Beowulf ARCHIVE: "The Warrior Ethic" in Beowulf/an

[Andorinha]

Beowulf ARCHIVE: "The Warrior Ethic" in Beowulf/and Weapons

______________________________________

Reply

Message 1 of 33 in Discussion
From: Zauber
Sent: 10/17/2002 10:56 AM

We will be seeing a lot of warfare and warriors in this tale. What struck me was the code of behavior of the warriors, and I thought that would be an interesting aspect to discuss.

We could also discuss weapons here, since some of them are really beautiful, and there are a lot of names for the different kinds of swords mentioned in the text. (At one point I discovered there were over twenty different types of spear heads from this period!)

Keep an eye out for the concepts of Weregild, Pride, and Politeness. Add any others if you wish.

Zauber

___________________________________________

Reply

Message 2 of 33 in Discussion
From: Slade
Sent: 10/23/2002 10:02 PM

One site which is informative (and has good visual aids too!) on the topic of Old English/Viking swords is www.vikingsword.com . See particularly theses pages:

www.vikingsword.com/vmuseum/index.html (virtual museum)

www.vikingsword.com/serpent.html (online article on mediaeval pattern-welded swords)

--B. Slade
www.heorot.dk

__________________________________________

Reply

Message 3 of 33 in Discussion
Sent: 11/4/2002 3:09 AM
This message has been deleted by the manager or assistant manager.

_____________________________________

Reply

Message 4 of 33 in Discussion
Sent: 11/4/2002 12:18 PM
This message has been deleted by the manager or assistant manager.

______________________________________

Reply

Message 5 of 33 in Discussion
Sent: 11/4/2002 5:50 PM
This message has been deleted by the manager or assistant manager.

________________________________________

Reply

Message 6 of 33 in Discussion
Sent: 11/4/2002 10:08 PM
This message has been deleted by the manager or assistant manager.

__________________________________________

Reply

Message 7 of 33 in Discussion
Sent: 11/5/2002 2:16 PM
This message has been deleted by the manager or assistant manager.

____________________________________________

Reply

Message 8 of 33 in Discussion
Sent: 11/5/2002 3:38 PM
This message has been deleted by the manager or assistant manager.

______________________________________________

Reply

Message 9 of 33 in Discussion
Sent: 11/5/2002 4:17 PM
This message has been deleted by the manager or assistant manager.

_______________________________________________

Reply

Message 10 of 33 in Discussion
Sent: 11/6/2002 11:52 AM
This message has been deleted by the manager or assistant manager.

__________________________________________

Reply

Message 11 of 33 in Discussion
From: Zauber
Sent: 11/6/2002 11:59 AM

(I'm doing this is another message, since it's back to the Warrior Ethic theme).

I would like to know what people think about Beowulf lying in wait for Grendel, and letting Grendel attack and kill one of his own men before taking any action. Think this is ethical? A matter of 'the end justifies the means?"

And, I understand Beowulf confronting Grendel unarmed, since Grendel didn't use weapons; this would only add to his own glory. But what sure beats me is why he would then go fully armored and weaponed after Grendel's mom. I doubt she was a more terrifying adversary. After all, Grendel killed 30 men in one night at Heorot, while his mother, in a rage and seeking revenge, killed only one.

Zaube

_________________________________________________

Reply

Message 12 of 33 in Discussion
From: Storrmrider
Sent: 11/6/2002 3:31 PM

All the deleted messages are the ones pertaining to "Anglo-Saxon Women" which Zauber requested be moved to their own thread entitled that.

Stormrider

Reply

Recommend Message 13 of 33 in Discussion
From: Slade Sent: 11/15/2002 1:16 AM
Zauber - Beowulf doesn't wait for Grendel to kill Hondscio (the Geat). I know Klaeber for some reason perpetuated this interpretation, but it really doesn't make much sense. I see I still haven't added the note on Grendel's attack yet..

OK, 2 ways of reading this section (at least): first way, l.735 Beowulf 'beholds' that Grendel means to attack - he's not watching how Grendel plans to proceed, as many translations have it. Important to note ll.738-9:

'Ne þæt se aglæca yldan þohte ac he gefeng hraðe forman siðe' "the monster did not think to delay, but at the first opportunity grabbed [the sleeping warrior]"

These lines, and those which follow, suggest that Grendel can move with uncanny swiftness.

