Viking Period Swords: Eastern Europe Steven Blowney This is the fourth part of a connuing project on Viking Period swords. This part is about Eastern Europe, which consists of Poland, the Eastern Balc, Russia and the Ukraine, and rest of the area— Croaa, Czechoslovakia, Slovakia, Hungry, Romania, and Bulgaria. Other East European countries will be discussed at the appropriate me. Also, “the Eastern Balc” is a rhetorical convenience for Latvia, Lithuania, and Estonia. As with the previous parts, F. Androshchunk’s understanding of J. Petersen sword typology is being used to help describe and date the weapons (1). The cataloging scheme is once again supplied as an appendix at the end. Poland The book The Viking World edited by S. Brink and N. Price and published in 2008 is probably the most recent book on the Viking Period that can be considered comprehensive at some 670 pages of text (2). However, large as this work is, there is no menon of Scandinavian presence in the Southern Balc —which is to say Poland—during the Viking Period. The situaon is such that in the same year (2008) A. Buko published the book The Archaeology of Early Medieval Poland: Discoveries—Hypotheis— Intrepretaons (3). The first chapter of Buko’s work describes the history of the archaeological discipline in Poland from the 17 th Century to the modern day. Almost always naonalisc, archaeologists in Poland have experienced a variety of influences from outside their naon. The German Naonalist archaeologist Gustaf Kossinna (4) had Polish students who were taught the “Germanic” nature of their country. Aſter
Transcript
Viking Period Swords: Eastern Europe
Steven Blowney
This is the fourth part of a continuing project on Viking Period swords. This part is about Eastern
Europe, which consists of Poland, the Eastern Baltic, Russia and the Ukraine, and rest of the area—
Croatia, Czechoslovakia, Slovakia, Hungry, Romania, and Bulgaria. Other East European countries will be
discussed at the appropriate time. Also, “the Eastern Baltic” is a rhetorical convenience for Latvia,
Lithuania, and Estonia.
As with the previous parts, F. Androshchunk’s understanding of J. Petersen sword typology is
being used to help describe and date the weapons (1). The cataloging scheme is once again supplied as
an appendix at the end.
Poland
The book The Viking World edited by S. Brink and N. Price and published in 2008 is probably the
most recent book on the Viking Period that can be considered comprehensive at some 670 pages of text
(2). However, large as this work is, there is no mention of Scandinavian presence in the Southern Baltic
—which is to say Poland—during the Viking Period. The situation is such that in the same year (2008) A.
Buko published the book The Archaeology of Early Medieval Poland: Discoveries—Hypotheis—
Intrepretations (3).
The first chapter of Buko’s work describes the history of the archaeological discipline in Poland
from the 17th Century to the modern day. Almost always nationalistic, archaeologists in Poland have
experienced a variety of influences from outside their nation. The German Nationalist archaeologist
Gustaf Kossinna (4) had Polish students who were taught the “Germanic” nature of their country. After
World War II, Polish archaeological institutions existed under the influence of Marxist-Leninist/Soviet -
Russian ideas, which dismissed the Germanic argument in favor of a more Slavic interpretation.
In this political environment A. Nadolski published Studia na Uzbrojenien Polskim w X, XI, i XII
Wieky in 1954 n (5). This work is about arms and armor found in Poland and dated to the 10 th, 11th and
12th centuries. Swords are a prominent part. Petersen’s Typology is used by the author where
applicable, but he also exceeds the accepted time called the Viking Period by presenting swords dated to
the 12th century. Nadolski believe these 12th century swords to be an extension of Petersen’s Type X,
and was designated as “Alpha.” This Alpha Type, along with the lack of VLFBERHT inscribed sword, lead
the author believe that the swords found were mostly of Polish manufacture.
With 83 swords in his sample Nadolski created a foundation for further work by Polish
archaeologists into early medieval swords. In 1973 M. Glosek published Znaki I Napisy na Mieczach
S’Redniowiecznych w Polsce (6). Like Nadolski, this book examined 10th, 11th and 12th century swords.
Glosek’s interest is inscribed blades with a sample of 91 swords. Glosek concludes that the inscriptions
show that swords were manufactured in Germany, refuting Nadolski’s belief that sword were of native
manufacture.
