Finnish log cabin - logs and pegs

[jake pogg]

I know you're in mid-answer right now,TW,and don't mean to interrupt,but would appreciate your thoughts on the following if/when you'll have the time:

"... Even those millimetres you add to the setting of the scribe when laying out the depth of the corner notches."

You have mentioned previously that in your region you Always distribute the bearing of the roof load on the longitudinal groove Solely(if i understood you correctly),thus the over-scribing the notches.

I've built a house this past summer where for assorted reasons i had to do the opposite,to distribute at least a large part of the load onto the corner notches(and the mid-wall joints that were not scarphs but a butt-joint inside cross-wall).

It's too late now,the place is partially roofed(taking a break for the winter now),but in theory,what problems do you think i should  try to anticipate,once the house is roofed and being finished/inhabited?



 

[TW]

I never heard the English word "overscribe" before.
We never overscribe dovetailed corners of any sort because they need the compressive force from above to hold them together in horizontal direction.
The long groove will never be perfect and it is bound to give a bit because the surfaces carrying the weight aren't very large and those small surfaces will be deformed.
I have always thought this to be the reason for overscribing those types of corners that can be overscribed.
Now that you asked and made me think further another reson could be that it is hard to judge the amount of moss or flax fibes needed inside a corner notch. If there are protruding log ends on the outside it will be totally impossible to add more. With a bit of extra space one can add more insulation which will be elastic and fill the space even if the amount of insulation isn't completely correct. This is not a problem in a dovetailed corner which can be caulked a bit from the outside should needs arise. This is just some thoughts and I may be wrong.

Anyway the idea is that when the wall carries the weight all along it's length is only gets tighter as it settles and settle it will for centuries to come.

"A log house will settle as long as she stands
First she dries down.
Then she rots down"
This is a translation of an old Swedish proverb from my village...... where the log frame of a log house is always a "she".

You did almost understand the corner notch from Savo correctly Davyongnz. The vertical cutouts on the sides do exctly the same job as our varmtand and they are mitered together vertically just as you understood it. All surfaces meet one another. So far you got it absulutely right. Then a small misstake sneaked in. You dont't need any mitres along the horizontal edge of the primary notches. I have never made that type of corners myself but I have seen it on old buildings around Jämsä when I visited a distant relative there.

The picture of the log scalloped out at the corners is a very old buildings where the logsa were hewn hexagonal at the corner joints. We call the corner "hästhuvudsknut" that is "horse head notch". It is a method that lingered on from medieval round log building practises. Around here they quit using hästhuvudsknut in the earlier half of the 18th century but some 100 kilometres north of us they kept making it until the mid 19th century. In Dalarna in Sweden and parts of Norway they do it in one version or another to this day. The reason is said to be that as the notches get narrower towards the bottom the slop we just talked about between side grain and end grain tightens up a bit when the wall settles.
This is what hästhuvudsknutar look like on hewn logs. An old granary which has had two or three courses added at the top with modern straight sided notches.



 

[TW]

This Englishman living in Norway has a bit to teach about the local version of our common log building methods:
ðŸ"´ Log House Repair in Norway Part 1/15 - YouTube

The local version of hästhuvudsknut with varmtand in Leksand, Dalarna, Sweden. Unfortunately in Swedish but you may understand some by watching. In dalarna they don't hew the log six sided all the way to the end for some reason.
Leksand - Timring med Arne Back - YouTube
The same type of corner. Here you can see the "mosahugg" the small notch in the end grain to be filled with moss or flax.
Hustimring - YouTube

Raulandslaft, a Norwegian variety that is used either with round or sawn/hewn logs.
Raulandslaft med rundtømmer | Norvegian Log construction - YouTube

[jake pogg]

Fantastic information,TW,i really do appreciate you taking the time to share your thoughts,and to do such a great job in documenting the technical details with such precision as regards the specific regions and the timeline in history et c.

Special big Thanks for the original glossary,and etymology of terms,that at times is very important.It helps put a number of issues into perspective for me.

 "hästhuvudsknut",in English,would be "sheepshead" notch.
Very rarely,if ever,used as a corner-notch(to my Very limited knowledge,of course, i live and work in a remote isolated part of Alaska and don't travel much).
In it's traditional,original form it is a favored notch for tie-logs in a larger cabins built in the so-called "Canadian scribe" style.


The trends in the North American log-building are fairly dynamic,in the past couple-three decades i notice a gradual change.
That "Canadian" style has gained a lot of popularity lately.Possibly due to the efforts of one well-known builder and instructor of building,Robert Chambers.
The foundation of that entire style is,we may say,a Half- "hästhuvudsknut" for the corner joint,where only the top half of each log at corner is "hexagonized",to achieve a trapezoidal shape.
What it does in that critical juncture is it allows the top log's notch(which is end-grain) to keep on moving down as the bottom log(side-grain)shrinks,self-adjusting to it and keeping the edges of the corner-joint tight.
The longitudinal groove in such construction is Overscribed,so for some reason the logic is the opposite to the traditional Scandinavian methods that you describe:The building during construction bears on the corner-notches solely(small scribed tabs or separate wedges are left/installed at openings or along extra-long grooves to provide temporary support).
The idea is that eventually the long grooves will close tight,as the corner-notches settle into each other. 

Such method is often also referred to as the "shrink-to-fit" method,not sure if that was something coined by Chambers or evolved naturally.

Chambers is an interesting guy.Coming to log-building from some sort of math/engineering background he introduced quite a bit of math into the process,coming up with some interesting equations and formulae.
I have used one of his calculation formulae once,with very great success(although on a different style constr. cabin,round notches).
He's definitely a brainiac and innovator who's done a lot to help promote this style of log-building,and also the use of mitered joinery to construct round-log roof trusses.
(Aesthetically,neither of these things appeal to me,but much respect to him for the work on systematizing these complex issues).

As illustration to some of the above here's the cover of Chambers' probably most popular book,i just happened to have a friend's copy laying about.
Sorry about this bad photo,but you can kinda see how the top only  of each log is shaped.
These flattened areas,btw,are referred to as "scarphs" by many N.American builders.It's confusing,but here we have it...

In short,this is how the older,traditional knowledge that you describe is transformed into in the New World...



 
   

[davyoungnz]

Thanks for thoroughly answering my questions and providing a whole host of extra information, TW. At this stage I can't think of anything else to ask! The videos you posted will keep me occupied for quite a while. I'm looking forward to building something - hopefully soon...

