The Production of Bronze in Late Third-Millennium Babylonia (ca. 2100–2000 BCE)

Abstract Cuneiform texts dating to the Third Dynasty of Ur (ca. 2100 – 2000 BCE) contain unusually extensive and detailed data on the manufacture of bronze in ancient Babylonia. Mentions of the objects made of tin bronze (Sumerian zabar ) are comparatively rare. Such examples mainly concern high status items. By contrast, utilitarian objects such as hoes, sickles, and axes, thousands of which were routinely produced, are usually described in texts as being made of copper ( urudu ). This situation is seemingly contradicted by the archaeological evidence, which shows that, the during the late fourth and the third millennium BCE the type of bronze predominantly used in Southern Babylonia and Iran—especially for simple tools—was the arsenical one, with the tin bronze having been used quite rarely. As this contribution argues, the answer to this dilemma is provided by the fact that the manufacture of the allegedly “copper” objects involved the alloying of copper with a material called su gan . We conclude that su gan is to be identified as arsenic, and that, accordingly, the alloys so produced were arsenical bronzes.

Authors

Institutions

Publication Details

Journal
Altorientalische Forschungen
Published
2025-11-25
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1515/aofo-2025-2015
Citations
1
Primary Topic
Ancient Near East History
Type
article
Field-Weighted Citation Impact
8.27
Controls
|||
ALL TIME
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
OCT
article

The Production of Bronze in Late Third-Millennium Babylonia (ca. 2100–2000 BCE)

Piotr Steinkeller
1 citations
Altorientalische Forschungen
Ancient Near East History
8.27
article

The Production of Bronze in Late Third-Millennium Babylonia (ca. 2100–2000 BCE)

Piotr Steinkeller
article en
1 citations

Abstract

Abstract Cuneiform texts dating to the Third Dynasty of Ur (ca. 2100 – 2000 BCE) contain unusually extensive and detailed data on the manufacture of bronze in ancient Babylonia. Mentions of the objects made of tin bronze (Sumerian zabar ) are comparatively rare. Such examples mainly concern high status items. By contrast, utilitarian objects such as hoes, sickles, and axes, thousands of which were routinely produced, are usually described in texts as being made of copper ( urudu ). This situation is seemingly contradicted by the archaeological evidence, which shows that, the during the late fourth and the third millennium BCE the type of bronze predominantly used in Southern Babylonia and Iran—especially for simple tools—was the arsenical one, with the tin bronze having been used quite rarely. As this contribution argues, the answer to this dilemma is provided by the fact that the manufacture of the allegedly “copper” objects involved the alloying of copper with a material called su gan . We conclude that su gan is to be identified as arsenic, and that, accordingly, the alloys so produced were arsenical bronzes.

Altorientalische ForschungenVol. 52(2)
University of Divinity (AU)
Openalex Percentile: Top 3%
Ancient Near East History
8.27
AI Navigator

Ask Laika to Summarize, Analyze, and Connect papers live on the map.

Summarize Papers & Methodologies

Extract key findings, datasets, and comparative methods across publications.

Benchmark Rankings & Visual Analytics

Rank top research institutions, authors, funders, topics, and journals by Field-Weighted Citation Impact (FWCI) and paper volume with instant charts.

Connect Distant Disciplines

Bridge topological clusters on the map to find hidden collaborative intersections.