yet another freakin seax topic

[Jeroen Zuiderwijk]

Another image just to add to the confusion

A broad sax with solid iron pommel. They do not exist, but here is one example.

There is no rivet block. The tang is peened flush with the end of the pommel.

This is not a scandinavian find. It is of Langobardian context.

Ah, yes I now remember having seen other Langobardian broad saxes with iron pommels/end plates. Thanks for remembering me:) I don't know very much about Langobardian saxes, except that they seem to be fairly similar to the more northern versions, but with some differences in the details such as this. N.b. that's a pretty short grip too for a broad sax by the looks of it. Edited December 10, 2009 by Jeroen Zuiderwijk

[Howie]

Jeroen, thanks for the information!

 

Howie

[peter johnsson]

Ah, yes I now remember having seen other Langobardian broad saxes with iron pommels/end plates. Thanks for remembering me:) I don't know very much about Langobardian saxes, except that they seem to be fairly similar to the more northern versions, but with some differences in the details such as this. N.b. that's a pretty short grip too for a broad sax by the looks of it.

 

 

It is a pretty large weapon. The blade is 45 cm long and 5.2 cm wide. The grip/hilt is 16 cm including pommel. My impression is that the grip would have been of same width as guard plate and pommel base, so it formed a continuos whole.

Do you think the grip is too short for it to be a broad sax?

Is it outside this central/northern typology of saxes?

[Jeroen Zuiderwijk]

It is a pretty large weapon. The blade is 45 cm long and 5.2 cm wide. The grip/hilt is 16 cm including pommel. My impression is that the grip would have been of same width as guard plate and pommel base, so it formed a continuos whole.

Do you think the grip is too short for it to be a broad sax?

Is it outside this central/northern typology of saxes?

No, it's definately a broad sax, but with a bit of local differences. 16cm is longer then I thought, but most broad saxes I know seem to have had hilts in the order of 20-30cm (at least many tangs are already that kind of length).

[peter johnsson]

Thanks for confirming my thoughts on it being a broad sax.

 

I attach some bad snapshots from the city museum of Ingolstadt, where some broad saxes with *very* long tangs can be seen.

It is strange to see tht those long blades next to the double edged swords (in the left hand side of the last pic) are called "Schmal Saxe oder Kurtz Saxe".

To me they look far to big to be narrow saxes...

 

Anyway, the double edged swords provide good reference in size for those broad saxes with long tangs: shows pretty well the size of the blades and the Very long tangs.

 

Edited December 15, 2009 by peter johnsson

[omalley]

got my wrought yesterday, the grain is pretty degraded but i forged it down and tried desperately to reweld it. hopefully it took. using one chunk for the guard/bolster/something, and the rest of the bar i got is going towards a sandwiched sammi puukko i'm looking to finish in january. got the tang welded on, forging it back down tomorrow, hopefully doing the rough grind and maybe even heat treat as well. i'll post pics soon

 

also, to mr. longmire: I can't find the thread where you were talking about acid stains, but you recommended one in particular that i think was ferric acetate, could you repeat the brand name on it? i'm planning to use it on the handle for this piece.

thank you

 

Edited December 16, 2009 by omalley

[Alan Longmire]

Liam, on the reagent stains you have to make your own OR buy a bottle of Wahkon Bay aquafortis, which is ferric nitrate. Ferric acetate (vinegar full of iron, aka vinegaroon) turns stuff black, ferric nitrate (dilute nitric acid full of iron, aqua fortis) turns stuff a range of deep reddish browns. The nitrate requires activation by heat, the vinegar doesn't.

 

The vinegaroon is probably historically correct for saxes, dunno about the nitric acid.

[omalley]

Liam, on the reagent stains you have to make your own OR buy a bottle of Wahkon Bay aquafortis, which is ferric nitrate. Ferric acetate (vinegar full of iron, aka vinegaroon) turns stuff black, ferric nitrate (dilute nitric acid full of iron, aqua fortis) turns stuff a range of deep reddish browns. The nitrate requires activation by heat, the vinegar doesn't.

 

The vinegaroon is probably historically correct for saxes, dunno about the nitric acid.