2nd way to read this passage is based on a suggestion from Ray Tripp: back at l.707, assume that 'he' is not Beowulf, staying awake, but rather that 'he' is Grendel, brooding over his attack on the Danes/Geats. Implication, Beowulf falls asleep along with his men. Now at l.735b 'þryðswyð beheold', Tripp suggests that 'þryðswyð' (made up of þryð [mighty] & swyð [powerful], or something of the sort) means something like 'mightiest of the mighty' or 'the exceedingly powerful one', &c. - which refers not to Beowulf, but to God, who 'watches over maeg higelaces [Beowulf]', who is asleep, and only awakes sometime after Grendel's entry.



Either way, we're not seeing an impassionate Beowulf coolly watching Grendel eat one of his retainers.



--B.

______________________________________________

Reply


Message 14 of 33 in Discussion
From: Amaranth
Sent: 11/18/2002 12:56 AM

Zaube wrote: "And, I understand Beowulf confronting Grendel unarmed, since Grendel didn't use weapons; this would only add to his own glory."

I don't understand it. Okay, it's logical and sounds fair, and I realize this fits in with the warrior code of honor. But two things:

First, Beowulf says a second time that he'll fight Grendel with no sword, shield, helmet or mail. That's right after Unferth attacks his credibility. At the feast, Beowulf handles this well. But I can't help but wonder if Unferth's words were still rankling him. Or maybe he lied to save face; there were no witnesses, no one to say, That's not how it went down. So I wonder if any of this is wounded pride.

Secondly, what's Beowulf's priority: His pride or saving innocent people from being brutally murdered and eaten? Had Grendel won, Beowulf would've looked like an arrogant, prideful fool showing off. Don't forget, part of the reason he's doing this (at least, this is what I believe) is because Beowulf's father owes Hrothgar big time.

And if he's so great a warrior, why are his own men convinced they'll never see home again?

The main problem for me is, how can a warrior's code be more important than saving lives?

Zaube also wrote:

"But what sure beats me is why he would then go fully armored and weaponed after Grendel's mom. I doubt she was a more terrifying adversary. After all, Grendel killed 30 men in one night at Heorot, while his mother, in a rage and seeking revenge, killed only one."

And she's a woman. (Er, female?) And surely older than Grendel (though I'm not sure if age affects the average monster's fighting ability ;-)). Exactly. Where's his warrior's code then?

Diana

__________________________________________

Reply

Message 15 of 33 in Discussion
From: Slade
Sent: 11/18/2002 3:05 AM

My take on this: Beowulf actually 'wins' the battle-of-words (the flyting) with Unferth, so I don't think that he is prompted by that (and note that Unferth is quite friendly to him afterwards, and Beowulf to Unferth).

yes, there may be a sort of arrogance in Beowulf's fighting Grendel unarmed, though he does 'justify' it by suggesting that Grendel is not trained in weaponry and thus he wants a 'fair' fight. But, the most important factor seems to be (though no-one knows it) that Grendel cannot actually be harmed by weapons...so Beowulf's vow is providential?

Oddly enough, Beowulf doesn't scruple to fight Grendel's mother with a sword (though his first sword meets the same problem it would have against Grendel: it can't harm her), despite the narrator's claim that Grendel's mother is weaker than Grendel by as much as 'a maid's strength is from that of an armed man'. Critics talk about the contradiction here, and about a newer male-centred viewpoint superimposed upon an older story-structure in which the female is stronger, &c. But I wonder if the passage isn't meant to be tongue-in-cheek! A pre-cursor of the female as the 'deadlier of the species' - certainly the subsequent narration seems to bear that notion out.

--B.

___________________________________________

Reply

Message 16 of 33 in Discussion
From: Zauber
Sent: 11/18/2002 12:01 PM

Thanks for clarifying this, Slade. I'd prefer to think Beowulf was sleeping than he was so callous! I can see how having 'he' on line 707 makes better sense if it is Grendel, rather than Beowulf. But that bit on line 735. You have translated it "the mighty man beheld, the kinsman of Hygelac", and I don't agree with Mr. Tripp that that is referring to God. So there's my two cents worth!

