Very intriguing question Dan. I am sure this will be an interesting discussion.

I believe that a person should be able to forge a knife by hand if they are to be called a bladesmith. That does not mean that every knife they make has to be forged by hand, but they should have the skills to do it this way.

I like forging, it relieves stress for me, and I enjoy taking a plain bar of steel and creating art out of it. I guess you could say there is a certain romance to the image of the bladesmith standing in front of the forge with the anvil and hammer. As with Lin, I also consider it a personal challenge. If I have an image of a knife in my head, I really want to be able to forge that blade. Yes I can take a piece of steel and cut it out, but I think for me it loses something in the translation. That is just my personal feeling.

I do have tools that help me such as the power hammer for damascus, mill for guards, grinders, etc. For me they are aids to my craft. They speed things up. The machines and technology are there to help us, not make the knife for us. Yes you must have the knowledge to use this technology, but I think you also have to have the knowledge to know when to go back to the smithing skills that have been used for centuries.

In answer to your original question, I feel that in order to be called a bladesmith you must be able to take the hand held hammer and forge a blade.

I am sure I will think of more things. Good one Dan.

Brion

Hey Everybody,

This is a great topic / discussion! And, like all great discussions, it will be difficult to reach a consensus. That being said, here are my two cents:

I see it as being very simple. We don't generally refer to a person working in a modern steel foundry as a blacksmith...instead, they are a steel-worker. I believe that there are knife-makers and there are blade-smiths. They both can make a fantastic product, and there are advantages and disadvantages to both methods. However, a blade-smith uses the forge fire, anvil, hammer, and a specific skill set that goes along with those tools to actually create his knife, while the knife-maker uses a different set of tools and skill set to reveal the blade hidden in the bar of steel, much like a sculptor removes the un-necessary stone to reveal the final statue. The blade-smith uses many of the same techniques as the knife-maker, but takes it a step further with the forge to mold the blade to his will. If you haven't guessed by now, I prefer forging. There is definitely a whole lot more to learn to forge a blade to shape, which is why I forge. After I learned to forge a blade to shape and then finish it, I had the skills necessary to make a knife by the stock-removal method, but if I only knew how to use the stock removal method, I would not have the skill to forge the blade to shape. I would need to learn that additional set of skills. I also believe that sole-authorship of the knife defines a blade-smith. A blade-smith is a knife-maker, but a knife-maker is not a blade-smith, IMHO. So, I guess it's another vote for deeper skills and knowledge being the difference. I hope I didn't ramble too much, or offend anyone. <img src=' http://www.americanbladesmith.com/ipboard/public/style_emoticons//blink.gi f' class='bbc_emoticon' alt=':blink:' />

All,

I do appreciate everyone's comments. I also like the idea, which I believe is accurate, in that bladsmiths have a "skill set" that other knifemakers do not. It also sounds like everyone agrees that I can use all sorts of tools and technologies as a bladesmith. It also appears that everyone so far agrees that everyone who calls themselves a bladesmith should be able to perform all the hammer/anvil/smithing techniques to produce a knife from a bar of steel. This is a beginning only in this discussion if everyone agrees with my summary. This discussion still has many elements yet to talk about and share ideas.

I will throw in to the mix another argument by example as others have done. I am a traditional bowhunter. If you go to the magazine, "Traditional Bowhunter" or read the organization's description of itself, they define a traditional bowhunter from one who is not. The lines are somewhat clear: no wheel bows (compounds), sights, mechanical releases, etc. Longbows and recurves are the primary tools. They intentionally as a group restrict certain things and impose a challenge upon themselves (thanks Lin for the wording). Philosophically, across many authors they see a connection that ultimately leads to a more full understanding of the relationship between hunting and the natural world. They argue that it requires a better knowledge of wood/field-craft and human-animal relationship to be successful. I cannot shoot as far with most longbows or recurves and it takes more skill and practice to be functional in the field. Of course they also embrace certain technologies as long as those technologies do not interfer with development of skill and knowledge of traditional hunting. Similar to us they embrace a history and tradition. So most traditional bowhunters are fine with high tech laminations and even carbon arrows. They have defined themselves in a relationship to something they value and as long as technology does not interfer with that relationship it is welcome and embraced.

