This coppery appearance is by no means uncommon in these blades. I have another specimen of the same form (9¾ inches), but without the bead on the midrib. It was found at Letterkenny, Co. Donegal. A specimen much like Fig. 331 is termed by Vallancey,[978] “the brass head of a Tuagh catha, a general name for the war-axe.” “The large rivets of this weapon show it was mounted on a very strong shaft.”
Sir W. Wilde has described, under the two distinct headings of “Broad scythe-shaped Swords,” and “Battle-axes,” the weapons which I have here classed together. Of the former he mentions forty-one specimens in the Museum of the Royal Irish Academy, of the latter but two or three. The “swords”[979] he describes as thick, heavy, and round-pointed, averaging about 12 inches in length by about 2½ inches in breadth at the base; twenty-two of the blades being curved. With the strong blades, however, he classes some which are quite thin and flat, and which have more the appearance of having been intended for daggers. The curved shape is much against their having been attached to staves “spear-ways;” so that Wilde’s other suggestion of the scythe-shaped swords having been mounted like axes, or “affixed to long handles like modern halberds,” seems much more reasonable. As to the shorter and broader blades, whether curved or not, he appears to have had no doubt of their being a kind of battle-axes.
Wilde has inferred from the large size of the rivets, some being 1½ inches in length and nearly 1 inch across the burr or head, that they must have been attached to massive metal handles, of which, however, no fragments have been preserved. If this view had been correct, the disappearance of the handles would be a remarkable circumstance; but the large rivets appear rather intended for securing the blades to wooden shafts, the disappearance of which from ordinary decay is exactly what might be expected. In one instance there are large conical washers or broad rings of bronze 1¼ inches in diameter beneath the rivet-heads, and these in the case of a metal handle would have been superfluous.
Wilde appears to me to have fallen into another error with respect to the antiquity of this form of weapon.[980] Arguing from the fact that many of the specimens are formed either of red bronze or of pure copper, he thinks it probable that, like the celts of that material, they are of immense antiquity. And in another place he says that their antiquity may be gathered from the fact of many being of copper, the use of which metal invariably preceded that of bronze. As I have already had occasion to observe, it is perfectly true that many of these blades have the appearance of being made of copper, but the absence of tin in their composition has not as yet been proved. Even were they of pure copper the form and character of the blades show them to be derivatives from the dagger, as the dagger itself sprang from the simpler knife; and the cause for using a less proportion of tin, or indeed none of that metal in them, appears to me to have been the wish to make them less brittle than if they had been of bronze. A weapon used as a battle-axe would not be less deadly from having a somewhat duller cutting edge than if formed of bronze, and should it get bent in an encounter, the straightening of it might quickly be effected, while the loss of a blade by its breaking would be irreparable. I have elsewhere contended that the Hungarian perforated double-ended axes (like pick-axes) of copper, with but little or no tin in them, were made of this material, not because tin was unknown, but because the ductile and malleable copper was found better adapted for certain purposes than the more fragile bronze. In the same manner copper rather than brass sets or punches are in use among engineers at the present day, when an intermediate piece of metal is required to convey the blows of a hammer to an iron key or other object which would be injured by receiving the blows direct.
Sir William Wilde, in his Fig. 360, has shown a hollow tube of bronze as forming the handle of a wide halberd blade; but this juxtaposition of the two objects has been questioned. Not only are the projecting spikes upon the tube somewhat inconsistent with its use as a handle, but from a comparison with some similar objects since discovered there can be no doubt of the presumed halberd shaft being in reality a portion of a trumpet.
Fig. 332.—Cavan. ½
The blade which is figured in connection with this handle was found near Roscrea, Co. Tipperary, and closely resembles Fig. 332 both in form and size, being 7⅜ inches long and 8⅝ inches wide at the base, in which are two rivet-holes and also two notches in the margin. It has a kind of treble midrib. The blade shown in Fig. 332 has but a single midrib, but near the edges and following the same curve is a minor ridge. A section is given at the side of the figure. The original was found near Cavan, and is in my own collection. From the absence of rivet-holes it seems doubtful whether it was ever mounted on a shaft so as to form a complete weapon, unless, indeed, the sharp base was merely driven into the wood. The metal appears to have a larger admixture of tin in it than is usual in the scythe-like blades. I am not aware of the existence of any other specimens of this very broad form besides the two now mentioned.
A curved blade, of much the same section as Fig. 332, but 15½ inches long and 3¼ inches broad at the base, found at the foot of Slieve Kileta Hill, Co. Wexford, is in the British Museum. It has three stout rivets.