Please help on bronze axes

fernando · 13th April 2008, 05:46 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by 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 · 13th April 2008, 07:17 PM

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

.

fernando · 13th April 2008, 07:30 PM

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 · 13th April 2008, 07:39 PM

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 · 13th April 2008, 07:48 PM

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

.
It would be wonderfull if you get any results at checking with your coleagues

.
Thanks a lot, Tim.

katana · 13th April 2008, 11:15 PM

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 · 14th April 2008, 10:03 PM

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

13th April 2008, 11:15 PM	#6
katana Member Join Date: Jan 2006 Location: Kent Posts: 2,658	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 Attached Images Last edited by katana; 13th April 2008 at 11:26 PM.

14th April 2008, 10:03 PM	#7
fernando (deceased) Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Portugal Posts: 9,694	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 Attached Images

13th April 2008, 07:17 PM	#2
Tim Simmons Member Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: What is still UK Posts: 5,879	Fernando I am not trying to be difficult but who is this chap and what makes him such an authority .

13th April 2008, 07:30 PM	#3
fernando (deceased) Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Portugal Posts: 9,694	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

13th April 2008, 07:39 PM	#4
Tim Simmons Member Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: What is still UK Posts: 5,879	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.

13th April 2008, 07:48 PM	#5
fernando (deceased) Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Portugal Posts: 9,694	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 . It would be wonderfull if you get any results at checking with your coleagues . Thanks a lot, Tim.