Small Seax design, please critique

P

pullrich

Joined
May 4, 2010
Messages
863
Interested in your likes, dislikes, and advice on 3 possible builds for a small seax.
I have a length of O1 steel measuring 1.5" by 1/8" by 9.5". Maple blocks for handle, stabilized and non-stabilized available.
Some wrought iron for small guard and butt cap. I have some elk bone that I was thinking about using as part of the handle, see pic.
Plan was to use stick tang design; drill and burn the tang through the wood and bone. Probably pin the butt cap to handle or in the case of the middle design, I could just epoxy plus peen over the end of the tang. Thanks in advance for your thoughts.
Top design: 11 in OAL, 6.25 blade
Middle design: 9.5 OAL, 5.5 blade
Bottom design: 10.25 OAL, 6 blade
DSC01197.JPG
 
I like the first (top) design. The flow is just better, much more graceful. Looking forward to seeing the finished knife.

Dave
 
Thanks for the input. I like the top one, too. However, was wondering if I should be concerned about how shallow the tang penetrates into the end section. Need to pin it to the bone?
 
The tang looks mighty thin. By the time you drill holes for pins, you are not going to have much metal left around the holes. I would redesign the tang to be taller. More metal/less wood = more strength.
Chip Kunkle
 
Actually my first thoughts were to not pin the tang to the handle, but rather to pin the handle pieces together, parallel to the tang. End piece pinned to the bone spacer, to put it another way.
 
You can use the top design and still have the butt plate well secured.

Screw it. Have the tang as long as possible. Then on the end drill and file a square opening that will hold the head of a bold.
Then when you screw the butt cap on it wants to pull the bold away from the tang.

A bit lik this:
PC190532.JPG
 
Please do not take this the wrong way...

I think your design would benefit from studying some of the actual artifacts if you want to make something that resembles the originals. If not, there is nothing wrong with your design, except it does not look very much like a seax. If this doesn't bother you, have at it, you have my blessings. If you are interested in making a knife that looks like a seax, here is a crash course for you of everything I've been able to find out about the type 4 (broken back) seax over the last 5 or so years.
planche2.jpg

Note that in every case, the blade widens from the tang/handle junction to the start of the spine break. Not a straight line in sight, but subtle curves. I've yet to see an original seax with a perfectly straight edge.... some are close, but there is always a hint of curve to the edge. This is the most commonly found mistake on modern interpretations, along with the blade profile taper.

As far as I know there is only one in existence with an intact handle, that being the so called 'hunting knife of Charlemagne' or the Aachen seax (a quick google search will give you an image). It should be noted the knife is over 16" long, with a handle of 8".... First rule of seax handles is, the handle should be longer than the modern knife of the same size.... Note there is no guard, not even a plate between the handle and the blade... Metal guards did not exist on type 4 seaxes. Here is an image from the 10th-11th century of some seaxes showing the handle shape that was typical:
sig1.jpg

The sheaths that have survived reinforce this assumption.

Riccassos are not used on knifes until the renaissance, so they are not found on seaxes.

That should get you in the ballpark...

Edited to add:
This is an excellent resource for anyone interested in seaxes, type 4 or otherwise: http://1501bc.com/files/information_about_saxes.zip
 
Thanks GHezell, no I don't take discussion and information the wrong way.... I was actually hoping for a discussion of design and historical examples. I've gone back and forth on whether to aim for something that resembles what we have seen in the archaeological record or something that is simply informed by that record. You can tell I'm leaning more towards the latter, mostly because it was the work of Ben Potter, Scott Roush, and Serge Panchenko that lead me this far.

Scott's looks well within the seax design seen in the historic record, in fact, dead on the bottom one in the pic you posted.
http://www.bladeforums.com/forums/showthread.php/870420-A-Wrought-Iron-Damascus-Composite-Seax?highlight=seax

Serge's less so but even still I find it amazing. You can see I drew mine up based on his:
http://www.bladeforums.com/forums/showthread.php/868543-First-Sax?highlight=seax

Personally I have to wonder about how strictly we can rely upon the archaeological record to create categories of iron age and medieval knives. After all, corroded grave goods and other finds represent some fraction of the blades that were used back then. I would suspect that if we had a time machine and could go back and observe all the knives used back then, we'd see enormous variety, with a few groupings based on certain characteristics, but I think that the lines between so-called saexes and a larger grouping of just plain big-ass knives would not be exactly clear. I would also argue that it's not exactly clear in the archaeological record, either. It's the same thing with more modern knives, for example, when is a big knife a bowie, or a sword for that matter? Right now I'm not speaking to your point, which is a valid one, I havent really drawn up a period-correct seax, and maybe not even a period-close seax, as best we can define what that is (the arch record).
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top