Thanks for contrasting the Canadian construction style with the Finnish style, Jake. I have to say, I do like the round-wood look. What puts me off pursuing this construction style is that it's more prone to rotting versus the flat-walled construction style. Having said that, if executed correctly either style would probably outlast me...

Cheers

[jake pogg]

"Thanks for contrasting the Canadian construction style with the Finnish style, Jake. I have to say, I do like the round-wood look. What puts me off pursuing this construction style is that it's more prone to rotting versus the flat-walled constructionsstyle. Having said that, if executed correctly either style would probably outlast me..."

David,all thanks are to you,for starting such a constructive thread,and asking such good questions,bringing up some very important(and rarely discussed)issues.

I hope it wouldn't be out of place to put down here some of my thoughts on the Psychology of log-building...(sounds somewhat preposterous,but,nowadays,we spend So much more time inside our houses,and our choice is very individuated and free from strictly practical or cultural sense,that of Course it has lots to do with psychology).

But first,strictly structural:ANY log structure can and will rot,if mistakes in logistics creep into any part of the overall plan.Leaks and seeps,driven moisture,any of the above + sunlight+lack of proper surface treatment,would make the wood go away in a hurry.
Sometimes not even the building itself,but some separate outside feature will bounce moisture back at the log wall irreparably damaging it...(Here in Alaska the ubiquitous way to do that is to place a fuel-oil tank right under the eave...Rain drops from the eave bounce off the commonly-rounded tank surface and rot a patch of the wall,Every time...).

Windows are some of the weak spots:The driven moisture running down the glass will inevitably find it's way into one of the checks,rotting the entire area below the window and even wider(due to capillary principle...).
In most ancient times people have learned to line the window sill with birch bark;the protruding curl acted as drip-edge,preserving the wall below for a Very long time(sometimes centuries).Today we often forget to pay attention to details like that,as the general constr. industry employs so many synthetic,water-proof materials,it went off the radar for the common builder,the window casements themselves most often plastic,and lacking any drip-edge provision standard in the past.

Many of the preventive methods were developed over the eons that people have built with wood:Ample overhangs,as Don P. writes elsewhere on this site being one's main weapon.
If for whatever reason those are not enough,a separate "brow" can be constructed to shield a specific area(common in medieval Norse structures and styles derived from those).

Your typical Stavkirke has that characteristic "mushroom" appearance because of that,the complex roof system is often what meets the eye,any of the wall surfaces barely even visible.

Even the pitch of the roof alone has a lot to do with the trajectory at which shed water is being deflected.

A friend and i have built him a log home some years back,and he roofed it in a funky manner-all overhangs extending a huge distance,12' minimum,the entire house covered by this giant "mushroom cap"-looking roof(really a breeze-way all around,supported by it's own rows of posts et c.).
It's universally condemned here by our fellow villagers,on aesthetic grounds-just about everyone i know has tried to put it to me that they think it looks Very ugly!:))

My friend,whose design it was,is Entirely unrepentant,and i'm totally with him-afterall,that's how builders must think-longevity,practicality,economy,et c.
But here we have it,our homes mean a Lot to us in ways many and sundry,and many of these ways are not to be underestimated in their importance to us psychologically.

This general "American" style of log-building stems directly from the romanticized vision that many Americans have of their past.
Most,if not all,it's chief features being actually quite incongruous with any of the real practices of the past:The maximally-large dia. of logs,combined with their not being sided,makes it extremely awkward to build.The final straw is the uninterrupted single-length of wall-logs(and a not inconsiderable one for today of course),and immediately it spells "heavy equipment" right there:)).
The protruding tails are also from imagination vs any practical thinking,afterall,why would you want to protrude Anything from out your wall,to catch the weather and any and all ambient moisture? Most counter-practical sense as far as wooden architecture is concerned.
But it's the ends of those tails that are most telling:Very often(even in Chambers' very well thought-out buildings) they're sharpened to a flat point,alternating direction vert/horiz.

That amounts to extending the surfaces that are the biggest liability,the most vulnerable "underbelly" of a log structure,the dread end-grain...(AND sticking them way out there towards the weather...)So why?

In my opinion all that is to introduce that psychological effect harking back to some wholly imaginary "settler's cabin"(those ends suggesting that someone's grandpa has whacked these logs out with his axe:)).

I doubt Very much anyone in the past has ever built like that in the US or Canada.
In Appalachia,where many of the old log cabins are preserved(and where many old techniques are still a living tradition) the log-work looks nothing like that,they're much closer to all the principles that TW describes:The wall-logs are sided flat on vert.surfaces;their length is kept modest by one devise or another-jogs,cross-walls,et c.,the corner notches are maximally short and tucked under the eaves for protection,and so on.

My belief(and i hope that it doesn't offend anyone) is that the modern "American" log-house style has been re-invented by the hippies in the early 1970-ies.
Solidly removed by then from any and all real rural heritage, those talented and well-meaning folks have simply followed their romantic vision.
Being mostly urban,and blissfully unencumbered by such practical skills and basic woodworking principles they were free to follow their vision,adopting the technology to the Idea(vs what we see in TW's material).

Eventually these essentially urban ideas/vision have progressed further as the affluence of the urban part of the population increased.
And the further away from practical skills they went the more outlandish the log-building styles have become.
Today,helped by the ostentation that so often accompanies affluence,some of these styles have progressed into outlandish architectural features barely consistent with even the most basic physics-vertical members interspersed with horizontal log-work,lots of (utterly hideous) plate glass windows of a peaked,trapezoidal shape extending clear to the roof-line itself-the log-cabin meets Le Corbusier!:) 

Back down to earth though i'd warn against some of the strictly practical pitfalls of round-log construction.On the inside,the loss of are to the curvature is considerable.On average,the round parts of logs(depending on construction,i.e. where the centerline was kept)can protrude as much as 4" and more.That means that the furniture,cupboards et c. cannot be moved against the wall that distance.Multiplied by the circumference of the floor area it can amount to a very large number of square feet of usable space.
Dust also becomes more of  an issue,as it settles easier the closer to horizontal the surface is,and if neglected forms a very visible,unsightly coating on logs...

I hope i'm not too far out of line with all this unsolicited,possibly unwelcome thoughts...I just thought that it'd be neat to have the contrasting side added to this wonderful,rich resource on Finnish and related types of log-work.... 

