Introduction
The following article, divided into two parts, presents an intriguing group of Viking Age swords that have been classified under a single type. Within the context of the ongoing “sword series”, this study aims to build upon previous research that focused on Petersen types M, W, G (Vlasatý 2019; 2020a; 2020b) and V (Viskupič 2025); the latter study marginally noted several specimens belonging to the group under investigation in the present paper.
The primary objective of this article is to map the swords of Petersen’s “classic” Type T with regard to their construction, decoration, distribution, and dating. The Norwegian researcher Jan Petersen divided these swords into two variants, which is why they are sometimes treated as a single cohesive group. The fact remains, however, that these are two distinct types differing in both their morphological features and ornamental styles. Consequently, we have decided to analyse the two variants separately across two companion articles. This approach allows us to maintain the swords’ affiliation to their overarching classification while clearly delineating the specific criteria that define their divergent development.
In this first part, we examine the first variant in greater detail, beginning with a brief outline of the general characteristics of Type T as a whole, followed by a meticulous description of the individual components of Type T1 swords. In particular, we address the morphological aspects of the hilt components – namely the pommel, the tang, and the cross-guard – and conclude the section with an analysis of the blades. The second chapter focuses on the ornamentation of Type T1, which can be divided into two distinct sub-variants. The third and fourth chapters analyse the geographical distribution, find context, and chronology of the sword group in question. In addition to the classic Type T1, there are variants designated as atypical forms due to their close morphological or ornamental affinity to the examined type. Similarly, attention must be paid to swords from the Baltic region, which are likewise referred to as Type T in the relevant literature. For this reason, we have chosen to include these swords by means of a brief commentary in the concluding chapters of Part I. The final section provides a comprehensive evaluation, supplemented by a tabular catalogue of Type T1 swords detailing individual finds, including provenance, inventory numbers, circumstances of discovery, metric data, preserved blade inscriptions, and decorative variants.
A Brief Characterisation of Petersen Type T Swords
Jan Petersen characterised Type T as swords related to types R and S, though they exhibit differences in the shape of the lower guard and the upper guard. In the case of the type under investigation, these structural components do not expand laterally at the terminals as seen in the preceding types; however, the thickening of the pommel remains identical (Petersen 1919: 150). He further described them as specimens with straight upper and lower guards, which may occasionally be slightly curved and attain the same height (Petersen 1919: 150). Additionally, he pointed out the chamfering on the lateral sides of both the lower and upper guards (Petersen 1919: 150). The pommel caps of this type are trilobate, with the lateral segments stylised in the form of animal heads (Petersen 1919: 150). This particular feature links the swords of the monitored group most closely with Type R (C257) or alternatively with Type Z (SHM 29122). Certain Type V swords may also possess this method of pommel division (Viskupič 2025: Fig. 20). The Norwegian researcher divided Type T into two sub-types based on ornamentation, which were later designated as types T-1 and T-2 by the Russian archaeologist A. N. Kirpichnikov (Petersen 1919: 150; Kainov 2012: 37).
Type T1 is distinguished by more massive guards adorned with silver decoration in a zoomorphic style representing various intertwined, stylised animal bodies, a trait that connects it with Type S swords; alternatively, the structural parts of the hilt may be embellished with pitted decoration, thereby aligning this type with Petersen Type E swords (Petersen 1919: 150; Androshchuk 2014: 76; Hošek – Košta – Žákovský 2021: 320). Type 2 is characterised by lighter and narrower guards featuring polychrome geometric ornamentation on the hilt components, with a pattern of alternating triangles and lozenges, rendering it akin to Type V (Petersen 1919: 151; Androshchuk 2014: 76). In the case of the second variant, two distinct decorative styles can likewise be differentiated.
At the same time, it is appropriate to mention that both variants should not be viewed merely as a type belonging to a single group artificially constructed by Jan Petersen. As Sergei Y. Kainov points out, given their disparate morphological and decorative attributes, the swords of these groups should be perceived as two distinct types with independent evolutionary lineages (Kainov – Novikov 2024: 199, Note 93).
Fig. 1. Chronology of Viking Age sword hilts according to Jan Petersen’s typology (after Hjardar – Vike 2016: 169).
Swords of types R, S, T, and V, together with Type Z, form a certain morphological continuum based on their clearly defined typological criteria, including various transitional variants (Hošek – Košta – Žákovský 2021: 319). A common element shared by all five types is also their inlaid decoration (Martens – Astrup 2021: 26). Prior to the creation of the Norwegian sword classification by Jan Petersen, Oluf Rygh was the first to typologise some of these swords (Rygh 1885). In his work, the type featuring silver ornamentation and pitted decoration is designated as Rygh 510.
Mikael Jakobsson assigns Type T to his second principle – namely, to the group of swords with narrow, trilobate, and plastically convex pommel caps (Jakobsson 1992: 36-37). At the same time, he views it, along with types R, S, and Z, as swords of the Late Viking Age (Jakobsson 1992: 40). Within Geibig’s combination typology, both of Petersen’s variants of the monitored type are absent, given that not a single specimen of either variant has been recorded from the territory of the former West Germany.
Fig. 2. Typological scheme of sword hilts according to Petersen’s classification from the environment of former Kyivan Rus’ (after Kirpichnikov 1966a: Fig. 1).
In the analysis presented below, we shall adhere to Petersen’s description of Type T1 swords, and the conclusions of more recent research will also serve as essential baseline reference points for us (Androshchuk 2014; Shchedrina 2018; Kainov – Novikov 2024). In the context of this study, swords of Petersen Type T1 are understood to mean: iron-wrought swords with massive two-part pommels and pommel caps divided into three (but also five) segments; with massive upper and lower guards that may be slightly curved; and with decoration formed of silver wire with engraved ornamentation filled with niello. We distinguish two methods of decoration – pitted decoration with cells filled with twisted silver wire, and a zoomorphic and/or ribbon-interlace motif in the Jelling and/or Mammen styles.
Type T1
Description of Structural Components
The Pommel
As previously mentioned in the introduction, the structural components of the hilt of Type T1 swords possess a more massive appearance. The pommels invariably consist of two parts – the upper guard (or base) and a trilobate pommel cap. When viewed from the front, the upper guard is straight with rounded edges, whilst exhibiting a lenticular shape in plan view. It is widest at the centre and tapers towards the lateral edges, which terminate in an arcuate fashion. Internally, the upper guard is hollow. A rectangular aperture passes through its centre to accommodate the tang of the hilt. It can be stated that in terms of morphology, these guards are virtually identical in almost all instances.
The upper portion of the pommel, the pommel cap, is divided into three segments. This structural feature follows the design of Type E sword pommels and bears a close affinity to types T2 and V. The central lobe is the largest and highest component. It is markedly elevated and exhibits a triangular shape with a rounded apex. In approximately five specimens, it can be observed that the shape of the central segment is not significantly elevated; on the contrary, it forms a regular semicircle, akin to Type E or Type V (Bakay 1965: Tab. III; Pienimäki 2016: 26, Appendix 8. 1-4; Kainov – Novikov 2024: 178-179, Figs. 187, 189. 1-2).
In comparison with the central segment, the lateral lobes are considerably lower. In most cases, they are characterised by concave sides with high ridges, thereby resembling stylised animal heads. In two instances from the territory of Ukraine, we record preserved pommel caps whose lateral segments exhibit a less pronounced transition between the upper and lower sections (Kainov – Novikov 2024: Fig. 189. 1-2).
The division of the pommel cap into three parts is achieved by means of deeply incised oblique grooves. These were filled with twisted silver wires arranged to form a herringbone pattern. Within the type under investigation, we record only a single specimen with preserved wires; these are positioned horizontally in two parallel rows separating the upper guard from the pommel cap, whilst three wires applied vertically in three parallel rows separate the individual segments (Fig. 3). In three swords, we register pommels divided into five segments. Wide grooves are located between the individual lobes, with a narrow, oblique lobe passing vertically through their centre. Consequently, there are four grooves instead of two, which were presumably also filled with twisted wire (Fig. 4).
Fig. 3. Detail of a sword pommel from the Dnieper with division by twisted silver wire (Komar 2014: Fig. 8.1).
Fig. 4. Pommel cap of the sword from Monastyrishche (photograph by Alexandra Shchedrina).
The construction of the pommel differs between the two variants of Type T, a point also highlighted by various researchers (Androshchuk 2014: 76; Kainov – Novikov 2024: 199, Note 93). Type T1 swords employ the same method of pommel attachment as Type E (Kainov – Novikov 2024: 199). The tang passes through both the upper guard and the pommel cap, and is subsequently riveted at the apex of the latter (Fig. 5a). The pommel caps of this variant are perforated by a circular aperture at the centre of their apex (Fig. 5b). This method of fastening is identical to Geibig’s structural variant I (Geibig 1991: 99, Fig. 24). The structural components of the pommel were further secured to one another by means of two pins inserted into holes drilled into the lateral sides of the pommel cap and the upper guard (Fig. 5b).
The minimum recorded length of the upper guard is 8.5 cm, whilst the maximum reaches 10.6 cm. Their height ranges approximately from 3 to 3.8 cm. The length of the standalone pommel cap varies between 7 and 9 cm, and its height ranges from 4 to 5.6 cm (personal observations). Complete pommels (comprising both the pommel cap and the upper guard) have been preserved on eight specimens; standalone pommel caps are recorded in four instances, and standalone upper guards in only two.
Fig. 5. a. Assembly scheme of Type T1 sword pommels (drawing by the author, after Shchedrina 2018: Fig. 2b); b. pommel cap of the sword from Hangastenmäki, Finland – KM 39993 (after Pienimäki 2016: Appendix 8.2–4).
The Tang
The foundation of the gripping portion of the sword is the iron tang of the blade. To ensure a comfortable manipulation of the weapon, the tang was predominantly overlaid with an organic material, such as wood, bone, or antler. Metal hilt scales, however, were no exception (Vlasatý 2020c). The organic surface of the grip was subsequently covered with an additional layer of material, which could consist of leather, textiles, wire, or cast forms of sleeves and rings (Vlasatý 2020c). The iron tang itself has been preserved on eleven swords, and in only three instances do we record its covering with another material.
The covering of the tang with a wooden core can probably be documented in only a single find (Kainov 2022: Fig. 11.1), whilst wound silver wire is registered in two cases (Bakay 1965: Tab. III; 1967: Fig. 8.1; Schulze-Dörrlamm 1995: 28, Fig. 10.1; Komar 2014: Figs. 6.1, 8.3–4). On the find from Székesfehérvár, Hungary, traces of wood grain were observed alongside the wire (Bakay 1965: 12). The wire here is wound continuously; however, the precise method of its wrapping cannot be determined with certainty from the photographs. The most plausible option is the alternation of a smooth wire with a twisted one, as seen, for instance, on a Petersen Type S sword from the Ladoga region (ГЭ №895/3) (Minasyan 2017: Fig. 1). This method of winding corresponds to Type 2.2 according to Vlasatý (2020c). Furthermore, on the photograph published by K. Bakay, it can be seen that on the lower part of the tang, just above the lower guard, the wrapping terminates in the form of a braided ring. It may be assumed that this consists of two strands of twisted wires – Type 2 according to T. Vlasatý (2020c). The second specimen, originating from the waters of the Dnieper in Ukraine, features a smooth silver wire wound around the tang with approximately 210 turns (Komar 2014: 54). This method of wire-wrapping corresponds to Type 2.1a according to Vlasatý and appears to be the most widely used variant on swords across Northern, Central, and Eastern Europe (2020c).
Fig. 6. Detailed view of Type T1 and S sword hilts:
a. Székesfehérvár-Rádiótelep (after Schulze-Dörrlamm 1995: Fig. 10.1);
b. Ladoga region (after Minasyan 2017: Fig. 1).
We have been able to verify the total length of the tang in only two instances, one of which measures 9 cm and the other 9.2 cm (Cat. Nos 3, 13). These measurements correspond to the average hilt length of Viking Age swords, which ranged approximately from 8.5 to 9.5 cm, correlating with the width of a human palm and thereby indicating custom-made production (Androshchuk 2014: 105; Vlasatý 2020a).
A brief commentary is also warranted regarding the length of the blade tang and the hilt components of the sword from Kosgaarden, Norway (C3210). According to the find description on the Unimus portal, the pommel and the lower guard were originally discovered alongside the blade, which was present in several fragments upon its recovery. According to information from the portal, the find passed from the original discoverer into the hands of another individual, who allegedly commissioned a replica of the original blade, onto which the lower guard and the pommel were subsequently attached. The grip length (haandgrebets) of the replica blade reportedly measured 6.5 inches (6 1/2″), which represents approximately 16.51 cm, and according to the owner, it was manufactured precisely to match the length of the original tang. This very blade, which is present together with the hilt components under Inv. No C3210, is recorded on the Unimus portal as being housed in the Kulturhistorisk museum in Oslo as a “suspiciously well-preserved double-edged blade from the Late Iron Age” under inventory number C18454, allegedly discovered at the locality of Øverlien, Lesja, Innlandet County. The total length of the blade, including the tang, is reported to be roughly 92 cm, of which the hilt length (haandtaget) should comprise 12.5 cm and the blade itself 78.5 cm, with a width of 5.5 cm. A comment in the description adds a note that the hilt components of C3210 were attached to this blade for the purpose of a permanent exhibition, and following the dismantling of the exhibition in the spring of 2018, the blade was packed separately. Based on this information, it can be inferred that the hilt components (C3210) of this Early Medieval sword constitute an independent find, whereas the blade recorded under Inv. No C18454 is a separate object whose origin cannot currently be reliably explained.
Fig. 7. Pommel and lower guard from Kosgaarden – C3210 and the double-edged blade under Inv. No C18454 (after unimus.no).
The Lower Guard
Swords of Type T1 feature massive lower guards in almost all instances, with lengths ranging approximately between 9 and 13 cm and heights from 2,2 to 3,8 cm (personal observations). They have been preserved in eleven cases. In terms of morphology, they exhibit distinct variations: when viewed from the front, they are mostly straight, though specimens can be encountered with lower guards slightly curved on both sides, or alternatively, curved only on the lower side while the upper side remains straight. The lateral terminals of the guards are oval-shaped; on some specimens, these ovals taper towards the blade, giving the appearance of being slightly chamfered. When viewed from above, the lower guards exhibit a boat-shaped form – tapering from the centre towards the ends, with rounded lateral edges.
The Blade
Completely preserved swords are recorded in only two instances, one of which reaches a total length of 96.2 cm, whilst for the second specimen, this measurement is unknown (Cat. Nos 13, 15). A preserved blade and/or its fragments are registered on ten specimens, of which only three are complete (Cat. Nos 9, 13, 15). We have managed to ascertain the length of a completely preserved blade in only one instance, reaching 75 cm (Komar 2014: 54; Cat. No 13). For the remaining swords, the blade length could not be verified. The width of all analysed blades beneath the lower guard ranges from 5 to 5.8 cm (personal observations); it may furthermore be added that all blades of the swords analysed herein are double-edged.
The longest blade belongs to the sword discovered in the Gulbishche barrow in Chernihiv. The length of this fragmentarily preserved blade is around 104 cm, and its width beneath the lower guard measures 6.5 cm (Kirpichnikov 1966a: Cat. No 50). The total length of the sword was estimated at approximately “seven-quarters”, representing roughly 125 cm (Kirpichnikov 1966a: Cat. No 50; Kainov 2022: 50). The sword thus ranks among the longest known specimens from the Old Rus’ environment. It was originally assumed that it belonged to an exceptionally tall individual; however, a more plausible explanation appears to be that the sword featured an elongated blade in order to adapt a footman sword for mounted combat (Rybakov 1949: 36; Dubinets 2006: 13; Kainov 2022: 50). At the same time, Sergei Kainov points out the “standard” length of the sword grip, which measures only 9.5 cm in comparison to the blade length, thereby contradicting the unusual height of the individual from Gulbishche (Kainov 2022: 51).
On four swords of the evaluated type, preserved inscriptions and marks can be observed on the blades, created from pattern-welded rods. With the exception of one specimen, all these blades are provided with a combination of an inscription and a geometric mark. In two instances, the presence of one of the forms of the Ulfberht inscription can be documented, though only one inscription has been preserved in its entirety. Given the complexity of the topic of blade decoration via inscriptions and geometric marks on Early Medieval swords (and beyond), we shall confine ourselves to a brief commentary.