 

 

ah... for some reason i thought the vinegaroon turned it dark dark red, even though i know it turns leatherwork gray. oh well.

 

and thanks for telling me. i spent 45 min looking for that thread with absolutely no luck.

[M Parker]

Greetings, folks. I've got a question for the more knowledgeable than I out there. I'm working on a larger seax (the blade's coming in at just under 9.5"). After getting it forged out and mostly profiled, I realized that my blade is 1 5/8" wide at the base while my handle is only 1 1/8" wide where they meet. I don't recall seeing many, if any, seaxes with blades wider than the handle at their base. Since I like to keep my historic blade designs relatively historically accurate, does anyone know if this is a problem?

Cap0002.BMP

Cap0003.BMP

[Jeroen Zuiderwijk]

Greetings, folks. I've got a question for the more knowledgeable than I out there. I'm working on a larger seax (the blade's coming in at just under 9.5"). After getting it forged out and mostly profiled, I realized that my blade is 1 5/8" wide at the base while my handle is only 1 1/8" wide where they meet. I don't recall seeing many, if any, seaxes with blades wider than the handle at their base. Since I like to keep my historic blade designs relatively historically accurate, does anyone know if this is a problem?

If you want to go for historical accuracy, go for a handle at least the same width of the base of the blade. The hilt also looks rather short (20cm seems to have been the norm, particular for larger blades), and I see that you've got the tang protruding from the back (should be a blind tang).

[M Parker]

Jeroen,

 

I appreciate the feedback, but you raise a couple questions. Why do you say the average hilt for a larger blade is typically 20cm and hidden tang? Most of the artifact knives I've seen that have an indication of handle length seem to have something closer to 10-12cm. And, at least based on the Coppergate find, many knives seemed to have a peened tang. I'm not saying you're wrong, but due to the discrepancies in our experiences, I'm just curious where your information comes from. I'm always looking to increase my knowledge base.

 

Thanks again,

Michael

[M Parker]

Jeroen,

 

Looks like I owe you an apology for doubting you. I found a thread over on Sword Forum where you posted several pictures from some German tomes on seaxes. There seems to be some interesting differences between the blades I've seen which come mainly from the UK and Scaninavia, and those you posted found in Germany. The German ones seem to have wider tangs and longer handles than the blades I'm familiar with. Do you have any thoughts on why the handles were so long? Or how the blind tang was secured so that it didn't come winging out of the handle when swung? The last thing I want is for one of my blades to fly out of the grip and impale somebody when someone at an event is using it to chop wood.

 

Sorry, and thanks again for posting

[Jeroen Zuiderwijk]

Jeroen,

 

Looks like I owe you an apology for doubting you. I found a thread over on Sword Forum where you posted several pictures from some German tomes on seaxes.

 

Just to put some more evidence behind the long hilts on broken back saxes, first is the so-called hunting knife of Charlemagne (hilt length 22cm, total 53cm):

 

 

And here are two images from the Stuttgart Psalter, dating to 820-830AD, showing broken back saxes (with rather odd curved tips though, though this may be artistic interpretation):

 

And finally, scabbards found like the one below from the National Museum in Dublin also shows that the hilts were very long, as they had to extend from the scabbard to be able to be pulled out. The total length of the scabbard is roughly 40cm, with the hilt part of the scabbard about half of that:

 

There seems to be some interesting differences between the blades I've seen which come mainly from the UK and Scaninavia, and those you posted found in Germany. The German ones seem to have wider tangs and longer handles than the blades I'm familiar with.

This is the case for the long sax broken back saxes from the UK as well. The shorter variants have pretty short tangs, frequently just around 5cm or so.

 

Do you have any thoughts on why the handles were so long?

They have no pommels or bolsters, so you need a pretty long hilt to keep a good grip on it. I've heard from re-enactors that use "saxes" (well, monstrosities which they consider saxes) with short hilts, and complain that they can't keep hold of them. With a much longer grip, that's not a problem. The hilt works a lot like a hammer haft, and not surprising some are actually shaped a lot like hammer hafts.