After the dissolution of the Soviet Union, their influence on Polish archaeology diminished. In
2005 L. Marek published Early Medieval Swords from Central and Eastern Europe (7). This very useful
book also takes up the VLFBERHT problem, with the author concluding that more research on inscribed
blades is needed. However, the author also presents evidence for a “Petersen Type T—Piast” where the
hilt construction of the sword is a variation in size and decoration.
Place Scheme Petersen Type Date
1.Barwino, Slupk,
Pomorskie ?,A,I,f X 950-1050.
2.Bodzia, Grave E 864 4,A,I,d Z 1000-1050.
3.Browino, Grave 1 4,A,I,a? X 950-1050.
4.Brzece, Kujawski,
Pomorskie ?,A,I,f Z 1000-1050.
5.Cedynia, Grave 558 1,A,I,a X 950-1050.
6.Cedynia, Grave 1120 4,A,I,a X 950-1050.
7.Chwalborzyce, Turek,
Great Poland 2,A,I,f ? 11th Century.
8.Ciechanow,
Mazowiekie 1,A,I,f X (Nadolski “Alpha”) 11th Century.
30.Lednica Lake 2,4,B,L X? (Nadolski “Alpha”?) 1000-1100?
31.Lednica Lake 2,4,B,L X? (Nadolski “Alpha”?) 1000-1100?
32.Lednica Lake 2,4,B,L ? 10th to 11th Century.
33.Near Lednica Lake 2,D X 950-1050.
34.Lednica Island 4,C X? (Nadolski “Alpha”?) 1000-1100?
35.Lipiany, Mysliborz 1,C S 950-1000.
36.Liszkowo, Szczecinek 1,C X 950-1050.
37.Lubiatowo, Pyrzyce 1,D B 800-900.
38.Lubomia, Rybnik,
Slaskie 1,C X 950-1050.
39.Lutomiersk, Lask, Lodzkie,
Grave 1/41 ?,A,I,f S 950-1000.
40.Lutomeirsk, Lask, Lodzkie,
Grave 2/41 ?,A,I,f X 950-1050.
41.Lutomeirsk, Last, Lodzkie,
Grave 68 ?,A,I,f X 950-1050.
42.Lubki, Plock 1,D X 950-1050.
43.Mala Wies, Grojec,
Mazowieckie 1,D X 950-1050.
44.Marszowice, Olawa 1,D X 950-1050.
45.Miezyrzecz 1,C T 11th Century.
46.Morzewo, Chodziez 1,B,R S 950-1050.
47.Neppermin,
Grave 5 2,A,?,? X? 950-1050.
48.Neppermin,
Grave 6 2,4,A,?,? X 950-1050.
49.Olszewo, Leszno ?,A,I,f ? ?
50.Ostrowaz, Konin,
Grave 1/56 ?,A,I,c? X 950-1050.
51.Ostrowo, Moilno 1,D I 850-950.
52.Ostrow Lednicki 1,B,? X 950-1050.
53.Ostroznica 1,D Z 1000-1050.
54.Pokrzywnice Wlk.,
Grave 16 ?,A,I,f Z 1000-1050.
55.Psary, Opoczno,
Grave 13 ?,A,I,f X 950-1050.
56.Radymno 1,D E? 850-900.
57.Santok, Gorzow 1,B,? Y 950-1000.
58.Stople, Grave 1 1,A,I,d? X 950-1050.
59.Szczecin,
Zachodniopomorskie 1,B,R. H 950-950.
60.Szczecin,
Zachodniopomorskie 1,B,R Y 950-1000.
61.Szczecin,
Zachodniopomorskie 1,B,R X 950-1050.
63.Szczecin,
Zachodniopomorskie 1,B,R X 950-1050.
64.Usadel, Grave 38 4,A,I,a X 950-1050.
65.Usadel, Grave 100 2,4,A,I,a ? ?
66.Uzman, Grave 135 1,A,I,a X 950-1050.
67.Winiary, Polck,
Mazowieckie 1,B,R X (Nadolski “Alpha”) 950-1050.
68. Wusterhausen,
Grave 55 1,A,I,a X 950-1050.
69. Wusterhausen,
Grave 112 4,A,I,a X 950-1050.
70.Zalecino, Stargard 1,B,L X 950-1050.
71.Zlotoria, Torun 1,A,I,f T 950-1000.
72.Zydowo, Slupsk,
Pomorskie 2,A,I,f Z 1000-1050.
