Question

Given that iron, when properly manufactured, was far superior in strength to bronze, why did it take a civilizational collapse for metalworkers to experiment with it? Does the absence of tin seem sufficient to explain the shift to iron? Why or why not?

a) The collapse disrupted trade routes necessary for acquiring tin, promoting iron experimentation.
b) The lack of technological knowledge hindered iron manufacturing until the collapse.
c) Iron was primarily used for ornamental purposes before the collapse due to its rarity.
d) Iron was available but deemed inferior until the collapse led to its reevaluation.

Answer 1

The decline in trade routes disrupted the availability of tin for bronze manufacturing, leading metalworkers to experiment with iron. The accessibility of iron in various regions without the need for long-distance trade allowed for the development of iron implements that were superior in strength to bronze.

Step-by-step explanation:

The decline of the Bronze Age led to the beginning of the Iron Age. During the Late Bronze Age Collapse, disruptions in trade routes made it difficult for metalworkers to acquire the necessary tin to manufacture bronze. As a result, some innovative smiths began experimenting with iron, which was readily available in various places without the need for long-distance trade. Through forging and other techniques, they were able to create iron implements that were hard and durable, making iron far superior in strength to bronze. Therefore, the absence of tin was a significant factor in the shift to iron during the civilizational collapse.