In the following article, we would like to present the hitherto lesser-known Petersen Type W sword. In the weaponry of the tenth century, this type represents a relatively rare and technologically specific group of weapons that differs markedly from the standard iron production of its era. We will describe this type in terms of both construction and decoration, map its distribution in the light of the latest archaeological revisions, and also present its modern reconstructions.
Description of the group
Type W designates a sword whose hilt components – namely the one-piece pommel and the crossguard – are cast from non-ferrous metals, specifically copper alloys such as leaded brass or multi-component bronze (Androshchuk 2014: 79–80; Petersen 1919: 156–7; Zozulya – Kainov 2022). In frontal view, the crossguard is straight, with slightly rounded shorter sides. The one-piece pommel, onto the upper surface of which the blade tang is peened (potentially with an iron washer), features a simple, semi-circular shape with rounded edges. Viewed from above, both components are lenticular in shape, tapering towards the ends. Both cast components were manufactured as thin-walled, hollow shells, which significantly saved both metal and the overall weight of the weapon (for an X-ray image, see Androshchuk 2014: Pl. 180a).
Fig. 1: Detail of the bronze components of a Type W sword.
Hosanger (B998). Photo/Author: Svein Skare, Unimus.
The Type W hilt is invariably part of a double-edged sword. In terms of metric parameters, Type W swords exhibit a relatively high degree of uniformity. Fully preserved swords reach a total length ranging between 878 and 942 mm, with the length of the blade itself falling between 735 and 770 mm. The blades are 50 to 60 mm wide and, at the crossguard, are set into prepared grooves on its underside. The crossguards measure 80 to 100 mm in length, 12 to 18 mm in height, and 14 to 22 mm in thickness. Preserved pommels measure 58 to 70 mm in length, 33 to 47 mm in height, and 17 to 21 mm in thickness. The length of the grip proper between the crossguard and the pommel is 85 to 105 mm, which corresponds precisely to average palm widths and points to customized weapon production. The blades are usually uninscribed; however, the sword from Timerevo (Grave 100) bears a mark on the blade in the form of a Latin letter C and likely a cross as well (Kirpichnikov 1992: 80; Nedoshivina 1991: 166; Zozulya – Kainov 2022: 116).
The pommels are divided by sets of three lines in the horizontal direction, imitating the division of the upper guard and cap found on swords with iron components. The surface of the cap is further divided into three fields by additional sets of three lines. According to Zozulya and Kainov, this morphology deliberately mimics swords decorated with inlay, primarily Petersen Type V swords (Zozulya – Kainov 2022: 108; see also Viskupič 2025). Almost all known components belonging to this type are decorated, with three main variants distinguishable. The first and dominant variant is characterized by more massive proportions, a shorter and taller crossguard, and surface decoration in the form of horizontal zigzag lines forming a “fir-tree” motif (Zozulya – Kainov 2022: 108). This pattern was punched onto the castings using a chisel with a V-shaped edge, which, in some cases, featured five points on each arm (Zozulya – Kainov 2022: 108). The second and less common variant consists of vertically oriented zigzag lines, again created by punching, which, however, do not form a “fir-tree” motif. The third variant utilizes an ornament in the form of concentric circles, which may appear individually or in compositions, occasionally supplemented by zigzag lines (Zozulya – Kainov 2022: 108).
Fig. 2: Visualisation of decorative variants.
Left: zigzag ornament with a fir-tree motif.
Centre: zigzag ornament without a fir-tree motif.
Right: ring-and-dot ornament.
Source: Androshchuk 2014: Fig. 35; Zozulya – Kainov 2022: Fig. 1. Not to scale.