It was hard to see how Beowulf's men could respect him if he lay around watching them being attacked.

Amaranth, I'll be adding some comments about Unfertha nd Beowulf's relationship shortly, but I do think for both men, their pride gave them some initial trouble. I should think Beowulf, who is very proud, would have a double priority of saving lives AND being well known for it. Question is, would he have saved lives and done such heroics if no one was watching?

I have noticed (in places other than Beowulf) that the hero looks like a hero when he succeeds; when he fails he often looks like a fool. Yet it is the same person with the same intentions. And we are dealing with a Warrior's Code that predates Arthurian chivalry, so it is bound to be different from what many of us are familiar with.

Zauber

[Andorinha]

________________________________________________________________

Reply

Message 17 of 33 in Discussion
From: Thorkel
Sent: 11/19/2002 5:02 PM

Regarding lines 736 - 745: Here H.D. Chickering has a short piece wherein he points out that a number of translator-commentators have expressed the same concern as Zauber (message 11-06, 11:59) with Beowulf's seeming failure as an Heroic Saviour when he apparently allows Hondscioh to be murdered immediately before the trial of strength engagement betwen Grendel and Beowulf.

"W.W. Lawrence believed that in the original folktale the younger hero [Beowulf] had to wait until his older companions had fought and failed, but Klaeber and Chambers saw this as a spot where the poet did not fully assimilate his sources. Arthur Brodeur offers an aesthetic justification: all this terror must find a victim immediately, lest it become unreal.

"A.K. Moore, in MLN 68 (1953), 165 - 69, also thinks Lawrence's explanation is not compelling. Citing Tacitus, Moore claims that the Germanic chieftain was under no obligation to lead an attack; he acts in the general, not the particular, interest. Beowulf, because he alone is the hero, is obligated for the good of all to find out how best to grapple with the monster. Moore's point is developed further by T. M. Pearce, in TSL 11 (1966), 167 - 76, who compares Odysseus's due deliberation, and due loss of men, in conquering the Cyclops. In his view, it required great valor for Beowulf to refrain from helping Hondscioh."

(H.D. Chickering Beowulf, commentary, p. 308, 1977 -- "Beowulf's 'Dereliction'")

I find these "explanations" for Beowulf's failure to engage Grendel at once a bit overly complex, and always read the passage as meaning that Grendel fell upon poor Hondscioh before Beowulf had a chance to react. In this case, Ben, your first explanation (message 13, 11-15, 1:16 AM) "These lines, and those which follow, suggest that Grendel can move with uncanny swiftness" seems a much more likely interpretation than some deliberate, Odyssean scheme to judge Grendel's potential strength through the fatal testing in which Hondscioh is "sacrificed!"

The episode of Hondscioh's death also works well as a narrator's device for reminding the audience just how terrible Grendel's crimes are, and how mighty an opponent he is -- a fresh instance of his murdeous enormities is presented just before the heroic Beowulf leaps into avenging action.

___________________________________

Reply

Message 18 of 33 in Discussion
From: Thorkel
Sent: 11/19/2002 5:07 PM

At last, back on line -- and I have a new computer. Slade, your "Beowulf on Steorarume" site comes in well now -- a formidably complex cyber-task done extremely well! Thank You! The interactive, explanatory note apparatus is great, and I really like the near literal nature of the translation.

Cathy L., your offer to copy and send the enormous mass of data represented by this site is deeply appreciated, luckily I need not put you to all that trouble -- THANKS!

______________________________________________

Reply

Message 19 of 33 in Discussion
From: Zauber
Sent: 11/21/2002 12:42 PM

Thorkel, congratulations on your new computer!

Now, with all the references you quote from, are these things you are finding on the internet, or do you have an extensive personal library, or are you close to an excellent public library?

I appreciated and agreed with your last sentence, about "Hondscioh's death also works well as a narrator's device" etc.