So do we have something similar?

Dan

Dan, it has taken me awhile to think this over with my 20 word vocabulary.

To me a bladesmith must have the knowledge to forge a knife to shape by hand using a forge of some type and be able to complete finish it by hand, draw filing the blade, rasping the handle to shape then finishing it out to the satisfaction of the client.

Now, to be a bladesmith, that does not mean you will do this on each knife but the knowledge to do this should be there.

Being full time means I have to balance tradition and making a living. I use a gas forge instead of charcoal or coal because it is more economical.

I use a milling machine to fit the guard instead of punching the hole and filing it to fit the tang. I use a power hammer or press. As Ed mentioned they used power assisted hammers for centuries.

I have been studying a dagger made for Suleiman the Magnificent. As I understand them it took the originial maker 5 years to make this piece. After studying it I understand why. I want to do something similar but making a living I have to balance the use of modern tools.

More than anything else a bladesmith to me is defined by using a forge of some type to shape the blade. Its the same with the traditional bow. The long limb of the long bow or re-curve is the base of that tradition. Though I use aluminum arrows I still consider myself a traditionalist. The forge is our base, be it charcoal, coal or gas.

Dan, You brought up the comparison of traditional bowhunting. You might be surprise, but then again, maybe not, at the bladesmiths who are traditional bowhunters as you described. I know Karl Andersen, Jerry Fisk, Doug Campbell, Pete Crowl, and myself are. I know others as well. I think the same type of attitude applies.

I have been mulling this thread around a lot. I have started three responses and have deleted them before I was through.

I am not sure that I can put into words my thinking on this.

My thoughts:

I think the word "forging" and the word "bladesmith" and the word "knifemaker" is at the heart of the matter.

A forger of metal can be many things; heavy industrial parts to finely crafted damascus billets.

A knifemaker can be anyone from a basement guy assembling cheap kits to some of the truley great knifemakers of the world who choose to create their art by the stock removal method.

A bladesmith is one who can and does; forge steel into blades. From old car springs to the most elaborate damascus patterns imaginable. Either you are able to forge the material into a blade; or, you are not.

The word "bladesmith" is now a sought after addendum to many in the world of blades. It carries with it a tie to the ancient and the modern.

The criteria that separates knifemaker-forger-bladesmith and the criteria that makes them "as one" is for each person to detirmine to his or her satisfaction.

The American Bladesmith Scociety has a testing program in place to do our very best to insure that:

A. A journeyman smith can proficiently forge; and finish a carbon steel blade into a finished knife of high quality.

B. A Mastersmith can forge and finish both carbon steel and damascus "of his own making" into an outstanding finished knife .

Be honest about your methods and your work. It will only enhance your hobby, your craft, and your business.

I shall stop now, I may have only confused my thinking even more.

For thousands of years smiths have forged blades in what we refer to as the "traditional" way. They use the most advanced tools available to them. I doubt, seriously, that if they had had access to a gas forge or a power hammer or a milling machine they would have said "Forget it. That's not traditional". At the same time I agree with Jerry. A bladesmith should be able to forge, by hand, a blade. File it to shape, by hand, and finsh it without the use of power tools. A while back I challanged myself to do just that. I was well pleased with the finished knife. Maybe it would have looked better if I had used power tools, but at least I know that if the situation called for it, I could make a servicable knife with a minimum of equipment. I quess what I'm trying to say is that it doesn't matter what power tools you use to make a knife. What matters is that, if you have to, you can make a knife without them.

Dale

I read all these posts and I have to share my reactions. First, I am impressed and heartened by the cogent and thoughtful posts on this topic. When I started this topic I was a bit worried it would or could be contentious and divisive. I was not trying to go in that direction. It was more a reflection on my own self assessment of who I am in relation to this organization and the people who are a part of it. I was troubled by the technology and yet eager to embrace aspects of it. While I had my own thoughts I realized that I belonged to a community of bladesmiths some who have become close friends and others I hope to know. When I read the posts I can tell that there is a sincerity and honesty present.