Summary:
Total Number of Swords/Parts: 72
Condition:
Intact: 28
Incomplete: 9
Broken: 11
Number in Graves/Burials: 34
Inhumation Graves: 31
Chamber Graves: 8
Mounds: 1
Flat Graves: 2
Other/Unknown: 18
Number in Bodies of Water: 18
Rivers: 8
Lakes/Bog/Ponds: 6
Settlement Finds: 6
Stray Finds: 12
Sources:
Buko, A. (ed.). Bodzia: a Late Viking-Age Elite Cemetery in Central Poland. Boston, Massachusetts: Brill (2015).
Gorecki, J. “Waffen un Reiterauustungen von Ostrow Lednicki—zur Geschichte des Fruhen Polnischen Staates und Seines Heeres.” Zeitschrift fur Archaologie des Mittelalters (2001) 41-86.
Janowski, A. and P.N. Kotowicz, A. Michalak. “Jeszcze o Mieczu z Radymna.” Acta Militaria Mediaevalia IV. Krakow, Poland: (2008) 167-188.
Janowski, A. “Groby 558 i 1120 z Cedyni na tle wczesnowredniowiecznych zachodniopomorskich pochowkow z miecaami.” In: Civitas Cedene. Studia i Materialy do Dziejow Cedyni. P. Migadalski (ed.) Szczecin, Poland: Stowarzyszenie Historyczno-Kulturalne (2014) 53-103. ISBN: 9788393750078.
Klimek, L. etal. “Early Medieval Swords from the Collection of the National Museum in Szczcin in light of a New Typological-Chronological and Technological Analysis.” Materialy Zachodniopomorskie. Nowa Series VI/VII (2009/2010) 299-325.
Marek, L. Early Medieval Swords from Central and Eastern Europe. Wroclaw, Poland: University of Wroclaw (2005).
Pudlo, P. and G. Zabinski. “Analiza Formalna Mieczny ze Zbirorow Muszeum Pierwszych Piasotw na Lednicy. (“A Formal Analysis of the Swords from the Collection of the Museum of the First Piasts in Lednica.”).” In: Miecze Sredniowieczne z Ostrowa Lednickiego I Giecza. A. Wynwa, P. Sankeiwica, P. Pudlo (eds.) Biblioteka Studiow Lednickich (2011) 19-68. The author would like to express his deepest thanks to G. Zabrinski for providing this citation.
Volkmann, A. “Die Schwertfunde des unteren Oder—und Waithegebiets—Insignien Einer Spatslawischer Elits.” Ethnographische Zeitschrift 3/2008. (2009).
Comments:
The first explanation should be reserved for swords found in bodies of water. With 18 swords
this is a large amount, but the assumption that all these weapons were ritually “sacrificed” does not
hold. The four swords found in Lake Lednicki and the two swords found near the same lake were
probably lost in battle, since they found with conical (“Norman”) helmet, mail armor, 123 axeheads, and
a great many spearheads (8). Either this was a very large weapons sacrifice, or a battle had taken place
around the lake.
The other eight swords found in rivers may have been a part of a ritual denoting borders.
However, the lack of swords found in cremation graves is also interesting, especially those eight
discovered in chamber graves. F. Biermann feels that chamber graves found in the
Mecklenburg/Pomerania part of Poland represent an elite (9). The author continues that the elite
reflected in these ostentatious graves are not of native origin. In other words, the dead of these burials
were most likely not Slavic, but Scandinavian. The purpose and position of these Scandinavians in
Mecklenburg and Pomerania remains a matter of argument.
Whoever was in Poland in the 10th, 11th and 12th Centuries, it was a period of upheaval with the
rise and consolidation of the Piast Dynasty. The swords found and dated to this period certainly reflect
the upheaval. The six sword parts, however, found in settlements reflect, if only shallowly, the creation
of these settlements. These settlements seem to have been planned; S. Brather lists 19 to have existed
in the Northwest and dated to between 850 and 975 (10). Looking at M. Haftka and S. Wadyl’s report on
Wegry, we see a strategically planned settlement (11). Wegry dates to the 11th and 12th Centuries and
was on the Nogat river to control the traffic on that waterway. A stronghold was established on the
highest part of the complex along with a rampart. There is also a system of fortifications including a long
defensive embankment.
The archaeology of Wegry, along with the swords found show that pressure was upon the
natives of the area, but also considerable organizational ability. The nature of that need and that ability
is something that is just coming to light. More work is required.
