![]() |
|
![]() |
#1 |
Member
Join Date: Sep 2017
Location: Tyneside. North-East England
Posts: 695
|
![]()
Hi Jim. When it comes to un-resolved markings on blades you are my first port of call and I bow to your encyclopedic knowledge on the subject.
However, I am often bewildered by your detailed responses, so please forgive my questioning your response regarding Christian symbology... I am actually still bewildered - but I haven't had my coffee yet, so I will try again later. ![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#2 |
EAAF Staff
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Upstate New York, USA
Posts: 941
|
![]()
Alan Williams hypothesized that the ULFBERH+T swords may have been made from Asian crucible steel on the basis of high carbon content and microstructure. The popular press then ran with a corruption of that theory - that ULFBERH+T swords were the best - luxury goods of their time - and the other variations were knockoffs.
However, far from being the Viking Super Sword, the +ULFBERH+T inlaid swords were likely from a particular workshop that used higher carbon steel and corrupted the earlier existing +ULFBERHT+ inscription and there may be a metallurgical reason so many are found broken. For me, Ingo Petri pretty much shot down the Viking super sword concept in 2015 at the Solingen Sword: Form and Thought conference. Here is a more recent paper by him explaining his reasoning: https://www.academia.edu/68589269/VL...nd_manufacture. (The formatting is better if you download the pdf from there.) |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
|
|