the 'French Nail' : Field Expedience

I was recently contacted by a long ago army buddy, who was looking to have some replicas made of an early World War One object. 

Image from the Imperial War Museum

'French Nail' fighting knife ['Clous Français']

The reference he provided was from the Imperial War Museum : https://www.iwm.org.uk/collections/item/object/30003377

These were not 'regular issue' weapons, but were made at the front by blacksmiths working primarily as farriers, who's primary role was shoeing all the horses and mules used for the bulk of transport in that conflict. 

The basic raw material was supplied by converting 'screw pickets', steel posts used for holding strands of barbed wire in entanglements.

Photograph by Lt. J.W. Brooke : 1917-10-23 (IMW)

 The IWM description provides the following dimensions (of the sample pictured above) :

Depth 11 mm

Height 318 mm

Width 54 mm 

Weight 0.314 kg

As is my normal practice, I took the reference image and converted it to life size, and printed off a copy. 

My first surprise is the diameter of the round bar used. I would have expected French metric sizes at 10 mm / 3/8 inch. That 11mm is just a strange size, converting to imperial to 7/16. These knives were also made and used by both British and American troops, where I would expect 1/2 (12.5 mm) stock. Given the few clear reference images I could find of British (hence also Canadian) troops with screw pickets, I decided to use 1/2 round mild steel stock.

In use, the hand would grip inside the ring, around the blade side. The blade would point upwards from the thumb. This allows for a 'low line' stab to the gut. The heavy loop of bar thus runs over the fingers, creating a 'knuckle duster' effect for punches. The knife is primarily a stabbing tool, so the long point is more important than the cutting edges. Simple, brutal, efficient.

From the life size image, I pulled the following additional measurements :

Blade : 20 mm / 3/4 inch wide x 15 cm / 6 inches long

Handle Interior : 80 mm / 3 1/8 long x 30 mm / 1 1/8 wide

The handle interior space was a bit puzzling, being a bit on the small size. I have fairly small hands and would have found the historic sample a tight fit.

The two replicas, upper as diamond / lower as triangle (on 1/4 " grid)

As a primary thrusting weapon, the blade cross section could have been either diamond or triangle - either would produce two cutting edges. The most likely would have been a more standard diamond, but the triangle results in a thicker, and thus more rigid, central spine. None of the images or descriptions I could easily find via the internet specified which. As a forging test, I decide to make one of each cross section. The one closest to the reference sample (smaller hand grip) as diamond. The second replica was made with an intentionally larger interior grip size to fit a more modern physical build, and I used a triangle cross section. I was a bit surprised to find the forging steps required for either turned out to be pretty much the same. The diamond needed forging on four sides, but the triangle I found needed more control with the hammer blows (although admittedly not a shape I make that often).

I also made some trials working 1/2 round into a triangle bottom die. The die I had on hand was more of an equilateral triangle, so not ideal for the wider final shape required. With the proper shaped die made up, the time to forge the triangle cross section would be greatly reduced, and the forging would produce both a significant central spine as well as thinner cutting edges. This most certainly would speed the work if a smith had a large number of requests for this knife. (Worth noting that the sample does not show the more exaggerated cross section suggested by the test pieces I made.) 

History in the Dark - Canadian Museum of History

 I had traveled to Ottawa in later February to give some lecture segments at a local SCA (medieval) event. I took the opportunity to add any extra day to the trip for a visit to one of the many museums in Canada's capital. I had considered both the Diefenbunker, the War Museum, or the Aviation & Space, none of which I had seen before. Truth was I really was hoping to see something that would lead so some artistic inspiration (but not the kind of thing likely at the National Gallery).

So I chose to go back to the Canadian Museum of History, located just over the bridge in Hull.

Now I have not been to what was once the Canadian Museum of Civilization for over a decade. I was well aware, through my contacts in the archaeology community, of the re-engineering of the museum's research, programing and presentation under Steven Harper's government from 2012 -2017. 

As someone fairly familiar with the general sweep of Canadian History, I was extremely displeased with the what had been done.  

It is clear that simple politics has shaped what has been included and how it has been presented.  

The old presentation included simulated room settings to display objects. These started from the impressive West Coast First Nations hall, with timber building fronts and totem poles. As you moved into the modern era, there were recreated street scenes and individual buildings. All used to situate objects in context. A highlight for me was the use of living history staff, mainly working as 'animators', ie presenting set piece historic based and scripted presentations, followed with more free form public interactions. Overall the lighting was bright and the spaces airy. 

As an important aside here, regular readers are aware that I have significant bias here. I have worked as a living history interpreter at a number of Settlement Era sites. I have made many replicas and reproductions for both static and interpretive presentations, plus worked as a consultant on a number of traveling exhibits. Most significant is my creation of the 'Norse Encampment' program for L'Anse aux Meadows NHSC, and my long association with Parks Canada for that site.

 

The new presentation is dimly lit, overall the feeling is being in a dark shrine to the past. 

A very carefully selected and limited view of the past as well.

 

The front public spaces now only contain First Nations related objects, primarily major modern sculptural works. Yes, I agree that these are impressive and important pieces. There had originally been a 'European' based diorama as well. This being a representation of the first landing at Vinland by the Norse, with two figures and a detailed replica of a small boat and associated goods. 