At present, more than 200 blades are known from extensive regions of Northern, Eastern, Central, and Western Europe that bear the Ulfberht inscription or one of its other variants (Hošek – Košta – Žákovský 2021: 124). The origin of blades with pattern-welded Ulfberht inscriptions is placed within the Frankish Empire, specifically in the Rhineland region (Williams 2012: 117). It is assumed that Ulfberht was the name of a Frankish smith or a workshop, and the name might have functioned as a brand for this workshop, since all produced blades could not have been the work of a single person; the earliest blades with this inscription date to around 850, whereas the last specimens are known from the beginning of the 12th century (Peirce 2002: 7–8; Williams 2012: 117). A detailed typological analysis of Ulfberht inscriptions and geometric marks was compiled by Anne Stalsberg, who divided them into seven groups (Fig. 1). According to the researcher, the most frequent is the first type (+VLFBERH+T) on approximately 46–51 blades, and the second type (+VLFBERHT+) on roughly 18–23 blades, with the difference residing in the positioning of the second cross (Stalsberg 2008: 96, Figs. 1.1–2). The fifth type is essentially identical to the first, with the distinction that the horizontal bars of the letter H and the cross (+) are not created as separate characters but from a single long rod (Stalsberg 2008: 96, Fig. 1.5). Variants 3 and 4 are, according to Stalsberg, rather less common, and unique variants known from six instances are listed under Type 6 (Stalsberg 2008: 96, Fig. 1.6). The seventh type accounts for those inscription variants which, due to the poor state of preservation of the blade and/or the inscriptions/marks, could not be assigned to any of the aforementioned types (Stalsberg 2008: 96).
The only Type T1 sword with a fully preserved inscription of the Ulfberht group originates from the Spassky District in the Republic of Tatarstan, Russia (Cat. No 9). The inscription is clearly discernible from the available photograph and could be read as +VLFBERH+T, wherein the letter T is inverted (Fig. 10). At the beginning of the inscription is a cross, followed by a vertically placed character in the form of the letter I. This symbol is joined with the subsequent letter V at its upper section, which then extends obliquely towards the letter L, merging at its lower part. The upper portion of the letters E and H has not been preserved. Visually, the inscription could be interpreted approximately as follows: +ΛLFBERH+⊥ (Kirpichnikov 1992: Fig. 3.1). From a typological perspective according to A. Stalsberg, this inscription belongs to Type 4, representing a less frequent variant. In addition to the Spassky sword, it can be found on five other specimens of various types: Aggsbach, Austria, Geibig 12-I (Williams 2012: 144, Cat. No III.5); Bolgar, Russia, Type H/I (Izmailov 1997: Fig. 18.3); Hämeenlinna Tuulos, KM 708, Finland, Type V (Moilanen 2015: 352); Røysehagen, C23643, Norway, Type R (Müller-Wille 1970: Fig. 6.18); and Leonovo, Russia, Type T2 (Kochkurkina – Summanen 2021).
Fig. 8. a. Ulfberht inscription; b. geometric mark (after Kirpichnikov 1992: Fig. 3.1, 10).
The blade of the Norwegian sword (C3867) bears an incomplete inscription, VLFBERH, on one side (Kirpichnikov – Stalsberg 1998: Fig. 1.2). Given its fragmentary nature, this variant can be assigned to Type 7 according to A. Stalsberg.
According to V. I. Ravdonikas, the Ulfberht inscription was also preserved on the sword from the Dnieper (Ravdonikas 1933: 603). N. A. Chernyshev mentions only a preserved inscription on both sides of the blade without specific identification (Chernyshev 1963: 221, Fig. 6). It may be noted, however, that one of the preserved inscriptions bears a close affinity to the LEUTLRIT group of inscriptions. Currently, seven swords with this inscription are known: two originate from England – one Type Z sword (Z1 according to Androshchuk / the Wallingford group according to Evison) discovered in the River Witham in Lincoln, eastern England (Maryon 1950: 178, Plate XXII; Evison 1967: 180, Plate XII.B), and the second a Petersen Type X sword from the River Lea in Hertford, a few kilometres north of London (Adams 1974: 154–158, Fig. 54). Furthermore, these include a Petersen Type V sword from the Estonian locality of Tori, Pärnumaa (Mandel 1991: Cat. No 21, Pl. X.2); a Type H/I sword from Almetievo in Russian Tatarstan (Kirpichnikov 1966a: 39, Plate XVII.4; Izmailov 1997: 36–37, Figs. 13.1, 18.2); a fragmentary sword from an unknown location in Norway, of a possible Petersen Type Y (T74; Stalsberg 2008: Cat. No N29); and the seventh sword, probably of Petersen Type R or S, reportedly from a collection and allegedly found at an unspecified location in the British Isles (Hammond 2010: 74, Fig. 1.8.2-c).
The blade of the sword from the River Witham features an inverted final letter T (LEUTLRI丄); the following two swords bear an inscription with an inverted first letter T and an inverted second letter L (LEU丄ГRIT). In the case of the Dnieper sword, the character resembling a T between the presumed U and L (lacking a horizontal bar) also appears to be inverted (丄). In addition, a Greek cross is positioned before the inscription, identical to the sword from Tatarstan. On the blade of the sword from Monastyrishche, Russia, only a fragment of the inscription in the form of the letters NRED has been preserved, which, according to A. N. Kirpichnikov, may represent an abbreviated form of the Ingelred inscription (Kirpichnikov 1966a: 39).
In most cases, the reverse sides of the blades are decorated with geometric marks in the form of a so-called lattice pattern positioned between vertical lines. The number of lines may vary across individual specimens, as can the shape of the lattice itself. The lattice pattern consists of two straight vertical lines between which two further long, crossed lines are placed; these create a motif resembling an hourglass, into which a lozenge pattern is integrated.
Anne Stalsberg divided these patterns into seven variants designated by Roman numerals, wherein various forms of inscriptions are listed under number VI instead of geometric patterns (Stalsberg 2008: Fig. 1). Within the sword type under investigation, the pattern of the lattice and vertical lines can be documented on only two specimens (Cat. Nos 8, 9). In the case of the sword with Cat. No 8, the pattern consists of three lines in the form of the Roman numeral III on both sides adjacent to the lattice (Fig. 8b), and on the sword with Cat. No 9, fragments of two vertical lines have been preserved before and after the lattice (Fig. 9b).
Fig. 9. Preserved variants of inscriptions and geometric marks on Type T1 sword blades:
a. Østre Alm – C3867 (after Kirpichnikov – Stalsberg 1998: Fig. 1.2);
b. Monastyrishche (after Kirpichnikov 1966a: Pl. XVII.1);
c. Dneprostroy (after Chernyshev 1963: Fig. 6).
Regarding the Dnieper sword, remnants of textile – presumably from the scabbard – were identified on the blade, which, according to A. V. Komar, suggests a different method of deposition than that exhibited by the other two specimens originating from the same locality. The researcher further states that small, multiple nicks are present on the blade, which may indicate the use of the sword in combat (Komar 2014: 59).
Ornamentation
Swords of Petersen Type T1 do not constitute a homogenous group; on the contrary, certain morphological variations have already been noted in the description of the structural hilt components. The same applies to their ornamentation. Two distinct variants can be differentiated, their common feature being the application of silver. Jan Petersen had already pointed out these disparate decorative attributes when describing individual Norwegian finds (Petersen 1919: 150). The most frequent pattern consists of so-called pitted decoration, whereas a zoomorphic motif represents a less common pattern encountered within this type, being documented on only two swords.
The method of decoration relied on a technique involving fine grooves obliquely chiselled into the iron substrate in two or three directions (Môc 2018: 228; Shchedrina 2018: 21; Kainov – Novikov 2024: 192). Thin silver wire was subsequently hammered at an angle into this roughened surface, closely abutting one another, which resulted in the creation of a continuous, monochrome plating (Môc 2018: 228–229, Fig. 11–11c; Shchedrina 2018: 21). A similar method of ornamentation can be encountered on certain swords of Type S or Z (Môc 2018: 229; Bárta 2020: 34), as well as on the pommel and the lower guard of the sword from the Ukrainian locality of Glukhovtsy (Shchedrina 2020: 211). An engraved ornament, presumably filled with niello, was subsequently executed onto this monochrome surface (Kirpichnikov – Stalsberg 1998: 509; Kainov – Novikov 2024: 192). By the term niello technique, known from several medieval sources, we mean the inlaying of dark ornaments onto a lustrous surface using silver, copper, and/or lead sulphides (Petersen 1994–1995: 133).
Fig. 10. Structural hilt components of the sword from Kosgaarden, Åsnes, Innlandet (C3210): a. pommel; b. detail of the pommel cap ornamentation; c. detail of the upper guard ornamentation; d.–f. top, front, and bottom views of the lower guard; g. detail of the ornamentation on the upper side of the lower guard; h. detail of the ornamentation on the lateral section of the lower guard (reproduced from unimus.no – Museum of Cultural History, Oslo).
Pitted decoration
Pitted decoration is present on the majority of the preserved swords, representing thirteen finds in total (Cat. Nos 1, 2, 4–7, 9, 11–16). On the surfaces of the frontal portions of the lower guard and the upper guard, circular pits are present along their entire length in a chequered pattern, most frequently arranged in four or alternatively three parallel horizontal rows. The number of pits may vary between the two hilt components. On the upper guard, 28 pits can be observed in four instances (Cat. Nos 4, 5, 7, 11). The upper guards of the swords from the Dnieper and Kosgaarden feature 23 and 21 pits, respectively. Ten pits reportedly decorate the upper guard of the sword from Székesfehérvár, which was originally assigned to Petersen Type E (Bakay 1965: 13, 31).
On the lower guards, varying numbers of pits are observed, ranging from 22 to 39 cells, with their number being identical on only two Norwegian swords (Cat. Nos 5, 6).
The ornamentation on the pommel caps is concentrated exclusively on the visible portions of the central segment. In most cases, the pits are arranged in the shape of a lozenge, which has been identified on seven specimens. Their number ranges approximately from 9 to 16 cells. In three instances, we record a decorative scheme where eight pits positioned along the margins of the segment form a lozenge, with a single circular pit placed at its centre (Cat. Nos 4, 6, 14). On a further three specimens, sixteen cells are situated, twelve of which are positioned along the margins of the pommel cap in a rhombic shape, while the remaining four are applied within its centre so that their arrangement mirrors the outer perimeter (Cat. Nos 1, 12, 13). In the case of the sword from Finstad Søndre, Norway (Cat. No 5), 15 circular apertures have been preserved on one side, 11 of which form an outer rhombus, within the centre of which a smaller one consisting of four cells is positioned. The pommel cap of the sword from Kveste, Norway, is decorated in a similar fashion, with the distinction that the central pattern comprises a circle of ten pits, in the centre of which a single circular cell is located.
The diameter of the pits on the upper guard of the hilt from Kharkiv is 4.5 mm with a depth of 2–3 mm (Shchedrina 2018: 20). In the case of the sword from Gulbishche, the diameter of the pits measures 5.5 mm (Kainov 2022: 51). The cells on the lower guard of the sword from the Spassky District have a diameter of 3–4 mm (Izmailov 1997: 40).
Beneath the surface of the iron substrate, the cells are interconnected by channels that were filled with twisted silver wire. This wire is recorded as preserved in nine instances (Cat. Nos 1, 4, 5, 6, 7, 9, 11, 13, 16). The wire is crossed ( ⓧ ) within the central pits of four swords (Cat. Nos 9, 11, 13, 16), while in the marginal pits of these swords, it is twisted into the form of a loop (Komar 2014: Figs. 8.1–2; Shchedrina 2018: 20, Fig. 2a; Kainov – Novikov 2024: Fig. 182d). Within the cells on the surface of the hilt components of the sword from By, Norway (C9530), they create a cross motif – ⊕ (Fig. 11). The lower section of the pits on the sword from Gulbishche was filled with thin plates made of a copper alloy (Kainov 2022: 51). A similar method of ornamentation can be encountered, for example, on the sword from the Ukrainian locality of Krasnianka (Shchedrina 2020: 206).
According to our available information, the actual layout of the wire within the pits of the evaluated sword type has not been described precisely anywhere. However, we assume that it did not fundamentally differ from the wire filling of the pits on Type E-2 swords. The best-documented specimen is the sword originating from barrow Л-210/2018 (Kainov – Novikov 2024: Figs. 132–136). The pits are interconnected by channels with a diameter of 1.5–2.0 mm, through which a strand of two twisted smooth silver wires was drawn (Kainov – Novikov 2024: 140). The arrangement of the wires can be observed on the basis of a radiograph (Kainov – Novikov 2024: Fig. 149). The central part of the cells features the wire guided in the shape of the letter X, whereas in the outer cells, it is formed into a loop (Kainov – Novikov 2024: 140, Figs. 150, 152). The wire-guiding scheme demonstrates that beneath the surface of the central segment and the lower guard, three rods were used; two were employed for the decoration of the upper guard, and only one was inserted into the cells of the lateral segments (Kainov – Novikov 2024: 140, Fig. 151).
The technological procedure of cutting the channels and the subsequent threading of the wires remains an unanswered question for the time being. Sergei Kainov and V. V. Novikov state that some pits on the Gnezdovo specimen exhibit an almost square shape, which was caused by the technological characteristics of cutting/hollowing the channels (Kainov – Novikov 2024: 140, Fig. 150). According to our observation, the pits on most Type T1 swords exhibit a continuous circular shape without any apparent distortion of form. This observation, however, could only be conducted on those swords for which high-quality photographs were available to us. A possible technological method for filling the pits was proposed by W. W. Arendt. He assumed that both guards and the pommel consisted of a kind of casing or shell containing smaller, morphologically identical internal pieces. These were wound with silver wire positioned so that its crossing was visible through the circular apertures (Arendt 1936: 314, Fig. 2). However, from the radiograph of the Gnezdovo sword, it does not appear that the hilt components were formed of several parts by means of overlaying morphologically similar elements. Nevertheless, this can neither be excluded nor confirmed for other specimens of Type E-2 and Type T1.
Fig. 11. a. Sword hilt from By, Løten, Innlandet – C9530; b. detail of the pitted decoration with a view of the twisted wire (reproduced from unimus.no – Museum of Cultural History, Oslo).
As previously stated above, the surface of the structural hilt components was covered with a continuous layer of silver wire, into which the desired ornament was subsequently engraved and later filled using the niello technique. On the majority of the lower guards and upper guards, a border along the upper and lower margins in the form of a narrow or thicker silver band can be observed. In the case of two Norwegian swords, the contours of the marginal lines are supplemented by small triangles with their apices pointing towards the pits (C3210 and C24621). A common feature shared by Type T1 swords with pitted decoration is the bordering around the outer perimeter of the circular cells. On four swords (Cat. Nos 1, 6, 11, 13, 16), it can be noticed that the individual pits are interconnected by paired diagonal lines. On the swords from the Spassky District, Kveste, and Gulbishche, the outer pits are connected to the marginal lines of the lower and upper guards by vertical double lines. The bordering of the pits and their interconnection by double lines are also located on the central segment of the pommel cap (Cat. Nos 1, 6, 13). On the drawing of the sword from Kveste (C24621), kept in the Cultural History Museum in Oslo, the preserved silver inlay on the lower section of the central lobe of the pommel is clearly visible; here, the contours of the pits are connected to the margins of the segment by straight paired lines (Fig. 12d).
In addition to circular pits, decoration in the form of intertwined lines is also recorded on this type of sword. In the case of two Norwegian swords (C9530, C3210), these are positioned on the lateral sides of both the upper and lower guards. A similar ornament appears to decorate the lower guard of the sword from the Spassky District as well (Fig. 13). Furthermore, ornamentation was also applied to the surfaces of the hilt components between the tang – namely onto the upper side of the lower guard and the lower side of the upper guard. The pattern consists of loop-intertwined bands on both terminal sides of the upper and lower guards, while two bands run horizontally along the margins of the hilt components between the slot for the blade tang. Some lines are doubled, or alternatively, supplemented by small triangular projections extending from the inner lines. This method of decoration has been identified in four instances (Cat. Nos 4, 6, 7, 13). A fragmentary band of an interlace motif was also detected on the upper side of the lower guard of the sword from Székesfehérvár (Bakay 1965: 13, Fig. 22.1a–c).
The central lobe of the pommel cap is likewise decorated with a motif of mutually intertwined bands. The pattern has been preserved on three specimens (Cat. Nos 1, 6, 13). Ornamentation was also applied to the lateral lobes; here, the pattern is virtually identical on most swords. It consists of engraved triangular depressions that could presumably have contained an inlay (see below). The depressions were bordered by thin silver bands copying their shape. The lower and lateral margins of the segments adjacent to the grooves were covered by a silver motif of double frames in the form of straight lines, the centre of which was decorated with intertwined bands terminating in a pointed loop. This ornamentation is best preserved on the pommel cap from the Finnish locality of Hangastenmäki and on the sword from the Dnieper (Pienimäki 2016: Appendix 8, 2; Shchedrina 2018: Fig. 5.3). This motif was also identified beneath corrosive oxides on the lateral segments of the pommel of the sword from Gulbishche, thanks to which its classification was reassessed and assigned to Type T1 (Kainov 2022: 51, Fig. 11.1a; Kainov – Novikov 2024: 178).
