Skip to Content.
Sympa Menu

permaculture - [permaculture] History | Scythe Association

permaculture@lists.ibiblio.org

Subject: permaculture

List archive

Chronological Thread  
  • From: Lawrence London <lfljvenaura@gmail.com>
  • To: permaculture <permaculture@lists.ibiblio.org>
  • Subject: [permaculture] History | Scythe Association
  • Date: Sat, 27 Dec 2014 04:14:29 -0500

*History | Scythe Association*
http://scytheassociation.org/history/

Scythe Association <http://scytheassociation.org/>
http://scytheassociation.org/history/
History

Notes on the History of the Scythe and its Manufacture
By Simon Fairlie. First published in the Tools and Trades History magazine
2006 also windrow 2, 2011

Much of the world’s farming land can be divided into two zones: the machete
zone and the scythe zone. The machete is a formidable implement — a
skilled user can peel an orange, halve a wasp in mid flight or open up a
coconut with one swing. It is even used to mow lawns; but the machete is
most comfortably swung at hand height, and hence is particularly
associated with vegetation which is tall, such as tropical forest or
sugar cane, and with regions such as South America and Indonesia, where
that kind of vegetation predominates. The European equivalents of the
machete are the billhook, and the faghook, or sickle The scythe is a tool
specially adapted for cutting vegetation at ground level. There is no
other reason for its existence: it is useless at hand height and (unlike
the machete) very unwieldy as a weapon. Initially it was probably designed
for grass; but as pasture became harder to find, and livestock were
increasingly fed on different kinds of straw, the importance of cutting
oats, barley and other grains close to the ground became more important
and the scythe began to replace the sickle as a way of harvesting crops.
The scythe is therefore found in most areas of the world where grass and
grains such as wheat, barley, oats or rye are the predominate agricultural
crop. The scythe belt emanates from Europe and the Middle East, but
extends from the Mid West of Canada and the US A, through the whole of
Europe, much of Russia, the Middle East, Egypt and some other north
African countries, Turkey, Iraq, Iran, Kirghizstan and other colonies of
the former USSR, a few parts of China and of the Indian subcontinent to
Australia.

*Types of Scythe *

There are several varieties of scythe. There is some extraordinary early
film footage (c 1915) of folk in the north of Finland mowing with
two-edged scythes which they wield in an airborne figure of eight motion,
all members of the team (whom we have previously witnessed breakfasting
on vodka) moving in perfect synchrony so that their flailing blades don’t
clash. Scandinavian scythes are still somewhat different from those found
throughout the rest of the world, and some are still handmade by
individuals. Otherwise, 95 per cent of scythes in the world nowadays
belong to one of two categories: the Anglo-American scythe, made and used
up until recently in England and the US; and the much lighter,
hand-forged, “continental scythe”, sometimes known as the Austrian scythe,
because Austria has excelled in its manufacture. The Anglo-American
scythe is now hardly made, and the continental model is becoming
universal. It is fairly easy to see why the Anglo-American model has been
largely superseded in recent years; the continental model is considerably
lighter and easier to use. Traditional English blades were either stamped
or rough forged and then shaped by heavy grinding. Austrian blades hardly
visit the grinding wheel except for finishing, and are hand-forged, wafer
thin, to an elegant curve in all three dimensions so that the finished
blade is under tension and therefore stronger in relation to its weight.
Because the blade is lighter, the snath, and hence the whole kit, can be
lighter as well. A brand new 75 centimetre Anglo-American rig, still
available in a few farm stores, weighs 3 kilos; an Austrian blade of the
same length with an adjustable ashwood snath weighs 1800 grams, 60 per
cent of its rival. There are those who maintain that the heavy English
scythe is more suited to heavy English grasses, and there may be some
truth in this, but the fact remains that it is now nearly extinct. Why
have Anglo-American blades nearly died out while the continental model is
still sold in its millions. And why haven’t continental blades caught on
in Britain up till now?

*Early History *

The scythe appears to have developed during Roman times, though it
probably wasn’t developed by the Romans. Pliny, in his Natural History
noted that there were two kinds of scythe: the heavy Gallic kind, and the
shorter Italian model. Several examples of what is presumably the Gallic
type have been discovered, and they are impressive, up to five feet long.
In the 1960s, John Anstee had a replica made and found that skilled
scythesmen had no problem mowing with them. These Gallic scythes were
made of soft steel with a strip of higher carbon steel sandwiched inside
to provide the cutting edge. This is precisely the method used by English
scythemakers to produce what were known as Crown blades — the main kind of
blade manufactured in the UK until “Patent” blades were invented in the
19th century. This single fact suggests that the Gallic blades were a
forerunner of the traditional English scythe. Whether the shorter
“Italian” blade mentioned by Pliny can be seen as a forerunner of the
continental scythe is less clear. In the early 14th century a “lighter
more flexible” scythe known as the Hainault scythe, with a shorter handle
came into use in Flanders, but it never caught on in England.

