Reproduction, Replica or Interpretation ?
On making a Viking Age cauldron
This
is a shortened version of the article written for the Fall 2020 issue
of the Iron Trillium – the newsletter of the Ontario Artist
Blacksmith Association. Because of this, formatting may be a bit off.
Note that through this description, there will be a blending of Metric (artifact) and Imperial (shop work) units given.
Completed cauldron : ‘hero’ shot.
Part One : Defining a Project
I was approached some time ago by a serious re-enactor (1) about making a version of a specific artifact.
The object in question was the large sheet iron cauldron found in the famous Oseberg Ship Burial. (2) This is a royal status burial from Norway, uncovered in 1904. The grave is thought to be that of Queen Aså, who died in 834 AD. In keeping with the pagan customs of the early Viking Age, this wealthy individual was buried with an extensive collection of often quite elaborate grave goods (3), inside a complete 22 metre long oak plank ship.
Excavation of the Oseberg ship in 1904. Museum of Cultural History,
University of Oslo / Olaf Væring.
Viking Ship Museum web site
As with so many objects in museums, there are few images of the cauldron available. Due to its display position, and the general low lighting levels now common in museums, these images tend to be from the same angle, and are poorly exposed, both serving to obscure details.
Tripod and Cauldron, on display at the Viking Ship Museum
Drawing of the archaeological find. From Osebergfundet (original excavation report)
I freely admit that I personally have never been to the Viking Ship Museum in Norway, so have not seen the object myself. I do have a (scanned) copy of the complete 5 volume set of Osebergfundet, but this has limited illustrations - and is in Norwegian.
My normal practice when I am undertaking a commission like this one is to :
a) Gather as much actual hard data about the object as possible (including images)
b) Determine what ‘authenticity level’ the customer requires
c) Check and see what others might be offering in terms of detail, quality (and cost!)
a) I do have a considerable reference library of my own. I am fairly aware of the rough description of the objects from Oseberg (with a number of more popular descriptions as well as the report mentioned above). From that report I was able to get the general measurements, and then working with a scale off photographs, at least estimate other dimensions.
Because I do have a bit of a track record of work with Viking Age objects (5), I directly contacted the curator at the Viking Ship Museum with some specific questions, hoping for better details. (6)
Scaled artifact drawing of the cauldron – from the Viking Ship Museum.
i) What was the exact construction of the cauldron (i.e. number of plates).
- The scaled drawing appears to show 3 plates per quarter section (so 12 plates), plus a flat bottom disk with slightly upturned edges. There is a conflicting descriptive note stating “14 side plates”. (7)
ii) What was the thickness of the iron plates used.
- The drawing notes “Plates approximately 1.5 mm thick”
iii) Exactly how was the upper rim constructed. (Where modifications / supports added in the conservation.)
- It is clear from the drawing that there is an upper rim (not a re-enforcing band added in conservation). This rim is formed by forging over the individual plates to create a rolled edge (certainly not a separate strip of metal)
Working from the excavation report, the scaled drawing, measuring from photographs, and some rough math, this is what I came up with for the dimensions:
Diameter at rim = 50 cm
Diameter at base ≠ 25 cm
Height ≠ 21 cm
Plate thickness = 1.5 mm
Volume ≠ 32 litres (8)
b) Just how close to an original artifact a customer is (most importantly) willing to pay for is something you really need to establish. Too often raw cost becomes a (massively) limiting, and dominating, factor. I often hear things like ‘I want it just like the original - but perfectly water tight, (9) and made of stainless steel’.
Obviously, the closer an object comes to the exact details (materials, measurements, fine details) to an original artifact, the more time and skill is required - and so the higher the associated cost. For me, this is a dividing line between ‘Replica’ and ‘Reproduction’. I class a Reproduction as being as close as possible to the details on the original. The object should stand examination when placed in your hands. For a ‘Replica’ should withstand observation from 3 feet distance – and have as few changes from the prototype as possible. In either case the materials may not be identical to the artifact, but should be chosen so as not to be visible.
I absolutely insist on ‘Truth in Advertising’.
c) So let’s take a look at what is available out there (10)…
A general search via Duck Duck Go using Oseberg Cauldron. Top 10 suggestions, only 5 of which were actually related to the topic (2 of 5 my own work).