 

Or how the blind tang was secured so that it didn't come winging out of the handle when swung? The last thing I want is for one of my blades to fly out of the grip and impale somebody when someone at an event is using it to chop wood.

A proper glue is the answer. However, I find that when burning the holes in the hilts using the tangs of the blades, the tang often gets really stuck, so I have a lot of difficulty getting it back out. And this is without any glue. The glue is applied to a pretty large surface, which is loaded only on shear, precisely what glue is best at. I personally use a resin mix with is very tough and sticky (comparible to dried chewing gum). It's impossible to get the blade out unless you heat it. N.b regarding chopping wood, I doubt that saxes were used for this purpose. They were weapons, that are part of warrior graves. The relatively small broken back saxes may have been eating knives as well as daggers for fighting purposes, but most are IMO as much weapons as double edged swords. Chopping wood is what they had axes for

[M Parker]

N.b regarding chopping wood, I doubt that saxes were used for this purpose. They were weapons, that are part of warrior graves. The relatively small broken back saxes may have been eating knives as well as daggers for fighting purposes, but most are IMO as much weapons as double edged swords. Chopping wood is what they had axes for

 

I never underestimate a customer's capacity to mistreat a blade! But seriously, whether it's chopping wood, swinging it in mock combat, or whatever, I just want to make sure that if I make something, it's reliable.

 

Thanks very much for the photos. I'm now going to have to experiment with some of the larger hilt designs and see how they feel in use.

 

Regarding the use of small seaxes as weapons, I read an essay by Darrell Markewitz over at Wareham Forge on the subject. His conclusion was, due to the design of the scabbards most commonly found (making the knives fairly difficult to draw quickly), and the fact that knives were found in graves of people of all ages and both sexes, that they were more tool than weapon. If you're not familiar with his research, here's a link: http://www.warehamforge.ca/norse-knives/index.html If anyone has the time to review this, does anything stand out as glaringly inconsistent with the archeological record? If he's on this list, I hope he won't take exception to my asking for review. I've generally trusted his research in the past but can't really verify his claims myself without duplicating a lot of research.

 

Also, does anyone know if there is anything resembling a definitive work on seaxes? What blade shape/assembly methods/handle style/size comes from what location at what time (that sort of thing)?

Edited December 31, 2009 by M Parker

[Jeroen Zuiderwijk]

I never underestimate a customer's capacity to mistreat a blade! But seriously, whether it's chopping wood, swinging it in mock combat, or whatever, I just want to make sure that if I make something, it's reliable.

 

Thanks very much for the photos. I'm now going to have to experiment with some of the larger hilt designs and see how they feel in use.

 

Regarding the use of small seaxes as weapons, I read an essay by Darrell Markewitz over at Wareham Forge on the subject. His conclusion was, due to the design of the scabbards most commonly found (making the knives fairly difficult to draw quickly), and the fact that knives were found in graves of people of all ages and both sexes, that they were more tool than weapon. If you're not familiar with his research, here's a link: http://www.warehamforge.ca/norse-knives/index.html If anyone has the time to review this, does anything stand out as glaringly inconsistent with the archeological record? If he's on this list, I hope he won't take exception to my asking for review. I've generally trusted his research in the past but can't really verify his claims myself without duplicating a lot of research.

He's mostly refering to Viking period knives, rather then saxes. With those knives I'd agree. Actual saxes, particularly the narrow, broad and long saxes are definately true weapons. The smaller broken back saxes IMO can be both weapons and tools. They are pretty close to a bowie (though lacking the guard), which is also both a weapon and a tool. N.b. there's one drawing showing someone fighting a devil with a sword in one hand, and a broken back sax in the other, showing that it truly was considered a weapon.

 

Also, does anyone know if there is anything resembling a definitive work on seaxes? What blade shape/assembly methods/handle style/size comes from what location at what time (that sort of thing)?

Nope, there isn't yet. There are typologies defined for German saxes (George Schmit) and for Nordic saxes (Jorgensen), which you can find either in this or in other sax threads.

[Darrell @ warehamforge.ca]

He's mostly refering to Viking period knives, rather then saxes. With those knives I'd agree. Actual saxes, particularly the narrow, broad and long saxes are definately true weapons.

