Please help on bronze axes

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

Emanuel · 14th April 2008, 10:16 PM

Let's suppose these are modern-made... Perhaps those punch marks are the result of toothed tongs used to hold the pieces while they were dipped in some acidic solution to artificially age them, or to remove them from said solution.
In either case, the marks are irregular enough to have been accidentally made. I don't think hammer blows would reproduce the relatively precise alignment of these marks.

These axes make for a nice little mystery, Fernando, regardless of authenticity.

Emanuel

fernando · 15th April 2008, 12:12 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Manolo

Let's suppose these are modern-made... Perhaps those punch marks are the result of toothed tongs used to hold the pieces while they were dipped in some acidic solution to artificially age them, or to remove them from said solution.
In either case, the marks are irregular enough to have been accidentally made. I don't think hammer blows would reproduce the relatively precise alignment of these marks.

I don't think bronze is so soft as letting simple toothed tongs impress it so deeply, just by holding it.
Also dificult to be hammer marks, as they have more than one defined pattern.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Manolo

These axes make for a nice little mystery, Fernando, regardless of authenticity.

Emanuel

You're dead right, Emanuel

Fernando

Mark · 15th April 2008, 03:23 PM

I do agree that on close inspection the parallel marks seem to be made with a single punch, which makes it difficult to imagine that they are an unintended by-product of the manufacturing process (like the grind marks). Asuming the punch marks were not made by a modern vise, clamps, or whatever, why would they have been made originally? They appear too random and inconspicuous to be decoration. Yet, it would have taken a great deal of attention and precision to punch in the marks in such a regular pattern. Some sort of tally, maybe? I just can't think of why they would have been put there.

13th April 2008, 11:15 PM	#3
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	#4
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, 07:39 PM	#1
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	#2
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.

14th April 2008, 10:16 PM	#5
Emanuel Member Join Date: Jul 2005 Location: Toronto, Canada Posts: 1,242	Let's suppose these are modern-made... Perhaps those punch marks are the result of toothed tongs used to hold the pieces while they were dipped in some acidic solution to artificially age them, or to remove them from said solution. In either case, the marks are irregular enough to have been accidentally made. I don't think hammer blows would reproduce the relatively precise alignment of these marks. These axes make for a nice little mystery, Fernando, regardless of authenticity. Emanuel

15th April 2008, 03:23 PM	#7
Mark Member Join Date: Dec 2004 Posts: 987	I do agree that on close inspection the parallel marks seem to be made with a single punch, which makes it difficult to imagine that they are an unintended by-product of the manufacturing process (like the grind marks). Asuming the punch marks were not made by a modern vise, clamps, or whatever, why would they have been made originally? They appear too random and inconspicuous to be decoration. Yet, it would have taken a great deal of attention and precision to punch in the marks in such a regular pattern. Some sort of tally, maybe? I just can't think of why they would have been put there.