Many chemists and metallurgists have been reporting the following peculiar circumstance for quite a while, namely, that no bronze could possibly have been manufactured in the Scaligerian "ancient" Bronze Age. Professor Michele Giua, "a prominent and versatile specialist in organic synthesis, as well as the chemistry of explosives and plastics" (, from the cover annotation), the author of an in-depth work tided The History of Chemistry, writes the following (basing his logical construction on Scaliger's chronology, naturally):
"Copper... had been known from the prehistoric times not just in its free state... but also as bronze, an alloy of copper and tin. During the prehistoric epoch known as Bronze Age, bronze had been used for the manufacture of various utensils, jewellery, weapons etc. However, the issue of ancient tin metallurgy remains extremely nebulous. Metallic tin was not known in the Bronze Age; nevertheless, it had to have been used for the manufacture of bronze. All we can do is assume that a metal of a higher fusibility had been manufactured as a result of fusing copper with some minerals rich in tin content. Copper had thus been known before tin, whose metallurgy is a lot more complex. However, the fact that bronze had been known earlier than tin does not clarify a number of other problems of ancient history." (, pages 17-18)
The picture is perfecdy clear. As we can see, the fact that tin metallurgy is more complex than that of copper is common knowledge. Hence bronze, being a fusion of copper and tin, must have appeared after the discovery of the latter. The Scaligerian history has it the other way round - bronze is supposed to have been discovered before tin, in the Bronze age. This contradiction in the Scaligerian chronology can be explained by the fact that the chronologers of that school had neither been chemists nor metallurgists. How were they to know that the compilation of a history textbook requires that the description of the discovery of tin should precede that of the invention of bronze? However, the historians of the XVII-XVIII century were driven by altogether different considerations, neither caring much for tin, nor indeed for science itself. None of them would consider consulting with a chemist. As a result, "ancient" Greek heroes happily hack at each other with bronze swords that need tin for their manufacture, which has not yet been discovered. Modern chemists are naturally confused by such historical tableaux, and are earnesdy questioning the reasons for the existence of such oddities in the Scaligerian history of chemistry and metallurgy.
Our explanation is a very simple one. The Bronze Age falls within the epoch of the XTV-XVI century, when tin had already been discovered (after copper, of course). Consider the allegedly ancient bronze idols from Luristan currendy in the Louvre's possession, q.v. in fig. 1.56. Michele Giua cites them as examples of "ancient" bronze art. However, these artful Bronze Age figurines most probably were made in the XV-
The same applies to the "ancient" bronze girandole that has received the dating of V century b.c., also from the Louvre's collection, that can be seen in fig. 1.57. It may well be an item made in the XVI-
Was this article helpful?