As for organic components, only a few specimens with preserved grips or scabbards are known to date. We were able to identify four examples with preserved grips; in three cases, the tang forming the grip is encased in a wooden core, which, in the case of the sword from Aafjorden, Norway (T3107), is additionally wrapped in linen and spirally bound with iron wire (Vlasatý 2020). The fourth case, namely the sword from Klepp (S2453), features a horn grip (Vlasatý 2019). Regarding the scabbards, it can be assumed that they took standard forms. According to available photographs, the Klepp sword has a preserved wooden scabbard with a leather cover or wrap. The sword from Timerevo (Grave 100) likewise had a wooden scabbard covered in leather (Kainov – Novikov 2024: 250; Zozulya – Kainov 2022: 116). At the lower end of the Shestovytsia sword, which was reportedly housed in a wooden scabbard (Zozulya – Kainov 2022: 115), an Androshchuk Type 2 chape has been preserved (Androshchuk – Zotsenko 2012: 211; Chernenko 2007: Fig. 39.3; Syta – Mudrytska 2023: 71).
Distribution and Hybridisation of the Type
At present, a total of 17 specimens can be assigned to Type W, originating from Norway (8 ex.), Sweden (3 ex.), the Russian Federation (2 ex.), Ukraine (2 ex.), Germany (1 ex.), and Lithuania (1 ex.).
Map 1: Distribution of Type W swords and their hybrids in Europe.
Blue = Type W; gold = I/W hybrid; red = E/W hybrid.
The highest concentration of finds unambiguously comes from Norway, where we record 8 swords. However, the Norwegian material is accompanied by certain interpretative issues. From Petersen’s original list (Petersen 1919: 156), which also comprised 8 items, two pieces were removed by Kainov: the sword from Hundstad (C16699) and a sword of unknown provenance (T1830) (Zozulya – Kainov 2022). Conversely, new finds were added, namely the sword from Krossdal (B7154) (Farestveit 1990) and the newly discovered, somewhat deformed pommel from Søberg Øvre (T28591). The sword from Lunde Nordre (C26851), which Hernæs designates as Type W (Hernæs 1985), appears to be misidentified based on additional photographic documentation. The author verified the swords with other swords that the UNIMUS catalog lists as possible candidates for type W (S3132; S8391), with a negative result. The confirmed Norwegian specimens originate from the sites of Ulvik (B529, formerly B454), Hosanger (B998), Krossdal (B7154), Klepp (S2453), Frosta (T208), Buviken (T305), Aafjorden (T3107), and Søberg Øvre (T28591).
In Sweden, three pieces are known. The first is a sword from Östveda (SHM 25370; Androshchuk 2014: Gä 35), and the second is a pommel from Stångebro (SHM 9170:1217; Androshchuk 2014: Ög 6; Behmer 1939: Tab. LIV.3). The third find is represented by a pommel from Forsby (GM 5356:1916:136), which Zozulya and Kainov marked as problematic (Zozulya – Kainov 2022: 108); however, photographs provided by the museum in Gävleborg support the original interpretation. The pommel is notable for its decoration, which consists of straight vertical lines (Vlasatý 2022).
Fig. 3: Östveda, Sweden (SHM 25370). Total length 878 mm, blade length 743 mm, blade width 50–31 mm, crossguard length 100 mm, crossguard height 14 mm, crossguard thickness 22 mm, pommel length 60 mm, pommel height 37 mm, pommel thickness 20 mm, grip length 86 mm, grip width 20–26 mm, total weight 892 g. Photo and description: Androshchuk 2014: 79, 337–338, Fig. 35.
Two representatives are known from Timerevo in Russia, where we find one complete sword (Grave 100; GIM 103390, Op. V 2129/146) and pommel fragments (Grave 287; GIM 103676, Op. V 2284/99, 107) (Nedoshivina 1991; Zozulya 2007: Figs. 7-8; Zozulya – Kainov 2022). The Eastern European finds are supplemented by Ukrainian material: the sword from Grave 42 at Shestovytsia (inv. no. A(3-24)/3) (Androshchuk – Zotsenko 2012: 212; Syta – Mudrytska 2023: 71) and a sword from the Dnieper River found near Cherkasy (inv. no. A-682), which has a crossguard close to Type H and a hollow, open Type W pommel (Androshchuk – Zotsenko 2012: 120-1; Zozulya – Kainov 2022; see also Viskupič 2025).
