![]()  | 
	
| 
			
			 | 
		#1 | 
| 
			
			 Member 
			
			
			
				
			
			Join Date: Sep 2012 
				Location: Somerset, UK 
				
				
					Posts: 8
				 
				
				
				
				
				 | 
	
	
	
		
		
			
			 
			
			Just to throw this out there for consideration.  Does anyone have any evidence for the use of the word seax dying out of use in England in the middle ages?
		 
		
		
		
		
		
		
		
	 | 
| 
		 | 
	
	
	
		
		
		
		
			 
		
		
		
		
		
		
		
			
		
		
		
	 | 
| 
			
			 | 
		#2 | 
| 
			
			 (deceased) 
			
			
			
				
			
			Join Date: Dec 2004 
				Location: Portugal 
				
				
					Posts: 9,694
				 
				
				
				
				
				 | 
	
	
	
		
		
			
			 
			
			Let me play the ignorant, Rob   
		
		
		
		
		
		
		
	  Searching (PDF) the work "Romeo and Juliet" by W. Shakespeare (1591) the term seax doesn't appear; only dagger, knife, sword ... Surprisingly the (circa 5000 pages) "Oxford Universal Dictionary" (1933-1969) doesn't contain this term. One can see in Wikepedia that the term seax is Old English, a language form that spans between V-XII centuries. Most probably you will soon find evidence that the term was dropped during the period you well suspect ![]() .  | 
| 
		 | 
	
	
	
		
		
		
		
			 
		
		
		
		
		
		
		
			
		
		
		
	 | 
| 
			
			 | 
		#3 | 
| 
			
			 Member 
			
			
			
			Join Date: Dec 2004 
				Location: NC, U.S.A. 
				
				
					Posts: 2,205
				 
				
				
				
				
				 | 
	
	
	
		
		
			
			 
			
			I no zero on this area, but according to Blackmore's 'Hunting Weapons from the Middle Ages to the 20th Century', a civilian dagger of the late Middle Ages known as a 'hauswehr' was the evolution (and demise) of the scramasax, developing a broader blade and of narrower cross-section, with edge curved to meet the back at the point. The older scramasax pointed tang was replaced with a strip tang to which two plates of wood, bone, ivory, etc, were riveted. An example of this evolution is shown from a 1476 manuscript. It stands to reason that with the demise of the form, the term also lost popularity. So, Fernando and you are both right-
		 
		
		
		
		
		
		
		
	 | 
| 
		 | 
	
	
	
		
		
		
		
			 
		
		
		
		
		
		
		
			
		
		
		
	 | 
![]()  | 
	
	
		
  | 
	
		
  |