The Sword from Solomonovo, Ukraine

Béla Balogh¹ – Tomáš Vlasatý²
4. March 2026
https://doi.org/10.59500/CBUW2472

¹ Ferenc Rákóczi II Transcarpathian Hungarian College of Higher Education, Berehove
balogh.bela.b22tm@kmf.org.ua
ORCID: 0009-0002-1715-2265

² Project Forlǫg – Reenactment and Science
info@vikingove.cz
ORCID: 0009-0009-5615-3712

Keywords: Petersen Type Y, sword, 10th century, Solomonovo (Tiszasalamon), Carpathian Basin, Early Middle Ages.

Introduction

One of the most iconic and widely distributed sword types of the Early Middle Ages is Petersen Type Y (for the definition, see Androshchuk 2014: 83–84; Petersen 1919: 167–173). Swords of this type are defined by a hilt with a saddle-shaped pommel, which can be of either single-piece or two-piece construction, with a length of 5.5–10 cm. Pommels with sharply pointed ends are designated in the literature as variant Y1, while more rounded ends pertain to variant Y2. Type Y is associated with a straight or curved long crossguard, ranging from 9 to 17 cm in length. The hilt is, by definition, undecorated; the only form of decoration may consist of a horizontal line on the pommel that imitates a two-piece construction. In Geibig’s typology, Petersen Type Y corresponds to Combination Type 13-I (Geibig 1991: 60–62).

With the exception of certain Norwegian examples, the blades are double-edged. Pattern-welding can be observed in these specimens (Hošek – Košta 2022; Hošek et al. 2012). In at least seven cases within the group of Type Y swords, a variant of the ULFBERHT inscription appears (Stalsberg 2008: Cat. Nos. CZ1, D6, EST2, LV1, PL5, RUS20, RUS21). Two swords feature a variant of the inscription INGELRII FECIT (Kirpichnikov 1966: Cat. No. 74; Petersen 1925), while another features a variant of the name INGELRII (Moilanen 2015: KM 2508:124; Räty 1998: 42–43). One sword is inscribed with ABO FECIT (Košta – Hošek 2021; Košta et al. 2018). Another sword is most likely equipped with a variant of the inscription LEUTLRIT (Stalsberg 2008: Cat. No. N29; 2011: Fig. 3). One of the probable Type Y swords bears the inscription AMEN (Kainov 2012: Cat. No. 20; Kirpichnikov 1966: Cat. No. 71). The number of inscriptions within this corpus is undoubtedly significantly higher, though they remain unanalyzed (e.g., Androshchuk 2014: 330, Cat. No. Gä 4).

Fig. 1: Example of a Type Y sword, variant Y2.
Source: Košta et al. 2018: Fig. 5.

According to the most recent literature, Type Y swords first appear at the end of the 9th century, with their deposition in graves beginning as early as the turn of the 9th and 10th centuries (Nowotny 2018: 86–91; 2019). They likely appeared too late to be included on a larger scale in Great Moravian graves, where they nevertheless have a certain representation (see Hošek et al. 2019; Král 1970). Given that the oldest Type Y swords originate from the territories of present-day Austria and Moravia, as well as their significant frequency in Bavaria, an East Frankish origin is assumed (Hošek et al. 2021: 312–313; Košta – Hošek 2021). A Central European origin is also indicated by their relative frequency, which reaches up to 50% of all swords in Bohemia and up to 25% in Bavaria (Košta 2021: Fig. 92). In the following decades, they spread explosively throughout the rest of Europe, with local variants emerging, such as Y1 in Norway. In Norway, the earliest swords of this type enter the archaeological record no earlier than the second quarter of the 10th century (Hjardar – Vike 2016: 169). The presence of Type Y in the graves of Birka, where they are found in combination with coins from the first half of the 10th century, attests to their deposition during the second and third quarters of the 10th century (Androshchuk 2014: 150). This corresponds with finds from Gnězdovo, Russia, where the finds can be dated between the second quarter and the end of the 10th century (Kainov 2012: 58). The latest depositions of Type Y swords occurred in the Baltic region at the turn of the 10th and 11th centuries, as exemplified by Grave 15 from Luistari, Finland, which, in addition to the sword, contained a coin from 991 (Lehtosalo-Hilander 1982: 14). A similar dating may be suggested by certain Type Y swords from Latvia (Kazakevičius 1996: 72–74). There is a tendency to date Type Y swords from the Conquest period Hungary to the second half of the 10th and the beginning of the 11th century (Bakay 1967: 169; Kovács 1994–1995), though this is sometimes adjusted to cover the entire 10th century (Jócsik 2024: Cat. Nos. 10, 20).

Map 1: Distribution of Type Y swords in Europe.
Source: Košta 2021: Fig. 91.

Mapping of Type Y has long lacked a pan-European basis. In 1992, Jakobsson recorded 54 specimens of Type Y; however, this study did not include many already published pieces, particularly from the Eastern Bloc (Jakobsson 1992: 214). Kainov accounted for further finds, estimating the number at approximately 60 (Kainov 2012: 56;2019: 70). In 2021, Jiří Košta stated that he recorded 118 finds with a known find spot, region, or country of origin (Hošek et al. 2021: 313; Košta 2021: 301). Nevertheless, some pieces are missing from this list. The number of Norwegian swords has essentially doubled since Petersen’s time, requiring the addition of at least 16 new swords (C7816, C23277, C25947, C28248, C28738, C35247, C35347, C37051, C37873, C38145, C58891, S4165, S5524, [T74?], T13145, T16699, T16950, Ts4055). Beyond the three Latvian swords mentioned by Košta, four additional finds must be taken into account (Tomsons 2018: 70). While Košta mentions only a single piece from France, another exists, found at the Lit de la Selle site (Delort 2017–2018: Cat. No. 44; Léman et al. 1987). One sword was discovered during a formal archaeological excavation in eastern Slovakia in 2023 and remains unpublished (Viskupič 2026). Another unlisted sword comes from the site of Solomonovo in western Ukraine, which is the subject of the following article. Overall, it can be stated that the number of Type Y swords in Europe exceeds 140 specimens.