Zauber

________________________________

Reply

Message 20 of 33 in Discussion
From: Zauber
Sent: 11/21/2002 1:04 PM

On line 1457 Unferth lent his sword Hrunting to Beowulf at the mere. Recall that it was Unferth that challeneged Beowulf at the table the first night in the mead hall. On line 1490, Beowulf's' 'last will and testament" to Hrothgar says Unferth is to get Beowulf's sword if he dies. This is quite a switch from thier initial antagonism.

But Hrunting (line 1522) wouldn't/couldn't cut Grendel's Mom -- so Beowulf threw it aside. He tried to grapple with Mom by hand, then grabbed the Giantish sword. This worked: he cut off Mom's head, then located Grendel's body and cut off its head. And then -- line 1607 -- the blade of the giantish sword MELTED. Sound familiar?? It's repeated in lines 1614 -- obviously this was an important part of the tale. Of all the treasures in the mere-cave, Beowulf had uncanny luck in chosing the most effective weapon!

Later, the poem says Beowulf only took Grendel's head and the hilt of the giantish sword out of the mere-cave with him. BUT Beowulf returns Hrunting to Unferth. Now this is a picky point, but the poem never mentions Hrunting again after it fails to cut Mom, and Beowulf casts it aside. I found that puzzling. Of more important note is that when Beowulf returns the sword, he refers to it as "excellent", although it didn't do the job. Now that is class. That is an example of the Politeness I referred to at the beginning of this thread.

One other thing to notice: While Beowulf is under the mere, confronting Mom, notice how loyal his Thanes are. (Line 1629) Hrothgar and his men left, but Beowulf's men stayed, waiting. We will see another test of the loyalty of his Thanes when we get to the dragon.

Zauber

_______________________________________

Reply

Message 21 of 33 in Discussion
From: Slade
Sent: 11/22/2002 1:05 AM

Zauber, the poem says that Beowulf didn't take away any more of the treasures of the hall than the sword-hilt and Grendel's head. It doesn't say anything about whatever things he may have brought in with him. Anyway, the passage isn't about what he carries out, but about what he takes away. And he probably carries nothing else away because what he is already carrying is quite enough - recall that it takes four men to carry Grendel's head to Heorot!

In regards to the loyalty of Beowulf's gedriht (band of retainers), notice the vividness of the 'cut-away' from Beowulf's chopping off of Grendel's head, to the sight of the people by the mere seeing blood rising up through the water - I can imagine a film director making a similar 'cutting' decision.

________________________________________________

Reply

Message 22 of 33 in Discussion
From: Thorkel
Sent: 11/22/2002 1:12 AM

Zauber: I am using the library for the journals articles, but some of them may be online as well. "The Heroic Age" has an online presence, as does "Folklore," but many of the linguistics and critical journals that carry detailed discussions of minor points are not (at least I have not found them): Journal of Scandinavian Folklore, Journal of English Literary History, Neuphilologische Mitteilungen, Philological Quarterly. I am amazed at how widely known "Beowulf" is and minor articles addressing one aspect or another of this work show up in some very odd places, "The History of Plumbing!"

Regarding "Hrunting" -- is this heirloom sword passed around from hero to hero as a sort of "temporary issue" blade, a possession of the Hall, rather than Unferth's complete and sole-ownership property? When the King or any lord gives out these heirloom blades, are they permanent gifts, fully alienable etc, or do they revert to the "Hall Hoard" after the bearer has died or the specific use-exploit has been completed?

______________________________________________

Reply

Message 23 of 33 in Discussion
From: Zauber
Sent: 11/22/2002 7:25 AM

The four men to carry Grendel's head is a strong image, as it shows us both how strong Beowulf is, and gives an indication of how large Grendel must have been.

For my own mind, I've decided that as he prepared to leave, Beowulf absent-mindedly picked up Hrunting and stuck it in his belt or in a sheath if he was in "full panoply"; in any event it was a habit for him to keep track of his sword, so he wore it out of there.