Fig. 12. Ornamentation scheme of pommels and lower guards of Norwegian Type T1 swords featuring pitted decoration according to Jan Petersen:
a. By, Løten, Innlandet – C9530;
b. Finstad Søndre, Stange, Innlandet – C11318 (reproduced from unimus.no – Museum of Cultural History, Oslo);
c. Kosgaarden, Åsnes, Innlandet – C3210 (reproduced from unimus.no – Museum of Cultural History, Oslo);
d. Kveste, Valle, Agder – C24621.
Fig. 13. Lower guard of the sword from the Spassky District (Republic of Tatarstan, Russia) with a probable interlace motif on the lateral side (source: commons.wikimedia.org).
A complete sword discovered during illegal metal detecting excavations, allegedly somewhere in the Volyn Oblast in north-western Ukraine, and subsequently returned to the Ukrainian Ministry of Culture, can also be assigned to the Type T1 swords with pitted decoration (Shchedrina 2018: 25). The sword underwent conservation for a certain period, and from a drawn reconstruction of the pommel and the lower guard, it can be inferred that the surface of these components was filled with pitted decoration, albeit in a unique pattern that lacks any close analogies at present (Shchedrina 2018: 25, Fig. 5.3). The lower guard is covered by four symbols resembling the letter X, and the upper guard features three of the same characters. Positioned between them are (presumably) depressions in the shape of a Greek cross – three on the lower guard (X+X+X+X) and two on the upper guard (X+X+X). Each single X-shaped character contains nine circular cells. The pommel cap is decorated with eight pits arranged in a rhombic pattern, the centre of which is filled with the same cross as seen on the lower and upper guards. According to information from certain Ukrainian media, the find reportedly occurred somewhere in the now-defunct Brody Raion in the Lviv Oblast in western Ukraine, whereas the Volyn region originally figured as the findspot. However, the actual provenance can neither be definitively confirmed nor refuted (zbruc.eu). From the available photographs of the sword on the Zbruč portal, it is evident that the structural hilt components are decorated with a white non-ferrous metal, and the individual pits, just as in the case of the previous specimens, feature a bordered perimeter with interconnected double lines. The method of pit (and lateral segment) decoration, as well as the morphology of the pommel cap, unequivocally links the sword with the specimens from Kveste and Monastyrishche; however, the pattern itself is unique in its execution within the evaluated type, with no currently known analogies.
Fig. 14. Ornamentation scheme of structural hilt components of Type T1 swords: a. Dneprostroy (after Kirpichnikov 1966a: Fig. 4.3); b. Volyn region (after Shchedrina 2018: Fig. 5.1).
Pitted decoration, however, is not encountered exclusively on swords of Petersen Type T1; it already occurred on the chronologically earlier Type E. Swords of this type are distinguished by massive hilt components. The pommels are two-part – consisting of an upper guard and a pommel cap. The lower guard and the upper guard share an identical shape; thus, when viewed from the front, they are straight, oval in plan view, and taper towards the ends (Petersen 1919: 75–76, Figs. 61–63). The pommel cap is divided into three segments. The lateral lobes are modelled in the form of animal heads, but they are not as markedly concave as in both T types; rather, they share this feature with Type V (Petersen 1919: Plate III). The central segment is more oval, similar to some Type V swords (Shchedrina 2018: Fig. 6.1).
Jan Petersen assumed that the swords of this group evolved from Type D, and elsewhere he pointed out the inconsistency in the shapes of guards and pommels. He noted that the lower guards of Type E swords could be of smaller dimensions and that the pommel cap loses its distinctive shapes and tripartite division (Petersen 1919: 75). They are also linked to Type D swords by rivets positioned at the ends of the upper and lower sides of the lower guard. Jan Petersen also directed attention to the non-ferrous metal decoration of silver or bronze, similar to Type H, in the form of wires hammered into grooves (Petersen 1919: 75–76).
The pommels are secured to the blade tang, and in some cases, we can also encounter the fixation of the pommel cap and the upper guard by means of two pins at the ends of these components (Petersen 1919: 76; Kainov – Novikov 2024: Figs. 174, 175, 196.3 – T11677).
A common feature shared by Type E swords consists of decorative pits of a circular, oval, or square shape on the frontal surfaces of the lower guard and the pommel, applied densely adjacent to one another (Petersen 1919: 75–76). Based on the diversity of patterns and the arrangement of pits on Old Rus’ specimens, a division of Type E into four variants – E-1, E-2, E-3, and E-4 – has been proposed (Kainov – Novikov 2024: 158, Fig. 168). From the perspective of our analysis, variant E-2 is of essential importance, being characterised by the following criteria: circular cells with a diameter of 3–4 mm are arranged in a chequered pattern in five rows; the pits are interconnected beneath the surface by channels through which a twisted silver wire was drawn; within the internal cells, the wire crosses, while in the outer ones near the margins of the lower and upper guards, it twists into a loop (Kainov – Novikov 2024: Fig. 168.E-2, Fig. 171.2).
Sergei Kainov assumes that Type T1 swords with pitted decoration represent an evolutionary stage of variant E-2, which is documented by several shared elements, such as the identical mounting of the pommel onto the tang, lateral pins connecting the upper guard with the pommel cap, and the same method of pit decoration (Kainov – Novikov 2024: 199). At the same time, he suggests that the finds from Gulbishche and Hangastenmäki may represent an early stage in the development of variant E-2 into Type T1, given that the central lobes of the pommel cap are characterised by a more oval form and are not so markedly elevated (Kainov – Novikov 2024: 199). Based on this rationale, we could likewise consider the sword from Székesfehérvár, as well as the finds of two upper parts of pommels from the Chernihiv and Kharkiv regions (Cat. Nos 2, 12, 14), which are also characterised by a less elevated central segment, as such early evolutionary forms.
The ornamentation of the central segment of Type T1 is close to Type E-4 (or alternatively E-1), which is likewise fashioned in the shape of a lozenge, albeit without the filling of the channels and cells with wire (Martens – Astrup 2021: 45; Kainov – Novikov 2024: Fig. 168.E-4, Fig. 204b).
In this context, swords featuring so-called tubular decoration of various types (Altjührden, Mannheim, Mannheim-Speyer) from the territories of present-day Belgium, France, the Netherlands, Switzerland, and north-western Germany are also worthy of a brief mention. Their chronology is dated approximately to the second half of the 8th to the beginning of the 9th century, and they may represent a kind of precursor to the swords of Petersen Type E, Type T1, and Baltic forms of swords with pitted decoration (Gava – Vlasatý 2024).
Fig. 15. Pitted decoration of Type T1 and E-2 swords:
a.–b. lower guard of the sword from the Spassky Uyezd and a detail of the ornamentation with twisted wire within the pits;
c. scheme of the upper guard of the sword from Kharkiv;
d. hilt of the Type E-2 sword from the Gnezdovo barrow L-13 (after Kainov 2012: Fig. 13.2);
e. detail of the ornamentation with twisted wire within the pits on the upper guard of the sword from barrow L-13 (after Kainov 2012: Fig. 15);
f. scheme of the pitted decoration and the positioning of twisted wires on Type E-2 swords (after Kainov – Novikov 2024: Fig. 168).
Map 1. Distribution of swords with pitted decoration and wire within the pits:
a. orange – Petersen Type T1 swords; b. blue – Petersen Type E-2 swords.
Zoomorphic Motif
The second variant of ornamentation on Type T1 swords is less common and can be encountered on only two specimens. The pattern is not uniform, and the method of its execution also differs. Neither of the swords has any known analogies, which renders them unique within this type. Their common element is a zoomorphic motif of intertwined animal bodies.
One of the swords originates from Norway, discovered on the Østre Alm farm in Stange, in the former county of Hedmark (now Innlandet, Cat. No 3) in the east of the country. Only two parts of the sword have been preserved – a portion of the blade with the lower guard and the tang (C3867/I), and a second portion of the blade with the tip (C3867/II). On the massive, slightly curved lower guard, decoration in the form of an engraved ornament filled with niello has been preserved on the silver surface (Shetelig 1920: 306, Fig. 317). The upper and lower margins of the frontal portion of the lower guard are bordered along their entire length by thin horizontal lines. The space between them is filled by four spiral-interlaced animals standing on their heads (Müller-Wille 1972: 85). Internally, their bodies are bordered by two thin lines with triangular projections (points) facing each other. From the lower bands of the animal bodies, two three-clawed paws extend towards the upper part of the lower guard, interlocked into thin, semi-arcuate bands. Towards the lower side of the guard, schematically depicted heads extend from the bodies of each animal. The upper side of the lower guard near the tang also bears ornamentation. This has been preserved in the form of intertwined lines on both lateral sections, while running in the form of straight lines filled with twisted bands resembling an inverted letter Z adjacent to the rectangular aperture for the blade tang. A similar motif can also be observed on the lower guards of the swords from Székesfehérvár and the Dnieper. Despite the fact that the sword from Østre Alm was preserved without its pommel, Jan Petersen assigned it to the first variant of Type T, presumably based on the morphology of the lower guard and the method of decoration (Petersen 1919: 150, Fig. 120).
Fig. 16. Lower guard of the sword from Østre Alm, Stange, Innlandet – C3867/I. Reproduced from unimus.no – Museum of Cultural History, Oslo.
The second sword originates from the western Russian locality of Monastyrishche (Cat. No 8) in the former Oryol Governorate, today the Bryansk Oblast. The sword was discovered by peasants during the digging of a ditch (Drevnosti 1871: 176, Plate XIV; Shchedrina 2018: 25, Fig. 5.2). The sword has been preserved with a portion of the blade, a massive lower guard, and a pommel cap without the upper guard. Both hilt components bear silver decoration with zoomorphic ornamentation. This consists of intricately intertwined bands, and on the upper side of the lower guard, which is flanked by two horizontal lines, two pairs of paws with claws facing each other can be observed. The central lobe also features silver decoration consisting of intricately interlaced bands. The shape of the pommel cap is identical to that of the swords from Kveste and the Volyn region. The only discernible difference lies in the ornamentation of the oblique grooves, which are decorated with an interlace ornament. The lateral segments, stylised in the form of animal heads, feature decoration similar to the swords from Kosgaarden, Hangastenmäki, and the Dnieper. The frontal portions of the lower guard and the pommel cap feature depressions in the form of dashed lines (Shchedrina 2018: 27). Depressions are also located on the upper side of the lower guard; these were in the past filled with gold wire and plates (Shchedrina 2018: 27, 29, Fig. 6.3).
Fig. 17. Pommel cap and lower guard of the sword from Monastyrishche (after Drevnosti 1871: Pl. XIV).
Both swords feature hilt components decorated with motifs in the Scandinavian Jelling art style (Shetelig 1920: 302; Kirpichnikov 1966a: 28; Müller-Wille 1972: 85). The style is named after a small silver cup with a zoomorphic pattern of S-shaped intertwined animals. The cup was manufactured from silver, gilded, and inlaid with niello (Graham-Campbell 2021: 82). Along with other objects, it was discovered in a chamber grave within the North Barrow located in the Danish village of Jelling on the Jutland Peninsula, which served as a royal seat in the past (Androshchuk 2014: 132; Graham-Campbell 2021: 82). It is assumed that the barrow contained the body of the Danish king Gorm the Old, for whom a magnificent funeral in accordance with pre-Christian traditions was arranged by his son, Harald Bluetooth (Androshchuk 2014: 132; Graham-Campbell 2021: 82). The Jelling art style is characterised by ribbon-like slender animal bodies decorated with pelleting and double contours, intertwined with one another in an S-shape, following one after another with heads shown in profile (Androshchuk 2014: 132). In addition to the two Type T1 swords, the motif of intertwined animal bodies in the Jelling style also appears on several swords of Petersen Type S, which occur predominantly in the western part of the Viking world, centred in Denmark (Košta 2020: 40–41). The decoration, however, was executed using the technique of silver plating combined with copper lines (Košta 2020: 41). Two such swords originate from Hedeby, a further two from Norway (C237, T15496), one from the south of England from the River Thames, and two from Denmark (Müller-Wille 1972: 82, 85, Figs. 4.1–3, 11.1–3, 27.1–2, Fig. 33; Košta 2020: Fig. 2). Most frequently, however, decoration in the Jelling style can be encountered on various items of jewellery (Graham-Campbell 2021: Figs. 86, 87, 92–94) or also on spear sockets, such as on the find of a Petersen Type K spearhead from Gothem on Gotland (SHM 7314; Thunmark-Nylén 1998: Pl. 246a–e; 2000: 236; 2006: 304).
Fig. 18. Examples of ornamentation in the Jelling style:
a. silver cup from the barrow at Jelling, Denmark (after Graham-Campbell 2021: Fig. 86);
b1. detail of the sword hilt from Sandbu, Vågå, Innlandet, Norway – C237 (reproduced from unimus.no);
b2. ornamentation scheme of the sword lower guards from Sandbu – C237 (after Müller-Wille 1972: Fig. 27.1);
c. ornamentation scheme of the structural hilt components of the sword from Hedeby (after Müller-Wille 1972: Fig. 7);
d. Petersen Type K spearhead from Gothem, Gotland, Sweden – SHM 7314 (reproduced from historiska.se).
Some of the structural components of the swords of the evaluated type were also decorated with various foil overlays or circular plaques. On the lower side of the upper guard of the two-part pommel of the sword from Kharkiv (Cat. No 11), two triangular foils have been preserved, positioned in depressions on both ends from the slot for the tang (Shchedrina 2018: 22, Fig. 3b). The foils are manufactured from a copper alloy with chasing and gilding. The ornamentation comprises S-shaped spirals, presumably imitating filigree (Shchedrina 2018: 22). Triangular depressions are also provided on the upper side of the lower guard of the sword from Monastyrishche, where gold plaques with a pattern were definitely situated, and the marginal border of the lower guard also features a depression along its perimeter, which was in turn filled with gold wire (Shchedrina 2018: 27, 29, Fig. 6.3). Furthermore, a circular gold plaque with soldered rings has been preserved in one of the lateral segments of the pommel cap (Shchedrina 2018: 27, Fig. 6.3).
Fig. 19. a. Positioning of foil overlays on the upper guard of the sword from Kharkiv (after Shchedrina 2018); b.–c. sword from Monastyrishche – positioning of the gold foil within the pommel cap and marking of the depressions on the upper side of the lower guard (after Shchedrina 2018).
Fig. 20. Table of differences and similarities in the ornamentation of Petersen Type T1 swords (by the author).
Distribution
The number of Petersen Type T1 swords is significantly lower in comparison with other Viking Age swords, and their distribution across the continent is restricted exclusively to Norway, Eastern Europe, and sporadic finds recorded in Finland, Hungary, and Gotland. Jan Petersen recorded six Type T swords from the territory of Norway, of which he assigned four to the first and two to the second variant (Petersen 1919: 150–151). In the Old Rus’ environment, according to Kirpichnikov, nine Type T swords were known, of which he assigned five specimens to the first sub-type (Cat. Nos 34–38) and four finds to the second sub-type (Kirpichnikov 1966a: Cat. Nos 39–42). In both instances, these groups also included specimens that share nothing in common with the type under investigation. Alexandra Shchedrina records five Type T1 swords from Norway, one pommel cap from Finland, and four swords from Old Rus’ regions, including the Gulbishche barrow (Shchedrina 2018: 23–26). Sergei Kainov records five Type T1 swords from the Kyivan Rus’ environment and six specimens with pitted decoration from the rest of Europe (Kainov 2022: 51; Kainov – Novikov 2024: 192). Mikael Jakobsson, in his work, lists over 60 Type T swords (Jakobsson 1992: 41, Table 2, 213), although he assigned both sub-types defined by Petersen to this number, along with swords from the East Baltic environment, which some researchers classified under Type T (Volkaitė-Kulikauskienė 1964; Kazakevičius 1996). However, many swords from the Baltic region exhibit apparent differences from the classic Type T1, not only in the shape of the structural hilt components but also in the method of ornamentation (see below in the section Baltic Forms of Swords Designated as Type T).
Based on our observation defined by morphological and decorative attributes, 15 swords can be assigned to this type, eleven of which exhibit features characteristic of the description by Jan Petersen (Cat. Nos 2–9, 12, 13, 15), while the remaining four could be considered an early evolutionary variant from Type E-2 to Type T1 (Cat. Nos 1, 11, 14, 16). One specimen preserved in the form of an unfinished upper guard could also belong to the evaluated type (Cat. No 10).