Royal Oak Armoury
“ Royal Oak Armoury is a small, quality-focused company located in Saskatchewan, Canada. At the helm is master armourer Jeffrey Hildebrandt “ (11)
from the web site :
“ This is the largest version we have currently made of the cauldron found buried with the Viking Age ship at Oseberg. Capacity is ~12 l, compared to an estimated capacity of 20 l for the original, which was likely expected to feed an entire ship’s crew. The cauldron is constructed of steel, and is thicker at the bottom to aid in heat distribution. We offer the addition of tinned seams (as shown) for those who would prefer not to waterproof their cauldron with boiling porridge, …”
US$390 (currently $514 CDN)
Critical Evaluation
Note that quite importantly that this is described as only a “ version “ of the artifact.
- Size : Not given (!)
(The description above gives “estimated capacity of 20 l for the original” ??)
Note that the description gives only a volume measurement at 12 l. I attempted to run the math backwards (using the reference site indicated) and this appears to work out to a ‘cauldron’ that is 25 cm diameter and roughly 15 cm deep.
- Metal thickness : Not given
- Construction : Not stated, but from images is 13 side plates. Hard to tell from the images the shape of the bottom plate, but it does appear dished.
- Top Rim : Separate L shaped piece
Entirely different than the artifact construction (no idea where Jeff came up with this).
- Attachment lugs : One U shaped piece of forged round rod, rivet at each end
Different shape and attachment than seen on the artifact.
- Handle : square rod with twists - as original
- Sealing : Tin solder
Specifically described as an ‘alternative’ - with no attempt to relate to artifacts
The Practical Viking (Etsy)
Ísgerðr and Kjartan (obviously ‘re-enactor persona’ names)
Chesterland, OH, United States
“The
Practical Viking strives to create well researched hand crafted items
for all levels of re-enactment…”
from the web site :
Viking Cauldron- Oseberg Cooking Pot
This handmade Cauldron is a perfect addition to your camp cooking set up-
Inspired by the original found in the Oseberg Ship this cauldron will help your Viking encampment.
CA$493.96
Critical Evaluation
Note that specifically this is described as “ inspired by ” the artifact
- Size : Not given (!)
Although it is hard to tell from images, this appears to be quite shallow as related to width.
- Metal thickness : Not given
- Construction : Not stated, but from images is 14 side plates. Hard to tell from the images the shape of the bottom plate, but it does appear dished rather than flat.
- Top Rim : Separate L shaped piece
Again, not as artifact. Actually appears to be copied from the Royal Oak version
- Attachment lugs : One U shaped piece of bent round rod, rivet at each end, only vaguely forged. Different shape and attachment that seen on the artifact.
- Handle : round rod - no twists as original
- Sealing : Not given
Weland Smithy
Torvald Sorenson (suspect is ‘re-enactor person’ name)
Benton City, WA
“ Many of the items in this section are reproductions of articles found in the Oseberg Ship, a Royal Viking burial ship, while several others are of general Norse origin. The rest of these items are of more generic period origin. “
price not given
(It should be noted the majority of items on offer are clothing or costume accessories)
from the web site :
Critical Evaluation
Note that there is vague reference to “reproductions”, but specific objects are not described individually.
Other than reduced size, this appears to be closest to the artifact.
- Size : Not given (!)
There is a second image of one of these in use, a best guess is roughly 30 - 35 cm dia.
- Metal thickness : Not given
- Construction : Not stated, but from images is 10 side plates. Hard to tell from the images the shape of the bottom plate, but it does appear dished rather than flat. (Note that this object is closest seen in overall shape to the overall ‘half sphere plus’ shape of the artifact.)
- Top Rim : None
- Attachment lugs : Hard to tell from image, but appears at least close to shape of original
- Handle : square rod with twists as original
- Sealing : Not given
(rant mode off)
Closer look at the finished Cauldron – note the error in the shape of that first plate.
Reproduction / Replica / Interpretation ?
Overall Measurements (to Artifact) :
Diameter at rim = 42.5 cm (50 cm)
Diameter at base ≠ 12.5 cm (≠ 25 cm)
Height = 24 cm (≠ 21 cm)
Plate thickness = 3 mm (1.5 mm)
Volume ≠ 24 litres (≠ 32 litres)
Weight = 7.7 kg (??)
Critical Evaluation
-
Size : slightly smaller than original
-
Metal thickness : thicker than original
- Construction : 12 side plates, much smaller bottom plate in proportion
- Top Rim : None
-
Attachment lugs : as original (maker's mark)
- Handle : square rod with twists, but flattened central section
- Sealing : bronze brasing
First consideration relates back to material choice. For this piece, all the material was standard modern mild steel bar and plate. The artifact was of course made on bloomery smelted, wrought iron. Although it might have been at least theoretically possible for me to have actually created the identical starting materials, even a rough estimate would be adding at least an extra $3000 to the cost!
