Page 1 of 1

viking age sword and pommel (question)

Posted: Sun Dec 02, 2007 5:43 pm
by puchaczos2
hi, i have lot of questions about the viking age sword. i need information about construction of the pommel.
is there anybody who knows how was attached pomel to upper hilt? i know that was riveted but it's too general answer than...
1. was pommel made from one piece of iron like the iron cup?
2 how were these rivets attachet to the pommel? were solder?(i don't know is this word correct)
are there cases of pommel joined only by solder without rivets?
3. what metal was used for it? tin, cooper, brass, silver?
4 if pommel was made from solid steel was made from one piece or two halfs welded together?

of course i have more questions about viking age sword if somebody want to help me :)

Posted: Sun Dec 02, 2007 8:49 pm
by WorkMonkey
1. Yes, one piece, not composite construction like earlier germanic blades.
2. There were no seperate attatching rivets, or soldering, the pommel was drilled through, and the tang of the blade passed through, then rivetted over to secure it.
3. They were made of iron to counter balance the blade, though they could be decorated with silver/bronze inlay or foil.
4. one piece, drilled through.

Posted: Mon Dec 03, 2007 9:04 am
by puchaczos2
thanx for answer:)
you told me about pommel like this one:
http://www.vikingsword.com/petersen/ptsn066c.html
one piece drilled through? wasn't it to difficult? drilling so big piece wasn't too easy. much easy is make it from to pieces. not upper and lower but left and right without drilling. like sandwich with tang(or hole for it) inside.

but actually i was asking about pommel like this one: http://www.vikingsword.com/petersen/ptsn089h.html
there is shown, on the fig.81, a bent wire which is making rivets. probably to this wire was attached pommel but how was done it? solder or welded? if was soldering than what metal was used for it? for soldering
was it only way for riveting the pommel(when on the upper guard are shown rivets)?

this kind of pommel was empty inside then how thick was the sheet of iron used for it?

sometimes tang is going through the upper guard but not through the pommel. what in this case? how was it joined?

i need these informations because i'm preparing for making vikings sword:)

Posted: Mon Dec 03, 2007 11:17 am
by Neil of Ormsheim
The two peice pommel was two peices, they were not joined in any other way other than riviting them together. The lower part of the pommel was held in place by the shoulders of the tand and by riviting the top peice with the end of the tang. When the parts were joined, I do not know, it may well have been before attaching it to the sword or, equally, it could have been done afterwards. Both have advantages and problems attched.

Posted: Mon Dec 03, 2007 7:31 pm
by puchaczos2
of course there are swords where pommels are riveted with the end of the tang(on the left in the picture)...

but there(on the left) is also the upper guard attached to the tang but there is no pommel. pommel is lost. how was this pommel joined to the upper guard? i heard there is lot of swords where pommels are lost.

is there anybody who has contact with original(excavated) viking swords?

Posted: Mon Dec 03, 2007 8:10 pm
by Mark Sanderson
Pommels could be made from any hard wearing material.
Bronze, Brass, Iron, Steel, antler, Walrus Ivory and even wood.

The pommel was not necessarily a counter balance but merely a lump of material attached to the handle to stop the sword flying out of the hand when the sword was swung vigorously. A counter balance is not necessary on a device primarilly used as a hacking and slashing weaopn that requires little finesse to be effective, However, in re-enactment, where there are safety requirements and a counter balanced blade allows the user much more control of an unwieldy iron bar or sword.

Posted: Mon Dec 03, 2007 8:30 pm
by Mark Sanderson
forgot to add that Viking swords were often deeply fullered with a wide fuller, leaving thicker material at the edges of the blade for the cutting edge. These deep, wide fullers reduced the weight of the blade considerably allowing the user more control when fighting an opponent of equal skill.

Posted: Mon Dec 03, 2007 9:09 pm
by puchaczos2
i'm agree. pommels were often light. lot of iron pommels is empty inside. not only from viking age. i have made couple of swords( http://www.sicuterat.art.pl/miecz1.html and http://www.sicuterat.art.pl/mieczpoltorareczny2.html) with empty pommels and counter balance is enough even for long blade.

my first viking sword: http://www.sicuterat.art.pl/wiking1.html has empty pommel too and balnce point is similar to excavated swords.

a was asking about pommels but....
Mark has told about fullers. does somebody know how deep are these fullers? when in the books is written that the fuller is shallow it's mean is about 1mm? or less? sometimes fullers are only flat surface and sometimes fullers are very deep. than 1mm deep fuller is it deep or shallow?

of course question about pommels is still present :)

Posted: Sun Jan 27, 2008 7:24 pm
by saxon
The depth of fuller also depended on the thickness of the blade, as well as making the blade lighter and easier to wield it also helped to give some 'flexibility' to the blade ........... the consistency and tempering of the finished item being crucial ! most iron swords - as proved by many finds - would just break clean rather than bend. Therefore the depth of fuller is down to your own preference if making one. :wink:

Posted: Sat Aug 01, 2009 12:35 pm
by ronjeez
Mark Sanderson wrote:Pommels could be made from any hard wearing material.
Bronze, Brass, Iron, Steel, antler, Walrus Ivory and even wood.

The pommel was not necessarily a counter balance but merely a lump of material attached to the handle to stop the sword flying out of the hand when the sword was swung vigorously. A counter balance is not necessary on a device primarilly used as a hacking and slashing weaopn that requires little finesse to be effective, However, in re-enactment, where there are safety requirements and a counter balanced blade allows the user much more control of an unwieldy iron bar or sword.
yes actually right its all made by hard steel mostly thank for the info here.


