Danish Pallask

[Jim McDougall]

Absolutely fascinating example Mr.Farrell, especially with this provenance and having been excavated at this historically important location.
Though I have not yet located a distinct match, it is clear this is a military sword, and does appear to be a 'pallasch'. This term is usually applied to large and straight bladed military swords, typically cavalry.

A hanger is usually a much shorter sword usually with curved blade of varying degree and used usually by wider range of forces militarily. They are also well known in civilian use widely especially as 'hunting' swords, but this sword does not appear in that category. In its excavated condition it is remarkable that the 'running wolf' remains discernible.

Since the Battle of Nyborg was in 1659, this sets a benchmark and as the forces for Denmark included Dutch, Prussian, Polish versus Swedish forces, it would be difficult to say which this pallasch might be from. I have checked "Gamle Danske Militaer Vaben" (Th. Moller, 1963) but nothing corresponds, though some later forms look interestingly similar, so I do not think it is Danish.

At this point I would be tempted to consider this probably a Prussian pallasche, particularly with the wolf mark, but varying European makers used German blades so it is hard to say.

I will check further tomorrow, but in the meantime perhaps the others out there might have more. There is a phenomenal knowledge base here among our members so we should have this down pretty quickly

[fernando]

Originally Posted by Jim McDougall

... In its excavated condition it is remarkable that the 'running wolf' remains discernible. ..

Incredibly discernible, don't you think Jim ?
It would be interesting that members with knowledge in this area comment on this phenomenon.

[E Farrell]

Originally Posted by fernando

Incredibly discernible, don't you think Jim ?
It would be interesting that members with knowledge in this area comment on this phenomenon.

There are several reasons for that.

It is aided slightly by manipulation of the contrast and colour balance of that particular photo.


There is also a healthy dose of luck involved. I have attached a picture of the mark on the other side of the blade to this post. It is, from what I can tell, the same mark, but more poorly preserved.


It is also partly due to the methods used in the original conservation. At the time when this was conserved, it was still standard practice to remove overlying corrosion with a pneumatic/dental abrasive wheel. It's a bit violent, and it removes slightly too much. I would posit a guess - though I don't know; the records are pretty terrible - that some overlying material was left in place around the marks. This would also account for the colour difference and slightly higher surface in those areas. In all honesty, this is probably the biggest contributory factor; the original conservator was a bit less harsh in those areas. Worth noting, that's also the reason everybody has pretty much switched to air-abrasive systems instead of abrasive wheels; you're far more able to retain the original surface with modern treatments.

Also, there is some visual benefit from the surface treatment. Archaeological iron used to (and in may places still does) get a final coat of microcrystalline wax with carbon black pigment in it. The recessed areas of the mark have collected a thicker coat, and it adds to the contrast.

[Jim McDougall]

Originally Posted by E Farrell

There are several reasons for that.

It is aided slightly by manipulation of the contrast and colour balance of that particular photo.


There is also a healthy dose of luck involved. I have attached a picture of the mark on the other side of the blade to this post. It is, from what I can tell, the same mark, but more poorly preserved.


It is also partly due to the methods used in the original conservation. At the time when this was conserved, it was still standard practice to remove overlying corrosion with a pneumatic/dental abrasive wheel. It's a bit violent, and it removes slightly too much. I would posit a guess - though I don't know; the records are pretty terrible - that some overlying material was left in place around the marks. This would also account for the colour difference and slightly higher surface in those areas. In all honesty, this is probably the biggest contributory factor; the original conservator was a bit less harsh in those areas. Worth noting, that's also the reason everybody has pretty much switched to air-abrasive systems instead of abrasive wheels; you're far more able to retain the original surface with modern treatments.

Also, there is some visual benefit from the surface treatment. Archaeological iron used to (and in may places still does) get a final coat of microcrystalline wax with carbon black pigment in it. The recessed areas of the mark have collected a thicker coat, and it adds to the contrast.

We apparently crossed posts Mr. Farrell, and I wanted to thank you for this excellent analysis of some of the probable reasons for this remarkably visible mark. It is most interesting to hear these kinds of details from archaeological perspective, an area I find fascinating but admit that I am notably deficient in. Thank you for adding this here.
Meanwhile, as noted in my other post, I am still trying to locate some reasonable match in pattern from the military swords of the period in these countries in resources I have. While I have a plausible idea, I still hope to find more definitive answer

Very best regards,
Jim

[Jim McDougall]

Just to add, further search through the Swedish Arms & Armour Society annuals, in Vol. XIX (2004, p.10, in "Marken Pa Gamla Klingor" by Olof P.Berg) there is a walloon bilobate type cavalry sword captioned as from the 'low countries' c. 1650.
This is with straight blade and does not have the complex guard, but does have the knuckleguard etc.
Most interesting are the blade markings:
The triple X town marking for Amsterdam; the crowned shield with capital P; the name SAHAGOM (spurious Spanish marking typically found on Solingen blades to Netherlands ) and most important ...a stylized running wolf which is nearly identical to the one seen on the Nyborg sword.

