ASF Fellowship - Vesterheim Study Visit 2024 - Collections Visit
In 2024 I was awarded an Folk Artist Fellowship from the American Scandinavian Foundation for my project titled Sustaining Pole Lathe Bowl Turning in the Midwest.
A facet of my project is studying the historical and cultural context of pole lathe turning in Nordic countries. In this blog entry I’ll share about my recent visit to the Vesterheim Norwegian-American Museum in Decorah, Iowa. In this blog post I’ll share some of my observations from my time spent looking at 18th-20th century bowls in their collection. I also spent a small amount of time in the museums library scanning through publications for chapters relevant to wood turning and cultural traditions around ale bowls in Norway. You can read about some of what I learned in the library in this separate blog entry.
Vesterheim Collections Observations
I spent a two and a half days in the collections looking closely at 66 of the collection’s bowls. This is as many as I was able to observe closely, take notes on, and photograph details of bowls of interest. If I had excess time, it would have been good to study all the bowls in their collection, however I think selecting the bowls I suspected were turned using earlier forms of turning was the right compromise.
I’m grateful for the opportunity to photograph these bowls as it brought a sense of structure to my visit and allowed me to capture key details in a way I could easily share. Additionally, being able to observe these bowls under two different lighting conditions (house lights and studio lights) also allowed greater insight into their design. While the house lights provided a flat/even lighting, the studio lights offered a strong directional light which is ideal for observing texture.
Ale bowls / Ølboller
Norwegian ale bowls were made in a variety of sizes and shapes. Larger bowls were intended to hold beer and were often meant to be shared between multiple people. Ølbolle (ale bowl) is an umbrella term used for a variety of shapes and sizes of bowls used for ale. There is quite a variety of terms used for specific styles and shapes. For example, smaller bowls intended for individual use are often referred to as einskilsbolle. Some bowls are referred to as “skål”, which many may recognize as a common toast in several Nordic countries and comes from the Old Norse word “skál” for “bowl.”
The einskilsbolle above, collection item 1973.8.27, is a bowl with a design that really inspired me. Its proportions and the curves are visually pleasing, and this bowl was turned expertly thin, which made it incredibly light to hold in the hand. After returning home I was reading through the catolog info for this bowl and came across a note that the Chief Curator, Laurann Gilbertson had made. During a visit to the collection in 2017, Tom Dengler, a friend of mine, had made an interesting observation about the black spot at the bottom of the bowl that appeared to be charing. Tom speculated that it may had been at one point used to cary embers.
Above is collection item LC0127. There are several reasons I really am fond of this bowl. First is that it’s a simple open form done well with a very consistent thickness. The tool finish was also very smooth. Overall I was charmed by the display of tool proficiency in a modest form. A fascinating aspect of this bowl is the extent of mending that had been done. What appears to be multiple types of soft metal pieces were used to repair an end grain split that is very typical of side grain turned bowls.
In the Vesterheim’s collection, most of the bowls were turned side-grain orientation with the fibers of the wood parallel to the rim and foot/base of the bowl. Side grain bowls, particularly if turned from fresh wood, have a notable curvature of the rim from the side view, and dry to an oval shape from the top view.
Originally apart of the Luther College Collection, item LC5321 (inscribed 1819), is a medium sized side-grain turned bowl that starts with a straight sided foot, followed by a large convex curve with a smaller concave truncation near the rim, sometimes referred to as a collar. This collar is a common design aspect in ale bowls. From the side profile the rim of the bowl, which is about 9.5in diamaeter, has a significant curvature from the movement of the bowl as it dried. This differential shrinkage can also be observed from above as the bowl shape is oval.
Some of the collections bowls, even several larger bowls, have been turned in an end-grain orientation with the fibers of the wood oriented perpendicular to the rim and foot. End grain bowls generally show less warping, however over time some have “sunken.”
Vesterheim collections item 1998.40.2 is a great example of the how the vertical fibers in an end-grain turned bowl can delaminate and slip over time through wear/tear or age.
Vesterheim collection item 1983.5.6 is an end-grain bowl with a very distinctive silhouette that has been commonly attributed to the Nordfjord District of Norway. A large inward sloping foot that meets the slight recess on the underside of the bowl bordered by a bead. working upwards the bowl has a slight convex curve followed by a shelf with a concave curve. The interior wall shape is an s-shape that more or less follows the shape of the exterior. End grain bowls like this one have minimal warping at the rim and remain relatively round.
