Talk:Seax of Beagnoth

Untitled
There's a picture of this one coming, as soon as I get it uploaded.— S Marshall T/C 23:38, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Length error?
The British Museum say here that the Seax is 81.1cm long.— S Marshall T/C 23:54, 14 June 2010 (UTC)


 * But this page at the BM gives detailed dimensions -- Length: 721 millimetres, Length: 170 millimetres (handle), Length: 551 millimetres (blade), Thickness: 8.2 millimetres (thickest point), Width: 38.7 millimetres (Widest point), Weight: 985 grammes -- which contradict the 81.1 length. 72.1 cm also concurs with the length 2' 4 1/2" (= 72.39cm) given by Elliott. BabelStone (talk) 00:39, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I saw that. I wonder if different people have measured different things—perhaps one measurement along the fuller, another along the longest edge?  The alternative is that the British Museum have made a typo, which I'm reluctant to assume.  Maybe we should ask Witty lama to check with the curator.— S Marshall  T/C 00:49, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Ask Witty by all means, but getting one figure (81.1cm) wrong is surely much easier than getting three (721/170/551mm) wrong. I think best to assume the detailed description is correct until we find out otherwise. BabelStone (talk) 01:02, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I've dropped him a note on his talk page, and I agree that in the meantime, the 72.1cm figure probably ought to stand.— S Marshall T/C 01:14, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm on it... In the mean-time - go with the dimensions listed at the catalogue reference (which is the more academic source) rather than at the "highlights" page (which is the less detailed page). Witty Lama 07:51, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Just got confirmation - the database/catalogue entry is correct, not the "highlights" page. Witty Lama 11:39, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
 * L (Length)       721.00 mm
 * L (Length)       170.00 mm      handle
 * L (Length)       551.00 mm      blade
 * T (Thickness)  8.20     mm      thickest point
 * W (Width)       38.70   mm      Widest point
 * M (Weight)     985.00 g
 * Thanks Witty.— S Marshall T/C 15:45, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

"Iron"
I'm a bit doubtful about the way the seax is described as "iron". It won't be pure iron or wrought iron. The smelting and forging techniques of the time (which involved charcoal) would've impregnated the metal with quite a lot of carbon and a bit of sand. If the British Museum called it "cast iron", I'd happily say "cast iron" in the article, but absent a source I'm reluctant to do so and I'm not happy with just "iron" because it's ambiguous and misleading to a reader unschooled in metallurgy. Can we rephrase to avoid that word?— S Marshall T/C 01:40, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
 * A metallurgical analysis would be nice, and is something that the BM may have done (a lot of objects in the collection database refer to such an analysis), but in the absence of a reliable source that says anything other than plain "iron" I am not quite sure what we can do. I certainly don't see how we can rephrase to omit the word "iron". What would also be very good to have in the article is a discussion of the technique of inlaid wire decoration in A-S metalwork, to put its use on the seax in some sort of context and possibly as an explanation for the dating of the object -- at present the 9th/10th century date seems to be given with no particular evidence and is simply taken on trust by us. A photo of the apparently related Berkshire seax would also be interesting, showing how the same sort of ornamentation was used on other seaxes. BabelStone (talk) 09:16, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
 * In some places the word "iron" could be omitted entirely ("an iron knife" → "a knife"), and if necessary could be replaced with "metal". I'd love to see a metallurgical analysis. I'll look through my paper sources for a description of late dark age inlaying techniques.  I've got quite a decent bookshelf on weapons and warfare of the period, so there might well be something. I'm afraid I can't help with a photo of the Berkshire seax.  There's likely to be one in my collection but it won't be copyright-free.— S Marshall  T/C 10:19, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't know anything about metallurgy, but the sources are unanimous in describing the seax as being made from iron, so regardless as to whether it was cast iron or not I think that there is no reason not to also describe the seax as being iron. I don't understand why you think that the plain term "iron" is ambiguous and misleading when the British Museum don't have any problems with the term. BabelStone (talk) 13:57, 30 October 2011 (UTC)
 * With all due respect for the museum curator and the source authors, I imagine that they will generally have expertise in the blade's primary significance, which is as a rune-bearing object; I don't think they'll be as well up on the blade's spathology, which is no wonder because metallurgy is a very technical and specialist subject. (See history of ferrous metallurgy if you want a useful and relevant introduction to it.) Basically, "iron" is not a useful thing to say.  If we're using "iron" in its broad sense, to mean anything from iron (element) through grey iron and white iron and cast iron through steel to wrought iron and ductile iron, then that's so vague as to be utterly unhelpful.  They didn't make seax blades out of anything else.  Saying "an iron seax" is like saying "a wooden tree" or "a female woman".  I think we should either say what kind of iron, or omit the word completely.— S Marshall  T/C 17:30, 30 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I disagree - iron is for example not bronze. One can assume that all readers know that trees are made of wood, but one certainly cannot assume that they know that all seax blades are iron. Wikipedia is emphatically not a publication (only) for specialists. Small levels of other metals & impurities are neither here nor there & articles on gold antiquities rarely comment on their purity, any more than much information is given on the makeup of bronze/copper alloy objects. Johnbod (talk) 18:19, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

Inlaying technique
The premier authority for bladed weapons of this period is Ewart Oakeshott. This is a verbatim quote from his book Records of the Medieval Sword, Woodbridge: Boydell & Brewer Ltd., 1991 (reprint from 1998), ISBN 0851155669, page 6. He is speaking of Viking Age blades, i.e. 793-1066AD.

(quote removed)

Hope that helps— S Marshall T/C 16:30, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
 * That does help, thanks. I'm taking a break from editing for a couple of days, but I'm going to come back and try to extend and improve the article some more at the weekend. I've found an example of an C9th Norse sword with a runic inscription on the blade that uses the same technique of hammering wire inlay into chisel-cut letters -- must be exactly what Oakeshott was talking about. BabelStone (talk) 21:11, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Wikikudos
I'm impressed with what you have done with the article, S Marshall and BabelStone, thank you. --dab (𒁳) 10:41, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

inscribed blades
I would suggest that the wider topic of blade inscriptions discussed under "runic inscribed blades" should become a standalone topic, under either blade inscription or inscribed blade. The Ulfberht redirect would then also point there. --dab (𒁳) 08:38, 20 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Certainly some of the material in this section could also be included in an existing or new article, but I would not like to see it all moved away from this article as, in my opinion, it provides essential background material for understanding the runic inscription on this seax. BabelStone (talk) 21:44, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

What is a "scramsax" ?
needs telling what it is and maybe also a link — Preceding unsigned comment added by 5.65.158.4 (talk) 06:25, 21 October 2015 (UTC)