C., are the finds from a neo-Elamite tomb at Arrajān in Ḵūzestān (Tawḥīdī and Ḵalīlān). A lidded bronze coffin was found together with a stand, a lamp, a jar, a cup, and ten cylindrical vases, all in bronze, and artifacts in gold and silver (Alizadeh see Curtis, 1983). Another bronze coffin, possibly from Ziwiye (Zīwīya), may also belong to this period, though its context is still in dispute (Wilkinson Dyson, 1963 Muscarella, 1977b). Finally, evidence from the ca. 6th-century B.C. Median fortress at Nush-i Jan (Nū&scaron-e Jān) near Malāyer includes a small corpus of bronze fibulae (one of them bimetallic), pins, earrings, beads, &ldquobuttons,&rdquo bosses, a Pazuzu (apotropaic demon) head, a spatula, a kohl stick, and nine arrowpoints. Iron is not common at the site, and no analyses of the bronze artifacts have yet been undertaken. A discussion of the bronze arrowpoints served as the basis for a thorough review of the origin and occurrence of this type of artifact throughout western Iran (Curtis, 1984, pp. 26-­35). Important related studies of Iranian copper and bronze arrowpoints include those by S. Cleuziou and I. N. Medvedskaya (1980). The recent collection of papers edited by J. Curtis (1988) has opened the way for more detailed assessment than has previously been possible of bronze in the Iron Age, not only in western Iran but also in Assyria, Urartu, and beyond.

The Achaemenid period (ca. 6th-3rd centuries B.C.). With the rise of the Achaemenid dynasty in Fārs in the 6th century B.C. and the expansion of its empire to the east and west of the Iranian plateau, ancient metalwork­ing traditions continued, with considerable stylistic elaboration. The inventory of copper and bronze arti­facts from the period is considerable, though published accounts have tended to focus only on the most elaborate examples of the metalworker&rsquos craft. As the materials are from all over the far-flung empire and often without provenience, it is difficult to characterize the industry (Moorey, 1982, pp. 856-57). These prob­lems are compounded by the proliferation of forgeries of Achaemenid objects (Muscarella, 1977 1978 1980).

The largest Achaemenid sample from the Iranian plateau comes from the treasury at Persepolis, clearly a very particular assemblage (Schmidt, 1957 see also Muscarella, 1977a, pp. 193-96). Not only highly dec­orated functional artifacts are included there are also many that are purely decorative. The inventory includes a bronze plaque, a bimetallic tripod with three lions in the round, the cast leg of a quadruped, a pair of felines, a pair of horses cast in one piece, and fragments of wings, bands, rosettes, disks, moldings, and sheet metal. Personal ornaments in bronze were also found, includ­ing earrings, finger rings, pins, and gilded buttons. Functional categories include pulley wheels(?), a mor­tar and pestle, a mirror, and a duck weight. Military equipment is not well represented though almost 4,000 bronze arrowpoints were excavated, the only other distinctly military artifacts were a battle axe, several sword hilts, and bowstrap guards (Schmidt, 1957, p. 9).

The most comprehensive assemblage of Iranian mili­tary equipment from the period was excavated in the cemeteries at Deve Hüyük in Syria (Moorey, 1980). Copper and bronze vessels, lamps, ladles, equestrian gear, domestic and personal ornaments, and weapons were found. Most of the weapons were of iron, but certain categories of distinctively Achaemenid military equipment, such as trilobate arrowpoints and battle axes, were of bronze. It is believed that certain categories, for example, the trilobate arrowpoints, battle axes, and iron akinaki (daggers), actually originated in Transcaucasia (Sulimirski, pp. 10-11). The trilobate points are thought to have originated with the Scythians and to have been adopted later by the Medes. They are usually interpreted as a hallmark of Median troops in the Achaemenid army (Curtis, 1984, p. 28 see also Gorelick on Median and Persian defensive armor).

Other major Achaemenid sites in Iran are Pasargadae and what Ghirshman called the &ldquoPersian Achaemenid village&rdquo at Susa. The assemblages from these sites include much the same basic categories of bronze for military and decorative purposes, as well as a few other implements. From Pasargadae there are a model of a ram, buckles, signet rings, fibulae, trilobate arrow­points, and scale armor (Stronach). At Susa (Ghirsh­man, 1954) a small group of bronze artifacts from a context not connected with a court (Moorey, 1980, p. 130) included trilobate arrowpoints, javelin points, pins, needles, and items of personal ornament (Moorey, pp. 31-34 see Muscarella, 1977 1979 1980, for the few remaining classes of Achaemenid bronze artifacts from controlled contexts in the empire Besenval).

Few bronze artifacts from the Achaemenid period have been analyzed: Some of the more elaborate pieces, for example, a bimetallic tripod and complex forms like the trilobate arrowpoints must have been cast. Four Persepolis artifacts have been analyzed: a bronze arrow­point a pin shaft of copper, silver, and iron a fragment of copper or bronze slag and an iron arrowpoint (Howell, apud Schmidt, 1957, p. 136). A thorough study of a possibly Achaemenid bimetallic mirror (bronze with iron rivets) has also been conducted x-ray fluorescence indicated a tin content of 10.3 percent. It is assumed that the mirror was cast metallography revealed a cold-worked and annealed structure in the vicinity of the rivet holes, which may have been made in the final stages of shaping. Tool marks suggest that the mirror was decorated long after it had been manu­factured (Meyers apud Muscarella, 1977a, pp. 196-98 cf. p. 183 n. 84).

One important clue to the technology of Achaemenid metalwork actually comes from a post-Achaemenid Egyptian tomb. In the late 4th-century tomb of Pedusiri (Petosiris), an official buried in the necropolis of Hermopolis Magna, there are reliefs depicting a metal workshop in which Achaemenid-style vessels are being shaped (cf. Wulff, pp. 24-28): hammering of sheet metal, hammering to shape a bowl over a stake (cf. Wulff, figs. 23-24), chasing of details on vessels (including rhyte, probably in gold and silver), and working of other objects in metal are shown (Moorey, 1980, p. 127 Muscarella, 1977, p. 194 n. 100 1980, pp. 28-29).

Because the sample is skewed, it is difficult to draw conclusions about the impetus behind Achaemenid metalworking technology. The evidence suggests production for a luxury market and military needs. Although unique and elaborate artifacts are character­istic, bronze military equipment tended to be standard­ized. Given the geographic scope of the empire, organizational control of metallurgical production must have been centralized, as was control over the army itself. In this period, too, innovations in metalwork­ing are in the realm of decorative techniques rather than in obvious technological changes.

The Parthian and Sasanian periods (ca. 250 B.C.-A.D. 642). During this period bronze was used primarily for ornament and for projectile points and other military hardware. As in the Achaemenid period, little is known about the sources of ore and the composition of copper-base artifacts. Stylistic analyses dominate the literature, and they are often focused on metal artifacts from various Asian sites, rather than from the Iranian plateau itself. One of the most useful studies of bronze in this period is Parthian Art by M. A. Colledge, whose classifications are followed here. The art of this period is characterized by diversity of style and influences: &ldquoAlthough the Parthians were the politically dominant ethnic group in the Near East, their ruling dynasty, the feudal Arsacids, did not maintain uniform control over their vassals. Parthian art echoes this diversity . . . . In contrast to Sasanian art, Parthian art was not the product of a strongly centralized monarchy. Rather, it reflects the social and political complexity of the time&rdquo (Kawami, 1979, p. 473).

For decoration bronze was used in a number of ways. Personal ornaments were the most frequent, but there were also statues, often used as architectural adornment, and figurines, utensils, vessels, and even some coins of low denomination (Colledge, pp. 80, 103-09). An important characteristic of the period is the prevalence of Hellenistic and Roman imports and influences. It is clear that a great deal of traffic crossed the empire. For example, Roman goods have been excavated as far east as Kāpiśī, the capital of the Kushan dynasty (250­-50 B.C.) in Afghanistan (Colledge, p. 83). Indigenous bronze craftsmanship must have been influenced by Hellenistic and Roman traditions, and it is likely that the practice of casting large statues by the lost-wax method spread from the west, though the technique itself was already well known in the Near East in earlier millennia (for description of lost-wax casting, see Untracht, pp. 338-77). Shrines at Seleucia on the Tigris are known to have contained statues in clay with imported bronze extremities (Colledge, p. 82).

Western influence is most visible in a large number of figurines found throughout the Parthian empire. At Nehāvand in western Iran bronze figurines of deities, including Zeus, Apollo, Minerva, and Isis Fortuna have been found (Colledge, p. 82, pl. 3a) they are presumed to be imports, arguably of late Parthian date (Kawami,

1979, p. 472). Other figurines, probably cast within the empire, are listed by Colledge (p. 88), including an image of Hercules from Aï Khanum (Āy Ḵānom) in Afghanistan an Eros and a statue of a kneeling youth from Babylonia a griffin from Nisa (Nesā) in Turkmenistan images of Hercules, Hermes, Eros, Nike, and an eagle from Hatra in northern Iraq the bust of a ruler from Kurdistan a warrior and a god with cornucopia from Bard-i Nishandeh (Bard-e Ne&scaronānda) and a piper, a dancer, and comic animals from Masjid-i Suleiman (Masjed-e Solaymān), both in Ḵūzestān a nude goddess from Iran and images in local costume from the Gandhara region. Large figural sculpture was also produced in bronze. At Hatra a bronze acroterion representing Victory (Nike) on a globe (A.D. early 3rd century) adorned the &ldquoHellenistic&rdquo Temple E (Colledge, p. 70, pl. 10b). In the Baḵtīārī (Bakhtiari) mountains of northeastern Ḵūzestān at the dynastic shrine of Shami (destroyed ca. A.D. 50), a life-size standing male statue, possibly of a Parthian prince or vassal was found, as well as a headless bronze statuette of a standing male and two bronze arms (Kawami, 1987, pp. 64-65, 169-74 see also Stein, 1940, pp. 141-59, fig. 11).

Bronze plaques with figural representations in re­poussé were another medium of decoration. At Masjid-i Suleiman two such plaques were found in the Parthian temple (ca. A.D. 200), and another is known from Hatra (Colledge, p. 101). Bronze also had functional uses in architecture, as in the bronze clamps that held blocks of stone together. Early Hellenistic column bases at Aï Khanum were held by such clamps, and in the colonnade of the temple of Bel at Palmyra, there was a bronze capital ornament (Colledge, p. 29).

