.png)
Bollock daggers are one of the most ubiquitous types of daggers from the Medieval and Renaissance eras. They were common, yet underappreciated in the mainstream and oversimplified as a joke of an object. The most famous bollock daggers were found in the Mary Rose shipwreck. Through analysis of the piece and research this study seeks to shed light on the cultural context, craftsmanship, and potential narratives surrounding this intriguing artifact. It will begin by examining the physical characteristics of the bollock dagger and sheath, paying close attention to their materials, design elements, and manufacturing techniques. Part of this analysis will be based on the handling of a reproduction of the piece. It will then explore the historical context in which these items were utilized. Finally it will draw connections between the artifact and broader themes of Renaissance weaponry, social hierarchy, and personal adornment. As such, this will work with the analytical methodology of Jules David Prown in studying the original and its context. Particularly, it will focus on deduction and speculation incorporating handling based on Ulinka Rublack’s focus on reconstruction and use of the period eye. Ultimately, this research aims to contribute to our understanding of the material culture and social dynamics of the Renaissance in England, shedding light on the rich tapestry of human experience embodied in this fascinating piece of weaponry.
The bollock dagger in question was found on the shipwreck of the Mary Rose among sixty-five others. This was the flagship of King Henry VIII which sank in 1545. The shipwreck was found in 1836 . The majority of what survived was the organic materials. Iron largely rusted away completely or bonded as concretions aside from the larger objects such as cannons. As such, in regards to the bollock dagger, the hilts and the scabbard are what predominantly survived. Most hilts were composed of boxwood, but other materials were found as well. It can be deduced, however, that based on the surviving parts and the radiography of concretions, how the blades were shaped. Notably, all but one were single-edged.
The form of the dagger is quite distinct for the period. The hilt is primarily a single, solid piece of wood. The pommel is shaped like a shallow dome and has a peen washer made of copper alloy. The grip is parallel in profile and has a hexagonal cross-section. The guard is cut in the shape of two lobes and has a copper alloy impact plate and pins. The scabbard is composed of tooled leather with a copper alloy chape and was likely shaped to fit the since lost blade. Based on this and the inside of the hilt, the iron or steel blade was a thick-spined, single-edged foot-long blade.
Bollock daggers spread across the continent, but were especially popular in the Nordic countries. The term “bollock” is in reference to the shape of the hilt as it has a phallic appearance. The term used for daggers or knives first appeared in Chaucer’s work in the fifteenth century. In the sixteenth century, they started to be called dudgeon daggers due to the common use of boxwood for the hilt, but the term eventually was applied to the later styles of the seventeenth century. Victorian scholarship in the nineteenth century used the term “kidney dagger” in accordance with their cultural sensibilities. As forms of material culture, bollock daggers fall into several categories. They are diversions for the fencer and brawler. They are wearable, and therefore adornments. Lastly, as tools and weapons, they are devices.
These, among other knives and daggers, were mostly designed by The Guild of Cutlers in the city of London. This was a very insular cult of manufacture to avoid outsiders profiting from them in addition to other strict rules such as the inclusion of maker’s marks. The cutler was the one who designed, assembled, and sold knives and daggers, whereas the parts were made by specialist crafters, though they were further controlled by the cutlers in the sixteenth century. The daggers found on the Mary Rose were likely personal purchases as there is no reference to bulk orders in the inventories.
The main body of the bollock dagger hilt is a single piece of wood comprising the grip, guard, and pommel. Bollock dagger hilts were typically made from turning on a lathe. The construction of the bollock daggers from the Mary Rose may have changed. Based on the structure, it may have been made by being carved from a plank. The inside, to fit the blade, was drilled through. They were likely sourced through coppicing due to wood qualities and size. As most bollock daggers were likely made in London by the Guild of Cutlers, the grips were likely imported from other parts of the country within the associated status of the piece. In the crafting of the hilts, it is possible that there was a spiritual element within the process with the piece not only formed to resemble a human body part, but also the view of natural similarities. However, it is also possible that it was the continuation of a joke.
Most of the copper alloy fittings were likely shaped through cold hammering due to their size. It is possible, however, that the guard pins were cast due to their shape. While hard to tell, brass is more likely due to the use of protecting the other components. The reproduction piece officially utilizes bronze fittings for the sheath chape and is most apparent in the cracked look at the tip; the hilt fittings are made of brass, likely for its strength.
Daggers were carried in sheaths rather than scabbards. This simply means that the body is all leather, rather than having a wood core. As such, they were bound together by sewing, and sometimes reinforced at the tip by a metal (often copper alloy) chape. These sheaths were suspended by a thong made of leather or other cord. These sheaths were often decorated with tooling in accordance with the status of the wearer. The majority of the sheaths found on the Mary Rose were fragmentary, and made from cowhide. The colors are mostly neutral, dark, or undyed suggesting use as practical and accentual rather than as prime display; the reproduction is black for this sake. This, with the tooled decoration, points to a subtle and delicate display of craftsmanship.