I did check on one Beowulf movie, with Christopher Lambert, and decided against watching it, as it didn't follow the plot. I am surprised there hasn't been a really good movie made, that follows the story-line closely. Anybody know of one? At least in my mind, this is a very visual story, with lots of drama and action. As you pointed out, Slade, the chopping off of Grendel's head, the blood filling the mere as the retainers watch -- grisly! Maybe I should write to Peter Jackson!

Thorkel, I too am amazed at how Beowulf has pervaded/penetrated/seeped into our culture. It is absolutely staggering how much is on the web, and I will be also staggering home from the library after work, if they have as much Beowulfiana as I anticipate.

I'm sure that Slade can give a more informed answer to your question about heirloom blades, but I would think an heirloom blade would be just that -- passed on through a family, unless the owner has no heir, when it might revert to the Hall. Afterall, Beowulf leaves his personal sword, which we can assume was a decent one, to Unferth. He doesn't say, "Hrothgar, add it to your collection!" I imagine the "Hall-swords" would have been captured from enemies and doled out as rewards or to warriors in need, with the unclaimed or unneeded swords remaining as back-ups. I would also expect that if Hrothgar gave me a sword, for example, it would be mine. I could hand it on to my son when I died, or leave it to you.

The passing on of swords to descendents, seems to me to go along with the business of keeping track of lineages. Now, it wil be interesting to see if you come across a different explanation in your reading, Thorkel, or if Slade can shed more light upon this issue, and re-illuminate us all.

Zauber
_____________________________________________

Reply

Message 24 of 33 in Discussion
From: Slade
Sent: 11/22/2002 8:33 AM

[IMAGES MISSING]

Yes, swords were passed down as heirlooms. Swords were extremely expensive objects (thus the naming of swords, &c.) which were jealously prized. Sometimes kings might have some supply of swords, which they would have given out to their warriors. Very few swords would have been unused, sitting in an armoury or the like. Of course, sometimes swords were part of a burial, though often these swords were broken or otherwise marred. But even broken swords were usually reforged and sometimes burial barrows were broken into (sometimes 'legitimately' by a relative of the deceased) with the express purpose of finding ancestral swords, which, in addition to their inherent value as swords, may also have been especially prized as 'magical'. Of course, swords in general were often considered 'magical', as was the process of forging swords. Swords in England in particular were more precious due to the lack of any real mines in A-S England - all iron was obtained either from 'bog slag' or purchased from abroad in ingots or bars, etc. (or old swords were used as raw materials).
Incidentally, 'recycling' of various metals into blade still goes on today - for instance, there's a Nepalese company I help out (with web-page stuff) which makes knives out of the leaf-springs from large vehicles (see Himalayan Imports / BirGorkha Khukuri (Nepal) ; [also see www.tx3.net/%7Ehowardw/Khukuris/ConstructionMaint.htm under 'Steel']).

Pattern-welding was developed in order to offset some of the inherent weaknesses in the iron produced from the 'bogs', though in the later mediaeval period, as better quality iron became more readily available, pattern-welding began to die out as it is a difficult process - though pattern-welded swords remained superior and continued to be highly prized, perhaps even more so - though swords in general became less expensive. [more info on pattern-welding at Vikingsword.com: 'Serpent in the Sword: pattern-welding in early mediaeval swords' & Blade patterns intrinsic to steel edged weapons ]


pattern-welded (twisted) blade

As an aside, the 'equivalent' of pattern-welding (also known as 'false damascus') is wootz steel or 'true damascus', which, instead of being made up of iron/steel bars with different carbon contents twisted round each other during the forging process, is produced by mixing various amounts of carbon in during the refining/smelting process - producing a non-uniform steel with the characteristic 'damasced' pattern:


'true' damascus wootz-steel blade

Damascus steel is so-called due to its being imported (mainly into Rome) through Damascus (Persia [modern Iran]). Actually it seems to have originally been made in only one place: southern India - and the secret of its making was guarded so jealously that even the place of origin was successfully kept secret for many hundreds of years (which is why it's not called 'Madras steel' or the like).

In any case, hope that provides some 'sword' background.

