Generic selectors
Exact matches only
Search in title
Search in content
Post Type Selectors
Generic selectors
Exact matches only
Search in title
Search in content
Post Type Selectors

Knives with riveted scales of 9th-12th century


Knives of the Early Middle Ages are very popular objects among academics, reenactors, craftsmen, collectors and other people interested in history. They combine functionality, aesthetics and an attractive story. At the very beginning, it must be said that the vast majority of early medieval knives, let’s say more than 95%, consist of a simple, up to 3 cm wide blade with a tang, on which an organic handle of an oval cross-section is struck (for illustrative examples, see Dostál 1966: 73-4; Schietzel 2022: 228; Ottaway 1992: 559-583). Knives with a total length of over 18 cm are less common and are usually attributed a certain special function (war, cutting, cult, etc.).

It is easy to imagine that the subtle organic handles could not withstand the strain of daily use, and the tangs broke off under the pressure. The manufacturers had experience with this feature and provided the handles of some exposed knives with additional protection, which usually also had a decorative dimension. The production philosophy of knives of the Early Middle Ages is summarized in the following table:

  • Variant with a tang inserted into organic material.
    • The tang is driven into a handle and the handle is not secured in any way. This variant is very common and appears across centuries and regions of Europe.
    • The tang is driven into a handle, usually made of antler or bone, and is wedged inside with wooden wedges (Kalousek 1971: 33; Szőke 1982: 24).
    • The tang is driven into the handle, pulled through the end of the handle and wrapped in a ring (Brøgger – Schetelig 1928: 163, Abb. 101). In some cases, there are nailed plates at the end of the handle that support the ring (eg. Stjerna 2007: 244).
    • The tang is driven into the handle, pulled through the end of the handle and expanded into a large circular area (Szőke 1982: Abb. 4).
    • The tang is driven into a handle and the handle is wrapped in one or more places with a wire or leather strap (Vlasatý 2021). An interesting variant is the filigree finial that wraps around the end away from the blade (Arbman 1940: Taf. 177.1).
    • The tang is driven into the handle and the handle is wrapped with sheet metal sleeves at one or both ends (eg. Kalousek 1971: Tab. 41.1-2; Hrubý 1955: Fig. 12).
    • The tang is driven into the handle and the handle is wrapped with cast metal sleeves at one or both ends (eg. Thunmark-Nylén 1998: Abb. 181.5,12).
    • The tang is driven into and the handle is reinforced or co-formed by antler rings in one or more places (např. Kaván 1958; Ottaway 1992: 567).
    • The tang is driven into the handle and handle is completely covered with metal sheet (Arbman 1940: Taf. 177.3).
  • Variant with partial or complete riveting of the handle to the tang.
    • The tang is lined on both sides along its entire length with two scales and is riveted together with rivets.
    • The tang is inserted up to a third of the length of the handle, which consists of two riveted scales.
    • The tang is inserted into a single-piece handle and is secured by a single rivet.
  • Variant with scales glued to the tang (Bartošková 1995: 103).
  • Variant of completely metal, non-riveted knives.
    • The entire knife is made of a single metal material and lacked an organic handle (e.g. Hošek et al. 2007; Pawlicki 2021).
    • A copper alloy handle is cast over the thin tang (e.g. Söderberg – O’Meadhra 2017).

In the following article, we will focus on knives with a partially or completely riveted handle to the tang. This is a group of very well preserved and visually interesting knives. Our main intention is to cover their anatomy, methods of decoration, geographical distribution in Europe and dating. We must emphasize that only non-pivoting knives have been selected for our catalog. However, a number of folding and pivoting knives (Goodall 1990: 836-7; Graham-Campbell 1978; Herrmann 2005: Abb. 159) and sickles (Rajewski 1948), which have bodies composed of antler handles, may be related to the group. Knives whose handles do have rivets, but which do not pass through the tang, were also not included in the selection; for example, some knives of Baltic provenance, which have hanging loops riveted to the rear ends of the handles (Thunmark-Nylén 1998: Taf. 181.7.10,11).

The collection of material is complicated by inconsistent terminology. The scales can be understood as the paired lining of the tang of the knife, but many works use the terms scales and handle interchangeably in national languages: this is the case of Czech střenka or Polish okładzina. In English, in addition to the word scale, slab is also used. In German literature, the words griffschalen and plättchen are used; knives with scales are also often referred to as Griffzungenmesser. The catalog presented below contains 152 finds from all over Europe. We are aware of the fact that this is only a selection and that there are undoubtedly hundreds of other specimens in the literature and beyond. We will be grateful for a notice of finds that we have missed.

An example of an early medieval knife with riveted scales. Source: Parczewski 1989.

Description of anatomy

As indicated in the introduction, knives with riveted scales can be divided into three variants according to their different construction:

Variant 1: a full tang shank lined with two scales
The tang reaches the end of the handle and is lined on both sides with scales that are riveted to it. We single out two subvariants. Subvariant a has a tang that is the full width of the handle and is visible when viewed from above. This subvariant is the most common within variant 1. Subvariant b indicates a narrowed tang, which is covered on all sides by a pair of scales. The only known specimen of subvariant b is a knife from the Ras fortress (Popović 1999: 261-2, Fig. 224).

Composition of the knife design variant 1. Subvariant a (left) and b (right).

Variant 2: a short tang lined with two scales
The tang is inserted up to a third of the length of the handle, to which it is attached with one or two rivets. The scales are sometimes stair-stepped inside. Tangs are usually short, so they are easily recognizable in archaeological material. We single out two subvariants. Subvariant a has a tang that is the full width of the handle and is visible when viewed from above. An example can be a knife from the Ostroh site (Priščepa 2016: Рис. 66.1) or some Austrian knives (Szőke 1982: 34-5). Subvariant b indicates a narrowed tang, which is covered on all sides by a pair of scales. As an illustration, we present a knife from Stará Boleslav (Boháčová – Hošek 2009: Fig. 3).

Composition of the knife design variant 2. Subvariant a (left) and b (right).