The highest occurrence of Type T1 swords is recorded in Norway and in the Old Rus’ environment. From Norway, we know of five finds, four of which are concentrated in the east of the country in the former county of Hedmark, today Innlandet. Three were discovered on farms near Lake Mjøsa – Østre Alm, Stange (C3867); Søndre Finstad, Stange (C11318); and By, Løten (C9530). The fourth originates from the locality of Kosgaarden, Åsnes (C3210) near the River Glomma. The fifth specimen comes from Kveste, Valle (C24621) in southern Norway, in the former county of Aust-Agder (now Agder County). In the collections of the Arctic University Museum of Norway in Tromsø, there is a sword discovered in a barrow grave at the locality of Tysnes, Hamarøy in Nordland County (Ts2606), together with an axe head, a spearhead, and an arrowhead (Nicolaissen 1920: 12; Sjøvold 1974: 80, Cat. No L333). The sword was first published by O. Nicolaissen, who stated that its decoration is similar to that of Type R510 (the equivalent of Petersen Type T1 based on the find from Kosgaarden), and this information is subsequently also listed on the portal of the university museums of Norway (unimus.no). In O. Nicolaissen’s 1920 work, under number 4 on page 13, there is a photograph of a sword with an unusually long blade, a massive lower guard, and a pommel separated from the tang. Regrettably, the quality of the image does not allow for closer conclusions to be drawn. Thorleif Sjøvold classifies the sword under Petersen Type E (Sjøvold 1974: 80, Cat. No L333), which, based on personal communication with Bente Richardsen Isaksen, the collection manager of the museum in Tromsø, can be agreed with. For the purposes of this article, she kindly provided a few photographs on which it was possible to verify the method of pommel decoration. Despite the poor condition of the sword, it was possible to discern pitted decoration on the lateral segments of the pommel cap, which is characteristic precisely of Petersen Type E sword pommels (Petersen 1919: Fig. 65; Kainov – Novikov 2024: Fig. 205).
Fig. 21. Petersen Type T1 swords from the territory of Norway:
a. C3867; b. C9530; c. C11318; d. C24621 (reproduced from unimus.no).
Map 2. Map of the distribution of Type T1 swords within the territory of the former county of Hedmark in Norway. Reproduced from commons.wikimedia.org, modified.
The region with the most prominent occurrence of Petersen Type T1 swords is Eastern Europe, or more precisely, the territories of former Kyivan Rus’, where eight swords and their structural components are recorded. Two stray finds of fragmentary swords originate from Russia, one being known from the west of the country, from Monastyrishche, which was discussed in greater detail in the section on ornamentation (Drevnosti 1871: 176; Kirpichnikov 1966a: Cat. No 35; Shchedrina 2018: 25). The second specimen reached the territory of former Volga Bulgaria and was discovered in the Spassky Uyezd (Спасский уезд) in the former Kazan Governorate, today the Spassky District in the Republic of Tatarstan (Kirpichnikov 1992: Cat. No 7; Izmailov 1997: 34, Figs. 14.2, 15.2, 17). I. L. Izmailov classified this sword as Type E (Izmailov 1997: 40).
According to Wsewolod Arendt and Anatoly N. Kirpichnikov, a sword originating from Novgorod should also belong to the type under evaluation (ГИМ 55421/1207; Arendt 1933: 163; Kirpichnikov 1966a: Cat. No 34). W. Arendt states that the five-part pommel is manufactured from a single piece, covered with silver inlay featuring a zoomorphic motif, and has a lower guard with lateral sides curved downwards (Arendt 1933: 163, Fig. 14). In our estimation, the Novgorod sword could bear a close affinity to certain specimens of the so-called silver-plated type. Alexandra Shchedrina states that the ornamentation of the pommel and the lower guard is polychrome (Shchedrina 2018: 25). A close analogy to the Novgorod specimen could be a two-part pommel with a five-part division of the pommel cap from the Finnish locality of Padasjoki in the Päijät-Häme region (KM 41226:1), bearing traces of silver decoration. In the case of the Finnish specimen, the upper guard is slightly curved upwards and the lateral edges are not as markedly convex as on the Novgorod sword. According to the finna.fi portal, the pommel from Padasjoki is close to Type S and Z swords.
Fig. 22. a1–2. View of the hilt and detail of the pommel of the sword from Novgorod (reproduced from catalog.shm.ru); b. sword pommel from Padasjoki (reproduced from finna.fi).
Six finds of swords and their fragments are known from the territory of Ukraine. Three of them originate from the east of the country – an upper guard (Shramko 1962: 353, Figs. 144.2a–b; Kirpichnikov 1966a: Cat. No 38; Shchedrina 2018: 18, Fig. 1) and a pommel cap (Kainov – Novikov 2024: 179, Fig. 189.1), which were discovered at different locations in the Kharkiv Oblast. One complete sword was discovered in the Dnieper in the Zaporizhzhia Oblast (Chernyshev 1963: 211, 219–221; Kirpichnikov 1966a: Cat. No 36; Komar 2014: 54, Cat. No 1; Shchedrina 2018: 25). Along with this sword, four other specimens were discovered, one of which A. N. Kirpichnikov assigned to Type T1 based on the proportions of its structural hilt components (Kirpichnikov 1966a: Cat. No 37; Shchedrina 2018: 24–25). However, given its polychrome decoration with a pattern of alternating triangles and lozenges, this sword belongs to Type T2.
Fig. 23. Sword from the Dnieper (Dneprostroy). After Komar 2014: Fig. 5.1.
From the north of Ukraine, in the Chernihiv Oblast, we record one grave find originating from the Gulbishche barrow (ГИМ 76990/2549) and also one find of a pommel cap from an unspecified location (Samokvasov 1916: 37, Fig. 45.3132/3137/3133, Fig. 46; Kainov 2022: 50–51; Kainov – Novikov 2024: 176–178). Both detector finds from the Kharkiv and Chernihiv Oblasts (Figs. 24b–c) feature an oval central segment akin to Type E; however, the lateral segments lack pitted decoration, featuring triangular depressions instead, whereby these pommel caps can be considered components of a Type T1 sword (Kainov – Novikov 2024: 179). The sixth find is the sword originating from the Volyn or Lviv Oblast (which was discussed in detail in the Ornamentation section).
Fig. 24. a. Upper guard of a Type T1 sword from the Kharkiv Oblast (after Shchedrina 2018: Fig. 1); b. pommel cap of a Type T1 sword from the Kharkiv Oblast (after Kainov – Novikov 2024: Fig. 189.1); c. pommel cap of a Type T1 sword from the Chernihiv Oblast (after Kainov – Novikov 2024: Fig. 189.2).
Apart from Norway, Russia, and Ukraine, we record one stray find of a Type T1 sword in the form of a pommel cap from the locality of Hangastenmäki (KM 39993:1), Janakkala municipality in southern Finland (Pienimäki 2016: 20, 26), and likewise only a single find of a fragmentary sword originating from the Old Hungarian cemetery in Székesfehérvár (Bakay 1965: 12–13).
According to Fedir Androshchuk, a find of an unfinished upper guard of a Type T1 sword originates from Sweden, specifically from the locality of Vall, Levide on the island of Gotland (SHM 12283; Androshchuk 2014: 77, Cat. No Go 138*, Pl. 133c). This constitutes a find of a semi-finished product at a site that allegedly contained a pile of stones (Thunmark-Nylén 2000: 761–762). The aperture for the tang is missing from the interior of the upper guard. When viewed from the front, the upper guard is slightly curved on one side, whilst appearing straighter on the other. One of the lateral sides is oval, whereas the other is straighter. In plan view, it exhibits a lenticular shape. According to the description of the object available in the online catalogue of the State Historical Museums in Stockholm (Statens historiska museer), the object was discovered in a field where a barrow was allegedly located, and was subsequently purchased by the museum for 2 Swedish kronor from an individual named A. Lindgren. The description further states that “the object resembles a component of a Viking Age sword hilt, which it is not…”. Fedir Androshchuk assumes that, given the morphology of the object and its similarity to a specimen from Norway (C9530 – By, Løten, Innlandet), it may represent a semi-finished upper guard of a Type T1 sword.
Another Type T sword from the territory of Sweden is mentioned by Ulf Bodin, according to whom it should be an unspecified specimen from the province of Södermanland (Bodin 1987: 33, Tab. 7; Jakobsson 1992: 213). It has not been possible to verify this sword, and it is therefore unclear whether it belongs to the first or the second variant, or indeed whether it belongs to the evaluated type at all. According to Fedir Androshchuk, however, this may also be an erroneous interpretation based on secondary information (personal communication with Fedir Androshchuk).
Fig. 25. Upper guard of the sword from Vall, Levide, Gotland: a. view of the upper and lower sections of the upper guard (after Androshchuk 2014: Pl. 133c); b. front view of the upper guard (reproduced from samlingar.shm.se).
Reportedly, one Type T1 sword should originate from Brandenburg, discovered in 1892 between the old and new town in the River Havel, together with a Lunow-type axe head (Corpus 1979: 236, Cat. No 80/8, 1–2; Košta 2021: Tab. 10, Cat. No 1024). Given that only a drawing of the sword is available, its typological assignment to Type T1 appears questionable in our view. The two-part pommel does not possess a massive appearance, and one of the lateral sides of the upper guard is obliquely chamfered. Of the lateral segments, only one has been fully preserved, which, however, appears more oval on the drawing; the central segment likewise seems oval. The lower guard is straight, with a height similar to that of the upper guard. No information regarding preserved ornamentation is known. Based on the morphological attributes of the hilt components, it rather appears that the sword bears a closer affinity to Petersen Type V, or alternatively Type U. Following its discovery, the sword was transferred to the Municipal Museum in Brandenburg an der Havel, where it was reportedly deposited under inventory number IV 939 (Corpus 1979: 236; personal communication with Annika Waller).
Fig. 26. Sword from Brandenburg (after Corpus 1979: 80/8, Fig. 1).
To conclude this chapter, I would like to direct attention to one more sword, first published by A. N. Kirpichnikov in 1992 and later by V. N. Shitov in 1994 (Kirpichnikov 1992: Cat. No 9; Shitov 1994: 46–47). The object is a stray find from 1972, allegedly from a marsh near the village of Lavrentyevo in the Temnikov District of the Republic of Mordovia (Russian Federation), which was shortened and re-sharpened after its discovery (Kirpichnikov 1992: Cat. No 9; Shitov 1994: 46). The pommel of the sword is divided into an upper guard and a trilobate pommel cap. The central segment of the pommel cap is significantly higher than the two lateral lobes, from which it is separated by two shallow grooves. It exhibits a triangular shape that becomes rounded towards the apex. From the photograph published by Kirpichnikov, it appears that the upper margin of the upper guard and the lower part of the pommel cap are slightly curved, whereas on the drawing in V. N. Shitov’s work, this section is drawn parallel (Kirpichnikov 1992: Fig. 11; Shitov 1994: Fig. XIX). The lower guard of the sword is slightly curved, with the lateral edges pointing towards the double-edged blade. The surface of the lower guard is perforated by circular apertures arranged in three rows in a chequered manner (13 pits in total). On one side, the fuller of the blade bears a mark in the shape of a Greek cross, with the letter H positioned at a distance of 8.1 cm from it; on the other side, a symbol in the shape of a Greek cross and three vertical lines were identified once again (Shitov 1994: 47). According to A. N. Kirpichnikov, the pommel is decorated with silver in places, and grooves for non-ferrous metal decoration are preserved here and there; elsewhere he adds that the pommel is polychrome. V. N. Shitov mentions only silver (Kirpichnikov 1992; Shitov 1994: 47). According to A. N. Kirpichnikov, the bottom of the pits on the lower guard is lined with silver, which V. N. Shitov does not mention. Typologically, Kirpichnikov views this sword as a Type T1 variant, or rather as a specimen from which it evolved, whereas according to Shitov, the lower guard represents a late Eastern European variant of Type E swords (Kirpichnikov 1992; Shitov 1994: 47). Kirpichnikov also assumes that, given the disparity between the lower guard and the pommel, these components were manufactured in different periods and in distinct workshops (Kirpichnikov 1992). Sergei Kainov mentioned to us in personal communication that the pommel cap may be close in shape to Type T2, and the lower guard to Type T1.
Fig. 27. Sword from Lavrentyevo, Mordovia, Russia: a1–2. view of the preserved sword and a detail of the hilt (after Kirpichnikov 1992: Fig. 11); b1–2. view of the preserved sword and a detail of the hilt – drawing (after Shitov 1994: Fig. XIX); c. preserved marks and portions of the inscription on both sides of the blade (after Kirpichnikov 1992: Fig. 3.3).
Map 3. Distribution of Petersen Type T1 swords.
Red – Type T1; blue – sword with a lower guard of a possible Type T1; black – swords of atypical Type T1.
Find Context and Chronology
Six Type T1 swords represent grave finds, whilst a further ten are recorded as stray discoveries, or their context remains unknown; alternatively, these consist of objects originating from illegal metal detecting activities. These circumstances do not present ideal conditions for a precise chronological placement.
All Norwegian finds mentioned by Petersen originate from graves, a fact also stated in the descriptions on the Unimus portal; in relevant literature, given their nature, these graves are designated as equestrian burials (Braathen 1989: 141, 162–163; Iversen 2021; Martens – Astrup 2021). According to information from the Museum of Cultural History in Oslo, only the sword C24621 is a stray find. Its discovery occurred on the Uppigarden Kvestad farm (Kveste, Valle). According to the find report published on the portal, the sword lay beneath a large stone.
In graves, the Norwegian finds appear in association with other militaria, such as axe heads and spearheads of several types. Shield bosses are present in three instances, and all have been identified as Type Rygh 565 (hereinafter referred to as R565). Items serving as equestrian equipment – bridles and stirrups – are also documented.
The hilt components of the sword under Inv. No C3210, originally discovered with the blade in the parish of Åsnes, were located in a grave where an axe head of Petersen Type M lay alongside the sword. The chronological range of axes of this type is relatively broad; the earliest specimens appear around 950, and their use continues until 1300 (Vlasatý 2016).
The sword blade and the lower guard under Inv. No C3867/I were discovered alongside other objects in June 1866 within a circular barrow on the Østre Alm farm in Stange, former county of Hedmark. The sword was found bent and subsequently broke into three fragments (in addition to the portion of the blade with the lower guard, the Museum of Cultural History in Oslo also records the tip section of the blade under C3867/II). Together with it, the barrow contained a bent spearhead (C3868), an axe head (C3869), two shield bosses (C3870), a double-jointed bridle (C3871), one pair of stirrups (C3872), and several other objects, such as a bone comb or a bone zoomorphic figurine. Based on two rivets positioned in the lower part of the socket, the spearhead could belong to Petersen Type I, or alternatively to Type VII.2A according to Bergljot Solberg (Petersen 1919: 152; Solberg 1984: 85, Fig. 13). Jan Petersen dates this type to the first half of the 10th century (Petersen 1919: 31). Bergljot Solberg adds that its use could have continued even after 950, and as an example, she cites a grave find from Gjermundbu, Ringerike, Buskerud (C27317), where a Type I spearhead with a shorter blade (C27317/d), which may represent a later variant of this type, was found alongside a Type S sword (C27317/a) and various other objects (Solberg 1984: 94–95). Helge Braathen admits that, in addition to Type I, the spearhead could also belong to Type K (Braathen 1989: 73). Spearheads of Type K (Type VII.2B according to B. Solberg) should for the most part originate from the period of 900–950; however, they continued to be used until the end of the 10th century (Solberg 1984: 96).
According to Petersen, the axe head corresponds to his Type L (Petersen 1919: 151–152). This is a chronologically later type occurring from the second half of the 10th century, extending into the 11th century (Petersen 1919: 45; Hjardar – Vike 2016: 163). The same applies to the R565 shield bosses, which, according to Petersen, are dated roughly similarly to Type R563 – thus approximately from the second half of the 10th century, with an extension into the Medieval period (Petersen 1919: 47). Other sources record the occurrence of R565 bosses somewhere around the final quarter of the 10th century, and their use continues beyond the year 1000 (Pedersen 2014: Fig. 5.11; Hjardar – Vike 2016: 185). Helge Braathen, on the basis of the chronologically later Type D stirrups and the axe head, dates the grave to the Late Viking Age, or more precisely to the beginning of the 11th century (Braathen 1989: 74).
The sword under Inv. No C9530 originates from a barrow on the By estate, Løten, former county of Hedmark, excavated by Nicolaysen in 1897, which presumably comprised several graves (Braathen 1989: 76). Among the objects that, together with the sword, might have belonged to the equestrian burial were a spearhead (C9531) and an axe head (C9532) – both objects falling under Petersen Type K – as well as an R565 shield boss (C9533/C9534) and two pairs of Type C stirrups according to Braathen (C9539/a-b). According to Petersen, Type K axes are datable to the entire 10th century, as are Type K spearheads, but it cannot be ruled out that they could still be used approximately in the first quarter of the 11th century (Petersen 1919: 44; Hjardar – Vike 2016: 163). Given the occurrence of the Type R565 boss, the grave could have been constructed sometime in the final quarter of the 10th century, or alternatively in the first quarter of the 11th century (Braathen 1989: 76). An interesting feature of this grave is also the occurrence of a large quantity of blacksmithing tools, which may indicate that the man buried in the grave possessed blacksmithing skills in addition to holding a high status in society (Martens – Astrup 2021: 35–36).