Smaller bronze objects of the Parthian period also tended to be elaborate. From Parthian Nisa there are bronze platters decorated in relief, from Taxila and sites in Iran and Mesopotamia trays from perfume burners, from Masjid-i Suleiman lamps, ladles, and bowls (Col­ledge, p. 114). Unique small bronze finds include a lion-headed door knocker and a belt plaque (see belts ii). Such plaques are depicted on the sculptures from Hatra and Shami, and at Masjid-i Suleiman an actual example was recorded (Colledge, p. 112). This site also produced what may be a musical instrument, a bronze triangle (Colledge, p. 135). Bronze bells from the period have been studied (Keiko).

Bronze mirrors, though found across central Asia (Frumkin, pp. 41, 69) and in Iran (Egami et al., II, p. 10, pl. XLIX no. 29), may be linked technologically to China. Of particular interest are mirrors from Susa and Masjid-i Suleiman with handles in the form of nude female figures (Colledge, p. 111).

During the Parthian period traditional methods of casting, turning, chasing, and hammering (over molds) were applied in the production of jewelry and table wares of bronze and precious metals (Colledge, p. 124). The use of raised metal flanges to hold cloisons was common on table wares and other items, and on fine pieces figures were represented in repoussé. Among so-called &ldquoBactrian bowls&rdquo such figures were formed separately and attached by means of hammered metal flanges. This technique was to become characteristic of Sasanian metalwork. Small metal figurines were cast in both solid and hollow examples. The lost-wax method was used for larger bronze statues.

Because few Sasanian sites have been excavated, none comprehensively (Harper, 1986), Sasanian bronzes from the Iranian plateau are quite rare. The principal evidence comes from Ctesiphon and Kish in Iraq and from Tepe Hissar in northeastern Iran, Takht-i Sulei­man (Taḵt-e Solaymān) in Azerbaijan, and a number of sites in Fārs: Bī&scaronāpūr, Fīrūzābād, and Qasr-i Abu Nasr (Qaṣr-e Abū Naṣr possibly old Shiraz) in Fārs. Some of the best evidence for the use of bronze in the Sasanian period comes from the fortress at Qasr-i Abu Nasr, where a relatively large, well-dated assemblage was excavated (Whitcomb, pp. 16-19, 160-76). These objects are assumed to be of bronze, though no analyses have been conducted. They contrast sharply with those of the Parthian period in that most are items of daily use, but this contrast probably reflects a biased sample, rather than specific sociocultural differences, for studies of artifacts other than bronzes indicate that Sasanian material culture was as elaborate and as luxurious as that of the Parthians.

The artifacts from the fortress area at Qasr-i Abu Nasr include a more diverse array of tools and utensils than in earlier periods, among them a dipper, a ladle, bowls, plates or lids, closed vessels, handles, ringstands, forks, spoons, tongs, needles, awls, a fish hook, cru­cibles, and a mirror. Decorative artifacts cast in bronze are well represented: buckles, attachments, hooks, pendants in the shapes of animals, a seal, fibulae, bells, and pins. Bronze jewelry includes earrings, pendants, an amulet case, fragments of chain, finger rings, bracelets, buttons, bosses, and guards (Whitcomb, p. 176). Indi­vidual parallels for some of these objects have been identified at such sites as Pyandzhikent in Sogdia and Istakhr (Eṣṭaḵr), Nī&scaronāpūr, Susa, Tal-i Malyan, Qaleh Yazdigerd (Qaḷʿa-ye Yazdegerd), and Mālamīr (Malāmīr) in Iran (Whitcomb).

Such military hardware as spear points, lance points, and arrowpoints, most often tanged, were also found at the fortress they are &ldquoindicative of diverse chronological, and perhaps cultural associations . . .&rdquo (Whitcomb, p. 168). Of eight types one is exclusively made of iron and seven usually of bronze. Large points are rare. Parallels for many weapon types are recorded at such sites as Tureng (Tūrang) Tepe, Besṭām, Persepolis, Pasargadae, Istakhr, Susa, and Tepe Yahya (Whit­comb, p. 168). A piece of armor is composed of thirteen iron scales and a single bronze spacer scale. Scale armor is also known from Pasargadae and Pyandzhikent (Whitcomb, p. 169).

From this assemblage it is clear that copper and bronze occurred in a variety of forms, many of them decorative, at Qasr-i Abu Nasr. The finest specimens are cast. A rare group of stucco molds excavated at Khokhe in southern Mesopotamia (Negro Ponzi) is evidence of the casting methods used in the Sasanian period. It has been suggested that terracotta models could have been produced from such stucco molds and distributed to workshops all over the empire, which would permit standardization in decorative bronze work (Harper, 1978, p. 87). Several detailed studies confirm increasing elaboration of bronze artifacts in the Sasanian period: a trimetallic helmet (bronze, iron, and gold Granscay Overlaet, 1982), ox-headed maces (Harper, 1985), a bronze plate (Eghbal), belts (Ghirshman, 1979), and horse trappings (Ghirshman, 1977).

The introduction of high-tin bronze. Toward the end of the Sasanian period high-tin bronze artifacts began to appear they became common in early Islamic Iran (see ii below). These objects represent a technical apogee in the alloying of copper with tin. Only the earliest documented appearance of this particular kind of bronze and the possible sources of the technology are addressed here.

A bronze with a tin content of 20 percent or higher can easily be produced by means of smelting together cassiterite (the common tin ore, SnO2) with copper ore in proper proportions. Early in this century W. Gow­land demonstrated this point by smelting 15 pounds of malachite with 10 pounds of cassiterite, 7.5 pounds of limestone (flux), and 10 pounds of charcoal (Gowland, 1912). The resulting bronze had a tin content of 22 percent. Though such an alloy can easily be produced by smelting, proper working of the metal requires a sophisticated understanding of its properties (Goodway and Conklin). The technology required has been de­scribed by Cyril Stanley Smith: &ldquoA copper-tin alloy with a content of c. 22% tin becomes plastic at c. 550 C, melts at 725 C, and is very plastic between those two temperatures. Fully molten at 800 C, it is easy to cast. It can be red-hot forged if cooled slowly it will shatter if hammered if quenched it becomes moderately hard and reasonably malleable, though not as malleable as ordinary bronze. With time it acquires a black patina&rdquo (apud Allan, p. 46 see also Melikian-Chirvani, p. 124). The most significant aspect of this process is the danger that the alloy will become brittle. Castings break easily, with sharply defined, rectilinear edges not unlike those of shattered pottery, unless quenched. Artifacts made from this alloy usually have simple forms, for example, hemispherical and stem bowls, which can be hammered to shape. More complex contours would be difficult to produce, because the metal must be forged at red heat (Allan, p. 47). Whether forging and quenching have in fact occurred can be ascertained only by metallography, the study of the microstructure of polished and etched samples of metal (e.g., Goodway and Conklin, 1987, figs. 4-7).

Perhaps the earliest example of a high-tin bronze artifact of possibly Iranian origin is a &ldquoLuristan bronze&rdquo of unknown provenience in the Ashmolean Museum, Oxford (Moorey, 1976, p. 359 1971, no. 205). Three artifacts from Ghar-i Mar in Afghanistan have been dated to ca. A.D. 300 and another to ca. A.D. 500 (Dupree Caley, 1971, pp. 108-09). The earliest artifacts of high-tin bronze actually excavated in Iran are a bowl and a mirror from a tomb in Deylamān dated by the excavator to the latter half of the Parthian period (Egami et al., II, pp. 9-10, 18, pls. 43, 49 Allan, p. 47, has suggested A.D. the 4th century). The composition of the bowl is recorded as including 21.4 percent tin, 1.2 percent lead, and 0,7 percent iron (Dōno, pp. 112, 217, fig. 66 Melikian-Chirvani, p. 135 n. 40). However, it is not until the late Sasanian period that artifacts of high­-tin bronze, primarily bowls and vessels, begin to appear with any frequency (Harper, 1978, p. 86).

By the early Islamic period the technology was sufficiently evolved to permit manufacture of standard­ized hemispherical and stem bowls in high-tin bronze. Unfortunately, no metallographic studies of well-dated pieces have been undertaken, but radiography of seven early Islamic bronzes revealed changes in wall thickness consistent with the conclusion that these artifacts had been forged, rather than simply cast (Van Zelst and Meyers apud Melikian-Chirvani, pp. 149-50).

It is clear that high-tin bronze artifacts were difficult to make and were relatively rare until the later Sasanian and early Islamic periods. It has been argued that in the Sasanian period, when silver was the preferred metal for luxurious display, high-tin bronze, with its character­istic silvery hue, may have provided a cheaper alterna­tive for lower social strata (Harper, 1978, pp. 86-87, 95). Its color is also close to that of unoxidized iron or steel, however furthermore, both high-tin bronze and iron or steel develop a black surface coating when oxidized. Perhaps most significant is that both steel and high-tin bronze can be quenched and that quenching produces marked transformations in the physical and mechanical properties of both: Steel becomes markedly harder, whereas high-tin bronze becomes more malleable and gives a ringing sound when struck (Goodway and Conklin). Craddock (1979) has noted that the 4th/10th-­century Islamic alchemist Jāber b. Ḥayyān included ḵārṣīnī &ldquochinese iron&rdquo among the seven metals, the others being gold, silver, lead, tin, copper, and iron (see EI 2 , s.vv. Dj ābir b. Ḥayyān, Kh ārṣīnī). Other sources reported that ḵārṣīnī was used for mirrors in China, and analyses of early Chinese mirrors have shown that they are indeed made of high-tin bronze (Allan, 1979, pp. 49­-51). Craddock has equated ḵārṣīnī in turn with haftjū&scaron (lit. &ldquoboiled seven times&rdquo), which he interprets as referring to the necessity of reheating the alloy re­peatedly during manufacturing (p. 74). Modern arti­facts from Kermān identified by their craftsmen as of haftjū&scaron have been shown by analysis to be high-tin bronzes (Allan, p. 51 Craddock, pp. 74, 77 Wulff, p. 18).

It is thus possible that high-tin bronze was being imported from China in the Parthian period and later and that this alloy was perceived in the West as a form of iron. During the Sasanian period, with the desire to emulate silver and perhaps to imitate imported wares, standardized production of cheaper high-tin bronze may have begun, reaching its full development in Iran in the early Islamic period (see ii below).

