Saturday, August 29, 2009
On : "Viking garb accessories..belt and pouch?"
This post is edited from my comments relating to a topic under consideration right now on NORSEFOLK . The following came in from those indicated (first names only) that bears on the topic at hand:
On this :
Note that there is an underlying philosophy to re-creating past eras at the core of this quite excellent overview (which I suggest anyone interested here reads). To paraphrase from the introduction to the article above :
Now, if you refer back to Allan's comment, you catch something else. Its a reference to a specific practical problem, what I will refer to here as a 'requirement' :
1) The structure of this group is such that there is a specific individual who serves as the arbitrator for such decisions.
2) In this specific case, a generalized ruling was under consideration. This because a specific style of object (hard leather box pouch) had grown to be used by participants, well outside what was considered suitable from the artifact record.
So the general implementation of the ruling of 'no belt pouches' was based as much on reaction to an over use of a specific type, than a general lack of artifact evidence. In the article, there is a summery of a number of available artifact prototypes, but also a quick discussion of the problems related to the preservation of certain kind of objects in the artifact record at all.
Ok - to continue:
Then there was a lot of back on forth after this, primarily directed to larger shoulder style bags, simple rectangular haversacks or 'scripts', mostly suggested made out of various fabrics. The raw volume of 'needed' objects seemed to keep growing, and thus the size of the bags ever increasing.
I'm afraid I start feeling like a 'Russian Judge' listening to this talk. More fool me, I keep wanting to direct people back to basic principles (usually followed up with some practical advice):
The simple solution is to do what they did in the Viking Age.
Have less stuff
Carry less stuff
Lock all your modern personal valuables in the car - then all you need
to have available is a single car key. That does not need to be on your
person most likely, so it can stay in your sea chest.
Modern Wallet? Like - why? You don't need your ID on you, credit cards
are useless at the event. Cash does not take up too much space. Norse
with a cell phone - you are kidding, right?
I have a real small pouch for the belt. Its maybe 3 x 4 inches. It holds
my asthma inhaler (always) eye glasses (sometimes), watch (very rarely)
and sometimes that single car key. There would be room for folding money (as if I ever had any anyways.) What else do you REALLY need?
If I might suggest : Shedding modern gadgets is part of integrating into
a historic characterization....
(round two)
First - A common solution observed from Settlement Era events (both men and women) :
Remember those old hippy bic lighter 'pouch on a thong' things? I've seen women wear a small asthma inhaler size pouch (like about 1 1/2 x 2 inch) pouch around
their necks - which (for many) just fits down the cleavage. This is big enough for an inhaler, that key, some folded paper money.
Second - No reason not to steal ideas from other time periods :
In the early 1800's (at least in Upper Canada) women could wear a flat fabric 'pocket' on a flat ribbon of cloth that tied around the waist and under the apron. Take two pieces of cloth and sew them around the edges. (The prototypes are oval, with a slit at the top for access) This allowed them to hold and carry some personal items.
Third - I do NOT want to get into a bitch slap with the costume people.
There are a number of underlaying core assumptions being made by many people on this topic - maybe without them realizing it:
1) Are the limited historic evidence of (women's) clothing in any way accurate to 'real' life?
2) Are those evidences only relevant to specific class / wealth / situation?
These two are of primary significance to this whole conversation.
- The illustrations are by their very nature cartoon like. They are almost always A) physically small and B) rendered in media that do not allow detail. I defy anyone looking at a one inch high silver token of a woman to make out anything more than the most general outlines. Much less if there is a small flat pouch under an apron.
- Burials are NOT representational of daily life. Do modern people get buried with their driver's licences and medications stuffed in pockets? Does anyone really carry a cell phone in their wedding dress?
Fourth (key) - What depth of re-creation is any individual able / willing / intending to maintain?
A number of people mentioned (thank you) that there is a balance to be made between a modern reality and a historic accuracy. If you REALLY are trying to duplicate the 1000 AD Norse - you just DO NOT have a cell phone! I'm afraid the whole conversation was degrading into an argument about 'having your cake and wanting to eat it too' ... but at the same time 'not having anyone see you carry it around with you in the mean time'.
Now, anyone who has been following this Blog (or check the links please) , I primarily operate at a fairly professional level in terms of historic interpretation. Please remember that this informs my point of view and comments.
Some more advice, from (considerable) experience in designing museum interpretive programs, which often have to deal with the same root problems:
- Staff are modern people who live in the 21st Century (they just work in the 'past')
- Some modern objects are required on hand for security, safety, etc
- The general public often has considerable access to the presentation area (if only when someone's back is turned).
There are a number of ways to create 'passive security' for equipment.
- Use of simple fabric / leather bags or closed baskets to hold and cover modern objects that need to be close to hand / be highly portable (this discussed recently at some length)
- Use of smaller wooden chests (small sea chest from Oseberg the ideal prototype) The easiest way to secure this is simply to use it as a seat.
- Obstruct entry ways to tents etc by placing chests / shields / buckets, etc across entrances. In practice, most people will not actually enter a space they have to 'crawl over' to get into.
- Away from camp? Slide the sea chest so its under the edge of a bed. Or place something heavy on top of it (say a shield). Or put a lot of simple smaller stuff on top. You'd be surprised how the remains of a lunch (crust of bread on a wooden trencher) set on a sea chest will keep people from trying to open a box.
