viking sword or historism?

kronckew · 2nd February 2016, 08:44 AM

found this: Saxon/viking sword construction

info on two part and single part pommels.

the wide hollow on the inside seems to indicate something would have covered it, which is missing and would have served as a pommel bar/lower guard.

Lee · 2nd February 2016, 02:04 PM

First, dralin23, your skepticism is justified. Only very rarely can I either denounce or confirm authenticity from pictures, and this is not one of those rare obvious exceptions. If this is a forgery, it will not date back to Victorian times, but will be from the last two or so decades and most likely from eastern Europe where the forgers are growing ever so more proficient.

The overall form and relative dimensions appear to be within authentic limits. Your concerns about traces of active (red) rust in concealed places are well founded, but not absolutely denunciatory. The long hollow in the last picture appears to be a typical inset for the blade (the lower guard being loose and having been slid up against the upper guard for the photo).

Often forgeries will be over-decorated in hopes of fetching a higher price, but this sword appears to lack such elaborations. However, usually a Peterson type K (5 lobed pommel with parallel lobes) will have added decoration.

So, in the end, I do not know and I am not even sure that I would know if it were before me in good light. Is there any evidence of an iron inlaid inscription in the blade or traces of perished hilt non-ferrous overlay?

dralin23 · 2nd February 2016, 04:04 PM

hello lee, kronkew and robert,
thank you for your replay. i know it is not so easy to say something only from some views at some pictures.
but it is everytime intresting to talk and discus about an sword or an armour with other intrested collectors.
i was looking at the blade and the pommel and the guard too, there are no one trace from an old inscription or an pattern at the surface. maybe it is covered with these thik patina or old rust but i wouldn´t like remove it.
i will ask the old owner from these sword in the next some days, maybe he could tell me something about the circumstances from the purchase. it is intrested to know how was the way from these sword since it come at the open market( years ago). where was it sold in the past, was it an well reputated auctionshouse
it is right in the last decades after the borders fell to the east comes a lot of "rare" swords ..mamluk swords, shashkas, kevshure swords , kinjals and a lot os japanes swords from the east and sometimes it is realy not easy to see that these sword is an fake sword. the craftsman there are also very good and they learned step by step.....
i will give you more informations when i got some more.
thank you, stefan

Roland_M · 3rd February 2016, 09:39 AM

Hello Stefan,

one good way to test your sword without destruction is a x-ray investigation.

If it is a viking sword, it must show laminations, an inserted cutting edge or a mechanical damascus pattern. Many vikings swords have laminated high quality steel for the cutting edge and a beautiful mechanical damascus pattern for the rest of the blade.

Some sources claim that some vikining swords were made from crucible steel but i think this must be wrong, i never see one. The famous "ulfberht" blades for example were forged from laminated refined steel.

Roland

dralin23 · 3rd February 2016, 12:39 PM

hello roland,
thank you for these information,
i was looking for some other exampels from viking swords and there are a lot of swords where i could see very clear the damascus pattern through the rust ore through the patina.
also at the angle you could see the pattern and there i know it is an old sword, i will try it to proof these blade with x-ray, i´m curious about the result.
roland, i don´t think that evey sword was made from damascus or pattern welded steel. i believe that also mono- steel was used to make such swords. in the gisli saga i could read that one warrior used at the fight not his damascus steel sword because he loose the steath and so he wouldn´t like wear it outside the house.....and in the fight he must used his simple steel( iron) sword and after some beats it was bent and he must everytime bent it back with his feet...,
thank you again,
stefan

Roland_M · 3rd February 2016, 02:52 PM

Hello Stefan,

"Illerup Adal 11 and 12, Die Schwerter" would be a very good source for you. Tons of viking swords, many of them in very good condition.

As far as I know, the only monosteel in the past up to the 19. ct was wootz. Because they never reached the temperatures of ~1600°C. Wootz was made and forged at much lower temperatures. I'm quite sure, that medieval european blacksmiths never made blades from wootz, because the forging of wootz (forged at ~750°C) is totally different compered to laminated (refined) or pattern welded steel (~1300°C).

Roland

dralin23 · 3rd February 2016, 05:11 PM

hello roland,
thank you again, it´s very intresting to read your informations about the steel or ironproduction in the past time...,
in the next some days i will proof these sword with x-ray. i will let you know the result . i think it´s intresting not only for my self....

thnaks al lot , stefan

RobertGuy · 3rd February 2016, 07:32 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Roland_M

As far as I know, the only monosteel in the past up to the 19. ct was wootz.

Roland

Is this correct? I thought that the Vikings made mono steel blades as well as pattern welded. Most medieval European swords were mono steel and not wootz. I admit the quality varied but bloomery steel was available. Perhaps this is what you mean by laminated steel.

Timo Nieminen · 13th February 2016, 01:10 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Roland_M

As far as I know, the only monosteel in the past up to the 19. ct was wootz. Because they never reached the temperatures of ~1600°C. Wootz was made and forged at much lower temperatures. I'm quite sure, that medieval european blacksmiths never made blades from wootz, because the forging of wootz (forged at ~750°C) is totally different compered to laminated (refined) or pattern welded steel (~1300°C).

The forging of wootz is different not because it is wootz, but because the carbon content is so high. If you made ultra high carbon steel in a bloomery, or by decarburising cast iron, you'd have to forge it in the same way as wootz.

