

Norfolk museum acquires Bronze Age dirk used as doorstop - diodorus
http://www.thehistoryblog.com/archives/33542

======
diodorus
This detail is particularly striking (in regards to the fact that only five
dirks like this have ever been found, and four of these were in France or the
Netherlands rather than the British Isles):

"Their dimensions and details are so similar that all dirks likely came from
the same workshop, perhaps even the same hand. They are virtually identical in
form, decoration and cross-section."

~~~
fchollet
These artifacts were found by random chance, often while plowing a field.
Which means that the vast majority of such artifacts has never been found. So
if we found a few already, it is quite likely that there are many more such
identical dirks out there --it is possible they were mass produced to an
extent, or at least that a same model was being produced for relatively long
periods.

~~~
jacquesm
Almost all of the old 'trades' were to produce certain well proven designs
over and over. So it's no surprise they're close to identical.

See here for a nice example of such skill:

[http://www.thefirearmblog.com/blog/2012/07/30/gunsmithing-
in...](http://www.thefirearmblog.com/blog/2012/07/30/gunsmithing-in-pakistan/)

Being able to copy a 'known-good' design was an essential skill for a smith
back in the days. If it works don't change/fix it, and this kind of copying
would go all the way down to the decorations. (Those Pakistani gunsmiths would
even copy the serial numbers.)

True innovation was slow, and required taking risks (just like today...).

For ceremonial things like this dirk there was even less freedom for change.

~~~
semperfaux
This makes some serious assumptions regarding what exactly "close to
identical" means.

"Similar in design" or even "identical in design" definitely do not equate to
"close to identical" in execution in all cases, despite the provided anecdote.
If we're talking about something that qualifies as the same type of tool or
weapon, OK. If we're talking about something with extremely similar
metallurgical qualities, size, design, age, etc., then it's likely a little
more than just "well, it's an x made of y found at z, they're all the same."

~~~
jacquesm
> This makes some serious assumptions regarding what exactly "close to
> identical" means.

Let me spell that out for you: so close to each other that if you exchanged
two of those items and you wouldn't be intimately familiar with it (scratches,
dents) that you wouldn't be able to tell them apart.

> "Similar in design" or even "identical in design" definitely do not equate
> to "close to identical" in execution in all cases, despite the provided
> anecdote.

Not in all cases, but in quite a few of them. Examples:

\- wheels bands and hubs (the rest was usually wood)

\- weapons

\- utensils

\- tools

\- hardware (like nails, which were insanely valuable)

Almost all of those would be copied very accurately from template designs over
a wide region. Decorations (handles and such) would be the first to vary, then
dimensions, then materials then the actual design of the business bit and
finally the process.

> If we're talking about something that qualifies as the same type of tool or
> weapon, OK.

Exactly.

> If we're talking about something with extremely similar metallurgical
> qualities, size, design, age, etc., then it's likely a little more than just
> "well, it's an x made of y found at z, they're all the same."

No, that's what you'd expect. If they would be made in the same region and
time then that's more or less the default since that puts serious constraints
on the metallurgical knowledge of the time and on the designs that were
permitted and/or in fashion.

We still have this even today, walk into any toolstore and pick tools from
roughly the same quality level and you'll find that at that level they're
pretty much identical.

Rare exceptions like Estwing hammers do happen but for handtools they're not
the norm.

When 'mass production' wasn't possible yet there was greater variability than
there is today but that was not because variability was a goal, it was rather
an unfortunate side effect of making things by hand. The whole idea of being a
good tradesman was to deliver constant quality and to get that variability
under control as much as possible.

Having your sword break in battle because it has a nice new pattern on it
isn't going to give you many happy customers so better stick to knowing what
works.

------
freshyill
The bending is interesting. Are there other examples of this out there? Part
of me can't help but think that it probably just got hit with a plow enough
times.

~~~
jonchang
From the article: "This piece was designed for a ritual purpose, which is why
it was found folded. Bending a metal object as a symbolic act of destruction
before burial was a common practice in the Bronze Age and later."

~~~
freshyill
Yep. I read the article too.

I would just like to see _other_ examples, and find out more about the
practice. Googling just turns up more references to this particular item.

~~~
Luc
Google for 'burial weapons bent', turns up pictures from Celtic burials, iron
age, and more.

~~~
freshyill
Thanks—looks like this dagger is a particularly well-preserved example.

