Ethnographic Arms & Armour - View Single Post

A. G. Maisey · Yesterday, 06:04 AM

Thanks for explaining your reasons for focussing on the pamor Gustav.

When we use twisted bar techniques to produce intentional patterns there is a lot more than just the forge work to consider. The pattern that becomes evident on the finished blade is as much the product of the cold work on the bench, as it is the product of the hot work in the forge.

After the final twisting has been completed, the resultant bar then needs to be forged down into a billet of suitable size to be used to produce a blade, & the blade is forged to shape, but then that forged blade needs cold work to turn it into the form that will be ready for heat treating. As we reduce and smooth the surfaces we cut further & further into that twisted material, and what happens is that as we cut deeper into the twisted the material, the pattern changes.

I’m not at home right now, so I do not have access to books, but I believe that either Sache or Jim Hrisoulas illustrates this effect quite well. I went looking for something on line that would show this, I came up with this:-

https://www.provos.org/p/pattern-welding-explained/

scroll down a bit & there are a couple of short videos that demonstrate this pattern change effect pretty well.

Here is another link to a good article that can assist in understanding how various patterns can be revealed in a twisted bar during the cold work, rather than the hot work:-

http://www.vikingsword.com/serpent.pdf

Bearing this in mind, & being aware that twisted bar patterns have been made a great many times, by a great many smiths, over a great many years, and with those smiths having variable levels of skill, both as individuals & in the same smith over his working life, it becomes obvious that we cannot really use a particular pamor pattern to fix the point in time when it might have been produced.

In respect of the blade in post#1, my immediate impression is that I am looking at Madura post 1980, patterning of this & similar designs is not at all uncommon in recent Madura blades, but when I look more closely at some other characteristics of this blade I am reluctant to place it as late as recent Madura. I’d really need it stripped down & in my hand to provide an opinion that I could defend.

As for having seen a keris blade with similar pamor work to this one, yes, I have seen a great many, but none that could be regarded as particularly old, so if this is an older blade, & for the sake of this discussion I think we can take it as an older blade, then I cannot recall having ever seen a blade with pamor similar to this blade that could be reliably dated to earlier than 19th century. Even in the period up to beginning of WWII, keris with pamor similar to the pamor on the blade in post #1 is scarce.

I estimated this post #1 keris as 19th century, & the reason I did this is because stylistically it is old Madura and most of the old Madura blades that we encounter seem to be 19th century. However, keris makers from our current era & from previous eras, have made blades that were copies of earlier styles. Pauzan Pusposukadgo made quite a number of keris that were copies of earlier Mataram blades, I myself made a copy of an old West Jawa blade.

In respect of the working of iron in the forge to make it usable, that has been a part of producing tools & weapons from iron from the very beginning. However, there is a big difference between the processes used in welding to clean iron in order to make it usable & manipulating and welding iron in order to produce a pre-determined pattern. The cleaning process is simply piling & twisting, & although this does produce a pattern, it is a random pattern not a pattern that has been produced intentionally, nor that can be copied. The work involved in producing a pre-determined pattern requires far greater skill than the skill required to simply produce iron that is adequate for use as a tool or weapon.

As Gustav has commented, patterns in welded iron had been produced in Roman times & before, but the welded blades of the Merovingians were deliberate essays in producing predetermined patterns as an art form, proof of the maker’s competence & an assurance of quality.

There is a lot of conjecture & supposition in archeo metallurgy, but it seems to be generally accepted that forge techniques & technology had advanced sufficiently by the time that the Merovingians rose to power for them to develop true pattern welding as the art that we now recognise. The Merovingians were in fact a continuation of the old Roman Empire, but the area that they controlled was limited (in modern day terms) to Germany, Belgium, some of Switzerland & Austria & most of France. This being so, it is understandable that they built upon the Roman foundation of iron working.

Perhaps we should be careful in using the term “pattern welding”. In my understanding it is a fairly recent term that was first used not long after the end of WWII by an archaeologist, & he appears to have used the term to refer to a sword found in North Germany & dating from about the 3rd century, so, not actually Merovingian, but a couple of hundred years later the rise of the Merovingians began & by about the 7th or 8th century true pattern welding was well established. A pattern in welded ferric material might be apparent in very early work, but is it a true pattern, or is it merely a chance happening generated by the work necessary to produce useable material?

The use of the word “pattern“ infers predictability, an arrangement that can be repeated or copied, so what we refer to as a “random pattern” is a contradiction in terms, simply because it is random.

I’d like to be able to think of, & use, the term ”pattern welding” to mean true, repeatable patterns, not the unpredictable result of a necessary process.

