Puukko Purist Questions

[Mr. Chips]

I'd say the simplest incarnation of the puukko is the maasepän. This has a birch bark blade cover, useful for knives that won't be carried around, but obviously it's possible to have a leather sheath.

The rhombic section has been a very common feature on handforged puukko since the 17th century, but probably has been before as well. Its origin seems to come from smiths reforging feather files exploiting their existing geometry. Flat section blades are bit simpler and quicker to forge and tend to have less bite than rhombic ones. After having used rhombic puukkos since 2011 I always find flat section blades to give somehow less satisfaction in wood working.

That is an absolutely lovely looking knife!

I would love to try it out on some wood.

The birch bark sheath is very serviceable. I often make sheaths very similar to this one for knives I and my students make using Mora laminated blades. When I make them, I usually make them with a bark loop at the back of the sheath through which I can put a cord which works well for neck carry, or the cord can be tied to a belt loop and the sheathed knife can be carried in the hip pocket with complete safety. It does require two hand to unsheath or to sheath, because the bark grips the blade quite strongly, with no danger of falling off. When unsheathed the sheath can be left to dangle, reminding the user that the knife is lying around somewhere! (Most lost knives are left lying around.) Birch bark sheaths like this are better than 90% of the leather sheaths that I have seen, and can be made in 5 min. for nothing by someone with access to birch trees.
It does NOT by the way, kill or even seriously injure a birch tree to take some of the outer bark. I have observed trees that have had quite a lot of their outer bark removed for basket making etc., yes all the way around, and those trees have survived just fine for many years. This "if you peel the bark you will kill the tree" stuff is a lie that was told to children to keep them from disfiguring birches in parks etc., and we have just kept on repeating it. (There is a lot of this sort of thing going on.......)

 

[Mr. Chips]

Here's an excellent piece that was posted on these forums some time back: ‘Puukko’ is a Finnish term. It’s a derivative of ‘puu’ which means wood. A puukko is, first and foremost, a wood carving tool (we have a special term for that, ‘vuoleminen’, the root verb being ‘vuolla’, which comes close to whittling or wood carving, but denotes specifically the use of the blade for push-cuts, not slicing or slashing). Other ‘necessary’ uses of a puukko have to do with fishing and hunting, i.e., scaling, skinning, filleting, and other such tasks in preparing fish and game. Skilled users do about everything with a puukko, though. Once it was thought that a boy really doesn’t need other purchased toys; after he gets a puukko, he’ll make everything else with it. This is no joke! In the 50’s, schoolboys were (at some places) forbidden to use the puukko during wood-carving lessons, because they wouldn’t otherwise learn to use other tools, like planes, saws and chisels. Now the situation is, of course, quite different. Many Finns do not learn to use the puukko properly, though some kind of renaissance may be discernable here (there’s even a special ‘vuolukirja’, whittling book, by Joel Nokelainen 1996, but I think, only in Finnish).

The puukko has developed to remarkable functional simplicity during generations of hard, straightforward use by ordinary people. It is a compromise, a multi-tool, if you like, with nothing inessential. That explains some of its characteristic features. The blade, for instance, is typically only a hand width in length, or a bit less. A longer blade would hamper its performance in whittling, etc. control is better with a shorter one (for fine work, such as countersinking a hole, the puukko is grasped by the blade and the thumb may be used as a ‘backstop’). But because it is not a ‘pure’ wood carving tool, too short won’t do. Similar explanations could be given for the relatively pointy point (remember the hole?), the (usually) straight back (with absolutely no false-edge or swedge), the wedgelike grind, the relatively thin blade, the smooth guardless handle (often called the head), made traditionally of wood, mostly birch, or of birch bark, etc. There are, of course, exceptions, and specialization is taking place here, too. But most of the recent developments in puukko may be more market-driven than purely function. For instance, the recent proliferation of finger-guards comes solely from legislative (consumer protective) demands of USA. A traditional puukko does not need them, as it is not meant for stabbing (though they were used for that too by the ‘puukkojunkkarit’, a group of Finnish outlaws at the Kauhava region quite a few decades ago).