- Away from your spot at the fire? A loop of rope tied around the sea chest will act as a simple restriction to access.
Yes, I KNOW we can all supply stories of nervy people who will poke into almost anything. I KNOW there is little you can do to stop someone seriously intending to steal things.
Truth is - anything so valuable that its theft represents serious loss - is just plain best left at home, or locked in the car. (If its not secure locked in the car, then you OBVIOUSLY should have left it at home!) If you decide to bring it and then carry it with you, just put up with the fact that you will just NOT resemble someone from 1000 AD at the market (who never had a camcorder in the first place).
If someone moves my sea chest to get it open, then complains about my modern first aid kit inside?
It says a heck more about THEM than it does about ME.
Those who are interested in this whole aspect of historic re-creation, might want to read my 1998 paper :
Lessons from the Viking Age - Development of an Interpretive Program for L' Anse aux Meadows NHS
(I once worked with just one other interpreter inside a camp presentation which was visited by 8,000 people over six hours)
Vandy as 'Bera Quickfinger' at the 'Norse Encampment'.
The Orangeville Medieval Festival, 1995
Is it standard to wear a belt w/pouch over a woman's apron dress? ... Proper styles? I'm putting together my first viking garb outfit.
Svana
A nice article on the pouch controversy comes from a Regia group,
Guerin y Gwyr: http://www.gwerin.org.uk/articles/pouches.htm
Folo
As one of the main authors of the article on pouches within Regia that
Guerin y Gwyer have posted on their website.
I would like to point out this was a bit of research done when the
Authenticity officer was planning a total ban on pouches within the society
( due to the large number of painted hard leather "cartridge box" style
pouches).
Myself and Andy and Gary ( surnames removed) were acting as Devils advocates and pointing to evidence of some types of pouches in period in the UK. Including evidence pointing towards fabric pouches being use in the UK.
Allan
On this :
Note that there is an underlying philosophy to re-creating past eras at the core of this quite excellent overview (which I suggest anyone interested here reads). To paraphrase from the introduction to the article above :
' ... the Code of Law is organised so the argument for (the use of any object) bears the burden of proof. We must prove our case (for the inclusion of the object) rather than the Authenticity Officer proving his (reasons for removing it). Since its inception it has been accepted by the authenticity department that three provenances are regarded as sufficient proof for the use of a period item in a Regia context. 'So this is the core principle adopted by Regia to regulate what objects might be included for use in any of their presentations. On the face of it, very good - seems clear and easy to understand. Notice that it specifically relates to the individual historic focus of Reiga Anglorum itself. They describe themselves : "Regia Anglorum attempts to recreate a cross section of English life around the turn of the first millennium. Our actual self imposed brief is AD950 - 1066..."
Now, if you refer back to Allan's comment, you catch something else. Its a reference to a specific practical problem, what I will refer to here as a 'requirement' :
"... the Authenticity officer was planning a total ban on pouches within the society ( due to the large number of painted hard leather "cartridge box" styleSo two things are pointed up here.
pouches)."
1) The structure of this group is such that there is a specific individual who serves as the arbitrator for such decisions.
2) In this specific case, a generalized ruling was under consideration. This because a specific style of object (hard leather box pouch) had grown to be used by participants, well outside what was considered suitable from the artifact record.
So the general implementation of the ruling of 'no belt pouches' was based as much on reaction to an over use of a specific type, than a general lack of artifact evidence. In the article, there is a summery of a number of available artifact prototypes, but also a quick discussion of the problems related to the preservation of certain kind of objects in the artifact record at all.
Ok - to continue:
Then there was a lot of back on forth after this, primarily directed to larger shoulder style bags, simple rectangular haversacks or 'scripts', mostly suggested made out of various fabrics. The raw volume of 'needed' objects seemed to keep growing, and thus the size of the bags ever increasing.
I'm afraid I start feeling like a 'Russian Judge' listening to this talk. More fool me, I keep wanting to direct people back to basic principles (usually followed up with some practical advice):
The simple solution is to do what they did in the Viking Age.
Have less stuff
Carry less stuff
Lock all your modern personal valuables in the car - then all you need
to have available is a single car key. That does not need to be on your
person most likely, so it can stay in your sea chest.
Modern Wallet? Like - why? You don't need your ID on you, credit cards
are useless at the event. Cash does not take up too much space. Norse
with a cell phone - you are kidding, right?
I have a real small pouch for the belt. Its maybe 3 x 4 inches. It holds
my asthma inhaler (always) eye glasses (sometimes), watch (very rarely)
and sometimes that single car key. There would be room for folding money (as if I ever had any anyways.) What else do you REALLY need?
If I might suggest : Shedding modern gadgets is part of integrating into
a historic characterization....
(round two)
First - A common solution observed from Settlement Era events (both men and women) :
Remember those old hippy bic lighter 'pouch on a thong' things? I've seen women wear a small asthma inhaler size pouch (like about 1 1/2 x 2 inch) pouch around
their necks - which (for many) just fits down the cleavage. This is big enough for an inhaler, that key, some folded paper money.
Second - No reason not to steal ideas from other time periods :
In the early 1800's (at least in Upper Canada) women could wear a flat fabric 'pocket' on a flat ribbon of cloth that tied around the waist and under the apron. Take two pieces of cloth and sew them around the edges. (The prototypes are oval, with a slit at the top for access) This allowed them to hold and carry some personal items.