*Continental Scythe Manufacture*

The modern continental scythe industry is often described as having its
origins in the occupation of Austria by the Ottoman Empire in the 16th
century. The Ottomans were renowned for the quality of their steel, and
the area of Styria, in Austria, supplied everything that was needed for
state-of-the art steel manufacture in the 16th century: iron ore, timber
for charcoal, and waterpower. I have yet to find any firm evidence in the
English language that this was indeed what happened: but it seems to be
widely accepted, and in the second half of the 20th century, the Austrian
Scythe Union marketed its blades as Turk Scythes (Turkensensen) to evoke
these origins. The continental method of forging scythes spread right
across Europe and until recently similar blades were made in Spain,
France, Italy, Sweden, Germany, Slovakia, Poland and Slovenia. However the
Austrians dominated the industry; around the time of the First World War
there were 53 scythe producers, many of them based at watermills in small
towns and villages, and some of them dating back to the 1500s. Millions
of scythes were exported from Austria every year (allegedly up to 10
million at the end of the 19th century) many of them to Russia. I have
read somewhere that when Napoleon declared war on the Austro Hungarian
empire, he ran into problems because France was dependent upon Austrian
scythe blades for its harvest. In the second half of the 20th century the
industry started declining, because sales were dropping in the
industrialized countries, while factories in Turkey and China started
producing blades of lower quality, much cheaper. One by one the small
factories closed. For a time, a number of factories in Austria and
Germany joined forces to form the Sense Union (Scythe Union) which
produced the Turk blade. But eventually even many of these closed, and now
there are no factories in Germany, and just two in Austria, Schroeckenfux,
and Offner. The manufacturing process at the Schroeckenfux works remains
similar to that employed over the last 400 years. The blades are
hand-forged under a trip hammer, originally water-powered but now
electric. (The Redtenbacher factory in Scharnstein was using some water
power up until its closure in the 1980s.) In all there are at least 15
processes, many of them highly skilled. It is a long apprenticeship to
learn how to perform the principle forging processes and only a small
number of apprentices are considered to have the aptitude to perform the
most highly skilled work, which is therefore well-paid. Since the scythes
are hand forged, they can be made to any pattern specified by the customer
and there are patents for literally thousands of patterns. I have a
Schroeckenfux order form dating from the 1930s, which has a diagram of a
scythe with about 20 different measurements and angles which the customer
is invited to specify.

*The English Scythe Industry *

The English scythe industry evolved in a very different direction from
that on the continent. There were two main differences Firstly, whereas
the dominant tradesman on the continent was the smith, in the UK it was
the scythegrinder. The amount of forging involved in the manufacture of
the English Crown blades appears to have been relatively low, compared to
the Austrian process. A strip of hard steel was sandwiched between two
plates of softer steel, and the three were hammer welded together, and
then plated out to the required width. In the 19th century another style
of blade, the “Patent blade” was developed, which comprised a flat sheet
of rolled steel stamped out and hardened, and then riveted to a rigid
back. Patent blades were manufactured by Tyzack in Sheffield up until the
late 1980s, and can still be found in hardware stores. Both kinds of
blade required prodigious amounts of grinding which was performed by men
suspended above huge water-powered grinding wheels, so as to be able to
place all their pressure on the blade. It is easy to see where the
expression “nose to the grindstone” came from. In 1879 a workman could
grind only two to three dozen crown blades in a day — which gives an
indication of the considerable amount of grinding involved.

*Industrialization and Revolt *

The other feature of the English industry was its early concentration and
industrialization. Whilst scythe-making in Austria remained a largely
rural industry, based in small towns and villages, in the UK it became an
urban industry. Although there were small scythe grinding mills to be
found in villages around the country, by the first half of the 19th
century the industry was becoming highly concentrated in Sheffield.
According to Don Tyzack, “following enclosure . . . the army of little
mesters making scythes gave way to bigger workshops making machine
knives” for reaping machines, and scythes for a market kept buoyant by
demand from the colonies. Much of the scythe manufacturing industry lay
under the control of one family, the Tyzacks. By the 20th century, the
Tyzacks (who split up into a number of firms) seem to have gained a
monopoly over scythe production in the UK. At their Stella works in
Sheffield, there were 20 “sturdy grinders” working side by side on 20
large wheels. Scythe grinding was a vile occupation, and the almost
certain risk of silicosis, meant that many scythe-grinders died by the
time they reached 40. However the scythe-grinders union was strong, and
very active in the Sheffield Outrages of the 1850s. Machinery was
destroyed, factory owners were shot at, and the secretary of the Scythe
Grinders Union, Michael Thompson, was accused by Joshua Tyzack, of paying
men to blow up scythe grinding wheels with gunpowder. The union hustled 14
scythe grinders out of the country to avoid their prosecution.

