When shown to me, I was thrilled at first by this Thor's hammer. Finally an interesting looking Thor's hammer. 'A bit strange in a good way' to sum my first feelings up frankly. Unique form of execution. Clumsy ánd a piece of art. A very interesting clash in a form.. The form of the hammer being clumsy, the execution of the stamped dots and triangles far from shouting 'forgery !' at first glance. And then, of course.. the panel with golden balls. Exact foundspot not known.. that did not help..
Off the road as can be, and withstanding the feeling that just another ordinary guy had tried to make a quick modern age hammer for the market. A form wich cannot be compared with whatsoever other known Thor's hammer of the Viking Age.
But.. if it is that rare, is it genuine then ?
The fourth stirrup strap mount is a British find and a rare type in the (Anglo-Scandinavian) Urnes style with entwined beasts, measuring 45 mm x 38 mm
'The man who like to sell the Thor's hammer hadn't gone 'over one night ice'. An XRF analysis was executed, at the for Advanced Life Cycle Engineering at the University of Maryland, both on the silver and the golden balls. The results being just what it says to be, as one just likes to know the proportions of materials used. But the golden question is of course: what should be in it, regardless what and why is that so ?
Sterling silver, which is what most modern silver is, is 92.5% silver, and 7.5% copper. That is an international standard.
Analysis at the British Museum revealed that the pendant was made of 93% silver, with the rest being copper.
Analysis of the hammer I address here resulted in the following proportions of metals involved:
Result of analysis - on the silver
47 Ag (silver) 90.72 %
29 Cu (copper) 9.28%
Result of analysis - on the gold ball(s)
28 Cu (copper) 39.33%
79 Au (gold) 34.11%
47 Ag (silver) 25.15%
30 Zn (?) 1.40%
The result on the silver shows that the contains are pretty much the same as the ones on th example of the British Museum. The golden balls are from partly silver and cold, surprisingly being the better part being copper. Now, I do not know if that segment is unusual in the Viking Age and I should consult Jane Kershaw about this.
I also showed the hammer to dr. Kevin Leahy, National Adviser, Early Medieval Metalwork for The Portable Antiquities Scheme. Two of his reactions were:
After taking just a look at the images, unaware of the results of the XRF analysis:
'I've not seen anything like this before except in a general sense. It looks like they have used a stamp on it of the sort that we see on Gotlandish silver work. I've not seen the recessed panel with what looks like gold granulation before, although the use of granulation is OK. An interesting piece.'
Asking to specify his opinion for me a bit, he replied:
It is difficult to be certain just looking at images (and when handling the object) but I feel that this thing looks OK. My reasoning is that:
To make this someone would have had to have made two stamps (they look like real stamp impressions and not cast). This would involve as much work as went into making the hammer.
Forgers are not noted for their originally it not being in their interests to produces something like this that lacks a parallel.
All of the elements used to decorate this object fit into the Viking tool box.
While I am unwilling to stick my neck out and say that this is genuine I would not to reject it.
After taking a look at the images of the spots having being examined for the XRF analysis:
'Well so far so good. I am not an expert on the alloys used on Viking period metalwork and all I can say is that these don't appear to be modern alloys: the gold is not 9ct and the silver is not sterling. Looking at the microscope images I still think that this object looks OK'
Ru Smith added in a comment:
'I would say that forgers rather often look to make something close enough to be convincing and yet different enough for it not to be picked out as a direct copy. The silver analysis argues against antiquity, I think. The find record and treasure number would be key in this case.' wich sounded plausible to me, too..
But - and there we go again - a find spot other than 'East England' is unknown, let alone a find record and treasure number.
Asking the salesman about specifically why he thought the hammer to be genuine, he replied, and this was before he got to know about the article of Jane Kershaw:
'First of all, keep in mind that fakers are going to use scrap metal (with likely modern components) for the fakes. They are not going to refine metals and create plausible alloy compositions—they are not that sophisticated. Now, if a faker was going make a really expensive fake, he would take an ancient silver item and melt it down to create his bogus masterpiece. ...
Silver and copper are a reasonable composition for ancient silver. Notice there are no unusual a/k/a modern metals involved.
The balls? Copper and zinc are common constituents of bronze. So the results suggest that the balls were made of bronze, coated with a thick coating of gold (with some silver in it), and it is possible some of the silver content is a bleed through from the metal underneath.
What you are always looking for are a) elements which are appropriate, b) a ratio of elements which is appropriate, and c) an absence of elements which do not belong. And the two tests pass in good order.'
Now, rounding up.. is this Thor's hammer indeed a modern age forgery ? One tends to say yes just looking at the results of the XRF analysis executed.
But.. what about this article on gold parting ? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gold_parting
Under 'Ancient and medieval world' we read:
The only large group of medieval parting vessels so far discovered were found at Coppergate and Picadilly sites in York
So.. was after all, the process of parting the gold out of silver an Viking Age practice after all ? I have adressed this question to Jane Kersh aw. Because, if it was.. how sure we can be of this Thor's hammer not being genuine after all ?
To be continued..