Map 2: Relative frequency of Type Y swords in Europe.
Source: Košta 2021: Fig. 92.

For the purposes of the following text, it is appropriate to mention all Type Y swords from the area delimited by the Carpathian Arc. In the territory of Slovakia, besides the aforementioned unpublished piece, these include a sword from the Danube near Bratislava (Turčan 1997), a sword from Grave 3 at the Hurbanovo-Bohatá site (Rejholcová 1976: 203, Pl. II.2), and a sword from a grave in the cadastral area of the village of Marcelová (Ruttkay 1975: Cat. No. 91, Fig. 6.3). Another possible Type Y specimen is the sword from Červeník, Slovakia; however, its pommel is missing, allowing for a theoretical attribution to types N or X (Jócsik 2024: Cat. No. 4; Tar 2018: 27). At least three finds are known from Hungary: from Grave 1 at the Székesfehérvár-Vízművek site (Bakay 1965: Cat. No. 54, Pl. V), a sword from a brickyard in Miskolc (Bakay 1965: Cat. No. 36; Kovács 1994–1995: Cat. No. 44, Fig. 3.2), and a lost sword from an unknown location in the vicinity of Esztergom (Kovács 1994–1995: 180). One sword is known from Vojvodina, Serbia, found in the village of Banatski Brestovac (Aleksić 2004). This collection is concluded by the sword from Solomonovo, Ukraine (Bakay 1965: Cat. No. 45, Fig. 15). One sword, assessed as Type Y, was reportedly exhibited in a museum in Cluj, Romania, with a copy allegedly located in the exhibition of the National Military Museum in Bucharest (Heitel 1994–1995: 438; Košta 2021: Cat. No. 3729). Most likely, the author was misled by a similar pommel, and it is actually a sword of Geibig Combination Type 13–II (Szendrei 1896: 66, Fig. 185), a copy of which was still on display in Bucharest around 2011 but is missing from the current exhibition.

Map 3: Type Y swords within the area delimited by the Carpathian Arc.

Context of the Discovery

For a long period during the Soviet era, the Old Hungarian archaeological material from the present-day Transcarpathian region of Ukraine was considered somewhat of a taboo and was relegated to the sidelines in favour of Slavic material (Kobály 2012a: 271). With the accumulation of finds and the dissolution of the Soviet Union, this trend was broken, allowing for the first synthetic works to emerge (most notably Kobály 2001; 2012a-b). These studies unequivocally demonstrate that the Upper Tisza region was not merely a transit station for the Hungarians during the so-called Hungarian conquest (honfoglalás), but rather a site of permanent settlement. Some artifacts from this area, such as those from the Berehove Grave II, rank among the most opulent Conquest period finds in the Carpathian Basin (Fodor et al. 1996: 130–135). The generally small number of items of Old Hungarian provenance in the Transcarpathian region should be attributed to the history of research and the current state of knowledge rather than to objective reality. Today, the Upper Tisza region, spanning the borders of modern-day Hungary, Slovakia, and Ukraine, is perceived by Hungarian scholars as a space inhabited by a community of free warriors who organized themselves internally to ensure the protection and control of fords, likely being integrated into the defensive system of the early Hungarian state (Révész 2018: 344–348).

Fig. 2: Archival documentation of the finds from Solomonovo.
Source: Kobály 2012a: Fig. 20; Száraz 1896: Pl. A.

One of the sites supporting this theory is located within the cadastral area of the Ukrainian village of Solomonovo (Ukr. Соломоново, Slk. Šalamúnová, Hun. Tiszasalamon), situated approximately 2 kilometers from the tri-border area of Hungary, Slovakia, and Ukraine. In 1872, during the construction of the Sátoraljaújhely – Chop railway line, workers encountered human and equine skeletal remains northwest of the village. Once Ede Sziber, director of the Drugeth Royal Catholic Archgymnasium in Uzhhorod and a pioneer of the archaeological and museum movement in Ung County, was informed of the find, he arrived at the site. Assisted by Professor János Zékány, he conducted an archaeological excavation on an elevated spot between the railway and a dead arm of the Tisza River (approximate coordinates 48°26’02.7″N, 22°08’41.4″E), uncovering several human burials with rich grave goods. According to contemporary press reports, the excavation took place in the second half of August 1880 (Ung 1880a: 3; 1880b: 2). Unfortunately, precise documentation and a description of the excavation process are absent; thus, it is impossible to determine the extent of the cemetery or whether it was significantly larger, with the excavations at the time capturing only a portion of it. Given that the collected artifacts included items from the High Middle Ages, it is possible that the site hosted continuous settlement or use as a burial ground. The find material was initially deposited in the antiquities collection of the Uzhhorod gymnasium. In 1896, the objects were exhibited at the Millennial Exhibition in Budapest, where they were awarded a medal. Subsequently, in 1928, they were transferred to the Lehoczky Museum in Mukachevo, finally finding their permanent place in 1950 at the Tivadar Lehoczky Transcarpathian Regional Museum at Uzhhorod Castle, where they remain to this day (selected literature: Száraz 1896; Szendrei 1896: 49–51, Fig. 104; Hampel 1905a: 250, 838, 850; 1905b: 682–685; 1905c: 440; Lehoczky 1912: 87–88; Eisner 1925: 53, 58; Pasternak 1928: 192, No. 21; Jankovich 1943: 104, Pls. XXIV, XXVII; Bernjakovič 1957: 437; Fehér et al. 1962: 65, č. 867; Szőke 1962: 81; Penjak 1980: 125; Kobály 2001: 212–213, Fig. 11–12; 2012a: 287–294).