Yesterday, 06:04 AM	#25
A. G. Maisey Member Join Date: May 2006 Posts: 7,131	Thanks for explaining your reasons for focussing on the pamor Gustav. When we use twisted bar techniques to produce intentional patterns there is a lot more than just the forge work to consider. The pattern that becomes evident on the finished blade is as much the product of the cold work on the bench, as it is the product of the hot work in the forge. After the final twisting has been completed, the resultant bar then needs to be forged down into a billet of suitable size to be used to produce a blade, & the blade is forged to shape, but then that forged blade needs cold work to turn it into the form that will be ready for heat treating. As we reduce and smooth the surfaces we cut further & further into that twisted material, and what happens is that as we cut deeper into the twisted the material, the pattern changes. I’m not at home right now, so I do not have access to books, but I believe that either Sache or Jim Hrisoulas illustrates this effect quite well. I went looking for something on line that would show this, I came up with this:- https://www.provos.org/p/pattern-welding-explained/ scroll down a bit & there are a couple of short videos that demonstrate this pattern change effect pretty well. Here is another link to a good article that can assist in understanding how various patterns can be revealed in a twisted bar during the cold work, rather than the hot work:- http://www.vikingsword.com/serpent.pdf Bearing this in mind, & being aware that twisted bar patterns have been made a great many times, by a great many smiths, over a great many years, and with those smiths having variable levels of skill, both as individuals & in the same smith over his working life, it becomes obvious that we cannot really use a particular pamor pattern to fix the point in time when it might have been produced. In respect of the blade in post#1, my immediate impression is that I am looking at Madura post 1980, patterning of this & similar designs is not at all uncommon in recent Madura blades, but when I look more closely at some other characteristics of this blade I am reluctant to place it as late as recent Madura. I’d really need it stripped down & in my hand to provide an opinion that I could defend. As for having seen a keris blade with similar pamor work to this one, yes, I have seen a great many, but none that could be regarded as particularly old, so if this is an older blade, & for the sake of this discussion I think we can take it as an older blade, then I cannot recall having ever seen a blade with pamor similar to this blade that could be reliably dated to earlier than 19th century. Even in the period up to beginning of WWII, keris with pamor similar to the pamor on the blade in post #1 is scarce. I estimated this post #1 keris as 19th century, & the reason I did this is because stylistically it is old Madura and most of the old Madura blades that we encounter seem to be 19th century. However, keris makers from our current era & from previous eras, have made blades that were copies of earlier styles. Pauzan Pusposukadgo made quite a number of keris that were copies of earlier Mataram blades, I myself made a copy of an old West Jawa blade. In respect of the working of iron in the forge to make it usable, that has been a part of producing tools & weapons from iron from the very beginning. However, there is a big difference between the processes used in welding to clean iron in order to make it usable & manipulating and welding iron in order to produce a pre-determined pattern. The cleaning process is simply piling & twisting, & although this does produce a pattern, it is a random pattern not a pattern that has been produced intentionally, nor that can be copied. The work involved in producing a pre-determined pattern requires far greater skill than the skill required to simply produce iron that is adequate for use as a tool or weapon. As Gustav has commented, patterns in welded iron had been produced in Roman times & before, but the welded blades of the Merovingians were deliberate essays in producing predetermined patterns as an art form, proof of the maker’s competence & an assurance of quality. There is a lot of conjecture & supposition in archeo metallurgy, but it seems to be generally accepted that forge techniques & technology had advanced sufficiently by the time that the Merovingians rose to power for them to develop true pattern welding as the art that we now recognise. The Merovingians were in fact a continuation of the old Roman Empire, but the area that they controlled was limited (in modern day terms) to Germany, Belgium, some of Switzerland & Austria & most of France. This being so, it is understandable that they built upon the Roman foundation of iron working. Perhaps we should be careful in using the term “pattern welding”. In my understanding it is a fairly recent term that was first used not long after the end of WWII by an archaeologist, & he appears to have used the term to refer to a sword found in North Germany & dating from about the 3rd century, so, not actually Merovingian, but a couple of hundred years later the rise of the Merovingians began & by about the 7th or 8th century true pattern welding was well established. A pattern in welded ferric material might be apparent in very early work, but is it a true pattern, or is it merely a chance happening generated by the work necessary to produce useable material? The use of the word “pattern“ infers predictability, an arrangement that can be repeated or copied, so what we refer to as a “random pattern” is a contradiction in terms, simply because it is random. I’d like to be able to think of, & use, the term ”pattern welding” to mean true, repeatable patterns, not the unpredictable result of a necessary process.