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.

在欧洲后期的青铜器时代（约公元前1500-800年），青铜器生产和消费的考古可视性大大提高。然而，在幸存的大量人工制品与在何处，如何以及由谁生产的证据之间仍然存在巨大的不平衡。这些问题的中心是金属史密斯，他在学术界被不同程度地视为游牧民族，被vil骂的局外人，地位贵族，财富的调停人，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中心。本文提供了一项新的跨地区研究，根据经验证据对当前的理论范式进行了评估。它是通过对金属加工痕迹进行上下文分析来实现的，专注于案例研究，主要来自欧洲的大西洋，北欧，乌恩菲尔德和巴尔干地区。我们的工作将生产周期分解为多个实际步骤，并对每个步骤的实质证据进行评估。这样就可以确定和讨论整个欧洲范围的相似之处和不同之处。这样，我们的目的是更好地刻画参与锻造的方式和所涉人员的身份，从而增进我们对考古学中与锻造活动有关的物质模式的理解。这些模式包括：在定居点的丢弃或沉积，deposition房实践中的身份构造，合金设计和处理中的技术选择以及成品金属制品的质量。关于单身铁匠的问题，有人认为，许多地区的物质证据表明，金属加工在社会中的地位更加广泛。这可能是通过跨工艺交互，金属加工活动的位置以及铸造碎片和铸模的重复使用而实现的。我们认为，手工制作金属是司空见惯的活动，在社会上是可见的活动，在许多地区，金属活动是增进社​​会融合和稳定的场所。