So maybe because I started this I feel this need to summarize but not try to define. I do think the answer is something each of creates. So here are some commonalities (feel free to add or reject).

* a bladesmith has a skill set that is different from other knifemakers

* an ABS ranked smith has met standards of quality that allow him/her to call themselves a bladesmith (others may also but ...)

* forging as a descriptor may by itself carry multiple meanings (e.g., drop-forged, etc.)

* bladesmithing as a verb may have more precise meanings (still open to definition issues) which includes forging as a technique and denotes some design characteristics

* technology conveys the use of tools to achieve a desired outcome. Some of it makes things easier, more efficient, consistent, and maybe even of higher quality.

* technology is not the goal, nor should it define who we are

* our history as bladesmiths is still very important

* our foundational skill set is essential whether we use it with every knife we make or not

* we share an identity that is forged in our knowledge, skill, history, and sense of brotherhood (my interpretation)

Dan

This is a fascinating topic; and a great discussion. I'll throw my two cents in as well.

Regarding the question of "cheating" by the use of modern tools; cheating requires deception. As long as the method of building is honestly explained, then no cheating/deception has occurred. I think that I would be offended if someone said that I had cheated in building a knife, just because I had used modern machinery. I would be tempted to tell the person that they could go build what I had built, using the tools that I had used. When they were done and their work matches the quality of mine, then they can tell me if the tools made the work too easy. LOL!!

The question of how traditional (primitive) the methods should be is so subjective and open to the interpretation of the individual that there is no single answer to the question. How basic is basic enough? Should we be lighting our forges by rubbing two sticks together?

Questioning the use of certain tools also displays an ignorance of history. There is virtually nothing in the way of tools that we have today, that have not been in existence for hundreds, even thousands of years. Drills, lathes, power hammers, milling machines, even surface grinders have been in existence for millennia. The only difference is the means of powering them.

Our hand-crafting ancestors were no more interested in doing extra work than we are. They were typically master tool makers as well as masters in their craft. They had to be. There was no place to buy the tools that they needed to perform a craft. They had to make them. Many crafts were learned by taking an apprenticeship in a guild for that craft. The first thing the apprentices were required to do is build their own tools. Many of these tools were refined by craftsmen over hundreds of years, resulting in an amazingly efficient tool. A lot of the tools were designed to do one single step of the process, very quickly and accurately. Simple evidence of this can be seen in an old blacksmith shop. There will be hundreds of pairs of tongs. Each set designed to hold a particular piece in the proper position for heating and/or forging. Believing that the craftsmen of old did not have efficient tools to quickly do accurate work is simply incorrect.

I think it difficult to relate today's definition of a Bladesmith to the historical definition. Historically, the bladesmith was the person who just forged the blade. Additional work on a knife was performed by grinders, polishers, handle makers, sheath makers, etc. Craft persons were often limited in the type of work that they performed by tradition, or by the restrictions imposed by the craft guild that they were a member of.

Today's Bladesmith is a multi talented and highly skilled individual, who is expected to be able to build the entire knife package. He/she must be a blacksmith to forge the blade. A metallurgist to select the steels and heat-treat the blade. Knowledgeable in the choice of materials and construction of a handle assembly. And perhaps, sheath-maker, silversmith, engraver, scrimshander, etc.

Today's Bladesmith has the skill and knowledge to complete a fully functional knife, with a blade that has been shaped by fire and force. We are bound to our tradition by our forges and anvils.

Steve,

So, if I understand your position, you are saying that as long as we forge the blade then we are a bladesmith? I am okay with that as a beginning. I agree also that technology is not just about the reduction in time and effort. Some technologies cost me time but improve the product. E. F. Shumacher wrote that as the level of technology increases in a society, the amount of free time decreases. Also, I do not think it is "cheating" to use technology. I would hope we do not go there.