Third - I do NOT want to get into a bitch slap with the costume people.
There are a number of underlaying core assumptions being made by many people on this topic - maybe without them realizing it:
1) Are the limited historic evidence of (women's) clothing in any way accurate to 'real' life?
2) Are those evidences only relevant to specific class / wealth / situation?
These two are of primary significance to this whole conversation.
- The illustrations are by their very nature cartoon like. They are almost always A) physically small and B) rendered in media that do not allow detail. I defy anyone looking at a one inch high silver token of a woman to make out anything more than the most general outlines. Much less if there is a small flat pouch under an apron.
- Burials are NOT representational of daily life. Do modern people get buried with their driver's licences and medications stuffed in pockets? Does anyone really carry a cell phone in their wedding dress?
Fourth (key) - What depth of re-creation is any individual able / willing / intending to maintain?
A number of people mentioned (thank you) that there is a balance to be made between a modern reality and a historic accuracy. If you REALLY are trying to duplicate the 1000 AD Norse - you just DO NOT have a cell phone! I'm afraid the whole conversation was degrading into an argument about 'having your cake and wanting to eat it too' ... but at the same time 'not having anyone see you carry it around with you in the mean time'.
Now, anyone who has been following this Blog (or check the links please) , I primarily operate at a fairly professional level in terms of historic interpretation. Please remember that this informs my point of view and comments.
Some more advice, from (considerable) experience in designing museum interpretive programs, which often have to deal with the same root problems:
- Staff are modern people who live in the 21st Century (they just work in the 'past')
- Some modern objects are required on hand for security, safety, etc
- The general public often has considerable access to the presentation area (if only when someone's back is turned).
There are a number of ways to create 'passive security' for equipment.
- Use of simple fabric / leather bags or closed baskets to hold and cover modern objects that need to be close to hand / be highly portable (this discussed recently at some length)
- Use of smaller wooden chests (small sea chest from Oseberg the ideal prototype) The easiest way to secure this is simply to use it as a seat.
- Obstruct entry ways to tents etc by placing chests / shields / buckets, etc across entrances. In practice, most people will not actually enter a space they have to 'crawl over' to get into.
- Away from camp? Slide the sea chest so its under the edge of a bed. Or place something heavy on top of it (say a shield). Or put a lot of simple smaller stuff on top. You'd be surprised how the remains of a lunch (crust of bread on a wooden trencher) set on a sea chest will keep people from trying to open a box.
- Away from your spot at the fire? A loop of rope tied around the sea chest will act as a simple restriction to access.
Yes, I KNOW we can all supply stories of nervy people who will poke into almost anything. I KNOW there is little you can do to stop someone seriously intending to steal things.
Truth is - anything so valuable that its theft represents serious loss - is just plain best left at home, or locked in the car. (If its not secure locked in the car, then you OBVIOUSLY should have left it at home!) If you decide to bring it and then carry it with you, just put up with the fact that you will just NOT resemble someone from 1000 AD at the market (who never had a camcorder in the first place).
If someone moves my sea chest to get it open, then complains about my modern first aid kit inside?
It says a heck more about THEM than it does about ME.
"Re-creating History is the Art of the Possible"
Those who are interested in this whole aspect of historic re-creation, might want to read my 1998 paper :
Lessons from the Viking Age - Development of an Interpretive Program for L' Anse aux Meadows NHS
(I once worked with just one other interpreter inside a camp presentation which was visited by 8,000 people over six hours)
Vandy as 'Bera Quickfinger' at the 'Norse Encampment'.The Orangeville Medieval Festival, 1995
Thursday, August 27, 2009
Snatched from the Fire?
So what happens, despite the best concept and most careful preparation, you just plain screw up?
Sometimes you can get things back on track, if you just get your sorry ass outta the shop for an hour to clear your head.
This is the current work on the Reade/Maxwell project. Now that the finished wooden floor decking and stair cases are in place, I have been able to get final measurements for the various railing panels. I had much earlier forged out the various individual elements for all the panels that will run from the basement, up to a landing, then turning up to the first floor. Now I am cutting the required frames and welding these elements into place.
The first panel I worked on this week was the small 'L' shaped piece (marked in red) in the upper left on this scaled plan view. Take a close look at it, think about it, and then go on to the images of the work in process below
Ok - can you spot the problem?
See it?
It's not the spacing. Despite the random nature of the reversal curves, the spacing pretty much conforms to the 'four inch maximum' imposed by the Ontario Building Codes.
Its not the 'can be climbed' provision from the codes. Although I do have to admit that there are a couple of spots that might serve as toe holds for a particularly monkey like child. (In fact, the location of this panel is such that there is no open space beyond it. The installed panel backs against the upper balcony railing at its upper line.)
Hint - think about standing leaning up against this panel.
Some dummy, despite careful consideration and chalk mark instructions all over the layout table, managed to reverse the 'front' and the 'back' surfaces of the railing as the elements were welded in place. The idea was that the irregular curves would project BACK away from the viewer's location on the landing. (Take a close look at the right hand image to see what I ended up doing instead.)
Well - I pretty much lost it. Two days forging the elements, another day cutting and fitting, all down the drain. Frack! The end of the day, I was tired and pretty frustrated. So I grabbed the truck keys and tore into town to try to make the Post Office before it closed.
