| Author |
Message |
Folkert van Wijk
|
 Posted: Wed 14 Sep, 2005 2:42 am Post subject: Ancient seaxes..? |
 |
|
For a long time I have bin wandering about the ancestors of the seax
Especialy durring the iron age. Where there seaxes used by the ancient germanic tribes whom battled with and against the Celts and Romans?
I think I found some answers here on the "Hjortspring Boat" site
http://home6.inet.tele.dk/hjortspr/swords.htm
Most of the swords here found, are sincle edged weapons.
Also others things on this site are interresting especialy because there is quiet some wood preserved...
Next question would be: are there any reproductions that might go for iron age (ancestral) seaxes???
And is there more actual iron age stuff that whe could call seaxes???
 Attachment: 19.4 KB
A good sword will only be sharp, in the hands of a wise man…
I am great fan of everything Celtic BC, including there weapons.
|
|
  |
 |
|
Jesse Frank
Industry Professional
Location: Tallahassee, Fl Joined: 04 May 2005
Posts: 144
|
| Posted: Wed 14 Sep, 2005 6:04 am Post subject: |
|
|
Hi Folkert,
As far as I am aware, those would be considered seaxes. Those are cool, too. I'm a little surprised that they were all fullered.
Seaxes were definitely in use against the Romans and Celts.
These are circa 150 AD, IIRC and would probably have been in use against the Romans
Also, I'm sending a PM about the reproduction....
Jesse
http://jfmetalsmith.com/
|
|
|
|
|
Alexander Ren
|
| Posted: Wed 14 Sep, 2005 5:40 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Do you know any dimensions on any of those weapons?
Thanks... Alex
"The more you sweat in practice, the less you bleed in battle."
|
|
   |
|
|
Jeroen Zuiderwijk
Industry Professional
|
| Posted: Thu 15 Sep, 2005 6:01 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Alexander Ren wrote: | Do you know any dimensions on any of those weapons?
Thanks... Alex |
Of the bottom ones, I remember them being roughly in the order of 60cm in length, and quite thin for their size.
On the subject of seaxes, when is a knife considered to be a seax? I've seen pretty much any single edged knife or sword being called a seax. Personally I only regard single edged knives with a tang, dating from migration to Viking period as seaxes. These blades from Hjortspring are completely different. For starters, they had hiltplates riveted to the hilt instead of having a tang inserted into a solid hilt. Also the blades are totally different, with the only similarity that they have a single cutting edge. So why are these considered seaxes?
|
|
 |
|
Folkert van Wijk
|
| Posted: Thu 15 Sep, 2005 7:50 am Post subject: Honestly I don't know... |
|
|
| Jeroen Zuiderwijk wrote: |
So why are these considered seaxes? |
Honestly I don't know...That's why I have put an question mark at the end of the topic title...
I was only looking for Seax like weapons/tools that could be their ancestors/forerunners that would or could have bin used in the same way as the later seaxes...
A good sword will only be sharp, in the hands of a wise man…
I am great fan of everything Celtic BC, including there weapons.
|
|
|
|
|
David McElrea
|
| Posted: Sun 18 Sep, 2005 2:47 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Hi Folkert,
Some more pics.
The first (on the bottom left of the picture) is a knife from France, dated to somewhere between 450-50 BC. While this isn't very well defined, it certainly places it within the Celtic sphere of influence.
The second is a replica of a Celtic "hacking knife" from HR Replikate (http://www.hr-replikate.de/englisch/index.html). I do not know the provenance of the blade behind the replica, but it makes for an interesting piece.
David
Attachment: 52.57 KB
Attachment: 33.95 KB
|
|
|
|
|
|
Peter Johnsson
Industry Professional
|
| Posted: Mon 19 Sep, 2005 12:39 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Jeroen Zuiderwijk wrote: | | Alexander Ren wrote: | Do you know any dimensions on any of those weapons?
Thanks... Alex |
Of the bottom ones, I remember them being roughly in the order of 60cm in length, and quite thin for their size.
On the subject of seaxes, when is a knife considered to be a seax? I've seen pretty much any single edged knife or sword being called a seax. Personally I only regard single edged knives with a tang, dating from migration to Viking period as seaxes. These blades from Hjortspring are completely different. For starters, they had hiltplates riveted to the hilt instead of having a tang inserted into a solid hilt. Also the blades are totally different, with the only similarity that they have a single cutting edge. So why are these considered seaxes? |
I think we could call the Hjortspring war knives seaxes just like we call roman spathas and gladii swords.