This is gone now, who knows where all those pieces ended up? Sorry Mr. Harper, my feeling is that First Nations are being shoved forward, as a tossed bone showing 'see, we know you were here first' Especially since it is the monumental scale *contemporary* work of First Nations ethnic artists being featured to exclusion.  (The fact that "Indigenous peoples, including First Nations, Inuit and Métis" are given free admissions, while all others pay any day but Thursday or Canada Day, kind of re-enforces this.)

" The galleries on Level 1 of the Museum present exhibitions relating principally to Canada’s First Peoples: their histories, cultural identities, artistic expressions and traditional and contemporary ways of life.

On Level 2 there are three galleries devoted to changing exhibitions. Some of these exhibitions are designed by the Canadian Museum of History; others are produced by Canadian as well as international institutions.

The Canadian History Hall is located on levels 3 and 4. This exhibition traces Canada’s history from the dawn of human habitation to the present day. " (quoted from the CMH web site)

A couple of key notes to that description:

Take a look at the allocation of space, via the Museum's printed guide. 

Level 2 also contains the IMAX theatre, the gift shop and significantly the Canadian Children's Museum. Which you should note is not even listed as containing 50% of level two in the description above. 

Level 3 and especially Level 4 are reduced in raw size over the lower levels. The combined exhibit space is about equal to that on Level 1.  (I freely admit that I was getting burned out by the time I got to Level 4, which is 'Contemporary - post 1914', and did not view that. That gallery was brightly lit.)

The Canadian History Hall starts with the Norse in Vinland. (French first, then English, so reduce what you see in half for duplication.) One Panel. Kind of...

Objects? 1) a pile of wood chips, 2) a pile of iron smelting slag. There is absolutely no description or explanation of why either of those fragments mean anything. There are no replicas of the two most significant artifacts, the soapstone spindle whorl or the (diagnostic) bronze ring pin. (There are lots of other replicas other places.)

The next case is 'Arctic People's First Interactions with Europeans' 

Object #8 - number tag is 1cm

Sorry about the image quality, shooting in the dark (see below)

The objects presented include about half that are actually of Greenland Norse origin. It is significant that the objects are actually described as being found in Arctic People's sites, so this origin is hazy at best. Especially the difference between object 10, actually of Arctic People's creation, (and highly significant) and the other two iron artifacts, reworked from broken European objects. (That knife badly photographed as #8 was clearly to my eyes a broken spear tip.) This major technological difference is completely glossed over.

As you proceed through Post Contact Canada, roughly equal space is given to objects from French and English European origins, and those used by First Nations. 9 about 1/3 ?) Primarily these are 'memories of the Rich and Famous' (you know : 'pocket watch of the first Governor of Quebec' ).

Again, Mr. Harper? I understand that you want to ensure that everyone remembers that Six Nations on the Grand River also fought in the War of 1812. But the CMH has already given over roughly 50% + of the total exhibit floor space to exclusively First Nations culture and history via Level 1. 

Looking at the First People's gallery...

Although I do understand there is a simple collections / preservation problem with First Nations materials. The bulk of the objects on display in the First People's Hall, if actually 'historic artifacts', are late 1800's dated. The bulk of these are, as expected, wood or plant material. Many objects are in fact of completely modern creation, and made by First Nations artisans. These are most often not listed as 'replicas' or 'reproductions' however (1) They are simply credited to the artisan with the actual production date. 

Double images on object descriptions from shooting through glass

Note the complete lack of any detail here. This does say 'model' (one of the few so described). Is this life sized? What is it made of? What is the history behind this? Fish trap used how? What is 'Haisle' (a Nation, a Location?) Without proper context, there can not be understanding.

Another bias point. When I was researching 'What Dreams They Had' I ran into a huge problem deciphering the difference between 'traditional' / historical / ancient. Too often 'traditional' came down to 'what my grand mother told me' - with no appreciation that what was done 200 years ago could possibly be different, Much less 600 years ago = pre-European. 

I found too often the background for objects in this gallery, when presented, completely missed this quite important difference between what is well understood to be a shattered 'tradition', an a possible difference in historic practice. To be fair, the overall gallery presentation is attempting to illustrate material culture within separate regional Nations.

I do understand that museums hand over much of the control to the presentation of their collections to graphic designers, who often have little to no understanding of the objects they are presenting. Drama is more important than clarity all too often. The average viewer does not read beyond a couple of words. Context is only provided by loose groupings of objects, often shoved together for effect more than historic realities. Overall I found much of the First Peoples Gallery suffered from this stripped down information. Especially with simple things like functional objects. Why is that basket in any way different than the last basket presented?

What are the materials used here? What source? Not given on the label!

Shooting in the Dark?

Look, I understand that at least SOME of the objects include paint or dye. Somewhat reduced lighting should be expected. But the First People's and History Hall Level A materials were in the dark. Most especially the 'West Coast Nations' materials. From an artistic standpoint, these were the only materials on display that caught my design eye. Below I will show the images as shot - and after considerable modifications via photoshop. (1) Note that this selection is from objects that particularly struck me as possible inspiration points for my own future work in one way or another.

Painted, this one of the better lit objects!

 

This was so dark, I could not get a usable image of the description.

'Headdress', worn like a helmet

 

It is hard not for me to assume the whole purpose of the near darkness used in the West Coast Nations section specifically was to create an intentional 'shrine' like atmosphere. I noticed anyone attempting conversation was speaking in hushed or whispired tones. Why?