The carry system, in Finnish ‘tuppi’, is traditionally great. It’s not a quick-draw or concealment item or anything like that, but protects the puukko (and its owner) well, keeps it securely in place, does not hamper sitting, etc., and is aesthetically pleasing (the puukko is often called ‘tuppiroska’, sheath-litter, as it were and that could, I guess, reflect the high esteem that traditional makers have had for the sheath). But everyone does not know anymore how to make a proper tuppi (or does not have the time/financial means for that). About the grind. Not every puukko has a high saber grind (or ‘wide flat Scandinavian grind’, as somebody said), and not every puukko lacks a secondary bevel, though typically they do. Sharpening the whole flat sides every time would wear the blade down quickly (this actually happens – there are many puukkos around that resemble only faintly what they were as new), though for ‘vuoleminen’ you do need a very acute angle (about 15/30 degrees). In addition, there are (new) puukkos with a secondary grind as well as some with a convex grind (notably, the Lapinleuku, the traditional tool of reindeer-owners). About the thickness, yes, puukko blades tend to be relatively thin (and not very wide, either, and they do not have a full tang, which I have often grumbled myself). This relates again to its primary functions. It’s not convenient to ‘vuolla’ or to fillet with a thick blade, and you do not, typically, chop or pry with a puukko (for chopping we use the axe and for prying the other guy’s tools).

Those Finns seem to be my kind of people!

 

[Frederick89]

That is an absolutely lovely looking knife!
I would love to try it out on some wood.

That was made by blacksmith Martti Malinen.
https://nordiskaknivar.wordpress.com/2014/01/10/martti-malinen/

The balde is handforged 52100 taken to 62 HRC, 20° inclusive bevels with a hint of convexed edge. He hand sharpens all his blades and strop them on bare leather before shipping.

 

[J Buck]

I find this to be a very interesting thread. While I don't own one (yet), I have been fascinated by these old world knives for several years. Thanks for the comments, and I am more informed.

 

[LostViking]

So, by definition, is my Finnish made Aito considered a Puukko?

Made in Finland, blade and handle dimensions seem to fit, no guard, brass fittings, no rhombic cross section. Birch bark handle.

 

[Frederick89]

It is. Like said the rhombic section is a feature mostly seen on handforged puukkos. Understandable that a maker that forges his own blades stresses this feature, but its absence doesn't mean a certain type of knife is not a puukko.

Let's put it like this, in Finnish it's called "puukko" a knife meant for wood working and hunting, any other kind of knife is a "veitsi".

 

[pinnah]

LV,

Your questions rest on some ideas of classification and categorization that serious collectors should come to terms with.

The classic Greek idea of classification asserts that members of a class all share some set of core attributes. This leads to clear inclusion/exclusion decisions that can be applied objectively by different classifiers.

In contrast, the (post-modern) idea of categorization asserts that members of the same category bear a "family resemblance" to one another in Wittgenstein's terms. This leads to ambiguous inclusion/exclusion decisions that depend on the different archivists.

This topic is richly explored both in both cognitive psychology and in Library Information Sciences. Gregory Murphy's book, "The Big Book of Concepts" (MIT Press) looks at the issue from the standpoint of cognitive psych and he points out that humans think in terms of categories, not classifications. The first 2 chapters are "must read" material, imo. Elin Jacobs has a nice paper on the topic from a computer science/LIS standpoint here.
https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/774e/ab27b22aa92dfaa9aeeeafbe845058e85f58.pdf

Musical genres and most industrial designs, including knives but also including types of skis and bikes and cars and tents and on and on are all categories, not classes. On the other hand, computer data bases (and pure mathematics) work on the idea of pure classifications.

The problems with all classifications is that they can't deal with exceptions well, nor can they deal with edge cases well. Your questions posit the existence of some set of criteria that can be used to determine if a knife is in or out of the set of Puukos. It's a classification approach. Alberta Ed's post suggests exceptions galore and is more in line with categorization (family resemblance).

There are many ways to define categories without appealing to essential features. I find one of the best when thinking about industrial designs is the "examplar model", in which new objects are judged to be in a set based on their similarity to several pre-determined examplars.

For example, a song is bluegrass if it sounds like Bill Munroe, The Stanley Brothers or Flatt and Scruggs.

A knife is a Puuko if it looks like [insert list of classic Finnish Puukos here].

Yet more bathroom reading...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exemplar_theory

 

[A.L.]

Ask what makes puukko from bunch of Finns, and everyone has their opinion and expertise. Nobody agrees on anyones opinion, because every Finn is master puukko-smith and metallurgist. That is what makes Finnish puukko.