...

 

Since I got implicated here (!!)

 

Yes - if any of you look at the article, you will see it is quite specifically focused on *knife*, and not *sword*, seaxes. We do all have to remember there are various depths of research at play here. More importantly the writers are in many cases not native English speakers, and even there country location can easily change use of language.

 

I too have been a bit frustrated by lack of a single point reference on 'Knives of the Viking Age'. I work with a lot of physical culture aspects of the period (museum interpretive programs) so run into this un-intentional problem with language in descriptions all the time. (A nice example is the article making the rounds on 'Iron Beads found in Norse Forge Site'. The irregular droplets of iron rich material are don't have holes in them for necklaces!)

 

Anyway, that article draws on two specific sources, the small finds from Coppergate at York and the collection of knives found on Gotland by Carlson. I also had a chance to visit a number of museums in Denmark, and what was on display at least also conformed pretty much to these examples. Most of the knives were small, in the range of 7 - 10 cm blade length. There then seems to be a real jump in size to the sword seaxes. To me this suggests a clear division between 'knife as tool' and 'knife as weapon' within Norse culture. This is reinforced by the find locations (as has been suggested by others), with fighting blades in warrior graves, and many knives found in general occupation deposits.

 

I think part of the problem may be that *seax* is generally being used to describe a specific blade *shape* and not really a *size* - or usage.

Consider as well that there is a sex linked division to Norse knives: Male graves generally have the seax shape. Female graves have blades of similar size, but tend to have a long thin triangle shape - two more or less straight sides with a single edge. Not surprising as this is the classic design for a food preparation tool.

 

Darrell

 

(The image below shows some selected samples from Coppergate - note the difference in the profiles, though size is similar)

Edited December 31, 2009 by Darrell @ warehamforge.ca

[Jeroen Zuiderwijk]

Since I got implicated here (!!)

 

Yes - if any of you look at the article, you will see it is quite specifically focused on *knife*, and not *sword*, seaxes. We do all have to remember there are various depths of research at play here. More importantly the writers are in many cases not native English speakers, and even there country location can easily change use of language.

 

I too have been a bit frustrated by lack of a single point reference on 'Knives of the Viking Age'. I work with a lot of physical culture aspects of the period (museum interpretive programs) so run into this un-intentional problem with language in descriptions all the time. (A nice example is the article making the rounds on 'Iron Beads found in Norse Forge Site'. The irregular droplets of iron rich material are don't have holes in them for necklaces!)

 

Anyway, that article draws on two specific sources, the small finds from Coppergate at York and the collection of knives found on Gotland by Carlson. I also had a chance to visit a number of museums in Denmark, and what was on display at least also conformed pretty much to these examples. Most of the knives were small, in the range of 7 - 10 cm blade length. There then seems to be a real jump in size to the sword seaxes. To me this suggests a clear division between 'knife as tool' and 'knife as weapon' within Norse culture. This is reinforced by the find locations (as has been suggested by others), with fighting blades in warrior graves, and many knives found in general occupation deposits.

 

I think part of the problem may be that *seax* is generally being used to describe a specific blade *shape* and not really a *size* - or usage.

I apply the same usage of the term sax as in archeology. In archeology there is a clear destinction between knives and saxes (although in the original language that distinction wasn't there). The saxes are the larger sized blades, that are clearly different from the regular knives. AFAIK, knives were also worn mostly vertical or near vertical, whereas saxes are nearly always worn horizontal or near horizontal (long saxes may have been worn at an angle more like swords). So there is a distinction in shape and function in archeology, rather then shape. Although it's possible that individual archeologists may call the same things differently.

 

Consider as well that there is a sex linked division to Norse knives: Male graves generally have the seax shape. Female graves have blades of similar size, but tend to have a long thin triangle shape - two more or less straight sides with a single edge. Not surprising as this is the classic design for a food preparation tool.

 

Darrell

 

(The image below shows some selected samples from Coppergate - note the difference in the profiles, though size is similar)

These I'd all consider as knives, rather then saxes. Although some have a broken back shape like the saxes of the time, they are much smaller. These actually continue to be in use after the 11th century, when the last saxes disappear.

