Info Favorites Register Log in
myArmoury.com Discussion Forums

Forum index Memberlist Usergroups Spotlight Topics Search
Forum Index > Historical Arms Talk > Paul Binns Anthropomorphic dagger Reply to topic
This is a standard topic Go to page Previous  1, 2 
Author Message
Jeroen Zuiderwijk
Industry Professional



Location: Netherlands
Joined: 11 Mar 2005

Spotlight topics: 2
Posts: 740

PostPosted: Fri 28 Oct, 2005 4:47 am    Post subject:         Reply with quote

Nathan Bell wrote:

Hi Jeroen,

Knowing that you are an authenticity nazi ( Wink that's a good thing) I thought I would chime in....

First, as you probbaly noted above, these things are very small, if made accurately. You stated "sword" so I thought maybe if you are looking at a specific piece Shane or I could send you the length measure for it, so you get proportion and size right on.

Construction of the hilt is variable--some are indeed cast-on one piece grips, but this seems to be the minority of pieces. Many are peened, or fitted then brazed. Some hilts are hollow, others are solid cast, some have a void in the middle but not completely hollow. Many have multi-piece hilts, unlike every modern repro I have seen. Is there a particular find or style you are going for? That would help Shane or me tell you or speculate how the hilt should be cast.


I haven't picked one yet, but I'm looking at some of the examples from the British Museum:
http://1500bc.com/british_museum/07170242.jpg
http://1500bc.com/british_museum/07170243.jpg
http://1500bc.com/british_museum/06270046.JPG
http://1500bc.com/british_museum/07170238.jpg

It's a project I want to take on mainly for learning purposes. I just started forging, so forging the blade will be a good way to get some practice there. And I've never done a lost wax casting, so this is a nice project to get familiar with that as well. I don't intend it to be an exact reproduction of a specific one (I'll be personalizing the hilt f.i.), but it must fit perfectly within the variation of the originals. So at least I want to get the method of construction authentic to the original blades.
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
Shane Allee
Industry Professional



Location: South Bend, IN
Joined: 29 Aug 2003

Posts: 506

PostPosted: Tue 01 Nov, 2005 7:16 am    Post subject:         Reply with quote

Sorry it has taken a few days, but here is what I've come up with for you.

The first one is believed to be from Yorkshire, although the find site is unknown. Working from a scaled picture, if everything is correct this one would be around 15"-15 1/4" long. I can't find that we have a radiograph of this particular one. Looking at the examples we do have I'm kind of leaning towards this one having the void in the middle, but not completely hollow. Pure speculation on my part though.

The other one has been one of my favorite ones for awhile and is from Aube France. Like before working from the scale, this one looks to be right about the same length. So 15 1/4"-15 1/2" long, probably more like the 15 1/2" if it had the complete tip. No radiograph on this one either, this one really looks more solid to me though. Probably peened on the end rather than cast on the blade though.

Maybe Nate has some thoughts about the construction method of these he will share when he can.

Shane
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website
Nathan Bell





Joined: 21 Aug 2003

Posts: 329

PostPosted: Tue 01 Nov, 2005 8:00 am    Post subject:         Reply with quote

Shane Allee wrote:
Sorry it has taken a few days, but here is what I've come up with for you.

The first one is believed to be from Yorkshire, although the find site is unknown. Working from a scaled picture, if everything is correct this one would be around 15"-15 1/4" long. I can't find that we have a radiograph of this particular one. Looking at the examples we do have I'm kind of leaning towards this one having the void in the middle, but not completely hollow. Pure speculation on my part though.

The other one has been one of my favorite ones for awhile and is from Aube France. Like before working from the scale, this one looks to be right about the same length. So 15 1/4"-15 1/2" long, probably more like the 15 1/2" if it had the complete tip. No radiograph on this one either, this one really looks more solid to me though. Probably peened on the end rather than cast on the blade though.

Maybe Nate has some thoughts about the construction method of these he will share when he can.

Shane


I was trying to get time to properly scan and re-size the images, etc. I am glad Shane is here to help out *G*

There is not much info on that first one (first 2 pictures) Some of these are one casting, but you also see with these later, more naturalistic anthros it's not unusual that the highly detailed head is separate casting. There are several stray finds of just the cast heads that look as if they are meant to go on a sword---right now I am looking at 2 from France (one central and one NOrthern) and one from Czechoslovakia that are just stray "heads" shaped so they could fit onto an anthro-hilt.

