Please help on bronze axes

[fernando]

I have made an offer on these two items so long ago, that i thaught i wouldn't get them any more.
I don't know if they could be considered weapons, although weapons in the old days were the daily utensiles, such as these :o .
Ethnographic they are, for sure ... if not knockoffs :eek:
The price i have paid for them ( among other stuff in a lot ) would be a bargain assuming they are the real thing, or a disaster if they are a forgery.
Anyone in this forum familiar with these things ?
The larger one measures 25 cms ( 10" ) and the other, 22 cms ( 8 1/2" ).
Thanks a lot for your coments.
Fernando

[katana]

Hi Fernando :) ,
interesting axe heads ....these particular heads are called Palstave axes, the first one seems to have a 'hammer head' at one end.... on which I can find no info. These could be older than you think....many bronze age axe heads were never used but placed as 'grave goods' for the deceased ...to use in the after life

See this ....

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/news.html?in_article_id=509542&in_page_id=1770


Kind Regards David

[Battara]

Katana your picture is so helpful....... :)

[kronckew]

the top one seems to have the sprue still attached from the original pouring of the mold. it would have to be cut off to enable the bent stave to be attached.

[katana]

Hi Kronckew :) ,
I did wonder about the top one ...I did consider the hammerhead to be the sprue, but... I have not found another example with two cast fixing loops. It suggests to me that this would have been fixed to a shaft in a more complex way and the only reason I could see was that the 'hammerhead' prevented 'normal' attachment to a haft. :shrug:


Kind Regards David

[kronckew]

the other possibility is that it is to be used as a chisel rather than a palstave axe.
http://www.libraryireland.com/SocialHistoryAncientIreland/176z.jpg
this one (right) is so described at LibraryIreland (http://www.libraryireland.com/SocialHistoryAncientIreland/III-XX-5.php)

looks kinda big for that tho.

my favourite bronze axe was this style luristan axe (pic from internet)
http://i153.photobucket.com/albums/s231/kronckew/stuff/luristan2.jpg
the axe haft i've drawn in to show how it was mounted with the point in the direction of swing and the edge trailing, must have been good for penetrating any intervening armour. almost bought a replica a few yrs. back. kick myself for not having done so.

[ariel]

Several times I looked at yet another "Luristani" bronze dagger/sword and every time walked away.
I just do not know how to distinguish the real thing from forgery.
Based on the stuff coming from China, the technologies of casting and aging must be pretty simple and well worked-out and it must be a cheap mass-production enterprise.
Are there any criteria whereby one can reliably identify forgery, other than the Chinese seller, of course ?

[kronckew]

i seem to recall someone here saying the chinese have been making forgeries for centuries. i've seen bronze spearheads made over here in the UK from castings of original finds and artificially patenated and aged, i do not think i'd buy one without some serious documentation and provenance. (the luristan replica i coveted was a brand shiny new functional one, not made from a cast but made as if it were a new weapon for a re-enactor). i also hear that the roman rings found in profusion on ebay are also mostly made recently in the balkans. bronze is a tough corrosion resistant metal well suited to lasting millenia, it would take an analysis of the alloy to prove it was likely to be real as opposed to a modern phosphor bronze from a scrapped ship's prop.

[fernando]

Thank you all for your input, Gentlemen.
David, that link is very interesting; i wouldn't mind to be in the place of that cab driver ... suddenly getting some pocket money :cool:
Kronckew, right on the target. I have just located a similar example at the Portuguese Archeology Museum ( picture attached ), with the remarks that it still kept is casting cone ( sprue ), as also some burr on the sides, denoting that this example was never used. So as David reminds, some of these things were just destined to grave goods. This ( only ) example in the museum was found in Portugal; i will then infer that my couple pieces are also Portuguese ... they were bought by the local seller at an auction in Oporto.
It seems as this pattern with loops dates from 1000 BC, as i have read here:
http://blog.lib.umn.edu/fregn001/anthropology/Poster.pdf
Coincidently, the other day i kept staring at some Luristani daggers in a couple sites, and i wouldn't dare to pick on one of them, fearing they were fakes. With these axes, circumstances were quite distinct; i bought them at sight, from a guy that bought them only because they were part of a lot of padlocks he was interested in. He hadn't the slightest idea what these two "brass" things were. As he narrated the auction event, which took over a couple months to take place, he told me how much he paid for the lot; so i offered a price for the axes that would cover what he spent for the whole lot ... he couldn't resist. And i came home pleased with the two pieces for 250 Euros. So if they are a fake, it's not the end of the world. But i would say that the existance of the sprue gives it an indication of authenticity.
Fernando

