Martin Rundkvist
Hanna Larsson@mrundkvist Har du kollat på hyperit? Jag har för mig att jag har sett det användas för mörka bergartsyxor.
@mrundkvist Jag googlade lite och blev mer osäker. Jag kan ha stött på termen när jag försökte lära mig mer om s.k. grönsten, så det behöver inte ha varit en text med arkeologi-anknytning.
@haalan
Ja, grönsten är också en knepig term, det verkar kunna betyda lite vad som helst från basalt till diabas. Och hur forntidens människor klassificerade bergarterna är dessutom en helt annan sak.
Ja, grönsten är också en knepig term, det verkar kunna betyda lite vad som helst från basalt till diabas. Och hur forntidens människor klassificerade bergarterna är dessutom en helt annan sak.
@haalan
Tack! Hyperit låter extremt sannolikt när jag läser om det.
Tack! Hyperit låter extremt sannolikt när jag läser om det.
deraffe@mrundkvist Sounds like it might be a mineral found or attributed to Cyprus (Chypre in French).
Cyprus/Kúpros is the namesake of copper, btw.
So, perhaps Cuprite? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cuprite
(Jag talar bara lite svenska 😅)
@mrundkvist The "Index to the Collection of Minerals, With References to the Table Cases in which the Species to which they belong are exhibited, in the British Museum" from 1872 has "Cyprite" referring to Copper-Glance, i.e. Chalcocite.
https://www.digitale-sammlungen.de/view/bsb11010273?page=10%2C11
https://www.digitale-sammlungen.de/view/bsb11010273?page=10%2C11
@mrundkvist Do you know the mother tongue of the author or the language of the 1874 source?
@deraffe
A Stockholm archaeological museum curator writing in Swedish. Probably hyperite.
A Stockholm archaeological museum curator writing in Swedish. Probably hyperite.
@mrundkvist Ah, alright. That is one letter closer.
And it makes sense, seeing as there are large, famous quarries for it in southern Sweden.
But...
1/4
And it makes sense, seeing as there are large, famous quarries for it in southern Sweden.
But...
1/4
@mrundkvist
... the curious spelling error didn't stop bothering me, though, so I kept digging.
Turns out the name "Hyperit" was in use[L] (whereas I could only find modern hints for "diabas" or the misguided "black granite" being the popular term), but wasn't well-defined until 1877[K].
Before being defined, it seems to have been a rather useless term for all sorts of rocks between Gabbro and Diabas.[N]
2/4
... the curious spelling error didn't stop bothering me, though, so I kept digging.
Turns out the name "Hyperit" was in use[L] (whereas I could only find modern hints for "diabas" or the misguided "black granite" being the popular term), but wasn't well-defined until 1877[K].
Before being defined, it seems to have been a rather useless term for all sorts of rocks between Gabbro and Diabas.[N]
2/4
@mrundkvist
To me, it seems that unless one can examine the original specimen or trace it's origin, it's really not clear what the precise chemical makeup of that stone axe is.
So I would either put the type of rock as unknown according to modern standardized nomenclature, or use the all-encompassing term "grönsten", which is apparently popular in archeology[W]. I think [S] explains the confusion quite well.
3/4
To me, it seems that unless one can examine the original specimen or trace it's origin, it's really not clear what the precise chemical makeup of that stone axe is.
So I would either put the type of rock as unknown according to modern standardized nomenclature, or use the all-encompassing term "grönsten", which is apparently popular in archeology[W]. I think [S] explains the confusion quite well.
3/4
@mrundkvist
Sources
I'm giving you links. Some are secondary sources, but I don't have access to all primary sources and they are often more difficult to link to anyway.
L: https://runeberg.org/mineral/0010.html
K: https://www.kristallin.de/Schweden/Hyperit/Hyperit.html (scroll down for English)
S: https://skogsforum.se/viewtopic.php?f=15&t=30797
W: https://sv.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gr%C3%B6nsten
4/4
@deraffe
I agree, I don't think this 19th century archaeologist had any clear idea about the petrology. But I am happy to know what *they* thought the axe was made of. Also, the people who selected the stone and made the axes 2800 years ago had even less scientific training.
I agree, I don't think this 19th century archaeologist had any clear idea about the petrology. But I am happy to know what *they* thought the axe was made of. Also, the people who selected the stone and made the axes 2800 years ago had even less scientific training.
@mrundkvist Yeah, sorry, I somehow read into your question that you wanted to find out what the axe was actually made of. Or maybe I was just curious. 😁
1/3
1/3
@mrundkvist
While people back then definitely wouldn't have had a modern scientific education, I wonder if they would have had less training based on empirical evidence.
2/3
While people back then definitely wouldn't have had a modern scientific education, I wonder if they would have had less training based on empirical evidence.
2/3
@mrundkvist
2800 years is well into the Bronze age, isn't it?
So a naval-dominating, warrior-celebrating culture with well-established trade networks that (had) reached until Egypt, who were often lactose-intolerant and may have just experienced a century of relatively harsh winters.
I personally wouldn't dare to doubt their ship-building, metallurgy and consequently at least some geology skills.
What do you think?
3/3
@deraffe
I think they knew the technical characteristics of the available rocks very well. They probably didn't have any classification beyond that.
I think they knew the technical characteristics of the available rocks very well. They probably didn't have any classification beyond that.
@mrundkvist
The hardness of different materials would definitely have been known, that's useful for stone carvings and durable tools after all.
I don't know about the prevalence of gemstones in that time and if anyone might have taken note of their regular-shaped crystals.
So, minus an advanced kiln-design for higher smelting temperatures, is there anything to indicate that they were less informed in this regard than for example Pliny the Elder?
The hardness of different materials would definitely have been known, that's useful for stone carvings and durable tools after all.
I don't know about the prevalence of gemstones in that time and if anyone might have taken note of their regular-shaped crystals.
So, minus an advanced kiln-design for higher smelting temperatures, is there anything to indicate that they were less informed in this regard than for example Pliny the Elder?
@deraffe
They're kind of funny with regard to metallurgy. They're entirely dependent on bronze, and quite knowledgeable about copper alloys. But they have no mining tech and no tin deposits to mine. Everything is imported.
But wait, it gets weirder. Their bronze casters know how to make iron from local bog ore, and they use it for specialised tools in their workshops -- but they don't make general tools for agriculture or woodworking out of it.
@mrundkvist
That's... weird. But it does sound familiar. Iirc, Egypt did produce iron tools, but used primarily bronze for much longer than most of its neighbors and that only really changed with the invasion from the Neo-Assyrian empire.
They also didn't have any (large) sources of tin close by either and relied on trade.
https://web.archive.org/web/20180119085111/http://mygeologypage.ucdavis.edu/cowen/~GEL115/115CH5.html
That's... weird. But it does sound familiar. Iirc, Egypt did produce iron tools, but used primarily bronze for much longer than most of its neighbors and that only really changed with the invasion from the Neo-Assyrian empire.
They also didn't have any (large) sources of tin close by either and relied on trade.
https://web.archive.org/web/20180119085111/http://mygeologypage.ucdavis.edu/cowen/~GEL115/115CH5.html
@mrundkvist See also https://www.mindat.org/min-4945.html
and Chalcocite at https://www.mindat.org/min-962.html
»Named chalcosine in 1832 by François Sulpice Beudant from Greek, "chalkos", copper. This mineral was known by a wide variety of names previously. In 1868, James D. Dana and George J. Brush renamed this material "chalcocite".«
The timeline does not quite match, but depending on the author and location, new naming conventions might not yet have been accepted in their circles.
