Celtic sword: Bamborough

[urbanspaceman]

The science of 'billet welding' that had begun centuries bCe with local Celts, continued to be used in Briton by Vikings, then Anglo-Saxons, until 1066.
(Bamborough Castle holds just such a blade: found in its grounds in 1960 and made of six strands of billet welded metal dating to c.600Ce.)
It appears to me (and I am asking for correction or corroboration here), that after the arrival of the Normans, we lost the art of forging good blades, until eventually, King Henry VIII set up the Greenwich Armoury and staffed it with (secretive!) outsiders.
What happened? Does anybody know?

[Peter Hudson]

Here it is....https://uk.images.search.yahoo.com/y...g&action=click

[werecow]

Originally Posted by Peter Hudson

Here it is....https://uk.images.search.yahoo.com/y...g&action=click

In case this link dies.

[fernando]

Originally Posted by werecow

In case this link dies.

[Peter Hudson]

For an excellent example and an intriguing conundrum please see https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nb9vTu73xmE

[Jim McDougall]

This is a tough and very valid question, and though these areas are far from my range of familiarity, I cannot help being compelled to wonder the same thing. Why was blade production in the British Isles so limited, if not entirely absent ?
I never understood why the Scots never made their own blades (no matter what was shown in "The Highlander") and it seems only 'sword slippers' or cutlers were using blades from elsewhere (typically Germany) to assemble the swords they produced.

I am not sure if the Norman conquest of 1066 was a defining moment for the 'end' of blade making in Britain as change is typically subtle rather than dramatic or instantaneous. The question I have is, was blade making there really that prevalent?

Oakeshott (1964, "Sword in the Age of Chivalry", p.12) notes,
"...it should be noted however that nearly all examples of Celtic swords found in the British Isles tend to be smaller and of poor quality, but the Continental ones are splendidly made". This was referring to 'Group I, 1050-1350, so perhaps this notes the 'decline' being discussed.

I am unclear on the terminology in blade making but it seems that billet welding and 'pattern welding' are basically the same. From what I can understand this consists of welding together separate forms of metal stock and forging them together (my entirely lay observation). This was the character of the blades of the Viking period. The medieval swords of the 'Romanesque' period or 'great swords' had developed from these Viking swords of 9th c. + and the 'Norman' swords, if I understand correctly were considered 'transitional'.

From here the primary influences, if not sources, for swords were of the Carolingians and Franks.

In "Swords of the Viking Age" (Pierce, 2002), Oakeshott notes (p.3)
"..we can be fairly sure that blades, the best blades that is, were made in the Rhineland, where the town of Solingen later grew, and in the region of the old Roman Noricum (S. Bavaria) where the Celts of the earlier iron age as well as the Romans obtained their swords, because in these two locations was found the finest iron".

It would seem that the hardest thing about identifying sword blades of these early periods, before they were marked by makers of course, is that they were really so similar in convention. As Lee Jones profoundly noted in the Viking Age book, the primary means of sword identification rests on the hilt, as here is the area of most distinctive variation which can be aligned with local or period character.

While we know the location where a sword is found deposited, we cannot be certain of the origin of the blade, or naturally the entire sword might be from somewhere else (as lost in a raid or battle).

H.R. Ellis-Davidson noted in "The Sword in Anglo Saxon England" 1962,p.34)


that "...pattern welded swords may not have been made in many workshops, and as yet there is no evidence they were produced in England or Scandinavia, though there seems no convincing evidence why they should not have been".

I guess my take on this would be that the prevalence of blade production was mostly Continental, primarily in the German locations, with some degree of presence of smiths in outlying areas. Changes in forging methods were likely dominated on the Continent as pattern welding diminished as well as new means of smelting and forging steel became more advanced.

While an admittedly elementary view with my limited understanding of metallurgy, blade construction and these ancient times, I simply wanted to add what I could to a most interesting question.

