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.

Blade find from Belgium??

 

On 2023-01-13 6:36 AM, "C..." * wrote:

 I am a metal detectorist based in Belgium. I stumbled across your website and hoped maybe you can help me?

I recently found an iron blade, which from my own experience looks very old. It looks like forged iron, feels like it weighs a lot for a small object.

I was wondering if you can advise me of an approximate period it might be from and its use? I have been trying to research it online, it reminds me of a small Viking period knife from the examples I have found. Maybe from the 9th -10th century, so I was thinking maybe mid to late Medieval. I could be completely incorrect though. When I found it a part of the end crumbled off, I believe it was a bit more pointed.

The blade has an interesting slight curve. The area I found it in has human history dating back thousands of years.

I thank you in advance for any help you can provide. Please find some photographs attached.

The original request e-mail, highlighted in bold are the elements that I flagged when I first read it.

Below is my reply, with images provided by "C..." inserted as considered.

Well - a lot to unpack here. Sorry to say I may not prove that helpful. I warn you that you may know much of the following already!


Belgium?
That is likely your first problem. Two World wars that chewed up most the ground, and left so much stuff buried. Very small country, intensively populated and farmed - for like forever...

Find location may provide you with some clues - my advice is first to check the history on the piece of ground where you uncovered the object. If the result is 'too much history to narrow occupation' that pretty much ensures that unless there are significant marks or design to the object, you are just not going to narrow it down.


Iron?
Ok - not copper alloy, but...
One possible narrowing would be distinguishing between post Industrial (c 1855) mild steel, and earlier forms of wrought iron as the material.
Wrought iron - especially very old wrought iron, corrodes in a different and distinctive way. The slag inclusions from its creation in bloomery furnaces often causes it to erode to display a linear grain. Steel on the other hand, more typically erodes with flake like patterns.
Looking at the object, it *appears* more like a 'modern' steel.
You could check this using a destructive spark test - or better still via a (costly) lab test, both for carbon content. Wrought iron has basically no carbon. 

 

 

One warning is that the level of corrosion to the object appears limited, not what I would expect from centuries buried. As you surely know, the condition of the ground at location of discovery is a big clue there.

Profile?

First thing that jumps out is the cross section. This is a 'sabre' grind - with a rectangular back, then the angled bevel to the cutting edge. Viking Age blades are basically all V profile grind. This to get the most function out of the least amount of metal. A sabre grind requires more material, but does result in a stiffer blade.This remains the case through the Medieval period - again shifting into the 'early Industrial = 1600's'.

One of the things I do to help me understand photographs is reduce one down to 'size as' and print it off. To help visualize what the original object shape was, I then will extend the lines into what seems a logical profile. 

 

Reduced to life size @ 13.5 cm / 8 cm blade

 The object has an extremely wide and thick back compared to a sharp taper to the cutting edge. There does not seem excessive amount of material missing on the blade side (ie - corrosion or wear effects). Attempting to pull measurements off the images, the back is about 5 mm thick and about 10 mm wide, with the bevel about 15 mm wide. As you mentioned, there is a clear blade side concave curve. (Which has to be intentional, the forging process naturally flexes the blade to a convex curve!) This curve has to relate to the function of the tool. The point, extending the existing lines forward, is very thick and blunt - again obviously for strength. 

 

(showing cutting edge)

All this would intentionally create a tool that was extremely strong, but a relatively blunt cutting edge. The curve would suggest use in a sliding cut action - not a straight chopping direction. Given the total blade length at about 8 - 9 cm, the overall result is an extremely rugged tool - far more than is required for the length. But also one that would not have a very effective cutting edge. (Yes - even with some of the edge material obviously corroded away).

The tang is very short, remains at about 4.5 cm. Good chance it just has been corroded or broken away however, so need to be a bit careful about applying too much to this. That said, it does not taper very much down it's length, which may suggest most of the original remains. Not much (remaining?) for secure mounting into a handle. It does appear thicker at the extreme end than at the joint to the blade however, and is clearly rectangular (close to) rather than circular in cross section. This all may indicate something about the original mounting method. A lot of Norse knives have rounded tangs - which passed through a hole drilled or burned into the hilt material, then secured with a metal disk as the end of the tang was peened over like a rivet.


