viking sword or historism?

[Timo Nieminen]

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.

[Bruno]

Judging by the patina, as a reenactor smith, I would say that this sword is recently made, chemically rusted and then blackened with motor oil in the forge.

Just an instinctive, rule of thumb judgement.

That kind of black doesn't come from some museum grade compound like paraloid.

And the rusting is consistent with modern steel rusting, some granularity and a few welld efined craters.

Ancient steel would rust in a less defined manner in my experience, with depressions having soft sloping.


Not to mention the lack of pattern welding.

Also the pommel lobes are quite crude if compared to examples that can be seen on the web, being photographed in well known institutions.

[Tordenskiold1721]

Originally Posted by Bruno

Judging by the patina, as a reenactor smith, I would say that this sword is recently made, chemically rusted and then blackened with motor oil in the forge.

Just an instinctive, rule of thumb judgement.

That kind of black doesn't come from some museum grade compound like paraloid.

And the rusting is consistent with modern steel rusting, some granularity and a few welld efined craters.

Ancient steel would rust in a less defined manner in my experience, with depressions having soft sloping.


Not to mention the lack of pattern welding.

Also the pommel lobes are quite crude if compared to examples that can be seen on the web, being photographed in well known institutions.

I support Bruno's observation regarding the patina and how the process oxidation / rust is a slow long process that can be read when looking at oxidation by ageing.

Difference in oxidation on Viking swords often depends on where they where found. If they have been lying clay in a fresh water river. If they have been in a grave close to a salt water sea. How much oxygen and water has moved trough the excavation site. What type of dirt the sword is surrounded by and its density and chemical composition. Temperatures trough the centuries in combination with the above. Regardless of the above the process of oxidation on steel that is over 900 - 1300 years is the same. Oxidation might look a bit different depending on the circumstances the sword has rusted in.

The condition of the sword above is what should raise the most suspicion. This Excellent plus condition for a Viking sword. Although I will not dismiss it 100% but this is a above museum grade quality sword and that in it self is reason for suspicion.

I would have the steel carbon dated. Understanding of Metal surgery is a must if collecting early items.

[Reventlov]

Originally Posted by Bruno

Also the pommel lobes are quite crude if compared to examples that can be seen on the web, being photographed in well known institutions.

I agree with this... there are some other subtle details that individually might count for little, but taken together the overall result seems just slightly "off".

Comparing with known examples of type-K, I can't find a single one where the tang has the convex outline seen here. The tang usually tapers evenly, or has slightly concave sides. The fuller also seems to extend into the tang for an unusual extent?

The shape of the guard is also a-typical at best... a more rectangular shape is expected, whereas the oval shape seen here is more usual of other types (H, V, ...).

The sword shares some of these features with another dubious (in my mind) type-K sold at auction. A456 in the Wallace Collection shows the "correct" details. The pommel in particular is similar to the sword under discussion, but much superior in execution as Bruno has pointed out.