[Tim Simmons]

I should hold back but I think Fernando knows these are not the real thing. Just think of that bronze age man they found in the 1990s? with a bronze axe in the Austrian/Italian alps. It was a sensation. TV documentaries and even political arguements as to which country should have him. I do not think there would be flashing on the originals even if they had made a stone matrix?

[Tim Simmons]

This is the fellow I mentioned.
http://radiology.rsnajnls.org/cgi/reprint/226/3/614.pdf
I rather fancy even in there time they were not common.

[spiral]

I have to agree, Much Like flint or stone age axes, arrowheads, blades etc. one needs much expierience to "see" or 100% provinance if you dont have that.

Spiral

[katana]

Just think of that bronze age man they found in the 1990s? with a bronze axe in the Austrian/Italian alps. ?

Hi Tim,
Otzi or Oetzi ( the name given to the 'iceman') had a copper axe, there was no added tin. I think the copper content was around 98% , the rest impurities. I'm not being pedantic, but this could be for a number of reasons one being that the axe was possibly pre-bronze age and would have not been a 'common' implement.


I do not think there would be flashing on the originals even if they had made a stone matrix?

Tim, please, what is "flashing"

Regards David

[katana]

Reading through various sites/forums there are tests, radiology, CT scans etc. that COULD verify authenticity. But it seems the 'fakers' adapt to the newer tests :( . Patina, as many of us know can be easily faked and many 'fakers' have got this down to a fine art. Metallurgy testing is not always conclusive either, genuinely old bronze is added to the 'molten mix' to fool a number of tests. :shrug:

Kronckew, good call on the 'chisel' .....but I cannot see the function of the two 'cast loops' :shrug: Obviously the chisel would be hand-held not requiring the loops. I am beginning to wonder whether some of these so-called chisels are in fact ...chisels.

I was thinking on the lines of this ... :shrug: ......


.

[kronckew]

flashing is the thin 'feathers' of metal that ooze from the body of the item into the thin joint where the two mold halves meet, it's usually cut or ground back, either resulting in the distinctive mold lines around the join, or if properly finished, you'll not see it at all... if you've ever done plastic airplane models, you'll remember the thin plastic you trimmed off the parts to get them to fit. flashing. there may be some in the inside of the rings where it hasn't been cleaned out fully.

[katana]

flashing is the thin 'feathers' of metal that ooze from the body of the item into the thin joint where the two mold halves meet, it's usually cut or ground back, either resulting in the distinctive mold lines around the join, or if properly finished, you'll not see it at all... if you've ever done plastic airplane models, you'll remember the thin plastic you trimmed off the parts to get them to fit. flashing. there may be some in the inside of the rings where it hasn't been cleaned out fully.


Thanks Kronckew :) ,
........so nothing to do with with raincoats then ... ;)



I found this regarding early moulds for bronze .....interestingly it seems that after casting, 'hammer work' can improve the finished article...

http://ads.ahds.ac.uk/catalogue/adsdata/PSAS_2002/pdf/vol_032/32_039_041.pdf

http://www.darwincountry.org/explore/003450.html


Regards David

[katana]

I have since discovered that the cast axe head is not the end of the process. Obviously it would be 'cleaned up' ....apparently hot 'just cast' bronze is brittle so removing 'flashing' would only require a gentle 'tap' with a hammer (stone or bronze) to remove. Often stones were used to clean the head further. Then to create the hardened edge it would be 'work hardened' by use of a hammer, this was done cold. In effect , as the edge was hammered it would become thinner and harder. The bulk of the axe would remain softer. If problems with this process occured (such as minor cracks in the blade's edge.) The head would be re-heated to anneal it (soften) and then re-worked.