Overall, I see a short, very strong but blunt blade, more likely to be made from a steel alloy.
My first guess would be part of an agricultural tool - like a tooth from a drag harrow.
Although I admit I am not familiar with the design requirements, another possibility could be some kind of pruning or hand harvesting tool (apples?).

If you can find someone (university?) who has a hand held XRF analyzer, this is basically micro destructive and would give you the relative elemental composition of the material. That might be the easiest way to determine relative technology of the metal itself.

Sorry - this from my computer desk and working from such limited information. May not be the commentary you were hoping for?

Good luck with this - and keep looking! Here in Ontario, our history is so relatively shallow (any iron object around my area will be no older than about 1615) - and in comparison so thin. My own home at Wareham was settled (by Europeans) about 1840 - 50. The First Nations just avoided this area, as other than deer and small game, there were no resources available that made the area worth exploiting.

* The images included here are "C..."s. I have intentionally omitted his last name. 

(Note the provision included on the bottom of any longer e-mail replies from me : " To those receiving long detailed replies to specific questions : My own written response may be edited and re-used as a blog posting."

Viking Age tools for L'Anse aux Meadows NHSC

 Readers : Postings have been absent of late as I was involved in preparing, then delivering, an eight day training program for staff living history interpreters for Parks Canada's 'Viking Encampment' presentation. To accompany this, there was a large order of replicas, two sets of both blacksmithing and woodworking tools, plus four spear heads. 

The tools were ordered from a larger list of previous and potential objects, plus those requested. The primary artifact reference was the larger set of smithing and wood tools found within the Mastermyr Tool Chest (Gotland, estimated to about 1150 AD). Note the distinction between reproductions (generally within 10% of artifacts) and replicas (considered 'of a type' similar to samples).  One difference throughout (unless specifically noted) is the use of modern steels.

One of two forging hammers, reproduction of Mastermyr (final weight was just under 800 gms)

Raising hammer (again reproduction of Mastermyr) and a second similar head with more of a ball shaped head, as a riveting hammer.

Two rivet header tools, based on Mastermyr. The holes themselves a close match to the artifact sample, handles a bit longer and block a bit thinner than the original.

Two of the total of eight different tongs, only loosely based on Mastermyr. Two slightly different styles used for the jaws, as a large number of 'adjusted for stock sizes and shapes' were ordered.

In addition the following :

Leather apron with cast bronze buckle

Double chamber blacksmith's bellows

Two sledge hammers (1800 / 3200 gm)

Pair each of straight cut and round hole punches.

Hacksaws, replicas based on sample from Mastermyr. Modified modern blades for metal / antler (top), for wood (bottom).

Pair of 'flip' carving knives (based on sample from Cantebury), oak slabs. The blades on each were made intentionally to slightly differing profiles to provide for differing carving surfaces.

Two pairs of spoon bits, based on Mastermyr, with wooden breast driver (speculative). The driver was made with a removable collar held by a steel ring. With the top end of each bit as identical shape, this combination allows for changing out the individual bits (two different sizes specified).

Spoon bit mounted for bow driver, bits reproduction from Mastermyr, driver speculative. Bits sized for mounting ship rivets.

Bent neck chisels, replica based on Mastermyr. Made with two slightly different curves of the neck offset.

Group of carving chisels (total eight) Loosely based on Mastermyr samples. Both 2.5 and 1.5 cm sizes, both straight and curved blades.

Two large straight chisels, based on Mastermyr (before mounting wooden handles). Also seen above image at top (after mounting)

 

Pair of fine trimming adzes, replica based on Mastermyr. Slightly different curvatures to blades.

Knives, total of six : two 'male', two 'female', two carving. All different in shape details, all with antler handles. Top are 'male' / seax blades, uppermost antique wrought iron, second of mid carbon steel. Middle are 'female' / small tool blades, the first of bloomery iron, the second of high carbon steel. Bottom are two different carving shapes, both of high carbon steel.

Four spear heads, no specific prototypes. Top is longer 'fighting' style, remainder smaller 'hunting' types.