Now that is a 15 minute drive each way. By the time I was on my way home I had a chance on these rural roads to think some. Instead of starting over, maybe I could slit the welds on the upper flat ends and then use the torch to spot heat and re-contour the elements to remove at least the worst of the projections - back to what they should have been in the first place...
Spot the difference?
Best if you compare the two right hand images in both sets (before and after). Now there is more or less a flat plain running down the inside (viewer) side of the railing. This is not perfectly flat of course, given the complex curves and twisting of the individual elements, such would be impossible. In use this is a bit of a 'dead' corner on the landing, as the main traffic flow comes down on the extreme right and moves over to the end of the short side of the panel. I can however, imagine someone parked there at a busy party, out of the way of those using the stairs, looking up and talking to someone on the main floor just above.
It took about two hours to cut the elements on one end, grind everything smooth, heat and modify the problem elements, then re-weld in new positions.
A lot better than repeating three days work!
A note to those readers watching for topics on Iron Smelting or the Viking Age:
You can normally tell just what the heck I'm working on by what gets posted up here. The Reade/Maxwell project is this years major effort, generating roughly 2/3 my expected gross income, and thus consuming 2/3 of my time and effort. There are a number of Viking Age presentations being worked on in the background, coming into the early Fall. Expect to see something on coinage / booths / Vinland Smelt / DARC at LAM 2010 - all in the near future.
Sometimes you can get things back on track, if you just get your sorry ass outta the shop for an hour to clear your head.
This is the current work on the Reade/Maxwell project. Now that the finished wooden floor decking and stair cases are in place, I have been able to get final measurements for the various railing panels. I had much earlier forged out the various individual elements for all the panels that will run from the basement, up to a landing, then turning up to the first floor. Now I am cutting the required frames and welding these elements into place.The first panel I worked on this week was the small 'L' shaped piece (marked in red) in the upper left on this scaled plan view. Take a close look at it, think about it, and then go on to the images of the work in process below
 |  |  |
| From the Left | Detail of Back | Looking along from Right |
Ok - can you spot the problem?
See it?
It's not the spacing. Despite the random nature of the reversal curves, the spacing pretty much conforms to the 'four inch maximum' imposed by the Ontario Building Codes.
Its not the 'can be climbed' provision from the codes. Although I do have to admit that there are a couple of spots that might serve as toe holds for a particularly monkey like child. (In fact, the location of this panel is such that there is no open space beyond it. The installed panel backs against the upper balcony railing at its upper line.)
Hint - think about standing leaning up against this panel.
Some dummy, despite careful consideration and chalk mark instructions all over the layout table, managed to reverse the 'front' and the 'back' surfaces of the railing as the elements were welded in place. The idea was that the irregular curves would project BACK away from the viewer's location on the landing. (Take a close look at the right hand image to see what I ended up doing instead.)
Well - I pretty much lost it. Two days forging the elements, another day cutting and fitting, all down the drain. Frack! The end of the day, I was tired and pretty frustrated. So I grabbed the truck keys and tore into town to try to make the Post Office before it closed.
Now that is a 15 minute drive each way. By the time I was on my way home I had a chance on these rural roads to think some. Instead of starting over, maybe I could slit the welds on the upper flat ends and then use the torch to spot heat and re-contour the elements to remove at least the worst of the projections - back to what they should have been in the first place...
|  |  |
| Projecting on the BACK | Detail on Left Rear | Looking along from Right |
Spot the difference?
Best if you compare the two right hand images in both sets (before and after). Now there is more or less a flat plain running down the inside (viewer) side of the railing. This is not perfectly flat of course, given the complex curves and twisting of the individual elements, such would be impossible. In use this is a bit of a 'dead' corner on the landing, as the main traffic flow comes down on the extreme right and moves over to the end of the short side of the panel. I can however, imagine someone parked there at a busy party, out of the way of those using the stairs, looking up and talking to someone on the main floor just above.
It took about two hours to cut the elements on one end, grind everything smooth, heat and modify the problem elements, then re-weld in new positions.
A lot better than repeating three days work!
A note to those readers watching for topics on Iron Smelting or the Viking Age:
You can normally tell just what the heck I'm working on by what gets posted up here. The Reade/Maxwell project is this years major effort, generating roughly 2/3 my expected gross income, and thus consuming 2/3 of my time and effort. There are a number of Viking Age presentations being worked on in the background, coming into the early Fall. Expect to see something on coinage / booths / Vinland Smelt / DARC at LAM 2010 - all in the near future.
Tuesday, August 25, 2009
'That don't look like the drawing!'
Or : 'No plan survives contact with the enemy'
One of the constant balances an artisan blacksmith has to deal with is that between what can be imagined - and what they can actually physically make. This is not a casual concern, as it can be a huge philosophical decision about the nature of work, skill and creativity. There are some that hold the truly skillful blacksmith should be able to fabricate almost anything, exactly matching production drawings. There are those (like myself) who consider the act of creation a more spontanious process, where the layout is more a guideline than a blueprint. There is something to be said for both sides of this argument, and perhaps the ideal is some point between those two extremes.
I'll refer readers to an earlier posting here '...but can you DRAW it?'
So the end result is that a technical problem which might have caused the initial work to be scrapped was circumvented by a big application of creativity! I am fortunate in this particular project that the clients trust in my artistic vision.