Fig. 28. Objects originating from the By barrow, Løten, Innlandet (reproduced from unimus.no).
A sword under Inv. No C11318 with a ritually bent blade, today broken into two fragments, originates from a barrow on the estate of the Søndre Finstad farm in Romedal (former county of Hedmark). This constitutes a cremation burial. The barrow consisted of stone, predominantly circular field boulders, and a small amount of soil. Along with the sword, other objects were also found – a spearhead (C11319), an axe head (C11320), two Type R565 shield bosses (C11321), and one pair of Type C2 stirrups according to Braathen (C11323). According to H. Braathen, the axe head bears a close affinity to Type K or L (Braathen 1989: 77); the former type, as stated above, spans the chronological horizon of the entire 10th century, whilst the latter belongs to chronologically later types appearing after 950. Given the condition of the object, however, it cannot be clearly determined which exact type it represents. An interesting object is the spearhead, which Bergljot Solberg classified as Variant 9 (Solberg 1984: 146–147). This variant is characterised by a long blade with a distinct shoulder and a long, slightly concave socket neck. Some specimens may be decorated with a ring between the socket and the blade (C11503).
Four finds of such spearheads are known from Norway; these were found in combination with swords of other types, such as S and Q, and axe heads of Types E, K–L, and M (Solberg 1984: 147). The specimen from Søndre Finstad reportedly features a pattern-welded blade, and its chronology, as well as that of the other spearheads of this variant, is estimated to date to the end of the Viking Age, into the 11th century (Solberg 1984: 147). Helge Braathen dates the grave to the beginning of the 11th century (Braathen 1989: 78), which, given the occurrence of the Type R565 shield bosses and the spearhead, can be agreed with.
Fig. 29. Sword and spearhead from Søndre Finstad (reproduced from unimus.no).
Another grave find of a Type T1 sword originates from the Gulbishche barrow in Chernihiv (Chernihiv Oblast) in northern Ukraine. Along with the Black Grave (Chorna mohyla), this barrow belongs to the group of so-called Great Barrows, which were presumably intended for members of the princely dynasty (Samokvasov 1916: 36; Kainov 2022: 46). The composition of the grave inventory indicates that it was a cremation burial of a man and a woman (Kainov 2022: 47). A large quantity of objects was discovered within the barrow, the majority of which, however, have not been restored, or they consist merely of fragments glued together with the missing details supplemented by restoration putty (Kainov 2022: 46). Regarding militaria and armour, besides the sword, the barrow contained spearheads, arrowheads, probably an axe, a bronze sword scabbard chape, a helmet, and mail armour (Kainov 2022: 46). Equestrian equipment was also present (Kainov 2022: 46). Originally, the chronology of the barrow was estimated to date to the late 9th or early 10th century due to the occurrence of a 9th-century Sasanian coin and the sword, which V. V. Arendt dated to the first half of the 9th century (Kainov 2022: 50). Among the aforementioned objects, a bronze openwork sword scabbard chape can serve as a suitable indicator for the approximate dating of the barrow’s construction. It has been preserved in several fragments (Samokvasov 1916: 50, No 3140; Kainov 2022: Fig. 12.2). Typologically, it can be classified into the 10th-century Swedish group of chapes according to Paulsen (Kainov 2022: 51, Fig. 12.1). This group of chapes is characterised by the depiction of two intertwined four-legged animals, whose bodies may be pelleted or filled with double internal lines in the Jelling style (Paulsen 1953: 45; Androshchuk 2014: 117). Peter Paulsen dated this type to the period around 950 (Paulsen 1953: 47). Fedir Androshchuk assigned it to his Type 6 (sub-type 6b), dating it to the second half of the 10th century (Androshchuk 2014: 117, 121). A close analogy can be found in the well-preserved bronze chape from Gjermundbu, Norway (C27317/b; Paulsen 1953: Fig. 42; Androshchuk 2014: Fig. 75). Based on the occurrence of the sword and the scabbard chape, the dating of the Gulbishche barrow’s construction falls within the second half of the 10th century according to Sergei Kainov, whereas Oleksiy Komar, based on an analysis of the belt fittings found in the barrow, established its construction between the years 950 and 960 (Kainov 2022: 52; Komar 2018: 210).
Fig. 30. a.–b. Sword and sword scabbard chape from the Gulbishche barrow (after Samokvasov 1916: Figs. 45.3132, 3137, 3133, 50.3140); c. drawing of the sword scabbard chape from Gulbishche by T. J. Arne (after Kainov 2022: Fig. 12.2); d. sword scabbard chape from Gjermundbu, Buskerud, Norway – C27317/b (reproduced from unimus.no).
The sixth grave specimen of the evaluated sword group is the find from Székesfehérvár, Hungary. The sword originates from the locality of Székesfehérvár-Rádiótelep, Grave A; it was discovered by labourers and situated near the road leading towards the village of Úrhida, approximately 100–150 m from the Old Hungarian cemetery (Bakay 1965: 12). Based on the grave inventory, Kornél Bakay infers that it belonged to a socially high-ranking individual whose garments were decorated with gold foils (Bakay 1965: 12). The grave also contained a wooden bucket with iron hoops, two pieces of stirrups with bifurcated arms inlaid with bronze, a bit, an axe head, and bone plaques joined by a bronze rivet (knife scales?) (Bakay 1965: 12, Plate III). Morphologically, the axe head is close to Kirpichnikov Type III (Kirpichnikov 1966b: Fig. 6), or alternatively to Type IB.5.19 according to Kotowicz (Kotowicz 2018: 95–96). This constitutes a group that has the most frequent representation in Central and Eastern Europe, particularly within the territory of Kyivan Rus’ (Kotowicz 2018: 95). A. N. Kirpichnikov dated them to the 10th–11th centuries, with a possible extension into the 12th century (Kirpichnikov 1966b: 35–36, Fig. 6, Pl. XIII.2; Kotowicz 2018: 95). In Hungary, this type presumably appears in the second half of the 10th century and is associated with the Old Hungarian settlement, with the axes in this environment being considered imports from Kyivan Rus’ (Kotowicz 2018: 95). The grave was likely constructed during the second half of the 10th century.
Fig. 31. Inventory from Grave A at Székesfehérvár-Rádiótelep (after Bakay 1965: Pl. III).
The pommel cap of the sword from Hangastenmäki was discovered at a site where a hillfort was situated in the past (Pienimäki 2016: 20). Further details regarding the find are unknown. The object was discovered along with various other items from the Late Iron Age and the Medieval period by a group of metal detectorists in April 2014 (Pienimäki 2016: 20, 26; 2017: 11).
In addition to the aforementioned stray finds from Monastyrishche, Kveste, Gotland, and the detector find from the Volyn/Lviv region, we record five other specimens lacking more closely known find circumstances. In the case of the sword from the Dnieper, we know that it represents a water find that occurred in 1928 at the bottom of the Dnieper River within the foundation trenches during the construction of the Dnieper Hydroelectric Station – Dneproges/Dneprostroy (Ravdonikas 1933: 598, 614; Chernyshev 1963; Komar 2014: 61). The sword was found in a complete state along with three other swords of Types R, S, and T2, and a double-edged sword blade without a hilt. Some researchers associated these swords with the return of Prince Sviatoslav to Kyiv from his campaign against Bulgaria and Byzantium, when he and his retinue (druzhina) were ambushed by the Pechenegs; alternatively, they considered the swords to be commercial merchandise from Scandinavian merchant ships that sank as a result of an armed conflict, or these weapons were viewed as a ransom (Komar 2014: 47–48). Consideration is also given to a ritual motif of weapon sacrifices into water, a practice documented by numerous archaeological finds in Northern Europe; this, in conjunction with the reports of Constantine Porphyrogenitus regarding the sacrificial site of the Rus’ on the island of Khortytsia, allowed the swords from Dneprostroy to be assigned to the traces of ritual practice (Androshchuk 2001: 130–132; Duczko 2004: 251; Komar 2014: 48–49).
The pommel caps of the swords from the Kharkiv and Chernihiv Oblasts are detector finds without more closely known find circumstances (Shchedrina 2018; Kainov – Novikov 2024); the upper guard from the Kharkiv Oblast is likewise a stray find lacking more detailed information regarding its find situation (Shchedrina 2018).
Given the low number of grave finds, the chronology of Petersen Type T1 swords is not so straightforward. Of these, the largest portion consists of Norwegian finds concentrated in a single county, while a further two specimens originate from graves situated in Central and Eastern Europe, respectively. Stray or metal detector discoveries do not significantly contribute to assignment within a narrower chronological horizon either.
Jan Petersen dated Norwegian Type T swords to the second half of the 10th to the early 11th century (Petersen 1919: 183). Irmelin Martens and Eva E. Astrup date Type T1 swords prior to 950 due to their typological connection with Type E (Martens – Astrup 2021: 45). In general, swords of Petersen Type E can be dated from the second half of the 9th to the third quarter of the 10th century, with specimens occurring at the end of the 10th to the beginning of the 11th century representing archaic pieces (Kainov – Novikov 2024: 194). Variant E-2, which is linked to the type under investigation, first appears at the end of the 9th century, and its use lasted until the first half of the 10th century (Kainov – Novikov 2024: 194, 200). Type E swords are most numerous in Sweden, with a total of 41 pieces; 40 specimens are recorded from Norway, and at least 26 pieces are known from the Old Rus’ environment, four of which belong to the second variant (Kainov – Novikov 2024: 165–166, 186 – Notes). Fedir Androshchuk dates Type T swords, along with Types R/S, L, N, X, and Z/Æ, to the Late Viking Age, or more precisely between the years 975 and 1050 (Androshchuk 2014: 172). The researcher argues primarily from the absence of these types (with the exception of Type X) in Birka, whilst simultaneously drawing attention to the occurrence of some of them in the cultural layers of Sigtuna or in chronologically later graves at Valsgärde (Androshchuk 2014: 172), mentioning the absence of Type T within the territory of Sweden (Androshchuk 2014: 77).
Some other researchers suggest that those swords decorated with zoomorphic ornamentation in the Jelling style could be dated somewhat earlier, roughly corresponding to Type S swords (Hošek – Košta – Žákovský 2021: 320). According to Petersen, Type S is dated to the first half of the 10th century, or alternatively to the turn of the 10th and 11th centuries (Petersen 1919: 146–149; Androshchuk 2014: 75). Fedir Androshchuk assumes that, based on find contexts or ornamentation in the Jelling and Mammen styles, Petersen Type S swords should be dated to the period following the demise of Birka – thus somewhere around 970–1000 – which is also supported by 11th-century illuminations depicting such sword forms (Androshchuk 2014: 75).
The chronology of the Jelling art style is estimated to the first half of the 10th century, with the construction of the chamber in the North Barrow at Jelling being dendrochronologically determined to the year 958/959 (Shetelig 1920: 303; Wilson 1995: 29, 115; Androshchuk 2014: 133). However, D. M. Wilson suggested that this art style could have originated much earlier, sometime at the end of the 9th century, based on the find of a belt fitting in the Gokstad barrow, the construction of which was dendrochronologically established between the years 900 and 905 (Wilson 1995: 120). Nevertheless, according to him, the style must have persisted until the final third of the 10th century, based on the find of the Tråen hoard (C21858) in Norway, which contained several objects decorated in the discussed style with a deposition date after 991 (Wilson 1995: 120, Fig. 99). Likewise, the hoard from Södra Byrummet on Gotland, dated to the mid-11th century on the basis of coins, contained a damaged disc brooch decorated in the Jelling style (Wilson 1995: 120). D. M. Wilson assumes that the Jelling style comes to an end in the late 10th century and gradually transitions into the Mammen style, with which it is closely linked (Wilson 1995: 120).
Helge Braathen dates the graves from Hedmark containing Type T1 swords between the final quarter of the 10th and the first quarter of the 11th century (Braathen 1989: Fig. 39; Iversen 2021: Fig. 6). Hedmark, which formed part of the Oppland region (Upplǫnd) during the Viking Age, was, according to Frode Iversen, divided into four or five petty kingdoms, a fact recorded not only in skaldic poetry but also reported by Snorri Sturluson (Iversen 2021: 25, 30–31). The Oppland region was surrounded by coastal areas containing approximately 300 ship burials; however, the local elites were not buried in ships or boat graves, but precisely in richly equipped equestrian burials (Iversen 2021: 15). The equestrian graves from Hedmark are characterised primarily by their large number and late dating, with more than half of them falling into the first quarter of the 11th century (Iversen 2021: 27). Frode Iversen admits that they could originate from the period when the Norwegian king Ólafr Haraldsson conquered this region in 1018–1019 and integrated it into his kingdom (Iversen 2021: 31). Oppland had not yet been converted to Christianity at that time, and pre-Christian burial rituals were practised in more remote parts of the region roughly until the years 1050–1070 (Iversen 2021: 15, 27). The skaldic poem Hǫfuðlausn by Óttarr svarti mentions the flight of local kings from Óláfr and the punishment for the chieftains of Hedmark (Iversen 2021: 31). Frode Iversen infers that some of King Óláfr’s most important opponents could have resided on the Finstad, Alm, and By farms, even though an earlier date can be estimated in the case of the grave from the By farm (Iversen 2021: 27). It is therefore possible that these graves could have belonged to local warrior elites loyal to petty kings and þings (Iversen 2021: 37).
A. N. Kirpichnikov does not date the Old Rus’ finds any later than the 10th century (Kirpichnikov 1966a: 28). Similarly to Fedir Androshchuk, A. V. Komar leans towards a later dating of Type T1 swords along with Types S and T2, more precisely to the final third of the 10th to the early 11th century (Komar 2014: 59).
In general, swords of Petersen Type T1 are dated from the second half of the 10th to the beginning of the 11th century. In the case of the grave finds from Hedmark, the dating according to Helge Braathen and Frode Iversen to the period of 975–1025 can be agreed with on the basis of their find circumstances, which would correspond to the theory and chronological framework of the Late Viking Age according to Fedir Androshchuk. The construction of the Gulbishche barrow, dated to the second half of the 10th century – more precisely between the years 950 and 960 – would indicate that early variants of Type T1 swords (with semi-circular central lobes on the pommel) could have appeared sometime prior to 950 as a transitional form from Type E-2.
Atypical Forms of Petersen Type T1 Swords
Given that Jan Petersen compiled his typology over a century ago and did not always establish unambiguous criteria for any given type, it is necessary to approach individual swords with greater scrutiny within the framework of our analysis. Consequently, we may encounter specimens that bear a close affinity to a specific type, yet do not fit into the classical typology from a morphological and/or decorative perspective. Within the evaluated sword group, we record three specimens featuring lower guards and pommels morphologically close to Type T1. Two of these specimens possess hilt components manufactured from an organic material, whilst the third find represents a hybrid form combining the evaluated type with Petersen Type E. Based on these indicators, we have decided to designate them as Type T1 swords of atypical form.
Prague, Metropolitan Chapter at St Vitus – Treasury, Czech Republic; Eger, Hungary
The sword is traditionally associated with the Hungarian king Stephen I (997–1038). It is assumed that it served as a relic of St Stephen during the coronation of Hungarian kings from the Árpád dynasty (Hošek – Košta – Žákovský 2019: 220).
The first written mention of this sword, deposited in the royal treasury in Prague, dates to the beginning of the second half of the 14th century; however, the circumstances under which it arrived there remain entirely unclear, and it can be linked to three historical events (Hošek – Košta – Žákovský 2019: 220). The sword has been preserved in a complete state (Fig. 32). The structural hilt components are manufactured from an organic material, presumably bone or antler (Vlasatý 2020d; Hošek – Košta – Žákovský 2019: 221). The pommel, manufactured from a single piece of material, imitates two-part pommels with a division into three segments executed in the form of incised grooves. The aperture at the apex of the pommel is presumably larger than the tang passing through the entire pommel, and it is secured by means of a quadrangular iron washer with rounded corners (Hošek – Košta – Žákovský 2019: 221). The short grip tang features a wooden core covered with wrapped wire of several types – alternating copper, iron, and brass wires, of which the thicker iron and thinner brass ones are twisted (Hošek – Košta – Žákovský 2019: 221). The lower guard is short yet massive and tall. The upper and lower margins are curved, with rounded terminals pointing towards the blade. The sword blade is short, reaching only 61.3 cm, and bears an inscription identified as Ulfberht (variant +VLFBERHT+) made of pattern-welded rods on one side, and a geometric mark on the other (Vlasatý 2020d; Hošek – Košta – Žákovský 2019: 222). The ornamentation of the pommel has been preserved on only one of the lateral segments, which can be cautiously compared to a palmette (Hošek – Košta – Žákovský 2019: 222). The decoration of the lower guard is identical on both sides, although it may differ in details, consisting of a zoomorphic motif in the Mammen style, presumably representing intertwined mythical beasts (Hošek – Košta – Žákovský 2019: 222). The closest parallels originate from Sigtuna, Sweden, where an antler lower guard of a Type Z sword featuring Mammen-style decoration was found, and from Gniezno, Poland, where a five-part pommel cap made of similar material to the pommel of the St Stephen sword was recovered (Hošek – Košta – Žákovský 2021: 320, Fig. 106c–d; Graham-Campbell 2021: 103–105). The collective of Hošek, Košta, and Žákovský classify the sword as Type T, specifically variant T1 (Hošek – Košta – Žákovský 2019: 220; 2021: 320). The sword is dated to the period of the second third of the 10th to the early 11th century, and the Mammen-style decoration may point to a Scandinavian workshop where the pommel and the lower guard could have been fitted onto the blade (Vlasatý 2020d; Hošek – Košta – Žákovský 2019: 220; Graham-Campbell 2021: 105). In terms of morphology and ornamentation, the lower guard of the St Stephen sword exhibits similar features to the lower guard of the sword from Monastyrishche.