According to Kobály (2012a: 287–294; 2012b: 17–25), the material from Solomonovo consists of the following items:

Double-edged iron sword of Petersen Type Y, the subject of this study. Inv. no. Б3–608/1 (according to Kobály) / Б3–608/2 (as marked on the object).
Cast bronze strap-end decorated with a relief geometric pattern and three fastening pins on the reverse. Dimensions: L. 3.5 cm; W. 1.2 cm; T. 0.2 cm; L. of pins 0.35 cm. Inv. no. Б3–608/2.
Large iron knife with a straight back and remnants of two rivets for securing the handle scales. Dimensions: total L. 41.4 cm; L. of handle 11.5 cm; W. of handle 2.5 cm; W. of blade 3.6–3.2 cm; T. of back 0.7–0.5 cm; Wt. 257 g. Inv. no. Б3–608/3.
Forged iron stirrup, fan-shaped with a ribbed tread and a trapezoidal loop for suspension from the saddle. Dimensions: H. ≤ 16 cm; W. 14.2 cm; internal opening 12.5 × 12.3 cm; W. of arms 1.3 cm; T. of arms 1 cm; W. of tread ≤ 4 cm; loop aperture 1.7 × 1 cm. Inv. no. Б3–608/5.
Analogous forged stirrup with a wider tread, currently severely damaged by corrosion. Dimensions: H. 17 cm; W. 13 cm; internal opening 13 × 12 cm; W. of arms 1.2 cm; T. of arms 0.9 cm; W. of tread 6.2 cm; loop aperture 1.8 × 1 cm. Inv. no. Б3–608/6.
Forged iron stirrup with arms of circular cross-section and a small rectangular loop. Dimensions: H. 15 cm; W. 13 cm; internal opening 12.2 × 11.4 cm; Diam. of arms 1 × 1 cm; W. of tread 3 cm; H. of loop aperture 0.7 cm. Inv. no. Б3–608/7.
Circular forged iron stirrup with a ribbed tread and traces of polishing on the corroded surface. Inv. no. Б3–608/8.
Iron jointed bit terminating in rings, heavily damaged by deep corrosion. Dimensions: total L. ≈ 27 cm; L. of canons 9.5 cm; T. of canons 0.9 × 0.7 cm; Diam. of rings 5.5 × 5.5 cm; T. of ring 0.7 × 0.7 cm; Wt. 118 g. Inv. no. B3–608/10.
Copper alloy cheekpiece of a horse bit. Dimensions: L. 10.9 cm; Diam. of shank 0.6–0.7 cm; L. of terminals 1–1.2 cm; Diam. 0.85 cm; H. of frame 2 cm; W. of base 3.2 cm; upper W. 2 cm; T. of frame 0.5 cm; oval aperture 1.5 × 0.8 cm; outer aperture 1.3 × 0.6 cm; Wt. 36 g. Inv. no. Б3–608/11.
Fragment of the tip of a smaller, heavily corroded iron knife. Dimensions: L. 4.9 cm; W. 1.5 cm; T. of back 0.6–0.5 cm. Inv. no. Б3–608/13.
Rhomboid iron tanged arrowhead with fragments of another arrowhead adhering to its surface. Dimensions: L. 5 cm; W. 2.6 cm. Inv. no. Б3–608/14.
Set of two rhomboid iron tanged arrowheads, fused together due to corrosion. Dimensions: L. of arrowhead 5.7 cm; W. of blade 3 cm; total width of the fused concretion 3.7 cm. Inv. no. Б3–608/15.
Fragment of the lower part of the blade and tang of an iron arrowhead, originally likely leaf-shaped. Dimensions: L. 6.5 cm; W. of blade < 2.1 cm. Inv. no. Б3–608/16.
Severely corroded leaf-shaped iron arrowhead, preserved in two fragments. Dimensions: L. 9.4 cm; W. of blade 2.5 cm. Inv. no. Б3–608/17.
Damaged iron arrowhead, broken in half, likely of the rhomboid type. Dimensions: L. 8 cm; W. 2.6 cm. Inv. no. Б3–608/18.
Bundle of five iron arrowheads, originally stacked and now fused into a single mass due to corrosion. Dimensions: L. 5.8 cm; W. 3.2 cm; T. 1.9 cm. Inv. no. Б3–608/19.
Cast copper alloy ring of oval cross-section with a green patina and traces of functional wear on the inner side. Dimensions: Diam. 3 cm; T. 0.5 × 0.6 cm; Wt. 10 g. Inv. no. Б3–608/21.
Cast copper alloy strap distributor decorated with a relief vegetal motif, likely a component of a quiver. Dimensions: Diam. 2.7 cm; H. 0.4 cm; T. 0.3 cm. Inv. no. Б3–608/23.
Circular copper alloy mount with a relief of a mythical beast and four fastening pins for attachment to a strap. Two pairs of secondary perforations are located near the edges. Dimensions: Diam. 3.65 cm; T. 0.2 cm; H. of pins 0.4 cm; Diam. of pins 0.2 cm; Diam. of apertures 0.4 cm; Wt. 13 g. Inv. no. Б3–608/24.
Copper alloy ring analogous to Inv. no. Б3–608/21, currently missing. No Inv. no.
Small iron knife preserved in three corroded fragments. Dimensions: L. 8 cm; W. 1–1.2 cm. No Inv. no.

Fig. 3: Selection of objects from the Solomonovo material.

Along with the assemblage, other objects are preserved that are traditionally attributed to different periods. These consist of the following items:

Fragment of a rowel spur. This type came into use no earlier than the 12th–13th centuries (Goßler 2011: 58–61; Kirpichnikov 1973: 67–70). Inv. no. Б3–608/12.
Massive openwork cast copper-alloy strap-end, 3.9 cm in length and 3.3 cm in width. It is also inaccurately referred to as a buckle. Inv. no. Б3–608/22.
Iron horseshoe, which was separately handed over to T. Lehoczky by the estate manager Károly Komers. Some sources mention two horseshoes.

Fig. 4: Spur, strap-end, and horseshoe from Solomonovo.