In the end I think I like the finished piece even better than my initial concept...
One of the constant balances an artisan blacksmith has to deal with is that between what can be imagined - and what they can actually physically make. This is not a casual concern, as it can be a huge philosophical decision about the nature of work, skill and creativity. There are some that hold the truly skillful blacksmith should be able to fabricate almost anything, exactly matching production drawings. There are those (like myself) who consider the act of creation a more spontanious process, where the layout is more a guideline than a blueprint. There is something to be said for both sides of this argument, and perhaps the ideal is some point between those two extremes.
I'll refer readers to an earlier posting here '...but can you DRAW it?'
| The piece under consideration here is another element to the ongoing Reade / Maxwell railing project, the end newel post for the basement stairs. The piece is based on the 'kelp' element (this made from heavily forged angle material). To start, let's look back to the original concept illustration (right) In the illustration, I had imagined using a fairly tight upper spiral arrangement of the flattened angle material. You see in the drawing that the angle of these is maybe 45 degrees, and the spaces between the elements is quite small. Also the lower stem portions are bundled quite close together, again balancing the positive and negative space. |  |
But when the piece was actually forged, what I ended up with is seen here. Not exactly like the illustration! The primary problem was with A) the angle of the upper sprial and B) the balance between positive and negative - with the spaces being too large between the individual elements. The first problem - the too steep angle, was a result of the order of forming steps I employed. After forging the stem and flattening the upper leaf, I forged in the complex angle and offset combination at the transition point between the two basic profiles. This proved significantly more difficult to accomplish than I had expected. The end result was that the angle produced was closer to 60 degrees than the intended 45 (or less) suggested by the layout. This in turn caused the gaps between the spirals to be larger than intended. If I was to make this piece again, I think I might start by setting the angle, wrapping the spirals, THEN hammering in the required offsets to form the lower shaft portion. Reguardless, I was not very happy with the end product at this point... |  |
How to 'save' the piece? At this point I had spent several forging sessions working up what I had, and was quite reluctant to start over again. Better to invest another day in an attempt to recover the piece. What I decided to do was forge up another set of four kelp elements, this time using 1/2 angle as the base. The top leaf portions would be formed into a set of random reversal curves, somewhat like the uprights for the accompanying railing. These would be kept looser - and could be placed inside the hollow centre of the upper spiral basket. The thin lower stems would sit alongside the heavier pieces, filling in the current gaps in the pattern. The image shows the end result (before welding the new elements in place). You can see how the smaller kelp elements serve to fill the previously too wide negative spaces in the spirals. At the same time the complex curves created are significantly interesting to look at. The physical density of the pieces allows for a number of welded points (mostly hidden inside) that strengthen the entire structure. |  |
This is the more or less finished newel post. Compare this with the original concept drawing above. At this point I have not welded the spreading leaf elements which run over the floor into their final locations. The exact position of those elements will depend on the relationship of the newel post to the finished stair case and a heavy support upright located close the bottom of the stairs. On the original layout, I had assumed the stairs had solid risers, and in actual fact the treads are set in an open work arrangement. One concern I have is making sure the traffic flow off the stairs is not impeded by these primarily decorative elements. To ensure this, I will make up a full scale drawing of the stairs to relate the elements to before I weld. One last aspect to deal with is the mechanics of how the completed newel post can attach to the diagonal stair rail panel. This little problem is not at all indicated by the original layout! |  |
So the end result is that a technical problem which might have caused the initial work to be scrapped was circumvented by a big application of creativity! I am fortunate in this particular project that the clients trust in my artistic vision.
In the end I think I like the finished piece even better than my initial concept...
Saturday, August 22, 2009
Catherine Crowe Launches Enamel Supplies
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
I intend to make shipping easy and trouble free!
Please let me know about ANY enameling classes that are happening across the country - I will list them on my site
Tuesday, August 18, 2009
I had this knife...
...and I threw it over to my enemy for HIM to use.
Some of the nicest (and most realistic) sequences involving knife and axe fighting are seen in Last of the Mohicans. (If you have not seen this film - I'd suggest renting it. Its actually worth owning, the historic detailing is very exacting. Its also beautifully shot.)
First thing that is almost always shown incorrectly in modern film. Any thrown weapon spins as it travels through the air. This means that the DISTANCE to the target is some multiple of the spin rate. You want the weapon point to be forward when it gets to the target. In theory you could give the weapon an extra flip as it leaves your hands to adjust for this. In actual fact, anyone that I've ever seen throw something and hit the target correctly actually measures off the range (as a multiple of the spin rate). Hope this makes sense.
Every weapon has a spin rate. People who throw regularly have specific things they throw - for which they have determined the spin rate / range combination. I doubt ANYONE could grab a random weapon and throw it instantly and correctly to hit a moving target. (So much for film heroes)
The impact of throwing puts incredible strain on the weapon. This particularly for knives. The blade is spinning as it moves forward. If it hits a hard target, the point sinks in a small distance (imagine a wooden door). Then the rest of the mass is still vectoring forward and rotating. The end result is that the blade is more likely to shear off at the tip. For this reason Specially designed throwing knives are usually much thicker through the spine or back (double / single edge) and most commonly have fairly wide angles at the point.