Fig. 32. St Stephen’s sword (after Hošek – Košta – Žákovský 2019: 221).
Fig. 33. a. Detail of the hilt of St Stephen’s sword (after Hošek – Košta – Žákovský 2019: Pl. VIIa); b. lower guard of a sword from Sigtuna, Sweden (after Hošek – Košta – Žákovský 2021: Fig. 106d).
A very similar sword is housed in the collections of the István Dobó Castle Museum in the northern Hungarian city of Eger, the find context of which is unknown to us (Vlasatý 2020d; Hošek – Košta – Žákovský 2021: 321). The sword has been preserved in a complete state with a double-edged blade. The lower guard features a shape similar to the Prague St Stephen sword, albeit without any apparent preservation of ornamentation. The pommel is likewise manufactured from a single piece, resembling the previous specimen, except that it is somewhat more pointed (Vlasatý 2020d; Hošek – Košta – Žákovský 2021: 321). The material from which these components were manufactured is reportedly bone (Vlasatý 2020d; Hošek – Košta – Žákovský 2021: 321). Due to the similarity to the sword described above, we have decided to assign this specimen to the same group.
Fig. 34. Sword from the István Dobó Castle Museum, Eger, Hungary (after Vlasatý 2020d).
Laitila, Varsinais-Suomi, Finland
An interesting find is a fragment of a blade tang with a pommel featuring pitted decoration and a pommel cap divided into five lobes. The find originates from an unspecified locality in Laitila, Varsinais-Suomi region, Western Finland Province. More detailed information regarding the find circumstances is unknown. The object is available in the online catalogue managed by the National Library of Finland in Helsinki (finna.fi) under inventory number KM2550:98. The pommel is presumably divided into an upper guard and a pommel cap. The upper guard has a straight shape in front view; its upper and lower margins do not appear to exhibit any curvature. The lateral sides are obliquely modelled, one of them more prominently so. As mentioned above, the pommel cap is divided into five parts. The lateral segments are low, with a distinctly concave centre and thicker ribs. They are modelled in the form of small animal heads, one of which features a clearly visible depression in the shape of a triangle. Relatively shallow, obliquely running grooves separate the lateral segments from two narrow lobes, which likewise feature obliquely shaped edges on both sides. Another two grooves separate the narrow lobes from the central segment, which widens from the middle upwards. It exhibits a triangular shape with an oval top. Morphologically, this specimen has direct analogies with the sword pommels from Kveste (Norway), Monastyrishche (Russia), and the detector find from the Volyn/Lviv region. The pommel thus undoubtedly belongs under Type T1; however, the ornamentation is different from the classical Petersen Type T1. The pits are smaller, situated across the entire surface of the upper guard in a chequered pattern. The poor condition of the central lobe does not allow for a more precise determination of the shape in which they were applied to this section, but in those places where they have been preserved, it can be seen that they share the same perimeter and depth as those on the upper guard. From the photograph in the online catalogue, it is evident that the surface was covered with a white non-ferrous metal, although it is not possible at this moment to determine by which technique. In those places where the white metal is best preserved around the cells, no contours are discernible around them. Likewise, the pits do not feature a filling of twisted silver wire. The method of executing the ornamentation is rather closer to swords of Petersen Type E, or alternatively Type E-1, which are characterised by simple pitted decoration with a diameter of 1.5 to 3 mm and an arrangement in a chequered pattern in five to nine rows (Kainov – Novikov 2024: 158). The number of pits on the pommel from Laitila cannot be more precisely verified. According to the description on the finna.fi portal, the sword is dated to the period between 800 and 1050. Its placement within a more specific chronological horizon is impossible, since we do not know the circumstances of the find and cannot rely on its analogies either, as none of these swords originates from a grave. Type E-1 appears in the second half of the 9th century and was presumably used until the second half of the 10th century (Kainov – Novikov 2024: 194, Fig. 202). If we take into account the conclusions from the chronology of Type T1 swords analysed above, we can assume that the sword of which the pommel and tang from Laitila formed a part can be dated in a broader scope to the second half of the 10th to the early 11th century. At the same time, the object may represent a kind of hybrid variant, combining Type T1 swords morphologically and Type E-1 decoratively. Two specimens are considered similarly hybrid forms of swords with pitted decoration – one represents an X/E form from Skattebu Nedre, Øystre Slidre, Innlandet in Norway (C26494/a), and the other is a combination of Type H(V?) with Type E from Hattula, Vesunti, Mustalaismäki in Finland (KM 11175:1; Moilanen 2018: 75; Kainov – Novikov 2024: 194, 199).
Fig. 35. a. Sword pommel of atypical Type T1 from Laitila, Finland (reproduced from finna.fi); b. hilt pommel of Type E-1 from barrow C-15 at Gnezdovo, Russia (after Kainov – Novikov 2024: Fig. 170.2).
Baltic Forms of Swords Designated as Type T
In the 11th and 12th centuries, swords appear in the East Baltic and Eastern European environments that some researchers have classified under Type S or Z based on their three- to five-lobate pommel caps (Salmo 1952: 381–382; Kivikoski 1973: 114). Others classify them under Type T (Nerman 1929: 76–82; Żak 1960; Mandel 1991: 116–118; Kazakevičius 1996: 44–58; Pudło 2012a-b; Tomsons 2018: 58–65, 80–93). However, this constitutes a diverse group of swords that frequently differ from one another not only in the morphology of the structural hilt components, but also in the method of ornamentation or the material from which they were manufactured. A significant portion of them shares nothing in common with the classical Type T1 according to Petersen (Kainov 2012: 37, 39). Vytautas Kazakevičius describes them as the most widespread type in the Baltic lands, where he records up to 67 known swords and their structural components (Kazakevičius 1996: 46). Furthermore, he considered some to be transitional forms between Types S–T and T–Z; he also assigned to them a group of swords with five- to seven-lobate pommel caps, which he designated as Type T1 – Curonian (Kazakevičius 1996: 53). The researcher considered these swords to be products of Baltic blacksmiths from the eastern part of the Baltic Sea, dating them from the 10th to the beginning of the 13th century (Kazakevičius 1996: 58). However, many of the swords he assembled possess distinct forms of pommel caps and lower guards, a point also highlighted by Sergei Kainov and Artūrs Tomsons (Kainov 2012: 37; Tomsons 2018: 58). A. Tomsons assumes that some of the swords described by Kazakevičius can be considered transitional variants to other swords or independent types, whereas V. Kazakevičius did not address these details (Tomsons 2018: 58).
Given the comprehensiveness of the topic and the large number of swords of various forms, we have decided to provide a brief commentary on those specimens that bear the closest affinity to Petersen Type T1.
One of the forms of Baltic swords that many researchers classify under Type T includes specimens with pitted decoration. Morphologically, however, they are relatively non-uniform. The pommels consist of an upper guard and a trilobate pommel cap. In all instances, the central segment is tall and triangular in shape. The lateral segments are low; on some specimens, they may be angular and obliquely chamfered, which imitates the lateral lobes of Type T1 swords, yet they lack their characteristic inward curvature, or alternatively, some are oval. The upper guards and lower guards are either straight or slightly curved, with oval lateral sides modelled obliquely. The structural hilt components of some specimens are massive, whilst on others they become narrower. Within the territory of Latvia, several finds occur which Artūrs Tomsons divided into three sub-types according to the shape of the pommels and lower guards – T-I, T-IV, and T-V (Tomsons 2018: 59–60, Tab. 2, Cat. Nos 27–40, 83–88; Tab. 7, Cat. Nos 7–13, 88–91; Tab. 7, Cat. Nos 48–54). Regarding the first sub-type, which he links directly to Petersen Type T1 based on the find from Kosgaarden, he states that the ornamentation can be either triangular or pitted (Tomsons 2018: 59). In our opinion, however, not a single one of the swords from sub-type T-I according to Tomsons corresponds to the Petersen type. Although the lower guards and upper guards of some of them are relatively massive, they generally exhibit completely different shapes than the classical Type T1; their pitted ornamentation is likewise distinct, a point also highlighted by Sergei Kainov (Kainov – Novikov 2024: 200, Note 95). In the case of two swords that are clearly not covered with cells, we can assume – based on their morphological characteristics as well as the protruding pin from beneath the pommel cap of the second specimen – that they appear closer to Petersen Type T2 (Tomsons 2018: Cat. No 27, Fig. 25.1; Cat. No 28, Fig. 25.4).
Fig. 36. Details of hilts and their structural components from swords with pitted decoration from the territory of Latvia: a. Kazdanga, T-I (after Tomsons 2018: Fig. 25.7); b. Kuldīga, T-I (after Tomsons 2018: Fig. 25.8); c. Matkules kapsēta, T-IV (after Tomsons 2018: Fig. 48.2); d. Lībagu Sāraji, T-V (after Tomsons 2018: Fig. 53.1).
Based on our observations, six specimens from the territory of Lithuania should correspond to this sword variant (Janionis 2025: Cat. Nos 2, 21, 23, 37, 74, 87, 152). From Estonia, Mati Mandel records ten Type T swords with pitted decoration (Mandel 1991: 116). In Poland, three swords featuring this method of ornamentation are known and classified under Type T (Pudło 2012a: 78–79; Wadyl – Misiuk – Karczewski 2020: 115–117).
Their structural hilt components – the pommel and the lower guard – were manufactured from iron and, in the majority of instances, covered with silver, possibly using a plating technique (Pudło 2012a: 78–79; Tomsons 2018: 83, 88). One sword from the Lithuanian locality of Gintališkė features a pommel and a lower guard manufactured from a copper alloy, but likewise covered with silver (Janionis 2025: Cat. No 21). Another Lithuanian sword from Pavirvytė-Gudai has the grip tang covered by an iron tube decorated with silver (Janionis 2025: Cat. No 87), which renders this specimen closer to the group of swords of the so-called silver-plated type. The positioning of the pits on these swords runs in three or two rows beneath one another in a chequered pattern, or alternatively in a single row, whilst bordering is also present, as is the case along the lower and upper margins of the upper guard and the pommel cap (Tomsons 2018: Figs. 25.2, 25.3, 25.5–8, 48.1–4, 53.1–5). Some swords even feature ornamentation supplemented by inlaid, finely twisted copper wire in a herringbone pattern (Mandel 1991: 117; Tomsons 2018: 88). In the case of several specimens, the internal fields of the pits were filled with circular plaques made of a red/orange metal, which has been identified as a copper alloy (Pudło 2012a: 78–79; Tomsons 2018: Fig. 25.7).
In the case of the find of an upper guard from Gdańsk, the bordering of the lower and upper margins of the upper guard, including the perimeters of the cells, is covered with narrow red bands, which allegedly served as an outline into which a gold-coloured metal was inlaid. This was detected around four cells and on a small portion of the marginal band (Wadyl – Misiuk – Karczewski 2020: 116, Fig. 6). Similarly, one of the cells also contains a gold-coloured metal, and it is assumed to be a small disc made of a copper and iron alloy (Wadyl – Misiuk – Karczewski 2020: 116, Fig. 6). It appears, therefore, that the upper guard was covered with a silver overlay, and the interior of the cells with their borders, as well as the lower and upper sections of the upper guard, were lined with a gold-coloured metal (Wadyl – Misiuk – Karczewski 2020: Fig. 7). The upper guard from Gdańsk is mentioned as a find that lacks any close analogies yet bears a relative affinity to Norwegian finds of Type T1 swords, and may thus represent a Scandinavian product (Wadyl – Misiuk – Karczewski 2020: 119). It is rather difficult to agree with this theory, given the fact that not a single one of the Norwegian swords possesses decoration made of red and/or gold metal; likewise, internal filling of the cells with wires is absent from the Gdańsk upper guard, nor are engraved lines filled with niello present. A cell perimeter covered with a yellow(?) metal can also be observed on the sword from Anduliai in Lithuania (Janionis 2025: Cat. No 2).
The Latvian swords of sub-type T-I are dated by A. Tomsons to the period between the 10th and 12th centuries, whilst sub-types T-IV and T-V are dated between the 12th and 13th centuries (Tomsons 2018: 60, 84, 89). Mati Mandel places the Estonian swords with pitted decoration from the 11th to the 12th century (Mandel 1991: 116). Piotr Pudło dates the Polish Type T swords to the second half of the 10th to the early 11th century (Pudło 2012a: 85). The upper guard from Gdańsk is considered an Early Medieval object discovered at the site of a small rectangular building, with a dating to the second half of the 13th century (Wadyl – Misiuk – Karczewski 2020: 111–112, 119).
Fig. 37. Details of hilts and their structural components from swords with pitted decoration of various shapes: a. Gintališkė, Lithuania (after Janionis 2025: Cat. No 21); b. Pavirvytė-Gudai, Lithuania (after Janionis 2025: Cat. No 87); c. Viltina, Estonia (after Mandel 1991: Pl. VIII.2); d. Złotoria, Poland (after Pudło 2012b: Pl. X.1); e. vicinity of Elbląg, Poland (after Pudło 2012b: Pl. X.2); f1. Gdańsk, Poland (after Wadyl – Misiuk – Karczewski 2020: Fig. 3); f2. scheme of the ornamentation reconstruction of the upper guard from Gdańsk (after Wadyl – Misiuk – Karczewski 2020: Fig. 7, drawing by S. Wadyl).
A stray find of a sword with a fragmentary blade and a sword scabbard chape, originating from the bottom of a well near the village of Krasnianka in the former Kupyansk region, today the Luhansk Oblast in eastern Ukraine, can also be assigned to the swords with pitted decoration (Shchedrina 2020: 205). The structural hilt components consist of an iron lower guard, a grip, an upper guard, and a pommel cap, which are covered with an inlay of coloured non-ferrous metals (Shchedrina 2020: 206). The securing of the pommel is achieved by a peened tang at its apex (Shchedrina 2020: 206), thus just as in the case of Type E and T1 swords and Baltic forms of swords with pitted decoration. The lower guard is slightly curved towards the blade, and the upper guard towards the pommel cap. However, the pommel cap is modelled into a semi-circle, and its division into three parts is achieved by means of ornamentation (Shchedrina 2020: Figs. 2–3). The iron surface of all hilt parts was first roughened with fine grooves into which thin wire of non-ferrous metal – silver and a red copper alloy – was hammered (Shchedrina 2020: 206). On the upper guard and the lower guard, the pits are situated in three rows beneath one another in a chequered pattern, and on the pommel cap, four pits form a lozenge motif. The upper and lower margins of the upper guard and the lower guard are bordered by thin lines of white herringbone bands on a red background, and the same pattern divides the pommel cap into three parts, in addition to copying its shape along its entire perimeter (Shchedrina 2020: Fig. 3). The bordering of the outer perimeter of the pits was formed of thin red bands. The contours of the cells are interconnected by narrow white bands bordered by double red lines. The interior of the cells is filled with copper alloy plaques (Shchedrina 2020: 206). Typologically, the sword was assigned by A. N. Kirpichnikov to local Type A (Kirpichnikov 1966a: Cat. No 82). Alexandra J. Shchedrina perceives the sword as a kind of intermediate stage between Scandinavian Type T1 swords, based on the morphological features of the upper guard and the lower guard, and Baltic swords with pitted decoration, according to the use of polychrome ornamentation and the absence of wire inside the cells (Shchedrina 2020: 241). The Krasnianka sword is dated to the period of the first half of the 11th century (Shchedrina 2020: 241). Close analogies to the sword from Krasnianka also originate from the Poltava region in Ukraine. This constitutes a stray find of hilt components – two upper guards and one lower guard – which feature ornamentation identical to that of the sword from Krasnianka (Shchedrina 2020: Fig. 9).