Variant 3: a short tang inserted into a non-divided handle
The tang is narrow, short, and is inserted about a third to a half of the single-piece wooden or antler handle of oval or circular cross-section, into which a hole is hollowed out. At the transition between the blade and the tang, there is a hole into which a wedge or a rivet is inserted, which secures the handle in place. Blades of this type are easily interchangeable with pivoting knife blades, but they lack the cutout for the stop and are generally longer. An example of this solution is the knife from Bodzia (Kurasiński 2021: 32, Tabl. IX).

Composition of the knife design variant 3.

Blades with a straight back and absent offset of tang are typical, however, there are also pieces with a significantly offset tang (e.g. Beranová 1972: 637, Fig. 2b; Goryanova – Grozdanova 2019: 54). There are other methods that knives use to separate the handle from the blade – strengthening the material (e.g. Dębski – Wawrzyniak 2006; Popović 1999: 261-2, Fig. 224) or using sheet metal plates (Boháčová – Hošek 2009: Fig. 3).

It is typical for handles that they meet the ergonomic requirements of the human palm. When viewed from the side, they are either straight (continue the lines of the blade) or widen towards the end. The scale from Wolin is noteworthy, as it is shaped into an animal head at the end away from the blade (Stanisławski 2013: Ryc. 38a). The knife from grave Weismain 139 is also unusually finished in arched flats or volutes at the end of the handle (Pöllath 2002c: Taf. 82.12). In cross-section, the handles are usually oval, exceptionally edged (see Kavánová 1995: Abb. XL.4). The entire group of riveted knives is characterized by an above-average length of complete products, which most often reaches 17-25 cm. Some handles are disproportionately long and reach up to 16 cm in length (for example Török – Bökönyi 1973: 13). A blade width of around 1.3-2.2 cm is common for early medieval knives, but it is striking for this group of unusually long knives. This automatically classifies the knives among pieces with a potentially special use. The most extreme find of our group is the knife from grave Sowinki 69, which is 30.2 cm long and has a blade 4 cm wide (Kurasiński 2021: 236, Tabl. CCXLVIII). An illustrative example of anatomy is provided by a well-described knife from the grave of grave JP/156 from Břeclav – Pohansko (Přichystalová et al. 2019: 395):

“Fragment of an iron knife with a widened tang and a bone handle in the form of scales; cross-sectional shape of the tang is rectangular; spine straight; spine to the point straight; spine to the tang smooth; edge straight, S-shaped bent; edge to the tang offset; dimensions: preserved length 24.7 cm; blade length 6.4 cm; blade width 1.5 cm; blade thickness 0.4 cm, tang length 5.7 cm; scales in fragments: two bone plates, from each side of the tang; plates of trapezoidal shape; their cross-sectional shape is circular; traces of 4 rivets preserved on both scales; rivet holes circular; decoration engraved with a circle-and-dot drill; motif: two concentric circles with a central point, in two rows; dimensions: preserved plate length 9.4 and 9.5 cm.”

Knife from grave JP/156 from Břeclav – Pohansko. Source: Přichystalová et al. 2019: Tab. XLIV.

Antler and bone are the dominant or directly exclusively used material for the production of the scales of design variants 1 and 2. A wooden scale is explicitly mentioned only for a single knife, originating from Nová Dědina (Červinka 1927: 5; Krumphanzlová 1974: 72; Šikulová 1959: 111). Design variant 3 used wooden handles more often. In two cases – with knives from Thebes and Volodymyr – metal scales are used. From this we can draw a simple conclusion – in the vast majority of cases, scales made of hard materials were used for the creation of knives of design variants 1 and 2, which retained rivets, did not crack and which offered interesting aesthetic qualities in the area of basic colouring, polishing and methods of additional decoration. The narrow nature of most knives can – together with the special function of the product – stem from the lack of suitably wide bone and antler material. Whether the scales were additionally glued, as suggested by Bartošková (1995: 103), we cannot confirm at the moment.

The number, location and material of rivtes in the handles of design variants 1-2 are subjects to almost no rules. Some rivets extend into the ornament, others are cleverly and aesthetically integrated into the decoration. The number of rivets varies between 2-5, most commonly reaches 3-4 and are spaced at irregular intervals. Only both ends of the handle are important and relatively fixed positions. Regarding the material, the rivets are usually iron (Szőke 1982: 24) or copper alloy (e.g. Kurasiński 2021: 270). However, we cannot ignore two remarkable finds. The rivets of the knife from Jaroslavice are marked as gilded (Hrubý 1957: 152) and the rivets of the knife from grave 232 from Rajhrad are said to be made of bone (Hendrychová 2014: 113). The size of the rivets is rarely given in the literature, but in the case of grave 105 from Prague-Motol, the rivets have a diameter of 0.4 cm (Kovářík 1991: 104). The rivets on the design variant 3 knives are relatively long, and in at least one case it appears that a removable wedge was used instead of a rivet (see Portet 2017: Pl. 11).

The methods of adjusting the end of the handle also deserve attention. Just one knife implements an eyelet for pulling the knife out of the sheath. It is a knife from Żukowice (Parczewski 1989), which is equipped with a small eyelet at the very end of the handle. Another is a knife from Ostrów Lednicki, in the handle of which there is a hollow socket that functioned as a method of riveting the handle and at the same time a method of fixing the strap for pulling or hanging (Wrzosek 1961: Tab. VI.11). This method is known from knives with scales of the Late Middle Ages, which is why we excluded the knife from our catalog. The absence of other hanging elements suggests that it was not usual for sheaths to cover the entire handle. One of the knives from Stará Boleslav is equipped with a brass plate at the end of the handle (Boháčová – Hošek 2009: Fix. 3). Two knives from the Ras fortress are provided with roof-shaped butt, and one knife from the same locality is finished with a shaped extension of the tang (Popović 1999: 261-2, Fig. 224).