Although ANY weapon can in theory be thrown, specially designed throwing knives tend to have the weight balanced forward. Measure the centre point based on length - then expect the front to be heavier than the handle end. This makes the blade hit harder on impact. That's why you see the leaf shape so common to double edged throwing knives. Also that kind of wide bowie pattern for single edged. Lessening the handle weight also tends to reduce the impact stress described above. In any case, you want the point to be located along the long axis of the knife (at the centre line).
(As a side note, the balance on any knife is related to intended use and personal preference. A knife with a lot of weight in the handle tends to make a fast and whippy feel to the blade. This is often a preference for knife FIGHTING - depending on the style employed. A general purpose camp knife often will have the weight forward - to allow for more impact when doing heavy chopping. Generally kitchen knives will have the weight to the hand - again allowing for easier control of the edge and point. This marks the difference between chopping and slicing actions.)
You mention aerodynamics. There is no reason to change the design of the blade so that it flies better. Wind resistance does not effect the travel over the short distances involved The changes all come from the functional aspects described above.
For axes, the same rotational shock mentioned above is applied to the handle - right where it attaches to the head. This is why the Norse style throwing axes have the angle of the handle offset slightly (at a diagonal to the line of the head / edge). This offset reduces the strain on the handle at impact. The specific style goes back to the Franks - who's name actually is derived from their word for these small specifically throwing styled axes.
Now an editorial note. Why would you WANT to throw a knife? Truth is that the damage you can do to a target with a knife that is thrown is extremely limited. If you are such a great shot that you can measure your distance and then hit an extremely small area on the body (likely while its moving too)...
If you could hit: an eye or the throat - you might be able to stop a person. IF you hit them in the rib cage (most likely) then there is about a 70% chance of hitting a rib. You would have to hit one of the gaps - and then have the blade at the same angle as the gap (extremely unlikely, as the direction of spin is usually more up and down than side to side).
If you hit someone in the gut (the other likely hit area) You will not KILL them. Odds are good they will go into shock - which has the result they will scream like a pig - or decide to kill YOU. A body in shock may not feel secondary damage - at all.
If you hit someone any place else - you will put them into shock and generally piss them off. You will not kill them, just slow them down some. You have also just given them a nice new weapon to use.
Axes are a different matter. A throwing axe will weight something from 500 gm to maybe 1.5 kilo (tops - that last is pretty heavy and takes two hands to throw). This is anything from twice to six times the delivered energy of that knife. Truth is that even the BACK end of an axe hitting you in the head may just knock you cold. Mind you, a head shot is a tricky one to try for.
I should note that other than those fairly common and specifically designed light throwing axes, there are no samples of knives designed for throwing from the Viking Age. Knives from the period are based on the SEAX (sax) profile, single edge with straight line, often slight forward balance to the blade.
(Note to my readers: As you have seen, I am just finishing my heavy period of Festival shows. This is a much older reply to an e-mail, polished off a wee bit to provide some content over these weeks. I intend to be back to my normal activities pretty soon!)
What does it take to forge a good throwing knife ? Obviously the blade must be lighter, but what exactly makes a regular dagger NOT a good throwing blade, and what makes a throwing blade not a good all-purpose knife ? Is "aerodynamism" (translating from french here, not sure its even an English word) a concern while shaping that kind of a blade ? What is involved in balancing the weight of the blade versus its handle ?
'Paul-Etienne'
Some of the nicest (and most realistic) sequences involving knife and axe fighting are seen in Last of the Mohicans. (If you have not seen this film - I'd suggest renting it. Its actually worth owning, the historic detailing is very exacting. Its also beautifully shot.)
First thing that is almost always shown incorrectly in modern film. Any thrown weapon spins as it travels through the air. This means that the DISTANCE to the target is some multiple of the spin rate. You want the weapon point to be forward when it gets to the target. In theory you could give the weapon an extra flip as it leaves your hands to adjust for this. In actual fact, anyone that I've ever seen throw something and hit the target correctly actually measures off the range (as a multiple of the spin rate). Hope this makes sense.
Every weapon has a spin rate. People who throw regularly have specific things they throw - for which they have determined the spin rate / range combination. I doubt ANYONE could grab a random weapon and throw it instantly and correctly to hit a moving target. (So much for film heroes)
The impact of throwing puts incredible strain on the weapon. This particularly for knives. The blade is spinning as it moves forward. If it hits a hard target, the point sinks in a small distance (imagine a wooden door). Then the rest of the mass is still vectoring forward and rotating. The end result is that the blade is more likely to shear off at the tip. For this reason Specially designed throwing knives are usually much thicker through the spine or back (double / single edge) and most commonly have fairly wide angles at the point.
Although ANY weapon can in theory be thrown, specially designed throwing knives tend to have the weight balanced forward. Measure the centre point based on length - then expect the front to be heavier than the handle end. This makes the blade hit harder on impact. That's why you see the leaf shape so common to double edged throwing knives. Also that kind of wide bowie pattern for single edged. Lessening the handle weight also tends to reduce the impact stress described above. In any case, you want the point to be located along the long axis of the knife (at the centre line).
(As a side note, the balance on any knife is related to intended use and personal preference. A knife with a lot of weight in the handle tends to make a fast and whippy feel to the blade. This is often a preference for knife FIGHTING - depending on the style employed. A general purpose camp knife often will have the weight forward - to allow for more impact when doing heavy chopping. Generally kitchen knives will have the weight to the hand - again allowing for easier control of the edge and point. This marks the difference between chopping and slicing actions.)