Pretty sure the one from Aube France is a 2-piece, 2 solid castings, the "body" is solid but the "head" is a separate casting---I have another source on this one that is about 18" down in my stack (you know what I am talking about, Shane!) I agree that this one looks to be peened.

The other psuedo-anthropoid is from Sulmona, L'Aquila degli Abruzzi, Italy. The overall length is 51.7 cm. This one the "head" knob is a separate casting, the Body is solid. Many of these knob-headed "Class D" anthro hilts have 4-piece castings though---the "head". the "arms", the middle grip portion, then the "legs" are all seprate in most cases, then tightly fitted and peened. We do have a radiograph of this one, I think...I have not had a chance to re-size it but it's in the radiograph scans I sent earlier, Shane, the last one??

On all of these, I have not read about this directly, but the peen can/could be brazed around or covered over with brazing to disguise it. My speculation on that point.

Also might be good to note that these blades look rough now from corrosion, but in the better preserved surviving blades the finish is very, very crisp with nicely defined midribs. Particularly the Italian one had a leaf-shaped, hollow ground blade with very crisp and precise midrib. If you are forging for the first time, keep in mind the finished product did look very, very nice. These were rare, likely ceremonial weapons, so there was no place for "rough" work on these babies! To do one of these justice you I thought you might want to get that perspective.

That is a high standard for a first project but I think Jeroen can live up to it!


Last edited by Nathan Bell on Tue 01 Nov, 2005 6:30 pm; edited 1 time in total
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
Shane Allee
Industry Professional



Location: South Bend, IN
Joined: 29 Aug 2003

Posts: 506

PostPosted: Tue 01 Nov, 2005 9:18 am    Post subject:         Reply with quote

Sure I can resize and post the radiograph of the type D, just wasn't sure that was one Jeroen was interested in. It would be good to have up for reference though.

I wasn't sure about the Aube France one, but kind of thought that it might have a separate head as well.

Shane
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website
Jeroen Zuiderwijk
Industry Professional



Location: Netherlands
Joined: 11 Mar 2005

Spotlight topics: 2
Posts: 740

PostPosted: Wed 02 Nov, 2005 4:44 am    Post subject:         Reply with quote

Thanks for the information! I didn't know that these blades had such complex cross-sections. I'd thought they'd have more simple lense shaped cross-sections. Is the mid rib, hollow ground blade standard, or is there a lot of variation in the cross-section of these blades?

I realize most ancient blades always had a very fine finish, even for the most simple knives etc. As the forged surface of the things I've forged so far is still very rough (partly due to inadequate equipment), I'll leave enough extra material on to remove any hammer marks by grinding. I recently made a knife this way, so I've got a bit of an idea how much extra material I'll need to achieve this. But it should all be quite doable, especially as I can cast the hilt components seperately from the blade. Is there any evidence of the use of pitch or beeswax to fill the remaining cavity of the hilt, and so removing any potential play?
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
Nathan Bell





Joined: 21 Aug 2003

Posts: 329

PostPosted: Wed 02 Nov, 2005 5:44 am    Post subject:         Reply with quote

Hi Jeroen,

From what I can gather, the most common cross section is a very crisp flattened diamond, with a few having the more raised mid-rib and hollow grinding. Obviously, some of the blades are so corroded that original cross section is hard to tell.
In the more preserved blades, there are a number of these with some small detail--inlaid lines, astrological symbols, etc. A couple also have very narrow fullers flanking the median ridge. I personally think a lentoid blade would be in the minority if it appeared at all.

As far as filler, I have not seen any analysis of this--not that it isn't out ther, I just have not seen it. The issue of play should not arise, though. What keeps everything tight AFAIK is that all the pieces are very tightly fitted---the holes through which the tang passes are precise and fit exactly, and the different components fit together almost seamlessly---one reason why these all look like single castings unless youcan see radiographs or very close-up pictures.
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
Jeroen Zuiderwijk
Industry Professional