The fact most of these bollock daggers were single-edged at this point suggests that they were meant for lower classes. It would allow the wielder to use the piece for hard tasks that are often aided by bracing the spine with the thumb or other hand. A double-edged dagger is only good for stabbing. This is apparent in how there was a period of elaborate bollock daggers prior to the sailing of the Mary Rose being mostly double-edged. It can be noted that even single-edged blades are robust enough to handle combat and fine enough to bypass armour. The blade, therefore, gives the piece an inherent value to the whole. It should be noted that in the reconstruction, the blade is the most speculative and uses modern calculated steel. As for the length, most averaged around a foot. This fits just above the recommendations made later by Sir John Smythe, who recommended they be between nine and ten inches. This, in combination with the sumptuary law placed in 1562, which limits them to a foot, were likely callbacks to the Mary Rose era and before. The average length in addition to the later limits has two possible meanings. One, it could be a sense of visible modesty. It could also be a sense of pride in skill as longer weapons were bemoaned as less skillful, relying on technology and more encumbering. This latter point also points to the shorter blades being favored by the lower classes as more utility items than dedicated showpiece weapons.
It is clear that this object is a symbol of masculinity. The shape of the hilt and the name exemplifies this. To emphasize this visual similarity, the bollock dagger was often fastened to one’s belt and carried in front of the groin. While it was also worn in more conventional ways, the frontal method was almost exclusively done with the bollock dagger. Carrying such a piece was a declaration of manhood, and stabbing with it an action of penetration, assuming a dominant role in the interaction. It is interesting to note, that while the grip and pommel appear more phallic, the bollock guard on the Mary Rose daggers are flatter. This gives the overall appearance as phallic on the flat plane rather than giving the piece more dimension. In reconstructing this unique manner of carrying daggers offers interesting insights. Firstly, it does not impede normal or exertive movement whether sheathed or unsheathed. Neither does it get in the way when seated or bent over. In fact, this position allows for one-handed stable draws as the legs can be used to restrain the sheath.
As for use in combat, there is little information about English dagger fighting contemporary to the artifact. Instead, one has to look to other sources from the time (namely from German and Italian states), but from other places. For an English method, there are two sources that post-date the piece, but address combat in a manner that bemoans the methods of their day claiming an older form. George Silver says nothing of the design, but says dagger fighting needs to be dynamic with continual motion and keeping distance. Sir John Smythe says to use the dagger in the off hand for thrusting. In experimenting with a likely reproduction of the piece, a few aspects stand out compared to other daggers. Firstly, from the draw in the need for quick action, attention must be paid to the orientation of the edge in such a way it should be indistinguishable from a double-edged blade so as to avoid harm to oneself. In the reverse, defensive grip (braced against the arm), the guard enforces a flat-on orientation rather than resting the spine on the arm with the edge facing out. As such, it triggers the emotions of respect and fear. The flattened bollock guard, in the more conventional grip method, allows for an approximation to how rapiers were commonly gripped: that of the finger over the guard for point control.
In conclusion, bollock daggers, although often overlooked or dismissed as humorous objects, hold significant historical and cultural value. This study aims to shed light on the cultural context, craftsmanship, and potential narratives surrounding these intriguing artifacts. By examining their physical characteristics, such as materials, design elements, and manufacturing techniques, we can gain insights into their unique construction. Exploring the historical context in which bollock daggers were utilized reveals their popularity. Moreover, studying the craftsmanship involved in their creation, including the collaboration between the Guild of Cutlers and specialized crafters, enhances our understanding of the production process. Additionally, the examination of the social significance of bollock daggers, as symbols of masculinity and personal adornment, uncovers their role in social hierarchy. Ultimately, this research contributes to our understanding of Renaissance weaponry, social dynamics, and the rich tapestry of human experiences embedded in these fascinating pieces of weaponry.
Bibliography
Clough, Nathan, PhD. and Craig Johnson. “Ballock Daggers: Sexy and Iconic.” Arms n Armor (2021).
Cooke, Edward S. Jr. Global Objects: Toward a Connected Art History. Princeton University
Press. Pp. 41-47.
“History.” The Worshipful Company of Cutlers (2023).
Immomen, Visa. “Fondling on the Kitchen Table – Artefacts, Sexualities and Performative
Metaphors from the 15th to the 17th Centuries.” Journal of Social Archaeology 14, iss. 2
(June 2014): 178-191.
“A Load of Old Ballocks.” The Mary Rose Trust (2019).
Nielsen, Christina. “Carving Life: the Meaning of Wood in Early Modern European Sculpture.” In The Matter of Art: Materials, Practices, and Cultural Logics c. 1250-1750.
Manchester University Press (2015). Pp. 223-231.
Prown, Jules David. “Mind in Matter: An Introduction to Material Culture Theory and Method.” Winterthur Portfolio 17, no. 1 (1982): 1-19.
Rublack, Ulinka. “Renaissance Dress, Cultures of Making, and the Period Eye.” West 86th 23,
no. 1 (2017): 6-31.
Silver, George. Brief Instructions Upon My Paradoxes of Defence. Robert Devereux, 2nd Earl of Essex (1605). Pp. 1-15.
Smith, Kay, and Ruth R. Brown. “A Weapon for Battle, Town, or Heaven: Bollock Daggers.”
Medieval Warfare 9, no. 2 (2019): 48–49.
Smythe, Sir John. Certain discourses concerning the forms and effects of diverse sorts of
weapons. (1589). Pp. 1-46.
Todeschini, Tod. “Evolution of the Bollock Dagger.” Tod’s Workshop on YouTube (2019).
Tudor, Queen Elizabeth I. Concerning Ruffs, Hose, and Swords. Westminster (1562).
Williams, Alan. “Weapons of Warre: The Armaments of the Mary Rose.” The Archaeology of the Mary Rose 3 (2011): 740-816.