Now of course I had my drawing book - and did make my own scratch drawings of some of these pieces.

If I am feeling generous, I may undertake a second blog posting illustrating some of the other objects that caught my eye...

 

1) The only thing I studied at all four years of art school was photography. The camera used here is a 2008 Olympus E-300 (8 mpx) with a 3.5 aperture lens. Most of the exposures were hand held (braced against the case where possible) from 1/8 - 1/4 second exposures. I freely admit my hands are not as steady as they once were. But that does not account for the lack of light to enable even vaguely correct exposures.

65 at 65

An iron smelt event

October 31

Wareham

I have been casting around for some direction to head with the long set of individual iron smelting experiments, now after the better part of 20 years of undertaking.

Start of the insanity : L'Anse aux Meadows - Summer, 2001

 Starting with that initial week long research workshop at L'Anse aux Meadows NHSC for Parks Canada, the first years were spent just figuring out how to even get any iron at all (!) I dragged members of the Dark Ages Re-Creation Company into the madness. It would not be until my 6th attempt (# 4 with DARC) in Fall of 2004, that there would actually be a workable iron bloom produced.

I was lucky to fall in with Lee Sauder & Skip Williams, and Mike McCarthy. Mike would boldly start the original 'Early Iron' symposium series, the four of us forming the 'Gangue aux Fer'

Sauder / Williams / McCarthy (me in the back) - Early Iron 1, 2004

Lee would launch an annual series of workshops at his home base in Lexington, Virginia, running 10 - 14 days every March from 2005 through to 2011. At 'Smeltfest', furnaces were built and fired daily, investigating the individual variables which effected the success (or failure!) of bloomery iron production in small scale furnaces. Over those years there would be a number of additions, with Shelton Brower and Steve Mankowski (of Colonial Williamsburg) becoming other core members. Another significant accomplishment would be the development of the 'Aristotle' re-melting furnace, which we tested extensively in 2009.

Brower / Sauder / DIck Sargent / Williams / Mankowski - Smeltfest 2009

Here at Wareham, the experience and knowledge gained from all this trial and error experimentation would start to be applied 'backwards' towards specific historic historical prototypes, potential equipment, and possible methods - most specifically to those from Northern European / Viking Age archaeology.

The first specific archaeological series was with Kevin Smith, based on his excavations at Hals in Iceland, with experimental work starting in October of 2007. A total of 8 full smelts were undertaken in this series, extending through to October 2016. 

Neil Peterson, Icelandic grass sod furnace - Hals #8, 2016

Part of the reason that the Hals series ran so long is that the DARC team was approached by Parks Canada in 2009 about running a full scale re-creation of the iron smelt by the Norse at Vinland, as a public demonstration event in 2010. A total of five experimental smelts were ran in this initial series, to be followed up later by another demonstration event in 2017. Both these smelts at L'Anse aux Meadows NHSC would use all circa 1000 type equipment, other than required safety equipment.

Mark Pilgrim (LAM) / Dave Cox (DARC) / me, Vinland #5 (at L'Anse aux Meadows), 2010

Other experimental series work has included two projects from early Scotland :

- Turf To Tools at the Scottish Sculpture Workshop (Lumsden, Aberdeenshire). This based on their local Pictish history (so post Roman / pre Viking). This included one test smelt here in Canada, then four at SSW, in 2014. The second segment of the project was in 2016 and was composed of another three smelts in Scotland. There was a third segment planned to complete this overall combination research and artistic project for September 2020, but COVID lead to postponement. 

- Work at the Scottish Crannogg Centre, based on Early Celtic Iron Age. This series has included one test at Wareham, staff training on site in Aberfeldy in 2016, then a demonstration smelt in 2017. 

Uist Corrigan / Eden Jolly (SSW), T2TA, 2016

Along the way :

- The development of an primary bog iron ore analog, based on the physical characteristics of the natural material found in excavations at L'Anse aux Meadows.

- A number of full scale tests of various historic human powered air systems. (experimentation possibly remains here.)

In total, to date I have personally mounted  over 85 individual iron smelts.  The majority have been intended to answer specific experimental questions, or to accumulate enough working experience to allow useful data to be gathered. There have been a significant number undertaken as public demonstrations, at international symposiums, or as training sessions for students.

'What's next?'

When my long time collaborator and smelting partner Neil Peterson was up to Wareham last week (for a day rendering bloom pieces into useful working bars), he asked what the plan was. The last experimental smelt was the 'Bones' test in June. Although there could be a continuation there, truthfully I don't feel there is much insight to be gained that would be worth the investment in materials, time and effort. I had started some background on early Irish bowl furnaces, but not enough at this point to realistically frame a working experimental series based on this. 

We considered the current test furnace, the stone block, built for a second Icelandic research project over 2019. This furnace has been fired four times at this point, and had suffered some structural damage on its last use (course over Thanksgiving).  Given the shift to colder late fall temperatures (below freezing at night, mid single digits daytime) and the general lack of a clear direction, I decided to repair this furnace for one use.

Condition of the stone block after Oct 11 smelt. The red line is where the original lintel stone (above the extraction arch) had broken out. 

 

I turn 65 just days after the already scheduled Samhain Iron Smelt, set for Saturday 31 October. 