The Eastern Baltic
As noted above the phrase “Eastern Baltic” is rhetorical convenience. What was happening in
Estonia, Lithuania, and Latvia during the Viking Period is not as convenient. If Poland’s archaeologists
were over-shadowed by the Soviet Union, Estonia’s, Latvia’s, and Lithuania’s archaeologists were
positively dominated by their Soviet/Russian/Slavic neighbors. Archaeologist M. Magi writes (12):
“The present Baltic States in particular have often been left out of discussions of Viking Age communications and sea routes. The Cold-War era border running along the Baltic Sea created a situation where Baltic archaeologists faced several constraints induced by the Soviet system…”
In other words, the Soviet Union blocked the international publication of dig reports and analysis from
Latvia, Lithuania, and Estonia.
However, like Poland, the dissolution of the Soviet Union allowed Eastern Baltic archaeologists
to not only open up to new ideas, but to contribute their own efforts through publication. As far as
Viking Period swords are concerned, in 1996 V. Kazakevicius published IX-XIII Baltu Kalavijai. This book
present swords found in the area from the 9th to the 13th century (13). Petersen’s Typology is an integral
part.
Kazakevicius lists 247 swords dated to the Viking Period with 64 Type T swords and 40 Type T1
swords. The author noticed a year later a variation with the decoration with some Type T swords (14).
While the basic Petersen Form was kept, Kazakevicius denoted these other “Type Ts” as Curonian—and
so noted that they were most likely of Baltic manufacture. “Curonian” swords are noted in the list
below.
A. Tomsons also examines the Curonian Type T sword (15). He first points out that the type was
in use from the 11th to 13th century—beyond what is considered the Viking Period. Tomson also
discusses the decoration of these weapons in more detail. He points out that some of the hilt
constructions are decorated with “complicated plant ornament” and that other constructions have
“animal head motifs.” The animal motifs seem to be found on sword from Saaremaa Island the Venta
river in Estonia. Tomson then compares the Estonia examples to similar Scandinavian art.
Place Scheme Petersen Type Date
1.Alsungas Kalnini 1,D T (Curonian) 11th Century.
2.Gintalkiske 6,D T (Curonian) 9th-12th Century.
3.Gurkovichi 2,4,D T (Curonian) 11th Century.
4.Gurkovichi 2,D T (Curonian) 11th Century.
5.Kanama 1,A,I,? B 800-900.
6.Klienheide, Gurjevsk,
Grave 1 2,A,?,? T (Curonian) 11th Century.
7.Krimulda,
Riga District 1,A,?,c T (Curonian) 11th Century
8.Nieman Grave 105 2,A,?,c E? 850-900.
9.Nieman Grave 110 2,A,?,c H 850-950.
10.Nieman Grave 111 2,A,?,c H 850-950.
11.Nieman Grave 112 2,4,A,?,c M? 900-950.
12.Nieman Grave 113 1,A,?,c E 850-900.
13.Nieman Grave 114 2,A,?,c X 950-1050.
14.Nieman Grave 115 2,A,?,c H 850-950.
15.Nieman Grave 116 2,A,?,c E 850-900.
16.Nieman Grave 121 2,A,?,c E 850-900.
17.Nieman Grave 122 2,A,?,c E 850-950.
18.Nieman Grave 124 2,A,?,c M? 900-950.
19.Nieman Grave 128 1,A,?,c K 800-950.
20.Nieman Grave 129 1,A,?,c K 800-950.
21.Nieman Grave 133 2,A,?,c Y 950-1000.
22.Nieman Grave 148 1,A,?,c E 850-900.
23.Ovi 2,A,I,? Z 1000-1050.
24.Palukula Hoard 1,C I 850-950.
25.Palukula Hoard 1,C H 850-950.
26.Saaremaa 1,D V 950-1000.
27.Saaremaa 2,D V 950-1000.
28.Salme I 2,A,?,b A 800-900.
29.Suure-Janni 1,D Z 1000-1050.
30.Varsedziai II 6,D T (Curonian) 10th-12th Century.
31.Viesvile, Grave 5 5,A,II,d Y 950-1000.
32.Viesvile, Grave 10 5,A,II,d X 950-1050.
33.Viesvile, Grave 13 5,A,II,d X 950-1050.
