A Viking Sword With Inscribed Blade in a Moscow (?) Museum

Jake · 2nd September 2009, 07:53 AM

Gentlemen!
You were kind enough to admit me to this august body a while back.To my regret,between my computer skills(just now rediscovered my password...),and the life's general busyness,have not had a chance to participate more actively in the forum.Also,possibly my only contribution may be my fluency in Russian,as i'm neither a scholar,or collector,nor am i historian.But,i have glanced at the discussion at times,and,possibly,(look at the bright side!) due to the missing password,was prevented from some foolish and uninformed comment.
However:Jeff!I wish you'd ask for any and all help with the translation from the Russian-i'm tickled when you do...All that you've surmised so far is correct,as far as i can tell from the plaques.Minus the list of materials/techniques used,as are commonly included in the description of objects newly made and antique both.The date is the find date,as is also all the place name data,as is also usual.

Matchlock,what specifically interests you about this particular artifact?I MAY be able to find out some specifics on this,the russian weapons world being as small as the euro-american(regretfully,how little connection betwixt the two,though).Frankly,here's what was always the deal with the Russian style of preservation:The display at the given museum is for the yokel,it simply is not worth it to "cast the pearls..."et c.,before the idly curious.The real collection is the repository,that is where the serious research is conducted.
Some objects,for whatever reason,are actually off-limits,but many are accessible to those with a degree of validity of interest(regardless to nationality).It is entirely possible that a dialog can be established with the "GIM"-The State Historical Museum,among others.As in with the research dept."behind the scenes".I may be naively optimistic here,not sure.
But would be very pleased to be of help,if possible,in an attempt to obtain some particular information,upon the strenght of my own "good name"(ha!).
Sincerely,Jake.

Jake · 2nd September 2009, 07:59 AM

P.S.
The first entry,"The suit",states "Reconstruction",the other objects do not,thereby-are not,as you surmised.

The sword has "copper alloy,forging,inlay",in the description,an the reference to Mr Sizov is in regards to it's being his gift to the museum.

Jeff Pringle · 3rd September 2009, 06:12 PM

Jake!

Thanks for logging in on this topic! I was going to email you about this as soon as I had gathered my thoughts a little, there is some Cyrillic mystery here I’m sure you can resolve.
Do you have Kirpicnikov’s work on the old Rus weaponry “Drevnerusskoe oruze?” You would really like vol. 2 on axes and spears!
Кирпичников А.Н. - Древнерусское оружие. Т. 1. Мечи и сабли IX-XIII вв & Т. 2. Копья, сулицы, боевые топоры, булавы, кистени IX-XIII вв.
Свoд aрхеoлoгических истoчникoв, E1-36. Нaукa. Мoсквa-Ленингрaд.

I was able to locate a PDF version (by googling “Кирпичников Древнерусское оружие”), and this sword is pictured therein, Plate XVII # 4 (as well as Plate XIX #s 1+2) with the caption below calling it out as (I presume) GIM Inv. # 12/1. However, in the catalog of swords starting on p.73/74 of the pdf, #16 is a type H (column 6), there is Mr. Sizov again in column 3, so you’d think that is the sword in question; but the inventory # is 117/85. In that table, Inv. # 12/1 shows up in the row for # 43, listed as a type E sword. Which do you think is the correct inventory #?

Jake · 3rd September 2009, 10:10 PM

Jeff,i've recieved your message,but that sourse is still down.Would really appreciate if you could e-mail those directly,jakepogrebinsky@yahoo.com.

Would be very pleased to translate what i can of Kirpichnikov for you,and try to help puzzle out that allocation.It's some of the best of the reputable older studies.
Unfortunately i've not been able to get a hold of a copy yet-our local ILL librarian lady runs when she sees me-all the outdated soviet archeology is so tough to track down...

Have to add that in the above museum labels,Sizov is also listed as the one responsible for the dig,if in some small way that helps.

All the best,Jake

Jeff Pringle · 12th September 2009, 03:16 PM

I took another look at the illustrations of this sword and found something pretty amazing on the other side of the blade. Where many of the signed swords of the 10th century have an interlace or similar decoration on the ‘B’ side, this one has the running wolf of Passau!

Could it be the first example of that trademark?