With tongue in cheek, Neil said " 65 in 65. You could smelt 65 kg of ore. "

Now, the largest volume smelts I personally have ever done have been with 45 kg of ore ( Smeltfest 2005). These also resulted in some of the largest blooms, into the range of plus 20 kg. Attempting 65 kg could increase everything by 40 %, importantly the amount of charcoal and raw working time ( * ). Bloom yield also increases steeply with larger ore amounts. I'm not really sure the furnace on hand would contain what likely would be such a massive bloom!

Past use of this specific furnace has shown it will accept alternating 2 and 3 kg charges at the end (this against standard 1.8 kg charcoal amounts, burn rate averaging 14 minutes.) The stone mass has been found to take significantly longer to come up to working temperature (in the past about 2 + hours). With our normal roughly 30 kg ore amounts, the elapsed time of the main sequence has been in the range of 5 hours.That all suggests an attempt at a 65 kg smelt would add about another 3 - 3 1/2 hours to the main smelt sequence, suggesting a total experimental time (first pre-heat to final extraction) of 12 1/2 hours. ( ** ) 

Just recently, the metal bands on my cut wooden barrel slack tub failed. One of the 'mystic' things here is that tub has never been emptied since I set up the forge at Wareham, back in 1990. (This included some water gathered from the point where Black Duck Brook mixes with the ocean, just downstream from the Smelter Hut at L'Anse aux Meadows.) In the process of replacing the bands, 30 years of accumulated iron forge scale was collected. This material, 2.5 kg, had been added to the analog mix being made in preparation for Saturday's smelt. This material is still drying, but there should be at least 30 - 32 kg of analog.

As I have mentioned before, the region around Wareham does not contain any naturally occurring iron ore. This has meant over the years having to use a wide range of types (and quality!) of ores, perhaps more than any other long working team :

- primary bog iron ore - Newfoundland / Denmark

- 'Lexington Brown' limonite - Virginia

- industrial taconite - Ontario / Scotland

- hematite grit - Quebec

- red iron oxide as analog

- black iron oxide as analog

It has occurred to me that I do have plenty of the other ore types we have worked with here over past experiments. Right now I have a good large amount of variable quality Lexington limonite, including a 'smelt's worth' already roasted an partially broken for size. There is also about 40 kg of hematite grit remaining. 

This suggests starting with 6.5 kg of the limonite (pretty much were we started, and a tribute to Lee and Skip), followed by 6.5 kg of the hematite (which actually was the next ore body which we worked with, easily available in Ontario back at that point). The limonite, which I gathered, does tend to be on the lower iron content side. This should be balanced with the hematite, which if anything tends to be too rich (lacking in silica for slag formation). The balance will be the current analog mix.

This is an 'open invitational' event - with limits imposed by COVID.

What that means is that interested individuals may attend, but do need to contact me directly before attending, ideally by e-mail

Core working team is likely to be gathered from those with past experience. Although observers are welcome, this is not a 'teaching' styled event. (Ok - we all know it is hard to shut me up!)

- Masking will be required

- Distancing will be in effect

- Visitors will have no access to the residence. 

( * ) This not strictly true. At the later end of a smelt sequence, charges are typically large, 1 : 1 with charcoal, or even more. 

( ** ) The limiting factor may turn out to be charcoal. Between what I have on hand here, and what Neil has in store, the total looks to be 12 bags / 100 kg. A normal 30 kg smelt typically consumes about 60 kg. Hopefully this will be 'just enough'.

One problem right now is that with COVID, the normally used 'Maple Leaf' brand via Home Hardware is completely out of stock - and back ordered to at least Spring 2021. Recently Canadian Tire was able to secure a bulk order of Royal Oak out of the USA. Neil grabbed a large quantity, but stores quickly ran through that stock.

Small Forged Pots in History

At an upcoming 'hammer in' style event involving the Ontario Artist Blacksmith Association, one suggestion offered was having participating blacksmiths work with pre-cut 8 inch steel circles.

Here are some historical objects - using roughly the same starting shape:

One interesting factor related to Viking Age objects - is that 20 cm / 8 inches marks about the largest size individual measurement of any object forged out of what then was small scale bloomery / wrought iron.
There are two reasons for this :
- The scale of the working forges most commonly used provided a 'ball of heat' about the size of a grapefruit (at best). So just large enough to permit a forge weld on an axe.
- Because of the fibrous texture of the bloomery iron material, it is physically very difficult to work out a thin, large, piece of plate. Those with experience with wrought iron know that as you push it during forging, it can start to de-laminate, requiring re-welding to solidify. Often these fractures tend to diagonal lines - which as you can imagine create a special problem re-welding as the material gets thinner.
So when you examine iron artifacts from the earlier period, you see larger forms are made up of a number of smaller pieces, riveted together. Cauldrons are the perfect example of this. Even helmets are typically either a right and left half - or a top skull with additional pieces for the sides.

There are a number of samples of this flat disk cooking tool on a long handle (underneath showing pair of rivets attaching). The disk has slightly upturned edges.

A small cooking pot. A dished lower bowl surrounded by a set of plates curved into a cylinder. The handle made of a piece of flat bar.


As I have detailed in articles in OABA's Iron Trillium, Cast Iron is not common in Europe until more or less the end of the 1500's into the early 1600's. This matches the effective start of the Settlement Era here in North America.
Looking to objects at Jamestown (Virginia, c 1610), you see some small cast iron cauldrons, in the range of 1 - 2 gallons, but only in the hands of the wealthy. The more common people are still using pots of bronze / brass - or importantly, forged wrought iron plate.