This division warrants further commentary. Regarding the long knife (Inv. no. Б3–608/3), it must be noted that riveted handles are an unusual feature in the Early Middle Ages; virtually all knives with riveted scales from the Carpathian Basin reach, at most, half the length of this specimen (Vlasatý 2023). Therefore, the possibility arises that this is another intrusion from a different period. The massive strap-end, which Kobály labelled as a Roman product due to its apparent similarities to Late Roman buckles of the 4th–5th centuries (e.g. Böhme 1986: Figs. 8–10; Hawkes – Dunning 1961: 22), is currently understood as a strap-end of the so-called Frisian type from the Carolingian period (Schulze-Dörrlamm 2006: 59, Fig. 23.7). Together with the disc – which, due to a lack of knowledge regarding the arrangement of its reverse side, is assessed as a possible brooch (for analogies of the motif, see Frick 1992–1993: Pls. 10–11; Schulze-Dörrlamm 2006: 59, Fig. 23.2) – these are likely looted items from Western Europe (Bollók 2015: 88–89). Given that the main concentration of analogous strap-ends dates to the 10th–12th centuries, the possibility that the strap-end is also a later intrusion cannot be ruled out (Rogerson – Ashley 2021; Spoelder 2022).

Stored alongside the Solomonovo material is the remnant of a leather strap, 29 cm long and 2 cm wide (Inv. no. Б3–608/4). Kobály initially considered this strap to be an original component of the Early Medieval graves (Kobály 2001: 213), but subsequently expressed doubt and excluded the item (Kobály 2012a: 287). The edges of this strap are stitched, and a series of holes runs through the centre, surrounded by circular imprints – likely created by mounts that were torn from the apertures. In our opinion, the possibility that this is a remnant of an Early Medieval decorated belt or harness cannot be excluded (e.g. Androshchuk – Zotsenko 2012: 325). Furthermore, in his book, Lehoczky mentions “buckles and iron saddle components” (Lehoczky 1912: 87). However, such objects are not part of the museum collection. Similarly, the assemblage does not include the “ancient axe”, buttons, or skeletal remains mentioned in the contemporary press as having been found during the 1880 excavations.

Fig. 5: Strap from Solomonovo.

It is assumed that the Conquest period material originates from at least two equestrian graves (Balogh 2025: 6; Szőke 1962: 81). Based on a comparison of the dimensions and shapes of the stirrups, Kobály suggests they originate from three different graves (Kobály 2001: 213). Due to the presence of secondary-use looted jewellery, which is typically found in female or child burials (Bollók 2015: 101), it can be inferred that the original extent of the cemetery may have been larger. The sword, the looted jewellery, and the potential decorated belts suggest that this may have been a cemetery containing the richly furnished graves of the local elite, which were unprofessionally excavated and looted. The uniqueness of the site is further evidenced by a copper-alloy cheekpiece of a horse bit, which is not a common find and has fewer than a dozen analogies in the Carpathian Basin (Kovács 1992: Note 75). Regarding the dating, the assemblage has traditionally been dated to the second half of the 10th century on the basis of the sword (Kobály 2001: 213). The stirrups allow for a dating across the entire 10th century and do not contribute to a more precise chronological definition (see Gáll 2013: Pls. 330–334). The looted items are related to the Hungarian raids into Europe, and their seizure can thus be dated to the beginning of the 10th century (Bollók 2015). It is worth noting that another Conquest period cemetery was located approximately 2.5 km from the find spot, discovered in the eastern part of the Slovak village of Čierna nad Tisou (Nevizánsky 2012; Pastor 1952). This cemetery yielded approximately 15 graves containing arrowheads, quivers, horse bits, stirrups, an amphora, a sabre blade, and a Type V sword. In view of this sword type, a dating of the cemetery to the 2nd–4th quarters of the 10th century can be suggested (Jócsik 2024: Cat. No. 5); it is possible that both cemeteries were related and were used concurrently (Kobály 2001: 213; 2012a: 287).

More photographs of the material from Solomonovo can be viewed or downloaded by clicking the following link:

Description of the Sword

The sword has long been known to Hungarian militaria experts through black-and-white photographs and drawings. As early as 1896, Száraz (1896: 132) provided an uncommonly detailed set of metric data alongside a proficient drawing (a double-edged blade 7.2 cm wide, a 15 cm long crossguard, a 9 cm long tang, and a 9 cm long pommel), which continued to be cited in subsequent literature (e.g. Hampel 1905b: 682; Szendrei 1896: 49). The first to classify the weapon within Petersen’s typology as Type Y was Bakay in his works on Hungarian swords; however, he limited his treatment to a mere summary of the context and a reprinted drawing, omitting updated metric data (Bakay 1965: Cat. No. 45, Fig. 15; 1967: Cat. No. 45). The sword was further included in Kiss’s list of swords from the Carpathian Basin, though without further details (Kiss 1985: 302). In 1995, Kovács included it in his publication on swords, and although he provided neither measurements nor illustrations, he did specify the holding institution and inventory number (Kovács 1994–1995: Cat. No. 57). A significant advancement came with Kobály’s publications after 2000 (Kobály 2012a: 290), which, in addition to a new drawing, provided refined metric dimensions (total L. 93.5 cm; blade L. 81 cm; blade W. 7.6–5.5–4 cm; crossguard W. 2.5 cm; crossguard L. 15 cm; tang L. 9.3 cm; tang W. 2.4–1.8 cm; pommel L. 8 cm; pommel H. 2.5 cm; Wt. 1150 g). Some fluctuation in measurements occurs across Kobály’s various texts (according to Kobály 2001: 213, the total L. is 93 cm and blade W. is 8 cm; according to Kobály 2012b: 22, the blade W. is 7.2 cm). Renewed attention was brought to the sword in 2025, when one of the authors published it in dedicated studies in local Hungarian and Ukrainian periodicals (Balogh 2025; Balogh et al. 2025).

Fig. 6: Drawing of the sword from Solomonovo.
Artist: Volodymyr Moizhes.

