A Double-headed Axe from Horseback?

[Jim Webster]

So looking at the links, the bipennis was either religious (Asia Minor, Crete,) or so far back in the early age of metals we genuinely haven't a clue what it was

Except that it was, as Wikipedia puts it, "A common axe in the ancient world."  Interestingly enough, it was introduced to America in the 1800s and gave considerable impetus to tree-felling capability, being much preferred to the traditional single-bitted European woodsman's axe.

At any rate, we appear to have answered the original question about whether anyone other than Greek artists ever depicted one, and whether anyone has ever found one.

If it was a common axe in the ancient world, where are the secular and non-Amazon illustrations of it?
Yes I can agree it was a very common religious symbol, but its use in warfare seems remarkably scare. Indeed the fact that only American lumberjacks used it is interesting, but the fact that it never caught on amongst their European equivalents seems to indicate that it wasn't that much better

Jim

[Patrick Waterson]

If it was a common axe in the ancient world, where are the secular and non-Amazon illustrations of it?

Perhaps an unfair question, as period illustrations of any weaponry outside Greece and the Near East are not exactly prolific, and even in the Near East one is often hard put to find any pre-900 BC illustrative material outside Egypt.

Yes I can agree it was a very common religious symbol, but its use in warfare seems remarkably scarce.

The northern European finds appear to have been for use, not religion.  Without a literary record, determining which were used as tools and which in warfare becomes a judgement call.

Indeed the fact that only American lumberjacks used it is interesting, but the fact that it never caught on amongst their European equivalents seems to indicate that it wasn't that much better.

Their European equivalents do not seem to have made the comparison, and there may be an underlying reason.  In America, the aim was forest clearance.  In Europe, the aim was forest management.  The Americans found the double-bitted axe superior for forest clearance, i.e. taking down the maximum number of trees in the shortest possible time.  European traditionalists were probably still mired in the idea that you wanted to cut down trees to use the actual wood.   They were also largely working for someone else to a set pattern rather than carving out new land for themselves.

And then there is another aspect.  From a blog on axes:

"Recently I had a discussion about Eastern European axes on a forum. The issue was trying to figure out the use of a Bulgarian axe based on its features. The problem of course was that we were doing that by applying what we know of design features on American axes. The two don't always coincide. Many of the axes we used to use back in Bulgaria were the way they were just because that was all that was available to us. Having the best features for the task wasn't really a choice. So, to determine why an axe has particular features, we have to look at the traditions of that country, not just superimpose our own understanding based on our traditions."

So the Americans were in the position of actually having a choice.

Apparently a major reason the Americans favoured of the double-bitted axe was that you could sharpen each edge differently: one edge could be really sharp for ordinary work whereas the other could be rough-sharpened for dealing with knots etc.  This, combined with smoother travel (no 'wobble') reducing the fatigue element, seems to have been appreciated by America's all-day woodcutters.

[Jim Webster]

So the Americans were in the position of actually having a choice.

Apparently a major reason the Americans favoured of the double-bitted axe was that you could sharpen each edge differently: one edge could be really sharp for ordinary work whereas the other could be rough-sharpened for dealing with knots etc.  This, combined with smoother travel (no 'wobble') reducing the fatigue element, seems to have been appreciated by America's all-day woodcutters.

American tools and designs transferred back across the Atlantic
The American design of a scythe came back to the UK in the 19th century because men who'd used it across there brought it back with them when they came home
If the American axe had been notably better, it would have come back

As an aside, what people seem not to realise is how many men who when to the US or Canada to work did so for a few years and then came home

[Erpingham]

The northern European finds appear to have been for use, not religion.  Without a literary record, determining which were used as tools and which in warfare becomes a judgement call.

I'll quickly repeat the caveats - the existence of an axe in a cultural context does not mean that you can link it automatically to one at a different time, in a different place and using a different technology just because it looks similar.