Replica at Jamestown Settlement - Taken from the underneath side, you can see how pieces of flat bar have been riveted to the deeply dished bowl. Again, this cooking pot is about 8 inches in diameter.


As you look into what most of us would consider the Canadian Settlement Period (1750 - 1850) you will see increasing use of cast iron, specifically as much larger cauldrons. There are still many cooking pots and flat pans made of forged plate. Most first cabins had open fire places, and a common design was a deep fry pan with and extremely long handle. The bowls are typically now a flat bottom with slanted sides. Most of these are considerably larger, but again working with the 8 inch size would create a distinctive object

Replicas at Fortress Lewisburg (c 1745) - A collection of long handled fry pans. (again replicas)

As a commercial note :

I have made a great number of replicas of cooking tools from all these time periods - and these objects specifically.

Norse Cooking Tools

Past Reproductions

Hype or History? the Mammen Axe

I recently was asked if I would be interested in accepting a commission to make a working replica of the Mammen Axe:

Image ? - sourced off Pinterest (1)

Most of the images you see of the actual artifact (and those in my own reference materials) show the one or both the faces of the axe in this orientation. This is to best display the decorative patterns - which define the Viking Age 'Mammen' artistic style.

I spent some time this morning going through my own reference books, and also trying to get some better details off the internet (good luck there). I was able to get some better images of the artifact from the Danish National Museum (DNM) web site. (2)

The Mammen Axe appears to be a 'Peterson type H' as close as I can judge.

One wrinkle there is that the type is described as being a bit early for the actual date of the Mammen find, which is given as 'later half of the 10th century'. (3)

The artifact is clearly a weapon type, with a long thin slicing blade profile. Although this also would have some use as a fine woodworking axe (detail shaping of timbers), the narrow profile is not suited to splitting firewood or felling trees. (4)

click to view at about life sized (NMD)

In one of my favorite 'go to' references, From Viking to Crusader, I was able to get at least one physical dimension : total length of 17.5 cm (5)

My standard method when considering an artifact replica - is to get the best detailed image I can find - then convert that via Photoshop into life size.

This scales the blade to 10 cm. This is about what I would expect from other VA axes I had seen. This would place the total weight into the range of about 1000 - 1200 gm. (6) This estimated weight would place it comparable to a modern general purpose axe (roughly a fairly standard 2 1/4 lbs). It will 'fly' a bit differently, with less of the weight at the cutting edge, more placed back towards the handle. This will result in the 'angle of attack' a bit harder to control.

click to view at about life sized (altered from NMD)

This second image (also available from the NMD description) shows both sides, plus the normally never seen back peen side. The lower image is actually more of a 3/4 view, which allows some general idea (and potentially rough measurements) of the cross section. Again almost never seen and rarely considered. The heavy peen thickness, coupled with the relatively thin side walls to the eye, certainly suggests a 'sculpted then wrapped' forming method. (7)

******

So here is the thing (rant mode on)

To undertake correctly hand forging to make an accurate replica of this kind of object is requires knowledge, skill, experience, special tooling - and considerably hard work. This should suggest expensive.

Right?

Go out on the internet.

Search 'Mammen Axe'

So - you (should) see the much referenced Danish National Museum first.

Then...

That first link is to a 'review' by Alexi Goranov of the same object - sold (next link) by Museum Replicas.

Take a look at the Museum Replicas sales description first:

Replica created by CAS Iberia / Hanwei of China.

" The Mammen Axe, one of the best-known and best-decorated examples of the small Viking throwing axe, is a perfect example of the Viking’s blend of art and war. Excavated from a famous 10th century barrow near Mammen Denmark, the original is decorated with silver inlaid engraving in a typical Celtic manner. Hanwei's recreation of this beautiful piece is a tribute to the creative as well as the martial side of this dynamic, influential culture. "

• Overall length: 17-1/2"
• Blade length: 4
• Handle Length: 17-3/4"
• Weight: 1 lb / 3 oz

That is the entire description ( 8 )

Note that the axe head itself has only two variables : weight and blade width

My underlines are especially troubling :

" Weight: 1 lb / 3 oz " ?

With the word 'recreation' loosely applied, how does 500 gms match the artifact, as discussed, more likely to have been closer to 1200 gms when new?

" Small Viking throwing axe " ?

Ok - I will give you that the object being sold, which is only half the correct weight, most certainly would qualify as a light weight hatchet or possible throwing axe. Describing the artifact as such, certainly indicates a massive distortion of the actual prototype object.

" typical Celtic manner " ??

Sorry - I really lost it when I read that. This statement shows a complete lack of any understanding of Cultures or History. Do we need to be reminded that the Mammen Axe actually is the core example of a recognized Viking Age - NORSE - artistic style. To the point of providing the NAME for that style.

Of clear concern :

- What is the actual metal that the head, especially cutting edge, made of?

- How are the actual designs applied?

Now that first offered link:

Hanwei / CAS Iberia Mammen Axe
A hands-on review by Alexi Goranov

" The purpose of this review is to examine the reproduction of the Mammen axe offered by Hanwei (Item #2041-GT)."

Image poached from myArmoury.com

Now that you see an image of this 'reproduction' - what do you notice?