If during use the edge was damaged, it was possible to re-profile it with stone.......but without the 'work hardening' it would blunt easily. Several experts are amazed at the precision that the blade edge was produced by the hammering (to work harden) often requiring little or no 'dressing' with flat stones.
Unlike steel where a sharpening stone would improve the sharpness, the bronze blade would require a hammer, an anvil (rock) and a stone.

It seems to me that the 'chisel' (the axehead with the sprue still attached) would have a good work hardened end (repeatedly hit with a hammer as it was used as a chisel) With the two cast hoops it could be attached to a shaft......and presto....you have a hardened hammer to cold work harden your axe.....a worthy addition to your blade sharpening tool kit....I wonder :shrug:

Regards David

[katana]

If anyone is interested there is a free PDF download of a very good, but old late 19th C book on bronze weapons etc of the UK and Ireland ...fair number of illustrations. Go to link ...on left hand side theres a small 'box', locate PDF, right click.. 'save target as' ...download to 'My Docs'. Worth searching on this site for other interesting titles. ;)



http://www.archive.org/details/ancientbronzeimp00evanuoft


In this book are references to chisels, some are socketted, most look like the one's in the picture below....not one shown looks remotely like Fernando's 'first' example.(with sprue) Many of the designs and form for most implements were fairly common all over Europe. One reason being that trade for tin brought many continental traders to places like Cornwall where the exchanging of ideas etc were common. So it is unlikely that this design was unknown in Britain.

Regards David

.

[fernando]

I have consulted a few articles on the Iceman Oetzi. It seems as the definition of his age, as well as the composition of the axe he carried, are like the lolypops ... you can have them in various flavours. In any case, i fail to catch the relation between that saga and the probability of the axes i posted being genuine or a fake ... my primary issue.
I have taken more pictures, as i can not help being influenced by some of the questions raised here. There are marks and colour variations that could be considered intriguing. I keep thinking that the money they were sold for, is not worth the "qualified" work of a forgerer, although that is not a definite explanation. I feel i ought to give it the benefit of doubt.
Fernando

[fernando]

These are some of the Portuguese variations exhibited in an archeologic museum not far from my place. I had visited it some time ago, but my eyes were not particulary focused in axes, although i remember the scene. I see now that they show their collection in the Net, as also a demonstration of how the two loops were used for fixing the stave to the head. This is the end of a certain riddle :cool:
Fernando

[fernando]

According to what can be read, axes unfinished from casting were a current situation. This makes it logic that often large quantities of axes are found in the same spot. It appears that they were used as a demonstration of power, to mark the limits of a determined area, as also for ceremonial situations ... plus the ones used in "grave goods", as David quoted.
... Some connection with the later custom of making ( inoperational )weapons in Africa and elsewhere, to be used as currency ?

[Marc]

Nice pieces, Fernando. My congratulations. Do you have any clue about their provenence (place of excavation, etc.)? This could be extremely useful when trying to determine their authenticity. Even if something in the lines of "allegedly taken form somewhere around there".

[fernando]

Thank you very much for your words, Marc.
No, not a clue on their origin. As i said, they were auctioned together with a series of padlocks, in an indistinct manner. I have just detected a picture of such lot in the auctioner web site, as i have memorized their name since the local seller showed it to me. I would say these examples are Portuguese; i can see similar ones in Portuguese archeologic sites, excavated in various places in the (northern ?) Country. But that is just a hint ... i know nothing of these things and didn't yet read any literature appointing for their typology being necessarily Portuguese ... or Iberian, as often things are referred over here. Also the auctioner being placed in Porto and not in Lisbon could indicate the stuff auctioned is more of the internal type and not brought in by traders or travellers.
But no doubt i will try hard to find out.
I must regconize however that, if eventually these pieces are genuine, the attitude of mixing them with a bunch of padlocks and the price pretended for the lot licitation ( 50 euros ), denotes a complete ignorance and disdain from the auctioner side
Fernando

[katana]

Hi Fernando,
I am no expert, but, looking at the 'grinding' marks, I think that these do not seem to be made by a file.