Ledged Ale Bowls
One interesting design aspect I observed on a few 18th century bowls in the Vesterheim’s collection is an open form bowl with an interior that is divided by ledges. Below are two of those bowls, items 2001.45.1 and LC223. As a result of my visit to the museum’s library I’ve learned some very interesting information regarding this style of bowl and it’s history, which you can read more about in my other blog post that focuses on info I learned from the literature that I had access to in the Vesterheim’s library.
Spouted Ale Bowls / Trøyser
A Trøys is spouted bowl that is used to was used to collect beer from the barrel and then pour it into multiple smaller vessels. The word trøys is related to the Old Norse word "trog" which has some relation to the English “trough.”
Item LC358 is a large Trøys that has a shallow open spout. This bowl does not have a date inscribed on it. From what I’ve read about Trøyser in Per Gjærder’s “Norske Drikkekar Av Tre”, the turned bowls with wide handle were more commonly produced in the 1800s.
The trøys below (LC1541) has what I refer to is a partially closed spout as it begins with a hole just below the rim. Trøys are turned much like any other bowl, with the exception of a large collar near the rim, which eventually is carved away to shape the spout and handle. The space between the handle and spout commonly has a repeating pattern of shallow curves and lines or “v” shaped cuts. I’ve heard and used the phrase “scallop and dart” to refer to these carved features. LC1541 also has some interesting scallop and dart carving on the top and bottom edges of the handle, as well as the bottom of the spout, that really makes this bowl unique.
Below is LC5314, a trøys with a deep open spout, and a tail carved much like a birds fanned tail feathers. Something I found interesting about the spout was the protruding lip below the end of the spout which shows additional care put into crafting this bowl to produce a cleaner pour. This lip encourages the liquid to avoid clinging to the underside of the spout and running down the front of the bowl. It’s worth checking out this video on the coanda effect for a great explanation from retired Harvard University physicist Wolfgang Rueckner.
Tool markings of interest
Tool marks offer valuable clues about the process used to create an object. They also reveal the maker's touch in a way that allows appreciation without full knowledge of the tools or techniques. The texture left by the tool marks also in a way represents a human element behind the work. I tend to get excited when I observe a mark that indicates reciprocal turning, or an axe mark on the exterior of a bowl that has fine raised track lines that are left by the damaged edge of a tool.
As a contemporary craftsperson who aims to create utilitarian woodenware with appealing design, seeing these tool marks reminds me that these items are made to be used and that the process of creation can reflect the purpose of the object. Many of these marks remain not due to a lack of skill or attention, but because the maker consciously accepts the marks, choosing to move forward rather than getting lost in the pursuit of perfection.
Axe marks
Wooden bowls are commonly made from one half of a split log, with the rim placed parallel to the parallel to the fibers of the wood (“side-grain”). This allows for the largest bowl to be turned from a given diameter of wood while still removing the pithy center, which is the most common culprit of wood cracking from differential shrinking. Once the log has been split, the outside form of the bowl is roughly shaped with impact tools, such as an axe. It is not uncommon to see these tool marks, as well as bark/cambium, left on the outer surface of a finished bowl. Below you can see a few still images from the process of shaping a bowl blank from a half-round of wood. You can watch the video these frames are from on my tiktok.
Below are a few of my favorite axe marks I observed in the Vesterheim collection. The small red bowl in the center with the two handles has a bit of cambium left on the surface. The presence of cambium also may indicate that the tree was felled during the winter months when the bark and cambium has a far greater tendency to remain adhered to the surface of the wood.
Speculation about axe marks and why they were not turned away?
(in no particular order)
They didn’t impact design
When a bowl turner is shaping the exterior of a bowl on a lathe they are constantly addressing design. If the curve is fair and there happens to be an axe mark left that doesn’t compromise the strength of the intended wall thickness, it makes sense to just move on.
Maximize the material
This is something my mentor Jarrod Dahl taught me when turning my first few bowls on a pole lathe in 2017. Turn the largest bowl you can with the blank you have to make the greatest use of the material.
Time efficiency
If a desired shape is met and an axe mark remains, the more time efficient decision would be to leave the axe mark, which saves the time that would have been spent reducing the size of the bowl past the axe marks and re-addressing design.
Energy efficiency
Turning on a pole lathe is a physical endeavor. An important consideration is how economical one is with their energy. If the design is achieved and the strength of the bowl is not impacted, the bowl turners energy is better used on hollowing rather than turning off a present axe mark and re-designing the bowl.