Given the carbon content of the high-carbon Ulfberht swords, and the fact that these swords were forged, the methods for forging ultra high carbon steel were known where the Ulfberht swords were made. Whoever made them could have made them from crucible steel.

They had ultra high carbon steel available. If made in Europe, the technology was lost. If imported, then it stopped being imported. We know there was extensive trade with the East, e.g., through the Khazar Khanate, which also traded with Central Asia, which exported crucible steel. We know those trade links were disrupted. So imported crucible steel (probably Central Asian rather than Indian) as the ultra high carbon steel used for the high-carbon Ulfberht swords appears quite plausible. In my opinion, more plausible than an unknown and then lost local technology.

2nd February 2016, 02:04 PM	#2
Lee EAAF Staff Join Date: Nov 2004 Location: Upstate New York, USA Posts: 937	Verdict: I don't know First, dralin23, your skepticism is justified. Only very rarely can I either denounce or confirm authenticity from pictures, and this is not one of those rare obvious exceptions. If this is a forgery, it will not date back to Victorian times, but will be from the last two or so decades and most likely from eastern Europe where the forgers are growing ever so more proficient. The overall form and relative dimensions appear to be within authentic limits. Your concerns about traces of active (red) rust in concealed places are well founded, but not absolutely denunciatory. The long hollow in the last picture appears to be a typical inset for the blade (the lower guard being loose and having been slid up against the upper guard for the photo). Often forgeries will be over-decorated in hopes of fetching a higher price, but this sword appears to lack such elaborations. However, usually a Peterson type K (5 lobed pommel with parallel lobes) will have added decoration. So, in the end, I do not know and I am not even sure that I would know if it were before me in good light. Is there any evidence of an iron inlaid inscription in the blade or traces of perished hilt non-ferrous overlay?

2nd February 2016, 04:04 PM	#3
dralin23 Member Join Date: Dec 2006 Posts: 204	viking sword hello lee, kronkew and robert, thank you for your replay. i know it is not so easy to say something only from some views at some pictures. but it is everytime intresting to talk and discus about an sword or an armour with other intrested collectors. i was looking at the blade and the pommel and the guard too, there are no one trace from an old inscription or an pattern at the surface. maybe it is covered with these thik patina or old rust but i wouldn´t like remove it. i will ask the old owner from these sword in the next some days, maybe he could tell me something about the circumstances from the purchase. it is intrested to know how was the way from these sword since it come at the open market( years ago). where was it sold in the past, was it an well reputated auctionshouse it is right in the last decades after the borders fell to the east comes a lot of "rare" swords ..mamluk swords, shashkas, kevshure swords , kinjals and a lot os japanes swords from the east and sometimes it is realy not easy to see that these sword is an fake sword. the craftsman there are also very good and they learned step by step..... i will give you more informations when i got some more. thank you, stefan

3rd February 2016, 12:39 PM	#5
dralin23 Member Join Date: Dec 2006 Posts: 204	viking sword hello roland, thank you for these information, i was looking for some other exampels from viking swords and there are a lot of swords where i could see very clear the damascus pattern through the rust ore through the patina. also at the angle you could see the pattern and there i know it is an old sword, i will try it to proof these blade with x-ray, i´m curious about the result. roland, i don´t think that evey sword was made from damascus or pattern welded steel. i believe that also mono- steel was used to make such swords. in the gisli saga i could read that one warrior used at the fight not his damascus steel sword because he loose the steath and so he wouldn´t like wear it outside the house.....and in the fight he must used his simple steel( iron) sword and after some beats it was bent and he must everytime bent it back with his feet..., thank you again, stefan

3rd February 2016, 05:11 PM	#7
dralin23 Member Join Date: Dec 2006 Posts: 204	viking sword hello roland, thank you again, it´s very intresting to read your informations about the steel or ironproduction in the past time..., in the next some days i will proof these sword with x-ray. i will let you know the result . i think it´s intresting not only for my self.... thnaks al lot , stefan

2nd February 2016, 08:44 AM	#1
kronckew Member Join Date: Mar 2006 Location: Room 101, Glos. UK Posts: 4,224	found this: Saxon/viking sword construction info on two part and single part pommels. the wide hollow on the inside seems to indicate something would have covered it, which is missing and would have served as a pommel bar/lower guard.

3rd February 2016, 09:39 AM	#4
Roland_M Member Join Date: Aug 2014 Location: Germany Posts: 525	Hello Stefan, one good way to test your sword without destruction is a x-ray investigation. If it is a viking sword, it must show laminations, an inserted cutting edge or a mechanical damascus pattern. Many vikings swords have laminated high quality steel for the cutting edge and a beautiful mechanical damascus pattern for the rest of the blade. Some sources claim that some vikining swords were made from crucible steel but i think this must be wrong, i never see one. The famous "ulfberht" blades for example were forged from laminated refined steel. Roland

3rd February 2016, 02:52 PM	#6
Roland_M Member Join Date: Aug 2014 Location: Germany Posts: 525	Hello Stefan, "Illerup Adal 11 and 12, Die Schwerter" would be a very good source for you. Tons of viking swords, many of them in very good condition. As far as I know, the only monosteel in the past up to the 19. ct was wootz. Because they never reached the temperatures of ~1600°C. Wootz was made and forged at much lower temperatures. I'm quite sure, that medieval european blacksmiths never made blades from wootz, because the forging of wootz (forged at ~750°C) is totally different compered to laminated (refined) or pattern welded steel (~1300°C). Roland