1. File teeth are triangular and equally spaced... ^^^^^^^......the grooves on your picture appear to be 'rounded' and not regulary spaced... n nn n n

2 The grooves seem to follow most of the contours of the surface, a file would only remove 'high spots' and the file teeth would not be in contact with the 'low spots' as the file is, in 'essence', flat.

Perhaps these 'marks' are caused by working the axehead on a 'grainy', soft(sedimentary type) rock :shrug:

It is difficult to be precise with photographs, lighting etc can cause 'mis-leading images. Of cause, even if I am right, this would not guarantee 'authenticity' ... a 'good faker' could imitate this effect. Equally, though, you could say that it would add 'weight' to their authenticity ;)

Perhaps the curator of the museum (you mentioned) could point you in the direction of someone whom could authenticate them properly for you.

If they do turn out to be genuine........ :cool:

All the best

David

[fernando]

Thanks a lot for your impressions, David.
I am actually thinking of visiting the museum, which is actually not far from here; i just hope to find someone there specializing in this specific sort of things. The museum has diverse kinds of archeologic stuff, specially on the stone area, with a large "collection" of primitive swasticas.
Also at this very moment and as adviced, i am posting the pieces in SFI, on the Ancient Weapons section, where the moderator is an expert on Bronze Age casting.
Let's see what comes up.
Thanks for your (allways) enthusiastic support :)
Fernando

[Tim Simmons]

Interesting thread. It does seem odd that Fernando should come by these as he did, if they are indeed actually ancient though not impossible. They do not have to be fakes, they may just be replicas bought from a museum shop? The marks David mentions do look like file marks, files do way back in history but we are talking about the Bronze age. There is no reason bronze prestige items did not continue to have relevance in the early iron age? What does look just a little unconvincing are the marks in this picture. Clearly made by a steel tool of some kind and in rather a modern machine precision format?

[Tim Simmons]

Look here. Fig5 on page 6. X-ray of an iron age file.
http://www.helm.org.uk/upload/pdf/X_Radiography.pdf
Very interesting? Even if these can be found in groups it is where they are found that is important, not saying the axe its self is not important. It would be super if Fernando's axes were ancient. Probably best to go to a museum.

[fernando]

...What does look just a little unconvincing are the marks in this picture. Clearly made by a steel tool of some kind and in rather a modern machine precision format?

Very pertinent remark, Tim.
... At least untill someone comes up with a logic explanation for that, like the marks having been made at a later (recent) stage, for some kind of reason, like using the thing as a hammer, or whatever.
Fernando

[katana]

There is no reason bronze prestige items did not continue to have relevance in the early iron age?

Hi Tim,
a while ago ...a documentary on the bronze age, demonstrated a late bronze age sword ( a replica made using the technology of the time, so in a sense... authentic) against an early iron age sword ( again made using early iron age tech.) During the 'sword fight' there was constant comparison to check the damage done to each sword. Both had cuts to the swords edges, the worst was suffered by the iron sword, eventually the iron sword broke :eek: Because the technology of hardening steel was unknown and the smelting process was not refined, the iron blade was relatively soft in some areas/ harder (brittle) in others ,as the quality of smelted iron was not consistant. The bronze sword was actually superior, I was amazed at how well the bronze sword performed.

Obviously as the iron age developed, increasing knowledge gradually improved the quality of the the iron, and later the addition of carbon and heat treatment made steel ....the king of blades.

Found this fine Iron Age sword made of bronze..

http://www.shropshire.gov.uk/museums.nsf/open/5CB45DC237F776BF80256C7800361C8A


Regards David

[fernando]

When reading the following posting, one would be convinced that these two axes are indeed genuine. However three hours later, i have got strong indications on the contrary.
Now i am like the fool on the bridge :shrug:


" From the looks of it, these are the real thing. But they're not just any axes (which by themselves would already be very significant finds), these are unfinished axes, which are extremely rare! I can count the number of unfinished axes I know from Europe on one hand (out of thousands). They are even rarer then moulds, and can tell a lot about the fabrication process. Unfortunately though, without any confirmed provenance these are worthless to archeology. There's a good chance that these belonged to a founders hoard, that's been split up and sold seperately. And they probably were part of a sacrificial deposition, which would tell a lot about the religious significance of the area in which they were found, if it would be known where they were found. So if you can trace back the original finder, and the original find spot, you'd be able to rescue a very significant find, of which the historical significance is otherwise lost. I'd also highly recommend reporting these to the archeologists from the area where these originate, so that they can help tracing back the origins, and record these axes.