The double-edged Petersen Type Y2 sword in question currently has a total length of 93 cm and a weight of 1.158 kg. It is one of only two Type Y swords from the territory of Ukraine; the second originates from Grave 114, discovered in Kyiv in 1946 (Androshchuk – Zotsenko 2012: 86–87; Karger 1950: 182–185; 1958: 186, Pl. XXV; Kirpichnikov 1966: Cat. No. 76). The point of balance is located 20 cm from the crossguard. The upper part of the blade and the hilt are covered with organic residues. The heavily corroded blade reaches a length of 80 cm. Its width at the crossguard, measured including scabbard fragments, is 7.73 cm. The blade width of approximately 7.2–7.6 cm reported in older publications can be considered realistic, making this one of the broadest blades in Early Medieval Europe. The 8 cm width mentioned in the past likely included the remains of the scabbard. The blade corresponds to Geibig Type 2 (Geibig 1991: 85) and Type c according to Hošek and Košta (Hošek – Košta 2014: 260; Hošek et al. 2021: 59), meeting the definition of slightly tapering blades with a short point (Hošek et al. 2021: 62–64). In its midsection, the blade is 5.5 cm wide, narrowing to approximately 4.1 cm at the termination of the fuller. The fuller, which begins at the crossguard and is roughly 74.5 cm long, has an initial width of 2.5 cm, tapering continuously to 1.4 cm. The thickness of the blade, measured at the ridges along the fuller, is 0.5 cm, while in the section beyond the fuller’s end, it drops to approximately 0.3 cm. From the surviving torso of the scabbard, it is evident that the core consists of a thin wooden lath with the grain running from the crossguard towards the point, which is consistent with standard Early Medieval scabbard construction (Tegel et al. 2016). Typically, hardwoods were used (Vlasatý 2022). The wooden core is visibly lined and covered with additional layers, indicating at least a three-layer composite construction common for this period (e.g. Geibig 1999: 41–42; Hägg 1991: 248–268). In archival photographs, the organic remains of the scabbard near the crossguard appear more extensive (Kobály 2001: Fig. 20).

Fig. 7: Details of the sword from Solomonovo.

The hilt consists of the hilt components (crossguard and pommel) attached to the tang. The heavily corroded crossguard appears straight and low in frontal view, tapering slightly towards the ends. In plan view, it takes the form of a slightly pointed oval. Its total length is 15 cm. In the central section, it has a height of 1.2 cm and a thickness of 2.3 cm, while at the ends, these values decrease to 0.9 cm in height and 0.9–1.1 cm in thickness. The cross-section is rectangular with relatively sharp edges. The slot in the crossguard for the tang measures 3.75 × 0.9 cm. Riveted to the end of the tang is a heavily corroded, massive one-piece pommel, which is concave on the underside and divided on the top into a raised centre that curves down into two lateral lobes. Any line that might have visually divided the pommel is not discernable due to corrosion. The pommel is 8 cm long, 3 cm high at the centre, and 1.8 cm thick at its widest point. The pommel narrows slightly towards the top. In plan view, the pommel is oval with rounded ends. The peening of the tang at the top is not visible. The pommel appears slightly rotated or offset. There are two conflicting views on this phenomenon: some manufacturers, fencers and academics consider this feature intentional, serving to improve ergonomics (Warzecha 2020: 35), while others point out that it may be an unintentional effect caused during the piercing of the pommel during manufacture or by post-depositional processes (Jócsik – Môc 2024).

The components define the grip space, currently consisting of a tang with a flat rectangular cross-section, which is covered by organic remains of the grip near the crossguard. The grip was 8.7 cm long, while the total length of the tang measured from the blade shoulders to the pommel is 10.5 cm. The width of the tang at the crossguard is approximately 2.5 cm, narrowing to 1.75 cm at the pommel, with a thickness of 0.4 cm. No holes or rivets are visible in the tang. In archival images, almost an entire half of the tang was covered by a preserved wooden grip, which was held in place by modern wires and has since fallen off (Kobály 2001: Fig. 20). The grain of the grip runs from the pommel to the crossguard, which is typical. It cannot be determined whether the grip consisted of a single-piece or multi-piece construction, as the one-piece pommel allows for both possibilities (Vlasatý 2021). Hardwoods were most commonly used for grips (Vlasatý 2020a). It is expected that the wooden grip material was subsequently covered with textile or leather (see Vlasatý 2019), as a wire wrap would have left traces on the artefact, and no combination of wire wrap with Petersen Type Y is currently recorded (Vlasatý 2020b).

Fig. 8: View of both sides of the sword from Solomonovo.

Radiological Survey

As part of the archaeometallurgical investigation of the collection of the Tivadar Lehoczky Transcarpathian Regional Museum in Uzhhorod, a non-invasive radiological survey of the Solomonovo sword and a sabre from the Berehove II grave was conducted for the first time on 11 April 2025. This analysis was performed directly on the museum premises using an INDIascan mobile X-ray system. Due to the portability of this equipment, it was possible to carry out the investigation without the need to transport sensitive artefacts outside the depository or exhibition areas. To achieve optimal resolution and capture internal structures, technical parameters for the direct radiography method were set within a voltage range of 40–65 kV and a current of 120–150 mA, with exposure times ranging between 0.4–0.5 s. The output of this analysis consists of high-quality digital radiograms which, following computer post-processing, allow for the study of the internal material composition of the objects.

The analysis of the Solomonovo sword yielded insights into its constructional design. The radiograms not only display the extent and preservation of the sword’s iron components, which are otherwise concealed beneath layers of organic remains and corrosion products, but also demonstrate that the blade is not a homogeneous material. Rather, it is a body created by forge welding several separate parts, likely three pieces. The survey simultaneously ruled out the presence of pattern-welding structures, inscriptions, or marks. Based on these findings, the blade can be classified as a probable Type E-C1(R1) according to the typology of Hošek et al. (2021: 33) – that is, a blade composed of a simple core without pattern-welding and with welded-on cutting edges. This type achieved popularity particularly in the second half of the 9th and throughout the 10th centuries. Such a construction has analogies among Type Y swords (see Hošek et al. 2019: ID No. 254; Klimek et al. 2011: 314–5). This assumption and the specific material composition must be confirmed by invasive investigation.