Fig. 38. a-1. Detail of the sword hilt from Krasnianka (after Shchedrina 2020: Fig. 2); a-2. scheme of the hilt ornamentation reconstruction of the sword from Krasnianka (after Shchedrina 2020: Fig. 3, drawing by A. Yu. Shchedrina); b. upper guard of a Krasnianka-type sword from Poltava (after Shchedrina 2020: Fig. 9.1); c. upper guard of a Krasnianka-type sword from Poltava (after Shchedrina 2020: Fig. 9.2); d. lower guard of a Krasnianka-type sword from Poltava (after Shchedrina 2020: Fig. 9.3).
From the description provided above, it follows that the East Baltic forms of swords with pitted decoration, including the Krasnianka type, most likely represent local products derived from several elements copying the Scandinavian Type T1 sword form. Their common denominator is, first and foremost, the pitted ornamentation itself with the arrangement of cells in a chequered pattern; furthermore, it is the use of silver inlay, the borders around the pit apertures, as well as the cutting of grooves onto the surface of the pommel and lower guard to receive the decoration. Another shared feature is the arrangement of pits in the shape of a lozenge on the central segment of the pommel cap, although their number is lower compared to Type T1 swords. A further common attribute is the assembly of the pommel, which is identical to Petersen Type E. Conversely, differences are apparent primarily in the shape of the pommels. In the case of the Baltic sword forms, the lateral segments of the pommel cap lack the characteristic concave shape typical of Type T1, resulting in the absence of their stylisation into the form of small animal heads. Another distinct feature is the use of polychrome ornamentation. A twisted wire does not pass through the interior of the pits; instead, in this type, we encounter pits filled with circular plaques, predominantly of copper alloy, a feature exceptionally present also inside the cells of the Type T1 sword from the Gulbishche barrow.
In addition to swords with pitted decoration, we can mention another type characterised by plant and animal motifs executed presumably using the niello technique on the silver-plated surface of the structural hilt components (Moilanen 2015: 267; Shchedrina 2023: 104). Various researchers have assigned this group of swords to Petersen Types S, T, or Z due to their trilobate pommel caps (Nerman 1929: 76; Salmo 1952: 381–382; Kivikoski 1973: 114; Mandel 1991: 117; Jets 2013). The pommels are composed of a three-part pommel cap and an upper guard. The central segment is the tallest and triangular in shape. The lateral lobes are low and relatively long, with a slightly elevated bridge towards the central lobe, or alternatively, they imitate stylised small animal heads. Some specimens are characterised by a straight or slightly curved upper guard. Approximately two specimens possess a lower guard curved towards the blade, terminating in a point at the centre. The tang is covered by a narrow iron tube. The lower guards are short, straight, or may be slightly curved with obliquely modelled terminals, whereby their shape can resemble the lower guards of Type T1 swords, as can the upper guards. These components can be massive or narrower. Based on these attributes, Mikko Moilanen classifies them as a distinct silver-plated type (Moilanen 2015: 266). These swords are most widespread in Finland and Estonia; two finds originate from the Latvian locality of Turaidas Pūteļi (Tomsons 2018: Figs. 21.7–8, 28.1; Shchedrina 2023: Figs. 6, 9.1–2). A pommel cap of this type was also found at the site of the Paaso (Paasonvuori) hillfort between the town of Sortavala and the village of Helyulä near Lake Ladoga in the Republic of Karelia, Russia (Shchedrina 2023: 98). The chronology is usually placed between the years 1000 and 1100, or up to 1150/1160 for the Finnish finds (Moilanen 2015: 266), while the Estonian specimens are chronologically bracketed within the period of 1050–1110 (Mandel 1991: 118). According to A. Shchedrina, the find of the pommel cap from Paaso can be dated to the second half of the 11th to the early 12th century (Shchedrina 2023: 109). Furthermore, one possible specimen of this type comes in the form of a pommel cap from an unknown location in north-eastern Bulgaria, although the object has to date been only partially published (Yotov – Pavlova 2004: 94, Cat. No 62; Kamburov 2023: 24, Fig. 9b; Viskupič 2023). This group of swords is considered East Scandinavian, with a possible place of manufacture on Gotland (Moilanen 2015: 267, 268). The decoration consists of engraved animal motifs that are similar to certain depictions on runestones in Sweden, in the province of Uppland and on the islands of Gotland and Öland (Mandel 1991: 117; Moilanen 2015: 266). The zoomorphic patterns are considered a transitional phase between the Ringerike and Urnes art styles (Moilanen 2015: 267).
Fig. 39. Details of structural hilt components from swords of the silver-plated type: a. Lieto-Hulkkunanmäki, Finland (after Shchedrina 2023: Fig. 7.1); b. Maaria-Taskula, Finland (after Shchedrina 2023: Fig. 7.3); c. Kullamaa Maidla V, Estonia (after Shchedrina 2023: Fig. 8.1); d. Kullamaa Maidla VI, Estonia (after Shchedrina 2023: Fig. 8.4); e. Paaso, Republic of Karelia, Russia (after Shchedrina 2023: Fig. 2); f. unknown location in north-eastern Bulgaria (after Yotov – Pavlova 2004: 81, Cat. No 62).
An interesting specimen morphologically close to this group originates from Estonia. This is a stray find of a blade tang with a pommel from the locality of Liiva-Putla on the island of Saaremaa, which occurred during ploughing at a site that served as a cemetery in the past (Mandel 1991: 117). The pommel is divided into an upper guard and a pommel cap by intertwined (silver?) wires. The upper guard is straight in front view. The surface is decorated with a motif of intertwined double lines, the internal part of which is filled with densely placed triangle-like patterns with points facing each other. The decoration has been preserved only partially. The pommel cap is divided into five parts by four oblique grooves filled with three rows of twisted wires. The lateral segments are low, resembling animal heads. The central segment is the tallest, rising upwards from the lateral ones with an apex terminating in a point. Here, the decoration has also been preserved only fragmentarily, with a pattern similar to that on the upper guard. On the blade tang beneath the pommel, a twisted wire of thicker rods is wrapped, beneath which run alternating lines of thinner smooth and twisted wires. According to Indrek Jets, the ornamentation of the pommel is similar to that on the sockets of some Type M spearheads, such as the specimen from Holbæk Løve Tissø (Denmark), from Bøen, Notodden in Telemark, Norway (C29878/b.I), or from Fornvi, Ockelbo in Gästrikland, Sweden (SHM 10694), which have no direct analogies in Estonia (Jets 2013: 68). Type M spearheads belong to the chronologically youngest types of this kind of militaria and, according to Jan Petersen, are dated to the 11th century, while he suggests that they produce an oriental impression, with a relatively abundant occurrence within the territories of Sweden, Finland, and Russia (Petersen 1919: 35). Bergljot Solberg states that this type (designated by her as VII.3A) appears sometime around the year 1000 and was used during the first half of the 11th century (Solberg 1984: 100). Some researchers admit that this variant appeared somewhat earlier, at the close of the 10th century (Hjardar – Vike 2016: 175). The dating of the Ringerike art style is traditionally placed in the first half of the 11th century (Androshchuk 2014: 135); however, D. M. Wilson admits that it could have appeared earlier, already around 990, in relation to the Mammen style (Wilson 1995: 183). Indrek Jets assumes that the decoration of the pommel could have represented an S-shaped zoomorphic ornament, similar to that on the socket of the spearhead from Nomeland, Valle, Agder, Norway (B5207/e; Jets 2013: 68), which, however, belongs to Petersen Type K and its decoration is executed in the Mammen style (Fuglesang 1980: 34, Cat. No 1). Thus, according to I. Jets, the ornamentation of the pommel may originate from a transitional period between the Mammen and Ringerike styles (Jets 2013: 68). Close analogies to this pommel come from the Estonian localities of Karja Lõpist and Kullamaa Maidlast, which are likewise divided into five lobes, with the difference that the apex of the central segment is more rounded to straight, whereas the pommel from Liiva-Putla has a more pointed segment (Jets 2013: Fig. 33.4–5). Mati Mandel and Indrek Jets classify the pommel under Type T, with I. Jets suggesting that, together with the specimens from Karja Lõpist and Kullamaa Maidlast, these constitute swords similar to those decorated in the Urnes style (Jets 2013: 68–69).
Although the pommel does not exhibit features characteristic of the classical Petersen Type T1 sword type, we can assume that, given the similarity to some five-lobate sword pommels of the evaluated type (Kveste, Monastyrishche, Volyn/Lviv) and the decoration reminiscent of the interlace ornament of the sword from Østre Alm, this Estonian specimen could represent a local product derived from the Scandinavian manufacturing tradition. Alternatively, an evolutionary line from Type R and S swords could also be considered.
Fig. 40. a. Sword pommel from Liiva-Putla, Estonia (after Jets 2013: Fig. 33.1–2); b. pommel cap from Karja Lõpist, Estonia (after Jets 2013: Fig. 33.4); c. structural hilt components of the sword from Kullamaa Maidlast, Estonia (after Jets 2013: Fig. 33.5); d. Type M spearhead with a detail of the socket ornamentation from Fornvi, Ockelbo in Gästrikland, Sweden (after historiska.se; Fuglesang 1980: Pl. 7A); e. Type K spearhead with a detail of the socket ornamentation from Nomeland, Valle, Agder, Norway (after unimus.no; Fuglesang 1980: Pl. 1A).
To conclude, I would like to mention two more swords, one of which is considered a form close to Type T, whilst the second bears a relatively close morphological affinity to it. A sword whose structural hilt components could, according to Mikko Moilanen, have been modelled on the basis of one of the Petersen Type T variants originates from a cremation grave at the Astala cemetery in Kakkulainen, Kokemäki, in south-western Finland (Moilanen 2018: 124). The lower guard of the sword and the upper guard of the pommel are relatively massive with rounded edges and obliquely sloping lateral sides. However, the pommel cap is semi-circular and divided into three segments only by means of ornamentation (Leppäaho 1964: Pl. 39.1, Fig. 1b). The decoration consists of a kind of interlace motif in the form of narrow lines joined into a knot formed by two circles, with four triple spines extending from the outer, larger circle (Leppäaho 1964: Pl. 39.1, Fig. 1a–c). According to M. Moilanen, the lower guard and the pommel are covered with silver and copper wires, just as in Petersen Type S, but in many places, the decoration melted into the form of small droplets due to the effect of heat from the cremation pyre (Moilanen 2018: 124). This constitutes a unique specimen which, as far as ornamentation is concerned, lacks any close known analogy. Mikko Moilanen dates it to the 10th century (Moilanen 2018: 124). Morphologically similar to this sword is a specimen from Grave No 77 from the Lithuanian locality of Dauglaukis (Viskupič 2025), which, however, was preserved without decoration except for a small fragment of a silver dashed line (Kazakevičius 1996: 63). The sword is designated by some researchers as Petersen Type V (Kazakevičius 1996: 63, 114 – Cat. No 1; Janionis 2025: 208, Cat. No 15), with which it is difficult to agree, since the lower guard of the sword is relatively massive and slightly curved towards the blade, while it is clearly visible from the X-ray image that the blade tang passes through both the upper guard and the pommel cap. The sword is dated between the 10th and 11th centuries (Janionis 2025: 208, Cat. No 15).
Fig. 41. a1. Detail of the sword hilt from Astala, Kakkulainen, Kokemäki, Finland (after Moilanen 2018: 124); a2. ornamentation scheme of structural hilt components (after Leppäaho 1964: Pl. 39.1, Fig. 1b–c); b1. detail of the sword hilt from Dauglaukis, Lithuania (after Janionis 2025: Cat. No 15); b2. X-ray image of the sword from Dauglaukis (after Janionis 2025: Fig. 20).
Summary
Despite their relatively small number, swords of Petersen Type T1 undoubtedly represent luxury weapons of the Late Viking Age, dating primarily from the second half of the 10th to the early 11th century. The earliest specimens may have appeared at the close of the first half of the 10th century, or alternatively at the turn of the first and second halves of the 10th century, as an evolutionary lineage of the chronologically earlier Type E-2, on which a still rounded central segment of the pommel cap can be observed. According to Alexandra J. Shchedrina, these swords originated at the interface of Scandinavian blacksmithing and Anglo-Saxon jewellery traditions (Shchedrina 2018: 31). Given that four grave finds originate from the former county of Hedmark in south-eastern Norway, the question arises as to whether these swords could have been the product of local blacksmithing workshops. The find of an unfinished upper guard from the island of Gotland might also suggest the presence of a manufacturing site; however, the problem lies in the complete absence of Type T1 not only on the island of Gotland but across the entire territory of Sweden, so the question of the origin of this object remains unanswered for the time being.
It is assumed that their occurrence in the Old Rus’ environment is probably associated with Scandinavian immigrants, and later, local variants with pitted decoration were produced in local blacksmithing workshops in this area as well as in the East Baltic region based on this type (Shchedrina 2018: 31). On the other hand, however, we must take several facts into consideration: the number of Type T1 swords with pitted decoration from the territory of Norway is, despite their well-documented find context, very low compared to swords of this type originating from Old Rus’. Likewise, the occurrence of Type E-2 swords in Norway is low – only one specimen can be considered, which, however, was assigned to this variant solely based on the size of the cells (Kainov – Novikov 2024: 186); the same applies to Sweden. Out of a total number of five Type E-2 swords (Androshchuk 2014: 52, Tab. II.3), only two specimens correspond to this variant in which wire within the pits was reliably documented (Androshchuk 2014: Up 31*, Up 179*; Kainov – Novikov 2024: 186, Note 90). Within the territory of former Kyivan Rus’, four specimens are recorded, whereby three originating from the territory of present-day Russia can be assigned to this sub-type with certainty (Kainov – Novikov 2024: 166–167, Cat. Nos 14–16), and one uncertain Type E-2 comes from Ukraine (Kainov – Novikov 2024: 166–167, Cat. No 17). Another fact is the early occurrence of a Type T1 sword with a semi-circular central segment in the Gulbishche barrow. This could indicate that the development of the evaluated sword type (T1) from variant E-2 might not have taken place in Scandinavia, but rather in workshops within the Old Rus’ environment, which could have resulted in the emergence of subsequent types, such as Krasnianka or certain hybrid swords. The isolated specimen of this sword type from Central Europe, originating from the Old Hungarian cemetery in Székesfehérvár together with an axe head, further demonstrates brisk contacts between the Old Hungarian environment and the Old Rus’ or even Scandinavian elements.
In conclusion, we may mention one more point of interest from contemporary sources that links the Petersen Type T1 sword with the British Isles. In the will of Æthelstan Ætheling, son of the English king Æthelred the Unready (978–1016), dating to approximately 1015, there is a mention of twelve swords, one of which is described as a sword with a pitted hilt (“þæs swurdes mid þam pyttedan hiltan”), which Æthelstan bequeaths to his brother Edmund (Whitelock 2011: 58; Androshchuk 2014: 196). According to Fedir Androshchuk, this mention could be interpreted as a description of a weapon decorated with pits, which can be understood to mean Type E or T swords (Androshchuk 2014: 196). The fact remains, however, that neither of the mentioned types occurs in the British Isles, with the exception of Ireland, from where several pieces of Type E are known (Androshchuk 2014: 196). In addition to this sword, Æthelstan Ætheling bequeaths one more sword to Edmund. It is described as the sword of King Offa (“Ic geann Eadmunde minon breðer þæs swurdes þe Offa cyng ahte”), which could have a connection with King Offa, who ruled Mercia in the years 757–796 (Androshchuk 2014: 196). Since this sword was considered a symbol of power and was passed down from generation to generation (Androshchuk 2014: 196), we can consider the weapon with the pitted hilt to be a Type E sword that might have entered royal possession during the 9th to 10th centuries. Naturally, given the chronology of Petersen Type T1 swords, a version is also offered whereby the mentioned object may represent precisely a sword of this type, with which the date of the will would correspond quite well. This would thus constitute the first mention of the occurrence of a sword from the evaluated group in the British Isles.
Fig. 42. Detail of the reconstruction of a Type T1 sword.
Manufactured and photographed by Dmitry Khramtsov.
Appendix
The link provided below to the tabular catalogue of Petersen Type T1 swords contains comprehensive data relating to the individual sword specimens, such as metric data, inv. nos, find contexts, types of decoration applied, blade inscriptions, and geometric marks, among other details.
Acknowledgements
In the very end, we would like to express our sincere gratitude to all those who kindly offered their assistance and consulted with the author on some of the discussed swords, namely Sergei Kainov of the State Historical Museum in Moscow, Sven Kalmring and Fedir Androshchuk of the State Historical Museum in Stockholm, Bente Richardsen Isaksen of the Arctic University Museum of Norway in Tromsø, and Annika Waller of the State Archaeological Museum of Brandenburg in Zossen (Wünsdorf). Great thanks are, of course, also due to Tomáš Vlasatý for the opportunity to publish this article on these pages, as well as for his consultations and valuable advice.
