Ethnographic Arms & Armour
 

Go Back   Ethnographic Arms & Armour > Discussion Forums > European Armoury

 
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
Prev Previous Post   Next Post Next
Old Yesterday, 10:14 AM   #7
Lee
EAAF Staff
 
Lee's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Upstate New York, USA
Posts: 941
Question Which is the inferior knock-off?

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.)
Lee is offline   Reply With Quote
 

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 08:41 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, vBulletin Solutions Inc.
Posts are regarded as being copyrighted by their authors and the act of posting material is deemed to be a granting of an irrevocable nonexclusive license for display here.