On a separate point I would argue that the technology has changed substantially and not in just the source of power. That does not mean that hundreds or a thousand plus years ago craftsman did not produce high quality and impressive swords and knives. Still, there is no arguing that a CNC machine or a TIG welder or pantograph does not influence things. Science has and will likely produce steels or an equivalent that have unique characteristics related to cutting tools and knives. I think I heat treat as well as anyone the steels I use. I have certainly spent enough time studying it. Still, I would argue there are some steels available that can cut better and some may be tougher. I choose my steels based on the fact that I can forge them and, yes, heat treat them in my shop with very high tech computer controlled salt tanks. I think things have changed and will change and in that process of change we need to understand who we are.

The ABS is dedicated to the preservation of the forged blade. What is it we preserve? Is it just heat, anvil, and hammer? I think you allude to it being more than that.

thanks,

Dan

What are we preserving?

The sufficiency of self. The ability to use very basic elements to create. Earth, wind, and fire.

What is it we preserve? Is it just heat, anvil, and hammer? I think you allude to it being more than that.

We are preserving the tradition of the forged blade.

From the dictionary:

"A tradition is a ritual, belief or object passed down within a society, still maintained in the present, with origins in the past. The word "tradition" itself derives from the Latin tradere or traderer literally meaning to transmit, to hand over, to give for safekeeping. The concept of tradition, can also be the notion of holding on to a previous time."

More profoundly perhaps, is our reason for holding on to a tradition. That being, to maintain a connection to our ancestors. Through the traditional object, we have a mutual experience with our predecessors. The sensations provided by, and through the object, were also experienced by our ancestors. Through the mutual experience, we are able to form a sort of emotional bond with those who came before us.

As the traditional archer draws his bow, he feels the string against his fingers and the pressure of the bow against his hand. As he aims at his target, he knows that someone in his past has assumed the same aiming stance and felt the same sensations from the bow and arrow. He experiences the same anticipation as his ancestor did, as he takes aim and prepares to loose the arrow. When the arrow strikes the bull's-eye, he knows that he has matched the skill of his ancestors, and if he could stand among them, they would congratulate him on his accomplishments.

It is the same with bladesmithing. We sense the heat from the fire. We feel the steel move under our hammer. When we have finished our work, we know that we have created an object that our predecessors would recognize immediately as something familiar to them and they would approve of our efforts.

I think many of the buyers of forged knives also feel a need for this connection to the past. To hold an object that is much like what was held by their ancestors. To take in the sensations of using it. And to know that if it were possible to show the knife to someone from the past, it would be admired for its fineness.

Technology and modernization can change the traditional object. These changes may affect the mutual experience with our ancestors to some degree. Each individual has to decide how much they will allow modernization to modify their own interaction with the object. Traditional archers have already been mentioned in this thread. Some are willing to allow laminated bow limbs and aluminum arrows to modify their experience, but will draw the line at cam wheels and mechanical releases. As bladesmiths, we each have to decide for ourselves how much technology we will allow into the making of our knives, changing our own personal connection to the past.

There seems to be a lure to blacksmithing. Forging a blade is the same.

It will take a thousand or more blows to shape the object, each requiring skill. Only one, misplaced, can detract or ruin the piece. The final object speaks of the maker's skill especially when it's known that he or she shaped it and made it possible by those many well placed hammer blows. Taming brute force and hot steel all at once is a worthy mark of distinction. It limits one and frees one at the same time.

Speaking of preserving, the big area that was/is lost would be crucible damascus, a.k.a. wootz and my understanding is what we think is correct today may not be correct but it's an educated guess. So anyone care to comment on that? I would think that would be prime material for this thread and so far have not seen much on that.

The other area that seems to be quite vacant is using a press vs anvil. I think it was briefly brought up early in but not much on that subject was addressed with anvils being the prime target.

Thanks Steve and Lin,

I personally think you are right on target. It has to be more than a skill set. Skill sets change as many on this topic or in the forum have described. I am not saying the skill set is not important. I think it is an essential piece but without that tradition and the lure of shaping by hand or hammer it is one skill set no different than hundreds of others. At any time in the history of the blade I can envision others across time taking hammer to steel. I can see myself in a thousand other smiths and those thousand other smiths in me. We all share that in common and call ourselves bladesmiths. With fire and force of the hammer we can all shape that which in its natural state appears unmoveable. In ancient times the bladesmith drew forth magic. Today we call it technology.

Dan