I wish to know if anyone has examined the "eye" or handle holes on surviving francisca heads and formed any opinion of how the handle was inserted and secured. Reproduction tomahawks have the hole tapered to be slightly smaller at the bottom of the axe head, and insert a tapered handle through the top of the axe head. The exposed handle top of present day tomahawk handles is the largest part such that a reproduction tomahawk head is not likely to fly off from centripetal acceleration while throwing or chopping, even if the head is loose.

I will follow up with a post of a picture of my first attempt at a francisca made by the "tomahawk" method. (Wrapping a bar around a tomahawk drift or "handle hole punching tool".) I did not start out with enough material to forge a pronounced beard on the cutting edge. Also, the thickness of material I happened to have just was not enough to really manage a straight tapered axe head like a maul. (My trial piece swells abruptly near the handle socket.) I did prove that I could get a fairly large area folded and welded solid with nothing but anvil, flux, and manual hammer using the wrap method though.

---

 Attachment: 53.84 KB



 Attachment: 29.32 KB

i have had about 10 in my collectors time.your axe does not look at an franziska its much to long.the angle of the sockethole is wrong as the back.the whole outlines are incorrect.and the material is much to thin.the axes shows when looked from above an definte wedgeform.because its fored form an massive bar of iron not from an much to thin band like yours.at moment your axe has not 1 percent resemblance with an true franziska.
the franziska has alwas an oval socket.the socket is always at the very end of the axe itself.its not tapering.it stays as wide at top as at base.the shaft of an throwing axe is never straight.the butt of the axe is stout and boxlike.
i had slavik varianats with triangulary lugs at lower seam.the socket whole was punched in while the iron was hot.i never ahd one which where forged like an band and then welded at the side or near the blade.such thing accure only in medieval axes,and are no sign of low quality.
and good franziska weights around 300-400 gramms head alone.the upper line must look like and lying S.and the back butt plate end is not straight its angling to the shaft in an slight angle.

should be no big deal make an right one for an smith.you look at an book make an template and after some hours you should have the thing
there is so much written and pictured stuff around on the thing that there is nothing cryptic about.in old find records you even have it as drawing from three perspectives.

Thanks for the replies Markus and Jeroen. I have not seen any of the reproduction curved handles judged to be "good" by people in your area. I am wondering if it is similar to typical carving axe handles which happen to be of approximately comparable size and weight. An example of what I mean is below. I would love to see a photo of one of your previous versions.

---

 Attachment: 22.92 KB

Also, eyes and shapes I have seen vary significantly. Some could be considered thick tomahawks. One at auction last year in Paris, judged to be 400 to 800 A.D. is actually within 0.25" (6mm) over most of the profile of the tomahawk that I made. (My tomahawk weighed 333 grams, where as this weighed approximately 600 grams due to the true thick maul type body.)

---

 Attachment: 146.59 KB

The style I wish to make is indeed 99% different from what my first trial yielded. Most of the eyes in photos look like imperfect ovals, or slightly tear drop ovals. Admittedly, none look as extreme as tomahawk style drifts produce. Drifting a large eye blindly in something this deep sounds suspicious to me. I would expect an outer layer to be wrapped around an inner core (no big deal compared to present day and original pattern welding feats), or a 50% to 66% size hole to be pre-drilled before drifting. Today, I could drill this "starting hole" for a drift pretty easily. Back then, I would have thought the wrapped around construction to have been easier.

---

 Attachment: 47.21 KB

Jared,

Nice first attempt. I'm sure your next effort will be much better.

You might find this thread over on Don Fogg's forum on viking age axe construction helpful:

http://forums.dfoggknives.com/index.php?showtopic=17953&st=0

You may have to register to view the pictures but it's a pretty easy process.

Matt

And this is the huge francisca I mentioned earlier (next to the biggest broadsax I've seen so far):

http://1501bc.com/page/limburgs_museum3/06110086.jpg

The axehead is longer then the lower arm of the original owner, of which you can see a vague image in the background. Of course it is possible that that one was actually a tool, rather then francisca. But judging from the broadsax, the owner did quite like large weapons!

Here are a few fransisca photos. Many thanks to all the original posters. There does indeed seem to be a lot of variation in shape, but all seem to have oval eyes that look to me as though they were drifted, though some of the ones with long extensions on the back must have involved some welding. I really like some of the more extreme examples, especially those with beards. Until recently, I thought that fransiscas were pretty uniform in shape and boring, I am so glad to be shown wrong. I do wonder though, what would it be like to drift an eye at such an angle? How would this be accomplished?

---

 Attachment: 8.64 KB



 Attachment: 99.43 KB



 Attachment: 101.34 KB



 Attachment: 203.43 KB



 Attachment: 7.22 KB



 Attachment: 163.13 KB



 Attachment: 86.32 KB
[ Download ]

 Attachment: 55.08 KB
[ Download ]