[omalley]

Also, does anyone know if there is anything resembling a definitive work on seaxes? What blade shape/assembly methods/handle style/size comes from what location at what time (that sort of thing)?

 

 

this forum. seriously. this is as good as it gets, people with technical expertise to understand the process and historical/archaological knowledge to put it in context. you can't find that elsewhere.

 

we should reformat some of the threads on here and submit them to scholastic journals, they're more informative on some topics than anything i've found trolling academia.

[M Parker]

Darrell and Jeroen, this clears up some of the confusion, I think, between what I have asked and how it was interpreted. I have always taken Darrell's approach that the term 'seax' refers to the general shape, not the size or function of a blade. Btw, I thought you'd be on this list, Darrell.

 

If knives were generally carried vertically in period (speaking mainly of Scandinavian culture here), how were they suspended? Was there a belt loop/slit on the back or side of the scabbard? I have seen some rather ornate scabbards with a tab connected to a ring suspended from a belt loop, or a ring connected to a chain. Was this common?

 

I know I'm asking some basic questions here, but I've just learned that at least some of what I thought I knew was wrong (or at least over-simplified) and want to make sure I get it right when passing this info onto others.

 

Thanks again for all the great info, guys.

[omalley]

Was bumming around Jstor trying out new search terms (i have NO life) and i came across two articles that were written practically contemporary to the migration period (joke).

The first is

Art in the Dark Ages

Reginald A. Smith

The Burlington Magazine for Connoisseurs, Vol. 57, No. 328 (Jul., 1930), pp. 3-10

Published by: The Burlington Magazine Publications, Ltd.

 

it has a number of oddities in it, lots of cool stuff and great photos if you're looking for anglo saxon or general dark ages motifs for stuff, but it also had the strangest seax i've ever seen, and i dont think this particular piece has ever come up in a convo on here i've been privy to, just thought i'd post it.

 

 

 

and on page 185 of this is

 

Saxon Art at Sutton Hoo

T. D. Kendrick

The Burlington Magazine for Connoisseurs, Vol. 77, No. 453 (Dec., 1940), pp. 174-183

Published by: The Burlington Magazine Publications, Ltd.

 

the coolest thing i've ever seen. its a ceremonial whetstone, but i cant get the picture from it... def check it out if you have a chance. there are also a number of references (eg plate III) to niello in the seventh century, but everything i've ever heard says niello was invented in the 13th century, these are 7th century artefacts, so i'm wondering whether niello goes further back than people cop to or academics cant tell their inlays apart... either way be interested in hearing people's input.

[peter johnsson]

Omalley,

 

Thank you so very much!

 

This is really a good example of those weapons that does not exist

 

I know of an italian find of a sax with a carved grip, that was identified as an etruscan sword by the author of the article. I think it is a broad sax with a rare surviving grip. It is sculpted with a pommel in the shape of a ram´s head. Very unique. This one you show is even better

 

Nice comparison to those sword mounts in the recent english hoard.

 

I love this

[peter johnsson]

Detals of the whetstone of the Sutton Hoo find:

 

Regards niello, it is used even in roman times, I think.

Others can surely verify this.

It was certainly used in migration period stuff.

[peter johnsson]

Another odd sax.

 

I am pretty sure the grip is added in modern times. It has a 19th or early 20th C look to it.

 

But who knows.....

 

 

[Alan Longmire]

This is one of the best threads ever!

[peter johnsson]

And heres´s the "Etruscan" sax. It s from the article:

"Ricerche metallorgafiche sopra alcune lame etrusche di accaio"

by C. Panseri, C. Carino and M. Leoni

 

 

Now I could kick myself in the head that I did not make sure to look for it when I visited Armeria Reale in Torino back in 2000.

( Wow. Ten years ago....!)

I had the article already at that time, but I did not recognize the weapon as a sax until just a few weeks ago when looking for facts on iron age metallurgy.

I mean, if there are forgotten things collecting dust even in my small bookshelf, think of everything that is hidden in all the storage rooms out there...

Edited January 2, 2010 by peter johnsson