Old "Seahenge" story conclusions & questions
Sandy Wills
to an article on "Seahenge", where I objected to the article's
conclusions, and I sent a query to the authors. I was just going thru
my old email and realized that I never got an answer, so I'm throwing
the question here, for feedback. Am I right, or do I need to change my
dosage?)
On Nov 20, 2001, the online version of the UK's Guardian newspaper
had an article about "Seahenge". The following is a quote from this
article:
| The circle has been studied at Flag Fen near Peterborough by
| Maisie Taylor and her husband Francis Pryor, experts on ancient
| timbers.
| Dr Taylor had warned that the timbers were likely to decay into
| "tankfuls of sludge" while argument continued about their fate.
| Yesterday Dr Pryor said the marks showed at least 38 different
| axes were used on the timbers. "It is remarkable that this tiny
| community was able to lay hands on such a large number of
| tools, only about 100 years after the knowledge of how to make
| bronze arrived in this country."
Okay, my original question, slightly reworded, which I _still_ want an
answer to:
I am an interested layman in the history of technology, and have been
able to help other researchers in the past. Please pass on to Drs
Taylor and Pryor, if you can, some alternative thoughts on the
surprising number of axe-heads the two researchers were able to
identify.
It is clear that the two doctors have never had to cut their own
firewood. If they had, they would know how much effort is involved in
cutting oak, or even lesser woods, with an axe. And they would, of
course, have used modern ergonomically-designed axes with modern steel
alloys which cut well and last much longer before dulling than bronze
would.
All of that effort and force is concentrated upon a small wedge of
metal. A bronze axe-head would not last very long, cutting oak, before
becoming dull, which would increase the effort required to make it cut,
which would both make it more difficult to cut accurately, and increase
the wear rate on the axe-head....
I submit that the builders of this circle probably only had enough
bronze to make, at most, three or four axe-heads. Using this metal,
they probably made a couple axes. When one became too dull to use, they
would use the bronze in that head, plus the leftover metal, to forge a
new axe-head, with different tool-marks, and continue the work. This
recycling process would minimize the amount of bronze they needed, and
also, incidentally, account for the huge number of apparent axes they
used.
Finding evidence for "38 different axes" does NOT imply that these
people were rich enough to own 38 axes. It implies that they understood
that the bronze in a worn-out axe-head can be reused to make a new
axe-head. This was, I'll grant, a major paradigm shift. A stone
axe-head cannot be reused in this way.
(So, does this make sense? Or do I need to change my medication?)
--
: Unable to locate coffee. Operator halted.
: Reply to sa...@weijax.com
Lewis Hartswick
>
>
> Finding evidence for "38 different axes" does NOT imply that these
> people were rich enough to own 38 axes. It implies that they
> understood
> that the bronze in a worn-out axe-head can be reused to make a new
> axe-head. This was, I'll grant, a major paradigm shift. A stone
> axe-head cannot be reused in this way.
Or more simply just re-sharpening an axe would probably result in
changing its "bite marks". I can't believe anyone who has ever used a
chisel or other cutting tool would not be aware of that.
...lew...
Ken Down
<sa...@weijax.com> wrote:
> I submit that the builders of this circle probably only had enough
> bronze to make, at most, three or four axe-heads. Using this metal,
> they probably made a couple axes. When one became too dull to use,
> they would use the bronze in that head, plus the leftover metal, to
> forge a new axe-head, with different tool-marks, and continue the
> work.
Why would they do that instead of sharpening the axe?
Ken Down
--
__ __ __ __ __
| \ | / __ / __ | |\ | / __ |__ All the latest archaeological news
|__/ | \__/ \__/ | | \| \__/ __| from the Middle East with David Down
================================= and "Digging Up The Past"
Web site: www.diggingsonline.com
e-mail: digg...@argonet.co.uk
Eric Stevens
wrote:
[quoted material snipped by moderator]
> I submit that the builders of this circle probably only had enough
>bronze to make, at most, three or four axe-heads. Using this metal,
>they probably made a couple axes. When one became too dull to use,
they
>would use the bronze in that head, plus the leftover metal, to forge a
>new axe-head, with different tool-marks, and continue the work. This
>recycling process would minimize the amount of bronze they needed, and
>also, incidentally, account for the huge number of apparent axes they
>used.
Umm - you don't 'forge' bronze. You cast it.
Err - when an axe gets blunt, you don't necessarily make a new one
from the remains of the old. All you do is grind a new edge on it to
sharpen it.
> Finding evidence for "38 different axes" does NOT imply that these
>people were rich enough to own 38 axes. It implies that they
understood
>that the bronze in a worn-out axe-head can be reused to make a new
>axe-head. This was, I'll grant, a major paradigm shift. A stone
>axe-head cannot be reused in this way.
Of course it can! How do you think it became truly sharp in the first
place? The edge is formed by grinding and when it becomes worn or
chipped it can be reformed by the same process.
>
>(So, does this make sense? Or do I need to change my medication?)
Your point has some validity in that a badly worn or damaged axe may
leave distinctly different traces after it has been resharpened.
However, if Taylor and Pryor are correct, a large number of axes must
have been present.
Eric Stevens
Ken Down
<eric.s...@sum.co.nz> wrote:
> Of course it can! How do you think it became truly sharp in the first
> place? The edge is formed by grinding and when it becomes worn or
> chipped it can be reformed by the same process.
If the stone is flint, of course, it is re-knapped or flaked or whatever
the
term is.
David Craig
> If the stone is flint, of course, it is re-knapped or flaked or
> whatever the term is.
Re-knapping a flint axe - into another flint axe - isn't really an
option.
Knapping involved removing a lot of the original material - especially
when you're trying to create a straight edge. You'd end up with
something without the mass to do the job.
A flint axe may see further service - but as a knife, a scraper, a drill
- not as an axe.
To some extent, the same would apply to the softer metal tools.
Re-grinding would remove significant proportions of the body (and some
would have already been lost in the course of becoming blunt).
David Craig
http://www.strum.co.uk