As can be seen from the previous paragraphs, an accompanying phenomenon of knives of design variants 1-2 is the decoration, which is mainly concentrated on the handles. We have already mentioned the shaping of the tang, decorative rivets, metal sheets and butts, so now let’s focus only on the method of decorating the scales themselves. Antler scales are decorated with engraving in the majority of cases. Decoration is typically manifested by pits (⋅), concentric circles-and-dots (usually single-row ⊙, exceptionally double-row ◎), vertical lines (I, ⦚), horizontal lines (-), transverse lines (/, \) and a twig motif (>). The pits are organized into groups, crosses and can surround rivets; concentric circles-and-dots into crosses, triangles, vertical and horizontal bands, grids and random arrangements that aim to fill the space. Transverse lines are used to connect concentric circles-and-dots, creating interlacing patterns and hatched backgrounds. Both the vertical lines and the twig motif are usually grouped. In the end, the decoration is similar to the one that appears on period combs.

A selection of the most common organizations of concentric circles.

In the light of our research, it seems that the concentric circles-and-dots used on the handles of knives and combs have a really long continuity in the Indo-European tradition and it is an ornament peculiar to almost all European nations. The engraved decoration usually does not bear traces of fillings. It is possible that it may have been filled with contrasting tar that fell off. In this context, we have to mention the fantastic find of a knife with scales from Poznań, which has concentric circles of 0.5 cm filled with silver wire (Dębski – Wawrzyniak 2006). Píč (1909: 123) also writes about filling circles with wires using the example of a knife from Radim. Metal scales are also decorated with figural scenes and geometric ornaments. Decorated blades are also known, for example in the knife from grave Weismain 139 (Pöllath 2002b: 285; 2002c: Taf. 82.12). It is likely that all variants of the decoration had an apotropaic meaning and were easily legible signs of quality workmanship.

Geographical distribution

In the catalog we have collected finds from Austria, Bulgaria, the Czech Republic, France, Germany, Greece, Hungary, the Netherlands, Poland, Russia, Serbia, Slovakia, Spain and Ukraine. Striking concentrations are found in the West Slavic territories. This effect is undoubtedly due in part to the state of knowledge, which is different in each country, and some countries of the former Eastern Bloc certainly do not excel in the number of publications on the Early Middle Ages. The local origin of the author may also be to blame. At the same time, we cannot overlook a certain degree of regionality. In the territory of today’s Hungary, knives with scales are seen mainly on the right bank of the Danube in the observed period (Horváth 2022: 40). They are absent in most of Germany, Russia, Scandinavia and Great Britain.

Distribution of non-rotating knives with riveted handles in the 9th-12th centuries in Europe.

The spread of knives with scales in Central and Eastern Europe to some extent copies the spread of full-metal knives, as illustrated by the mapping done by Pawlicki (Pawlicki 2021: Fig. 1). There is no more illustrative example of the connection between the two groups than the knives from the Weismain site, where both groups appear with similar blade and handle decorations (Pöllath 2002a: 149-150).

Distribution of full-metal volute knives in the 8th-10th century in Europe. Source: Pawlicki 2021: Fig. 1.

In general, solutions using riveted scales seem to appear, at least sporadically, where no other method of securing the handle is common. A comparison with the distribution of wire-wrapped knives, of which we mapped several hundreds in the past (Vlasatý 2021), shows a striking regional differentiation of both groups and meet in the areas of northern Germany, Poland and Kyivan Rus (see map comparison). The occasional occurrence of wire-wrapped knives south of this imaginary line and knives with scales north of this imaginary line cannot be completely ruled out, especially when considering the strength of the market and the fact that the two groups appear at slightly different time horizons.

Distribution of wire-wrapped knives in the 9th-12th century in Europe.

Comment on dating

Knives with scales are not chronologically sensitive and appear in European history for at least fifteen hundred years in an almost unchanged form. In most of Europe, more pronounced use occurs only in the High Middle Ages (e.g. Baarová et al. 2006: 233; Belcredi 2022: 297; Gajdukov 1992: 91, 101; Janowski 2013: 55) and the Modern Age, which makes any context-free finds automatically considered chronologically younger. For example, in both Estonian and Russian literature, knives with scales date back to the 13th century at the earliest (Peets 2003: 212; Sergejeva 2011: 85). In English sources, all finds from older layers are automatically considered younger intrusions from the High Middle Ages (Cowgill et al. 1987: 25; Goodall 1990: 838-9; MacGregor 1999: 1972-3; Rogerson – Dallas 1984: 83, 86). This naturally overlooks older and interesting finds that are statistically less numerous: Holtmann attempted to determine the number of knives with scales before the 13th century, with the result that knives with scales make up less than 0.5% of the total (Holtman 1993: 255).

Knives with scales perfectly corresponding to our design variant 1 were already known in Roman times (see Ajbabin – Chajredinova 2017: Рис. 50.23; Pleterski – Belak 2002: 245-6; Zeman 2001: 127) and seem to disappear during the Migration Period, only to reappear in the Carolingian period on the peripheries of the Frankish Empire, especially in the Carpathian Basin from the beginning of the 9th century (Freeden 1983: 466; Holtmann 1993: 254; Horváth 2022: 40; Szőke 1982). This trend accelerates in 10th-12th century, when the number of knives with scales increases in various parts of Europe – in Bohemia (Krumphanzlová 1974: 72), in Bulgaria (Borisov 1989: 103), France (Portet 2017), Poland (e.g. Gediga 2022: Fig. 22), Russia (Sergejeva 2011: 85), Serbia (Popović 1999: 261) and Spain (Navarro – Fernández 1996: 90). In the 11th century, our design variant 3 appears for the first time, and it is used until the 14th century (Holtmann 1993: 259-260; Kaźmierczyk 1995: 182). Rather, it is not the case that the different lengths of the knives of design variant 1 could be dated differently, as Hrubý (1957: 152) believed.

The increase in the 13th century is therefore not surprising and is only a continuation of a process that had begun earlier. The increased popularity of scales in the High Middle Ages was also reflected in falchions and messers (Jukl 2009; Žákovský 2014: 271), while early medieval long knives and seaxes lack riveting of the handles. We can add that a number of high and late medieval knives with scales are equipped with the same circle-and-dot decoration as early medieval finds (e.g. Jażdżewski – Chmielewski 1952: Tab. 48a;

An illustration of a knife with scales. Production: Erik Panknin.