Fig. 4: Shestovytsia, grave 42, Ukraine. Total length 890 mm, total hilt length 145 mm, blade width 60 mm, crossguard length 85 mm, crossguard height 17 mm, pommel length 60 mm, pommel height 35 mm. The tip of the sword is fitted with a chape. Photo and description: Androshchuk – Zotsenko 2012: 212, Fig. 151; Jana Korkodim, Wojtek Szanek.
Two components – a pommel and a crossguard – were found in the Inlet of Schlei near Schleswig in Germany, clearly originating from the same sword (inv. nos K.S.19310 and H.M.2107) (Geibig 1991: Pl. 164.4–5, Cat. no. 324; La Baume 1954; Loewe 1998: 287, Pl. 152.3; Müller-Wille 1977: Cat. no. 17). The enumeration is concluded by a sword from Grave 86 at the Lithuanian site of Bikavėnai (inv. no. LNM AR 490:236; Janionis 2025: 206, Cat. no. 13; Kazakevičius 1996: 64–67). We do not include finds from Great Britain in the overall total (Jakobsson 1992: 213; Żabiński 2007: 65), as all of these swords possess iron components and thus fail to meet the fundamental criterion of Type W. Concurrently, we exclude the sword from the Serbian site of Novi Bečej, which is likewise made of iron (Vinski 1983: Cat. no. 4; Viskupič 2026).
Beyond the strictly defined Type W, there exist related regional types and remarkable hybrid forms. Hilts with cast components decorated with interlace, zoomorphic, or floral ornament are commonly assigned to Type W. According to Zozulya and Kainov, these represent distinct regional types or variants. This applies in particular to the sword from Hundstad in Norway (C16699), which is decorated with interlace in the Borre style (Brøgger 1921: Fig. 10), as well as a series of Baltic swords from the turn of the eleventh century, represented by finds from the Latvian sites of Siguldas Saksukalns (DM I 1086), Daugmales senpilsēta (A 12900:50), Salgales Diduļi (A 14107:1; Tomsons 2018: 69–70), and the site of Skärlöv on Öland (Salin 1935: 102, 104, Fig. 260; Vlasatý 2022). The so-called Curonian Type I-2 bears a certain relationship to this Latvian series, being apparently later and deriving from the aforementioned swords (Tomsons 2018: 95–6, Fig. 61). Also worthy of mention is another Baltic cast pommel originating from the Estonian site of Maidla in Kullamaa parish (AM 580:4918; Jets 2013: 63–4, Fig. 29), whose decorative style could be described as related to the Ringerike style.
Fig. 5: Swords of local types, potentially related to Type W.
Source: Zozulya – Kainov 2022: Fig. 3, modified.
Among the hybrids, a variant combining Petersen Types I and W stands out – namely a hilt that combines a two-piece pommel and a straight, low crossguard (Type I) with being cast from copper alloy and decorated with a punched zigzag pattern (Type W). Finds of this variant are known from the Latvian site of Bēnes Kaijukrogs (Atgāzis 2019: 90; Jērums 2012: Fig. 2; Tomsons 2018: 46), from the Moravian hillfort of Pohansko near Břeclav (Hošek et al. 2019: Cat. no. 28; Košta et al. 2019: 215–216, Figs. 57–8; Macháček et al. 2021: 160–161, Fig. 40, Pls. 10.6, 224.4), and from illicit excavations in Eastern Europe, likely Russia (Zozulya – Kainov 2022: 111, Fig. 4.2).
Fig. 6: Hybrid swords of Type I/W.
Top left: Pohansko near Břeclav.
Bottom left: unknown Eastern European location, presumably Russia.
Right: Bēnes Kaijukrogs.
Source: Zozulya – Kainov 2022: Fig. 4.1–3.
Another hybrid variant is represented by a combination of Petersen Types E and W, i.e. a copper-alloy pommel with a surface decorated with pitted ornament. A one-piece pommel was discovered during illicit excavations in the territory of Ukraine (Kainov – Novikov 2024: 185; Zozulya – Kainov 2022: 108, Fig. 4.4). A two-piece variant originates from the site of Gröndal on the Swedish island of Öland (Androshchuk 2014: 462; Petersson 1964: Fig. 25; Vlasatý 2022).
Fig. 7: Hybrid swords of Type E/W.