Fig. 9: Radiograms of the sword from Solomonovo.

Acknowledgements

The authors wish to express their gratitude to Olga Shumovska and Valeria Ruszin (Uzhhorod Castle Museum, Uzhhorod) for kindly granting access to the study of the medieval weaponry collection. For their cooperation in securing the X-ray documentation, thanks are due to Andriy Moca and X-ray technician Artem Smatyko. Professional assistance and consultations were provided by Boglárka Tóth (Pázmány Péter Catholic University, Budapest), Béla Rácz, and Barnabás Kész (Ferenc Rákóczi II Transcarpathian Hungarian College of Higher Education, Berehove). We also wish to thank our colleague, archaeologist Volodymyr Moizhes (Uzhhorod National University), for producing the illustration.

Bibliography

Aleksić 2004 = Алексић, Марко (2004). Посткаролиншки мач из Банатског Брестовца. In: Гласник Српског археолошког друштва 20, 251–265.

Androshchuk – Zotsenko 2012 = Андрощук, Фёдор – Зоценко, Владимир (2012). Скандинавские древности Южной Руси: каталог (Scandinavian Antiquities of Southern Rus´), Paris.

Androshchuk, Fedir (2014). Viking Swords: Swords and Social aspects of Weaponry in Viking Age Societies, Stockholm.

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.

Balogh 2025 = Балог, Бейла (2025). Археометалургійне дослідження меча Х століття з села Соломоново на Закарпатті // Карпатознавство – Краєзнавчий часопис 4/2025, 6–9.

Balogh, Béla et al. (2025). A 10. századi Tiszasalamoni kard archeometallurgiai vizsgálata: célok és előzetes eredmények. In: Науковий вісник Закарпатського обласного краєзнавчого музею імені Т. Легоцького XXII, 131–135

Bernjakovič 1957 = Бернякович, К. В. (1957). Древнеславянские памятники Закарпатской области (CCCP). In: Slovenská archeológia 6, 435–455.

Bollók, Ádám (2015). From Carolingian Europe to Its Periphery and Back Again. A Brief Contribution to the Study of the Last Phases of Carolingian Metalwork and the Western European Booty of the Ancient Hungarians. In: Zeitschrift für Archäologie 42, 77–116.

Böhme, H. W. (1986). Das Ende der Römerherrschaft in Britannien und die angelsächsische Besiedlung Englands im 5. Jahrhundert. In: Jahrbuch des Römisch-germanischen Zentralmuseums Mainz 33, 469–575.

Delort, Hugues (2017–2018). Les épées des IXe-XIIe siècles découvertes en France – état des lieux, typochronologie et mise en perspective, Tome 1–3, Cergy: Université de Cergy-Pontoise.

Eisner, Jan (1925). Slovensko a Podkarpatská Rus v době hradištní. In: Obzor praehistorický IV, 48–60.

Fehér, Géza et al. (1962). A Közép-Duna-medence magyar honfoglalás- és kora Árpád-kori sírleletei – Leletkataszter, Budapest.

Fodor, István et al. (1996). The Ancient Hungarians : exhibition catalogue, Budapest.

Frick, Hans-Jörg (1992–1993). Karolingisch-ottonische Scheibenfibeln des nördlichen Formenkreises. In: Offa 49/50, 243–463.

Gáll, Erwin (2013). Az Erdélyi-medence, a Partium és a Bánság 10‒11. századi temetői, Szeged – Budapest.

Geibig, Alfred (1991). Beiträge zur morphologischen Entwicklung des Schwertes im Mittelalter, Neumünster.

Geibig, Alfred (1999). Die Schwerter aus dem Hafen von Haithabu. In: Berichte über die Ausgrabungen in Haithabu 33, Neumünster, 9–99.

Goßler, Norbert (2011). Reiter und Ritter. Formenkunde, Chronologie, Verwendung und gesellschaftliche Bedeutung des mittelalterlichen Reitzubehörs aus Deutschland, Schwerin.

Hampel, Joseph (1905a). Alterthümer des frühen Mittelalters in Ungarn II, Braunschweig.

Hampel, Joseph (1905b). Alterthümer des frühen Mittelalters in Ungarn II, Braunschweig.

Hampel, Joseph (1905c). Alterthümer des frühen Mittelalters in Ungarn III, Braunschweig.

Hawkes, S. Ch. – Dunning, G. C. (1961). Soldiers and Settlers in Britain, Fourth to Fifth Century. In: Medieval Archaeology 5, 1–70.

Hägg, Inga (1991). Die Textilfunde aus der Siedlung und aus den Gräbern von Haithabu: Beschreibung und Gliederung. Berichte über die Ausgrabungen in Haithabu, Bericht 29, Neumünster.

Heitel, Radu Robert (1994–1995). Die Archäologie der ersten und zweiten Phase des Eindringens der Ungarn in das innerkarpatische Transilvanien. In: Dacia NS XXXVIII – XXXIX, 389–439.

Hjardar, Kim – Vike, Vegard (2016). Vikings at War, Oxford – Philadelphia.

Hošek, Jiří – Košta, Jiří (2022). Petersen Type Y sword with pattern-welded blade from Rajhradice (Czech Republic) – examination, classification and comparison. In: FUROR NORMANNORUM Research on 9-11th Century Double-Edged Swords: Archaeological and Metallurgical Approaches, Budapest, September 19–23th 2022, Budapest, 39–42.

Hošek, Jiří et al. (2012). Nálezy raně středověkých mečů v aglomeraci raně středověkého hradiště v Libici nad Cidlinou. In: Sborník Národního muzea v Praze, Řada A – Historie 66, 71–87, 91–96.

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.

Jankovich, József (1943). A Lehoczky Múzeum honfoglaláskori leleteiről. In: László, Gyula (ed.). A honfoglaló magyarok müvészete Erdélyben, Kolozsvár, 100–104, Tab. XXIV–XXVII.