[urbanspaceman]

Here is as far as I got during my Shotley Bridge history book research:
Celts around the North Sea, millennia bCe, claimed they learned their forging science from "The Hidden One": an underworld god. This science continued to be used in Briton, first by Vikings, then Anglo-Saxons, until around 1066.
Those skills had also migrated south and, c.500bCe, they were producing superior blades in Toledo, Spain using the process known as 'Billet Welding' i.e. forging together different metals to create neither breaking nor deforming blades.
Those Toledo swords ended-up, via Carthage, in Roman hands, following the Punic wars, which were 264 bCe onwards.
I assumed the Celts were doing the same thing in Hallstatt so they also ended-up in Roman hands, but my history is not great... actually, nobody's is when put to the ever evolving tests.
Of course, none of this answers my question regarding Norman Briton's lack of ability.
Why has nobody been here before me?

[Jim McDougall]

As previously noted, this ancient history is complex and best described by specalized scholars, but what I can determine in my cursory view is that the Celtic peoples, which were broadly present across the Continent and into the British Isles, seem to have had notable skills in metalwork.

Among these Celtic groups, of most notable skills and quality in metalwork were the Celtibereans, whose double edged swords were adopted by the Romans.
The Celts in Europe went from the Bronze Age into the Iron Age, and the Hallstadt Culture, and later LaTene Cultures swords were well represented by the notable 'antennae' type swords.

It is noted (Wiki) that "...metalwork stands out in Celtiberean archaeological finds partly from its indestructible nature", which included prestige weapons.

It seems that the heritage of the Celtiberean metalwork prevailed well into later centuries, especially with the iron work of Basque regions, which was reflected by the English term 'bilbo' for fine blades. This had to do with the Biscayan port of Bilbao, which was the port of exit for these fine Spanish blades from Toledo and other Spanish centers.

This does not answer the question, what became of the metalworking skills said to have been 'learned from the ethereal figures in the lore' after c. 1066. However as noted, are we certain that there indeed was a substantial industry of producing blades in the British Isles?

While naturally as always, there were surely incidental cases of localized production, but these do not seem sufficient to attract notice in the larger scope of records and accounts.

By analogy, this question is similar to 'what happened to the secrets of wootz, the famed watered steel of Islamic sword blades, which seem to have disappeared in the 18th c. ?'
This distinctly forged steel with profound patterning (watering) seems to have had distinct secrets in its production, with methods, the crucible steel used as well as materials added in production. After centuries, its production simply ended, and while closely imitated, has never really been reproduced.
How could a process, though secreted, still widely known by its masters, simply just vanish?

With the Celtic metalwork in Britain, I think it is more a matter of concepts and convention in production. Why go through the complexity, expense and work in producing blades when they were readily available from other sources, which had high quality blades in volume ? This was typically the case in most colonial situations, where natives were eager to acquire ready made blades instead of making them themselves.

[urbanspaceman]

Hey Jim, I think you have the answer there.
There may very-well have been the odd smiths in Britain producing decent blades.
Actually, there must have been, but not enough to supply entire armies.
Consequently, the commanders and the barons will have grabbed the cream of the crop and the munitions grades will have had to accept what they were given.
One thing I have realised - I am learning, just slowly - is that the sword was a secondary weapon with axes, lances, spears, (plus scythes Peter!) doing most of the work.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but local barons et al. who supplied the king with militia when needed would not have spent money on quality swords for rank and file when inexpensive alternatives were always to hand.
As we know, a Crown financed standing army did not exist over here until Charles and James 2nd established one in the 1680s.

[Jim McDougall]

Thanks Keith! Yup, the truth is, despite what we'd like to think, the sword was basically a weapon that most of the rank & file would loved to have had, but most emphatically did not have access to. The ruling figures and their retinue did not purchase, issue or in any way supply anything for the forces they commanded...they were primarily 'cannon fodder'.
The plebian masses were from simple walks of life, farmers etc. which was why most of their 'weaponry' was primarily tools and agricultural implements.