Left: unknown location, Ukraine.
Right: Gröndal.
Source: Petersson 1964: Fig. 25; Zozulya – Kainov 2022: 108, Fig. 4.4.
Dating and the Question of Origin
Type W swords are traditionally dated by Petersen to the first half of the tenth century (Petersen 1919: 157). This dating is primarily based on the (inprecise) dating of a Type I spearhead that was found alongside the sword from Hundstad (C16699). However, since this sword was excluded from the Type W group by Zozulya and Kainov, this dating essentially lacks relevance and requires revision. The chronological problem is all the more pressing as Eastern European swords offer no dating other than the second half of the tenth century, thus giving rise to a certain contradiction (Zozulya – Kainov 2022).
Dating is further complicated by the fact that Scandinavian swords are usually not found in assemblages that would allow for an unambiguous chronological anchoring. Perhaps the best dating is offered by the context of the sword from Krossdal (B7154), which was discovered together with a Type K spearhead and a Type R562 shield boss. The Type K spearhead allows for dating throughout the whole tenth century (Hjardar – Vike 2016: 175), while the shield boss is datable to the second half of the ninth and the first half of the tenth century, with a possible overlap into the third quarter of the tenth century (Hjardar – Vike 2016: 185). The sword from Klepp (S2453) was found with an axe of Petersen Type I, datable across the entire tenth century (Hjardar – Vike 2016: 163). The sword from Frosta (T208) comes from a burial mound that yielded an unidentifiable axe, a sword reminiscent of Type H, and an oval brooch of Type P51, which can be assigned to the whole tenth century (Petersen 1928). The sword from Buviken (T305) was found at the same site as an axe (I/K) and a spearhead (I/K), which – assuming they derive from the same context – are datable to the tenth century. The sword from Aafjorden (T3107) comes from a set of militaria with an unclear context. The Lithuanian sword is dated to the tenth century based on a knobbed penannular brooch (Kazakevičius 1996: 65).
Fig. 8: Klepp (S2453), Norway. Total length 899 mm, total hilt length 139 mm, blade length 760 mm, blade width 58 mm, crossguard length 100 mm, crossguard height 12 mm, crossguard thickness 21 mm, pommel length 59 mm, pommel height 36 mm, pommel thickness 21 mm, grip length 91 mm. Source: Unimus.
If we accept the premise that Type W is a conscious inspiration drawn from Type V rendered in a different medium, a dating prior to the turn of the first and second quarters of the tenth century – when Type V may first appear – cannot be accepted (Viskupič 2025). In this light, we should cautiously date the Norwegian specimens to the second and third quarters of the tenth century. Surprisingly, the hybrid upper guard from Pohansko, which was discovered in a context dating to the first and second thirds of the tenth century, corresponds well with such a dating (Hošek et al. 2019: Cat. no. 28). The hybrid pommel from Ukraine, which combines elements of Type E-4, could be dated to around the mid-tenth century, to which Type E-4 is dated (Kainov – Novikov 2024: 193).
The rich Graves 42 at Shestovytsia and 100 at Timerevo are demonstrably datable to the second half of the tenth century. A compromise dating for the Shestovytsia burial, which reflects the presence of saddle fittings with Mammen-style engravings, a sword chape, a burial candle, and a belt pouch, places the grave in the 970s–980s (Androshchuk 2014: 121; Gáll et al. 2023; Pushkina 1997: 126–128). The Timerevo grave contains coins, the youngest of which was minted in 976/977, leading to the conclusion that the burial was created in the final quarter of the tenth century (Mikhailov 2016: 222–3; Zozulya – Kainov 2022: 120). Regarding the sword from Grave 100 at Timerevo, it is also worth noting that its decoration is worn, which is interpreted as evidence of the weapon’s age (Zozulya – Kainov 2022: 116).
As we lack casting moulds, it cannot be definitively established where Type W was produced. The question remains open, and here we can merely summarise current ideas and personal observations. Attempts to locate the place of manufacture for such a relatively rare type amount to unscientific guesswork.