On films, there's also Michael Crichton's '13th Warrior'/'Eaters of the Dead' which I think is perfectly awful!! And Neil Gaiman is supposedly producing a Beowulf movie - though I like Gaiman, I'm not too sure about this idea. But there is a promising 'Beowulf' film coming out in the next couple of years which is being directed by the Icelandic film-maker Sturla Gunnarsson: www.upcomingmovies.com/beowulf2002.html

hmm, ok Zauber - I don't think Beowulf picks up Hrunting absent-mindedly because he is concerned to return it to Unferth (for reasons which should be obvious from above) - it is a grand gesture on Unferth's part to lend his sword to Beowulf, esp. as he is embarking on such a dangerous venture. Anyway, the grammar of the section simply means that he didn't take anything else away from the lair other than the sword (& Grendel's head).

yes, the blood rising through the water and the Danes' mistaking it for Beowulf's is a fantastically vivid scene...

--B.

______________________________________

Reply

Message 25 of 33 in Discussion
From: Zauber
Sent: 11/26/2002 12:44 PM

On line 1903, Beowulf gave the shore warden a sword for guarding his ship. After our sword discussion here, I appreciate the generosity of this gift, and understand the impact it had on the warden's status.

Really nice kukris on your site, Slade.

Z.

__________________________________________

Reply

Message 26 of 33 in Discussion
From: Slade
Sent: 11/27/2002 7:45 AM

Yes, certainly in the early mediaeval period at least swords were owned primarily only by 'nobility', the regular warrior usually making do with a spear (note all of the 'spear-warrior' refs. in Beowulf).

Thanks Zauber on the kukris.

--B.

__________________________________________

Reply

Message 27 of 33 in Discussion
From: Zauber
Sent: 1/8/2003 6:31 AM

For those who have seen or are going to see the Two Towers, of course Edoras is a feast of Anglo-Saxon-type artifacts, but there's one scene I particularly want to point out. When Aragorn, before the battle, takes a young boy's sword and tests it out, I swear that the sword has a Patterned blade, like we've discussed on this thread. Anyone else notice that? If not, watch for it and let me know what you think.

Zauber

_______________________________________

Reply

Message 28 of 33 in Discussion
From: Thorkel
Sent: 1/8/2003 11:29 AM

I just saw "The Two Towers" last night, and wondered, like you Zauber, if they were indeed attempting to show that the boy's battered blade -- beneath its "bruised" exterior -- was yet a blade of high worth as evidenced by its structural patterning... but I thought the surface markings resembled more the "woofz-steel" appearance of a true damascus blade rather than the serpent pattern of the twist-welded swords? I also wondered why a sword of such "obvious" value would be left with edges so badly in need of refinishing, does Theoden's movie armory contain so many special weapons that the Rohirrim can afford to neglect this one? At any rate, IF, PJ was trying to show us a serpent pattern or damascus blade, I like the attention given to detail!

____________________________________________

Reply

Message 29 of 33 in Discussion
From: Zauber
Sent: 1/9/2003 8:26 AM

Hmm, is this a matter of me seeing what I WANT to see?? I will print out Slade's message (above) with illustrations, and study up before my next movie jaunt on Saturday. I did get the feeling that the Rohirrim were scraping the bottom of the armory, so to speak, and arming the boys with odds and ends that hadn't been used in some time. Although, from what we've learned in Beowulf, swords were highly valued and rare. So I doubt they'd be simply slung into a corner to rust.

The sword shown did seem to be an ancient weapon, and I see the potential for a sub-story about that weapon and that boy. Alas, my time is too limited to undertake this (my poor Radagast role-play is still a mere fragment!!) so the idea is free for the taking.

Like you, I truly appreciate Peter Jackson's crew's attention to detail. If you have access to a DVD player, some of the extra information on the Fellowship DVD includes a segment on WETA and the workers who designed and made the weapons and armor. Of course, I would like to have seen more of that!

I felt very envious of Aragorn getting to hold it and swish (or is it swash, as in swash-buckling) it through the air! I am trying to track down Anglo-Saxon artifacts in a museum that I could go to see; I doubt they'd let me swish (swash?) their sword though!

