OAKSHOTT Typ X 🤔

Jim McDougall · 30th September 2021, 07:15 PM

While I suspect that the notable silence on this presented example is due to the fact that it seems to be prospectively involved in a sales transaction, I would at least try to take advantage of what it 'APPEARS' to be.

Though the corrosion activity 'APPEARS' to correspond to excavated examples of early swords, we are of course aware of less than authentic examples which have occurred in many cases.

I always enjoy learning from examples presented here on the forum, so I am taking the opportunity to observe what historic categories this one 'might' be from, without any conclusive assessment.

Oakeshott type X (Oakeshott, "Archaeology of Weapons", 1960), as noted, does seem closest to the category this sword follows, however the blade seems to remain rather straight along its length rather than having a gradual taper distally.
According to Oakeshott (p.203), after 1100 swords were basically alike, although with infinite variations. This is understandable as the numbers of makers and no real standardization or regulation would create such case.
In the typology, the blades shown are really all remarkably alike with exception of central fuller length.

It has been noted that pommel seems unusual. Actually it seems to correspond well to type A (Oakeshott op.cit.p.224) which is shown to period 980AD to 1120AD, with more rarely type X extending with these to c.1200AD). These comparisons are noted to derive from the Behmer & Petersen systems of typology. These pommels seem to have evolved from 'Viking' types.

The very 'squared' looking crossguard corresponds to fig. 113, #3 (p.232, Oakeshott, op.cit.) noted from c.1100-1350. Here it is noted of course, that again, hilts and their fixtures were largely of personal taste or I would think local or group preferences.

In "Swords of the Viking Age" (Ian Pierce, 2002 with Dr. Lee Jones and Ewart Oakeshott) on p.106 a sword with blade similar illustrates a Viking sword from c. 10th c. with such swords from Norway and that period. There are of course numerous others.

So purely as 'devils advocate' for the sake of discussion of swords of this 'type', I add this information from my own study just done for this purpose alone. I hope possibly this would be possible completely objectively focused on the sword type represented and the characteristics, without any assessment of integrity of the example presented.

30th September 2021, 07:15 PM	#7
Jim McDougall Arms Historian Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Route 66 Posts: 10,192	While I suspect that the notable silence on this presented example is due to the fact that it seems to be prospectively involved in a sales transaction, I would at least try to take advantage of what it 'APPEARS' to be. Though the corrosion activity 'APPEARS' to correspond to excavated examples of early swords, we are of course aware of less than authentic examples which have occurred in many cases. I always enjoy learning from examples presented here on the forum, so I am taking the opportunity to observe what historic categories this one 'might' be from, without any conclusive assessment. Oakeshott type X (Oakeshott, "Archaeology of Weapons", 1960), as noted, does seem closest to the category this sword follows, however the blade seems to remain rather straight along its length rather than having a gradual taper distally. According to Oakeshott (p.203), after 1100 swords were basically alike, although with infinite variations. This is understandable as the numbers of makers and no real standardization or regulation would create such case. In the typology, the blades shown are really all remarkably alike with exception of central fuller length. It has been noted that pommel seems unusual. Actually it seems to correspond well to type A (Oakeshott op.cit.p.224) which is shown to period 980AD to 1120AD, with more rarely type X extending with these to c.1200AD). These comparisons are noted to derive from the Behmer & Petersen systems of typology. These pommels seem to have evolved from 'Viking' types. The very 'squared' looking crossguard corresponds to fig. 113, #3 (p.232, Oakeshott, op.cit.) noted from c.1100-1350. Here it is noted of course, that again, hilts and their fixtures were largely of personal taste or I would think local or group preferences. In "Swords of the Viking Age" (Ian Pierce, 2002 with Dr. Lee Jones and Ewart Oakeshott) on p.106 a sword with blade similar illustrates a Viking sword from c. 10th c. with such swords from Norway and that period. There are of course numerous others. So purely as 'devils advocate' for the sake of discussion of swords of this 'type', I add this information from my own study just done for this purpose alone. I hope possibly this would be possible completely objectively focused on the sword type represented and the characteristics, without any assessment of integrity of the example presented.