I personally believe there's always going to be a significant difference between originals and reproductions, no matter how much time you spend studying original fabrication methods, and even if you try and re-create the entire production process from start to finish. The main problem is that we don't have masters from the old days to teach and guide us in our learning process, which means that you develop very different methods, which make give a similar result, but to the original smith he'd spot the differences immediately. However, I personally do strife for perfection in my own reproductions, meaning getting the methods right, and having the same finish and production marks as on the originals. And by comparing the difference between my reproductions and the originals, I can quite often figure out why those differences are there, and figure out what the original metalworkers did that resulted in those differences. Then I can adjust my production methods, and get my production methods more authentic. A lot is also simply down to experience and skill. It's for example a good thing to look at other countries where people still perform ancient crafts, and witness them at work. That's often quite a humbling experience!

If you want to make a reproduction with modern fabrication methods, but resulting in a close reproduction of the originals, it gets even more difficult. Especially if you don't have a lot of experience in doing it the authentic way. In that case you won't spot the differences because you don't know what to look for. That's the main reason why I'm very often disappointed with reproductions, because while they superficially look similar, they don't have the right production marks. The shapes and finishes may be only slightly different, but which to me these differences jump out immediately. To me each product is like a book that tells the story of it's fabrication, which can be read by just looking at it.

When I do make reproductions using modern tools, I can do it in such a way that I get pretty much the same result as when using authentic methods, because I know exactly what I can achieve using authentic methods. So the tools I use I select specifically to make sure I get the same finish as when I'd be using authentic methods. Or in some cases, I use modern tools to get finishes like on the originals that I can't achieve myself due to my own lack of skill. But if I hadn't done it the authentic way so much as I did, I'd never have been able to get as close to the originals using modern methods.

Wow Peter, you've expressed my own opinions way more eloquently than I ever could. I agree 100% Bravo! :) Thinking about it a little further, I have had some fairly solid chunks com out of my furnace, so if they were using a catalan or stukoven or something else that produced a much larger bloom, I suppose it may be more possible for it to have a fairly homogeneous product.

Jason, that's awesome. I flew up to Mikes place this time last year for a run he and John did. He runs a big ol'rig. More people really need to get into it. And it's cool to have some truly water hardening blade steel, free of mangenese. If you go to sandblaster.com I think it is, you can get specular hematite complete with a chemical analysis and MSDS , so there is about as much guesswork as to what's in your end product as with buying a bar. I'm with you on the control aspect, my rig runs a +-2 degrees myself.

Jeroen, that is pretty much the same approach I take. Honestly, it is difficult to justify using all or as close to period methods all the time. Too time consuming and expensive, especially for one person.\, but if you know what goes into it, one can approximate the aesthetics of it fairly well. :)

Thanks, everyone for all the well informed insights :)

Jeroen,

Interesting read. I recognize what you are saying.
I have sen some of your work and I recognize your strong interest in materials and methods. It is a element in contemporary experimental archaeology to use these two: methods and materials to arrive at "authenticity". After all it is perhaps the two most obvious things to ask for: is it the same material? Yes? No? Is it made the same way as it would have been back then? Yes? No?
(unfortunately, it is very difficult to really know if we have arrived at the correct methods or material. It will still be an approximation derived from our present understanding)

It is also true that production methods will always leave tell tale signs in the finished product. If you know what to look for you can probably find traces of production methods.
These can to varying degrees differ from what you would see on original artefacts. However, sometimes these differences will be so small as to be really marginal. In other instances the differences are going to be dramatic. Therefore it is important to match type of reconstruction with type of manufacturing process.
And perhaps most importantly: define what you are striving to reproduce.

Bronze age artefacts have a very rich expression that tell about the labour involved in their making.
it is true for iron age and medieval artefacts as well, but to varying degrees.
What can be confusing is to determine what part of their present expression is derived from their making and what is the patina of time and use.
An ancient artefact will always look ancient even if perfectly perserved. These are very subtle things, but readily observable.

I feel an important aspect is often forgotten when discussing reconstructions. Focus on materials and methods will not automatically lead to a higher degree of "authenticity". They will not by themselves result in correct shape, from, function and style. They might, but it all depends on other things that are relative of the skills amd insights of the craftsman.
When we today strive to reconstruct ancient steel by making it ourselves, we will tend to be amateurs compared to the ancient steel makers. we can be really good or marginally good. Who can honestly tell the difference, if we are really critical about the authenticity of the material?
When casting bronze smelted in a charcoal hearth, poured from a clay crucible, we are mezmerised by the situation: it feels very much like being transported back 1000 years BC. Still our using these methods is in no way a guarantee the object in the mold will in any way be comparable to an ancient artefact: method, material, and shape can all be more or less "wrong".

I would argue that all our attempts of reconstruction are flawed, by the simple fact we are 21st C beings. We have no living masters to tell us wha and how to do things. Our perception of objects are strongly nfluenced by our own time and its understanding and aesthetics.
Again, it is all about the scale and scope of the question: what do we mean by authenticity? What elements are we trying to understand and reconstruct?

It is all very easy to point out differences in materials and methods and thereby disqualifying a reconstruction as being faulty.
I would argue that by using what we "believe" is correct methods and tools we are by no means guaranteed to come any closer to "authenticity".
It is all about what part of the process and object we are focusing on.

I often meet the argument that you have to duplicate ancient techniques to get close to a proper result. It is an alluring argument, but I feel it is often used to cover up for shortcomings in shapes, expression, finish or function of the artefact: You can se that it was obviously made by hand by some arguably "ancient" method (even if we cannot know exactly how they went about this back then), but the artifact also looks mishappen, unfinished or even clumsy. It often looks draatically diffent from surviving artefacts.