I think these details again add to the likelihood of this being a Dutch sword, made in Solingen in years around 1650. I was surprised to find such a similar 'wolf' but even more with context associated with the Dutch swords.

[E Farrell]

Originally Posted by Jim McDougall

Just to add, further search through the Swedish Arms & Armour Society annuals, in Vol. XIX (2004, p.10, in "Marken Pa Gamla Klingor" by Olof P.Berg) there is a walloon bilobate type cavalry sword captioned as from the 'low countries' c. 1650.
This is with straight blade and does not have the complex guard, but does have the knuckleguard etc.
Most interesting are the blade markings:
The triple X town marking for Amsterdam; the crowned shield with capital P; the name SAHAGOM (spurious Spanish marking typically found on Solingen blades to Netherlands ) and most important ...a stylized running wolf which is nearly identical to the one seen on the Nyborg sword.

I'm always amazed how much information comes out of this forum from a few meager photos.

Would you be willing to scan in that image and either post it in thread or email it to me directly? Or, if not, do you know where I might be able to obtain a copy of that issue?


At Cornelis: Excellent images; thank you. I was uncertain where one of the broken sections of the guard would have ended; those seem to clear that issue up nicely.

yes it is a backsword for a footsoldier and made in Solingen between 1675and 1725. the running wolf mark originally a Passau mark however frequently used by Solingen swordsmiths in the 17thC.

How firm is that 1675-1725 date range? I would really like this to be 1659 or earlier given where it was found, but because of the lack of good records I am not confident in that date for the sword based on context alone.

We apparently crossed posts Mr. Farrell,

Heh. I appear to have made a horrible mistake in choosing my username here; the 'first initial, last name' format brings on formal titles. I've got no objection to being 'E' or 'Farrell' or 'Hey, you over there'. I'd like to think I'm still too young to warrant a 'Mr.', but then that sentiment might itself be a sign of aging...

[Jim McDougall]

Originally Posted by E Farrell

I'm always amazed how much information comes out of this forum from a few meager photos.

Would you be willing to scan in that image and either post it in thread or email it to me directly? Or, if not, do you know where I might be able to obtain a copy of that issue?


At Cornelis: Excellent images; thank you. I was uncertain where one of the broken sections of the guard would have ended; those seem to clear that issue up nicely.



How firm is that 1675-1725 date range? I would really like this to be 1659 or earlier given where it was found, but because of the lack of good records I am not confident in that date for the sword based on context alone.






Heh. I appear to have made a horrible mistake in choosing my username here; the 'first initial, last name' format brings on formal titles. I've got no objection to being 'E' or 'Farrell' or 'Hey, you over there'. I'd like to think I'm still too young to warrant a 'Mr.', but then that sentiment might itself be a sign of aging...

Hello E,
Actually I customarily address people by first name, but used the title to ensure proper respect until otherwise informed. Personally I'm far into the age where Mr is expected by most, but I prefer Jim as that title does seem 'old'
The question re: the Swedish arms journals I will get back to you on.
As Jens has noted, the Royal Armouries are an excellent source of information, but here Jasper I think pretty much has the best information.

All the best,
Jim

[Norman McCormick]

Hi,
These may be of interest. www.sabels.net/ (Dutch) www.arma-dania.dk/ (Danish) www.norskevaapen.no (Norwegian) http://www.sfhm.se/templates/pages/A...epslanguage=SV (Swedish)
Regards,
Norman.

[cornelistromp]

hi All,

@Jim
yes it is a backsword for a footsoldier and made in Solingen between 1675and 1725. the running wolf mark originally a Passau mark however frequently used by Solingen swordsmiths in the 17thC.


@all
swords of this type are originally from Eastern Europe and were used by "the catholic army", later exported to western european countries.

Most have a single punch plate, but some have a double like this one.
all have a blackened iron hilt with knuckleguards screwed or fixed in holes to the pommel and almost all have a thumbring. it is seen as the successor of the famous walloon sword.
it is a very effective sword but not a rare weapon, there are still many left to find in good condition.

best,
jasper

[Jim McDougall]

Thank you for coming in on this Jasper, I was hoping you would!
Interesting examples you have illustrated (what source if I may ask), and as you note these were associated with the well known 'walloons' (the term they became called by after their prolific use in the Low Countries).

