Celtic sword: Bamborough

[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.