Even if the weapon in question predates the name we use, it can be so named by reason of intended function and general type.
If an ancient form of war knife that belongs to the gernmanic area does not have a name attatched to it by tradition, and if it fulfills the role of a sturdy cut and stab weapon I think we could call it a seax without stretching too far.
There is a strong tradition of the single edged war knife from very early times.
We see versions of it in many parts of Europe: Greece, Spain, eastern Europe, Celtic areas as well as the areas of germanic influence.
The war knife of the Greek and Iberians have passed on their own names: Kopis, Machaira and what later came to be the Falcata, so "seax" should not be used to name those weapons obviously.
Furthermore, a seax tends to be straight and only rarely has a concave edge (and then only slightly so as a result from quenching)
The Celtic chopping knife could perhaps be called a seax, but since i typically has a strong sabering curve, it is perhaps a bit too different to be called a seax? I think these weapons are simply called Celtic war knives, or Celtic chopping knives. A good description...
The hjortspring seaxes follow the general functional type of the seax well: a sturdy straight blade fitted in a knife grip, intended for copping and stabbing. The Hjortspring seaxes come in three (or four) different versions:
-One type has a blade that is a mix between a bayonette and a small sword: very nasty stong T-shape. They are long, some 60 cm in the blade, has a hidden tang going all the way through the grip and riveted ovenr a bronze end cap.
-Another version has a rather thin elongated blade of varying size, They tend to look like very large Sarbatier kitchen knives, often with a narrow groove along the back prodcing a slight t-back effect. The tang can be short and broad with transverse rivets or narrower and longer like a traditional knife tang. This last feature is th one to separate this type in two groups (if I remember correctly).
-The last type is shorter but much more massive. Heavy chopping blades with an outline like a big boar spear, only single edged. These aso have a narrow groove along the back and a slight t-back effect. The mounting of the blade is like the previous type: a knife grip is affixed on a short broad tang and secured with rivets. Often there is a reinforcing band holding the end of the together against splitting.
You see examples of all these three type in the pic at the top of the thread. One example of he "bayonette" can be seen on the right side of the pic: note the concae back and the strong T-shaped cross section. Personally I am impressed by the worksmanship and the fact the blade is so extremely specialized at this early time of the iron age: they did not just make the most simple shape they could think of. Quite the contrary....
 
|
|
|
|
|
|
Jeroen Zuiderwijk
Industry Professional
|
| Posted: Mon 19 Sep, 2005 2:20 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Peter Johnsson wrote: | I think we could call the Hjortspring war knives seaxes just like we call roman spathas and gladii swords.
Even if the weapon in question predates the name we use, it can be so named by reason of intended function and general type.
If an ancient form of war knife that belongs to the gernmanic area does not have a name attatched to it by tradition, and if it fulfills the role of a sturdy cut and stab weapon I think we could call it a seax without stretching too far. |
But most seaxes were actually not intended as weapons. The most common seax was just a personal knife, use like a modern pocket knife. They may have been used to fight with, but that wasn't the intended function. However, some developed into much larger versions that were intended for battle. This is the main reason why I wouldn't call any earlier single edged blades seaxes, as they're not developed from the same knives. Single edged weapons have been developed out of knives several times in history. So even if they may looks similar, and have an identical function, I don't think the same name should be applied. Othewise the long bronze Urnfield knives (such as this one: http://www.geheugenvannederland.nl/gvn/search...code=RMO01 ) would have to be called seaxes as well, which I personally definately wouldn't call a seax.
| Quote: | You see examples of all these three type in the pic at the top of the thread. One example of he "bayonette" can be seen on the right side of the pic: note the concae back and the strong T-shaped cross section. Personally I am impressed by the worksmanship and the fact the blade is so extremely specialized at this early time of the iron age: they did not just make the most simple shape they could think of. Quite the contrary....
|
Even more so if you look at the very first iron swords, which were iron versions of the leafblades swords. While for bronze it doesn't matter that much whether you cast a straight rod, or a complex leafblade with complexe cross-section, for iron forging it makes a huge difference!
|
|
|
|
|
|
Peter Johnsson
Industry Professional
|
| Posted: Mon 19 Sep, 2005 2:55 am Post subject: |
|
|
Good points, Jeroen.
"Seax" would be tool-knife, "scramaseax" would be the weapon: that is the contemporary understanding of the words, right?
I do not know how early we can trace the word seax or scramaseax?
When did the Saxons enter history?
