If all you are interested in is historical bronze then yes it was
copper and tin with various other metals as impurities but for at
least the last 50-75 years the following definition has been in
place.
Yeah I’m old school, nothing wrong with that 
The problem is that a lot of people making historical replicas,
don’t appear to know much about alloys, a lot use silicon bronze and
phosphor bronze, because it has the word “bronze” in it. It also
looks wrong, it does not patinate the same, it does not corrode the
same.
Everdur is a product that was given the definition “bronze” to
appeal to artists, and it’s cheaper to make than a true bronze.
Personally I prefer the colour of a true bronze, and if you play with
the tin percentages it’s almost like mixing paint.
If an fish were called a sea kitten it still wouldn’t be a mammal.
Broadly speaking, bronzes are copper alloys in which the major
alloying element is not zinc or nickel. Originally "bronze"
described alloys with tin as the only or principal alloying
element. Today, the term is generally used not by itself but with a
modifying adjective. For wrought alloys, there are four main
families of bronzes: copper- tin-phosphorus alloys (phosphor
bronzes); copper-tin- lead-phosphorus alloys (leaded phosphor
bronzes); copper-aluminum alloys (aluminum bronzes); and
copper-silicon alloys
There we go “broadly speaking”, this is not discussing technical
bronzes, it’s discussing copper alloys.
I’ll repeat this again, Evedur, is know as silicon bronze, and also
silicon brass even thought it contains neither tin or zinc.
It is not a marketing ploy but an attempt to classify various
copper alloys in a systematic fashion. Bronze alloys are a harder
more durable class of alloys than the Brasses are so it makes since
to class the aluminum, and silicon bronzes along with the
phosphorus (tin bearing) bronzes.
The problem is that people make things too complicated. A series of
numbers should suffice for copper alloys. Even bronzes can be given
a series of numbers 90/10, 80/20 (aka bell metal) etc.
I think changing definitions that have been in place for thousands
of years (not for merely 50-70 years) is not a good thing imo.
Regards Charles
).