In many cases of course, there were mercenary forces hired who of course supplied their own arms, but even in such forces, there was a great deal of emphasis on pole arms, lances, pikes, axes and swords typically were used in degree along with these.
A good example of mercenary forces (landsknechts, who were actually German, not all Swiss as commonly thought)....has to do with the famed Passau in Germany. This was actually a city where mercenary forces converged to be available as required, thus a center for armorers, who supplied not only armor but all types of weapons to these warriors.

War was the stock and trade of the mercenary, so they furnished their own kit......while those of station, rank and means also were the ones who indeed acquired swords, but they were by no means held and used by the majority of those from the regions from which the embattled army came.

The idea of 'militia' is an interesting one, and it seems in Europe there were the 'town guards' which was sort of in this line. I think of Rembrandt's "The Night Watch" depicting one of these types of units, and though mostly reflecting guns, the general notion was that the men of these units indeed supplied themselves with all manner of obsolete and heirloom arms.
That concept was quite typical through centuries prior to the development of standing armies of nations rather than city states and principalities.

[Peter Hudson]

Hello Jim, and it is great to see a discussion on these weapons... In fact I was thinking of another way of splitting the use of arms insomuch as of all the weapons used the only one which was for killing the enemy was in fact the sword...since all the others were originally for hunting. Thus it may be understood how The Sword achieved such a high status and was highly decorated with gold silver and precious stones plus of course it often went along with the owners into the afterlife and thus found in burial mounds shown being held close to the bodies of entombed kings and knights etc...

The Sutton Hoo sword video by Sue Brunning discusses this amazing find at post 5 above.


Regards, Peter Hudson.


-

[Jim McDougall]

Originally Posted by Peter Hudson

Hello Jim, and it is great to see a discussion on these weapons... In fact I was thinking of another way of splitting the use of arms insomuch as of all the weapons used the only one which was for killing the enemy was in fact the sword...since all the others were originally for hunting. Thus it may be understood how The Sword achieved such a high status and was highly decorated with gold silver and precious stones plus of course it often went along with the owners into the afterlife and thus found in burial mounds shown being held close to the bodies of entombed kings and knights etc...

The Sutton Hoo sword video by Sue Brunning discusses this amazing find at post 5 above.


Regards, Peter Hudson.


-

Well put Peter, the sword has always been held in the highest esteem and honor, as it was indeed for a singular purpose, to defend and to kill as required. It was the literal symbol of honor, which remains in place into present time whether metaphorically or in actual wear traditionally, as you well know with the saber worn by officers as you did.

The sword was in early times, the man himself, as said by H.R. Ellis-Davidson, ("The Sword in Anglo Saxon England", 1962, p.1)...
"..who can separate a man and his sword? one is worth nothing without the other".

Chivalry was however 'feudal' and only those of nobility and high station could afford them, and by the same token, knew how to properly use them.

In a passim note unfortunately not referenced, it is said, "...the Englishman has always had his prejudices, and one of his fixed beliefs was that foreigners, however despicable they might be, in other ways had occult secrets about the manufacture of arms and armor which were beyond the grasp of his own countrymen. The logical effect of this notion was that England had become virtually dependent upon Spain, France, Italy and Germany for most kinds of armor and swords".


When Henry VIII boldly brought in the German armorers to produce their wares in England, it was hoped that English workers would be taught the 'secrets' .......with similar goals with the advent of the Hounslow sword production center in the early 17th c.