34.Viesvile, Grave 16 5,A,II,d Z 1000-1050.
35.Viesvile, Grave 22 5,A,II,d X 950-1050.
Summary:
Total Number of Swords/Parts: 35
Condition:
Intact: 11
Incomplete: 17
Broken: 2
Bent: 5
Fragmentary: 2
Number in Graves/Burials: 25
Number of unknown inhumation or cremation mounds: 15
Inhumations Graves: 2
Boat/Ship graves: 1
Burials Mounds: 1
Cremation Graves: 5
Flat Graves: 5
Settlement Finds: 2
Stray Finds: 8
Sources:
Budvydas, U. “About Some Aspects of Scalvian Armaments, on the Basis of Investigations in Viesvile Cemetery.” Archaeologia Baltica 8. 205-213.
Kazakevicius, V. “On One Type of Baltic Sword of the Viking Period.” Archaeologia Baltica 2. Vilnius, Lithuania: Institute of of Lithuanian History (1997) 117-140.
Kulakov, V. Nieman Amber Route in the Viking Age (Translated from the Russian). Kalingrad: GBUK (2012) ISBN: 9785903920174.
Tvauri, A. The Migration Period, Pre-Viking Age, and Viking Age in Estonia. Tartu, Estonia: Tartu
University Press (2012).
Comments:
As can be seen, 15 of the burial mounds (called barrows by some) are not reported as either
being cremation burials or inhumation graves. Such are the limitations of sources. Mounds, however do
seem to be general form of burial.
Six swords on the list have been classified as Curionian Type T. Three of the six are dated to the
11th Century. The other three are vague, with one being dated to between the 9 th and 12th century. Still,
other swords on the list point towards—but does not establish—an earlier Scandinavian presence. Four,
possibly five, swords are Type E, which is dated to have been in use between 850 to 900. It should be
pointed out that these Type Es are from the same cemetery—Nieman.
The Eastern Baltic is only beginning to open up to new archaeological ways of thinking. The
future looks bright, and a real archaeology of the Baltic Sea area is now possible. No doubt continued
work in this area will contribute significantly to the study of the Early Middle Ages.
Russia/Ukraine
Early Medieval arms and armor in Russia and the Ukraine is dominated by A.N. Kirpicnikov and
his three volume work Drevnerusskoe Oruzhie (16). Chapter Two in Volume One is about swords. A
sample of 183 swords, dated to from the 9th to the 13th Century, are presented. Petersen’s Typology is
used with 77 swords, and so can be dated to the Viking Period. 28 other swords are also dated to Viking
Period, but Petersen’s typology cannot be applied to them. Kirpicnikov divides these weapons into four
or five categories, though it should be noted that one of these categories is probably a variation of
Petersen’s Type Z. Of the 183 swords in the author’s sample, 105 are dated to the Viking Period. The
other 78 swords are not.
Yet Kirpicnikov’s interest in swords wasn’t only documenting those that were discovered in
Russia and the Ukraine. He was also interested in those swords with inscribed blades, and he actively
looked for those inscriptions in his sample. His technique of finding those inscriptions was to
mechanically grind the suspected area of the sword blade, and then treating the area with a chemical
reagent. The reagent brought out the inscription. This technique especially increased the number of
known ULFBERHT blades (17).
Place Scheme Petersen Type Date
1.Belimer? 5,A,II,c S 950-1000.
2.Bor 1?,A?,II?,d? B 800-900.
3.Charlapova 1,A,?,c S 950-1000.
4.Chinigov, Ukraine,
Black Mound 1,A,?,c Z 1000-1050.
5.Chinigov, Ukraine,
Black Mound 1,A,?,c T 950-1000.
6.Chinigov, Ukraine,
“Mound” 1,A,?,c E 850-900.
7.Cimlianskaia 1,C E 850-950.
8.Dnieper River 1,B,R S 950-1000.
9.Dnieper River 1,B,R T 950-1000.
10.Dnieper River 1,B,R T 950-1000.
11.Dnieper River 1,B,R S 950-1000.
12.Dnieper River 1,B,R T 950-1000.
13.Gnezdovo Settlement 6,C B 800-900.
14.Gnezdovo, Bor 1,A,?,c B 800-900.
15.Gnezdovo, Bichevo 1,C B. 800-900.
16.Gnezdovo,
Barrow C-2 1,5,A,II,c D 800-950.
