Please help on bronze axes

[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]

Originally Posted by 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.

There's your answer above, David

... 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
This could be the influence of having once collected coins; allways in panic that a certain example could be a fake .

[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' .... ......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


Regards David