Jeroen Zuiderwijk
SFI Ancient Weapons Forum "

i have met the nearby museum superior and here comes the questionable part, concerning my two examples. Although she admits not being specialized in metalurgy, but in restoring, she advances that, regularly such cones, containing the pouring left overs, are composed of a much poorer metal, whereas in my example the material in the cone looks as having the same consistency.
Together with the fact that my two examples are much too nice and too well preserved, besides some local miscoloration and other small details, she is inclined to assume that they might not be genuine. She further said that, other than that, only metal tests would contrary such conviction, but they are far too expensive and out of question. Therefore the necessity to find out where the axes were found, for museologic reasons, did not take place.

I am beginning to think that these are the ideal items to offer for swaping :shrug:
Fernando

[Marc]

Indeed, without a known, solid provenance, compositional and/or metallurgical analysis is the only way to be reasonably sure, I'm afraid.

Other than that, to know a bit more on these, you may be interested in this work, published very recently:

VILAÇA, Raquel: "Depósitos de Bronze do Território Português: um debate em aberto", Conimbriga, Anexos 5, Instituto de Arqueologia da Facultade de Letras da Universidade de Coimbra (FLUC), 2007. ISBN: 978-972-9004-22-3


Again, a nice find.

[katana]

Hi Fernando,
As I said before I am no expert....but the comment about the 'sprue' being of good quality bronze and therefore likely a reproduction seems strange to me.

As Kronckew pointed out these are sometimes classified as chisels... with the 'sprue' as the contact point as the 'chisel' is struck by the hammer / mallet. Surely then, the bronze quality should be consistant from the blade 'edge' to the upper surface of the 'sprue'. Or am I missing something....certainly wouldn't be the first time ;)

Regards David

[kronckew]

when metal is poured into a mold, the impurities and dissolved gasses tend to rise up into the sprue, one reason it's a bit bigger than you would probably expect. cast steel billets generally have the top bit cut off & thrown back in the scrap pile, i'd expect it's the same with ancient casts, unless the metal was extremely pure and clean & was degassed in a reducing environment.

[fernando]

when metal is poured into a mold, the impurities and dissolved gasses tend to rise up into the sprue, one reason it's a bit bigger than you would probably expect. cast steel billets generally have the top bit cut off & thrown back in the scrap pile, i'd expect it's the same with ancient casts, unless the metal was extremely pure and clean & was degassed in a reducing environment.

There's your answer above, David :cool:

... When Kronckew mentioned the hammer situation in post #6, was only to go along your reasoning in post #5.
By the way, i agree that the illustrated chisel in fig 179 is not a chisel, as you sugested in post #14. Those rings are self speaking, i would say.


I can add that the museum Lady showed me a lot of axes ... even one she was keeping in one drawer, with the sprue already dettached; you could see its material was less integral than in the rest of the axe ... more flour like, if you catch my meaning.


Back to my examples, i beleive the Lady restoring Doctor was pritty sure of what she was saying, on what concerns the pieces not being "normal".
She sure has seen lots of axes, from the various periods, and she hasn't ever seen so "well preserved" examples, which excludes them from a logical consense. Like if they were ever real, they would be an unspeakeable finding.
What she couldn't explain, and this seems to be the major question, is precisely the reason why these two items exist and in a so well made form; could they be replicas, fakes, reproductions ... made for a good faith purpose or as deceivers ?

I still tend to think they would make an interesting swap :shrug:
This could be the influence of having once collected coins; allways in panic that a certain example could be a fake :eek: .

[katana]

Never mind Fernando, we all have to take risks now and again ....when trying to obtain unusual or rare examples of weapons, when they 'pay off' .... :cool: ......when they don't ....well, you get the picture :( .