Gender affiliation

A number of knives and their components are accidental settlement finds that do not allow any judgement about the original owners. However, more than twenty knives come from graves with determinable gender and age, which may provide us with interesting data for further theorizing.

Knives with riveted scales are most often found in women’s graves, in at least sixteen cases. Szőke (1982) dealt with the gender and age of the deceased in whose graves knives with riveted scales were discovered: adult women were buried in graves Sopron-Présháztelep 4, Pottenbrunn 50 and Staré Město 180/AZ, in grave Pitten 56 a woman of about twenty years old, in the grave of Sopronkőhida 11 woman aged 31-40 years old, in the grave of Sopronkőhida 25 woman aged 50-60 years old, in the grave of Sopronkőhida 59 woman aged 55-60 years old, in the grave of Sopronkőhida 62 woman aged 59-63 years old, in the grave Sopronkőhida 103 woman aged 42-46. According to B. M. Szőke, grave 184/99 from Zalavár – island contained the skeleton of an old woman. Grave JP/156 from Břeclav – Pohansko hid the body of a woman over the age of 70 (Přichystalová et al. 2019: 395). The woman in grave Lahovice 100-12/57 was over 50 years old (Krumphanzlová 2013: 104). Women were also identified in the case of graves Trnovec nad Váhom 70, Želovce 446 and Großweikersdorf 4 (Szőke 1982: 35-8). A young adult woman was buried in grave Weismain 139 (Pöllath 2002b: 285). It should not be forgotten that knives with scales appear in women’s graves already in Late Antiquity (e.g. Pleterski – Belak 2002: 274, Taf. 2.2). Narrow full-iron knives, visually relatively close to our group, are also found in women’s graves (Hošek et al. 2007: 932).

Knives appear less frequently in male graves and show higher shape and construction variability. The knife from the grave of the adult man Sowinki 69 is exceptionally long and can be described as a combat knife (Kurasiński 2021: 236). Two knives from the graves of 20-30-year-old men (Bodzia E864/I, Dziekanowice 22 82/95) correspond to construction variant III (Kurasiński 2021: 32, 80). Grave Břeclav – Pohansko 174 was the grave of a fifty-year-old man (Kalousek 1971: 111). An adult man lay in grave Milicz 155 (Kurasiński 2021: 192). An adult man was also buried in grave 6 from the Nitra – Dolné Krškany – Závod Mier locality (Hanuliak – Poláková 2021: 441). Graves 1 and 3 from the Ibrány-Esbó-halom locality belonged to 40-60-year-old men (Istvánovits 2003: 71). The last piece that we can mention comes from grave Himod-Káposztákertek 68, which apparently belonged to a man (Horváth 2022: 15).

At least six knives with scales come from children’s graves. In the case of grave 105 from Prague – Motol, it is a child aged 4-5 years (Kovářík 1991: 104). The knife from grave 1 from the Windegg site was placed next to the body of a seven-year-old girl (Szőke 1982: 35). The same is true of the knife from grave Szob 61 (Kovrig 1975: 177). The other three knives come from children’s graves from Libice nad Cidlinou – U Cukrovaru 78 (Mařík 2009: 105), Želovce 447 (Szőke 1982: 38) and Grafendobrach 47 (Freeden 1983: 466).

Location of knives in female graves from the Sopronkőhida and Pottenbrunn sites.
Source: Horváth 2022: 16. kép.


From the different constructions and lengths, it can be concluded that the riveted scale solution found application in knives with different functions and that it is not possible to assess all pieces identically. Different authors point out the special function and unusualness of the knives of design variants 1-2 (Sergejeva 2011: 85; Szőke 2014: 37). Judging by the high-quality decoration and placement in the graves, these knives were prized items. Their status importance cannot be underestimated, but they simultaneously appear in settlement contexts, which indicates their everyday rather than cultic or ceremonial use. As mentioned, the knives of design variants 1-2 are above average long and appear dominantly in female graves. Leaving aside the over 30 cm long knife from grave Sowinki 39, which is plausibly considered a war knife (Kurasiński 2021: 236), we are left with a group of roughly 17-25 cm long and relatively narrow knives that were carried in such a way that a certain part of the decorated handle was visible.

The shape of these knives is similar to penknives, which they are sometimes considered to be in the literature. We cannot ignore the similarities with ful-metal knives, which are similarly narrow, decorated, found in women’s graves and and are found in a similar region (see Hošek et al. 2007; Pawlicki 2021). We most often encounter the interpretation of these knives as scalpels and knives of physicians (Lutovský 1987; Pleterski 1983). Danish archaeologist and doctor Annette Frölich, who regularly publishes on prehistoric and early historic surgical tools, and whom we contacted for consultation, believes that scaled or full-metal knives of the categories under review are not suitable surgical tools. A surgeon and reenactor Zbyněk Buchtela holds a partly opposite position when he says he can imagine that in an emergency he would use them to cut an abscess, similarly to a scalpel. Today’s amputation knives are the most similar in shape, with a striking narrow shape and a length of over 20 cm. In addition to the shape and length, there are also better cleaning options for scaled and full-metal knives, a solid construction suitable for cutting, and the absence of hanging devices that would interfere with surgical procedures.

It is not possible to rule out other possibilities, for example, that the knives represent parts of elite dining sets or are simply status objects of wealthy people who liked to present themselves with unusual-looking objects. Knives of design variant 1 with a significantly offset tang and a wide blade could be described as suitable for slicing. Design variant 3 knives feel like regular everyday knives for a wide variety of situations. A blade from Saint-Germain in Rennes, which has a wedge instead of a rivet (Portet 2017: Pl. 11), is extraordinary, and it appears that the handle may have allowed the blade to be changed.

Reproduction of knives with scales. Production: Roman Král, King’s Craft.