[Peter Hudson]

Thanks Jim, It is not often that I pay much attention to lists of so called well known facts about such and such a sword however, I liked this set of details...fromhttps://primaryfacts.com/8775/anglo-saxon-swords/

I QUOTE"Facts About Anglo-Saxon Swords
1. Because swords were such prestigious weapons, historians believe that swords were passed down from generation to generation as family heirlooms.
2.When archaeologists have found the remains of swords in Anglo-Saxon burials, they have often been located very close to the body, sometimes cradled in the dead warrior’s arms. This is believed to show how important swords were to their owners.
3.The Anglo-Saxon swords recovered from archaeological digs seem to show lots of signs of wear. Many of the pommels are worn on one side, and this indicates that when the weapons were worn high up on the chest in scabbards attached to shoulder-slung leather baldrics, the warriors tended to rest their hands on the pommels.
4.Many of the Anglo-Saxon swords also show mismatched decorations, as if the sword has been owned by numerous warriors during its lifetime, all of whom have made their own changes and modifications.
5.Some swords have been found with interlock ring decorations attached to the pommels. Some historians believe that these signify the oaths sworn by the sword’s owner.
6.Little effort appears to have been made by Anglo-Saxon warriors to hide their swords’ signs of wear and tear. This might indicate that the Anglo-Saxon’s celebrated experience. A well-used weapon was likely to be wielded by a battle-tested warrior.
7.Runic characters and inscriptions have been found on the pommels of Anglo-Saxon swords.
8.Made from iron, Anglo-Saxon swords were approximately 5 cm to 6.5 cm in width, and 85 cm to 100 cm in length. Although most of the designs were fairly similar, a few historians believe that there were two distinct types of Anglo-Saxon swords. The mece, longer slimmer swords for thrusting at enemies, and the sweord, thicker and heavier for hacking and slashing.
9.The blades were straight and double-edged, often with a fuller (a shallow groove) running down the center to make the weapon lighter.
10.The hilts of Anglo-Saxon swords were made from wood or horn, and they were often decorated with copper, silver or gold.
11.Anglo-Saxon swords typically had short guards and richly-decorated pommels.
12.Anglo-Saxon warriors sometimes named their swords. These were sometimes inscribed on the hilt or the sword’s blade. The names of the owner and maker were often added too.
13.Anglo-Saxon swords were manufactured using a technique called pattern-welding. Rods of iron, twisted together and then forged, formed the sword’s core. Cutting edges were then attached. This method produced blades with intricate herringbone or snakeskin markings".UNQUOTE.

Peter Hudson.

[Peter Hudson]

Sutton Hoo was an amazing find producing a beautiful sword and some interesting associated artefacts... The Staffordshire Hoard yeilded over 90 swords and several kilos of gold decorated items...
Please see https://uk.video.search.yahoo.com/yh...be&action=view

Here is another description... The Staffordshire Hoard is the largest hoard of Anglo-Saxon gold and silver metalwork yet found. It consists of almost 4,600 items and metal fragments, amounting to a total of 5.1 kg (11 lb) of gold, 1.4 kg (3 lb) of silver and some 3,500 pieces of garnet cloisonné jewellery. It is described by the historian Cat Jarman as "possibly the finest collection of early medieval artefacts ever discovered"... Wikipedia

Peter Hudson.

[werecow]

Originally Posted by Peter Hudson

3.The Anglo-Saxon swords recovered from archaeological digs seem to show lots of signs of wear. Many of the pommels are worn on one side, and this indicates that when the weapons were worn high up on the chest in scabbards attached to shoulder-slung leather baldrics, the warriors tended to rest their hands on the pommels.

It should be noted that there is an alternate explanation for the wear patterns on the pommels, as argued by Roland Warzecha in this video.

[urbanspaceman]

Thank-you... an exemplary demonstration in every respect.
As always, the best information comes from the man at the front.
Begging your pardon Sue.

[Peter Hudson]

Originally Posted by werecow

It should be noted that there is an alternate explanation for the wear patterns on the pommels, as argued by Roland Warzecha in this video.

Dear Werecow, What an excellent post! I was most impressed with the observation of the weapon having two sides to it...and that the wear was more on one side than the other through training / using the sword against an opponent. I suspect that wear on one side is however, also made by the hand resting on one side of the hilt and that the high mount was responsible for that. The fact that these swords were shown to have pommels that in later designs were made giving a better grip and became seated about a centimeter over to one side ...a fact I had totally missed and which becomes important in how any wear in the pommel developed.

