Sickle

A sickle on a Polish farm

A sickle is a hand-held agricultural tool with a curved blade typically used for harvesting grain crop or cutting grass for hay. The inside of the curve is sharp, so that the user can draw or swing the blade against the base of the crop, catching it in the curve and slicing it at the same time. The material to be cut may be held in a bunch in the other hand (for example when reaping), held in place by a wooden stick, or left free. When held in a bunch, the sickle action is towards the user (left to right for a right-handed user), but when used free the sickle is usually swung the opposite way. Different types may be referred to as a grasshook, swap hook, rip-hook, slash-hook, reaping hook, brishing hook or bagging hook.

Using a sickle

The blade of a sickle is often cranked to one side, to make it easier to keep the blade closer to the ground; this makes it right- or (more rarely) left-handed. Sickles used for reaping are usually serrated.

The sickle was largely superseded by the scythe, which is a more efficient tool in use for many purposes, as it continues to be in use in many parts of the world. The most noticeable difference between a sickle and a scythe is the length of the handle: a sickle is a one-handed tool with a short handle, used while bending down to the ground, while a scythe is a two-handed tool, used standing up, with a long, often curved shaft, and a much longer blade.

Sickle and a Scythe

A blade which is used regularly to cut the silica-rich stems of cereal crops acquires a characteristic sickle-gloss, or wear pattern. It was a critical tool that was used to facilitate early agriculture.[1]

Contents

History

Americas

The sickle has been discovered in Southwest America with a very unique structure. These sickles are said to possibly have originated from the Far East. There is evidence that islanders in the Pacific had for cutting grass “sickles made of a sharpened animal shoulder blade”.[2] The artifacts found in present day Arizona and New Mexico resemble curved tools that were made from the horns of mountain sheep. A similar site discovered sickles made from other material such as the Caddo Sickle, which was made from a deer mandible. Scripture from early natives document the use of these sickles in the cutting of grass. The instruments ranged from 13 to 16 inches tip to tip. Several other digs in eastern Arizona uncovered wooden sickles that were shaped in a similar fashion. The handles of the tools help describe how the tool was held in a such way so that the inner portion that contained the cutting surface could also serve as a gathering surface for the grain. Sickles were sharpened by scraping a shape beveled edge with a coarse tool. This action has left marks on artifacts that have been found. The sharpening process was necessary to keep the cutting edge from being dulled after extended use. The edge is seen to be quite highly polished, which in part proves that the instrument was used to cut grass. After collection, the grass was used as material to create matting and bedding. [2] The sickle in general provided the convenience of cutting the grass as well as gathering in one step. In South America, the sickle was used as a tool to harvest rice. Rice clusters were harvested using the instrument and left to dry in the sun. [3]

Harvesting Sickle from Iraq dated to be around 3000 B.C.

Fertile Crescent

The development of the sickle in Mesopotamia can be traced back to times that pre-date the Neolithic Era. Large quantities of sickle blades have been excavated in sites surrounding Palestine that have been dated to the ‘Epi-Palaeolithic’ (18,000-8,000 B.C.) era.[4] Formal digs in Wadi Ziqlab, Jordan have unearthed various forms of early sickle blades. The artifacts recovered ranged from 1 to 2 cm in length and possessed a jagged edge. This intricate ‘tooth-like’ design showed a greater degree of design and manufacturing credence than most of the other artifacts that were discovered. Sickle blades found during this time were made of flint, straight and used in more of a sawing motion than with the more modern curved design. Flints from these sickles have been discovered near Mt. Carmel, which suggest the harvesting of grains from the area about 10,000 years ago. [5]

Neolithic Sickle

Impact on the Agricultural Revolution

The sickle had a profound impact on the Agricultural Revolution by assisting in the transition to farming and crop based lifestyle. It is now accepted that the use of sickles led directly to the domestication of Near Eastern Wild grasses.[4] Research on domestication rates of wild cereals under primitive cultivation found that the use of the sickle in harvesting was critical to the people of early Mesopotamia. The relatively narrow growing season in the area and the critical role of grain in the late Neolithic Era promoted a larger investment in the design and manufacture of sickle over other tools. Standardization to an extent was done on the measurements of the sickle so that replacement or repair could be more immediate. It was important that the grain be harvested at the appropriate time at one elevation so that the next elevation could be collected in the proper time.[5] The sickle provided a more efficient process in collecting the grain which facilitated the competence of the entire farming procedure.

Additional uses

References

  1. ↑ Unger-Hamilton, Romana. "The Epi-Palaeolithic Southern Levant and the Origins of Cultivation". Current Anthropology 30 (1): pp. 88–103 year=1989. 
  2. ↑ 2.0 2.1 Heizer, Robert F. (1951). "The Sickle in Aboriginal Western North America". American Antiquity 16 (3): pp. 247–252. 
  3. ↑ Works, Martha A. (1987). "Aguaruna Agriculture in Eastern Peru". Geographical Review 77 (3): pp. 343–358. 
  4. ↑ 4.0 4.1 Unger-Hamilton, Romana (July 1985). "Microscopic Striations on Flint Sickle-Blades as an Indication of Plant Cultivation: Preliminary Results". World Archaeology 17 (1): pp. 121–126. 
  5. ↑ 5.0 5.1 Banning, E.B. (1998). "The Neolithic Period: Triumphs of Architecture, Agriculture, and Art". Near Eastern Archaeology 61 (4): pp. 188–237. 

See also