Zaube

_________________________________________________

Reply

Message 30 of 33 in Discussion
From: Slade
Sent: 1/10/2003 3:44 PM

Thorkel et al. -

It is actually not so simple to distinguish pattern-welded (mechanical damascus) work from wootz-steel ('true' damascus, or, crystalline damascus). Generally, wootz is more 'natural' looking, often with 'ripple' patterns - of course, it is 'more natural' in a way, because the pattern in wootz is produced by the heterogenity of the steel itself, whereas 'mechanical' damascus is made by actually putting together bars of high- and low- carbon steel in different patterns, and twisting them different ways, etc.

But mechanical damascus/pattern-welded steel (as was used by the Anglo-Saxons & the Vikings), can take on a number of appearances, many much less 'serpentine' looking than the example I posted above.

For instance:

[IMAGE LOST]


(this one from the cover of a great book called The Pattern-welded Blade: artistry in iron by Dr. Jim Hrisoulas, Paladin Press - it's a book actually intended for an experienced smith, but I, not being smith, still found it very informative and easy to understand, with great photos)

some more modern examples here: www.dragonsbreathforge.com/knives.htm

so I think one can see that distinguishing between the two types of damascus is not as straight-forward as it might have appear at first based on the former two examples I posted. One can, on close inspection, of course.



B.

_______________________________________________

Reply

Message 31 of 33 in Discussion
From: Thorkel
Sent: 1/15/2003 4:18 PM

Slade:

Thank you! This information is deeply appreciated on several fronts:

1. it will prevent my making errors in future concerning the differences in visible patterning that the various techniques of blade treatment allow.

2. it has driven me further into the literatures availble that detail weapons construction for this period. I am reading R.E, Oakeshott's "Archaeology of Weapons" right now.

I am building, for my own use, a set of "precising definitions" for the "false" and "true" Damascening techniques, vrs welded pattern, and folded blade technologies -- very complex and sometimes overlapping finished appearances are apparently obtainable from all of them, as you point out -- drat, the initial photos you uploaded here made it look quite easy to distinguish one from the other...

Am I right in thinking that the "folded blade" technologies frequently used in the higher quality blades of Japan do not produce the surface patterns of the damascus-wootz types because a homogenous steel is generally used, with differential edge and core properties being induced by different heating treatments in the tempering process?

I was also assuming that the "higher quality" blades of the welded pattern type were "special" swords and that this technique would be used only for a relatively few blades out of any forge's general line of production. But I see now (p. 97, Oakeshott) that the data derived from the Nydam Bog hoard lists 93 of the 106 recovered blades as being pattern-welded types. Would this be an artifact of the hoarding process, selective curation of the "better" blades; or does this percentage reflect the actual number of pattern welded swords in circulation compared to other forms? LOL - Unferth's loan of a pattern-welded sword to Beowulf seems to lose a bit of its importance if the things were as common as domestic cuttlery!

Thanks again!

[Andorinha]

______________________________________________________________

Reply

Message 32 of 33 in Discussion
From: Slade
Sent: 1/15/2003 9:47 PM

Thorkel,

Glad to know of your interest in this area, one of great interest to me too.

First, let me make a couple of book recommendations - Oakshotte is good, but I don't recall him spending that much time on A-S swords or pattern-welding (maybe I'm thinking of another of his books though..):

(1) Ellis Davidson, Hilda Roderick. The Sword in Anglo-Saxon England . Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1962 (rev. ed. Woodbridge (Suffolk): The Boydell Press, 1994).
[highly recommend this book! some misleading generalisations, but on the whole an excellent resource, and very appropriate to Beowulf of course!]

(2) Hrisoulas, Jim. The Pattern-Welded Blade: artistry in iron. Boulder (Colorado): Paladin Press, 1994.
[technical book, but very good info and many fab photos]

More on the differences between wootz (or ukku, as 'wootz' is a European corruption of ukku which is a Dravidian [South Indian] word) steel and 'mechnical damascus' or pattern-welding:

Wootz, Ukku or damascus steel - excellent article, mainly on wootz but also with a discussion of pattern-welding

Crucible Damascus Steel [=Wootz] by Anna Feuerbach PhD

WOOTZ STEEL: AN ADVANCED MATERIAL OF THE ANCIENT WORLD by S. Srinivasan and S. Ranganathan, Department of Metallurgy -- Indian Institute of Science (Bangalore)