 

[A.L.]

LV,

Your questions rest on some ideas of classification and categorization that serious collectors should come to terms with.

The classic Greek idea of classification asserts that members of a class all share some set of core attributes. This leads to clear inclusion/exclusion decisions that can be applied objectively by different classifiers.

In contrast, the (post-modern) idea of categorization asserts that members of the same category bear a "family resemblance" to one another in Wittgenstein's terms. This leads to ambiguous inclusion/exclusion decisions that depend on the different archivists.

This topic is richly explored both in both cognitive psychology and in Library Information Sciences. Gregory Murphy's book, "The Big Book of Concepts" (MIT Press) looks at the issue from the standpoint of cognitive psych and he points out that humans think in terms of categories, not classifications. The first 2 chapters are "must read" material, imo. Elin Jacobs has a nice paper on the topic from a computer science/LIS standpoint here.
https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/774e/ab27b22aa92dfaa9aeeeafbe845058e85f58.pdf

Musical genres and most industrial designs, including knives but also including types of skis and bikes and cars and tents and on and on are all categories, not classes. On the other hand, computer data bases (and pure mathematics) work on the idea of pure classifications.

The problems with all classifications is that they can't deal with exceptions well, nor can they deal with edge cases well. Your questions posit the existence of some set of criteria that can be used to determine if a knife is in or out of the set of Puukos. It's a classification approach. Alberta Ed's post suggests exceptions galore and is more in line with categorization (family resemblance).

There are many ways to define categories without appealing to essential features. I find one of the best when thinking about industrial designs is the "examplar model", in which new objects are judged to be in a set based on their similarity to several pre-determined examplars.

For example, a song is bluegrass if it sounds like Bill Munroe, The Stanley Brothers or Flatt and Scruggs.

A knife is a Puuko if it looks like [insert list of classic Finnish Puukos here].

Yet more bathroom reading...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exemplar_theory

You really are overthinking everything aren't you?

 

[Will Power]

Ask what makes puukko from bunch of Finns, and everyone has their opinion and expertise. Nobody agrees on anyones opinion, because every Finn is master puukko-smith and metallurgist. That is what makes Finnish puukko.

Exactly. Ask people here what a sauna is....they all know but it's all slightly different

 

[pinnah]

You really are overthinking everything aren't you?

A wise man once said, the study of anything can lead to the study of everything. But if you'd rather not think about such things, that's fine too.

 

[Jsega51]

It's already been explained that a puukko is a knife of a certain style that is made in Finland as that's where it was derived from and is rooted in their history. Knives, even of the same style, made outside of this region carry different names. Though they are commonly referred to as puukkos, traditionally speaking, they are not.

No need for a thesis on the breakdown of everything under the sun Pinnah.

 

[kamagong]

LV,

Your questions rest on some ideas of classification and categorization that serious collectors should come to terms with.

The classic Greek idea of classification asserts that members of a class all share some set of core attributes. This leads to clear inclusion/exclusion decisions that can be applied objectively by different classifiers.

In contrast, the (post-modern) idea of categorization asserts that members of the same category bear a "family resemblance" to one another in Wittgenstein's terms. This leads to ambiguous inclusion/exclusion decisions that depend on the different archivists.

This topic is richly explored both in both cognitive psychology and in Library Information Sciences. Gregory Murphy's book, "The Big Book of Concepts" (MIT Press) looks at the issue from the standpoint of cognitive psych and he points out that humans think in terms of categories, not classifications. The first 2 chapters are "must read" material, imo. Elin Jacobs has a nice paper on the topic from a computer science/LIS standpoint here.
https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/774e/ab27b22aa92dfaa9aeeeafbe845058e85f58.pdf

Musical genres and most industrial designs, including knives but also including types of skis and bikes and cars and tents and on and on are all categories, not classes. On the other hand, computer data bases (and pure mathematics) work on the idea of pure classifications.

The problems with all classifications is that they can't deal with exceptions well, nor can they deal with edge cases well. Your questions posit the existence of some set of criteria that can be used to determine if a knife is in or out of the set of Puukos. It's a classification approach. Alberta Ed's post suggests exceptions galore and is more in line with categorization (family resemblance).

There are many ways to define categories without appealing to essential features. I find one of the best when thinking about industrial designs is the "examplar model", in which new objects are judged to be in a set based on their similarity to several pre-determined examplars.