A. Alizadeh, &ldquoA Tomb of the Neo-Elamite Period at Arjan, near Behbahan,&rdquo AMI 18, 1985, pp. 49-73.

J. W. Allan, Persian Metal Technology 700-1300 AD, London, 1978.

P. Amiet, &ldquoArchaeological Discontinuity and Ethnic Duality in Elam,&rdquo Antiquity 53, 1979, pp. 195-204.

Idem et al., &ldquoLa spectrométrie de masse éclaire et les chemins de la métallurgie,&rdquo in La vie mystérieuse des chefs­ d&rsquo&oeliguvre. La science au service de l&rsquoart, Paris, 1980, pp. 85-87.

D. Bazin and H. Hübner, &ldquoCopper De­posits in Iran,&rdquo Geological Survey of Iran, Report 13, Tehran, 1969.

T. W. Beale, &ldquoEarly Trade in Highland Iran. A View from a Source Area,&rdquo World Archae­ology 5, 1973, pp. 133-48.

T. Berthoud, Étude par l&rsquoanalyse de traces et la modélisation de la filiation entre minérai de cuivre et objets archéologiques du Moyen-Orient (IV ème et III ème millénaires avant notre ère), unpublished Ph.D. thesis, Paris, 1979.

T. Berthoud et al., Étude sur la métallurgie iranienne aux IV ème -III ème millénaires, Paris, 1975.

T. Berthoud et al., Les anciennes mines de cuivre en Iran, Paris, 1976.

T. Berthoud et al., Les anciennes mines d&rsquoAfghanistan, Paris, 1977.

T. Berthoud et al., Les anciennes mines de cuivre du sultanat d&rsquoOman, Paris, 1978.

T. Berthoud et al., &ldquoThe Early Iranian Metallurgy Analytical Study of Copper Ores from Iran,&rdquo in Proceedings of the 18th International Symposium on Archaeometry andArchae­ological Prospection, Cologne, 1979, pp. 68-74.

T. Berthoud et al., &ldquoData Analysis. Towards a Model of Chemical Modification of Copper from Ores to Metal,&rdquo in Scientific Studies in Early Mining and Extractive Metallurgy, ed. P. T. Craddock, British Museum Occasional Papers 20, 1980a, pp. 87-102.

T. Berthoud et al., &ldquoProduction, échange et utilisation des métaux. Bilan et perspectives des recherches archéométriques récentes dans le domaine oriental,&rdquo Paléorient 6, 1980b, pp. 99-127.

T. Berthoud et al., &ldquoCuivres et alliages en Iran, Afghanistan, Oman au cours des IVᵉ et IIIᵉ millénaires,&rdquo Paléorient 8, 1982, pp. 39-54.

T. Berthoud and J. Françaix, Contribution à l&rsquoétude de la métallurgie de Suse aux IVᵉ and IIIᵉ millénaires. Analyse des éléments-traces par spec­trométrie d&rsquoémission dans l&rsquoultra-violet et spectro­métrie de masse à étincelles, Rapport CEA-4-5033, Gif-sur-Yvette (France), 1980.

R. Besenval, &ldquoUn mors achéménide en provenance du Gorgan,&rdquo Iran 20, 1982, pp. 177-79.

G. M. Bulgarelli, &ldquoThe Lithic Industry of Tepe Hissar at the Light of Recent Excavation&rdquo in South Asian Archaeology, 1977, ed. M. Taddei, Naples, 1979, pp. 39-54.

C. Burney and D. M. Lang, People of the Hills, New York, 1972. T. Burton-Brown, Excavations in Azerbaijan, 1948, London, 1951.

J. R. Caldwell, ed., Investigations at Tal-i-Iblis, Illinois State Museum Preliminary Re­ports 9, Springfield, 1967.

Idem, &ldquoTal-i-Iblis and the Beginning of Copper Metallurgy in the Fifth Millen­nium,&rdquo Archaeologia Viva 1, September-November 1968, pp. 145-50.

Idem and S. Malek Shahmirzadi, Tal-i-Iblis. The Kerman Range and the Beginning of Smelting, Illinois State Museum Preliminary Reports 7, Springfield, 1966.

E. R. Caley, &ldquoAnalyses of Some Metal Artifacts from Ancient Afghanistan,&rdquo in Science and Archaeology, ed. R. H. Brill, Cambridge, 1971, pp. 106-13.

Idem, &ldquoChemical Examination of Metal Artifacts from Afghanistan,&rdquo in L. Dupree, ed., Prehistoric Research in Afghanistan, 1959-66, Transactions of the American Philosophical Society, N.S. 62, Philadelphia, 1972, pp. 44-50.

Idem, &ldquoChemi­cal Composition of Some Early Copper Alloys Found in Afghanistan,&rdquo Vijnana Parishad Anusan­dhan Patrika 23/3, 1980, pp. 223-33.

G. W. Carriveau, &ldquoApplication of Thermoluminescence Dating Tech­niques to Prehistoric Metallurgy,&rdquo in Applications of Science to the Dating of Works of Art, ed. W. J. Young, Boston, 1978, pp. 59-66.

E. N. Chernykh, &ldquoNekotorye rezul&rsquotaty izucheniya metalla anauskoĭ kul&rsquotury&rdquo (Results of the analysis of metal of the Anau culture), Kratkie soobshcheniya Instituta Arkheologii 91, 1962, pp. 30-37.

V. M. Chmyriov et al., &ldquoMineral Resources of Afghanistan,&rdquo in Geology and Mines and Industries of the Republic of Afghanistan I, Kabul, 1973.

S. Cleuziou, &ldquoLes pointes de flèches "scythiques" au Proche et Moyen Orient,&rdquo in Le plateau iranien et l&rsquoAsie centrale des origines à la conquête islamique, ed. J. Deshayes, Paris, 1977, pp. 187-99.

Idem and T. Berthoud, &ldquoEarly Tin in the Near East. A Reassessment in the Light of New Evidence from Afghanistan,&rdquo Expedition 25/1, 1982, pp. 14-19.

H. H. Coghlan, &ldquoSome Fresh Aspects of the Prehistoric Metallurgy of Copper,&rdquo Antiquaries Journal 22, 1942, pp. 22-38.

Idem, Notes on the Prehistoric Metallurgy of Copper and Bronze in the Old World, 2nd ed., Oxford, 1975.

M. A. Colledge, Parthian Art, Ithaca, 1977.

G. Contenau and R. Ghirshman, Fouilles du Tépé Giyan près de Néhavend, 1931 et 1932, Paris, 1935.

P. T. Craddock, &ldquoThe Copper Alloys of the Medieval Islamic World&mdashInheritors of the Classical Tradition,&rdquo World Archaeology 11/1, 1979, pp. 68-79.

H. Crawford, &ldquoGeoy Tepe 1903. Material in the Collection of the Fitz-­William Museum, Cambridge,&rdquo Iranica Antiqua 11, 1975, pp. 1-28.

J. Curtis, &ldquoLate Assyrian Bronze Coffins,&rdquo Anatolian Studies 33, 1983, pp. 85-95.

Idem, Nush-i Jan III. The Small Finds, London, 1984.

Idem, ed., Bronzeworking Centres of Western Asia 1000-539 B.C., London, 1988.

J. Deshayes, &ldquoMarteaux de bronze iraniens,&rdquo Syria 35, 1958, pp. 284-93.

Idem, Les outils de bronze de l&rsquoIndus au Danube (IVᵉ au IIᵉ millénaire), Bibliothèque archéologique et historique 71, 2 vols., Paris, 1960.

Idem, &ldquoHaches-herminettes iraniennes,&rdquo Syria 40, 1963, pp. 273-76.

Idem, &ldquoNouveaux outils iraniens,&rdquo Syria 42, 1965, pp. 91-108.

Idem and J. Christophe, Index de l&rsquooutillage. Outils de métal de l&rsquoâge du bronze des Balkans à l&rsquoIndus II: Commen­taires, Paris, 1964.

T. Dōno, Kodai kinzoku bunkashi (Chemical investigations of the ancient metallic cul­ture), Tokyo, 1967.

R. C. Dougherty and J. R. Cald­well, &ldquoEvidence of Early Pyrometallurgy in the Kerman Range in Iran,&rdquo Science 153, 1966, pp. 984­-85.

L. Dupree, &ldquoPrehistoric Archeological Surveys and Excavations in Afghanistan, 1959-1960 and 1961-1963,&rdquo Science 146, 1964, pp. 638-40.

E. C. L. During Caspers, &ldquoLa hachette trouée de la sépulture E de Khurāb dans le Balouchistan persan. Examen rétrospectif,&rdquo Iranica Antiqua 9, 1972, pp. 60-64.

R. H. Dyson, Jr., &ldquoArchaeological Scrap. Glimpses of History at Ziwiye,&rdquo Expedition 5/3, 1963, pp. 32-­37.

Idem, &ldquoProblems of Protohistoric Iran Seen from Hasanlu,&rdquo JNES 24/3, 1965, pp. 193-217.

E. R. Eaton and H. McKerrell, &ldquoNear Eastern Alloying and Some Textual Evidence for the Early Use of Arsenical Copper,&rdquo World Archaeology 8/2, 1976, pp. 169-91.

N. Egami et al., Dailaman I-II, Tokyo, 1965-66.

H. Eghbal, &ldquoUn plat de bronze sassanide,&rdquo Studia Iranica 14/2, 1985, pp. 141-45.

G. Frumkin, Archaeology in Soviet Central Asia, Leiden and Cologne, 1970.

S. Fukai and J. Ikeda, Dailaman IV, Tokyo, 1971. R. Ghirshman, Fouilles de Sialk I, Paris, 1938.

Idem, Suse. Village perse-achéménide, MMAI 36, Paris, 1954.

Idem, &ldquoLa ceinture en Iran,&rdquo Iranica Antiqua 14, 1979, pp. 167-96.

Idem, &ldquoL&rsquoIran. La migration des Indo-Aryens et des Iraniens,&rdquo in Akten des VII. Internationalen Kongresses für Iranische Kunst and Archäologie. München 7-10 September 1976, AMI, Ergänzungsband 6, Berlin, 1979, pp. 63-66.