12th September 2009, 03:16 PM	#5
Jeff Pringle Member Join Date: Nov 2005 Posts: 189	I took another look at the illustrations of this sword and found something pretty amazing on the other side of the blade. Where many of the signed swords of the 10th century have an interlace or similar decoration on the ‘B’ side, this one has the running wolf of Passau! Could it be the first example of that trademark? Attached Images

2nd September 2009, 07:53 AM	#1
Jake Member Join Date: Apr 2009 Posts: 13	Gentlemen! You were kind enough to admit me to this august body a while back.To my regret,between my computer skills(just now rediscovered my password...),and the life's general busyness,have not had a chance to participate more actively in the forum.Also,possibly my only contribution may be my fluency in Russian,as i'm neither a scholar,or collector,nor am i historian.But,i have glanced at the discussion at times,and,possibly,(look at the bright side!) due to the missing password,was prevented from some foolish and uninformed comment. However:Jeff!I wish you'd ask for any and all help with the translation from the Russian-i'm tickled when you do...All that you've surmised so far is correct,as far as i can tell from the plaques.Minus the list of materials/techniques used,as are commonly included in the description of objects newly made and antique both.The date is the find date,as is also all the place name data,as is also usual. Matchlock,what specifically interests you about this particular artifact?I MAY be able to find out some specifics on this,the russian weapons world being as small as the euro-american(regretfully,how little connection betwixt the two,though).Frankly,here's what was always the deal with the Russian style of preservation:The display at the given museum is for the yokel,it simply is not worth it to "cast the pearls..."et c.,before the idly curious.The real collection is the repository,that is where the serious research is conducted. Some objects,for whatever reason,are actually off-limits,but many are accessible to those with a degree of validity of interest(regardless to nationality).It is entirely possible that a dialog can be established with the "GIM"-The State Historical Museum,among others.As in with the research dept."behind the scenes".I may be naively optimistic here,not sure. But would be very pleased to be of help,if possible,in an attempt to obtain some particular information,upon the strenght of my own "good name"(ha!). Sincerely,Jake.

2nd September 2009, 07:59 AM	#2
Jake Member Join Date: Apr 2009 Posts: 13	P.S. The first entry,"The suit",states "Reconstruction",the other objects do not,thereby-are not,as you surmised. The sword has "copper alloy,forging,inlay",in the description,an the reference to Mr Sizov is in regards to it's being his gift to the museum.

3rd September 2009, 06:12 PM	#3
Jeff Pringle Member Join Date: Nov 2005 Posts: 189	Jake! Thanks for logging in on this topic! I was going to email you about this as soon as I had gathered my thoughts a little, there is some Cyrillic mystery here I’m sure you can resolve. Do you have Kirpicnikov’s work on the old Rus weaponry “Drevnerusskoe oruze?” You would really like vol. 2 on axes and spears! Кирпичников А.Н. - Древнерусское оружие. Т. 1. Мечи и сабли IX-XIII вв & Т. 2. Копья, сулицы, боевые топоры, булавы, кистени IX-XIII вв. Свoд aрхеoлoгических истoчникoв, E1-36. Нaукa. Мoсквa-Ленингрaд. I was able to locate a PDF version (by googling “Кирпичников Древнерусское оружие”), and this sword is pictured therein, Plate XVII # 4 (as well as Plate XIX #s 1+2) with the caption below calling it out as (I presume) GIM Inv. # 12/1. However, in the catalog of swords starting on p.73/74 of the pdf, #16 is a type H (column 6), there is Mr. Sizov again in column 3, so you’d think that is the sword in question; but the inventory # is 117/85. In that table, Inv. # 12/1 shows up in the row for # 43, listed as a type E sword. Which do you think is the correct inventory #?

3rd September 2009, 10:10 PM	#4
Jake Member Join Date: Apr 2009 Posts: 13	Jeff,i've recieved your message,but that sourse is still down.Would really appreciate if you could e-mail those directly,jakepogrebinsky@yahoo.com. Would be very pleased to translate what i can of Kirpichnikov for you,and try to help puzzle out that allocation.It's some of the best of the reputable older studies. Unfortunately i've not been able to get a hold of a copy yet-our local ILL librarian lady runs when she sees me-all the outdated soviet archeology is so tough to track down... Have to add that in the above museum labels,Sizov is also listed as the one responsible for the dig,if in some small way that helps. All the best,Jake