*Men’s Work? *

Another charge laid against the scythe in England is that it contributed
to the marginalization of women in agriculture. Mowing, as well as being
highly skilled, was regarded as particularly physically demanding work.
According to Richard Baxter “though the labour of a smith be hard” it is
in “a dry house, and by short fits; and little in the comparison of
threshing and reaping; but as nothing in comparison with mowing, which
constantly pulls forth whole man’s strength.” Scythe work was highly
paid, and it was a male monopoly. At haymaking women and boys would do the
raking and turning, while men would mow. Since there was a need for twice
as many turners as mowers, this was perhaps not altogether surprising.
It was when the scythe took over as a means of harvesting corn that it
became particularly injurious to women’s interests. Grain harvesting was
originally a predominately female activity, and as long as the sickle
remained the main means of harvesting grain, women could work as reapers.
Alice George, an Oxford woman who claimed to be over 100 years old told
John Locke in 1681 that in her youth “she was able to have reaped as much
in a day as any man, and had as much wages”. The advantage of a sickle was
that it left the second hand free to lay the stalks of corn neatly for
the followers who would bind it into stooks. A scythe cut quicker but it
left the stalks in disarray, so more time was taken binding. The
development of the cradle in the 18th century meant that corn could be
mown with a scythe and deposited neatly in rows for the convenience of
the binder; and that the straw could be cut lower. As the scythe gradually
replaced the sickle in the harvest, women found themselves relegated to
lower paid jobs such as raking and tying — and once mechanization was
introduced, they found themselves excluded completely. I doubt whether the
male monopoly over the scythe was confined to the UK, but it seems likely
that it was particularly entrenched here because of the additional weight
of the English scythe — and also because of the highly structured and
centralized nature of the English agricultural economy. In the European
peasant economy, there was much more “soiling”, than in Britain — mowing
grass on a daily basis for dairy animals, rabbits etc — and this was more
likely to be performed by a woman than gang mowing. I have about six
historic pictures of women mowing and only one shows a gang, and that was
in France during the First World War. In the 1950s the Austrian firm
Vindobona was advertising its scythes with a picture of an cheery
Heidi-like lass scything in a headscarf and apron, but to what extent this
was an advertising gimmick designed to emphasise the lightness of the
kit, and to what extent it reflected actual use, I do not know.

*The Future for the Scythe Industry *

Despite the above shortcomings, the Anglo-American scythe remained a much
loved and respected tool, which over the centuries played a major role in
feeding entire nations. Many consider it unduly heavy, but there are some
who maintain that its weight is necessary to achieve impetus through the
thick English grasses: and it is true that the Northern versions of the
continental scythes tend to be somewhat heavier than those designed for
hotter countries where the grass cover is usually thinner. Overweight or
not, the scythe was a popular tool, and scything was a popular and well
paid occupation, much preferred to threshing, and so nobody complained.
But, unlike the continental scythe it has not stood the test of time. As
far as I can gather the last scythes made in England on any scale were
manufactured around 1987, and these were also the last Patent scythes
made anywhere. You can still buy a hickory snath from the US, together
with something resembling a Crown blade, but these are now made at the
Schroeckenfux factory in Austria, where one worker asked me “Why do you
English like your scythes so heavy?” This article is, I suppose, my
attempt to answer him. The continental scythe industry, by contrast,
shows no signs of collapsing, though the remaining European producers
face stiff price competition from Turkey and China. Scythe use is
experiencing a revival in some west European countries because of the
tool’s environmental benefits: and there is still high demand in the
Middle East and neighbouring countries. There was a newspaper report
recently that US invaders are attempting to gain the confidence of Iraqi
farmers by giving them gifts of scythe blades — the sure way to a
peasant’s heart. One wonders which manufacturer’s blades they were giving
away, now that they don’t make their own. The collapse of the English
scythe industry may have less to do with the form of the tool, than with
the structure of the English agricultural industry, which has succeeded
in pulling more people off the land than in almost any other country.
There is perhaps an argument that the form of the English scythe was
compliant to the process of industrialization. Be that as it may, it
seems almost certain that, as people come back to the land, it will most
likely be the continental style scythe to which they will turn. Perhaps,
one day, someone will make them in Britain.

MAIN SOURCES Don Tyzack, *Glass, Tools and Tyzacks*, published by Don
Tyzack, 1997. Michael Roberts, “Sickles and Scythes: Women’s Work and
Men’s work at Harvest Time”, *History Workshop*, Oxford, 1979. David
Tresemer, *The Scythe Book*, Alan C Hood, 1996. J W Anstee, “Scythe Blades
of Roman Britain”, *Countryman*,



  • [permaculture] History | Scythe Association, Lawrence London, 12/27/2014

Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page