[TW]

Some interrsting thoughts Jake.

The "canadian" style corners are known here too. Called "laduknut" which translates as "hay shed notch" Used almost exclusively for simple unscribed round log hay sheds of the sort that could be found on almost every field only 40 years ago. The simplest of all simple buildings. Used for storing hay until winter when it was transported home to feed the cattle.
A rather similar type of notch though upside down so to say is known is rather well known in Norway where it is kalled "finndalslaft" which is probably a corruption of late medieval Norwegian "fyrnðarlaft" meaning "ancient notch". The type can mainly be found on buildings built before the awful Black Death of 1349. There are only a few buildings old enough to have that type of corner notch in Sweden and none in Finland. When a new generation of carpenters started building again some decades after the disaster the old notch type was replaced by stronger and tighter types.

Canadian style log buildings have been introduced here too. Each to their own style and I am not the one to stand preaching on a soap box but I know one will get a stronger and less draughty building using less timber and fewer workhours when sticking to the traditional style imperfect as it still is.

In most of the Nordic countries roof overhangs were in fact rather short traditionally. Often around 30 cm (a foot). In some instances even less. However this was pretty much the only way it could be done at a time when nails were too expensive to use in any number and roofs were covered with birch bark held in place by weight alone. As soon as nails became cheap enough to use in greater numbers (around 1850) overhangs started growing for every decade. I would prefere not to go back to the old style in that case now that we have found better ways of doing it.

I too find it rather amusing to see those outsticking log ends on some modern "rustic" log buildings. Often pretending to be felled with an axe.
While almost all all buildings built before the introduction of affordable saw blades (around 1790) have the log ends neatly trimmed. Cut of absolutely square and smooth some 6 inches outside the face of the wall with only the uppermost logs extending a bit further carrying the roof overhang. All that effort with an axe to avoid any outsicking rotting log ends or any unnecsessary crevices collecting water. What a bliss sawblades must have been though they probably costed a full week's pay at least.

Each to their own and I am not going to start a flame war over the best way of building a log building.
I stick to the old way but every time I can I try to add new improvements to the improvements added by those who went before me. After 1000 years of log building locally and many generations of log carpenters before me in my family I am determined to try to keep the tradition alive all while adding small improvements so that it will not get outdated and die.





p { margin-bottom: 0.25cm; line-height: 115%; background: transparent }

[jake pogg]

"Each to their own and I am not going to start a flame war over the best way of building a log building."

Absolutely,that goes without saying.
This is a conversation among Builders,and we all know that most decisions we make we do so based on Structural thinking,the many practical considerations that go into maximising the Quality of construction.

I guess i ought to reiterate that i speak for myself Solely when i will state my implicit belief that Correct Joinery is what will create any and all Aesthetics,in the end.

And that "correctness" is dependent on a multitude of factors,and the Art of building,one may say,is dependent on the builder's ability to remain very alert for any and all possible information,so that the decisions made may be as fully informed as possible;that critical thinking that you yourself describe so much better when talking about studying the older ways,and those of other regions and climatic conditions et c.

So there can't very well ever be "Best",but only the most appropriate,for whatever specific set of factors that one faces as a builder).

Looking back at the methods of the past is very much like steering a course on the water-looking back at the line of your your wake Really helps!:)

However the Interpretation part of the old methods is where the difficulties sometimes arise,and that's where the opinions may at times differ.
That too however can usually be decided by looking closer at the substance of the question.

As an example,i may (most respectfully) differ with you on the question of why the log ends were trimmed with an axe vs sawn.
I suggest that it's because the saw frays the fibers of the end-grain,making it more succeptable to water absorbtion,and subsequent deterioration.

Technically,the saw was known since most ancient times(lithic,much work in stone tool-making was done by sawing).As a blacksmith,i'd say that it's easier to forge a saw then an axe.

So rather than the technological difficulties in producing a functional saw-blade i'd say that it's the frayed,fuzzy finish surface that the old builders were avoiding in end-grain work,and in longitudinal-ripping-the violation of fiber continuity.

I'd say that it's especially so in the resinous softwoods,where in addition to the "planishing" effect,of smoothing down the fibers with the sharp heavy blade,there was added somewhat of an effect of expressing the resin and smearing it down the cut to further help to seal the open end-grain.

Again speaking as a smith i believe that that is the reason for the thick,massive edge on the Piilu and it's Swedish and Norwegian counterparts,that widened angle of the edge exerting more sideways pressure on wood fibers...

[TW]

In many cases the builder is asked to build what the owner envisions.
In my oppinion it is a growing problem both in log building and stick framing and in masonry that at owners get more and more distant from practical craftsmanship they ask us to build things that never will be better than barely tolerable just bacause there is now way to do a good job out of it.
Typical examples are log buildings with huge windown and crisscrossing structures of both horizontal and vertical logs.
One can see a bit of a paralell in boat design where customers are so accustomed to beamy square sterned planing motor boats that the growing number of builders of energy efficient "environmentally friendly" electric boats are forced to design their boats beamy and square sterned even though that is the total opposite of energy efficiency.

All log building traditions are shaped by the materials and the needs and the aesthetics of the society in which they are created.
-Smooth church walls of the south Swedish type were developed in medieval times as auild churches that stood apart from commn wellings and reminded of romanesque stone churches.
-The huge eliptic logs found in old buildings in for instance Setesdal in Norway are there because the rives wasn't practicable for rafting so the farmers could use even the largest trees at home instead of selling them to shipyards on the coast. The woodlands were often uphill from the farms so transporting huge logs wasn't too laborious.
-The simple round log building style without any kind of foundation found in Russia was developed in a country where timber was unlimited so there was really no reason to build ever lasting houses all while the oppressive nobility made farmers uncertain as to how long they could keep what they had built. At a whim of somone further up the pecking order anyone could loose everything.
-American chinked log buildings were developed as a quick way of putting up a house with untrained workers in the middle of nowhere. Not anywhere as tight nor a long lasting as a scribed building but a finished chinked building is better than an unfinished scribed one when winter comes.
-The very low log houses of Estonia were built that way because the nobility who owned the land and everything on it including the peoiple wanted their own mansions to stand apart from the low dwellings of te farmers.
-The typical Finnish and Swedish and Norwegian style of log buildings were developed in a society of free and proud landowning farmers who wanted good houses but lacked cash to buy more than the absolute minimum of materials. Timber was free from their own woodland and there wasn't too mush of a market for small timber.
-American D logs were developed in a country full of carriage type cirkular sawmills and lacking an old building tradition from the time before sawmills.
-And last but not least. The modern round log style was developed in an era when machinery is plentiful and the owners want a style that reminds of how they think a house in the wilderness would look.