C. Goff, &ldquoExcavations at Baba Jan. The Pottery and Metal from Levels III and II,&rdquo Iran 16, 1978, pp. 38-65.

F. A. Gooch, &ldquoThe Analysis of the Metallic Implements and Products of Corrosion,&rdquo in Explorations in Turkestan. Expedition of 1904. Prehis­toric Civilizations of Anau, Origins, Growth, and Influence of Environment I, ed. R. Pumpelly, Washing­ton, D.C., 1908, pp. 235-40.

M. Goodway and H. Conklin, &ldquoQuenched High-Tin Bronze from the Philippines,&rdquo Archeomaterials 2/1, 1987, pp. 1-27.

M. V. Gorelik, &ldquoZashchitnoe vooruzhenie Persov i Midyan Akhemenidskogo vremeni&rdquo (Defensive armor of the Persians and the Medes in the Achaemenid period), in VDI 3, 1982-83, pp. 90-106.

W. Gowland, The Metals in Antiquity, London, 1912.

S. V. Granscay, &ldquoA Sasanian Chieftain&rsquos Helmet,&rdquo Bulletin of the Metropolitan Museum of Art, N.S. 21, 1963, pp. 253-62.

E. Haerinck, &ldquoThe Iron Age in Guilan. Proposal for a Chronology,&rdquo in Bronzeworking Centres of Western Asia 1000-539 B.C., ed. J. Curtis, London, 1988, pp. 63-78.

Idem and B. Overlaet, &ldquoArmes et outils miniatures en Afghanistan et en Iran à l&rsquoAge du Fer,&rdquo in De l&rsquoIndus aux Balkans (Recueil à la mémoire de Jean Deshayes), ed. J.-L. Huot et al., Paris, 1985, pp. 389-416.

L. Halm, &ldquoAnalyse chimique et étude micrographique de quelques objets de métal cuivreux provenant du Tepe-Giyan,&rdquo in G. Contenau and R. Ghirshman, Fouilles de Tépé Giyan près de Néavend 1931 et 1932, Paris, 1935, pp. 135-38.

Idem, &ldquoAnalyse chimique et étude micrographique de quelques pièces de métal et de céramique provenant de Sialk,&rdquo in R. Ghirshman, Fouilles de Sialk II, Paris, 1939, pp. 205­-08.

P. O. Harper, The Royal Hunter, Art of the Sasanian Empire, New York, 1978.

Idem, &ldquoThe Ox-Headed Mace in Pre-Islamic Iran,&rdquo in Papers in Honor of Professor Mary Boyce I, Acta Iranica 24, Leiden, 1985, pp. 247-59.

Idem, &ldquoArt in Iran v. Sasanian,&rdquo in EIr. I/6, 1986, pp. 585-94.

A. Haupt­mann, &ldquoZur frühbronzezeitlichen Metallurgie von Shahr-i Sokhta (Iran),&rdquo Der Anschnitt 32/2-3, 1980, pp. 55-61.

G. Herrmann, &ldquoLapis Lazuli. The Early Phases of Its Trade,&rdquo Iraq 30, 1968, pp. 21-57.

D. L. Heskel, The Development of Pyrotechnology in Iran during the Fourth and Third Millennia B.C., Ph.D. dissertation, Harvard University, 1982.

Idem, &ldquoA Model for the Adoption of Metallurgy in the Ancient Middle East,&rdquo Current Anthropology 24/3, 1983, pp. 362-66.

Idem and C. C. Lamberg-Karlovsky, &ldquoAn Alternative Sequence for the Development of Metallurgy. Tepe Yahya, Iran,&rdquo in The Coming of the Age of Iron, ed. T. A. Wertime and J. D. Muhly, New Haven, 1980, pp. 229-65.

Idem, &ldquoMetallurgical Tech­nology,&rdquo in Excavations at Tepe Yahya, Iran, 1967-1975, ed. C. C. Lamberg-Karlovsky and T. W. Beale, Cambridge, Mass., 1986, pp. 207-14.

F. Hole, Studies in the Archaeological History of the Deh Luran Plain. The Excavations of Chogha Sefid, University of Michigan Museum of Anthropology Memoir 9, Ann Arbor, 1977.

Idem, ed., The Archaeology of Western Iran. Settlement and Society from Prehistory to the Islamic Conquest, Washington, D.C., 1987.

H. F. Holzer and M. Momenzadeh, &ldquoAncient Copper Mines in the Veshnoveh Area, Kuhestan-e-Qom, West Central Iran,&rdquo Archaeologia Austriaca 49, 1971, pp. 1-22.

A. Isakov et al., &ldquoMetallurgical Analysis from Sarazm, Tadjikistan SSR,&rdquo Archaeometry 29/1, 1987, pp. 90-102.

J.-F. Jarrige, &ldquoA propos d&rsquoune forêt à tige hélicoïdale en cuivre de Mundigak,&rdquo in De l&rsquoIndus aux Balkans (Recueil à la mémoire de Jean Deshayes), ed. J.-L. Huot et al., Paris, 1985, pp. 281­-92.

T. S. Kawami, review of M. A. Colledge, Parthian Art, in The Art Bulletin 61/3, 1979, pp. 471-73.

Idem, Monumental Art of the Parthian Period in Iran, Acta Iranica 26, Leiden, 1987, chap. IV.

I. Keiko, &ldquoBronze Belts from Iran,&rdquo Bulletin of the Ancient Orient Museum 3, 1981, pp. 103-13. W. Kleiss, Bastam I, Berlin, 1979.

P. Knauth, The Metalsmiths, New York, 1974. G. Ladame, &ldquoLes ressources métallifères de l&rsquoIran,&rdquo Schweizerische mineralogische und petro­graphische Mitteilungen 25, 1945, pp. 167-303.

C. C. Lamberg-Karlovsky, The Development of a Metallurgical Technology. Documented Early Finds of Metals in the Near East and the Evidence from Hasanlu, Iran, Ph.D. dissertation, University of Pennsylvania, 1965.

Idem, &ldquoArchaeology and Metal­lurgical Technology in Prehistoric Afghanistan, India and Pakistan,&rdquo American Anthropologist 69, 1967, pp. 145-62.

Idem, &ldquoFurther Notes on the Shaft-­Hole Pick-Axe from Khurāb, Makrān,&rdquo Iran 7, 1969, pp. 163-68.

Idem and T. W. Beale, Excavations at Tepe Yahya, Iran 1967-1975, Cambridge, 1986.

H. Lechtman, &ldquoCorrigenda to the Technical Appendix [of Lamberg-Karlovsky, 1969],&rdquo Iran 8, 1970, p. 173.

L. D. Levine and C. Hamlin, &ldquoThe Godin Project. Seh Gabi,&rdquo Iran 12, 1974, pp. 211-13.

L. D. Levine and T. C. Young, Jr., eds., Mountains and Lowlands. Essays in the Archaeology of Greater Mesopotamia, Bibliotheca Mesopotamica 7, Malibu, 1977.

M. Maczek at al., &ldquoBeiträge zum Problem des Ursprunges der Kupfererzverwertung in der Alten Welt,&rdquo Archaeologia Austriaca 10, 1952, pp. 61-70.

R. Maddin at al., &ldquoDistinguishing Artifacts Made of Native Copper,&rdquo Journal of Archaeological Science 7/3, 1980, pp. 211-26.

Idem, ed., The Beginning of the Use of Metals and Alloys, Cambridge, Mass., 1988.

Y. Majidzadeh, &ldquoAn Early Prehistoric Coppersmith Workshop at Tape Ghabristan,&rdquo in Akten des VII. Internationalen Kongresses für Iranische Kunst und Archäologie. München 7-10 September 1976, AMI, Ergänzungsband 6, Berlin, 1979, pp. 82-92.

S. J. Maréchal, &ldquoÉtude sur les propriétés mécaniques des cuivres à l&rsquoarsénic,&rdquo Métaux. Corrosion-Industries 33, 1958, pp. 377-83.

K. R. Maxwell-Hyslop, &ldquoNote on a Shaft-Hole Axe-Pick from Khurab, Makran,&rdquo Iraq 17, 1955, p. 161.

I. N. Medvedskaya, &ldquoMetalli­cheskie nakonechniki strel perednego vostoka i ev­raziĭskikh stepeĭ II-pervoĭ poloviny I tysyacheletiya do n. è.&rdquo (Metal arrowheads of the second to the first half of the 1st millennium B.C. from the Near East and the Eurasian steppes), Sovetskaya arkhe­ologiya 4, 1980, pp. 23-37 (with English summary).

Idem, Iran. Iron Age I, tr. S. Pavlovich, British Archaeological Reports, I.S. 126, Oxford, 1982.

A. S. Melikian-Chirvani, &ldquoThe White Bronzes of Early Islamic Iran,&rdquo Metropolitan Museum Journal 9, 1974, pp. 123-51.

P. R. S. Moorey, &ldquoPrehistoric Copper and Bronze Metallurgy in Western Iran,&rdquo Iran 7, 1969, pp. 131-54.

Idem, Catalogue of the Ancient Persian Bronzes in the Ashmolean Museum, Oxford, 1971.

Idem, &ldquoParthian and Sasanian Metalwork in the Bomford Collection,&rdquo Burlington Magazine, June 1976, pp. 358-61.

Idem, Cemeteries of the First Mil­lennium B.C. at Deve Hüyük Near Carchemish, Salvaged by T. E. Lawrence and C. L. Woolley in 1913, British Archaeological Reports I.S. 87, Oxford, 1980.

Idem, &ldquoArchaeology and Pre-Achaemenid Metal­working in Iran. A Fifteen Year Retrospective,&rdquo Iran 20, 1982, pp. 81-101.

Idem, Materials and Manufac­ture in Ancient Mesopotamia. The Evidence of Archae­ology and Art, British Archaeological Reports, I.S. 237, Oxford, 1985.

J. D. Muhly, Copper and Tin, Transactions of The Connecticut Academy of Arts and Sciences 43, Hamden, 1973.

Idem, Supplement to Copper and Tin, Hamden, Conn., 1976.

Idem, &ldquoThe Copper Ox-Hide Ingots and the Bronze Age Metals Trade,&rdquo Iraq 39, 1977, pp. 73-82.

Idem, &ldquoKupfer. Archäologisch,&rdquo in RIA VI, pp. 348-64.

Idem, &ldquoSources of Tin and the Beginnings of Bronze Metallurgy,&rdquo AJA 89, 1985, pp. 275-91.