That said, the axes of the Battle-axe (or Boat-axe) cultures don't seem to have been religious symbols and were practical enough to be used for killing and cutting down trees (experiments have been done).  That said, their use as prestige or social ritual objects should not be dismissed, as they are very expensive objects in terms of the work in making them.  Think Dark Age swords for example - very expensive, very practical for killing people but much of the time it's their status-defining properties that were to the fore, with their decorated hilts and scabbard fittings.

This article is quite helpful in the discussion of the Neolithic axes.

However, I don't think they have any connection to the subject at hand.  It remains interesting that the only representations of this axe in Classical art appear to be either mythological or Amazonian (and even then, I'd suggest it doesn't become a defining Amazon item until later - most earlier representations show Scythian style axes or other weapons - spears and bows are popular and swords also appear).  I'm saying this of course from only a general interest in the art of the period and someone who as studied it as a costume and weaponry specialist like Duncan may be able to correct this impression.

[Andreas Johansson]

There are quite a few references to this in fairly reputable popular sources but the only academic piece I could easily find is this.  This comes down against female warrior burials in this cemetery except for one woman.  Others may have better information. This seems to be a recent example, again with arrowheads rather than other weapons.  Certainly, though, references to women's burials with weapons seem common enough not to dismiss the idea out of hand.

This article mentions evidence of battle wounds:

From Women in Antiquity: Real Women across the Ancient World
edited by Stephanie Lynn Budin, Jean Macintosh 2016

Thanks

[Patrick Waterson]

I'll quickly repeat the caveats - the existence of an axe in a cultural context does not mean that you can link it automatically to one at a different time, in a different place and using a different technology just because it looks similar.

I would agree there, but when simply asked if any such axes existed anywhere, the answer is yes, they did.  If asked whether there is any discernible connection, that is another question.  What we can tell is that the double axe seems to be well established as a European tool and weapon as far back as the late stone age.  (Jordanes' Getica, anyone?)

It remains interesting that the only representations of this axe in Classical art appear to be either mythological or Amazonian (and even then, I'd suggest it doesn't become a defining Amazon item until later - most earlier representations show Scythian style axes or other weapons - spears and bows are popular and swords also appear).  I'm saying this of course from only a general interest in the art of the period and someone who as studied it as a costume and weaponry specialist like Duncan may be able to correct this impression.

Can Duncan shed any light on this?

Meanwhile, and in line with the original purpose of the thread, does anyone actually have reason to consider a double-bitted axe unsuitable or impossible for use from horseback?

[Erpingham]

Meanwhile, and in line with the original purpose of the thread, does anyone actually have reason to consider a double-bitted axe unsuitable or impossible for use from horseback?

The issue would be about the weight of the head and the balance of the weapon.  That said, I can't see an intrinsic problem if the head was reasonably small.  The axe in the original image is clearly right out (reminiscent of the weaponry of a modern fantasy figure).  I've tried to make sense of that and, taking into account the oddly proportioned bodies of the hoplite and the horse, I think it is from a frieze high on a temple wall.  It would explain the poor detail on the hoplite (if he is a hoplite) and also the exaggeration of the classic Amazon weapons, the three-horned pelta and double axe, to aid interpretation of the scene.

[Patrick Waterson]

A good observation.  I have the impression that the axes grow larger as the centuries advance from BC to AD and the agency of representation shifts from Greece to Rome.

[PMBardunias]

If you want to increase armour piecing ability and reduce 'wobble' you'd go for a 'spike' not a bigger blade. Having a big blade on the 'back' as an alternative for dealing with unarmoured enemies and adding weight against the armoured makes sense.
Having two big blades doesn't

Outside Amazons, religious ceremonies and gods do we have and good evidence/illustrations of people using this double headed axe with the two big blades?

The wobble is due to the axe being front heavy, so anything that adds mass to the side opposite the blade will reduce wobble. Spikes are a great addition that add versatility as you suggest, but both hammer faces and secondary blades work just as well.  Spikes are fun, you can use them to hook, you can choke up on the shaft and have a punch dagger, and of course you can sweep it into heads and through armor.  The down side is when you find yourself trying to work that pick out of said armor and skull to face the next guy. You can see on many medieval war hammers shapes that limit penetration for this reason.