For example, a song is bluegrass if it sounds like Bill Munroe, The Stanley Brothers or Flatt and Scruggs.

A knife is a Puuko if it looks like [insert list of classic Finnish Puukos here].

Yet more bathroom reading...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exemplar_theory

I liked it. Great post. Much more useful and interesting to read than the ubiquitous comments about GEC and "traditional" (i.e., slipjoint) knives. Bravo.

:thumbup:

 

[pinnah]

Jake, if it's been explained, then you can help answer LV's remaining questions and confusion.

BTW, what kind of bike is that in your avatar? Sportster or Roadster? Or chopper?

 

[Jsega51]

Reread the posts up to your initial post Pinnah. A few of the guys that commented, especially Frederick89, have studied the puukko for a long time, tracing its history, qualities and attributes. This isn't the first time the questions have come up. There is another thread regarding puukkos here with lots of historical info and many pics.

http://www.bladeforums.com/forums/showthread.php/1132215-Educate-me-on-the-Puukko?styleid=32


Here is my Puukko. It's a Pasi Hurttila Tuohisarvi. Hand forged Bohler k510 silver steel, rhombic cross section, stacked birch bark handle with reindeer antler and black fiber spacers.

Here's a shot I thought was cool. With the reflection of the wood grain and the expert grind, the blade camouflaged itself pretty good when held "edge up".

(Avatar is my previously owned 2006 HD Night Train. Made the move to a Road Glide)

 

[BladeScout]

Some do get miffed, when there are variations over the traditional Puukko design.

Some even turn up their noses at the angular Tapio Wirkkala Puukkos.

I like them a lot as they feels nice and secure in the hand.

Here are two of mine:











Very nice working knives - the smaller sees quite a bit of use.

Personally I welcome variations but in regards to the purists, they will get up in arms over for example this beautiful Mark Andrews full tang, which the maker calls a puukko.

I like it but people are different.

 

[KBA]

Pinnah - I also enjoyed the post on classification and found it refresshing in contrast to the redundancy found in several threads. ::thumbup:

Jake - That is a real beauty brother. Thank you for the visual treat. :thumbup:

 

[LostViking]

Very interesting comments and beautiful photos folks.

Pinnah, I too tend to over think things. I have always struggled with gray areas. I dislike words like "Almost"

In the big scheme of things, this isn't that important.

Part of my thought process in asking these questions. Stems from what I see as an increasing popularity in Puukko Knives, or Puukko Style knives.

If a Puukko must originate in Finland. Then my Puukko Style Malanika Knife will arrive in a few weeks. Is it any less of a knife. Certainly not. And I eagerly await its arrival.

To take it one step further. When searching the bay or other sites, for specific pieces of military gear. I see the word "style" used to excess. To me, Military Style, is not the same as military. Much the same same American Style is not the same as American.

I definitely get, that a Puukko is in many respects similar to a Bowie knife. Both carry certain inherent classifications and characteristics that make them such. Yet there are many thousands of variations. Since the history and lore of the Puukko goes back considerably further than the Bowie. It stands to reason there would be even a wider array of descriptions, stories, legends and other components to the story.

I tend to classify rather than characterize. A shortcoming no doubt.

I was just wondering if we will see the word Puukko go the way of the word Bushcraft? Or if it will remain more true to it's origins. Personally, I hope it remains true.

 

[Dschal]

A wise man once said, the study of anything can lead to the study of everything. But if you'd rather not think about such things, that's fine too.

Your thoughtful excursus was great. Thanks for the effort!

 

[Jsega51]

LV...you will be more than impressed with Danijel's work. His knives are spot on amazing and worth every penny. You will love that 80crv2 blade steel!

While Danijel lives in Croatia, he has studied from the best Finnish knife makers so that his puukkos are based out of the history of the knife and you'll find that he uses a puukko for all tasks from kitchen duty and hunting to woodwork, as the design was intended. (He owns many knives from Finnish makers).

The areas of distinction carry a gray area and some crossover but I can tell from your responses that you see that and can make a good determination on what constitutes a puukko and what would fall under the "puukko style".

Be sure to post up your thoughts on the Malanika when you get it! I sold the one I bought from Danijel but I'm either going to order another or wait for the right one to pop up on the exchange.