You make a very good point about trimming the log ends with an axe istead of a saw. You may be right in some cases.

What I know is that in the nordic countries loggers both felled and bucked trees with axes until the mid 19th century at least. In some very remote places the first two man felling saws turned up in the early 20th century. Because good saws were terribly expensive.

For a saw blade you need a homogenous strip of steel and before the reinvention of cast steel (Benjamin Huntsman in England in the 1740-ies) there was nothing such as homogenous steel. All they had was blister steel which was recarburized wrought iron. The carbon content was very unevenly distributed within every piece. This was dealt with by foldig and welding each peces a number of times but still the carbon content was very uneven by our standards. It was possible for a good village blacksmith to get a reasonable even hardness in the not so long edge of a broad axe or a knife even with substandard steel. Scythes have only a tiny piece of steel inserted in wrought iron and it is drawn out to the ful lenght of the blade.  A saw blade must be of steel all the way through and that was a lot more demanding and still the quality was uneven. Therefore joiners and cabinetmakers used saws sparingly and carpenters did not normally use saws in the Nordic countries.

It took some 50 or 70 years for mr Huntsman's invention to spread and for the new homogenous cast steel to become affordable to ordinary carpenters even up here in the north. In the form of bow saw blades. A bow saw blade was expensive and not to be used more than necsessary. Therefore it is common in houses built roughly between 1780 and 1850 in Österbotten to see notches and all other joints made entirely with axe but log ends crosscut clean with a saw. They used the costly saw only where it saved most work.

I am probably a less skilled bracksmith than you. I only dabble with it for household needs but this is what I have been told. Please fill in what I do not know.

I will write about axe shapes later

[jake pogg]

TW,thanks yet again for the information and your thoughts concerning all this.
It's unfortunately all too rare to find it expressed in print,and i'm happy to see it coming up.I believe that much of this has great relevance to any builder working with timbers or logs.

I think that your view on use of saws is more informed,historically And culturally,i entirely defer to you on that.

You're of course correct in pointing out that the Huntsman/crucible steel process is what eventually moved us closer to homogeneous hardenable steel alloy use(barring of course the more exotic/less studied information such as the peculiar slag-free nature of steel used in some very old(9th to 11th c.c.)Scandinavian weapons and tool-edges,possibly indicating crucible steel use,obtained in trade or of the local production is alas not yet understood...As well as the mythological belief that the metallurgy came to Norse people via the underground-dwelling dwarves from the Caucasus:)(where,for example in the modern state of Georgia,the archeological evidence of crucible steel manufacturing is indeed one of the world's oldest)).

I would only preach a healthy degree of caution in interpreting technologies of old based on modern understanding of such.
A classic example would be this:http://donwagner.dk/REHD/REHD.html 

For me,the "moral" of the event described there is that the smiths in Scandinavia(in this case) were capable of Understanding the C+Fe reaction,for being that technologically fluent in this can be explained only by their ability to wrap their minds around the subject...
It's things like that that make me doubt that the choice of tooling in the past was limited by technological factors...I mean of course it inevitably was,but just how much?

I really appreciate you bringing the boatbuilding into discussion,i also think it's a great part of it all.
Shipbuilding introduces some technical challenges that would never matter in the much less critical building of dwellings,and also very importantly it promoted the cultural exchange of woodworking(and tool-making) knowledge,over some vast geography... 

As well,as you also mention,the ideas in styles of architecture.

I'm not an educated man,but only interested in much of this.So i tend to allude to things that i myself understand poorly or not at all.

And here's another such,John Ruskin's 1853 book "The Stones of Venice"
The Nature of Gothic: A Chapter from The Stones of Venice - John Ruskin - Google Books

Struggling with this book i seem to've gotten an idea that much in Gothic architecture came from the builders from Scandinavia,and was based on their experience with large,long spruce trees(that tremendous end-strength),plus their anarchic,free-thinking ways:)

So those giant stone cathedrals are in a sense a glorified Stavkirke....
the log-,and timber-building first absorbing the stone structures(+ religion) of the Mediterranean,and then expressing itself based on many principles peculiar to building with logs...
  

[jake pogg]

As far as the technology of forging a timmerbila/piilukirves-type axe(sometimes referred to as the "1700-type" by modern smiths),it is indeed a very complex and challenging tool to forge.

Here's an assembled and partially forged example by two very gifted smiths from Montreal,Martin Claudel and Mathieu Colette(their FB page link below contains more in-process photos,i believe(my reception right now not allowing to view so much data):
https://www.facebook.com/pg/Taillanderie-Claudel-609826759129934/photos/?ref=page_internal




 

And below is an example of a completed 1700 by another brilliant smith,Josh Burrell,in UK.


 


Again,this entire type of tool is anything but simple to produce.

The question is why was it justified?

And my guess would be for that "planishing" effect,and resulting longevity.

[jake pogg]

As to the forging of a saw,it's a little bit more straight forward...
(though of course one saw does not equal another).

A neat video of some of the older Japanese processes.
Japanese drew a short straw as far as their resources went,very poor ores and other natural deficiencies of their land made them work quite a bit harder than the cultures luckier in their surroundings,so their traditional methods are often all the more graphic for that.

Japanese Tool making Part 1 - YouTube

[TW]

It is very facinating that scientists have identified what most likely is cast steel in viking age swords. All the swords that are identified as made from this material are marked +VLFBERH+T. The question is who Ulfberht was. The name sounds Frankish and he used christian crosses so he was probably christian. Or...was Ulfberht really one master employing just a few apprentices. The swords are many. Could his apprentices and maybe their apprentices too have carried on the name of the original master as a sort of brand name on their highest quality swords through several generations of makers. Where did their steel come from and why was the skill lost? Too many unknown factors.
After that there is hardly any cast steel in Europe until the 1740-ies if I understand things correctly.
Did they make cast steel in the east at the time? I had never heard of that.