The head is upside down.

Seriously?

Because this object has been made as a light weight 'tomahawk' style, the eye is designed with an obvious taper, larger at the 'top' and smaller to the 'bottom'. This so the handle, which is tapered to match, can only fit in to lock as shown.

If you attempted to actually USE this object (for it's indicated 'throwing axe' purpose), the thin tip of that upswept blade would strike first, putting excessive impact shock into the weakest part of the cutting edge.

Oh - I guess that dramatic upsweap to the edge looks way cool...

Note the complete lack of any peen - at all. Completely the wrong shape, completely distorts the handling balance. The eye is deliberately made to suggest the (incorrect) 'one piece folded' construction method. That technique is not a Viking Age method (more typical of later Medieval and Settlement Era axe making). It has been distorted to a flat oval shape - not the flattened D shape of the artifact.

This is clearly a mass production cast steel object.

The review states that those nice designs? Are painted on.

I also see that this 'review' includes THREE hot links back to the CAS Ibera web site.

Can you say 'click bait' ??

Ok - the Suggested Retail on this version was $90 US.

It looks pretty.

Made in China

(as if more needs to be said - right there)

A 'replica' or a 'reproduction' ?

Not even close

1) I should mention that I really HATE Pinterest as a source. Images are grabbed from almost anywhere, there is little to no descriptions or credit given for the original source.

2) The artifact images have been transferred here as file copies (to ensure proper loading, a problem with past use of now absent internet sources). The indicated images (NMD) were sourced (as linked) from the National Museum of Denmark.

3) This raises another whole ball of wax about 'date of creation' against 'date of deposit'. Peterson indicates for the closest displayed profile of type H  " The type seems to originate around 900 AD, and belongmostly to the fist half of the 10th century. "

The National Museum of Denmark indicates :
" The axe is decorated in the so-called Mammen style, which is named after this particular find. The style arose in the 900s and it survived until around 1000."
"The grave from Mammen can be dated to the winter of 970/971 AD ..."

(Based on dendrochronology)

Taken from full description on the NMD web site.

4) For a discussion of axe profiles against functional uses, see an earlier commentary : July 16, 2008 - Norse Woodworking Axes

5) From Viking To Crusader : Editors Else Rosedahl & David Wilson / 1992

Unfortunately, almost impossible to find a copy (only a limited number from this traveling exhibit were ever printed) Considered by most Viking Age re-encators as the single best exhibit catalogue ever produced.

6) Admittedly a bit of a WAG. Based on a fast comparison to research and creation of a replica of the 'Rhynie Man Axe' I did in 2014 as part of the Turf 2 Tools project.
(This was a replica of a circa 600 - 800 AD, Pictish, profile. Wth the narrower edge, the weight was about 900 gm)

7) Details on just how this works is best seen in the work and documentation by James Austin. I was lucky enough to attend a workshop / demonstration weekend featuring Jim some years back and found him skilled, knowledgeable - and most certainly extremely willing to share both.

8) There were two images available. I was unable to either copy - or directly link back to, these.

Oseberg : Putting up the Pot

The object that I have based more commentaries on, over the now 14 years and over 1000 postings of this blog, has been that iron tripod from the Oseberg Ship burial.

This image was sent to me by a fellow (and also quite serious) Norse re-enactor. I had made an open plea on Facebook recently, asking if anyone had actually physically seen the artifact themselves. Judy had replied saying that although she certainly had been to the museum, it was a good number of years back. The image above, which she kindly sent me, was a direct scan of a post card she had purchased at the museum.
That image is 'flat on' and the lighting here is considerably more even than the more dramatic one I had posted last week from Alamy :

This image does show the tripod in its entirety however, and was the one I used for the following modified drawing :

For rational behind the scale and overall measurements given here, please refer back to my March 11 piece : Oseberg Cauldron ( 1 )

My reservations about this tripod as a working tool has at its core the simple problem of construction :
1) The hanging hook is a single fixed length of about 20 cm.
2) As displayed, the large cauldron also in the burial barely clears the ground.

This in combination creates two major problems  ( 2 ) :
1) There is no ability to change the hanging height of the mounted cauldron. So no way to modify the effective cooking temperature (other than knocking the fire out?)
2) There is almost no room to actually fit a fire under the cauldron - at least as the combination is displayed.

So, one consideration must be : Can the position of the tripod legs be modified, thus raising the cauldron?

So in the drawing, what I did was :
a) use the length of the tripod legs at 125 cm (as indicated in the scale drawing from the original excavation report) to generate a scale.
b) trace first the pot and hanger combination from the Alamy image.
c) trace the tripod legs, but shifted so they just clear the diameter of the cauldron

This then generates a 'best possible' base line below the cauldron.
Which via the scale is estimated to be at most 35 cm clearance. ( 3 )

So - maybe possible.
That 35 cm really does not leave much clearance for firewood. To build an effective split wood fire, my own experience suggests at least 20 cm of height would be required.
Consider the size of the cauldron, at ≠ 55 cm diameter. To heat a pot that large, my guess is that it would require a wood fire of at least roughly the same width. Although I'm hardly the best campfire cook, this combination (55 wide x 20 + cm tall) represents a pretty big fire. Especially if the clearance between fire and bottom of the pot is at best in the range of 20 cm.

All this begs some actual experimental testing in my mind.