I would have been very pleased for you , had these been genuine. Still, I have learned alot, also thanks Kronckew, I had assumed that the sprue (normally removed) was left on some axeheads (ie a 'longer sprue' which would have been ground down to remove the 'imperfect' bronze from the upper section) for use as a hammer/chisel head and therefore the quality of the bronze would be consistent.

Sometimes lateral thinking can open up new possibillities....in this case, it lead me astray :shrug: ;)


Regards David

[fernando]

... regularly such cones ( sprews ), containing the pouring left overs, are composed of a much poorer metal, whereas in my example the material in the cone looks as having the same consistency.


Concerning this subject, i have received the following opinnion from Jeroen Zuiderwijk at SFI :

I'm not following that. The bronze in the cone is the same as in the axe. Unless it's a highly leaded casting, you could get more lead in the cone then in the axe, but that's only visible in a metallurgical analysis. What can happen though is that some charcoal gets cast in with the last bronze, which forms holes inside the cone, if the caster had molten only just enough bronze. That happens occasionally with me as well, but is not the general rule. Something that does surprise me a little is that the top surface of the cone is fairly smooth, while normally it's rather wrinkled. But I've had castings to where that varies (due to metal composition, cooling rate etc.)

Following the doubts on the two examples authencity, this is Jeroen's impression:


Well, one thing that makes me believe they're genuine, is the way that they have been worked. The marks show that they have been hammered on the sides with fairly rough stones, and also ground with fairly rough stones, not with modern hammers, files etc. So if they are fake, they are made by someone working them with authentic tools. As far as I know, I'm one of the very very few who doesn't finish all bronze age castings with modern tools, but actually uses only bronze age tools to finish them. If they are modern casts, the could only have come from a living history center, where there's someone else working like me. But why these axes would then end up on being sold as antiques and in half finished state is beyond me, unless someone stole them on purpose, and then had them patinated and sell them as antiques. It's possible, but I don't consider it very likely. Added to that, the shapes do look very bronze age, while I know very few bronze casters that approach bronze age artifacts close enough for them not to jump out immediately (unless they are cast from waxes taken directly off original casts, in which case the cutting edges would have come out sharpened, and no need for trimming flashes of the sides would have been necessary). So I'm fairly positive that these are real..

Fernando

[Tim Simmons]

Fernando I am not trying to be difficult but who is this chap and what makes him such an authority :shrug:.

[fernando]

There you are, Tim ... you can judge for yourself ;)

This is his web page:

http://1501bc.com/index_eng.html

He is also a moderator here:

http://forums.swordforum.com/forumdisplay.php?f=12

[Tim Simmons]

Thanks Fernando, very interesting. I still have doubts, especislly those very regular punch marks we both felt were a little modern, even if there were files in the iron age. I have colleges with lots of differnt shape , size and weight of hammer. I will try and post pics.

[fernando]

Those punch marks might well be the result of later ( modern ) misuse; not the first time weapons and other artifacts are used as hammers or tools of all sorts.
... Just trying to give it some logic :shrug: .
It would be wonderfull if you get any results at checking with your coleagues :) .
Thanks a lot, Tim.

[katana]

Hi Fernando,
It seems the story hasn't ended ;)

I've been thinking about the regular markings......

IMHO The marks on the axehead, suggest a single 'punch' with a very small rectangular end was used. Although they are almost arranged in a side by side configuration, in two parallel rows, it looks as if, each mark was done individually.

Notice how some are 'deeper', suggesting a harder strike on the punch. Sometimes the 'twin' of some of the marks are missing. Some of the marks appear to be struck from slightly different angles. Although fairly evenly spaced they are not 'exact'. Also noticeable is the fact that these marks occured after the hammer finish ...some 'cut' into the 'peaks' of the hammer marks.
Hopefully, the enlargement of Fernando's picture will explain better.