Literature
Adams, B. T. (1974). A Sword of the Viking Period from the R. Lea at Hertford. In: Medieval Archaeology 18, 154- 158.
Androshchuk 2001 = Андрощук, Ф. А. (2001). Гнездово, Днепровский путь и финал Бирки // Гнездово: 125 лет исследования памятника. Труды Государственного исторического музея, Москва, 126-135.
Androshchuk, Fedir (2014). Viking Swords: Swords and Social aspects of Weaponry in Viking Age Societies, Stockholm.
Arendt, Wsewolod (1933). Das Schwert der Wäringerzeit in Rußland. In: Mannus 25, 155-175.
Arendt, W. W. (1936). Ett svärdsfästen från vikingatiden. In: Fornvännen 31, 313-315.
Bakay, Kórnel (1965). Régészeti tanulmányok a magyar államalapítás kérdéséhez, Pécs.
Bakay, Kornél (1967). Archäologische Studien zur Frage der ungarischen Staatsgründung. Angaben zur Organisierung des fürstlichen Heeres. In: Acta archaeologica Academiae Scientiarum Hungaricae 19, 105-174.
Bárta, Patrick (2020). Výroba repliky. In: Hergessel, Jan – Snítilý, Pavel (eds.). Příběh meče – Výjimečný archeologický nález z Lázní Toušeně, Čelákovice, 33-35.
Bodin, Ulf (1987). Vapengravar i mälarområdet. En studie i vapenfrekvenser och vapenkombinationer under folkvandringstid, vendeltid och vikingatid. Uppsats C/20, Uppsala.
Braathen, Helge (1989). Ryttergraver: politiske strukturer i eldre rikssamlingstid, Oslo: Universitet i Oslo.
Corpus 1979 = Corpus archäologischer Quellen zur Frühgeschichte auf den Gebiet der Deutschen Demokratischen Republik (7. bis 12. Jahrhundert) 3: Bezirke Frankfurt, Potsdam, Berlin, Berlin.
Chernyshev 1963 = Чернышёв, Н. А. (1963). О технике и происхожде нии «франкских» мечей, найденных на Днепрострое в 1928 г. // Скандинавский сборник VI, 211-228.
Drevnosti 1871 = Древности. Труды Московского археологического общества. Том III. Вып. 2. – Москва.
Dubinets 2006 = Дубинец, Олег (2006). До питання про статуру похованого в курганi Гульбище в м. Чернiговi // Сіверянський лiтопис. № 5, 11–14.
Duczko, Wladyslaw (2004). Viking Rus – Studies of the Presence of Scandinavians in Eastern Europe, Leiden & Boston.
Evison, V. I. (1967). A Sword From the Thames at Wallingford Bridge. In: The Archaeological Journal 124, 160–189.
Fuglesang, S. H. (1980). Some Aspects of the Ringerike Style. A phase of 11th century Scandinavian art, Odense.
Gava, Gianni – Vlasatý, Tomáš (2024). Early Medieval Sword from Maaseik, Belgium. In: Project Forlǫg – Reenactment and science [online]. [2026-04-23]. Available here: https://sagy.vikingove.cz/en/early-medieval-sword-from-maaseik-belgium/
Geibig, Alfred (1991). Beiträge zur morphologischen Entwicklung des Schwertes im Mittelalter, Neumünster.
Graham-Campbell, James (2021). Viking Art, London.
Hammond, Brett (2010). British artefacts, Vol. 2 – Middle Saxon & Viking (AD 650-950), Witham.
Hjardar, Kim – Vike, Vegard (2016). Vikings at War, Oxford – Philadelphia.
Hošek, Jiří – Košta, Jiří – Žákovský, Petr (2019). Ninth to mid-sixteenth century swords from the Czech Republic in their European context. Part I, Praha – Brno.
Hošek, Jiří – Košta, Jiří – Žákovský, Petr (2021). Ninth to mid-sixteenth century swords from the Czech Republic in their European context. Part II, Praha – Brno.
Iversen, Frode (2021). The Four Petty Kingdoms of Upplǫnd: Equestrian Graves and the Political Integration of the Norwegian Highlands in Late Viking Age Norway. In: Iversen, Frode – Kjesrud, Karoline (eds.). Viking Wars, Oslo, 13–42.
Izmailov 1997 = Измайлов, И. Л. (1997). Вооружение и военное дело и населения Волжской Булгарии X – начала XIII в., Казань–Магадан.
Jakobsson, Mikael (1992). Krigarideologi och vikingatida svärdstypologi, Stockholm: Stockholms Universitet.
Janionis, Andrius (2025). V–XV a. kalavijų raida Lietuvos archeologinės medžiagos archeometalurginių tyrimų kontekste, Vilnius: Vilniaus universitetas.
Jets, Indrek (2013). Lahingu maod: Skandinaavia 9.–11. sajandi kunstistiilid Eesti arheoloogilistel leidudel, Tallinn.
Kainov, S. Yu. (2012). Swords from Gnёzdovo. In: Acta Militaria Mediaevalia VIII, 7–68.
Kainov 2022 = Каинов, С. Ю. (2022). Шлем из кургана Гульбище. К вопросу об эволюции четырехчастевых боевых наголовий Восточной Европы в VIII-XI вв. // Военная археология 7: Сборник материалов Проблемного совета «Военная археология» при Государственном Историческом музее. Отв. ред. О. В. Двуреченский, Москва, 49–78.
Kainov – Novikov 2024 = Каинов, С. Ю. – Новиков, В. В. (2024). Новые находки мечей в Гнёздове (2017-2020 гг.), Москва.
Kamburov 2023 = Камбуров, Самуил. Чужди военни контингенти и войско по Долен Дунав в периода края на IX – средата на XI век – Foreign Military Contingents and Troops on the Lower Danube in the Period late 9th – mid 11th Century. In: Наследство БГ 5/2023, 12-35.
Kazakevičius, Vytautas (1996). IX–XIII a. baltų kalavijai, Vilnius.
Kirpichnikov 1966a = Кирпичников, А. Н. (1966). Древнерусское оружие: Вып. 1. Мечи и сабли IX–XIII вв, Москва – Ленинград.
Kirpichnikov 1966b = Кирпичников, А. Н. (1966) Древнерусское оружие. Вып. 2: Копья, сулицы, боевые топоры, булавы, кистени IX – XIII вв, Москва – Ленинград.
Kirpichnikov 1992 = Кирпичников, А. Н. (1992). Новообнаруженные клейма раннесредневековых мечей. In: Fasciculi Archaeologiae Historicae. Fasc. V, 61–81.
Kirpichnikov, A. N. – Stalsberg, Anne (1998). New investigations of Viking Age swords materials in Norwegian museums. In: Wesse, Anke (ed.). Studien zur Archäeologie des Ostseeraumes. Von der Eisenzeit zum Mittelalter, Neumünster, 507–514.
Kivikoski, Ella (1973). Die Eisenzeit Finnlands. Bildwerk und Text. Neuausgabe. Helsinki.
Kochkurkina – Summanen 2021 = Кочкуркина, С. И. – Сумманен, И. М. (2021). Средневековые древности. Каталог археологических коллекций ИЯЛИ КарНЦ РАН, Петрозаводск.
Komar 2014 = Комар, А. В. (2014). Мечи Днепростроя (к истории находки 1928 г.) // Русь в IX–XII веках: общество, государство, культура, Москва – Вологда, 47–61.
Komar, Olekszij (2018). История и археология древних мадьяр в эпоху миграции / A korai magyarság vándorlásának történeti és régészeti emlékei, Budapest.
Košta, Jiří (2020). Meče typu S a zrod nové Evropy. In: Hergessel, Jan – Snítilý, Pavel (eds.). Příběh meče – Výjimečný archeologický nález z Lázní Toušeně, Čelákovice, 37–43.
Košta, Jiří (2021). Early Medieval Swords from the Czech Republic (9th–10th Centuries), Praha.
Kotowicz, P. N. (2018). Early Medieval Axes from Territory of Poland, Kraków.
Leppäaho, Jorma (1964). Späteisenzeitliche Waffen aus Finnland, Helsinki.
Mandel, Mati (1991). Eesti 8. – 13.sajandi mõõkade tüpoloogiast ja dateerimisest. In: Muinasaja teadus 1, 101–133.
Martens, Irmelin – Astrup, E. E. (2021). Viking Age Swords from Telemark, Norway. An Integrated Technical and Archaeological Investigation, Oslo.
Maryon, Herbert (1950). A sword of the Viking period from the River Witham. In: The Antiquaries Journal XXX, 175-179.
Minasyan 2017 = Минасян, Р. С. (2017). Декор на рукоятях мечей IX-XII вв. In: История оружия и военного дела №1/2017. Часть 2. Эпоха Древней Руси, Київ, 26–36.
Moilanen, Mikko (2015). Marks of fire, value and faith: swords with ferrous inlays in Finland during the late Iron Age (ca. 700-1200 AD), Turku.
Moilanen, Mikko (2018). Viikinkimiekat Suomessa, Helsinki.
Môc, Róbert (2018). Príspevok k technológii výroby meča z Krásnej nad Hornádom. In: Zborník Slovenského Národného Múzea 112, 221–233.
Müller-Wille, Michael (1970). Ein neues Ulfberht-Schwert aus Hamburg. Verbreitung, Formekunde und Herkunft. In: Offa 27, 65–91.
Müller-Wille, Michael (1972). Zwei wikingerzeitliche Prachtschwerter aus der Umgebung von Haithabu. In: Das archäologische Fundmaterial 2, Berichte über die Ausgrabungen in Haithabu 6, Neumünster, 47–89.
Nerman, Birger (1929). Die Verbindung zwischen Skandinavien und dem Ostbaltikum in der jüngeren Eisenzeit, Stockholm.
Nicolaissen, O. (1920). Arkӕologiske undersøkelser samt Oldsamlingens tilvekst i Tromsø Museum i 1920. Årsh. 43, 1920:2.
Paulsen, Peter (1953). Schwertortbänder der Wikingerzeit: ein Beitrag zur Frühgeschichte Osteuropas, Stuttgart.
Peirce, I. G. (2002). Swords of the Viking Age, Woodbridge.
Petersen, Jan (1919). De Norske Vikingesverd: En Typologisk-Kronologisk Studie Over Vikingetidens Vaaben, Kristiania.
Petersen, K. S. (1994–1995). Danish niello inlays from the Iron Age. A technological investigation. In: Journal of Danish Archaeology 12, 133–149.
Pienimäki, Aleksi (2016). A comparison of alkaline sulphite desalination of dry, oxidised finds and fresh, moist ones, Helsinki: Helsinki Metropolia University of Applied Sciences.
Pudło, Piotr (2012a). Wczesnośredniowieczne miecze z terenu Polski na tle europejskim. Systematyka, technologia produkcji, zdobienia. T. I – tekst, Toruń: Nicolaus Copernicus University.
Pudło, Piotr (2012b). Wczesnośredniowieczne miecze z terenu Polski na tle europejskim. Systematyka, technologia produkcji, zdobienia. T. II – katalog i tablice, Toruń: Nicolaus Copernicus University.
Ravdonikas 1933 = Равдоникас, В. И., (1933). Надписи и знаки на мечах из Днепростроя. In: Известия Государственной академии истории материальной культуры. № 100, 598–616.
Rybakov 1949 = Рыбаков, Б. А. (1949). Древности Чернигова. In: МИА 11, 7–99.
Rygh, Oluf (1885). Norske oldsager, ordnede og forklarede, Christiania.
Salmo, Helmer (1952). Satakunnan historia II. Rautakausi. Vammala.
Samokvasov 1916 = Самоквасов, Д. Я. (1916). Могильные древности северянской Черниговщины. Москва.
Shetelig, Haakon (1920). Osebergfundet III, Kristiania.
Shchedrina 2018 = Щедрина, А. Ю. (2018). Новый взгляд на де таль меча из коллекции Харьковского историче ского музея. In: Харьковский историко-археологический сборник 23, 18–32.
Shchedrina, A. Yu. (2020). Sword from Krasn͡ianka. Complex of traditions and technologies. In: Acta Militaria Mediaevalia XVI, 205–224.
Shchedrina 2023 = Щедрина, А. Ю. (2023). Деталь меча с карельского городища Паасонвуори (Паасо). In: Археологические вести 39, 98–111.
Schulze-Dörrlamm, Mechthild (1995). Das Reichsschwert. Ein Herrschaftszeichen des Saliers Heinrich IV. und des Welfen Otto IV., Sigmaringen.
Sjøvold, Thorleif (1974). The Iron Age settlement of artic Norway : a study in the expansion of European Iron Age culture within the arctic circle, Vol. II, Late Iron Age (Merovingian and Viking Periods), Tromsø.
Solberg, Bergljot (1984). Norwegian Spear-Heads from the Merovingian and Viking Periods, Bergen : Universitetet i Bergen.
Stalsberg, Anne (2008). Herstellung und Verbreitung der VLFBERHT-Schwertklingen. Eine Neubewertung. In: Zeitschrift für Archäologie des Mittelalters 36, 89–118.
Shitov 1994 = Шитов, В. Н. (1994). Мечи X-XI вв. на территории Мордовии. In: Историко-археологическое изучение Поволжья, Йошкар-Ола, 44–53.
Shramko 1962 = Шрамко, Б. А. (1962). Древности Северского Донца, Харьков.
Thunmark-Nylén, Lena (1998). Die Wikingerzeit Gotlands II: Typentafeln, Stockholm.
Thunmark-Nylén, Lena (2000). Die Wikingerzeit Gotlands IV:1: Katalog, Stockholm.
Thunmark-Nylén, Lena (2000). Die Wikingerzeit Gotlands IV:2: Katalog, Stockholm.
Thunmark-Nylén, Lena (2006). Die Wikingerzeit Gotlands III: 1–2 : Text, Stockholm.
Tomsons, Artūrs (2018). Zobeni Latvijas teritorijā no 7. līdz 16. gadsimtam, Rīga.
Viskupič, Michal (2023). Early medieval double-edged swords from the territory of Bulgaria (800 – 1100). In: Project Forlǫg – Reenactment and science [online]. [2026-04-23]. Available here: https://sagy.vikingove.cz/en/early-medieval-double-edged-swords-from-the-territory-of-bulgaria-800-1100/
Viskupič, Michal (2025). Petersen Type V Sword. In: Project Forlǫg – Reenactment and science [online]. [2026-04-23]. Available here: https://sagy.vikingove.cz/en/petersen-type-v-sword/
Vlasatý, Tomáš (2016). Sekery z Birky. In: Project Forlǫg – Reenactment and science [online]. [2026-04-23]. Available here: https://sagy.vikingove.cz/sekery-birka/
Vlasatý, Tomáš (2019). Petersen type M sword. In: Project Forlǫg – Reenactment and science [online]. [2026-04-23]. Available here: https://sagy.vikingove.cz/en/petersen-type-m-sword/
Vlasatý, Tomáš (2020a). Petersen type W sword. In: Project Forlǫg – Reenactment and science [online]. [2026-04-23]. Available here: https://sagy.vikingove.cz/en/petersen-type-w-sword/
Vlasatý, Tomáš (2020b). Petersen type G sword. In: Project Forlǫg – Reenactment and science [online]. [2026-04-23]. Available here: https://sagy.vikingove.cz/en/petersen-type-g-sword/
Vlasatý, Tomáš (2020c). Wire wrapped sword grips of 9th-11th century. In: Project Forlǫg – Reenactment and science [online]. [2026-04-23]. Available here: https://sagy.vikingove.cz/en/wire-wrapped-sword-grips-of-9th-11th-century/
Vlasatý, Tomáš (2020d). Swords with organic hilts. In: Project Forlǫg – Reenactment and science [online]. [2026-04-23]. Available here: https://sagy.vikingove.cz/en/swords-with-organic-hilts/
Volkaitė-Kulikauskienė, Regina (1964). IX-XII amžių kalavijai Lietuvoje. In: Iš lietuvių kultūros istorijos IV, Vilnius, 197–226.
Wadyl, Sławomir – Misiuk, Zbigniew – Karczewski, Jakub (2020). An upper-guard of a type T sword from Gdańsk. In: Acta Militaria Mediaevalia XVI, 7–14.
Whitelock, Dorothy (2011). Anglo-Saxon Wills, Cambridge.
Williams, Alan (2012). The Sword and the Crucible, Leiden – Boston.
Wilson, D. M. (1995). Vikingatidens konst, Lund.
Yotov – Pavlova 2004 = Йотов, Валери – Павлова, Ваня. Българите и техните съседи през V–Х век – Каталог на изложба, Регионален исторически музей – Варна, Варна, 2004.
Żak, Jan (1960). Problem pochodzenia mieczów tzw. “wikińskich” na ziemiach zachodniosłowiańskich, głównie polskich. In: Archeologia Polski, Tom 4, Zeszyt 2, 297–344.