I may attempt to pursue this further by contacting the Viking Ship Museum directly. If this comes to pass, I will most certainly share the details that I learn.
I am especially interested to find out if the thin band of metal, seen along the top edge of the cauldron, is part of the original artifact - or a strengthening band added during the initial preparation for display.


1) Or if you really want to dig into this - use the search function here for "oseberg tripod ". I come up with over 10 previous commentaries on the topic!

2) This is leaving aside the main reason that I do not encourage the display of this object in modern historic camps : The amount of iron required, and the abundant decorative details, most certainly indicates this object is of royal quality. As such, it remains clearly beyond the economic reach or social status of the characters being portrayed by most.

3) I freely admit that this method clearly leaves a fair room for estimation error!

Oseberg Cauldron...

On 2020-03-07, D L wrote:

The group was wondering about the size of the cauldron. Do you think we will be able to cook for 10 to 20 people or so in it or will it be much smaller?

Under consideration is the large iron cauldron found in the Oseberg Ship Burial (Norway, dated about 824 ACE).
I freely admit that I have NOT personally seen the actual artifact being referenced here!

I'm also not having a lot of luck coming up with the exact measurements on this cauldron. Part of the problem is that even though I did have access to the full original excavation reports at one point - those are from about the time of the excavation (roughly 1900) and in Norwegian (!). ( 1 ) There are very limited illustrations included. Below is the field drawing showing the cauldron and tripod (only illustration of those in the report). If you attempted to work from this (scaled) drawing, you would come up with roughly 35 cm diameter by about 25 cm deep for the cauldron. Importantly, the legs of the tripod show as about 125 cm long.

I've also got a very slim book (1956), likely intended to be a museum guide to 'The Viking Ship Finds'. ( 2 ) It does not give any measurements, but lists TWO cauldrons in the burial.

So looking at this image, one of the few I've found (over the internet, ok?) showing the actual objects. ( 3 )
 The proportions of the height to depth are much different than the report illustration:
- Closer to ratio 3 : 1 (width to depth).
- It looks (?) like the artifact is 8 segments plus the bottom dish.

This image may prove a bit more useful to work with - as it is taken from a more flat position (less distortion on the leg lengths) ( 4 )

Now combine the two images:
- Take the measurement for the legs of the tripod from the report illustration, at 125 cm.
- Now make a rough scale from that length, placed against the images of the artifacts. (5)
- The resulting estimate for the cauldron seen is :
    width about 55 cm
    depth about 25 cm
- If you run those figures into a math calculator  you get a volume in the range of 90 L ! ( 6 ).

What is happening along the top edge of the rim is hard to determine from the images of the artifact that are (easily) available.
Typically, the bloomery (wrought) iron used for making the plates needed for shapes like cauldrons are massively thicker than expected by those used to modern industrially produced mild steel sheets. Norse material is in the range of 4 - 6 mm, modern steels normally used for replicas typically 1 mm or less. The point here is that with this thickness, there is no special need for extra re-enforcement of the cauldron's upper edge.
There is certainly some modification of the upper edge seen in the images.
- Is this a separate band of iron, circling the rim? On the inside or outside?
- Has the top edge been forged towards the outside and then folded over back against the outside surface? This would produce a rounded top edge. (In cases of objects made of much softer high copper alloy, sometimes a piece of round rod is placed into this 'pocket' before it is hammered down tight, as a further stiffener.
- Is this actually an extra piece of 'new' material, added during the initial conservation effort, to stabilize the ancient metal? Do remember this work would have been undertaken in the late 1800's, and standards of preservation were vastly different than today's.

Many modern replicas (see the final section) add a band of light weight metal, which has been then hammered over to make an upside down L shaped cross section. This results in a flat rim around the edge. If this method was used in the original construction of the cauldron, it would make it unique. (At least I am not aware of any other Viking Age iron cauldron that uses this method.) ( 7 )



I've got templates worked up for the cauldron seen below. I had made this for the 2008 film Outlander.

Strictly speaking, this is certainly more ‘vaguely inspired by’, than specifically a replica. (Much less to be considered a reproduction!) There are a number of definite differences from the artifact  (overall size / number of segments / lack of a rolled edge / attachment lugs / handle shape and detail). Note that this object is also made of much thinner modern 18 ga mild steel sheet. At roughly 1 mm thick, this material can be cold hammered to dish the plates to shape (so not forged.) Clearly some of the criticisms I apply to what is currently available commercially apply to this object! (Remember however, this was only ever intended as a visual prop for a *fantasy* film. Not either to be a duplicate of history - or actually to be cooked in!) 

I don't have the best notes on the finished measurements for this one. I remember that piece to be about 40 cm wide by 15 + cm deep. My original description on volume is "three gallons". (So roughly 12 L?). In retrospect, I think that might be more of a WAG than something I actually measured.  If you run those dimensions into that same math calculator you actually get a volume in the range of 25 L.

Still image capture from Outlander. You can see a copper cauldron and elaborate hanger I created.

So - although this is a long winded way to get back to the original question...

My best estimate is that, using the templates I have on hand, the final cauldron should run roughly 40 - 50 cm diameter and about 15 - 20 cm deep. (This actually results in a fair amount of volume variation!)
It should hold (to the brim!) at least 25 L, with the larger measurements, considerably more.
Given a 'good bowl full' at about .5 L (figure a normal yogurt container) per person? So 30 - 40 plus people should be easily possible.
My intent for this commission is to use significantly thicker mild steel plate, at 1/8 thick (so + 3 mm). This will require forging (hot dishing) the individual segments and base to shape. Along with creating an object more like the weight of the Norse originals, the thickness will assist in more even cooking heat, especially important for use over open fires.