We have excluded knives from graves Mühling Hart 9, Wimm 49 and Oberrohrendorf from the list (Szőke 1982: 35).


Finds from Veliko Tarnovo were not included in the inventory due to unclear dating (Nikolova 1974: 216-8).

Czech Republic

Due to ambiguous affiliation or dating, the scales from Budeč (Bartošková 1995), Levý Hradec (Kaván 1958: Tab. X.4), Libice (Beranová – Lutovský 2009: Fig. 260) and Roztoky (Kuna – Profantová 2005: 197-8). We excluded the knives from graves Břeclav – Pohansko 232 and Předmostí u Přerova 8/60 from the list (Szőke 1982: 38).



A group of knives from the late 12th to early 13th century was included (Holtmann 1993: 259-260).


Pieces originating from Asia Minor were not included in the inventory (Parani 2010: 153). Due to chronological ambiguity, finds from Corinth were not included (Davidson 1952: 189, 191, Cat. nos. 1411-1413).




Not all pieces given by Cnotliwy (1973: 214) are included, as it is not entirely clear whether these are the remains of riveted scales. For unclear chronological reasons, the knife from Ostrów Lednicki was omitted (Wrzosek 1961: Tab. VI.11).


The ambiguous knife from Sarkel was not added to the list (Sorokin 1959: Рис. 14.2).


We excluded the knives from grave Michal nad Žitavou 3 from the list (Szőke 1982: 38).





We are grateful to Zbyňek Buchtela, Ján Dlabal, Benjamin Franckaert, Annette Frölich, Florián Harangi (National Museum, Budapest), Kristián Jócsik (University of Nitra), Sergey Kainov (State Historical Museum, Moscow), Roman Král (King’s Craft), Yuriy Oytcus (Ostvytsya), Erik Panknin, Mikalaj Plavinski (University of Warsaw), Naďa Profantová (ARUP Prague), B. M. Szőke (Archaeological Institute of the Hungarian Academy of Sciences, Budapest), Ireneusz Szymański, Tusjan, Michal Viskupič, Zhdan Zabashta (ECHO Historical Textile) and Peter Žákovský (ARUB Brno) for their help in collecting and evaluating the material. Special thanks go to Diego Flores Cartes, who created the vivid illustrations.

We hope you liked reading this article. If you have any question or remark, please contact us or leave a comment below. If you want to learn more and support our work, please, fund our project on PatreonBuymeacoffee or Paypal.


Abramowicz, Andrzej (1955). Przedmioty ozdobne z grodziska łęczyckiego. In: Studia Wczesnośredniowieczne III, Warszawa, 335–351.

Ajbabin – Chajredinova 2017 = Айбабин А. И. – Хайрединова, Э. А. (2017). Крымские готы страны Дори (середина III — VII в.), Симферополь.

Arbman, Holger (1940). Birka I. Die Gräber. Tafeln, Stockholm.

Aubourg, Viviane – Josset, Didier (2003). Le site du promontoire du château de Blois du VIIIe au XIe s. (Loir-et-Cher) – Seconde partie : le mobilier non céramique. In: Revue archéologique du Centre de la France 42, 169-216.

Baarová, Zuzana et al. (2006). Obrazový katalog vybraných exponátů. In: Sága moravských přemyslovců. Život na Moravě od XI. do počátku XIV. století, Olomouc – Brno, 199-250.

Belcredi, Ludvík (2022). Hrad Skály. Svědek let 1380-1440 vydal své tajemství. Archeologický výzkum hradu Skály 1994-2014, Brno.

Bartošková, Andrea (1995). Kostěná ozdobná destička s motivem páva z Budečského předhradí. In: Sborník prací Filozofické fakulty brněnské univerzity. E, Řada archeologicko-klasická 44, 101-110.

Bartošková, Andrea (2003). Kostěná a parohová industrie ze staré Boleslavi. In: Boháčová, Ivana et al. (eds.). Staré Boleslav. Přemyslovský hrad v raném středověku, Praha, 227-266.

Beranová, Magdalena (1972). Slovanský hromadný nález ze Semic. In: Archeologické rozhledy XXIV, 629–643.

Beranová, Magdalena – Lutovský, Michal (2009). Slované v Čechách. Archeologie 6.-12. století, Praha.

Bláha, Josef (2001). Olomouc im 10.–11. Jahrhundert. Topographie und die Frage der Kontinuität eines frühmittelalterlichen Zentrums. In: Sommer, Petr (ed.). Boleslav II. Der tschechische Staat um das Jahr 1000. Internationales Symposium Praha 9.–10. Februar 1999, Praha, 326–361.

Boháčová, Ivana – Hošek, Jiří (2009). Raně středověké nože ze Staré Boleslavi. In: Archaeologia historica 34, 367-392.

Borisov, Boris (1989). Dyadovo, Vol. 1. Mediaeval Settlеment and Necropolis (11th–12th Century), Tokyo.

Breddin, Rolf (1968). Beobachtungen auf dem „Burglehn“ von Lübben-Steinkirchen. In: Ausgrabungen und Funde. Nachrichtenblatt für Vor- und Frühgeschichte 13, 141-147.

Brøgger, A. W. – Schetelig, Haakon (1928). Osebergfunnet II, Oslo.

Bukowska-Gedigowa, Janina – Gediga, Bogusław (1986). Wczesnośredniowieczny gród na Ostrówku w Opolu, Wrocław.

Cnotliwy, Eugeniusz (1973). Rzemiosło rogownicze na Pomorzu wczesnośredniowiecznym, Wrocław.

Cowgill, Jane et al. (1987). Medieval Finds From Excavations in London – 1. Knives and Scabbards, London.

Čajka 2009 = Чайка Р. М. (2009). Давньоруське городище Листвин і його околиці у Х-ХІ ст., Львів.

Červinka, I. L. (1927). Poslední slovanská pohřebiště na Moravě, Brno.

Čilinská, Zlata (1973). Frühmittelalterliches Gräberfeld in Želovce, Bratislava.