I am absolutely not a historian so this is just what I have read. My higher education being a Batchelor's degree in structural engineering. I was hurt in an accident and could not get any employment as an engineer after that and went back to restoration carpentry which had been the way I earned money while studying.


Now this is just my oppinions and my thoughts no absolute truths:

I have been told by a blacksmith friend that you cannot drift an axe eye in a solid chink of wrought iron because the iron will split just like a piece of wood. With that in mind it made sence to fold and weld an axe eye in the old way. Just like old eye bolts are folded and welded. The only way to get a strong hole of any sort near the end of a piece of iron of the sort they had access to. So he said.

According to an aquintance who was brought up in northern Germany the sort of axes with comparatively short eyes and ash handles which he got used to in Germany are impossible to put on a birch handle. Birch is so soft that the handle over time works loose inside the short German style eye. He rekons this is the reason for the collared axe eyes in Scandinavia. An adaptation to birch handles.
Ash hardly grows north of Åbo (Turku) so except in the southwesternmost corner of Finland there was no alternative to birch.

Our traditional axes all try to bring the center of gravity of the head just outside the center point of the edge. This makes the axe bite into the wood with more power. I rekon this was to compensate for having the center of gravity well forward of the line of the handle which made the axe easier to steer accurately.
On the contrary American style axes with heavy polls bite into the wood  well despite having the center right behind the center of the edge. However that extra weight far back makes them a little less suitable for accurate work. Which did not matter in America where axes haven't normally been used that much for accurate carpentry and joinery.

From my personal experience I know that a thick edged broad axe can take much thicker shavings with less tearout than a thin edged broad axe. I have tested one of those now fangled thin edged broad axes made by Gränsfors Bruk and in my hands it was not an efficient tool. It had to be way too careful to not take off too thick chips. If I went deeper the way I was used to it started to tear out instead of cutting a smooth wavy surface like it should.

With theese factors in mind the shape of our traditional broad axes would be pretty much self explanatory I think.

I must go to bed now.

[jake pogg]

TW,i seem to've lost my ability to quote parts of mssgs.,so i'll just copy&paste the parts i'm referring to,to keep things a bit more orderly.

"After that there is hardly any cast steel in Europe until the 1740-ies if I understand things correctly.
Did they make cast steel in the east at the time? I had never heard of that."


Wootz steel, also known as Seric steel, is a crucible steel characterized by a pattern of bands and high carbon content. These bands are formed by sheets of microscopic carbides within a tempered martensite or pearlite matrix in higher carbon steel, or by ferrite and pearlite banding in lower carbon steels. It was a pioneering steel alloy invented in Southern India (Tamil Nadu) in the mid-1st millennium BC and exported globally.
(from:https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wootz_steel )


So very generally yes,"crucible"(homogeinized by taking all the way to liquidus) steel has been known in India,Persia,and other Eastern parts since before present era.

Just when the methods of producing it,or the ready-made material itself has made it's way Westward,and to what extent,is unknown,and is a very interesting subject of course.

"I have been told by a blacksmith friend that you cannot drift an axe eye in a solid chink of wrought iron because the iron will split just like a piece of wood. With that in mind it made sence to fold and weld an axe eye in the old way. Just like old eye bolts are folded and welded. The only way to get a strong hole of any sort near the end of a piece of iron of the sort they had access to. So he said."

Your friend is correct,but we all of course know that in metalwork things are rarely black and white.
"Wrought iron" is more of a 19th c. trade-name meaning generally a type of material produced by Reduction,or Bloomery process,from mostly oxide-ores such as Limonite et c."Bloomery iron" is probably just a little more technically exact as definition.

In this type process the Silica-based slag is an important ever-present part,coating the end-product and filling many of the voids in the resulting "bloom".
Such bloom really benefits from further "refining" it-excluding as much slag as possible while mixing in what cannot be completely cleaned out as evenly as possible.
It was generally done by repeated drawing and folding back on itself,kneading in effect.In the process the Si-based slag was drawn into thinner and thinner layers,as it became more distributed throughout that chunk of bloom being so worked.
Si being a mineral it could never really form a very strong bond with Fe,and no matter how fine and evenly distributed was of course a weak point where that chunk of iron would split if enough force was applied-that was the point your friend so correctly makes.

However,if that bloomery material was refined very,Very thoroughly,and the punching&drifting was done Very carefully,under VERY high heat,it could/and was indeed done at times(as evidenced by artifacts,a certain % of tool-eyes from sites such as Birka,Hathaibu and so on are formed by punching and drifting).

But yes,a much stronger loop could be formed by welding the end back on itself,especially if the eye did not have much poll behind it to help keep it together.
Of course the more mass at the poll allowed the smith to hold the eye together better;sometimes that mass acting as deliberate "locking" mechanism;the example may be the "Baltic"-type axe(sometimes referred to as "Helmsdach".Almost invariably of a drifted construction*,possibly that complex poll helped it stay together. 


* that "invariable" is,as we know,Highly questionable...as soon as typing that i found an example of that type that is Not drifted:) ....which goes to show...anyway,it's a good example also of how Poorly-refined bloomery steel can be at times,and maybe Why welding was used vs punching....

 

[jake pogg]

Sorry,forgot to add that the red dotted line on the photo of that Baltic axe above indicates the weld,that is where the metal has been brought around the eye and welded.

That artefact has fallen into the hands of a private collector,who mercilessly ground/polished/etched it,destroying about 90+% of it's value for study of archaeometallurgy...
However,that is what allows us to see the physical make-up of it so readily.
the color difference indicates C content(the darker-the more C).
And incidentally,those same layers of Si also of course resist transmigration of C,one of the reasons those parts remained so sharply distinct in C content.

********

"According to an aquintance who was brought up in northern Germany the sort of axes with comparatively short eyes and ash handles which he got used to in Germany are impossible to put on a birch handle. Birch is so soft that the handle over time works loose inside the short German style eye. He rekons this is the reason for the collared axe eyes in Scandinavia. An adaptation to birch handles.
Ash hardly grows north of Åbo (Turku) so except in the southwesternmost corner of Finland there was no alternative to birch."


I'd definitely second that,coming from what study of history i've done,and also from personal experience:The modern American eye has developed around the use of Hickory and other equally hard wood solely;any attempts to handle one of these with birch(the only hardwood available to me in AK) failed,in an emergency a birch handle may last a few hours of not very hard use.