Location: Netherlands
Joined: 11 Mar 2005

Spotlight topics: 2
Posts: 740

PostPosted: Wed 02 Nov, 2005 6:14 am    Post subject:         Reply with quote

Nathan Bell wrote:
Hi Jeroen,

From what I can gather, the most common cross section is a very crisp flattened diamond, with a few having the more raised mid-rib and hollow grinding. Obviously, some of the blades are so corroded that original cross section is hard to tell. In the more preserved blades, there are a number of these with some small detail--inlaid lines, astrological symbols, etc.
That sounds very interesting! I wasn't aware of anything like that. A diamond shaped cross-section I should be able to manage. It's slightly more difficult then lenticular, especially in preventing torsion of the blade, but it's not undoable. I'm getting quite interested about this project! Might still take a while before I can start on it, as I can't play with fire as often as I'd like during the winter season, but now at least I have a lot more information to start with.
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
Nathan Bell





Joined: 21 Aug 2003

Posts: 329

PostPosted: Fri 04 Nov, 2005 5:18 am    Post subject:         Reply with quote

I had a chance to skim back through a couple of my articles last night, a couple things to add here.

Looking at the radiograph of the Sulmona, Italy anthro-hilt, I may have mis-spoken, it might very well be 4 seprate pieces rather than just 2. Shane, what do you think from looking at the radiograph?

Also, a line in one of the articles mentioned assembly of one of the multi-piece hilts: author mentioned that the pieces were fitted tightly over the tang, peened into each other, then the peened overall, from what I gather. This makes sense to secure the assembly, either bronze components or "soft" iron without heat treat. The components would already mate together *very* closely, then you wedge them together with a few little taps before peening the tang.

At least it makes ense to someone who does not actually make daggers/swords Wink
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
Shane Allee
Industry Professional



Location: South Bend, IN
Joined: 29 Aug 2003

Posts: 506

PostPosted: Fri 04 Nov, 2005 7:04 am    Post subject:         Reply with quote

Ok, I finally got around to resizing this. To me it looks like it is jointed where you have a lower leg section, the middle, an upper arm section, and them maybe at the head. I'll work on getting a couple of the other radiographs up soon.

Shane



 Attachment: 56.94 KB
Sulmonaradiograph.jpg

View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website
Shane Allee
Industry Professional



Location: South Bend, IN
Joined: 29 Aug 2003

Posts: 506

PostPosted: Fri 04 Nov, 2005 4:28 pm    Post subject:         Reply with quote

Just a few more to cover some of the difference we see in these.


 Attachment: 43.22 KB
anthropartialhollow.jpg
Partially hollow cast

 Attachment: 39.02 KB
anthrohollow.jpg
Hollow cast

 Attachment: 54.22 KB
anthromulitpiece.jpg
Looks to be made in four sections.
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website
Nathan Bell





Joined: 21 Aug 2003

Posts: 329

PostPosted: Fri 04 Nov, 2005 9:51 pm    Post subject:         Reply with quote

Confirmed and corrected:

The Aube piece from the Morel Collection British museum is, indeed 2-piece. But, not as I earlier reported, one piece is the head and "arms", the grip molding and "legs" are a second casting.

Damn my French ain't what it used to be....er,... what it never was Confused
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
Jeroen Zuiderwijk
Industry Professional



Location: Netherlands
Joined: 11 Mar 2005

Spotlight topics: 2
Posts: 740

PostPosted: Mon 07 Nov, 2005 4:19 am    Post subject:         Reply with quote

Thanks for the information and pictures! Darn, they never made things the easy way didn't they? There's always something to make it a lot harder for us to reproduce these things accurately Happy
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
Folkert van Wijk




Location: The Netherlands
Joined: 13 Sep 2004
Likes: 2 pages
Reading list: 2 books

Posts: 206

PostPosted: Mon 07 Nov, 2005 1:34 pm    Post subject:         Reply with quote

Shane Allee wrote:
Just a few more to cover some of the difference we see in these.


Hm doctor... what do you think of that appendix over there, it looks a bid inflamed don't you think so?? Cool

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.
View user's profile Send private message
Shane Allee
Industry Professional



Location: South Bend, IN
Joined: 29 Aug 2003

Posts: 506

PostPosted: Mon 07 Nov, 2005 1:52 pm    Post subject:         Reply with quote

I have to admit that I was waiting for someone to comment that it looked like he had something stuck up his bum. My doc wouldn't give me my last X ray or I would have posted it as well, I had a 3/8" long section of jewlers saw blade in my finger.

Shane
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website


Display posts from previous:   
Forum Index > Historical Arms Talk > Paul Binns Anthropomorphic dagger
Page 2 of 2 Reply to topic
Go to page Previous  1, 2 All times are GMT - 8 Hours

View previous topic :: View next topic
Jump to:  
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