Davidson, G. R. (1952). Corinth XII. The Minor Objects, Princeton.

Dębski, Artur – Wawrzyniak, Piotr (2006). Znalezisko wczesnośredniowiecznego noża z oprawą inkrustowaną srebrem z podgrodzia na Zagórzu w Poznaniu. In: Dworaczyk, Marek et al. (eds.). Świat Słowian wczesnego średniowiecza, Szczecin, 431-436.

Doppelfeld, Otto (1936). Beschreibungen der Burgen und Kleinfunde. In: Brackmann, Albert – Unverzagt, Wilhelm (eds.). Zantoch, Eine Burg im deutschen Osten, Leipzig, 78-122.

Dostál, Bořivoj (1966). Slovanská pohřebiště ze střední doby hradištní na Moravě, Praha.

Dumont, Annie – Mariotti, Jean-François (2013). Archéologie et histoire du fleuve Charente: Taillebourg-Port d’Envaux : une zone portuaire du haut Moyen Âge sur le fleuve Charente, Dijon.

Faust, Erika – Grebe, Klaus (1985). Corpus archäologischer Quellen zur Frühgeschichte auf dem Gebiet der Deutschen Demokratischen Republik. 4. Lieferung: Bezirke Cottbus, Dresden, Karl-Marx-Stadt. Textband, Leipzig.

Freeden, Uta von (1983). Das frühmittelalterliche Gräberfeld von Grafendobrach in Oberfranken. In: Bericht der Römisch-Germanischen Kommission 64, 417-507.

Friesinger, Herwig (1971-1974). Studien zur Archäologie der Slawen in Niederösterreich, Wien.

Gajdukov 1992 = Гайдуков, П. Г. (1992). Славенский конец Средневекового Новгорода. Нутный раскоп, Москва.

Gediga, Bogusław (1972). Badania wykopaliskowe na Ostrówku w Opolu w 1968 i 1969 roku oraz omówienie najważniejszych wyników zakończonych prac. In: Sprawozdania Archeologiczne XXIV, 175-215.

Gediga, Bogusław (2022). Gród Wczesnośredniowieczny na Ostrówku w Opolu. Synteza, Warszawa – Wrocław.

Goodall, I. H. (1990). Knives. In: Biddle, Martin (ed.). Artefacts from Medieval Winchester 2: Object and Economy in Medieval Winchester, Oxford, 835-859.

Goryanova, Snezhana – Grozdanova, Galina (2019). At the gates of the royal court. Treasures of Veliki Preslav, Sofia.

Graham-Campbell, J. A. (1978). An Anglo-Scandinavian ornamented knife from Canterbury, Kent. In: Medieval Archaeology 22, 130-133.

Grebe, Klaus – Kirsch, Kerstin (2015). Die Eisenverarbeitung. In: Grebe, Klaus et al. (eds). Die Brandenburg im slawischen Mittelalter: Ergebnisse der Ausgrabungen zwischen 1961 und 1983, Wünsdorf, 132-142.

Hanuliak, Milan – Poláková, Zuzana (2021). Two Early Medieval Knives with Bone Handles from Nitra. In: Robak, Zbigniew – Ruttkay, Matej (eds.). Celts – Germans – Slavs. A Tribute Anthology to Karol Pieta. Slovenská archeológia – Supplementum 2, Nitra, 441 – 447.

Hendrychová, Soňa (2014). Velkomoravská pohřebiště v Rajhradě a Rajhradicích, Praha.

Henning – Dončeva-Petkova 1999 = Хеннинг, Йоахим – Дончева-Петкова, Людмила (1999). Първопрестолна Плиска. 100 години археологически разкопки, Франкфурт на Майн.

Herrmann, Joachim (2005). Ralswiek auf Rügen. Die slawisch-wikingischen Siedlungen und deren Hinterland. Teil III – Die Funde aus der Hauptsiedlung, Schwerin.

Hoczyk-Siwkowa, Stanisława (1974). Sprawozdanie z badań Lublina przedlokacyjnego w latach 1967-1969. In: Sprawozdania Archeologiczne 26, 97-113.

Hołubowicz, Włodzimierz (1956). Opole w wiekach X-XII, Katowice.

Holtmann, W. G. F. (1993). Untersuchung zu mittelalterlichen und frühneuzeitlichen Messern, Göttingen.

Horváth, Ciprián (2022). Honfoglalás és kora Árpád-kori sírok, temetők és szórványleletek a Nyugat-Dunántúlon I., Budapest.

Hošek, Jiří et al. (2007). Bohemian so-called surgical Early Medieval knives. In: Acta Metallurgica Slovaca 13, 932-937.

Hrubý, Vilém (1957). Slovanské kostěné předměty a jejich výroba na Moravě. In: Památky archeologické 48, 118-217.

Chmielowska, Aldona (1966). Sprawozdanie z badań wczesnośredniowiecznego kompleksu osadniczego w Rozprzy. In: Prace i Materiały Muzeum Archeologicznego i Etnograficznego w Łodzi. Seria Archeologiczna 13, 249–265.

Istvánovits, Eszter (2003). A Rétköz honfoglalás és Árpád-kori emlékanyaga, Nyíregyháza.

Izquierdo Benito, Ricardo (2000). La ciudad hispanomusulmana de Vascos, Navalmoralejo (Toledo), Toledo.

Janowski, Andrzej (2019). Metal finds. In: Rębkowski, Marian (ed.). Wolin. The Old Town II. Studies on Finds, Szczecin, 47-88.

Janssen, Walter – Janssen, Brigitte (1999). Die frühmittelalterliche Niederungsburg bei Haus Meer, Kreis Neuss: archäologische und naturwissenschaftliche Untersuchungen, Köln.

Jażdżewski, Konrad – Chmielewski, Waldemar (1952). Gdańsk wczesnośredniowieczny w świetle badań wykopaliskowych z lat 1948/9. In: Studia Wczesnośredniowieczne 1, 35-81.

Jukl, J. J. (2009). Pozdně středověké tesáky v českých zemích – zhodnocení publikovaných nálezů, Říčany.