About an AXE

 Our next door neighbour George, passed away late last summer. The farm block that he had owned (since about the late 70's) had originally included the small pieces severed off that then had the Wareham Church and the associated drive shed. The church was built in the late 1930's, and the shed structure likely the same time. The church was sold and converted into a private residence about 1985. The conversion of the drive shed to include a residence started about 1987, and was barely completed when I purchased that property in 1989. 

The house on George's farm is a red brick 'Victorian' the main construction some point about 1900. It has been added to and modified over the decades. The barn is a typical Ontario large working barn, hand squared timber frame set on rough field stone foundation walls, with plank covering, a more recent sheet steel roof. On a guess I would think that barn may pre-date the house.  

The land around Wareham was settled by mainly Scots and Irish, starting about 1850. Rail came into the area about 1855, and Wareham was a going concern by 1860, with three small mills running off the river that flows through the crossroads. (My lot, on the NW corner, is actually the location of the original general store. The original Wareham blacksmith shop had been located on the NE corner, in a triangle bounded on the long side by the river.)

So  - what is the point of all that?

After George passed, his surviving adult children (all roughly my own age now) started the task of cleaning and clearing a life time of possessions. Like most farmers (even what in truth was more an 'active hobby farm' like George's once group of about 30 beef cattle) the house, barn and sheds had a lot of stuff collected. There was room, and you never did know when that thing to saved might be needed - right? There was a fair sized pile of old tools in the barn, most rusting and needing handles at the very least. Kelly and I were asked if we wanted any of these, the family had taken those few they though would be useful in their largely urban lives. I had collected up about a milk crate worth of metal heads, a couple of axes, picks and maddocks, a few smaller logging / timber framing tools. 

George's son in law Lee had stuck this one in with the rest :

Direct scan, after light surface rust removed and edge sharpened

Weight = 2 lb 14 oz
Length = 8 inches
Blade width = 4 3/4 inches
Peen = 2 1/2 x 1 1/2 inches
Eye = pronounced tear drop, 2 3/4 long by 3/4 wide, the metal on the sides about 1/8 thick 

The construction is one piece of shaped, iron (?), folded and welded back onto itself. This is clear both from the shape of the eye, but you can also see the way the edges match up on the inside if the eye on the cutting edge side. 

There appears to be an inset steel edge, which would have been a separate wedge shaped piece placed between the body sides before the welding. This can be seen as a slight colour change to the metal close to the cutting edge, and also from a change in sparks generated as I re-sharpened the existing edge.

It is hard to tell, but I think the peen block is a separate piece forge welded on (a close to perfect job there). This mainly from the extreme difference in thickness between the sides of the eye and the thickness of the peen itself. The peen block is also actually not quite as tall as the eye is.

Importantly, there is a hot stamped maker's mark. The letters A L O W, placed on both sides. These are separate letter stamps (the alignment of individual letters is slightly different on the two sides). 

The only reference I have is 'Axe Making in Ontario' by Gary French. I did take a fast look through, but did not find a specific example. (admittedly, this book seems to concentrate a lot to broad axes)

There is an illustration repeated in that volume from an 1816 book on axes, showing Sheffield production types. This axe appears to conform to the 'Army Axe' depicted in that chart.

INow, I have only wire brushed the outside surfaces lightly to remove (most) the rust. Intentionally not enough to damage any of the existing patina (actually this appears to be the fire scale surface from the original forging. 

The edge as found was in pretty fair shape, I did re contour it a bit (removed about a 1/16th of an inch) to remove a couple of nicks. I then re sharpened to a working cutting edge on pretty much the original grind angle. I think you can see this on the image.
 

There were a few rough protruding edges on the inside surfaces of the eye that I did file clean - to allow me to mount to a new handle. 

 

The exact origin of this tool is quite unknown. Other than the thin surface rust and being dull, the axe head was in virtually perfect condition. I could not easily (no thanks to internet here) find out when production of this specific pattern stopped. Certainly the method indicates hand forging, and the historic illustration indicates the type was still in active production in England in 1816. 