Reproduction ?
As I discussed above, my standard for classing something a Reproduction is ‘within 10 % of the original’.
Here the size is off by roughly 15 % - so based on this alone, I can not call the piece I made a Reproduction.
Replica ?
My standard for classing something a Replica is ‘with no more that 3 major points of difference’
Here the various differences have been marked by underlining each as they happened:
- overall diameter
- thickness of plates (? 12 )
- size of base to top diameter
- oval shape to bottom plate
- (number of plates ?)
You can see that there are at least three major points of difference. Four if the number of segments is considered (although the exact number of plates is uncertain without direct observation in this case).
Interpretation ?
There were a number of deliberate modifications from the original prototype made :
- no rolled edge
- use of bronze braise on seams
- flat section on handle
I do consider the overall impression the completed object makes on the viewer, at least on first glance, is that when compared to the original artifact, this appears to be a reasonable Replica of the Oseberg Cauldron. The use of heavy, hand forged plates is the major contributing factor here. The other versions shown above are all cold worked from light sheet - and have a level of smooth finishing not exhibited by the artifact (even when it was new).
In all honesty, I will describe this work as an Interpretation. The difference in size, and the three chosen modifications from the original, are the reasons.
Images from other commercial web sites are used without permission – but attributed to the indicated web sites.
Other images as credited in the text, or by the author.
End Notes:
1) “Re-Enactor” itself is a bit of a problematic term, often best applied to those who re-stage specific historic battles. The customer in this case might be better described as a ‘Living History Interpreter’, someone who is interested in replicating aspects of general ‘daily life’ from a specific time period and cultural setting. As might be expected, the degree of detailing (so requirement for accuracy) varies considerably between individuals!
2) A general description of the burial via Wikipedia : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oseberg_Ship
3) For a fuller look at some of the grave goods : https://www.khm.uio.no/english/visit-us/viking-ship-museum/exhibitions/oseberg/the-women-in-the-oseberg-burial/index.html
4) Although there are other cauldron hanging chains that have been found, the tripod itself is the only one known. Although often desired by re-enactors, it is a problematic object at best. My own interpretation is that this object was never used over a fire - but in fact was more like a highly ornate ‘serving stand’.
See fuller commentaries on the blog :
Oseberg tripod - my interpretation
5) It was my interest in the Viking Age in general that lead me into blacksmithing, back in the later 1970’s. I would go on to extensive work for Parks Canada at L’Anse aux Meadows NHSC, plus work on a number of major exhibits around ‘Viking Millennium’ in 2000 and beyond.
6) For those truly interested in the details, these are described in a further blog posting :
Oseberg tripod and cauldron - refining the details
7) Just to muddy this further, I had a personal communication from an individual who reports he has seen the artifact several times, and has counted 13 side plates.
8) http://ambrsoft.com/TrigoCalc/Sphere/Cap/SphereCap.htm#segment
9) Actual Viking Age metals are all ‘wrought iron’ (actually bloomery iron). The plates are hammered to best fit, but only riveted together. A pot is sealed by cooking a thick stew or porridge, which leaks through the seams, then is allowed to burn into the cracks - never cleaning the outside surface. Although there are some objects with traces of tin ‘soldering’ this was not common practice.
See a discussion on this : Purchasing a cook pot
10) These direct quotes and images used with no permission - although the web sites are included.
I did also check the offerings at Jelling Dragon, a well known UK supplier to Viking Age re-enactors. There is nothing based on the Oseberg cauldron on offer there :
https://jelldragon.com/collections/hand-forged-cauldrons-cooking-pots/
11) I should mention that I know Jeff, casually, from way, way back. His work as an armourer is exceptional. The degree of finishing on his version is certainly very good.
12) The note on the artifact drawing indicates 1.5 mm. I have a large quantity of 1/8 thick (3 mm) steel plate on hand, which I used for this project. One certain question would be if the reported 1.5 mm represents the thickness of the artifact plates, certainly much corroded, after preservation. Even with the object recovered in as good shape as it appears, it is certain to have had variations in thickness, and much material lost to surface rusting. At 1.5 mm, it would have been extremely difficult for the original Viking Age smith to have produce such thin plate.
No comments:
Post a Comment