The other with the yellow oval, highlights an area which seems to be 'later' damage....its surface is 'different' to the rest of the 'hammered' surface and some of the 'notch' marks seem to have been deformed by the 'impact damage'


Regards David

[fernando]

Thank you David,
So we can take fore sure that these marks were not the result of casting ... be it either ancient or contemporaneous.
The pictures attached are as afar as i can go with my digital camera; close ups not closer than four inches ... it is an "old" pioneer.
Take a better look to the wavy pairs.
I have found meanwhile another set of marks ... on the same side of the axe edge; also with a bizarre look.
Fernando

[Emanuel]

Let's suppose these are modern-made... Perhaps those punch marks are the result of toothed tongs used to hold the pieces while they were dipped in some acidic solution to artificially age them, or to remove them from said solution.
In either case, the marks are irregular enough to have been accidentally made. I don't think hammer blows would reproduce the relatively precise alignment of these marks. :shrug:

These axes make for a nice little mystery, Fernando, regardless of authenticity.

Emanuel

[fernando]

Let's suppose these are modern-made... Perhaps those punch marks are the result of toothed tongs used to hold the pieces while they were dipped in some acidic solution to artificially age them, or to remove them from said solution.
In either case, the marks are irregular enough to have been accidentally made. I don't think hammer blows would reproduce the relatively precise alignment of these marks. :shrug:

I don't think bronze is so soft as letting simple toothed tongs impress it so deeply, just by holding it.
Also dificult to be hammer marks, as they have more than one defined pattern.



These axes make for a nice little mystery, Fernando, regardless of authenticity.

Emanuel

You're dead right, Emanuel :confused:

Fernando

[Mark]

I do agree that on close inspection the parallel marks seem to be made with a single punch, which makes it difficult to imagine that they are an unintended by-product of the manufacturing process (like the grind marks). Asuming the punch marks were not made by a modern vise, clamps, or whatever, why would they have been made originally? They appear too random and inconspicuous to be decoration. Yet, it would have taken a great deal of attention and precision to punch in the marks in such a regular pattern. Some sort of tally, maybe? I just can't think of why they would have been put there. :confused:

[katana]

I've tried to enhance/enlarge the latest pictures Fernando has uploaded.... very strange. The 'pattern' within the 'marked oval' seems very unusual ... perhaps someone may have some ideas ......

Regards David

[kronckew]

being an avid CSI fan, i suspect that someone here either is or knows someone who is a CSI or forensic lab tech. they generally have tool mark libraries for finding out what tools may have been involved in crimes, they may recognise or be able to look up the tool marks.

my initial thought was they were vice jaw marks which may have been added by some bright spark recently (last century or so ;) )

[fernando]

We are also being pulverized with CSI over here ...sometimes different episodes showing simultaneously in different TV chanels :rolleyes: .
But in the due context, i was more fascinated by Sherlock Holmes. Pitty he isn't around to reveal ( Dr. Watson ) the underwear colours of the individual that punched those marks on the axes :eek:.

[Jeff Pringle]

The closely spaced triangles definitely look like vice jaw grip marks, the smearing of the marks on the right side makes it look like the piece shifted a bit, not unusual when trying to grip non-square items and work on them with any pressure.
The only marks I’ve seen in my long history of looking at metal that are similar to the little wave marks are from electric grinders, if the tool has a threaded shaft for attaching the abrasive discs, and the threads protrude from the nut affixing the disc (which they usually do), then if the worker touches the work piece with the shaft of the tool (which they occasionally do) it will skip along the surface and leave impressions of the first couple threads in a regular pattern like that.
:shrug:
;)

[katana]

Sorry double post :o

[katana]

The closely spaced triangles definitely look like vice jaw grip marks, the smearing of the marks on the right side makes it look like the piece shifted a bit, not unusual when trying to grip non-square items and work on them with any pressure.
The only marks I’ve seen in my long history of looking at metal that are similar to the little wave marks are from electric grinders, if the tool has a threaded shaft for attaching the abrasive discs, and the threads protrude from the nut affixing the disc (which they usually do), then if the worker touches the work piece with the shaft of the tool (which they occasionally do) it will skip along the surface and leave impressions of the first couple threads in a regular pattern like that.
:shrug:
;)

Seems a good possible explaination Jeff, especially the 'thread' markings :)

However, what doesn't make sense is why they are there. If this is a 'high end' fake, why would the evidence be left for all to see. All the marks seem to have occured after the 'hammer shaping' ....which I would assume would have been the last manufacturing process. So can it be assumed these marks happened later...and if so, was there a purpose....testing of the bronze :shrug:
If these heads were artifically 'patinated' , the sort of chemicals used such as ammonia, urea etc to 'induce' this, would not require tongs or mole grips to place the item in solution. A number of Chinese fakers bury them in urine soaked, highly mineralised soil.