This does pre-date settlement at Wareham however. A high quality tool like this one would have remained in working service for decades - the fact that with a replacement handle I could certainly effectively used this tool today for timber work certainly proves that. There is a chance that the axe could date back at Wareham from the original farm clearing circa 1850. 

But unfortunately, for any number of reasons, George is no longer with us to tell. After I had cleaned up the piece, and undertaken this small amount of research to suggest its history, I offered the axe back to Lee as a potential family heirloom. Knowing my interest in Wareham, the Settlement Period, working tools and blacksmithing in general, Lee felt the story was best carried forward in my hands.

30 That Never Sold - 'Wind Widgets'

 The last couple of years I exhibited at Summerfolk in Owen Sound, I mounted a series of work based on the Four Elements : Earth / Air / Fire / (Water).

I never completed the last element, work based on water. This largely because of repeated trips to Scotland and Europe after 2014, to participate in bloomery iron research projects, all over that same part of later August. 

For the 2013 year, the theme at Summerfolk was AIR.

In an attempt to have a body of lower priced objects, that I thought suitable and of interest to a Folk Festival audience, I had created several styles of individually made 'Wind Widget' outdoor spinners. These were all made of durable metal, unlike the slightly cheaper plastic spinners becoming available about the same time. There were two broad groupings, either made of solid copper or brass, plus those made of aluminum or stainless steel. Some of the curved aluminum ones were spray painted  with merging bright colours.

The more expensive (considerably!) material copper and brass were priced $20 (taxes included). The aluminum and stainless were priced at $16 (taxes in)

I don't think I sold one...

I still have over 30 of these. I personally think they are good objects. The spirals and mobius strip types are roughly 8 - 10 inches in diameter, the strip versions about 18 inches long. With the light weight against the curving surfaces, they all are quite mobile to the wind. They certainly are extremely durable - I've had some of the first prototypes for these hanging outside at Wareham, year round, for a decade.

And no - I've never been able to 'Understand the Marketplace'.

36 seen at Wareham

Walking through Wareham
the Yard Art Tour

So here's the thing.
I've now been in Wareham over 30 years - also the length of time as the Wareham Forge.
Over that long a time, you tend to accumulate a lot of pieces.
Some of these are concept tests and samples that lead to major commissions.
Some of these are good pieces, that for one reason or another just never attracted a buyer.
Some of these were intended as 'show' pieces, which simply got marred after being repeatedly being hauled and exhibited.
Some of these are 'just because' pieces, using novel techniques or conceptual designs that cried out to be created.

Many are often what any artist considers some of their best work.

For an overview of what is mounted up around the yard :
Go on to the Yard Art Tour

 

For those who are wondering why contributions have been thin of late?
I've experienced a medical, an am pretty much limited to 'one hand hunt and peck' on the keyboard right now.

the Labrys - Considering an object

From a recent e-mail :

 I'm looking to get a labry made, obviously custom, as a female I'm looking for something made for full functionality and usability to last for as long as time would allow, eventually to be passed down to my grandsons ... can you give me an estimate of what I'm looking to be spending.?  (1)

I had to look up 'labrys' : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Labrys

Golden minoan labrys ( double ax ) Archaeological Museum in Herakleion.  (2)

Although you do always have to be careful with the short hand of Wikipedia, the article does match pretty much what I did know generally about double bladed axes in archaeology. Mainly that these rarely existed as objects, and when they did, they were certainly ritual / religious symbols rather than functioning weapons. There are existing (ancient) depictions of the labrys, but these are initially related to goddess figures (so the proportions are clearly unrealistic). 

Modern fantasy artists (blame Frank Frazetta) have often included axes of various kinds - but again there is little realism in the sizes seen. 

'The Snow Giants' Frazetta - 1967

There is an aspect of physical dynamics involved in the 'real' over the 'fantastic'. Even with a long double hand handle, any axe much over 2 kg just can not be controlled in movement. This is certainly proven if you look to Viking Age axes, a time period (particularly from Denmark) when axes became commonly used in combat. Or to lumbering tools from the Canadian Settlement period.
(see a blog commentary related to a different artifact axe)

So one clear decision point for anyone will be to determine if they are desiring what is more a symbolic than a functional object.
(In this case, 'Full functionality' may present a bit of an interpretation problem.)