Traces of pole lathe turning
Pole lathe turning is one of several forms of reciprocal turning that relies on the work alternating in two directions, forwards and backwards. This reciprocal motion is driven either by a spring, a bow, alternating pedals, or an assistant.
I’m not going to go into the various forms of lathes that rely on this reciprocal motion in this post. If you’re interested, Stuart King wrote a blog post that describes several forms of human powered reciprocating lathes.
Cut terminations
With a reciprocal lathe, the tool is engaged on one of two directions (forward or reverse). The cut is made in forward, and when the lathe springs/spins back in reverse it is considered the “return.” If a cutting edge is advanced along the spinning surface work for the entire motion in one direction, eventually there is a termination to the rotation and the cut. Below are a couple images highlighting cut terminations that I observed on two bowls from Norway. The bowl on the left is LC797, dated 1798, has a clear example of what one of these terminations looks like. At the end of each termination the angle of the cutting edge at the end of the cut can even be observed. The bowl on the right is 1981.120.1, dated 1834, shows a very subtle cut termination.
Regarding cut terminations, I’d like to also add some extra insight from my personal experience turning for 8 years on a pole lathe. An experienced pole lathe turner, that demonstrates disciplined tool control while slowly advancing the tool, can leave a very fine tool finish where these cut terminations are not visible.
Scars
There are two spots on a completed pole lathe turned bowl that I refer to as “scars.” The image on the right shows a bowl I turned and cut in half to study it’s cross section. This image shows how the tail stock center point engages the base of the bowl, slightly puncturing the surface of the wood to hold it in place. The button serves as a sacrificial piece of wood that prevents the lathe centers from damaging the bottom of the finished bowl. The button is carved away later. The second scar is on the bottom of the interior is where the core is broken free. The “nub” that is left is carved away.
Cleaning the scars
The "button” on the outside base as well as the “nub” on the bottom interior are typically cleaned up with a curved blade like a hook shaped knife or a gouge. The image on the left shows me using a spoon carving hook knife to carry out this task. The path of least resistance for this task is to cut across the fibers of the wood. Most of the old bowls I look at are cleaned in a similar way. The handled bowl below (LC808) shows a very interesting deviation where the maker carved the scar on the interior of the bowl with cuts alternating cuts parallel to the fibers, which resulted in an interesting wavy effect.
The antique knife above was made in the 18th century and was likely made for carving spoons, but also could have used to clean bowl scars amongst a variety of other miscellaneous tasks. In 2018 I made the decision to sharpen it up and put it to use.
Cleaning the “button” or “nub” on the exterior of the bowl is also commonly done with some sort of curved cutting edge with cuts across the fibers of the wood. Another technique I’ve seen used for the outer scar is an axe finish, which is illustrated in two of the three bowl scars below. These scars do not impact the function at all, and demonstrate the makers skill and accuracy with an axe and potential desire for time efficiency.
You can observe these techniques used in the images above in a TikTok video I uploaded in 2022
I’d also like to add a bit of a counter point that carving scars on the exterior and interior base of the bowl does not guarantee that the bowl has been made on a pole lathe. While pole lathe turned bowls will always need a bit of cleaning up in these two areas, one can simply utilize the same carving techniques on bowls that have been turned using other forms of turning. I’d like to be clear that this is not an accusation that someone might choose to deliberately imitate these characteristics. Instead, I’m just acknowledging that in other processes of turning a bowl I’ve observed situations where a bowl had needed a bit of touching up in either of these areas.
Tool catches
As I mentioned before that lingering tool marks do not necessarily indicate a lack of skill or attention of the maker. When it comes to tool catches, a moment of inattention may be inferred. Personally I think it is safe to guess these catch marks were not intentional, however leaving them was. I’d like to also add that tool catches on a pole lathe pose very little safety risk. The lathe spins slow and when a tool catch occurs the pedal and the work just stop moving.
In the Vesterheim Collection I observed several examples of tool catches. Based on the shape and size of these catches, I feel it is safe to assume the catch marks were made from scrolled hook tools with one or two sharpened edges. Antique pole lathe turning tools are not uncommon in museum collections throughout Norway. While studying pole lathe turning in literature on Norwegian folk art, online articles, and online collections, I’ve encountered the terms krokjern, dreiejern, svarvjern, and utholingsjern used to describe these turning tools. You can see a few of these tools hanging on the wall of a pole lathe turners workshop in the image below that was printed in “Maihaugen 1957-1960” (published by De Sandvigske Samlinger).