Again, it al comes back to the trinity of shape (or style, or character), function and materials. If it lacks in any of these three we will feel it: we are not going to be convined.
Regardless of method chosen to make a reconstruction we must strive to remain true to what we see in surviving artefacts. "See" is here an active thing: it is not passive like the image recording of a camera: we see what we seek. What we can seek depends on our understanding and previous experience. That is perhaps the most imprtant element in making "authenticity" a less than absolute thing.
Any reconstruction will always be a choice of focus: what do we mark as a priority in our study?
A good reconstruction will convey a convincing feling of quality in all thee elements: character/style, function and materials.
Regardless what road we travel to arrrive at this, we are bound to make some compromizes. By choosing we will always have to leave things by the road behind us. A rich and convincing reconstruction will bring along a good selection of impressions, observations and ideas. A poor reconstruction will only convey a feeling of shortcomings in character and quality.
By working with "acient" methods it is possible to convey some feeling of proper materials used, but still limited by the skill and understanding of the craftsman. They will bring no more and no less.
I am not trying to belittle the importance of understanding ancient techniques, methods and materials: I only like to put this study in perspective. I often find that by focusing on materials and techniques, craftsmen tend to look less carefully at shape/style and function of the object reproduced. This is an unfortunate limitation of experimental archaeology: it demands the skill of an ancient craftsman, the knowledge of a modern archaeologist + the insights of a designer in the analysis of the functional aspects of the objects. It is a tall order for sure...

When arrowheads or swordbaldes made by arguably ancient methods (charcoal fire, bog iron, hand cranked grinding stones) still does not perform like originals would have because of shortcomings in the functional department (a result of misunderstanding design and form) we have still not learned anything about these objects apart from the fact that the probelm is very complex.

I hope this what I am saying does not come across as confrontational. I really do not mean that. This is a question and problem that I am very interested in: I really want to stress that regardless of what road you choose to follow in making reconstructions, there are always going to be obstacles to overcome and consequenses that influence the result, that are different from whan ancient craftsmen faced.
This does not disqualify our attempts. It is only good to remember that a reconstruction will always be a reconstruction, while an original will always be an original.
By striving for "authenticity" we should also be clear about what elements we are working to reconstruct.
Even if using modern materials and modern techniques, it is still possible to come very close to the three elements of Style, function and material: the result wil still be a reconstruction, however.'
It is all part of a learning process.

Have I confused matters enough yet?
;) :cool:

On further reflection, I would have to say that as steel makers, we have the potential to be much better than they were, given the enormous amount of knowledge that has been built up since that time. Possibly without even realizing it, since we don't know whether they were reaching the potential of the available technology (I'm speaking of earlier period, mostly).

We will have a much higher learning curve, due to the amount of research that has gone into it. For instance, when making iron into steel, at least for earlier period methods, one can follow the advice of Theophilus. But how long do we leave it to cook? He doesn't say. But one can find charts dealing with carbon diffusion with relation to time, temp, and alloy, learn how long to cook it at, and by being able to fairly accurately judge temperature by eye under certain lighting conditions from previous use of a thermocouple, get a product that is much more uniform and consistent than was probably available at the time, even though one would be using all period techniques.

I don't know, just food for thought.

BTW, this is a really cool topic :cool:

Hi Randolph,

I definitely see and respect your viewpoint, however it can also be said that of course the ancients, on the whole, utilized new and better technology when available, that's why we're at where we are today, but that to follow that particular logic to it's conclusion could mean that there would be no modern sword makers, historically based or otherwise, as it is an outdated technology. So the question really begs to what degree of authenticity is one happy with? To some, a nearly indestructible L6 bainite Howard Clark is perfectly acceptable, because they are after durability, and that's fine. To others such as yourself, a modern alloy that closely resembles ancient steel made with a computer controlled mill and hand finished to appear and feel like an original is acceptable, even preferred, and that's fine, too. Still others would like something that is made with the most period methods and materials available, also made to look and feel as close as possible to the originals, and there is nothing wrong with that, either. It really is up to the individual to what lengths they are willing to go to to get as authentic an implement as possible.

Jesse, you make a good point. Us ancient historians have a nice time because we can let the archaeologists worry about the science while we get along with the interpretation. I personally don't have a problem ignoring ancient metallergy, but an archaeologist would probably slap me for doing so! As you say, people approach the sword from different angles and so require different qualities. My point really concerns swords as weapons rather than artifacts. Of course to fulfill its role as an artifact, especially one representative of the past, the process of construction in a sword could matter to someone a great deal. But I think that in regarding a sword purely as a weapon (surely its primary purpose even with its antique design taken into account), functionality must be considered as more important. That is the way I think a Roman legionary would see it, so I am happy to! But I guess it is as you put it- you say potayto, I say potahto. :)

:)

Randolph,

I think it's really all in how you view the sword. If the desire is to obtain the best sword possible then yes, one would want to use the best materials and technology available. I also think you're quite correct when you say that ancient smiths would have quickly adopted our technology to their uses without a second thought. After all they were making weapons not artistic curiosities. Today the collective mindset is to view the sword as a piece of art, a symbol, or a curio. In that context replicating the authentic methods of manufacture become very important as we're then dealing with the sword on an emotional level rather than viewing it strictly as a tool. I value my forged custom pieces more highly than my production pieces. Not because they are more functional or durable, but because they have been made by the traditional process of fire and anvil and posess a stronger link to the past because of this.

It's all about perspective.