The Key Role of Impurities in Ancient Damascus Steel [wootz] Blades by J.D. Verhoeven, A.H. Pendray, and W.E. Dauksch

more on pattern-welding:

Mechanical properties of Modern Fabricated Pattern Welded Damascus Steels by S. Fedosov, Samara State Technical University (Russia)

The Serpent in the Sword: Pattern-welding in Early Medieval Swords by Lee A. Jones - A-S & Viking swords analysed

some good threads on swordforum.com: (may need to become a member [free] to read):

thread: wootz or mechanical damascus?

thread: secrets of pattern-welding

some beautiful photos of pattern-welded blades:






more photos here


Odin's Eye pattern


rose pattern

more here

pattern-welding can even be used to produce tightly defined 'images' like names:

+Ulfbert+ sword, 10th century






'Folded blades' fall under the category of 'pattern-welded'. 'Pattern-welding' includes a number of different techniques, many of which may be used in combination:

Basic 'pattern-welding' is 'simply' the welding together of a billet made up of separate pieces of steel (usually [always?] different types of steel, e.g. high-carbon [hard] and low-carbon [flexible]) which results in a blade which partakes of the favourable qualities of the different types of steel used (e.g. it's hard yet flexible/not-easily-broken).


diagram of billet-construction


Solid billet (after welding together of layers)

I think all of the photos of pattern-welding I've shown involve twisting or other techniques in addition to simple welding. Simple welding will result in a pattern of straight lines.

Additional pattern-welding techniques include:

Twisting - once the billet is welded together, it may be twisted in quite a variety of ways (producing different patterns) - this is the usual way of producing the 'swirly' patterns seen on the various examples above.


billets twisted - note the variation of 'twisted' and 'non-twisted' sections, one of these turned into this sword (on which one may see the result of varying twisted & non-twisted sections):

(upper part of photo [above blade] shows billets before welding)

Folding - usually produces little change in pattern (I think), except that it makes the pattern finer (because it duplicates and diminishes the pattern - as the steel is folded back upon itself and then hammered down again to the same size as the pre-folded billet)


billet 'cut' and being folded


multiplication of layers and 'diminishing' of size of pattern

for Japanese swords, I don't know that much about them, but I believe that they involve simply folding (with no twisting or other techniques other than the basic welding). I would assume that they are also are made up of different types of steel. However, Japanese smiths fold the billet back on itself many, many times (thousands, sometimes). As one may see from the above diagram, the more folding, the more the pattern is made smaller. With enough folds, the pattern dissappears... But pattern-welding in general involves homogeneous steel, but it become heterogeneous through the combination of different homogeneous steels. Wootz, of course, involves only 1 steel, which is heterogeneous itself. I think there would be problems to pattern-weld wootz steel, due to the temperatures involved in the two processes.

On the finds of pattern-welded swords. Indeed, pattern-welded swords were much rarer and more precious than 'regular' swords. The fact that in some of the hoards there is an extremely high percentage of pattern-welded blades is due to the very fact of their prestige! To honour the dead, or the gods, such valuable blades might be chosen. Also, I believe that it is very difficult to reforge pattern-welded blades, as the layers would tend to separate and the sword fail, though I am not certain of this. On the other hand, 'regular' steel swords can easily be reforged (and were!), and even made into other things like ploughs or other steel tools. So it may also be that when pattern-welded blades were 'worn out' they were often disposed of in burials or 'bog hoards' (which seemed to have been sorts of 'sacrifices').

I actually don't feel that Unferth's sword is diminished in Beowulf. Beowulf does sincerely thank Unferth for its loan, and the poem explains that it is not the fault of the blade itself that it fails to wound Grendel's mother.

enough for now.

--Ben

______________________________________________

Reply

Message 33 of 33 in Discussion
From: MSN NicknameStorrmrider
Sent: 9/25/2007 6:19 AM

This has been a very interesting discussion! The swords are really beautiful and I can see why they would have been treasured by their owners and handed down from age to age. Thank you for posting all the information and pictures, Slade.

Stormrider