Kalousek, František (1971). Břeclav-Pohansko. 1, Velkomoravské pohřebiště u kostela : archeologické prameny z pohřebiště, Brno.

Kaván, Jaroslav (1958). O zpracování a výzdobě kostí u západních Slovanů v době hradištní. In: Vznik a počátky Slovanů II, 253-284.

Kaván, Jaroslav (1985). Některé zvláštnosti ve zpracování parohu na Libici. In: Sborník Národního muzea v Praze 39 (1-2), 127-130.

Kavánová, Blanka (1995). Knochen- und Geweihindustrie in Mikulčice. In: Studien zum Burgwall von Mikulčice I., Brno, 113-378.

Kaźmierczyk, Józef (1995). Ku początkom Wrocławia. Cz. 3, Gród na Ostrowie Tumskim w X-XIII wieku, Wrocław.

Kontantinov 2004 = Константинов, Константин (2004). Прибори за хранене от Велики Преслав. In: Тотев, Тотю (ed.). Преслав, Сборник 6, София, 273-280.

Koperski, Andrzej (2001). Dzieje Przemyśla, t. I, Osadnictwo pradziejowe i wczesnośredniowieczne, cz. I, Przemyśl.

Kovářík, Jan (1991). Slovanské kostrové pohřebiště v Praze 5 – Motole, Praha.

Kovrig, Ilona (1975). The Szob Cemetery. In: Garam, Éva et al. (eds.). Avar Finds in the Hungarian National Museum, Vol. 1, Cemeteries of the Avar Period (567-829) in Hungary, Budapest, 156-208.

Krumphanzlová, Zdenka (1974). Chronologie pohřebního inventáře vesnických hřbitovů 9.–11. věku v Čechách. In: Památky archeologické 35, 34–110.

Krumphanzlová, Zdeňka (2013). Raně středověké pohřebiště v Praze-Lahovicích, Praha.

Krzyszowski, Andrzej (2020). Noże z wczesnośredniowiecznego cmentarzyska w Sowinkach pod Poznaniem – ze studiów nad typologią i technikami kowalskimi. In: Slavia Antiqua 60, 303-348.

Kuna, Martin – Profantová, Naďa (2005). Počátky raného středověku v Čechách, Praha.

Kurasiński, Tomasz (2021). Wczesnośredniowieczne groby z elementami uzbrojenia na terenie ziem polskich (X-XIII w.). Materiały do studiów, Warszawa.

Lutovský, Michal (1987). Raně středověký ranhojičský nůž z Budče. In: Archeologické rozhledy XXXIX, 576–577.

MacGregor, Arthur et al. (1999). Small finds : bone, antler, ivory and horn from Anglo-Scandinavian and medieval York. The Archaeology of York Vol. 17: The Small Finds, Fasc. 12, York.

Mařík, Jan (2009). Libická sídelní aglomerace a její zázemí v raném středověku, Praha.

Müller, Adriaan von – Müller-Muči, Klara von (1999). Neue Forschungsergebnisse vom Burgwall in Berlin-Spandau, Berlin.

Navarro, Julio – Fernández, A. R. (1996). Liétor. Formas de vida rurales en Sarq al-Andalus a través de una ocultación de los siglos X-XI, Múrcia.

Nikolova 1974 = Николова, Янка (1974). Домашният бит и въоръжението в двореца на Царевец според археологическия материал // Царевград Търнов. Дворецът на българските царе през Втората българска държава. Том 2, София, 187-390.

Novotný, Boris (1981). Archeologický výzkum hradu “Rokyten” na Moravě z 11. až první poloviny 12. století, jeho hradský obvod a románský dvorec Řeznovice. In: Archaeologia historica 6, 221–238.

O’Meadhra, Uaininn – Söderberg, Uaininn (2017). En säregen knivtyp i gränslandet mellan Jelling-, Mammen- och Ringerikestil. In: Situne Dei 2017, 14-37.

Ottaway, Patrick (1992). Anglo-Scandinavian ironwork from Coppergate, The archaeology of York. The small finds 17/6, London.

Parani, Maria (2010). Byzantine Cutlery: an Overview. In: Δελτίον της Χριστιανικής Αρχαιολογικής Εταιρείας 31, 139–164.

Parczewski, Michał (1989). Żukowice pod Głogowem w zaraniu średniowiecza, Głogów.

Pawlicki, J. K. (2021). Noże wolutowe – o funkcji i pochodzeniu zagadkowych przedmiotów w kulturze słowiańskiej. In: Slavia Antiqua LXII, 71-106.

Peets, Jüri (2003). The Power of Iron. Iron Production and Blacksmithy in Estonia and Neighbouring Areas in Prehistoric Period and the Middle Ages, Tallinn.

Píč, J. L. (1909). Starožitnosti země české. Díl 3, sv. 1. Čechy za doby knížecí, Praha.

Pleterski, Andrej (1983). Nožiči z zavojkoma v zgodnjem srednjem veku. In: Arheološki vestnik 34, 375-395.

Pleterski, Andrej – Belak, Mateja (2002). Grobovi s Puščave nad Starim trgom pri Slovenj Gradcu. In: Arheološki vestnik 53, 233-300.

Popović, Marko (1999). Tvrđava Ras = The Fortress of Ras, Beograd.

Portet, Nicolas (2017). Étude du mobilier métallique du xie siècle. In: Beuchet, Laurent (eds.). Place Saint-Germain: naissance et évolution d’un quartier de Rennes de l’Antiquité tardive à 1944, Tome 1, Cesson-Sévigné, 839-946.

Pöllath, Ralph (2002a). Karolingerzeitliche Gräberfelder in Nordostbayern, Band I, München.

Pöllath, Ralph (2002b). Karolingerzeitliche Gräberfelder in Nordostbayern, Band III, München.

Pöllath, Ralph (2002c). Karolingerzeitliche Gräberfelder in Nordostbayern, Band IV, München.

Priščepa 2016 = Прищепа, Богдан (2016). Погоринські міста в Х-ХІІІ ст., Рівне.

