“þa gen sylf cyninggeweold his gewitte, wællseaxe gebrædbiter ond beaduscearp, þæt he on byrnan wæg; forwrat Wedra helm wyrm on middan.”
‘The king himself nowtook command of his wits, reached for the slaughter-sax of keenest battle-sharpness, that he carried in his harness;the Geats’ Protector hewed the wyrm in twain’
What would such a weapon have looked like, what length would the blade have been, and how would the handle have functioned?
To answer these questions, I embarked on a project to produce a feasible reconstruction of this seax.
K567 Staffordshire Hoard seax hilt-plate replica |
The slot, which would have accommodated the blade, is 37mm long and 4.5mm wide. In the case of lower hilt-plates, the shape of slots corresponds with the cross-section of the blade, and the triangular shape of the slot in k567 indicates a single cutting-edge.
A precise replica of the hilt-plate was produced by George Easton of danegeld.co.uk, while a seax blade to the specifications of the piece was commissioned from Paul Binns (paul-binns-swords.co.uk).
The k567 hilt-plate would certainly not have been fitted to the seax on its own, and precedent set by migration-period swords suggests metal-organic-metal sandwitches would have been favoured for weapon guards. For this reason, it was decided that the k567 replica would be fixed to a complimentary hilt-plate either side of a horn layer -work completed by George. While it is clear k567 would have been the lower-most hilt plate, the upper plate of this sandwich would've accommodated the tang of the blade -rectangular in cross section.
The blade used was a fine example of Paul Binns' magnificent metalwork, displaying the classic herringbone pattern, composed of two twisted bundles, each of 9 layers, forged flat with an iron back and a carbon-steel edge. Such blades are commonly found without any fittings, and the long tangs suggest that, most often, sword-like hilts were not favoured. How, then, could a sword-like lower guard (as implied by k567) be integrated into a seax-hilt design?

The long tangs of such seaxes suggest long handles, and while larger examples may have, in some cases, been used two-handedly, seaxes of intermediate size may have had such long handles in order to allow dual use; while a grip close to the blade allows precise cutting, a grip towards the back allows greater hacking force akin to a machete (Mortimer, 2011). It may also be the case that long-handles facilitated attacks involving a loose grip sliding from the guard to the back mid-swing, much like an axe is wielded, that could have maximised hacking power whilst reducing shock to the user.
Working with this theory, a handle should be shaped such that the user's hand can feel what grip-position is being used. In battle, this would allow a user to switch between grip styles depending on the desired attack without much conscious effort.
The handle was formed by carving a block of English walnut (Juglans regia; a material traditionally used for the best gun-stocks) into a shortened version of the target shape. This was sanded, roughly polished, then cut into five sections. Between these sections, disks of flat cow-bone (from pre-prepared sheets available from the invaluable Reenactors Market) were added. Such bone is a wonderful material, resembling modern hard plastic in its working properties, and provides opportunity to highlight our ancestors' frugal use of virtually every part of a carcas. These disks of bone, when in place, would provide additional grip, and visual interest to the handle.
Drilling holes in these parts to accommodate the tang of the blade was a challenge, but was eventually achieved with a rather tight fit. As seax blades tend to be found with the ends un-peened, it is thought that handles would've been held on by friction, so a tight fit of these parts was essential.
The end of an Anglo-Saxon blade's tang would have been much softer than the hard steel of Paul's seax blade, and it would have been possible to peen the end over the upper-guard piece to secure the whole handle in place. In this case, the snug fit of this part was sufficient, but the tang still protruded a few millimetres out of the guard. To hide this, as on their swords, our 6th-7th Century ancestors would have affixed a cnæpp or knob (sometimes referred to erroneously as "pommel" or, marginally better, as a "pommel-cap").
Læwatan was now complete, but the importance of good maintenance practises with such pieces cannot be overstated. The blade was cleaned of any finger-marks and dust, and polished using a mixture of beeswax and linseed oil to protect it from corrosion. This step is absolutely crucial for a display item, as beautiful pattern-welded blades attract inquisitive fingers, and the oils and acids naturally secreted by human skin can rather rapidly lead to finger-print shaped areas of surface rust. It is always worth protecting vulnerable steel from such corrosion, and beeswax is particularly useful in this regard, forming a transparent and corrosion-resistant film on the surface. This is a technique our ancestors likely used.
To protect Læwatan, a suitable sheath would be essential. Fabricating a worthy sheath was the next task....
References:
Mortimer, P. (2011) Woden's Warriors. Woden's Warriors: Warfare, Beliefs, Arms and Armour in Northern Europe during the 6th-7th Centuries. 1st edition. Cambridge, Anglo-Saxon Books.