| Author |
Message |
|
Tim Jorgensen
|
|
  |
 |
|
Peter Johnsson
Industry Professional
|
 Posted: Thu 02 Feb, 2012 7:56 am Post subject: |
 |
|
|
From the look of it in the picture, I see no connection to viking weaponry whatsoever. It rather looks like a tool axe of more recent manufacture.
|
|
 |
|
|
Ken Speed
|
| Posted: Thu 02 Feb, 2012 9:12 am Post subject: |
|
|
Peter is certainly an expert and I am certainly NOT but that axe head looks like a tool as opposed to a weapon.
It could be a Viking era tool that may have been used as a weapon but unless it was buried in someone's bones I don't know how that could be determined.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Peter Johnsson
Industry Professional
|
| Posted: Thu 02 Feb, 2012 10:25 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Ken Speed wrote: | Peter is certainly an expert and I am certainly NOT but that axe head looks like a tool as opposed to a weapon.
It could be a Viking era tool that may have been used as a weapon but unless it was buried in someone's bones I don't know how that could be determined. |
-Thing is, I´ve never seen a viking era tool axe that looks like this either.
 Attachment: 42.7 KB
The find looks similar to this Simmons & Co. carpenters Broad Hatchet
Attachment: 8.72 KB
Viking tool axes looks like this (a modern reproduction)
Attachment: 12.63 KB
The find
|
|
|
|
|
|
Myles Mulkey
|
| Posted: Thu 02 Feb, 2012 10:37 am Post subject: |
|
|
I definitely agree with Peter. If I read it correctly, the article is claiming the axe was found at the site of a battle. Maybe they are trying to claim an axe of this type:
(Modern replica by Paul Binns)
The axe find is much closer in form to the carpentry axes Peter posted than it is to a battle axe... I'm curious who these "archaeologists" are that are making these claims. Seems like a clearly modern (compared to the Viking Age) axe to me.[/img]
|
|
|
|
|
Artis Aboltins
|
| Posted: Thu 02 Feb, 2012 10:59 am Post subject: |
|
|
|
It certainly looks nothing at all like Viking period axes I have seen, more like something from 19th century - I believe I have seen firemans tool of 19th century where "axe" portion of it looked a lot like that one.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Doug Lester
Location: Decatur, IL Joined: 12 Dec 2007
Posts: 167
|
| Posted: Thu 02 Feb, 2012 12:07 pm Post subject: |
|
|
|
Let me add to the chorus of nay sayers here. It's really hard to get a good picture of the ax head from just the one view but I would imagine what one would see from the ends is a thicker cross section towards the eye of the head. This would indicate a tool rather than weapon. I have also seen no examples of an ax head shaped like that in any archaeology books from that period.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Ken Speed
|
| Posted: Thu 02 Feb, 2012 1:52 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Peter Johnsson said, "-Thing is, I´ve never seen a viking era tool axe that looks like this either."
Once again I agree but it could be a Viking Age something. I'll readily admit I have no idea what. In the photo it looks like the socket is missing; could it be an adze? Maybe? I'd like to think that a trained archeologist would be able to tell the difference between something from the tenth century and something from the eighteenth century so I'm trying to leave a door open, you know?
|
|
|
|
|
Artis Aboltins
|
| Posted: Fri 03 Feb, 2012 1:44 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Ken Speed wrote: | Peter Johnsson said, "-Thing is, I´ve never seen a viking era tool axe that looks like this either."
Once again I agree but it could be a Viking Age something. I'll readily admit I have no idea what. In the photo it looks like the socket is missing; could it be an adze? Maybe? I'd like to think that a trained archeologist would be able to tell the difference between something from the tenth century and something from the eighteenth century so I'm trying to leave a door open, you know? |
Have to say that after spending plenty of time studying Late Iron Age artefacts, i do not really recall anything that looks like this one, so, unless there is hard supporting evidence of this bbeingViking age, I would say it is more like a wish for sensational discovery affecting the people behind this discovery bbeingannounced as Viking Age. If it was found amidst other artefacts, that can clearly be identified as belonging to Viking Age - then, yes, it would be, but as standalone find, it does not seem well suited for basing decisions on.
|
|
|
|
|
Matthew Bunker
Location: Somerset UK Joined: 02 Apr 2009
Posts: 483
|
| Posted: Fri 03 Feb, 2012 2:55 am Post subject: |
|
|
That's a 19th/20th century Kent pattern axe, found about 20 miles away from where I'm sitting.
I've mailed contacts in the relevent museum and archaeology groups to ask on what basis it's being claimed as 'viking'.
"If a Greek can do it, two Englishman certainly can !"
|
|
|
|
|
Artis Aboltins
|
| Posted: Fri 03 Feb, 2012 3:22 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Matthew Bunker wrote: | That's a 19th/20th century Kent pattern axe, found about 20 miles away from where I'm sitting.
I've mailed contacts in the relevent museum and archaeology groups to ask on what basis it's being claimed as 'viking'. |
I will not be surprised if it will turn out that some journalist asked someone if there is a chance Vikings where living where that axe was discovered, received answer "possibly" and immediately pronounced the axe to be genuine Viking artefact 
|
|
|
|
|
|
E. Storesund
|
| Posted: Fri 03 Feb, 2012 3:36 pm Post subject: |
|
|
|
Wouldn't be the first time, I'm sure!
|
|
|
|
|
Matthew Bunker
Location: Somerset UK Joined: 02 Apr 2009
Posts: 483
|
|
|
|
|
|
Ken Speed
|
| Posted: Wed 15 Feb, 2012 12:15 pm Post subject: |
|
|
|
Bummed out Man! I thought for sure some dude with a horned helmet dropped his axe while he was riding his mammoth!
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
This is a standard topic