Priščepa – Nikolčenko 2001 = Прищепа, Б. А. – Нікольченко, Ю. М. (2001). Муравицьке городище, Маріуполь.

Procházka, Rudolf et al. (2008). Frühmittelalterliche Besiedlung des Areals der Stadt Přerov Topographie der archäologischen Grabungen 1986-2005. In: Poláček, Lumír (ed.). Das wirtschaft liche Hinterland der frühmittelalterlichen Zentren Internationale Tagungen in Mikulčice VI, Brno, 207-247.

Profantová, Naďa (1998). Doubravčice. K problematice počátků raně středověkého hradiště na základě výzkumů J. Kudrnáče. In: Archeologie ve středních Čechách 2, 157–275.

Přichystalová, Renáta et al. (2019). Břeclav – Pohansko. IX., Pohřební areály z Jižního předhradí (archeologicko-antropologická studie), Brno.

Rajewski, Z. A. (1939). Zabytki z rogu i kości w grodzie gnieźnieńskim. In: Kostrzewski, Józef (ed.). Gniezno w zaraniu dziejów (od VIII do XIII wieku) w świetle wykopalisk, Poznań, 66-102.

Rajewski, Z. A. (1948). Sierpy składane z okresu wczesnodziejowego. In: Slavia Antiqua, 1, 551-559.

Riu Riu, Manuel (1992). Materiales de hierro del despoblado medieval de Marmuyas. In: Cuadernos de Estudios Medievales y Ciencias y Técnicas Historiográficas 17, 57-80.

Rogerson, Andrew – Dallas, Carolyn (1984). Excavations in Thetford 1948–59 and 1973–80, Dereham.

Sergejeva 2011 = Сергеева, М. С. (2011). Косторізна справа у стародавньому Киеві, Киïв.

Schietzel, Kurt (2022). Unearthing Hedeby, Kiel – Hamburg.

Schuldt, Ewald (1985). Gross Raden. Ein slawischer Tempelort des 9.–10. Jahrhundert in Mecklenburg, Schwerin.

Sizov 1902 = Сизов, В. И. (1902). Курганы Смоленской губернии I. Гнездовский могильник близ Смоленска. Материалы по археологии России 28, Санкт-Петербург.

Sorokin 1959 = Сорокин, С. С. (1959). Железные изделия Саркела— Белой Вежи // Труды Волго-Донской археологиче- ской экспедиции II, МИА 75, 135–199.

Stanisławski, B. M. (2013). Jómswikingowie z Wolina-Jómsborga, Wrocław.

Staňa, Čeněk (1960). Slovanské obytné objekty na hradišti Staré Zámky u Líšně. In: Památky archeologické 51, 240-290.

Staňa, Čeněk (2006). Velkomoravská pohřebiště v Rajhradě a Rajhradicích, Katalog, Brno.

Stjerna, Niklas (2007). Viking-age seaxes in Uppland and Västmanland : craft production and eastern connections. In: Fransson U. et al (eds.). Cultural interaction between east and west. Archaeology, artefacts and human contacts in northern Europe, Stockholm, 243–249.

Szőke, B. M. (1982). Ein charakteristischer Gebrauchsgegenstand des ostfrünkischen Grenzgebietes: des Eisenmesser mit Knochengriff. In: Acta Archaeologica Academiae Scientiarum Hungaricae 34, 23-39.

Szőke, B. M. (1992). Die Beziehungen zwischen dem oberen Donautal und Westungarn in der ersten. Hälfte des 9. Jahrhunderts (Frauentrachtzubehör und Schmuck). In: Archaeologia Austriaca 92, 133-149, 151-154.

Szőke, B. M. (2014). The Carolingian Age in the Carpathian Basin: Permanent Exhibition of the Hungarian National Museum, Budapest.

Szőke, B. M. (2019). A Karoling-kor Pannóniában, Budapest.

Šikulová, Vlasta (1959). Moravská pohřebiště z mladší doby hradištní. In: Pravěk východní Moravy I, 88-162.

Thunmark-Nylén, Lena (1998). Die Wikingerzeit Gotlands II : Typentafeln, Stockholm.

Točík, Anton (1971). Flachgräberfelder aus dem IX. und X. Jahrhundert in der Südwestslowakei. In: Slovenská archeológia 19, 135 – 276.

Tóth, Anikó (2014). A ​nyíri Mezőség a 10-11. században, Budapest.

Tovornik, Vlasta (1985). Die frühmittelalterlichen Gräberfelder von Gusen und Auhof bei Perg in Oberösterreich, Teil 1, Gusen. In: Archaeologia Austriaca 69, 165-214.

Tovornik, Vlasta (1986). Die frühmittelalterlichen Gräberfelder von Gusen und Audorf bei Perg in Oberösterreich, Teil 2, Auhof bei Perg. In: Archaeologia Austriaca 70, 413–483.

Török, Gyula – Bökönyi, Sándor (1973). Sopronkőhida IX. századi temetője, Budapest.

Turek, Rudolf (1982). Slavníkovci a jejich panství, Hradec Králové.

Váňa, Zdeněk – Kabát, Josef (1971). Libušín. Výsledky výzkumu časně středověkého hradiště v letech 1949-52, 1956 a 1966. In: Památky archeologické 62, 179-313.

Vlasatý, Tomáš (2021). Wire wrapped knife handles of 9th-12th century. In: Project Forlǫg – Reenactment and science [online]. [2021-05-31]. Available here:

Wrzosek, Adam (1961). Zabytki wczesnośredniowieczne z Ostrowa Lednickiego, pow. Gniezno. In: Fontes Archaeologici Posnanienses 12, 242-280.

Zeman, Tomáš (2001). Germánská kostěná a parohová industrie doby římské ve středoevropském barbariku. In: Sborník prací Filozofické fakulty brněnské univerzity. M, Řada archeologická 50, 107-147.

Žákovský, Petr (2014). Tesáky a problematika jednosečných zbraní středověku a raného novověku, Brno.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *