![]() | Seax of Beagnoth has been listed as one of the History good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it. | |||||||||
| ||||||||||
![]() | A fact from this article appeared on Wikipedia's
Main Page in the "
Did you know?" column on
June 10, 2010. The text of the entry was: Did you know ... that the knife known as the
Seax of Beagnoth has the only known complete inscription of the
Anglo-Saxon runic alphabet? |
![]() | This article is rated GA-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
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)
The British Museum say here that the Seax is 81.1cm long.— S Marshall T/ C 23:54, 14 June 2010 (UTC)
Just got confirmation - the database/catalogue entry is correct, not the "highlights" page.
Witty Lama 11:39, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
I'll be reviewing this article later this evening, and the first impressions are good. Nev1 ( talk) 20:33, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
Sorry the review's a day later than promised, but the article is well up to scratch regardless. It currently meets the GA criteria, but below are some comments which might be useful in improving the article.
The lead is engaging. The article's structure seems logical.
Perhaps merge a few of those one sentence paragraphs? Also, but have you contacted the British Museum to see if they have a curator willing to comment on the article? If you're interested in taking the article further (seems to me like it would stand a good chance at FAC) that some input or guidance from someone familiar with the subject might help fill any holes that might not appear obvious. I've made some minor copyedits you'll want to check to make sure I haven't changed the meaning of anything. Anyway congratulations on a good article on an interesting subject. Nev1 ( talk) 14:34, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
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)
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)
![]() | Seax of Beagnoth has been listed as one of the History good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it. | |||||||||
| ||||||||||
![]() | A fact from this article appeared on Wikipedia's
Main Page in the "
Did you know?" column on
June 10, 2010. The text of the entry was: Did you know ... that the knife known as the
Seax of Beagnoth has the only known complete inscription of the
Anglo-Saxon runic alphabet? |
![]() | This article is rated GA-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
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)
The British Museum say here that the Seax is 81.1cm long.— S Marshall T/ C 23:54, 14 June 2010 (UTC)
Just got confirmation - the database/catalogue entry is correct, not the "highlights" page.
Witty Lama 11:39, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
I'll be reviewing this article later this evening, and the first impressions are good. Nev1 ( talk) 20:33, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
Sorry the review's a day later than promised, but the article is well up to scratch regardless. It currently meets the GA criteria, but below are some comments which might be useful in improving the article.
The lead is engaging. The article's structure seems logical.
Perhaps merge a few of those one sentence paragraphs? Also, but have you contacted the British Museum to see if they have a curator willing to comment on the article? If you're interested in taking the article further (seems to me like it would stand a good chance at FAC) that some input or guidance from someone familiar with the subject might help fill any holes that might not appear obvious. I've made some minor copyedits you'll want to check to make sure I haven't changed the meaning of anything. Anyway congratulations on a good article on an interesting subject. Nev1 ( talk) 14:34, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
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)
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)