One other aspect worried me since your video shows two exponents with anglo saxon swords training and by giving point in their duel... My thought was that with such good broadswords would the style not be more of a chopping slashing action...in which case the grip would have been more of a full grip in both fighters...not a grip enabling the giving point technique...


I was concerned that the presentation observed that the sword was like most other weapons in that it was a tool...whereas I lean more to the other associated weapons having first been tools but that the sword was the only item that was actually made for killing the enemy with...Having said that I have to say that both reasons ...given by your presenter and mine...Sue Brunning, hold good and if I was awarding points they would be 50/50... Thus I think this is an excellent discussion underpinned in both cases by superb videos and thank you for posting ...

Regards, Peter Hudson.

[Peter Hudson]

Please see this excellent reference https://www.thegns.org/blog/sword-guide

[werecow]

Originally Posted by Peter Hudson

Dear Werecow, What an excellent post! I was most impressed with the observation of the weapon having two sides to it...and that the wear was more on one side than the other through training / using the sword against an opponent. I suspect that wear on one side is however, also made by the hand resting on one side of the hilt and that the high mount was responsible for that. The fact that these swords were shown to have pommels that in later designs were made giving a better grip and became seated about a centimeter over to one side ...a fact I had totally missed and which becomes important in how any wear in the pommel developed.

One other aspect worried me since your video shows two exponents with anglo saxon swords training and by giving point in their duel... My thought was that with such good broadswords would the style not be more of a chopping slashing action...in which case the grip would have been more of a full grip in both fighters...not a grip enabling the giving point technique...

I guess the answer there is we don't really know how it was used, as there are no surviving treatises from that era.

I do think Roland Warzecha makes a good case for the way he grips the sword using both the physics of the sword (and user) itself, the wear patterns, and the geometry of the grip (noting the way it is shaped to fit the palm of the hand and also the way most of the antique examples have a slight twist and an asymmetry to them).
He has a lot of hands on experience sparring with these swords, which I think does count for something, although of course the way one uses these in modern sparring is by necessity informed guesswork.
I also can't personally confirm what he's saying, since I personally do not have any sparring experience. It would be interesting to know if these swords would allow for effective tip cuts for example. My guess is you can cut very high up with them including with that broad tip, which would make this extended grip he's suggesting more sensible, but that is just guess work on my part.

IMO it would be rather peculiar if the people of this era did not make use of the full reach and most efficient physics and control that the geometry of the grips and pommels on their swords would grant them. But then, we do know of other swords where a hammer fist was the norm (e.g. the tulwar) or where their appearance is deceiving (e.g. Khyber knives not being used for thrusting), so in the absence of more convincing evidence it is hard to say.

In any case, it's interesting. He has multiple other videos on his channel where he makes his case, and he also has a number of sparring videos on there, and looks at several antique examples. It's a channel worth checking out.

(And of course, there is no reason why the wear patterns on the grips could not be due to both the way the sword was wielded and also the way it was worn.)

[Peter Hudson]

Did The Celts sweep in from somewhere to our East or was it simply a culture that spread its limbs to the remote parts of our country?...Please see https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SUROWkSN_Y4 and an astonishing conclusion.