You mention aerodynamics. There is no reason to change the design of the blade so that it flies better. Wind resistance does not effect the travel over the short distances involved The changes all come from the functional aspects described above.
For axes, the same rotational shock mentioned above is applied to the handle - right where it attaches to the head. This is why the Norse style throwing axes have the angle of the handle offset slightly (at a diagonal to the line of the head / edge). This offset reduces the strain on the handle at impact. The specific style goes back to the Franks - who's name actually is derived from their word for these small specifically throwing styled axes.
Now an editorial note. Why would you WANT to throw a knife? Truth is that the damage you can do to a target with a knife that is thrown is extremely limited. If you are such a great shot that you can measure your distance and then hit an extremely small area on the body (likely while its moving too)...
If you could hit: an eye or the throat - you might be able to stop a person. IF you hit them in the rib cage (most likely) then there is about a 70% chance of hitting a rib. You would have to hit one of the gaps - and then have the blade at the same angle as the gap (extremely unlikely, as the direction of spin is usually more up and down than side to side).
If you hit someone in the gut (the other likely hit area) You will not KILL them. Odds are good they will go into shock - which has the result they will scream like a pig - or decide to kill YOU. A body in shock may not feel secondary damage - at all.
If you hit someone any place else - you will put them into shock and generally piss them off. You will not kill them, just slow them down some. You have also just given them a nice new weapon to use.
Axes are a different matter. A throwing axe will weight something from 500 gm to maybe 1.5 kilo (tops - that last is pretty heavy and takes two hands to throw). This is anything from twice to six times the delivered energy of that knife. Truth is that even the BACK end of an axe hitting you in the head may just knock you cold. Mind you, a head shot is a tricky one to try for.
I should note that other than those fairly common and specifically designed light throwing axes, there are no samples of knives designed for throwing from the Viking Age. Knives from the period are based on the SEAX (sax) profile, single edge with straight line, often slight forward balance to the blade.
(Note to my readers: As you have seen, I am just finishing my heavy period of Festival shows. This is a much older reply to an e-mail, polished off a wee bit to provide some content over these weeks. I intend to be back to my normal activities pretty soon!)
Thursday, August 13, 2009
A Viking Age pot to...
"...BUT I want to do some dyeing and it dawned on me that if I was a
10th century Danish women I would use what pots I had-correct?..."
(This was part of a conversation on Norsfolk - some time back)
Since the original question was phased 'what did a 10th C Danish women use' - I'm going to continue in that vein. (Caution - I don't dye MYSELF - but I live with a textile artist and make most of the replica / reproduction equipment used around here.)
Examining what was actually available:
WOOD TUBS were mentioned. In VA widely available, very common and used far more than modern re-enactors do. (Paradox is that today Coopers are hard to find and not inexpensive for good quality.) I would suggest you remember the problems involved in heating - and keeping hot, a suitable amount of water. We experiment today in small lots, but in the VA dying is more likely to be a 'whole fleece' production. I suspect the old 'hot stone' trick might be more used to heat volumes than a pot over the fire. This would allow you to re-heat as required over a lengthy dye bath and also give some control over temperature by number of stones added. Proof may be impossible, but I'd be looking for smooth stones at fist or double that size that also show signs of fire heating.
'IRON" POTS. Are the main over fire cooking / heating method. This vary slightly in construction method and size. Typically all are segmented and riveted (just about the largest iron plate you will see is 20 - 25 cm dia.) Remember that this is WROUGHT IRON - which may react differently than our modern mild steel. (Modern STAINLESS steel is not even remotely the same!) Some of these iron pots have seams sealed with lead. Lead may be a mordant? How much is required to effect the dye? One important note is SIZE. Most VA artifact pots are actually quite small. On the order of 12 - 14 inches deep by maybe 14 - 16 wide is as big as most get. This is roughly 2 - 3 gallons worth.
COPPER ALLOY POTS. Size in the same range. The pots from Mastermyr (left) are roughly 12 wide by 8 inches deep. Hold a gallon. One note here. You notice the books all say 'copper alloy' now. Our modern BRASS is a mix of copper and zinc. Our modern BRONZE is a mix of copper and tin. In both cases COPPER is the main part. BRONZE will be plus 90% copper. BRASS on the other hand, might be much, much less copper (like maybe only half)* During the VA, old bronze objects were constantly recycled, and things like lead and zinc seem to have been added to extend the volume. (Thats why latter publications stick to 'copper alloy' in descriptions.) So with copper / tin / zinc / lead all in the pot metal, would you not get different results depending? I know that tin and copper will both act as a mordant in a non reactive pot.
SOAPSTONE - is basically non reactive. Soapstone pots are quite small in the VA however. Figure one - two quarts. Hardly practical for dye use in the VA. Also almost impossible to acquire for us modern types. i have seen some soapstone pots imported from South America in the $50 - $100 range, but usually the shapes are not correct for VA. Again small sizes, so would only be suitable for testing. You can heat these (with care) directly in the fire. Although easy enough to carve yourself (added to easy availability of material in Scandinavia) the raw material in large size pieces is NOT easy to find - and real expensive in NA today. Last 12" cube I saw for sculpture was over $200.
CERAMIC - not very likely for the VA as a dye tool. Not a common material, and typically pretty small. Would prove non reactive, dependent on glaze??