Much in tool evolution has evolved and been developed around the Rhine valley,starting from the La Tene period and onwards,really blossoming during the time of Merovingian dynasties.

That peculiar eye we see on Piilu and some timmerbil(-er,would that be plural?) we see on the still current to this day "goosewing" broadaxes in Germany.

A very challenging form of an eye,i tried it a few times but so far progressed a very short way towards making one.

Working alone,and with limited technology,i made a few attempts loosely based on some of the work of Serge Turberg(France).

 

This is the best i could do so far...And i don't know if i'll ever brave the complexities of the blade,and the neck,or transition,that it takes to forge a hewing axe of roughly this type

 

[TW]

You have done a good job. Pretty much all hand forged collared axes have a  weak spot with an uneven and imperfectly dressed weld right in the corner between blade and collar. I have seen quite a few old axes that have started to crack at that point. Fortunately it is easy to repair with an electric welder. The inside of the eye is often very uneven where the blade joins the eye.
If you got the hardness all right and an eye that holds a handle steadily your axe is prety much the quality that most loggers and carpenters would buy at the time.

By the way axes are significantly harder in the Nordic countries than in USA. An axe that is soft enough to sharpen with a file is considered pretty much useless for anything else than maybe splitting firewood or chopping tree roots.
It seems Americans generally sharpen their axes with a more accute bevel angle. Maybe that is the reson why they want them that soft. To prevent a thin edge from shattering. I don't know. Maybe it was because Americans went into the wilderness carrying an axe and a file while a Nordic woodsman would normally have a grindstone within reasonable walking distance. Grindstones were set up wherever needed and I have noticed that Americans don't do that.
Some particularly hard axes were known as "daskebackare" and were forged by a sucession of blacksmiths in Hjärtum in western Sweden. Those axes are cherished to this day.



The two axes to the right on this picture are typical traditional hand forged felling axes from Österbotten. Normally they have no maker's mark. Both are rather ground down. The blades have been longer. The top one has lost it's poll. The weld has failed.
Note that the blade is angled downwards. This is a very common feature.
I think (just my theory) that the downward angle is there for the same reason as competition axemen use mostly the lower half of the edge when bucking. Theese axes have only that powerful part of the edge. The angle brings the center of gravity of the axe head frther away from the hands of the user and hence adds extra momentum to each blow.
The square-ish socket which is slightly thicker and stepped down in lenght at the lap weld in front is also a typical feature for Österbotten and nearby Finnish speaking regions. Pretty much all the third of Finland closest to the western coast.

The axe to the left is a thin bladed Russian broad axe. Made in Sweden for the Russian market to a traditional Russian shape. I found them all three in a heap at a local scrap yard last summer. Paid 50 cent per kilo for them.


 

[jake pogg]

Nice axes,TW,would make for a great practice in re-blading...

The top looks similar to the style of an old Billnas 7,and the bottom Kemi-ish,12/2 or so maybe?

I've never heard anyone call one of these russian jobs "broadaxe",but you're right,it is more of a hewing tool(of course in Russia they'd use it universally,for everything that needs doing,having not much of an alternative.

Technically it's a "builder's" axe,type Б3,if around 1.3 kg,or if smaller then maybe Б2,at 0.8 kg nominal head-weight.

Being Swedish-made it's probably a decent tool if you got a hang of using it effectively.

That type of eye is also based on using predominantly birch,it's longer and wider than an average American eye,and accommodates enough volume of wood for the handle to last(a while,anyway,depending on how the inside of the eye was forged too). 

Those Hjartum axes are absolutely beautiful....I've seen a few by Jonsson,and a couple by Skog(photos only!:))


TW,i'm very weak on the subject of hewing surfaces on timbers,the history,the practice,all of it really.
Yet i feel that it's a very important part of finishing the house timbers,for longevity,for looks,for the "feel" of the finished house over all.

Could you please talk some of the different marks left on hewn wall-timbers by the different regions that you may know of?

I'm maybe a little familiar with the Piilu-finished pattern,but from what i hear many regions are associated with their very own hewing patterns,some "herringbone" style,2-passes,and some more,up to about 5,as i understand?

And are those patterns always associated with a type of tool,or it's only the technique that changes?

[Don P]

Just as an aside, TW's story of the bladesmith and Jake's response dredged up something I read long enough ago to be muddy but it was a similar story of a legendary bladesmith in Indian steel, it began an enlarged export trade of "trademarked" arms and steel in that period.

[jake pogg]

Yes,Don,it's all quite an interesting deal:Such steel was maybe not very common,but certainly far from unknown.
Since the Crusades especially it often reached Europe via the Syrian port of Damascus*(thus the somewhat incorrect term of today as applied to the Mechanical pattern-welded steel,that resembles it somewhat by the visual patterning).
Then the cold weaponry,especially the long sorts,have gradually faded,and all that along with it.
Until like TW notes the early 1700-s,when Newton,then Faraday,and many bright minds of the dawn of science have realised that the Europeans are kinda late to the party,that the stuff is clean as driven snow,with no slag inclusions nor pieces of charcoal nor nuffink...Faraday tried Very hard indeed and failed in the end,never could duplicate it...Then came hunsman and others who finally wrapped their minds about melting steel into liquid,to float off the impurities,but not that other magic attribute of "wootz" steel-the non-homogeneous nature of it.Those mysterious  contrasting patterns visible as "chatoyance"(much like polished and laquered wood gives an illusion of "depth").
Today we still don't understand it quite completely,but like all such things we console ourselves with Naming it,it makes us feel better:)....So we refer to that event as "alloy segregation",or "alloy banding",where the alloying elements are not in an even solution but form these patterns...
Eventually,in the early 1970-ies(i believe),O.Sherby and his colleague(forgot the name),who were metallurgical engineers working for Caterpillar,once went to a lecture on ancient swords...(went there to unwind after work).
They became fascinated with this whole mystery,and studied and worked at it for some years...A few curious patents for the Cat resulted,as well as a bunch of academic stuff(like the "super-plasticity" principle and other uber-technical terms and concepts)...But although moving forward some they also did not quite get to the bottom of it all...
Then it was the turn of professor of metallurgy at Iowa State Mr. Voehoeven...who happen to have friends among some very intelligent American knife-makers of that day,like Ric Furrer...and the knowledge got bumped ahead just a bit more...