Fig. 9: Bikavėnai, Lithuania. Total length 925 mm, blade length 756 mm, blade width 55–39.5 mm, blade thickness 5–4 mm, grip length 105 mm, crossguard length 87 mm, crossguard height 17.2 mm, crossguard thickness 19 mm, pommel length 63.5 mm, pommel height 36.5 mm, pommel thickness 20 mm. Photo and description: Janionis 2025: Cat. No. 13.
Considering the number of Norwegian specimens, Petersen believed that Type W was produced in Norway (Petersen 1919: 157). La Baume held the view that Type W originated in Scandinavia and was imported into Eastern Europe (La Baume 1954: 85). Kazakevičius considers the Lithuanian find to be an import “from Western Europe” rather than a local product (Kazakevičius 1996: 67). Košta put forward the opinion that Type W might have been produced in the Baltic region (Hošek et al. 2021: 326; Košta 2021: 322), which Zozulya and Kainov rejected as unfounded (Zozulya – Kainov 2022). These Russian scholars believe that Type W most likely originates from Norway.
The author is unable to side conclusively with either argument, as conflicting premises exist. It appears that swords with cast copper-alloy hilt components only became widespread in Scandinavia after the introduction of Petersen Type O1 (turn of the ninth/tenth century and the first half of the tenth century), with this fashion creating a natural precursor for the subsequent introduction and dissemination of Type W. This sequence would indicate that Type W swords are Scandinavian products. The variety of decorative variants and hybrid forms suggests that production most likely took place in multiple locations rather than being concentrated in a single workshop. One can agree with the argument that if Type W had been produced exclusively in the Baltic region, it would manifest in more pronounced concentrations. Given the thoroughness of the British and Danish metal-detecting communities and the publication quality of Swedish swords, it is unlikely that production was concentrated in these regions. The absence of Type W swords in Iceland is irrelevant to potential production in Norway, as even substantially more numerous types such as S and V are represented in Iceland only by single digits. According to current knowledge, Norwegian Type W swords appear to have been deposited in graves roughly a generation earlier than Old Rus’ specimens, convincingly demonstrating that Type W in its strictest form most likely did not originate in Rus’.
On the other hand, the Norwegian specimens are distributed along the coastline, which is interpreted in the literature as an import feature (Solberg 1991). At the same time, it must be argued that absolute numbers in the case of Norway are not a decisive indicator given the extreme overall volume of finds, and a far more important indicator is relative frequency, according to which Type W swords appear five times more frequently in Rus’ than in Norway (~0.2% for Norway : ~1% for Old Rus’). It should not be forgotten that Eastern European numbers may have been distorted by illicit excavations and could therefore have been significantly higher. Let us also add that the hybridisation of Types I/W and E/W is entirely absent in Norway and is found exclusively in the Baltic region, as well as Central and Eastern Europe. In the author’s view, the possibility should therefore not be ruled out that while the emergence of Type W may have occurred in Norway sometime in the second quarter of the tenth century, local variants and hybrid combinations were initiated in other parts of the Viking world after a short time lag. However, to confirm or refute such hypotheses, further specimens must be found and subjected to thorough examination.
Reconstructions
In this chapter, we would like to present five approximate reconstructions of the Petersen Type W sword crafted by various European swordsmiths (as of 2018).
Fig. 10: Reconstruction of the sword from Shestovytsia 42. Blade width 68–40 mm. Weight 1,540 grams, point of balance 170 mm from the crossguard. Maker: Tomáš Zela, 2017.
Fig. 11: Reconstruction of the sword from Shestovytsia 42. Weight 1,200 grams.
Maker: Dmitry Khramtsov, 2015.
Fig. 12: Reconstruction of the sword from Shestovytsia 42 in comparison with the original.
Maker: Wojtek Szanek, 2016.
Fig. 13: Makers: Petr Floriánek, Radek Lukůvka, 2018.
Fig. 14: Maker: Arma Epona.