The two instances of a tool catch shown above were all on the exterior of large bowls. When the outside was being formed, the effort needed to spin the work was at it’s greatest. This leads me to believe the turners just accepted the catch and didn’t bother turning it away and compromise the established design.
In the left image the tool was slicing the surface inside the foot of the bowl with the tool moving towards the center axis. The tool suddenly caught where the carving marks of the scar begin. The scar is a remnant from removing a button that was turned on the bottom of the bowl, which is what I speculate the tool caught on. (collection item LC1197)
The image on the right shows a catch made while making a sheering cut on the bottom flat surface of the bowl. Tool’s cutting depth may have been too shallow of an angle and the tool dove in. (collection item LC823)
Possible Mandrel scars?
In the Vesterheim collections I encountered a bowl (LC0127) with a curious group of marks on the inside bottom of the bowl in the scar area from the core break. The surface around those four marks has the usual scar cleaning carving marks of a curved cutting edge. I speculate that these are the marks left from a four-tined spike mandrel that was mounted in a bowl that had been previously rough-hollowed with hand tools, perhaps an adze. The bowl maker may have slightly misjudged how deep the mandrel tines pierced the wood and when the final thickness below the core break was being adjusted the maker decided to leave the remnants of the mandrel tines rather than make the base of the bowl thinner by carving them away.
Collection item LC0127
Property Marks
Many of the collections bowls have carved marks on their bases. They appear to be property marks, indicated with either initials or in some cases symbols. Many are carved, however I did encounter some branded marks.
I am vaguely aware of bumerker, which are property marks that were common prior to the 20th century in Norway to indicate an individual, farm, or other entity’s property.
Mending
There are some fascinating examples of bowl repairs in the Vesterheim’s Collection. These mends underline how highly valued these bowls were as cultural and sentimental pieces. Ale bowls have been apart of many traditions throughout Norway during special occasions such as calendar events (Christmas, Midsummer), or life events (Birth, Baptisms, Weddings and Funerals). Below are a few of my favorite repairs in the Vesterheim’s collection.
Bowl 90.88.4 (above) was made sometime in the mid-late 19th century. A substantial repair was made to the rim with a piece of sheet metal at one point. The metal must contain iron considering the visible rust and how it deteriorated the surrounding wood. It is unclear if the repair was painted to match the existing painting of the bowl, or if the whole bowl was repainted after the repair. While the choice of metal may have been a poor choice for longevity, the mender took good care to form this mend to the area of the bowl in need of support.
Collection item LC1622, shown above, is a large bowl (17.5 inch diameter) from the early 19th century. The repair consists of four large staples that are only visible from the exterior.
Collection item LC803 shows a mend consisting of two small copper plates that hat been held in place by, what appears to be brass, rivets.
Of course I must talk about LC127 once again. The use of a combination of techniques and materials is interesting. There are two staples, that appear to be copper. They go through the entire thickness of the wall and are folded flush on the interior.
The large plate that wraps over the rim, which appears to be brass, is secured by tiny copper nails that are folded over on the interior.
Finally, the smaller mend at the rim, which also appears to be copper, consists of a small plate that at first glance has no visible rivet on the exterior. When looking at the interior there are two staple ends that are visible just below the wrap at the rim, that indicates that the plate itself had two staple tines on the end that were inserted through the outside wall of the bowl and folded on the interior before wrapping the soft metal up and over the rim and securing with a small nail.
Conclusion
Visiting the collections at the Vesterheim Museum has made a significant impact in my goal to better understand the significance of pole lathe turning in Nordic folk art and craft production. Also, being able to examine these pieces of craft and cultural history, particularly as a pole lathe turner, was inspiring.
I’d like to acknowledge that the historical research phase of my ASF Artist Fellowship this past year was limited primarily to Norway. As much as I wish I had the time to focus a similar attention to pole lathe turning practices in other Nordic countries, I’m content with the decision I made to narrow my focus. Going forward, I feel very optimistic about the path ahead with these studies and I’m incredibly grateful for the American Scandinavian Foundation and the Vesterheim Norwegian-American Museum for kickstarting this journey.
References/citations
Grieg, S., & Valen-Sendstad, F. (1961). Tredreiere og dreiebenker. In Maihaugen 1957-1960 (pp. 51–80). De Sandvigske Samlinger.
Per, G. (1982). In Norske drikkekar av tre (pp. 130–134). Oslo: Universitetsforlaget.