Eventually it was someone named Williams,and Furrer,who theorised that some of the viking age(7th to 11th c.c.) swords may've employed wootz steel edges...
And that's i believe where we're at today.

The theory has much merit,not only metallurgically,but historically:The vikings sure Did get around...Not just the Mediterranian,but those caravan routes passing through Persia and leading into Europe from the East could reasonably supplied them with this wild&crazy material..........

Ain't it fun?

 

[TW]

I wish I had pictures to illustrate what little I know about hewing but I will try my best anyway.

The oldest method I know of is called "sprättäljning" in Swedish and "glepphogging" in Norwegian. You use a fairly ordinary general purpose thick bladed axe with the weight rather far forward. A Billnäs 12 would probably be pretty much ideal for replicating the techique in our time.
You hew along the grain in such a way that the axe cuts into the wood and back out for every stroke.
Sprättäljning has not been used to any significant extent since the Black Death. Labour shortages after the epidemic made it worth the cost to invest in more efficient tooling. Broad axes that is. After that sprättäljning survived only in parts of Russia and in some very sparsely wooded places in northern Norway.
The very crudely sprättäljd underside of a floor board which I found recykled in a 19th century windmill:


 
A film from Norway:
Glepphogging - YouTube

After that two very different methods for hewing were developed. In the south they put the log on high threstles and work their way forward as they hew
Skånsk bilning - YouTube

In the north we straddle the log and work our way backwards as we hew
ðŸ"´ Hewing Spruce in the forest in Norway - YouTube Englishman living in Hadeland in Norway)
Hand hewing pine logs - YouTube (a Lithuanian chap)
Project log cabin | Hand hewing the ridgepole - YouTube ( A  Finn who has the correct principle but not enough training)

The border between the two techniques seem to go in east-west direction through Norway and Sweden. Pretty much everyone in Finland uses the Northern method.

The further south you go the more emphasis will it be on flat surfaces and the further north the more emphasis will it be in splinter free surfaces.

When stacking the walls the hewn logs were thinned and smoothed with a broad axe where the corners were to come. After stacking the walls were hewn smooth. This was the common way of doing it in most of Finland and northern Sweden.
When smooth hewing the walls you always work your way forward.
The herring bone pattern occures when you want a reasonably splinter free surface on a log with twisted grain.

In the very beginning of hewn walls in the 16th and 17th centuries it seems the logs were often fitted round and then the entire wall was hewn.

Further inland the Finns sometimes smooth hewed buildings with one cut over another using a broad ace with very curved edge. The resulting waves go unbroken from the top of the wall to the bottom.

I have seen a house in Esse in Österbotten (built in the 1840-ies from recykled logs) where the inside of all logs had been hewn smooth and then planed with a two man "oxhyvel" before stacking. Obviously this had been done when the original house was built. The house that was scavenged for timber in the 1840-ies.
This practise was rather common in Norway though not around here.

In general hewn surfaces become more splintery decade by decade from the 1870-ies onwards as various sort of coverings became more common. Clay daub or old newspapers or cardboard.
During this period broad axes used in Österbotten became heavier and got a straighter edge.



I will take some pictures of local broad axes in Österbotten. I have quite a few.

[jake pogg]

This is wonderful stuff,TW,valuable in the extreme,and very difficult to find when needed...The vocabulary alone,if for research purposes only,is extremely difficult to grasp for someone not familiar with any of the Nordic languages...I want you to know that all the effort you put into writing this down is Greatly appreciated,thank you.

In many of the videos and photos above,as in the great many i've seen before,the logs appear Very carefully chosen;the sections being hewn are most often more-than commonly clear.
How much of a factor do you think that represented-historically(availability of certain trees/access to them/logging methods themselves?),and regionally,also.
Do you think that the North-South difference in hewing technique had something to do with the kind of timbers available, climate/geography/topography-wise?

There's this certain system of log-selection that they practice in Russia in the commercial house-log market:
A tree(of whatever (coniferous)species) is divided into Sections,those from the roots up are numbered I,II,and III.

I.  is the section from above the swell/jug-butt,extending to about where the branches begin.
It's either completely clear,or has very small (and tight)knots.
It's taper is generally moderate.

II. The section above the I.,it has knots,but they're not huge,being shaded by trees nearby they don't develop very robustly.
The taper of this section is actually Less than the one below.

III.The top section of a tree with very large knots in it,the taper is the most severe of the three;this section is not considered suitable for home-building.

The building contractor when shopping for material has a choice,he can use I-sections only,or the mix of the I and II(the cheaper variant).

(Often such shopping is done at an impound pond,where a worker pushes the logs up to the dock for the builder to examine and select).

Based on the material that the builder will work with he makes some important decisions regarding the constr. plan itself.
He may change the plan to incorporate longer or shorter lengths,or to introduce extra interior bearing walls,or jog the exterior walls more or less than originally planned(many larger log homes have log partitions that usually bear significant roof-load).

Is the log selection similarly systematized in Scandinavia,or is this too general of a question?    

[davyoungnz]

I've followed the latest posts with interest. Up until now I hadn't given the "tools of the trade", so to speak, much thought. You've opened my eyes to another world of craftsmanship in and of itself.  

This is an interesting turn of fate - I came across Wootz steel and the Ulfberht swords about a month or so ago. By anecdotal accounts the hardness and toughness properties of tools/weapons fashioned in Wootz are quite impressive, if not legendary. If I remember correctly, the carbon content of some Wootz/Ulfberht swords is in excess of 1.6%; however, I'm not sure if this figure relates to the edge or the entire blade. Given this information is accurate, I don't think there would be too many modern steels that could rival that of the Wootz/Ulfberht swords.  

A few attempts have been made to replicate Wootz steel, but these have been largely unsuccessful from my understanding. The information I have come across indicates that Wootz was predominantly produced by carburising wrought iron. By most accounts this was achieved by heating wrought iron and organic matter in a sealed crucible over multiple days (I believe up to a week wasn't uncommon). The heat was supplied via a charcoal-fired furnace and maintained at around 900 to 1100 degrees celsius. 

I have limited knowledge on the production of crucible steel, but I feel the prolonged heating time (multiple days) may be a contributing factor in the highly homogenised nature of Wootz steel; I imagine this process to be somewhat analogous to slow-cooking, where the end-product has a homogenised flavour. To my knowledge, this multi-day crucible steel production process has not been replicated in the modern day.    