Idem, review of Penhallurick, in Archeomaterials 2, 1987, pp. 99­-107.

O. W. Muscarella, &ldquoA Fibula from Hasanlu, Northwestern Iran,&rdquo AJA, 2nd ser., 69/3, 1965, pp. 233-40.

Idem, &ldquoThe Excavations at Agrab Tepe, Iran,&rdquo Metropolitan Museum Journal 8, 1973, pp. 47-76.

Idem, &ldquoThe Iron Age at Dinkha Tepe, Iran,&rdquo Metropolitan Museum Journal 9, 1974, pp. 35-90.

Idem, &ldquoUnexcavated Objects and Ancient Near East­ern Art,&rdquo in Mountains and Lowlands, Essays in the Archaeology of Greater Mesopotamia, ed. L. D. Le­vine and T. C. Young, Jr., Bibliotheca Mesopotami­ca 7, Malibu, 1977a, pp. 153-207.

Idem, &ldquo"Ziwiye" and Ziwiye, Forgery of a Provenience,&rdquo Journal of Field Archaeology 4, 1977b, pp. 197-219.

Idem, &ldquoIranian Art and Archaeology,&rdquo Journal of Field Archaeology 5, 1978, pp. 241-45.

Idem, Unexcavated Objects and Ancient Near Eastern Art, Addenda, Monographic Journals of the Near East, Occasional Papers 1/1, Malibu, 1979.

Idem, &ldquoExcavated and Unexcavated Achaemenian Art,&rdquo in Ancient Persia. The Art of an Empire, ed. D. Schmandt-Besserat, Malibu, 1980, pp. 23-42.

Idem, &ldquoSurkh Dum at The Metropolitan Museum of Art. A Mini-Report,&rdquo Journal of Field Archaeology 8, 1981, pp. 327-59.

Idem, &ldquoFibulae and Chronology, Marlik and Assur,&rdquo Journal of Field Archaeology 11/4, 1984, pp. 413-19.

Idem, &ldquoThe Background to the Luristan Bronzes,&rdquo in Bronzeworking Centres of Western Asia 1000-539 B.C., ed. J. Curtis, London, 1988, pp. 33-44.

E. O. Negahban, A Preliminary Report on Marlik Excavation, Gohar Rud Expedition, Rudbar 1961-62, Teh­ran, 1964.

Idem, A Guide to the Haft Tepe Excavation and Museum, Tehran, 1977.

Idem, &ldquoPottery and Bronze Human Figures of Marlik,&rdquo AMI 12, 1979a, pp. 157-73.

Idem, &ldquoSeals of Marlik,&rdquo in Akten des VII. Internationalen Kongresses für Iranische Kunst und Archäologie. München 7-10 September 1976, AMI, Ergänzungsband 6, Berlin, 1979b, pp. 108-37.

Idem, &ldquoThe Seals of Marlik Tepe,&rdquo JNES 36, 1979c, pp. 81-102.

Idem, &ldquoMaceheads from Marlik,&rdquo AJA 85, 1981, pp. 367-78.

Idem, &ldquoMetal Vessels from Marlik,&rdquo Prähistorische Bronzefunde, Abt. 2, III, Munich, 1983.

Idem, Excavations at Haft Tepe, Iran, University Museum Monograph 70, Philadelphia (forthcoming).

M. Negro Ponzi, &ldquoSome Sasanian Moulds,&rdquo Mesopotamia 2, 1967, pp. 57-92.

I. M. Nicholas, A Spatial/Functional Analysis of Late Fourth Millennium Occupation at the TUV Mound, Tal-e Malyan, Iran, Ph.D. dissertation, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, 1980.

Idem, The Proto-­Elamite Settlement at TUV, University Museum Monograph 69, Malyan Excavation Reports 1, Phila­delphia (forthcoming).

B. J. Overlaet, &ldquoPointed Helmets of the Iron Age from Iran,&rdquo Iranica Antiqua 14, 1979, pp. 51-65.

Idem, &ldquoContribution to Sasanian Armament in Connection with a Decorated Helmet,&rdquo Iranica Antiqua 17, 1982, pp. 189-206.

R. D. Panhallurick, Tin in Antiquity. Its Mining and Trade throughout the Ancient World with Particular Ref­erence to Cornwall, London, 1986.

V. C. Pigott, &ldquoResearch at the University of Pennsylvania on the Development of Ancient Metallurgy. Research at MASCA,&rdquo Paléorient 6, 1980a, pp. 105-10.

Idem, &ldquoThe Iron Age in Western Iran,&rdquo in T. A. Wertime and J. D. Muhly, eds., The Coming of Age of Iron, New Haven, 1980b.

Idem, The Adoption of Iron in Western Iran in the Early First Millennium B.C. An Archaeometallurgical Study, Ph.D. dissertation, Uni­versity of Pennsylvania, 1981.

Idem, &ldquoĀhan,&rdquo in EIr. I/6, 1984, pp. 624-33.

Idem et al., &ldquoPyrotechnology and Culture Change at Bronze Age Tepe Hissar (Iran),&rdquo in T. A. Wertime and S. F. Wertime, eds., Early Pyrotechnology. The Evolution of the First Fire-­Using Industries, Washington, 1982, pp. 215-36.

W. Rostoker et al., &ldquoDirect Reduction to Copper Metal by Oxide/Sulfide Mineral Interaction,&rdquo Archeoma­terials (forthcoming).

V. D. Ryzanov, &ldquoO neko­torykh drevnikh olovorudnykh istochnikakh na ter­ritorii Uzbekistana&rdquo (On some ancient sources of tin ore in Uzbekistan), Istoriya material&rsquonoĭ kul&rsquotury Uzbekistana 15, 1997, pp. 98-104.

S. Salvatori, &ldquoProblemi di protostoria iranica. Note ulteriori su di una ricognizione di superficie a Shahdad (Kerman, Iran),&rdquo Rivista di Archeologia 2, 1978, pp. 5-15.

Idem and M. Vidale, &ldquoA Brief Surface Survey of the Protohistoric Site of Shahdad (Ker­man, Iran). Preliminary Report,&rdquo Rivista di Archeologia 6, 1982, pp. 5-10.

J. Shaffer, &ldquoThe Later Prehistoric Periods,&rdquo in The Archaeology of Afghani­stan from the Earliest Times to the Timurid Period, ed. F. R. Allchin and N. Hammond, New York, 1978, pp. 71-86.

M. de Schauensee, &ldquoNorthwest Iran as a Bronzeworking Center. The View from Hasanlu,&rdquo in Bronzeworking Centres of Western Asia 1000-539 B.C., ed. J. Curtis, London, 1988, pp. 45-62.

Idem and R. H. Dyson, Jr., &ldquoHasanlu Horse Trappings and Assyrian Reliefs,&rdquo in Essays on Near Eastern Art and Archaeology in Honor of Charles-Kyrle Wilkinson, ed. P. O. Harper and H. Pittman, New York, 1983, pp. 59-77.

E. Schmidt, Excavations at Tepe Hissar, Iran, 1931-33, Philadelphia, 1937.

Idem, &ldquoThe Sec­ond Holmes Expedition to Luristan,&rdquo Bulletin of the American Institute for Persian Art and Archaeology 5/3, 1938, pp. 205-16.

Idem, Persepolis II, Chicago, 1957.

H. Schurenberg, &ldquoÜber iranische Kupfererz­vorkommen mit komplexen Kobalt-Nickelerzen,&rdquo Neues Jahrbuch für Mineralogie, Abh. 99/2, 1963, pp. 200-30.

U. Seidl, &ldquoUrartu as a Bronzeworking Center,&rdquo in Bronzeworking Centres of Western Asia 1000-539 B.C., ed. J. Curtis, London, 1988, pp. 169-­76.

M. Shahmirzadi, Tepe Zagheh, A Sixth Millennium B.C. Village in the Qazvin Plain of the Central Iranian Plateau, Ph.D. dissertation, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, 1977.

Idem, &ldquoCopper, Bronze, and Their Implementation by Metalsmiths of Sagzabad, Qazvin Plain, Iran,&rdquo AMI 12, 1979, pp. 49-66.

A. Shareq et al., Mineral Resources of Afghanistan, Afghan Geological and Mines Survey, United Nations Development Support Project, AFG/74/012, 2nd ed., Kabul, 1977.

C. S. Smith, &ldquoThe Interpretation of Microstructures of Metallic Artifacts,&rdquo in W. J. Young, ed., Applications of Science in the Examination of Works of Art, Boston, 1965, pp. 20-52.

Idem, &ldquoMetallographic Study of Early Artifacts Made from Native Copper,&rdquo in Actes du XIᵉ Congrès international d&rsquohistoire des sciences, Warsaw VI, 1968, pp. 237-43.

Idem, &ldquoAnalysis of the Copper Bead from Ali Kosh,&rdquo in Prehistory and Human Ecology of the Deh Luran Plain. An Early Village Sequence from Khuzistan, Iran, ed. F. Hole et al., Ann Arbor, 1969, pp. 427-28.

Idem, &ldquoTechniques of the Luristan Smith,&rdquo in Science and Archaeology, ed. R. H. Brill, Cambridge, Mass., 1971, pp. 32-52.

Idem, &ldquoArt Technology and Science. Notes on their Historical Interaction,&rdquo Technology and Culture 11/4, 1970, pp. 493-549.

Idem, &ldquoOn Art, Invention and Technology,&rdquo Technology Review 78/7, 1976, pp. 2-7.

R. Solecki, &ldquoA Copper Mineral Pendant from North­ern Iraq,&rdquo Antiquity 43, 1969, pp. 311-14.

T. Sono and S. Fukai, Dailaman III, Tokyo, 1968.

T. Stech and V. C. Pigott, &ldquoThe Metals Trade in Southwest Asia in the Third Millennium B.C.,&rdquo Iraq 48, 1986, pp. 39-64.

M. A. Stein, Archaeological Reconnais­sance in Northwestern India and Southeastern Iran, London, 1937.

Idem, Old Routes in Western Iran, London, 1940.

J. Stöcklin et al., Central Lut Reconnaissance, East Iran, Geological Survey of Iran, Report 22, Tehran, 1972.

D. Stronach, Pasargadae, Oxford, 1978.

T. Sulimirski, &ldquoThe Background of the Ziwiye Find and Its Significance in the Development of Scythian Art,&rdquo Bulletin of the Institute of Archae­ology 15, 1978, pp. 7-33.