One wild idea I'll throw out there - boiling in leather / raw hide. I've seen this done, with a skin bag hug directly over the fire. The leather sweats out enough moisture to keep the surface damp and thus will not burn. Admittedly what I saw was a Native NA profile. It works for anyone however and would almost never leave an archaeological trace.
Bera, of course, has a chieftain's supply of VA replica and reproduction cooking pots. Various prototypes and materials. Including a huge 5 gallon sheet copper pot specifically made for dyeing.
Check the images of past work on the Wareham Forge web site or
the full line of Norse Replica Cookware.
* Safety note. ZINC fumes are extremely toxic. I personally have had suppliers who have sold me what is really a copper zinc brass instead of the ordered copper tin bronze for casting. This is done because copper is MUCH more expensive. If you torch heat that metal and get a blue green flame and white smoke STOP AND GET OUT OF THE ROOM. Heavy metal toxic keeps up on you and is almost impossible to recover from!
Note to my regular readers:
This is a much older (!) piece, kept on hand for a fast contribution here. I have been away since August 1 at Goderich for the Celtic College and Festival, and this weekend will be away at Summerfolk in Owen Sound.
10th century Danish women I would use what pots I had-correct?..."
(This was part of a conversation on Norsfolk - some time back)
Since the original question was phased 'what did a 10th C Danish women use' - I'm going to continue in that vein. (Caution - I don't dye MYSELF - but I live with a textile artist and make most of the replica / reproduction equipment used around here.)
Examining what was actually available:
WOOD TUBS were mentioned. In VA widely available, very common and used far more than modern re-enactors do. (Paradox is that today Coopers are hard to find and not inexpensive for good quality.) I would suggest you remember the problems involved in heating - and keeping hot, a suitable amount of water. We experiment today in small lots, but in the VA dying is more likely to be a 'whole fleece' production. I suspect the old 'hot stone' trick might be more used to heat volumes than a pot over the fire. This would allow you to re-heat as required over a lengthy dye bath and also give some control over temperature by number of stones added. Proof may be impossible, but I'd be looking for smooth stones at fist or double that size that also show signs of fire heating.
'IRON" POTS. Are the main over fire cooking / heating method. This vary slightly in construction method and size. Typically all are segmented and riveted (just about the largest iron plate you will see is 20 - 25 cm dia.) Remember that this is WROUGHT IRON - which may react differently than our modern mild steel. (Modern STAINLESS steel is not even remotely the same!) Some of these iron pots have seams sealed with lead. Lead may be a mordant? How much is required to effect the dye? One important note is SIZE. Most VA artifact pots are actually quite small. On the order of 12 - 14 inches deep by maybe 14 - 16 wide is as big as most get. This is roughly 2 - 3 gallons worth.
COPPER ALLOY POTS. Size in the same range. The pots from Mastermyr (left) are roughly 12 wide by 8 inches deep. Hold a gallon. One note here. You notice the books all say 'copper alloy' now. Our modern BRASS is a mix of copper and zinc. Our modern BRONZE is a mix of copper and tin. In both cases COPPER is the main part. BRONZE will be plus 90% copper. BRASS on the other hand, might be much, much less copper (like maybe only half)* During the VA, old bronze objects were constantly recycled, and things like lead and zinc seem to have been added to extend the volume. (Thats why latter publications stick to 'copper alloy' in descriptions.) So with copper / tin / zinc / lead all in the pot metal, would you not get different results depending? I know that tin and copper will both act as a mordant in a non reactive pot.
SOAPSTONE - is basically non reactive. Soapstone pots are quite small in the VA however. Figure one - two quarts. Hardly practical for dye use in the VA. Also almost impossible to acquire for us modern types. i have seen some soapstone pots imported from South America in the $50 - $100 range, but usually the shapes are not correct for VA. Again small sizes, so would only be suitable for testing. You can heat these (with care) directly in the fire. Although easy enough to carve yourself (added to easy availability of material in Scandinavia) the raw material in large size pieces is NOT easy to find - and real expensive in NA today. Last 12" cube I saw for sculpture was over $200.
CERAMIC - not very likely for the VA as a dye tool. Not a common material, and typically pretty small. Would prove non reactive, dependent on glaze??
One wild idea I'll throw out there - boiling in leather / raw hide. I've seen this done, with a skin bag hug directly over the fire. The leather sweats out enough moisture to keep the surface damp and thus will not burn. Admittedly what I saw was a Native NA profile. It works for anyone however and would almost never leave an archaeological trace.
Bera, of course, has a chieftain's supply of VA replica and reproduction cooking pots. Various prototypes and materials. Including a huge 5 gallon sheet copper pot specifically made for dyeing.
Check the images of past work on the Wareham Forge web site or
the full line of Norse Replica Cookware.
* Safety note. ZINC fumes are extremely toxic. I personally have had suppliers who have sold me what is really a copper zinc brass instead of the ordered copper tin bronze for casting. This is done because copper is MUCH more expensive. If you torch heat that metal and get a blue green flame and white smoke STOP AND GET OUT OF THE ROOM. Heavy metal toxic keeps up on you and is almost impossible to recover from!
Note to my regular readers:
This is a much older (!) piece, kept on hand for a fast contribution here. I have been away since August 1 at Goderich for the Celtic College and Festival, and this weekend will be away at Summerfolk in Owen Sound.