It would seem our example most corresponds to #47 in the plates you show, with single punch plate, similar quillon and what seems to be close to the guard configuration. It is a bit too distorted to be sure. The pommel is of course different and I cannot tell if there was a thumb ring.

In my research as I noted earlier, I kept finding later hits of similar system but they seemed typically of later period, as you note here. Also, I had always regarded these as cavalry swords but I am thinking of the bilobate shells and typical Walloons.

As I mentioned, the most difficult aspects of identifying this sword and its form are that Solingen was such a prolific producer of these and their variations over a long period and for many countries. I think the best thing going in this case is the apparent provenance from being excavated in this battlefield context, however the long lapse from its excavation and the reliability of records and its custody must be considered. It could be a weapon from later period and lost in the battlefield context long after the actual battle and therefore collateral rather than associated, but these things are left to speculation.

All very best regards,
Jim

[Jim McDougall]

Originally Posted by fernando

Incredibly discernible, don't you think Jim ?
It would be interesting that members with knowledge in this area comment on this phenomenon.

Actually it is incredible!!! Its almost as if the goethite and corrosion attacked everywhere except the blocked portion of the blade with the mark. Something like this makes me wonder if this might have some telling evidence concerning the application of these running wolf marks...perhaps the talismanic notions imbued had more to them?
Naturally I would be looking more toward the metallurgic possibilities though.

I am still puzzled by this pattern, which seems to defy all the usual European resources. With the pierced shell on the guard it seems possible to be a 'walloon' type cavalry sword, but the guard system seems to correspond more to later Continental forms (since we have a 1659 terminus post quem).

[Jim McDougall]

While I haven't yet completed searching this swords hilt configuration strongly resembles a Dutch sword of the period shown in " European Weapons and Armour: From the Renaissance to the Industrial Revolution" (E.Oakeshott, 1980, plate 20 'E').
It is described as similar to one seen in Rotius' painting "The Banner of Capt. Jan Simonsz Jongemasts" of the town guard of Hoorn (1652). While the pommel on the sword shown in Oakeshott has a 'dogs head' and the shell guard is somewhat different, its position, the guard system and the downward quillon are remarkably similar.
I would feel comfortable in suggesting this pallasch may be Dutch and perhaps from that contingent at this battle despite the nominal variations in hilt elements, pending of course other findings.
Again, it is important to note that many Continental swords of these times were produced in Germany, especially in the Netherlands. As discussed on other threads, the VOC (Dutch East India Co.) had many of their swords produced in Germany, as did the Dutch government.

I am hoping that Jasper will step in here as his expertise in these weapons is pretty much legion around here.

[E Farrell]

Originally Posted by Jim McDougall

I am still puzzled by this pattern, which seems to defy all the usual European resources. With the pierced shell on the guard it seems possible to be a 'walloon' type cavalry sword, but the guard system seems to correspond more to later Continental forms (since we have a 1659 terminus post quem).

I am not certain whether the holes in the shell are intentionally pierced. The condition is so generally poor that they could very easily be a result of corrosion. I had actually thought they were from corrosion, but given the condition I can't really guarantee that. I've had a look through my images, and there's one view with a better view of the shell. Attached below.

While I haven't yet completed searching this swords hilt configuration strongly resembles a Dutch sword of the period shown in " European Weapons and Armour: From the Renaissance to the Industrial Revolution" (E.Oakeshott, 1980, plate 20 'E').

I don't have a copy of that on me, but I'll be back in England in a couple of weeks. If I don't have a copy in my personal book stash there, the person I'm staying with will almost certainly have one.


Many thanks for the info so far!

[Jim McDougall]

Meanwhile I have been poring through journals from Swedish Arms & Armour Society as well as Seitz (1955, Swedish Army Weapons) for some time and so far the closest thing I can find is illustrated in the Annual for 2008 ("Svenska Vapenhistoriska Sallskapets Skrifter", Vol. XXIII) p.28. in an article by the editor, Mr. Staffan Kinman.
It is a cavalry officers sword of c. 1640, captioned as probably from the Netherlands, and again similar guard system and with the single shell guard pierced similar to these guards on pappenheimers of the period. I believe this reinforces my idea that this is most likely a Dutch weapon.

Still would like to find a more distinct match as so far we can only surmise the probable national association to which forces this cavalry officer probably belonged.