F. Talton, Métallurgie susienne, 2 vols., Paris, 1987.

N. Terekhova, &ldquoThe History of Metalworking Production among the Ancient Agriculturalists of Southern Turkmenia,&rdquo in The Bronze Age Civilizations of Central Asia. Recent Soviet Discoveries, ed. P. L. Kohl, Armonk, N.Y., 1981, pp. 313-24.

M. Tosi, &ldquoThe Lapis Lazuli Trade across the Iranian Plateau in the Third Millennium B.C.,&rdquo in Gururājamañjarikā. Studi in onore di Giusep­pe Tucci, Naples, 1974, pp. 3-22.

Idem, &ldquoA Bronze Female Statuette from Shahr-i Sokhta. Chronological Problems and Stylistical Connections,&rdquo in Prehistoric Sīstān I, Rome, 1983, pp. 303-17.

F. Tawḥīdī and A. M. Ḵalīlīān, &ldquoGozāre&scaron-e barrasī-e a&scaronyāʾ-e ārāmgāh-e Arrajān&mdashBehbahān,&rdquo Āṯār 7-9, 1982, pp. 232-86.

R. F. Tylecote, &ldquoEarly Metallurgy in the Near East,&rdquo Metal and Materials 4, 1970, pp. 285-93.

Idem, &ldquoA Metallurgical Examination of Some Ob­jects from Marlik, Iran,&rdquo Bulletin of the Historical Metallurgy Group 6, 1972, pp. 34-35.

Idem, &ldquoCan Copper Be Smelted in a Crucible?&rdquo Journal of the Historical Metallurgy Society 8/1, 1974, p. 54.

Idem and H. McKerrell, &ldquoExamination of Copper Alloy Tools from Tal y Yahya, Iran,&rdquo Bulletin of the Historical Metallurgy Group 5/1, 1971, pp. 37-38.

Idem, in Excavations at Tepe Yahya, Iran, 1967-1975, ed. C. C. Lamberg-Karlovsky and T. W. Beale, Cambridge, Mass., 1986, pp. 207-14.

O. Untracht, Metal Techniques for Craftsmen, London, 1969.

L. Vanden Berghe, La nécropole de Khurvin, Istanbul, 1964.

Idem, &ldquoLa chronologie de la civilisation des bronzes du Pusht-i Kuh, Luristan,&rdquo in Proceedings of the 1st Annual Symposium of Archaeological Research in Iran 1972, Tehran, 1973, pp. 1-6.

Idem, Bibliographie analytique de l&rsquoarchéologie de l&rsquoIran ancien, Leiden, 1979.

Idem and E. Haerinck, Bibliographie analytique de l&rsquoarchéologie de l&rsquoIran ancien. Supplement 1, 1978-­80, Leiden, 1981.

Idem, Bibliographie analytique de l&rsquoarchéologie de l&rsquoIran ancien, Supplement 2, 1981-85, Leiden, 1987.

M. Van Loon, Urartian Art, Istanbul, 1966. Idem et al., The Holmes Expedition to Luristan, Oriental Institute Publication 108, Chicago (forth­coming).

A. R. Vatandoost-Haghighi, Aspects of Prehistoric Iranian Copper and Bronze Technology, Ph.D. dissertation, Institute of Archaeology, Lon­don, 1978.

T. A. Wertime, &ldquoMan&rsquos First Encounters with Metallurgy,&rdquo Science 146 (3649), 1964, pp. 1257-­67.

Idem, &ldquoA Metallurgical Expedition through the Persian Desert,&rdquo Science 159 (3818), 1968, pp. 927-­35.

Idem, &ldquoThe Beginnings of Metallurgy. A New Look,&rdquo Science 182 (4115), 1973, pp. 875-87.

D. S. Whitcomb, Before the Roses and Nightingales, New York, 1985.

C. K. Wilkinson, &ldquoMore Details on Ziwiye,&rdquo Iraq 22, 1960, pp. 5ff.

I. J. Winter, &ldquoPerspec­tive on the "Local Style" of Hasanlu IVB. A Study in Receptivity,&rdquo in Mountains and Lowlands. Essays in the Archaeology of Greater Mesopotamia, ed. L. D. Levine and T. C. Young, Jr., Malibu, 1977, pp. 371-86.

Idem, A Decorated Breastplate from Hasanlu, Iran, Philadelphia, 1980.

H. E. Wulff, The Traditional Crafts of Persia, Cambridge, 1966.

F. E. Zeuner, &ldquoThe Identity of the Camel on the Khurab Pick,&rdquo Iraq 17, 1955, pp. 162-63.

This man owns the largest collection of Nazi artifacts

When he was 5 years old, Kevin Wheatcroft received an unusual birthday present from his parents: a bullet-pocked SS stormtrooper’s helmet, lightning bolts on the ear-flaps. He had requested it especially.

The next year, at a car auction in Monte Carlo, he asked his multimillionaire father for a Mercedes: the G4 that Hitler rode into the Sudetenland in 1938.

Tom Wheatcroft refused to buy it and his son cried all the way home.

When Wheatcroft was 15, he spent birthday money from his grandmother on three WWII Jeeps recovered from the Shetlands, which he restored himself and sold for a tidy profit. He invested the proceeds in four more vehicles, then a tank.

Hitler rides in a Mercedes convertible in 1935. Wheatcroft asked his father to buy him Hitler’s G4 when he was just six-years-old, and cried when his father said no. He now owns it. Getty Images

After Wheatcroft left school at 16, he went to work for an engineering firm, and then for his father’s construction company. He spent his spare time touring wind-blasted battle sites in Europe and North Africa, searching for tank parts and recovering military vehicles that he would ship home to restore.

Wheatcroft is now 55, and worth $190 million. He lives in Leicestershire, England, where he looks after the property portfolio of his late father and oversees the management of a racetrack and motor museum.

The ruling passion of his life, though, is what he calls the Wheatcroft Collection — widely regarded as the world’s largest accumulation of German military vehicles and Nazi memorabilia. The collection has largely been kept in private, under heavy guard, in a warren of industrial buildings. There is no official record of the value of Wheatcroft’s collection, but some estimates place it at over $160 million.

Underground trade

Since that initial stormtrooper’s helmet, Wheatcroft’s life has been shaped by his obsession for German military memorabilia. He has travelled the world tracking down items to add to his collection, flying into remote airfields, following up unlikely leads, throwing himself into hair-raising adventures in the pursuit of historic objects.

He readily admits that his urge to accumulate has been monomaniacal, elbowing out the demands of friends and family. The French theorist Jean Baudrillard once noted that collecting mania is found most often in “pre-pubescent boys and males over the age of 40” the things we hoard, he wrote, tend to reveal deeper truths.

Despite the trade of Nazi antiquities being banned or strictly regulated in many countries, the market’s annual global turnover is expected to be in excess of $47 million. A signed copy of Mein Kampf goes for around $31,000. Getty Images

Wheatcroft’s father, Tom, a building site worker, came back from WWII a hero. He also came back with a wife, Wheatcroft’s mother, Lenchen, whom he had first seen from the turret of a tank as he pulled into her village in the Harz mountains of Germany.

He made hundreds of millions in the post-war building boom, then spent the rest of his life indulging his zeal for motor cars.

Tom supported his son in his early years of collecting Wheatcroft speaks of his late father as “not just my dad, but also my best friend.” Tom died in 2009. Despite being one of seven children, Wheatcroft was the sole beneficiary of his father’s will. He no longer speaks to his siblings.

It is hard to say how much the echoes of atrocity that resonate from Nazi artifacts compel the enthusiasts who haggle for and hawk them. The trade in Third Reich antiquities is either banned or strictly regulated in Germany, France, Austria, Israel and Hungary.

None of the major auction houses will handle Nazi memorabilia and eBay recently prohibited sales on its site.

Still, the business flourishes, with burgeoning online sales and increasing interest from buyers in Russia, America and the Middle East Wheatcroft’s biggest rival is a mysterious, unnamed Russian buyer.

A Holocaust denier runs one of the most-visited Nazi antiquities websites, and is currently verifying charred bones said to be those of Hitler and Eva Braun. AP

Naturally, exact figures are hard to come by, but the market’s annual global turnover is estimated to be in excess of $47 million. One of the most-visited websites is run by Holocaust denier David Irving, who in 2009 sold Hitler’s walking stick (which had previously belonged to Friedrich Nietzsche) for $5,750. Irving has offered strands of Hitler’s hair for $200,000, and says he is currently verifying the authenticity of charred bones said to be those of Hitler and Eva Braun.

There is also a roaring trade in the automobiles of the Third Reich — in 2009, one of Hitler’s Mercedes sold for almost $7.8 million. A signed copy of Mein Kampf will set you back $31,000, while in 2011 an unnamed investor purchased Joseph Mengele’s South American journals for $473,000.

As the crimes of the Nazi regime retreat further into the past, there seems to be an increasing desperation in the race to get hold of mementos of the darkest chapter of the 20th century. In the market for Nazi memorabilia, two out of the three principal ideologies of the era — fascism and capitalism — collide, with the mere financial value of these objects used to justify their acquisition, the spiralling prices trapping collectors in a frantic race for the rare and the covetable.

In Walden, Henry David Thoreau observed that “the things we own can own us too” this is the sense I get with Wheatcroft — that he started off building a collection, but that very quickly the collection began building him.

‘I was in the area’

When I went to Leicestershire near the end of last year to see the collection, a visibly tired Wheatcroft met me off the train. “I want people to see this stuff,” he told me. “There’s no better way to understand history. But I’m only one man and there’s just so much of it.”

He had been trying to set his collection in order, cataloguing late into the night, and making frequent trips to Cornwall, where, at huge expense, he was restoring the only remaining Kriegsmarine S-Boat in existence.

Wheatcroft had recently purchased two more barns and a dozen shipping containers to house his collection. The complex of industrial buildings, stretching across several flat Leicestershire acres, seemed like a manifestation of his obsession — just as haphazard, as cluttered and as dark.

As we made our way into the first of his warehouses, Wheatcroft stood back for a moment, as if shocked by the scale of what he had accumulated. Many of the tanks before us were little more than rusting husks, ravaged by the years they had spent abandoned in the deserts of North Africa or on the Russian steppes.