‘Can you see a difference…’
(Ok - a bit of a rant.)


There are a number of people out there (typically on Etsy) selling what are described as ’the Oseberg Cauldron’ ( 8 ).
There are several aspects I find in almost all the things advertised as either 'replicas' or 'reproductions’:
- They all appear much smaller than the artifact. Significantly, the actual measurements are almost never given.
- All certainly appear to be made of thinner mild steel sheet, again thickness not specified.
- The finished metal colour and even surfaces suggests cold dishing method.
- Most use round rod starting material for the handles (a profile rarely seen in Norse artifacts).
- You see the top rim as separate narrow piece attached as a flat edge to the top of the body segments. This metal is folded straight back at 90 degrees, creating a flat surface along the upper edge.

The body of all of these versions offered for sale is so similar (almost identical) I have to wonder if there is actually a single source for the bodies (most likely offshore?) supplying all of these. That there is some variation on the actual handles suggest that the cauldron bodies are purchased, with individuals only adding handles? Despite all being described as 'hand forged' - the only hot work is in the handles and attachment lugs (and the level of complexity even there varies considerably).

Just sayin’…


NOTES:

1 ) Osebergfundet, A.W. Brogger, 1917

2 ) The Viking Ship Finds, Universitetets Oldsaksamling, 1956

3 ) Variations of this view of the artifacts as on display, are seen a number of times on 'Pintrest’. Itself a site I really hate for lack of context.
Including copies of the replicas I made for Outlander - described as ‘artifacts’. Which in turn have been used by my competitors as documentation for their own (usually lower detailed) ‘replicas’!

4 ) This image is poached from Alamy :

5) I actually did this for all these reference images to help refine the measurements.

6 ) Calculation for the volume of a spherical section
I found one (very derivative!) comment suggesting this artifact was actually at about 20 L (?) This offered in support of the some of the work referred to at the bottom of this piece.

7 ) I would be really interested for observation details from someone who has stood in front of the actual artifacts from Oseberg.
I dug into my (considerable) reference collection as I prepared this piece (plus the internet) and could not find better images than the two duplicated above. As suggested, NONE of the other cauldrons I had information on showed this 'top ledge' construction.

8 ) For your own interest, you might search ‘Oseberg Cauldron’ as images.
You will see a number of renditions of those same images of the actual artifacts.
You will find work by 'Torvald Sorenson' of Weland Smithy (with a web site that appears closed?)
You will find a number of images of my own work, mainly part of commentaries (seen on this very blog).

And the images I show here.
As I am highly critical of that last group of work - I am quite deliberately NOT linking back to the commercial web sites involved.

Fire Steels - in theory?

(Taken from an ongoing discussions related to a research project on Viking Age / L'Anse aux Meadows and Vinland beyond / Flint & Jasper strikers / Fire Steels)

I freely admit that making fire steels has * not * been my best thing in the past.

Like many apparently simple things, the metal selection, and actual heat treating, for best results in fire steels is complex.

Quickly (as I understand it) :
The way these work is that the steel resists the tearing action of the stone. The pressure required eventually tears off a splinter, which due to the force heats under impact. Hot enough to actually heat the fragment above the 'burn point' of the steel. This makes the spark, with temperatures in the 1100 - 1200 C range.
Different carbon contents have different shear strengths.
Different carbon contents also have different burn points
You can modify the shear point (strength / hardness) of any one given alloy (carbon content) based on the quenching method chosen.
Different stones themselves will break with different applied force.
So this suggests there is a dance between metal type, making method, and stone selected - combines for best results

Generally my understanding is that a good fire steel would have a high carbon content to the alloy. Here meaning at least 0.05 % (spring), but maybe as high as 0.1 % (file).
But the quench may slightly on the slower side, to keep the result from becoming so hard the stone chosen can't actually shear off that small flake.

(I took a fast look over the past blog entries - as I thought I had worked up something on the topic. Yup - based on something the same researcher had asked about back in 2011! )
https://warehamforgeblog.blogspot.com/2011/04/this-came-in-from-my-friend-and-mentor.html

   " I may order 2-3 fire-strikers from a couple of sites on Etsy that
   are selling Viking Era types (one site is a forge in Canada, the
   other's in Germany). Those might get us started with some basic
   experiments on how the jasper / chert responds (how many flakes and spalls are generated per 100 strikes, etc.) and of course we'll make
   some sparks, even if we don't have information on the carbon content
   of the steel. "

(site references deliberately removed!)

I think it illustrative that the Canadian chosen does NOT refer to the actual metal type used.
The German does state 'carbon steel' - which is what is needed for correct function.

from Marstein, Uppland, Norway : 7.7 cm. Common 'boat shape' forged from flat bar (Image from 'Viking Artifacts' - Graham-Campbell)

The German also is offering shapes that look more like the actual artifacts I am familiar with.
For this reason I would suggest the German (shipping is the only cost variable).




Readers may have seen way too many things as being named 'Viking' - when in fact they are not even remotely like the real objects! This is a *big* problem for me. Truth before Advertising please!