During the later Bronze Age in Europe (c. 1500–800 BC), the archaeological visibility of the production and consumption of bronze increases substantially. Yet there remains a significant imbalance between the vast number of finished artefacts that survive and the evidence for where, how, and by whom they were produced. At the centre of these questions is the metal smith, who has been variously regarded in scholarship as nomadic, a reviled outsider, elite in status, a mediator of wealth, a shaman or a proto-scientist. In most cases, however, the social role of the smith is seen as central to the functioning of Bronze Age societies This paper provides a new cross-regional study that evaluates current theoretical paradigms in the light of empirical evidence. It does this through contextual analyses of metalworking traces, focussing on case studies primarily from Atlantic, Nordic, Urnfield and Balkan regions of Europe. Our work breaks down the production cycle into various practical steps, and the material evidence for each step is evaluated. This enables similarities and differences on the broader European scale to be identified and discussed. Through this, our aim is to better characterise the modes of participation in smithing and the identities of those involved, and consequently to improve our understanding of the material patterns related to smithing activities that occur archaeologically. These patterns range from discard or deposition at settlements, the construction of identity in mortuary practice, technological choices in alloy design and treatment, and the quality of finished metalwork objects. Concerning the question of the single smith, it is argued that the material evidence in many regions indicates that metalworking was more broadly embedded in society; this might be through cross-craft interaction, the location of metalworking activities, and the reuse of casting debris and moulds. We argue that crafting metal was a commonplace and socially visible activity, which was in many regions a venue for enhancing social integration and stability.

在欧洲青铜时代后期（约公元前 1500 年至公元前 800 年），青铜生产和消费的考古可见性大幅增加。然而，现存的大量文物成品与它们的生产地点、生产方式和生产者的证据之间仍然存在显着的不平衡。这些问题的核心是金属匠，他在学术界被不同程度地视为游牧民族、受辱的局外人、地位精英、财富的调解者、萨满或原始科学家。然而，在大多数情况下，铁匠的社会角色被视为青铜时代社会运作的核心。本文提供了一项新的跨区域研究，根据经验证据评估当前的理论范式。它通过对金属加工痕迹的背景分析来实现这一点，重点关注主要来自欧洲大西洋、北欧、瓮场和巴尔干地区的案例研究。我们的工作将生产周期分解为各个实际步骤，并对每个步骤的物质证据进行评估。这使得更广泛的欧洲范围内的相似点和差异得以识别和讨论。通过这一点，我们的目的是更好地描述参与锻造的模式和参与者的身份，从而提​​高我们对与考古发生的锻造活动相关的材料模式的理解。这些模式包括定居点的丢弃或沉积、太平间实践中的身份构建、合金设计和处理的技术选择以及成品金属制品的质量。关于单一铁匠的问题，有人认为，许多地区的物质证据表明金属加工更广泛地融入社会；这可能是通过跨工艺互动、金属加工活动的地点以及铸造碎片和模具的再利用来实现的。我们认为，制作金属是一种普遍且社会可见的活动，在许多地区是加强社会融合和稳定的场所。