EARLY BRONZE-AGE TIN AND THE TAURUS - REPLY

This response to J.D. Muhly's essay (supra pp. 239-53) focuses on a se ries of key issues that have arisen concerning the chronology, technol ogy, and archaeological context in which prehistoric metallurgy develo ped. Additional radiocarbon dates and information on EBA ceramics from soundings in the Kestel mine are presented, which are relevant to the dating of the operations. The tin-bronze industry at Tarsus and the q uestion of ''intentionality'' in the manufacture of bronze alloys are further discussed. No data exist to support Muhlys contention that gol d and iron were produced at Goltepe and Kestel. It is stressed that al though particles of cassiterite and tin metal are small, they are dens e and characteristically colored, and hence easily identified. Replica tion experiments in 1992 have suggested a method of producing tin meta l compatible with the analyses of the crucibles and coatings. In an ap pendix, Lynn Willies discusses the geological nature of tin deposits i n general and at Kestel in particular, and considers Muhly's interpret ation of the deposits in the Eastern Desert.