[Peter Hudson]

Wikipedia reminds me to steer more toward The Anglo Saxon Sword Form thus I QUOTE"Pollington describes the sword as "the most symbolically important weapon" of the Anglo-Saxon period,[29] and historian Guy Halsall referred to it as "the most treasured item of early medieval military equipment."[18] In Old English, swords were termed sweord, although other terms used for such weapons included heoru or heru, bill or bile, and mēce or mǣce.[29] Anglo-Saxon swords comprised two-edged straight, flat blades.[29] The tang of the blade was covered by a hilt, which consisted of an upper and lower guard, a pommel, and a grip by which the sword was held.[29] Pommels could be elaborately decorated with a variety of styles. Examples include the Abingdon Sword or the pommel found in the Bedale Hoard, which was decorated with inlaid gold.[30] These Anglo-Saxon blades, the tang included, typically measured 86–94 cm (34–37 in) in length, and 4.5–5.5 cm (1.8–2.2 in) in width.[31] Larger examples have been found, with some reaching up to 100 cm (39 in) in length and 6.5 cm (2.6 in) in width.[31]


The Abingdon Sword, found near Abingdon, Oxfordshire; the hilt decoration is typical of ninth-century English metalwork[32]
Rather than being able to melt the iron ore into a complete billet, the furnaces of the period were only able to produce small pieces of iron, which were subsequently forge welded into a single blade. To accomplish this, the pieces would either be beaten into thin sheets that were then hammered together as a laminated blade or placed together as thin rods and then welded together.[33] Additionally, some of these blades were constructed using pattern welding. With this method, the iron was beaten into strips, which were twisted together and then forge welded.[34] The twisting removed much surface slag, which could cause weaknesses in the finished blade.[35] Pattern welding also produced patterns in the finished blade, most commonly a herringbone pattern.[36] Such patterns are often referenced in Anglo-Saxon literature—they are described using terms such as brogenmæl ('weaving marks'), wundenmæl ('winding marks'), grægmæl ('grey mark'), and scirmæl ('brightly patterned').[33][37] Therefore, Pollington stated that the decoration produced by pattern-welding was important and desired in Anglo-Saxon society.[38] Many blades also had a fuller, which was a shallow groove that ran the length of the blade. The fuller reduced the blade's overall weight while not compromising the thickness. Fullers were produced by hammering into the blade or chiselling out a section.[39]

A few swords bore runic inscriptions—a sixth-century example found at Gilton in Kent had an inscription saying that "Sigimer Made This Sword."[40] Textual sources indicate that swords were sometimes given names, such as the Hrunting sword from Beowulf.[41] On some swords from the sixth century onward, rings were attached to the upper guard or pommel, many of which were ornamented.[42] These rings sometimes served a practical purpose—for example, a soldier could tie a cord to the ring and subsequently hang the sword from their wrist. This practice is attested in later Viking sagas. In other cases, however, ring knobs were used and it was impossible to hang the sword in this manner. Therefore, ring knobs were likely symbolic or ritualistic.[42]

In Old English, the scabbard was known as a scēaþ ('sheath'), although the term fætels also appears in Anglo-Saxon literature and may have had the same meaning.[43] The scabbard itself was typically made of wood or leather, and the inside was often lined with fleece or fur. The inside might have also been greased or oiled to prevent the sword from rusting.[44] Some scabbards were further protected by a metal binding at their neck (known as a frog or locket) and a chape at the bottom.[45] A bead of glass, amber, crystal, or meerschaum was attached by a small strap to the neck of some scabbards. There are examples of similar beads from Iron Age Germanic regions of continental Europe, and it is likely that they were adopted from the Huns during the fifth century. The beads may have been used for amuletic purposes—later Icelandic sagas reference swords with "healing stones" attached, and these stones may be the same as Anglo-Saxon beads.[46]

The sword and scabbard were suspended from either a baldric on the shoulder or from a belt on the waist. The former method was evidently popular in early Anglo-Saxon England, but the latter gained popularity in the later Anglo-Saxon period. For example, the Bayeux Tapestry only depicts the use of belts for sword carrying.[45]

The weight of these swords, along with descriptions of them in literature like The Battle of Maldon, indicates that they were used primarily for cutting and slashing rather than thrusting.[47] Several Anglo-Saxon corpses were apparently injured or killed in this manner; the cemetery of Eccles in Kent contains three individuals who had sword cuts to the left sides of their skulls.[48]"UNQUOTE.