They jostled each other in the warehouses, spewing out to sit in glum convoys around the complex’s courtyard.

“I want people to see this stuff. There’s no better way to understand history.”

“Every object in the collection has a story,” Wheatcroft told me as we made our way under the turrets of tanks, stepping over V2 rockets and U-boat torpedoes. “The story of the war, then subsequent wars, and finally the story of the recovery and restoration. All that history is there in the machine today.”

We stood beside the muscular bulk of a Panzer IV tank, patched with rust and freckled with bullet holes, its tracks trailing barbed wire.

Wheatcroft scratched at the palimpsest of paintwork to reveal layers of color beneath: its current livery, the duck-egg blue of the Christian Phalangists from the Lebanese civil war, flaking away to the green of the Czech army who used the vehicles in the 1960s and 70s, and finally the original German taupe.

The tank was abandoned in the Sinai desert until Wheatcroft arrived on one of his regular shopping trips to the region and shipped it home to Leicestershire.

Wheatcroft owns a fleet of 88 tanks — more than the Danish and Belgian armies combined. The majority of the tanks are German, and Wheatcroft recently acted as an adviser to David Ayer, the director of “Fury” (in which Brad Pitt played the commander of a German-based US Sherman tank in the final days of the war). “They still got a lot of things wrong,” he told me. “I was sitting in the cinema with my daughter saying, ‘That wouldn’t have happened’ and ‘That isn’t right.’ Good film, though.”

A Panzer (or Panzerkampfwagen) III, used by the German forces during World War II. Wheatcroft owns a Panzer IV tank, as well as a fleet of 88 other tanks. Getty Images

Around the tanks sat a number of strange hybrid vehicles with caterpillar tracks at the back, truck wheels at the front. Wheatcroft explained to me that these were half-tracks, deliberately designed by the Nazis so as not to flout the terms of the Treaty of Versailles, which stipulated that the Germans could not build tanks.

Wheatcroft owns more of these than anyone else in the world, as well as having the largest collection of Kettenkrads, which are half-motorbike, half-tank, and were built to be dropped out of gliders.

A Kettenkrad, an army motorcycle that the Germans built during World War II after the terms in the Treaty of Versailles stipulated the Germans could not build tanks. Wheatcroft owns more of these half-motorbike, half-tank vehicles, than anyone in the world. AP

“They just look very cool,” he said with a grin.

Alongside the machines’ stories of wartime escapades and the sometimes dangerous lengths that Wheatcroft had gone to in order to secure them were the dazzling facts of their value. “The Panzer IV cost me $25,000. I’ve been offered two and a half million for it now. It’s the same with the half-tracks. They regularly go for over a million each. Even the Kettenkrads, which I’ve picked up for as little as $1,500, go for $235,000.”

I tried to work out the total value of the machines around me, and gave up somewhere north of $78 million. Wheatcroft had made himself a fortune, almost without realizing it.

“Everyone just assumes that I’ve inherited a race track and I’m a spoilt rich kid who wants to indulge in these toys,” he told me, a defensive edge to his voice. “It’s not like that at all. My dad supported me, but only when I could prove that the collection would work financially. And as a collector, you never have any spare money lying around. Everything is tied up in the collection.”

Leaning against the wall of one of the warehouses, I spotted a dark wooden door, heavy iron bolts on one side and a Judas window in the centre. Wheatcroft saw me looking at it. “That’s the door to Hitler’s cell in Landsberg. Where he wrote ‘Mein Kampf.’ I was in the area.”

A lot of Wheatcroft’s stories start like this — he seems to have a genius for proximity. “I found out that the prison was being pulled down. I drove there, parked up and watched the demolition. At lunch I followed the builders to the pub and bought them a round. I did it three days in a row and by the end of it, I drove off with the door, some bricks and the iron bars from his cell.”

It was the first time he had mentioned Hitler by name. We paused for a moment by the dark door with its black bars, then moved on.

‘My real love’

Sometimes the stories of search and recovery were far more interesting than the objects themselves. Near the door sat a trio of rusty wine racks.

“They were Hitler’s,” he said, laying a proprietary hand upon the nearest one. “We pulled them out of the ruins of the Berghof [Hitler’s home in Berchtesgaden] in May 1989. The whole place was dynamited in ’52, but my friend Adrian and I climbed through the ruins of the garage and down through air vents to get in. You can still walk through all of the underground levels. We made our way by torchlight through laundry rooms, central heating service areas. Then a bowling alley with big signs for Coke all over it. Hitler loved to drink Coke. We brought back these wine racks.”

The cell in Landsberg prison where Hitler was incarcerated in 1923. When Wheatcroft heard the prison was being pulled down, he drove to watch the demolition and collected the door, bricks and the iron bars from Hitler’s cell. Getty Images

Later, among engine parts and ironwork, I came across a massive bust of Hitler, sitting on the floor next to a condom vending machine (“I collect pub memorabilia, too,” Wheatcroft explained). “I have the largest collection of Hitler heads in the world,” he said, a refrain that returned again and again. “This one came from a ruined castle in Austria. I bought it from the town council.”

“Things have the longest memories of all,” says the introduction to a recent essay by Teju Cole, “beneath their stillness, they are alive with the terrors they have witnessed.” This is what you feel in the presence of the Wheatcroft Collection — a sense of great proximity to history, to horror, an uncanny feeling that the objects know more than they are letting on.

Wheatcroft’s home sits behind high walls and heavy gates. There is a pond, its surface stirred by the fingers of a willow tree. A spiky black mine bobs along one edge. The house is huge and modern and somehow without logic, as if wings and extensions have been appended to the main structure willy-nilly.

When I visited, it was late afternoon, a winter moon climbing the sky. Behind the house, apple trees hung heavy with fruit. A Krupp submarine cannon stood sentry outside the back door.

One of the outer walls was set with wide maroon half-moons of iron work, inlaid with obscure runic symbols.

“They were from the top of the officers’ gates to Buchenwald,” Wheatcroft told me in an offhand manner. “I’ve got replica gates to Auschwitz — Arbeit Macht Frei — over there.” He gestured into the gloaming.

I had first heard about Wheatcroft from my aunt Gay, who, as a rather half-hearted expat estate agent, sold him a rambling chateau near Limoges. They subsequently enjoyed (or endured) a brief, doomed love affair.

Despite the inevitable break-up, my father kept in touch with Wheatcroft and, several years ago, was invited to his home. After a drink in the pub-cum-officers’ mess that Wheatcroft has built adjacent to his dining room, my dad was shown to the guest apartment.

“It was remarkable,” he said, mostly for the furniture. “That night, my dad slept in Hermann Göring’s favorite bed, from Carinhall hunting lodge, made of walnut wood and carved with a constellation of swastikas. There were glassy eyed deer heads and tusky boars on the walls, wolf-skin rugs on the floor. My father was a little spooked, but mostly intrigued. In an email soon after, he described Wheatcroft to me as “absurdly decent, almost unnaturally friendly.”

Darkness had fallen as we stepped into the immense, two-story barn conversion behind his home. It was the largest of the network of buildings surrounding the house, and wore a fresh coat of paint and shiny new locks on the doors. As we walked inside, Wheatcroft turned to me with a thin smile, and I could tell that he was excited.

“I have to have strict rules in my life,” he said, “I don’t show many people the collection, because not many people can understand the motives behind it, people don’t understand my values.”

The walls where Wheatcroft houses his collection are covered with signs, iron swastikas, Hitler’s sketches, and posters that read “Ein Volk, Ein Reich, Ein Führer.” Getty Images

He kept making these tentative passes at the stigma attached to his obsession, as if at once baffled by those who might find his collection distasteful, and desperately keen to defend himself, and it.

The lower level of the building contained a now-familiar range of tanks and cars, including the Mercedes G4 Wheatcroft saw as a child in Monaco. “I cried and cried because my dad wouldn’t buy me this car. Now, almost 50 years later, I’ve finally got it.”

On the walls huge iron swastikas hung, street-signs for Adolf Hitler Strasse and Adolf Hitler Platz, posters of Hitler with “Ein Volk, Ein Reich, Ein Führer” written beneath.

“That’s from Wagner’s family home,” he told me, pointing to a massive iron eagle spreading its wings over a swastika. It was studded with bullet holes. “I was in a scrap yard in Germany when a feller came in who’d been clearing out the Wagner estate and had come upon this. Bought it straight from him.”

We climbed a narrow flight of stairs to an airy upper level, and I felt that I had moved deeper into the labyrinth of Wheatcroft’s obsession. In the long, gabled hall were dozens of mannequins, all in Nazi uniform. Some were dressed as Hitler Youth, some as SS officers, others as Wehrmacht soldiers.

It was bubble still, the mannequins perched as if frozen in flight, a sleeping Nazi Caerleon. One wall was taken up with machine guns, rifles and rocket launchers in serried rows. The walls were plastered with sketches by Hitler, Albert Speer and some rather good nudes by Göring’s chauffeur.

On cluttered display tables sat a scale model of Hitler’s mountain eyrie the Kehlsteinhaus, a twisted machine gun from Hess’s crashed plane, the commandant’s phone from Buchenwald, hundreds of helmets, mortars and shells, wirelesses, Enigma machines, and searchlights, all jostling for attention. Rail after rail of uniforms marched into the distance.

“I brought David Ayer in here when he was researching Fury,” Wheatcroft told me. “He offered to buy the whole lot there and then. When I said no he offered me 30 grand for this.” He showed me a fairly ordinary-looking camouflage tunic. “He knows his stuff.”

“I try not to answer when people accuse me of being a Nazi, I tend to turn my back and leave them looking silly. I think Hitler and Göring were such fascinating characters in so many ways. Hitler’s eye for quality was just extraordinary.”

We were standing in front of signed photographs of Hitler and Göring. “I think I could give up everything else,” he said, “the cars, the tanks, the guns, as long as I could still have Adolf and Hermann. They’re my real love.”

I asked Wheatcroft whether he was worried about what people might read into his fascination with Nazism. Other notable collectors, I pointed out, were the bankrupt and discredited David Irving and Lemmy from Motörhead.

“I try not to answer when people accuse me of being a Nazi,” he said. “I tend to turn my back and leave them looking silly. I think Hitler and Göring were such fascinating characters in so many ways. Hitler’s eye for quality was just extraordinary.”