If you're interested, here's some history on Persian/Wootz crucible steel production:
https://discovery.ucl.ac.uk/id/eprint/1546672/1/Alipour_combinepdf.pdf

Just noticed the new posts on hewing. Thanks again! Off to bed now - will have a read tomorrow. 

Cheers
 

[jake pogg]

David,i'm afraid there's a bit of confusion in some of the above statements.

"Carburizing" of iron,certainly one of the oldest ways to introduce Carbon into Fe,is a solid-state process,where C migrates into alloy with Fe by means of Diffusion(very much like the mixing of gases only a bit slower).

In the industry of the past the steel produced by Carburizing(and then the welding together-"faggoting"-of carburized rods or plates) was commonly termed "Shear steel".

All of the above happens at well below the melting T of the alloy,making it significantly different from any of the Crucible-type processes,where the alloy melts clear into the liquid state.

Today,all steel alloys can be said to be obtained in that manner,at least in the final stages of their manufacture).

"Wootz" is the term used specifically to describe that ancient Indian/Persian crucible process where the ingredients were,like all crucible steel,combined in a clay container and melted into liquid,then cooled into an ingot.

However,some particulars about it were indeed different,and it's true that today's experiments largely fail to replicate it exactly.
What was different about wootz was not so much the hypereutectoid(Way excessive C content),although it was indeed odd,but the non-homogeneous nature of the resulting material,those pretty patterns visible by the naked eye.

However,alloys that come very close to those ancient originals Have,and are being produced by some folks,here and there.That includes the visual effects typical of that material,as well as many of the mechanical qualities.

What comes out of the studies of the original material and objects made from it it is now known that the legends surrounding wootz steel were largely myth.
Although those alloys were indeed extremely clean(as in any liquid smelt situation the slag floated up to the top of the smelt,like it does on a micro-scale during electric welding),no supernatural physical qualities were ever actually discovered.
O.Sherby's (et al) principle of "super-plasticity" and other are very complex metallurgy principles that do not easily translate into qualities that we,as say woodworkers,can actually appreciate in practice.

Many of the original ancient artefacts were actually left un-heat-treated,many more were H.T.'d,but were then tempered to quite common hardness/elasticity...(most such artefacts are long swords and sabers where excessive hardness is undesirable,and even though edge-retention is very much sought after it usually is sacrificed to the toughness of an object overall).

It seems like the beauty of that steel was really the main point for the ancients...Not to diminish the value of that in any way-that steel was indeed Very beautiful,and certainly special.

And there IS certainly some technical issues that do remain mysterious to this day,that is also true.
But again,there's been very many quite successful recreation/replication experiments.

So something that everyone agrees on today is that the modern steel alloys and methods of their manufactury cannot be rivaled by any ancient alloys or processes(alas and alack,i myself Love myth and the romance of ancient metalworking:)).

For some very good,basic chemistry of steel i personally really appreciate material provided by Kevin Cashen(who's actually one of the very active collaborators in the study of ancient wootz):
Metallurgy of bladesmithing

And for further reading on the most recent info on wootz here's a very good discussion,in particular the thoughts of Tim Mitchell,one of today's foremost practical experimenters:

https://www.bladesmithsforum.com/index.php?/topic/36518-definitions-and-history-of-wootz-and-such/   

  
 
 

[TW]

Jake obviously knows a good deal more about old time steelmaking than I know but the bits I know fit well into his narrative. There is a lot of knowledge in that reply.

There is no reason to create myths. Myths only distract us and make us unable to appreciate and replicate the true skill of our forebearers.

As to the selection of timber I suspect the youtubers choose easily hewn logs for showing off. It is a lot more difficult to get a good surface on a knotty spruce log than on al smost knotfree pine log.
The timber trade and all commercial logging in the Nordic countries is so heavily geared towards producing standard raw materials for pulp mills and saw mills that most timber purchases for log building or restorationm work starts in the woods.
Fortunately there are especially in Finland and in Norway plenty of smallholders like myself. Ordinary working peope who own a woodland parcel or two. Therefore it is usually possible to find someone willing to sell the trees needed. Either as logs or as standing trees. So a log house carpenter is usually part time logger to some degree.

Traditionally the entire useful part of the tree was used for building. If a few butt logs were too large in diametre to fit into the walls those oversized logs were made into ceiling joists or floor boards. The knotty and thin top logs could be used for building round log hay sheds or as "takved" that is the weight timbers on top of either a birchbark roof or a reed roof.



Some more thoughts about axes:
I grew up using Swedish made American style axes. The Swedish verieties generally have harder edge and a larger eye than the American originals. Only in later years I have learned to appreciate the older types.

In my oppinion a Swedish axe in the American style is the best ovarall felling and limbing axe. I am talking about axel like Hults Bruk and Wetterlings and Gränsfors. The thin blade bites deep into the wood and the weight lacking in the thin blade is in the poll where it helps drive the thin blade into the wood. The convex sides of the blade makes it easy to get back out of the wood.
However the same features that make those axes ideal for felling and limbing makes them rather awkward for carpentry. There is too much weight far back in the poll and the blade is too thin and therefore doesn't cut smoothly. It took me a long time of struggle before I learned this and went back to the old style for carpentry.
This is only my personal oppinion and should be taken as such but I rekon that the traditional "käkyxa" (of which the Billnäs number 12 is a very faithful factory made copy) is a an excellent carpenter's axe and was developed for that purpose primarily. The type was traditionally used from Hälsingland in Sweden all the way up the Swedish coast and down the Finnish west coast.
I suspect that when saws became common for felling and bucking in the later half of the 19th century loggers started using "käkyxor" because their longer edges made them more suitable for limbing spruce trees than the traditional short edged felling axes. Though a käkyxa with that thick parallel sided blade isn't really well suited for logging at all.
After the second world war most loggers switched to Swedish made American style axes as they became available. They were held to be a lot more efficient than a käkyxa.

[jake pogg]

Excellent info,TW,thank you.
Your view may be subjective,but that's exactly what makes it so valuable.

Here's an old Classic,that 1928 Billnas catalog:

Digitaaliset aineistot - Kansalliskirjasto

It may make the discussion of axe shapes et c. a bit easier...

If i may ask,hypothetically,if you had an absolute choice of anything in that catalog,what axe would you choose ideally for working on sided house-timbers?

Like would you still pick one of the 12's,or maybe the 13 with it's longer edge be handier?