I usually suggest people take a comparison look at the line of axes made by Gransfors Bruk of Sweden. This company has a long history of forging high quality tool axes. (3) They do make an extremely high quality product, typically mild steel bodies with inlaid carbon steel cutting edges. (I have one of their 'forest axes' myself - and it is an excellent tool.)

the Gransfors Double Bit Axe

 

Functional double bit axes were common in the 1800's in North America as a standard logging tool. The two edges had slightly different bevel angles, allowing for use for both felling and splitting. You can see G/B offers one, in modern times more commonly used for competition axe throwing (which has been popular the last decade). 
You can see the important details :
- head weight = 2 kg
- blade length = 16 cm
- cost = $480 CDN (plus shipping, any duty)

In actual fact, the closest comparisons available at G/B will be found on their (limited) 'Ancient' line - replicas of Viking Age working tool axes.
 
You can see two examples there, the bearded axe and the (smaller) double lug axe.

Gransfors Double Lug Axe, showing slit eye construction

From the descriptions, the bearded axe is likely the closest to ideal - as these are individually hand forged - and specifically mention an inset carbon steel edge
- head weight = 1.3 kg
- blade length = (not given, but likely in the range of 15 cm)
- cost = $1450 CDN (plus shipping, any duty) 

Gransfors Bearded Axe, showing punched eye construction

 

So - this is the 'standard' for a roughly similar type. Creating a double edge (over a shaped then punched eye, single edge) represents both a different method - and certainly additional work / time (two inset edges to weld and shape).
A rough ball park quote for this specific request (Labrys type) is hard to generate, because exact details on size have not been established.
But *expect in the range of $1500 - $2000 CDN* (plus required HST, shipping)


Now I will warn you that I am certain there are certainly 'wall hanger' versions available - what are basically nothing more than costume pieces. At *best* cast steel heads, if even a size to be realistic in handling. (More likely cast aluminum for wide edges / large heads like seen in films). These things are not actual working tools (despite what may be claimed). If your interest is the visual / ritual aspect, those may suit? 

16 ga (1.5 mm) stainless steel; Viking-style etched pattern; Hollow inside; Double head width - 16 1/8 in (41 cm) Double head heigh - 13 in (33 cm)

Source: https://armstreet.com/store/armoury/fantasy-viking-double-head-axe

'Fantasy Viking Double-Headed Axe' : Hollow stainless sheet, 40 x 33 cm (4)

I would caution you to really look closely at the description and especially the construction details of cheap (mass produced!) products offered. (Taking two pieces of cut out mild steel, then MIG welding these to a section of pipe, may be fine for a Halloween costume - but this is not 'real' in any stretch of the imagination.) 

'Labrys Double Headed Axe' : Cut sheet welded to pipe

Readers who wish to read further commentaries about past axe making projects by the Wareham Forge will find any number here on this blog :

Norse Woodworking Axes
VA Ship Tools - Adze & Broadaxe
French Trade Axe from Bloom Iron
Ship Tools - Adze / Broadaxe

Images are direct links from the indicated web sites

1) Intentionally hiding the original sender. I do warn people, with a tag line at the bottom of any e-mail, that : " To those receiving long detailed replies to specific questions : My own written response may be edited and re-used as a blog posting. "

2) Image by Wolfgang Sauber (linked from Wikipedia) 

3) I would dispute their definition of their main line of products as 'hand' forged, in fact they have designed (and long used) specialized mechanical hammers and dies. This is a massive investment, but also allows them to fairly quickly produce standardized shapes (with little to no actual hand hammering). (see their web site description ) Note that this does not apply to the 'Ancient Line' discussed later here. Those are individually worked by hand hammering.

4) This object is described as " Forged out of genuine stainless steel ..."

Increasingly the technical term 'forged' is being used to mean 'made'. This is absolutely incorrect - and I consider the worst kind of commercial hype. As the Webster Dictionary also defines 'forged' as : "made falsely especially with intent to deceive" - you do have to wonder!

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.