He swept his arm across the army of motionless Nazis surrounding us, taking in the uniforms and the bayonets, the dimly glimmering guns and medals. “More than that, though,” he continued, “I want to preserve things. I want to show the next generation how it actually was. And this collection is a memento for those who didn’t come back. It’s the sense of history you get from these objects, the conversations that went on around them, the way they give you a link to the past. It’s a very special feeling.”

The greatest find

We walked around the rest of the exhibition, stopping for a moment by a nondescript green backpack. “There’s a story behind this,” he said. “I found a roll of undeveloped film in it. I’d only bought the backpack to hang on a mannequin, but inside was this film. I had it developed and there were five unpublished pictures of Bergen-Belsen on it. It must have been very soon after the liberation, because there were bulldozers moving piles of bodies.”

The most treasured pieces of Wheatcroft’s collection are kept in his house, a maze-like place, low-ceilinged and full of staircases, corridors that turn back on themselves, hidden doorways and secret rooms. As soon as we entered through the back door, he began to apologize for the state of the place. “I’ve been trying to get it all in order, but there just aren’t the hours in the day.” In the drawing room there was a handsome walnut case in which sat Eva Braun’s gramophone and record collection. We walked through to the snooker room, which housed a selection of Hitler’s furniture, as well as two motorbikes. The room was so cluttered that we could not move further than the doorway.

Eva Braun and Hitler. Wheatcroft owns Braun’s gramophone and record collection. AP

“I picked up all of Hitler’s furniture at a guesthouse in Linz,” Wheatcroft told me. “The owner’s father’s dying wish had been that a certain room should be kept locked. I knew Hitler had lived there and so finally persuaded him to open it and it was exactly as it had been when Hitler slept in the room. On the desk there was a blotter covered in Hitler’s signatures in reverse, the drawers were full of signed copies of Mein Kampf. I bought it all. I sleep in the bed, although I’ve changed the mattress.”

A shy, conspiratorial smile.

We made our way through to the galleried dining room, where a wax figure of Hitler stood on the balcony, surveying us coldly. There was a rustic, beer-hall feel to the place. On the table sat flugelhorns and euphoniums, trumpets and drums. “I’ve got the largest collection of Third Reich military instruments in the world,” Wheatcroft told me. Of course he did. There was Mengele’s grandfather clock, topped with a depressed-looking bear. “I had trouble getting that out of Argentina. I finally had it smuggled out as tractor parts to the Massey-Ferguson factory in Coventry.”

Wheatcroft briefly opened a door to show the pub he had built for himself. Even here there was a Third Reich theme — the cellar door was originally from the Berghof.

Wheatcroft also owns the largest collection of Hitler heads in the world. Getty Images

The electricity was off in one wing of the house, and we made our way in dim light through a conservatory where rows of Hitler heads stared blindly across at each other. Every wall bore a portrait of the Führer, or of Göring, until the two men felt so present and ubiquitous that they were almost alive. In a well at the bottom of a spiral staircase, Wheatcroft paused beneath a full-length portrait of Hitler. “This was his favorite painting of himself, the one used for stamps and official reproductions.” The Führer looked peacockish and preening, a snooty tilt to his head.

We climbed the stairs to find more pictures of Hitler on the walls, swastikas and iron crosses, a faintly Egyptian statuette given by Hitler to Peron, an oil portrait of Eva Braun signed by Hitler. Paintings were stacked against walls, bubble wrap was everywhere. We picked our way between the artefacts, stepping over statuary and half-unpacked boxes. I found myself imagining the house in a decade’s time, when no doors would open, no light come in through the windows, when the collection would have swallowed every last corner, and I could picture Wheatcroft, quite happy, living in a caravan in the garden.

We passed along more shadowy corridors, through a door hidden in a bookshelf and up another winding staircase, until we found ourselves in an unexceptional bedroom, a single unshaded light in the ceiling illuminating piles of uniforms.

Wheatcroft reached into a closet and pulled out Hitler’s white dress suit with careful, supplicatory hands.

Hitler (center) in 1939. Wheatcroft says his greatest find was a locked suitcase that held Hitler’s white dress suit. Getty Images

“I was in Munich with a dealer,” he said, showing me the tailor’s label, which read Reichsführer Adolf Hitler in looping cursive. “We had a call to go and visit a lawyer, who had some connection to Eva Braun. In 1944, Eva Braun had deposited a suitcase in a fireproof safe. He quoted me a price, contents unseen. The case was locked with no key. We drove to Hamburg and had a locksmith open it. Inside were two full sets of Hitler’s suits, including this one, two Sam Browne belts, two pairs of his shoes, two bundles of love letters written by Hitler to Eva, two sketches of Eva naked, sunbathing, two self-propelling pencils. A pair of AH-monogrammed eyeglasses. A pair of monogrammed champagne flutes. A painting of a Vienna cityscape by Hitler that he must have given to Eva. I was in a dream world. The greatest find of my collecting career.”

Wheatcroft drove me to the station under a wide, star-filled night. “When David Ayer offered to buy the collection, I almost said yes,” he told me, his eyes on the road. “Just so it wouldn’t be my problem any more. I tried to buy the house in which Hitler was born in Braunau, I thought I could move the collection there, turn it into a museum of the Third Reich. The Austrian government must have Googled my name. They said no immediately. They didn’t want it to become a shrine. It’s so hard to know what to do with all the stuff. I really do feel like I’m just a caretaker until the next person comes along, but I must display it, I must get it out into the public — I understand that.”

We pulled into the station car park and, with a wave, he drove off into the night.

Wheatcroft’s madness

On the way home I stared out of the train window, feeling the events of the day working themselves upon me. The strange thing was not the weirdness of it all, but the normality. I really don’t believe that Wheatcroft is anything other than what he seems — a fanatical collector. I had expected a closet Nazi, a wild-eyed goosestepper, and instead I had met a man wrestling with a hobby that had become an obsession and was now a millstone.

Collecting was like a disease for him, the prospect of completion tantalizingly near but always just out of reach. If he was mad, it wasn’t the madness of the fulminating antisemite, rather the mania of the collector.

Many would question whether artifacts such as those in the Wheatcroft Collection ought to be preserved at all, let alone exhibited in public. Should we really be queueing up to marvel at these emblems of what Primo Levi called the Nazis’ “histrionic arts”? It is, perhaps, the very darkness of these objects, their proximity to real evil, that attracts collectors (and that keeps novelists and filmmakers returning to the years 1939-45 for material).

In the conflicting narratives and counter-narratives of history, there is something satisfyingly simple about the evil of the Nazis, the schoolboy Manichaeism of the second world war. Later, Wheatcroft would tell me that his earliest memory was of lining up Tonka tanks on his bedroom floor, watching the ranks of Shermans and Panzers and Crusaders facing off against each other, a childish battle of good and evil.

After I sent him a copy of Laurent Binet’s 2010 novel “HHhH,” a brilliant retelling of the assassination of Reinhard Heydrich, one of the principal architects of the Holocaust, Wheatcroft emailed me with news of an astonishing new find in the house of a retired diplomat. “I’d fully intended to ease up on the collecting,” he told me, “to concentrate on cataloguing, on getting the collection out there, but actually some of the things I’ve discovered since I saw you last, I’ve just had to buy. Big-value items, but you just have to forget about that because of the sheer rarity value. It’s compounded the problem really, because they were all massive things.”

His latest find, he said, was a collection of Nazi artefacts brought to his attention by someone he had met at an auction a few years back. The story is classic Wheatcroft — a mixture of luck and happenstance and chutzpah that appears to have turned up objects of genuine historical interest. “This chap told me that his best friend was a plumber and was working on a big house in Cornwall. The widow was trying to sort things out. The plumber had seen that in the garden there were all sorts of Nazi statues. He sent me a picture of one of the statues, which was a massive 5 ½ foot stone eagle that came from Berchtesgaden. I did a deal and bought it, and after that sale my contact was shown a whole range of other objects by the widow. It turned out that this house was a treasure trove. There’s an enormous amount I’m trying to get hold of now. I can’t say an awful lot, but it’s one of the most important finds of recent times.”

The owner of the house had just passed away he was apparently a senior British diplomat who, in his regular trips to Germany in the lead-up to the war, amassed a sizable collection of Nazi memorabilia. He continued to collect after the war had finished, the most interesting items hidden in a safe room behind a secret panel.

“It’s stunning,” Wheatcroft told me, by telephone, his voice fizzing with excitement. “There’s a series of handwritten letters between Hitler and Churchill. They were writing to each other about the route the war was taking. Discussions of a non-aggression pact. This man had copied things and removed them on a day-to-day basis over the course of the war. A complete breach of the Official Secrets Act, but mindblowing.” The authenticity of the papers, of course, has not yet been confirmed — but if they are real, they could secure Wheatcroft a place in the history books. “Although it’s never been about me,” he insisted.

It seems our meeting in the winter stirred something in Wheatcroft, a realization that there were duties that came with owning the objects in his collection, obligations to the past and present that had become burdensome to him.

“It’s the objects,” he told me repeatedly, “the history.” It also seemed as if Wheatcroft’s halfhearted attempts to bring his collection to a wider public had been given a much-needed fillip.

“An awful lot has changed since I saw you,” he told me when we spoke in late spring. “It refocused me, talking to you about it. It made me think about how much time has gone by. I’ve spent, I suppose, 50 years as a collector just plodding along, and I’ve suddenly realized that there’s more time behind than ahead, and I need to do something about it. I’ve pressed several expensive buttons in order to get some of my more valuable pieces restored. Because you did just make me think what’s the point of owning these things if no one’s ever going to see them?”

Not Just Pillagers

Helmets aren't the only classical image of the Vikings historians are trying to ease out of public consciousness. There's no getting away from the fact that Vikings did a lot of raiding, but the image of them as pure pillagers is increasingly being replaced by nuance: that the Vikings then came to settle, and had a major effect on the surrounding populations. Traces of Viking culture can be found in Britain, where settlement took place, and perhaps the greatest Viking settlement was in Normandy, where the Vikings transformed into the Normans who would, in turn, spread out and forge their own extra kingdoms including a permanent and successful conquest of England.

(Source: Frank, ‘The Invention of the Viking Horned Helmet’, International Scandinavian and Medieval Studies in Memory of Gerd Wolfgang Weber, 2000.)

Watch the video: 2500 Years of Greek Warriors