Please help on bronze axes

[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]

Originally Posted by Tim Simmons

...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]

Originally Posted by Tim Simmons

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 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...256C7800361C8A


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


" 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
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]

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 .

[fernando]

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]

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

[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.