Jócsik, Kristián (2024). Včasnostredoveké meče z územia dnešného Slovenska v kontexte európskej archeológie, Nitra: Univerzita Konštantína Filozofa v Nitre.

Jócsik, Kristián – Môc, Róbert (2024). Petersen’s Type X Sword from Malé Kozmálovce, Slovakia. In: Project Forlǫg – Reenactment and science [online]. [2026-02-15]. Available here: https://sagy.vikingove.cz/en/petersens-type-x-sword-from-male-kozmalovce-slovakia/.

Kainov, S. Yu. (2012). Swords from Gnёzdovo. In: Acta Militaria Mediaevalia VIII, 7–68.

Kainov 2019 = Каинов, С. Ю. (2019). Сложение комплекса вооружения Древней Руси X – начала XI в. (по материалам Гнёздовского некрополя и поселения). Диссертация на соискание ученой степени кандидата исторических наук Том I, Москва.

Karger 1950 = Каргер, М. К. (1950). Археологические исследования древнего Киева – Отчёты и материалы (1938 – 1947 гг.), Киев.

Karger 1958 = Каргер, М. К. (1958). Древний Киев. Очерки по истории материальной культуры древнерусского города. Том 1, Москва – Ленинград.

Kazakevičius, Vytautas (1996). IX–XIII a. baltų kalavijai, Vilnius.

Kirpichnikov 1966 = Кирпичников, А. Н. (1966). Древнерусское оружие: Вып. 1. Мечи и сабли IX–XIII вв, Москва – Ленинград.

Kirpichnikov 1973 = Кирпичников, А. Н. (1973). Снаряжение всадника и верхового коня на Руси IX—XIII вв., Москва – Ленинград.

Kiss, Attila (1985). Studien zur Archäologie der Ungarn im 10. und 11. Jahrhundert. In: Friesinger, Herwig – Daim, Falko (eds.). Die Bayern und ihre Nachbarn II, Wien, 217–379.

Klimek, Leszek et al. (2010). Wczesnośredniowieczne miecze ze zbiorów Muzeum Narodowego w Szczecinie w świetle ponownej analizy typologiczno-chronologicznej i technologicznej. In: Materiały Zachodniopomorskie, Nowa Seria t. VI/VII: 2009/2010, z. 1: Archeologia, 299–325.

Kobály, József (2001). Néhány adat Kárpátalja honfoglalás és Árpád-kori leleteiről. In: A Nyíregyházi Jósa András Múzeum évkönyve 43, 197–224.

Kobály 2012a = Кобаль, Й. В. (2012). Давньоугорcькі археологічні пам’ятки Закарпаття (Україна). In: Materiały i Sprawozdania Rzeszowskiego Ośrodka Archeologicznego XXXIII, 269–305.

Kobály 2012b = Кобаль, Йосип (2012). Соломоново – Село у Межиріччі. Salamon – falu a folyóközben, Ужгород.

Košta, Jiří (2021). Early Medieval Swords from the Czech Republic (9th–10th Centuries), Praha : Univerzita Karlova.

Košta, Jiří – Hošek, Jiří (2014). Early Medieval swords from Mikulčice, Brno.

Košta, Jiří – Hošek, Jiří (2020). Raně středověký meč ze sbírek Středočeského muzea v Roztokách u Prahy v kontextu vývoje mečů 9. a 10. století. In: Tomková, Kateřina et al. (eds.). Levý Hradec v zrcadle archeologických výzkumů, Praha, 340–356.

Košta, Jiří et al. (2018). Průzkum raně středověkého meče ze sbírek Středočeského Muzea v Roztokách u Prahy. In: Archeologia Technica 29, 3–9.

Kovács, László (1992). A Móra Ferenc Múzeum néhány régi, 10-11. századi leletanyagáról: Oroszlámos, Horgos, Majdan, Rabé, (Csóka). In: A Móra Ferenc Múzeum Évkönyve 1991/92, 37–74.

Kovács, László (1994-1995). A Kárpát-medence kétélü kardjai a 10. század 2. feléböl. Adattár. In: Communicationes Archaeologicae Hungariae 1994–95, 153–189.

Král, Jaroslav (1970). Meč typu Y ze slovanského hrobu v Rebešovicích

Lehocky, Tivadar (1912). Adatok hazánk archaeologiájához, különös tekintettel Beregmegyére és környékére II, Munkács.

Lehtosalo-Hilander, Pirkko-Liisa (1982). Luistari II. The Artefacts, Helsinki.

Léman, Pierre et al. (1987). Une épée de l’époque Viking au musée de Denain. In: Revue du Nord 69, n°272, 131–140.

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.

Nevizánsky, Gabriel (2012). Staromaďarské jazdecké hroby v Čiernej nad Tisou. In: Študíjne zvesti Archeologického ústavu SAV 51, 75–88.

Nowotny, Elisabeth (2018). Thunau am Kamp – Das frühmittelalterliche Gräberfeld auf der oberen Holzwiese, Wien.

Nowotny, Elisabeth (2019). Waffen und Reitzubehör im Gräberfeld von Thunau, Obere Holzwiese. Neue absolute Daten zu Petersens Typ Y-Schwertern. In: Poláček, Lumír – Kouřil, Pavel (eds.). Bewaffnung und Reiterausrüstung des 8. bis 10. Jahrhunderts in Mitteleuropa. Waffenform und Waffenbeigabe bei den mährischen Slawen und in den Nachbarländern, Brno, 211–231.

Pastor, Ján (1952). Jazdecké hroby v Čiernej nad Tisou. In: Archeologické rozhledy IV, 485–487.

Paszternak, Jaroslav (1928). Ruské Karpaty v archeologii, Praha.

Penjak 1980 = Пеняк, С. І. (1980). Ранньослов’янське і давньоруське населення Закарпаття VI–XIII ст., Київ.

Petersen, Jan (1919). De Norske Vikingesverd: En Typologisk-Kronologisk Studie Over Vikingetidens Vaaben, Kristiania.