Acknowledgements and Dedication
This work was created on the initiative of Tomáš Břenek from the living history group Goryničové, who owns a reconstruction made by Tomáš Zela. As this type had not previously been seen on Czech re-enactment battlefields, the need arose to highlight the finds and their distribution. Thanks are due to every persistent enthusiast who was not discouraged by waiting. Sergei Kainov also contributed to the article by pointing out two Russian finds, as did Ferenc Tavasz, who assisted me with his advice. Michal Viskupič contributed by bringing a new, unpublished find to my attention. Finally, I would like to dedicate this article to my friend, the swordsmith Jan Motyčka, and to his child, who is currently entering this world.
We hope you liked reading this article. If you have any question or remark, please contact us or leave a comment below. If you want to learn more and support our work, please, fund our project on Patreon, Buymeacoffee, Revolut or Paypal.
Bibliography
Androshchuk, Fedir (2014). Viking Swords : Swords and Social aspects of Weaponry in Viking Age Societies, Stockholm.
Androshchuk – Zocenko 2012 = Андрощук, Ф. O. – Зоценко, В. (2012). Скандинавские древности Южной Руси: каталог, Paris.
Atgāzis, Māris (2019). Tuvcīņas ieroči Latvijā 10.- 13.gadsimtā, Rīga.
Behmer, E. G. (1939). Das zweischneidige Schwert der germanischen Völkerwanderungszeit, Stockholm.
Brøgger, A. W. (1921). Rolvsøyætten : et arkeologisk bidrag til vikingetidens historie. In: Bergens Museums Aarbok 1920–21, Hist.antikv. Række 1, 3–42.
Chernenko 2007 = Черненко, О. Є. (2007). Археологічна колекція Чернігівського історичного музею імені В.В. Тарновського (1896-1948 рр.), Чернігів.
Farestveit, Olav (1990). Bygdebok for Modalen herad : Mo sokn og Eksingedalen sokn. B. 2 : Allmenn bygdesoge, Modalen.
Gáll, Erwin et al. (2023). A Unique Object from the 10th-Century Transylvanian Basin: The Mount Ornamented Sabretache of Grave No. 25 in Cluj-Napoca-Plugarilor Street. In: Ephemeris Napocensis 33, 201–232.
Geibig, Alfred (1991). Beiträge zur morphologischen Entwicklung des Schwertes im Mittelalter : eine Analyse des Fundmaterials vom ausgehenden 8. bis zum 12. Jahrhundert aus Sammlungen der Bundesrepublik Deutschland, Neumünster.
Hernæs, Per (1985). De østnorske sverdfunn fra yngre jernalder : en geografisk analyse, Oslo : Universitetet i Oslo.
Hjardar, Kim – Vike, Vegard (2016). Vikings at War, Oxford – Philadelphia.
Hošek, Jiří et al. (2019). Ninth to mid-sixteenth century swords from the Czech Republic in their European context. Part I, Praha – Brno.
Hošek, Jiří et al. (2021). Ninth to mid-sixteenth century swords from the Czech Republic in their European context. Part II, Praha – Brno.
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.
Jērums, Normunds (2012). Divasmeņu zobeni Zemgaļu apdzīvotajās teritorijās (5.–14. gs.). In: Arheoloģija un etnogrāfija XXVI, Rīga, 74-104.
Jets, Indrek (2013). Lahingu maod: Skandinaavia 9.–11. sajandi kunstistiilid Eesti arheoloogilistel leidudel, Tallinn.
Kainov – Novikov 2024 = Каинов, С. Ю. – Новиков, В. В. (2024). Новые находки мечей в Гнёздове (2017–2020 гг.), Москва.
Kazakevičius, Vytautas (1996). IX–XIII a. baltų kalavijai, Vilnius.
Kirpichnikov 1992 = Кирпичников, А. Н. (1992). Новообнаруженные клейма раннесредневековых мечей. In: Fasciculi Archaeologiae Historicae. Fasc. V, 61–81.
Košta, Jiří (2021). Early Medieval Swords from the Czech Republic (9th–10th Centuries), Praha : Univerzita Karlova.
Košta, Jiří et al. (2019). Velkomoravské meče z Pohanska u Břeclavia okolí – nová revize. In: Památky archeologické CX, 173-235.
La Baume, Peter (1954). Ein Wikingerschwert aus der Schlei bei Schleswig. In: Offa 13, 83-86.