_________________
Stereolithography

Viking Sword & pommel

Posted: Sun Aug 02, 2009 8:54 pm
by glyndwr 50
Do yourself a really big favour and vist the Sutton Hoo site on the web and you will find all you wish to know on the viking sword smiths .Type in Sutton Hoo sword and there is a very fine example of the pommel and how it was made . The Sutton Hoo finds are really worth a look ,the pommel is and will be most interesting to yourself , and how it is constructed .Sutton Hoo is a very famous ship burial 7th cent ,Its Saxon with lots of viking infulence .It was excavated in 1939 .I made the armour that was on show there ,a full size copy of the sword & helmet and shield .Unfortunatley the sword and helmet were stolen ,and has never seen since..

Death is Nature's way of telling you to slow down..

Posted: Sun Aug 02, 2009 11:02 pm
by redwald
"Sutton Hoo is a very famous ship burial 7th cent ,Its Saxon with lots of viking infulence "

Mmmm! Difficult -- now Scandinavian influence, possibly - not Viking - the Viking period doesn't start until the late 8th century.


Paul

Posted: Mon Aug 03, 2009 1:23 pm
by Hobbitstomper
puchaczos2 wrote:thanx for answer:)

but actually i was asking about pommel like this one: http://www.vikingsword.com/petersen/ptsn089h.html
there is shown, on the fig.81, a bent wire which is making rivets. probably to this wire was attached pommel but how was done it? solder or welded? if was soldering than what metal was used for it? for soldering
was it only way for riveting the pommel(when on the upper guard are shown rivets)?

this kind of pommel was empty inside then how thick was the sheet of iron used for it?

sometimes tang is going through the upper guard but not through the pommel. what in this case? how was it joined?

i need these informations because i'm preparing for making vikings sword:)
Search on pommel on the UK Portable Antiquities Scheme database and you should come up with a couple of pictures of original pommels. Some of them are hollow and they should give you an idea of the metal thickness. I suspect that they are attached in the same way as a type IV migration period sword pommel- the tang goes through the bar of the upper guard, the tang is peened over then the pommel is riveted on to the bar.

I'd suspect that the pommel in your picture was either:
Solid with blind holes drilled in and (iron) rods for the rivets hammered in (to a taped hole so they can't fall out) or brazed (bronze- use something like a modern silver bronze as it is really strong) in place.
Or hollow with holes drilled for the rods then the rods are brazed in place.
Either way, you can't see how the rod for the rivets are attached so no one will know if it is not 100% right. Modern welding would look the same on the finished sword.

The pommel is attached by riveting it to the upper guard once the upper guard is already fixed in place. The rivets are peened over from underneath.

Some of the original swords had some decorative wire between the upper guard and pommel itself- twisted silver wire would look good.

Posted: Mon Aug 03, 2009 1:32 pm
by Benedict
Much of the Sutton Hoo material is Saxon with strong Scandinavian influence - ie the Vikings before they started touring worldwide :lol:

The fact that the closest parallels for finds in East Anglia were in Denmark caused quite a bit of head-scratching until it dawned that the North Sea was a highway rather than a barrier. There's an excellent article by Martin Carver (IIRC) in a BritArch volume on Sutton Hoo which points out that, with the prevailing winds and currents, it will take about six days to go from Denmark to Sutton Hoo, compared to two weeks or more to go from Sutton Hoo to the Mercian centre at Tamworth. Yes, early medieval sea travel is much quicker, easier and pleasanter (provided you're not shipwrecked) than going by land.

The difficulty was that we have little or no evidence for regular journeys straight across large bodies of water as opposed to coast-hugging. Oddly enough we've found plenty of boats near the (then) shore, but not many in the middle of the sea. :oops:

According to the Admiralty, the prevailing winds make it easier to go from Scandinavia to England in the spring, and to go from England to Scandinavia in the autumn. The vikings don't seem to have been all that unusual - the seafaring technology existed and was used long before the late eighth century.


Benedict

Posted: Mon Aug 03, 2009 1:47 pm
by Medicus Matt
Benedict wrote:
The fact that the closest parallels for finds in East Anglia were in Denmark caused quite a bit of head-scratching until it dawned that the North Sea was a highway rather than a barrier.
Head scratching? Who?
People that didn't think very hard about where the Angles came from in the first place presumably.

Posted: Mon Aug 03, 2009 2:11 pm
by Sir Thomas Hylton
Perhaps its the thinking that all ancient nations liked to keep within sight of land when at sea rather than travelling out into what some would like us to think was the unknown.

I'd assumed this was what Benedict was getting at.

I'm not going to get into common historical misconceptions, as I know I'm probably as guilty of allowing myself to continue a few myself, than take on current theories myelf in certain cases.

Posted: Mon Aug 03, 2009 5:16 pm
by redwald
I'd be happy to debate the origins of the stuff from Sutton Hoo should anyone wish to do so.
Perhaps it is off topic on this thread? Shall we start a new one?

I am very surprised that Rupert Bruce-Mitford, Basil Brown, Charles Philips, etc, were unaware of Scandinavia, and that the Vikings were around in the 6th and 7th centiries.

Paul

viking sword pommels

Posted: Mon Aug 03, 2009 5:38 pm
by glyndwr 50
Hi redwald ,I'm up for that ,sounds a good idea ..


Death is Nature's way of telling you to slow down.

Posted: Mon Aug 03, 2009 5:51 pm
by Sir Thomas Hylton
Another yey. 8) Fire away.

Posted: Mon Aug 03, 2009 6:19 pm
by Medicus Matt
He's trying to lure you all in so that he can destroy you. Flee.

Posted: Mon Aug 03, 2009 8:38 pm
by chrisanson
please dont Flee, its just geting good