How much earlier could we imagine the word existed?
There is no way to know how the word for blade or knife sounded in the bronze age. I do think a distinction was made between various types of swords (be they single edged or double edged, thrusters or cutters) and knives of various forms.
To be on the safe side, I can agree that it is better to call early single eged war blades simply "war-knives" or "single edged swords" (but that is simply a modern translation of the word "scramaseax").
Even if different, the Hjortspring weapons still carry strong functional similarity to later era seaxes. Enough so that I feel inclined to call them seaxes, or perhaps proto-seaxes.
Eve if the word "seax" was not used at that time, I feel it probably that they were called "blades" or "knives" perhaps also something like "war-blades" or wounding-blades" and that would be translated into scramasax.
It is like calling a Xiphos a sword even if the greek word means "piercing light" or "though-light".
It is difficult to say what degree of transition there is betwen the earlier bronze age knives to the iron age single edged blades.
I have been told that there exist weapons very similar to the Hjortspring ones in the lands beyond the eastern baltic dating to the very early iron age. I have never seen any one of these however, but I am very curious to knwo if there is a tradition travelling from the central eurasian continent to northern europe.
|
|
|
|
|
Gavin Kisebach
|
| Posted: Sat 05 Nov, 2005 6:08 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Is there any evidence of seaxes or scramseaxes being made from broken sword blades? When I first saw a scramseax, my immediate impression was that someone had taken a broken blade, ground it to a serviceable point, and refurnished it. Maybe it's just the way the fuller on the River Thames scram extends right out through the end of the blade, or the sometimes seeminly over-long tang, I just get that impression.
I'm sure if i was a less-than-well-to-do ancient german scavenging the battlefield, a broken sword would be a terrible thing to waste, and two thirds of a sword is better than no sword at all. Iron was a hot commodity for a long time, right?
This is not to imply that this was the mainstay of the design, or even its origin, but I can just see a broken spatha or migration sword when I look at some examples. Any thoughts? Feel free to set me straight on this.
There are only two kinds of scholars; those who love ideas and those who hate them. ~ Emile Chartier
|
|
|
|
|
Gavin Kisebach
|
| Posted: Sat 05 Nov, 2005 7:48 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Now my brain is turning a bit faster and it occurs to me that migration/viking era blades were lenticular in cross section, whereas seaxes are/were "backed" or triangular? sadly the only seaxes I've handled are inaccurate knockoffs (rhymes with Banwei)
There are only two kinds of scholars; those who love ideas and those who hate them. ~ Emile Chartier
|
|
|
|
|
|
Shane Allee
Industry Professional
Location: South Bend, IN Joined: 29 Aug 2003
Posts: 506
|
| Posted: Sat 05 Nov, 2005 9:22 pm Post subject: |
|
|
As you noted, there is a difference in cross section in most cases. The other is the aspect, would you put your life on the line with a weapon that failed badly enough to be remade in such a way? Today we understand that if something like that happened that it is either poorly made or had a flaw of some sorts. Back then however it would have been attributed to the smith or possibly something that was bad luck, cursed, ect. Recall a few tales of smiths having to try again when a sword didn't pass initial test or failed, even one about a whole process of grinding/filing the blade up and feeding it to geese. It has been awhile, but I seem to recall that it might originally had roots in the middle east. Some discount it totally, others think it might have been a way to add more carbon when you reforge the iron/steel with the manure.
Shane
|
|
 |
|
|
Steve L.
|
| Posted: Fri 28 Jul, 2006 1:11 pm Post subject: |
|
|
A little bit lat, but...
I´ve reconstruct an hallstatt knife. As i finished it, Ferro comes in my workshop, looked at it...and shout: "Looks like a proto-seax knife!"
I´ve to say: She was right with this statement.
Curved broad back (T-shape), straight edge to the point.
The form of this knife was found in graves from HA C to Lt...
Poorly i can´t deliver pics of my reco at the moment - our digicam is gone. 
But a sketch of the original (Frankfurt "Stadtwald", HA C 1b):
(Source: http://www.rgzm.de/Tomba1/Graves )
Could be a simple utility or hunting knife - but if i hold it in my hand, it whispers:
"Hack and slay with me!" 
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
You cannot attach files in this forum
You can download files in this forum
|
All contents © Copyright 2003-2024 myArmoury.com — All rights reserved
Discussion forums powered by phpBB © The phpBB Group
Switch to the Basic Low-bandwidth Version of the forum
|
This is a standard topic