Regards David

[fernando]

I am not sure i understand Jeff's thesis, due to language difficulties.
Thread marks from the slip rotation of a grinding disc screw shaft ... wouldn't they be paralel, instead of wavy (curved ) ? And why interrupted and not continuous ?
Also if a disc grinder was used, why can't we see the respective grinding evidence?
Jaw marks from a vise grip, or even from a regular screw vise ... in this case, we should find similar marks, even if more faded, in the opposite side of the oject, which is not the case; actually the other side of the blade has no "mechanical" looking marks at all, as neither the rest of the axe. Also in the case of a vise clamping action, the position seems very unhandy(assymetrical and angled ); why then the reason ?
I hope i make myself understood and am not talking nonsense :o
Fernando

[Rick]

Could they have been 'cleaned up' before sale ? :confused:

[fernando]

... So can it be assumed these marks happened later...and if so, was there a purpose....testing of the bronze :shrug:
Regards David
That came to my mind, David; some sort of testing punches ... not clampings. :confused:
Fernando

[fernando]

Could they have been 'cleaned up' before sale ? :confused:

I don't know, Rick :shrug:
If such "cleaning" took place, it would have to be a thorough job, which would hardly neglect to erase the existing marks we can see now.
Also the object is covered of intense beating, which then had to be done after the said cleaning ... againg failling to smash these bizarre marks, which appear not to have been deformed by both treatments; their edges look intact. :confused:

[katana]

I hope this makes sense...

if you look at 'underlined section' 2 the 'symbol' (I'm not saying it is, but is a better description) seems to be repeated above 'section 3'. The 'symbol' in section 1 seems to have a similar shape (albeit, slightly 'deformed') as 'section 2&3' . The 'symbol' above section 4 also has the 'elements' of symbol 2 but a little more spaced.
I may be seeing things that aren't there, ( saw Elvis walking his dog yesterday :p ) but there seems to be a recurring pattern on that section that does not look 'mechanical'.
I also have to point out I have no idea as to scale i.e. I have no idea of the dimensions of these marks.

I may be drawing BIG conclusions from very little clues ;)


Regards David

[Jeff Pringle]

I didn’t mean to put forth a thesis, just point out that two of the mark types on the axe are consistent with modern metal working tools. How that relates to the creation and history of the object I don’t know, and there may be other ways to create those marks that are just as plausible :shrug:
On the grinder marks, since the machine is not firmly held in alignment with the work piece, when the spinning shaft hits the metal object the torque immediately kicks it away so you have a hammering effect as hand pressure pushes the tool down and its own oscillation kicks it up every revolution.
Vice jaws are usually padded in one way or another when working soft metals, sometimes ineffectively; and workers will also make wooden shims to assist in holding irregular objects, so not seeing the other jaw of the vice imprinted on the other side of the object does not mean those are not vice marks…but I don’t know that they are, either – they just look like such marks.
:confused:
;)

[fernando]

I have just met someone who is largely experienced with these things.
I should have no further doubt that these axes are (quote) copies made with the moulds of genuine originals, and a very nice work. I was shown some three different reasons to support such conclusion. However they were certainly not made to pretend to be genuine, but a demonstration of the general casters capabilities, which explains a certain riddle. There is a strong possibility that one was made in the sixties by a certain guy, and the other in the eighties by his nephew.
Whether this last part of the story is accurate, i wouldn't know ...i am "selling it for the price i bought it".
I will now offer these examples in the swap forum as, at this stage, i don't feel attached to these items.
I feel deeply obliged for all the cooperation i had in this subject.
Thank you all Gentlemen
Fernando