Petersen, Theodor (1925). Gravfundene på Flemma i Tingvoll. In: Årsskrift for Nordmør historielag 1925, 31–47.

Räty, Jouko (1998). “Ulfberht-” ja muita mestarileimoja Suomen ja Tyrvään viikinkiajan miekkalöydöissä. Tyrväässä tutkittua. In: Tyrvään seudun Kotiseutuyhdistyksen julkaisuja LXXVIII – Tyrvään seutu Suomusjärven kulttuurista uuden ajan alkuun, 26–55.

Rejholcová, Mária (1976). Pohrebisko z 10. a 11. storočia v Hurbanove-Bohatej. In: Slovenská archeológia XXIV/1, 191-234.

Révész, László (2018). A 10‒11. századi temetők regionális jellemzői a Keleti-Kárpátoktól a Dunáig, Szeged.

Rogerson, Andrew – Ashley, Steven (2021). Blunt-ended Romanesque strap-ends. In: Norfolk Archaeology XLVIII/IV, 587–603.

Ruttkay, Alexander (1975). Waffen und Reiterausrüstung des 9. bis zur ersten Hälfte des 14. Jahrhunderts in der Slowakei I. In: Slovenská archeológia 24/1, 119–216.

Schulze-Dörrlamm, Mechthild (2006). Spuren der Ungarneinfälle des 10. Jahrhunderts. In: Daim, Falko (ed.). Heldengrab im Niemandsland. Ein frühungarischer Reiter aus Niederösterreich, Mainz, 43–62.

Schulze-Dörrlamm, Mechthild (2009). Zeugnisse der Selbstdarstellung von weltlichen und geistlichen Eliten der Karolingerzeit (751–911). Bewertungsgrundlagen für isolierte Sachgüter aus dem Reichsgebiet Kaiser Karls des Grossen. In: Egg, Markus – Quast, Dieter (eds.). Aufstieg und Untergang. Zwischenbilanz des Forschungschwerpunktes “Studien zu Genese und Struktur von Eliten in vor- und frühgeschichtlichen Gesellschaften”, Mainz, 153–215.

Spoelder, Wessel (2022). De opengewerkte riemtong. In: Detector Magazine 184, 14–18.

Stalsberg, Anne (2008). Herstellung und Verbreitung der VLFBERHT-Schwertklingen. Eine Neubewertung. In: Zeitschrift für Archäologie des Mittelalters 36, 89–118.

Stalsberg, Anna (2011). Vlfberht problems. Identification. Documentation. Variants of inlays. Dating problems. In: Ławrynowicz, Olgierd et al. (eds.). Non sensistis gladios. Studia ofiarowane Marianowi Głoskowi w 70. rocznicę urodzin, Łódź, 389–403.

Száraz, Antal (1896). Salamoni sírlelet. In: Archaeologiai Értesítő 16, 132–133.

Szendrei, János (1896). Magyar hadtörténelmi emlékek az ezredéves országos kiállitáson, Budapest.

Szőke, Béla (1962). A honfoglaló és kora Árpádkori magyarság régészeti emlékei, Budapest.

Tar, Sándor (2018). Kétélű egyenes kardok a Kárpát-medencében a X-XI. században, Debrecen: Debreceni Egyetem.

Tegel, Willy et al. (2016). The wood of Merovingian weaponry. In: Journal of Archaeological Science 65, 148–153

Tomsons, Artūrs (2018). Zobeni Latvijas teritorijā no 7. līdz 16. gadsimtam, Rīga.

Turčan, Vladimír (1997). Stredoveký meč vybagrovaný z Dunaja. In: Zborník Slovenského Národného Múzea XCI – Archeológia 7, 79–83.

Ung 1880a = Ung – Társadalmi és vegyes tartalmú lap № 34, 22. srpna 1880, Ungvár.

Ung 1880b = Ung – Társadalmi és vegyes tartalmú lap № 35, 29. srpna 1880, Ungvár.

Viskupič, Michal (2026). Early Medieval Double-Edged Swords from the Territory of Serbia (9th–11th Century). In: Project Forlǫg – Reenactment and science [online]. [2026-02-15]. 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]. [2026-02-15]. Available here: https://sagy.vikingove.cz/en/norwegian-sword-handles/.

Vlasatý, Tomáš (2020a). Wood species used for sword grips. In: Project Forlǫg – Reenactment and science [online]. [2026-02-15]. Available here: https://sagy.vikingove.cz/en/wood-species-used-for-sword-grips/.

Vlasatý, Tomáš (2020b). Wire wrapped sword grips of 9th-11th century. In: Project Forlǫg – Reenactment and science [online]. [2026-02-15]. Available here: https://sagy.vikingove.cz/en/wire-wrapped-sword-grips-of-9th-11th-century/.

Vlasatý, Tomáš (2021). Construction of wooden sword grips of 9th-12th century. In: Project Forlǫg – Reenactment and science [online]. [2026-02-15]. Available here: https://sagy.vikingove.cz/en/construction-of-wooden-sword-grips-of-9th-12th-century/.

Vlasatý, Tomáš (2022). Wood species used for sword scabbards. In: Project Forlǫg – Reenactment and science [online]. [2026-02-15]. Available here: https://sagy.vikingove.cz/en/wood-species-used-for-sword-scabbard/.

Vlasatý, Tomáš (2023). Knives with riveted scales of 9th-12th century. In: Project Forlǫg – Reenactment and science [online]. [2026-02-15]. Available here: https://sagy.vikingove.cz/en/knives-with-riveted-scales-of-9th-12th-century/.

Warzecha, Roland (2020). Grief zu! Zu Handhabung und ergonomischer Formgebung von Schwertern des Frühmittelalters und zur Relevanz von Feinmotorik im historischen Schwertkampf. In: Fleck, Niels et al. (eds.). Hieb- und Stichfest: Waffenkunde und Living History: Festschrift für Alfred Geibig, Petersberg, 27–46.