Please help on bronze axes

katana · 5th April 2008, 12:17 PM

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.

Kind Regards David

kronckew · 5th April 2008, 01:40 PM

the other possibility is that it is to be used as a chisel rather than a palstave axe.

this one (right) is so described at LibraryIreland

looks kinda big for that tho.

my favourite bronze axe was this style luristan axe (pic from internet)

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 · 5th April 2008, 03:45 PM

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 · 5th April 2008, 06:02 PM

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 · 5th April 2008, 07:55 PM

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

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/ant...ogy/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 · 5th April 2008, 08:21 PM

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 · 5th April 2008, 08:38 PM

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.

katana · 6th April 2008, 02:25 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tim Simmons

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.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tim Simmons

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

5th April 2008, 07:55 PM	#5
fernando (deceased) Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Portugal Posts: 9,694	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 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/ant...ogy/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 Attached Images Last edited by fernando; 5th April 2008 at 08:22 PM.

5th April 2008, 12:17 PM	#1
katana Member Join Date: Jan 2006 Location: Kent Posts: 2,658	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. Kind Regards David

5th April 2008, 01:40 PM	#2
kronckew Member Join Date: Mar 2006 Location: Room 101, Glos. UK Posts: 4,224	the other possibility is that it is to be used as a chisel rather than a palstave axe. this one (right) is so described at LibraryIreland looks kinda big for that tho. my favourite bronze axe was this style luristan axe (pic from internet) 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.

5th April 2008, 03:45 PM	#3
ariel Member Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Ann Arbor, MI Posts: 5,503	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 ?

5th April 2008, 06:02 PM	#4
kronckew Member Join Date: Mar 2006 Location: Room 101, Glos. UK Posts: 4,224	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.

5th April 2008, 08:21 PM	#6
Tim Simmons Member Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: What is still UK Posts: 5,855	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?

5th April 2008, 08:38 PM	#7
Tim Simmons Member Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: What is still UK Posts: 5,855	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.