Loewe, Gudrun (1998). Archäologische Denkmäler Schleswig-Holsteins, Band VIII – Kreis Schleswig, Neumünster.
Macháček, Jiří et al. (2021). Břeclav – Pohansko X. Sídelní areál na Severovýchodním předhradí. Archeologické výzkumy v letech 2008-2016, Brno.
Mikhailov 2016 = Михайлов, К. А. (2016). Элитарный погребальный обряд Древней Руси. Камерные погребения IХ – начала XI века в контексте североевропейских аналогий, Санкт-Петербург.
Müller-Wille, Michael (1977). Krieger und Reiter im Spiegel früh- und hochmittelalterlicher Funde Schleswig-Holsteins. In: Offa 34, 40-74.
Nedoshivina 1991 = Недошивина Н. Г. (1991). Предметы вооружения, снаряжение всадника и верхового коня тимеревского могильника // Материалы по средневековой археологии Северо-Восточной Руси, Москва, 165–181.
Petersen, Jan (1919). De Norske Vikingesverd: En Typologisk-Kronologisk Studie Over Vikingetidens Vaaben, Kristiania.
Petersen, Jan (1928). Vikingetidens Smykker, Stavanger.
Pushkina 1997 = Пушкина, Т. А. (1997). Воск и свечи в древнерусских погребениях // Археологический сборник. Погребальный обряд. Отв. ред. И. В. Белоцерковская, Москва, 122–133.
Solberg, Bergljot (1991). Weapons Export from the Continent to the Nordic Countries in the Carolingian Period. In: Studien zur Sachsenforschung 7, 241–259.
Syta – Mudrytska 2023 = Сита, Людмила – Мудрицька, Вікторія (2023). Каталог знахідок із Шестовицького могильника у зібранні Чернігівського історичного музею імені В.В. Тарновського. Розкопки П.І. Смолічева (1925–1927 роки). Скарбниця української культури: Збірник наукових праць, випуск 22, спецвипуск 3, Чернігів.
Tomsons, Artūrs (2018). Zobeni Latvijas teritorijā no 7. līdz 16. gadsimtam, Rīga.
Viskupič, Michal (2025). Petersen Type V Sword. In: Project Forlǫg – Reenactment and science [online]. [2026-07-25]. Available from: https://sagy.vikingove.cz/en/petersen-type-v-sword/
Viskupič, Michal (2026). Early Medieval Double-Edged Swords from the Territory of Serbia (9th–11th Century). In: Project Forlǫg – Reenactment and science [online]. [2026-07-25]. Available here: https://sagy.vikingove.cz/en/early-medieval-double-edged-swords-from-the-territory-of-serbia-9th-11th-century/
Vlasatý, Tomáš (2019). The forms of Norwegian sword grips. In: Project Forlǫg – Reenactment and science [online]. [2026-07-25]. Available here: https://sagy.vikingove.cz/en/norwegian-sword-handles/
Vlasatý, Tomáš (2020). Wire wrapped sword grips of 9th-11th century. In: Project Forlǫg – Reenactment and science [online]. [2026-07-25]. Available here: https://sagy.vikingove.cz/en/wire-wrapped-sword-grips-of-9th-11th-century/
Vlasatý, Tomáš (2022). Supplement to Androshchuk’s sword catalog of Viking Age Sweden. In: Project Forlǫg – Reenactment and science [online]. [2026-07-25]. Available here: https://sagy.vikingove.cz/en/supplement-to-androshchuks-sword-catalog-of-viking-age-sweden/
Zozulya 2007 = Зозуля, С. С. (2007). Зозуля Предметы вооружения Ярославского Поволжья X-XI вв., Москва.
Zozulya – Kainov 2022 = Зозуля, С. С. – Каинов, С. Ю. (2022). Мечи типа «W» на территории Древней Руси. In: Археологические вести 32, 107-129.
Żabiński, Grzegorz (2007). Viking Age Swords from Scotland. In: Studia i Materiały – Studies and Materials, Acta Militaria Mediaevalia III, Kraków – Sanok, 29–84.