17.Gnezdovo,
Barrow C-15 1,A,II,c E-1 850-900.
18.Gnezdovo,
Barrow L-13 3?,4,A,II,c E-2 850-900.
19.Gnezdovo 2,A,II,c E 850-900.
20.Gnezdovo 2,A,I,c H 850-950.
21.Gnezdovo,
Barrow L-35 4,A,II,c H 850-950.
22.Gnezdovo,
Barrow Lb-1 2,5,A,II,c H 850-950.
23.Gnezdovo,
Barrow C-11 6,A,II,c H 850-950.
24.Gnezdovo,
“Stronghold” 6,C H 850-950.
25.Gnezdovo,
“Stronghold” 6,C H 850-950.
26.Gnezdovo, Barrow 2,A,?c T-2 950-1000.
27.Gnezdovo,
Barrow C-20 6,A,II,c V 950-1000.
28.Gnezdovo,
Barrow Dn-86 2,4,6,A,II,c V 950-1000.
29.Gnezdovo, Barrow 2,4,A,I,a V 950-1000.
30.Gnezdovo, Barrow 4,A,?,c V 950-1000.
31.Gnezdovo,
Grave Dn-4 1,A,I,a,c V 950-1000.
32.Gnezdovo,
“Stronghold” 6,C X 950-1050.
33.Gnezdovo 6,D X 950-1050.
34.Gnezdovo,
Barrow Dn-88 2,A,II,c Y 950-1000.
35.Gnezdovo, Barrow 2,4,I,c Y 950-1000.
36.Gnezdovo,
“Stronghold” 6,C Mannheim ?
37.Gnezdovo, Barrow 5,A,II,c M? 900-950.
38.Gnezdovo 1,A,I,c ? ?
39.Gnezdovo 6,A,II,c ? ?
40.Gnezdovo 6,C ? ?
41.Gor’ka Nikol’skoe 1?,A,II,c Y 950-1000.
42.Kashina, Priladozhe 1,A,?,c V 950-1000.
43.Kashina, Priladozhe 1,A,?,c V 950-1000.
44.Kiev, Ukraine,
“Mound.” 1,A,?,c E 850-900.
45.Kiev, Ukraine,
“Mound” 1,A,?,c H 850-950.
46.Kiev, Ukraine,
Mound in
Stronghold 1,A,?,c Y 950-1000.
47.Kiev, Ukraine,
Mound near
Golden Gate 1,A,?,c V 950-1000.
48.Krasnye Rog,
Ukraine 1,B,L H 850-950.
49.Kumbita 1 1?,A,II,c V 950-1000.
50.Kumbita 2 1?,A,II,c V 950-1000.
51.Kyiv, Grave A12 1,A,I,a X 950-1050.
52.Lagoda, Grave 6,
Dorfe Saoserje,
Complex V 1,A,?,c V 950-1000.
53.Lagoda, Grave 6,
Dorfe Saoserje,
Complex VI 2,4,A,?,c S 950-1000.
54.Lagoda,
Dorfe Bor 1,D (?) H 850-950.
55.Leonova,
Mound CXII 1,A,I,c S 950-1000.
56.Mikhaylovskoe,
Mound 1 4,5,A,I,c D2 900-950.
57.Mikhailowskoe,
Mound 1 1,A,?,c V 950-1000.
58.Mikhailowskoe,
Mound 10 1,A,?,c X 950-1050.
59.Mikhailowskoe,
Mound 18 1,A,?,c E 850-900.
60.Mikhailowskoe,
Mound 34 1,A,?,c V 950-1000.
61.Mikhailowskoe,
Mound ? 1,A,?,c V 950-1000.
61.Novgorod 1,C T 950-1000.
63.Novgorod 1,C X 950-1050.
64.Novgorod 1,C Z 1000-1050.
65.Novgorod
Province 1?,D D1 850-900.
66.Novoselki, Smolenskaia,
Mound 4 1,A,?,c H 850-950.
67.Novoselki, Smolenskaia,
Mound 5 1,A,?,c B 800-900.
68.Novoselki, Smolenskaia,
Mound 13 1,A,?,c H 850-950.
69.Pasha River 2,B,R ? ?
70.Pidgirci,
Large Mound 4,6,A,I,c S 950-1000.
71.Pidgirci,
Grave No. 1 4,A,I,c V 950-1000.
72.Pirkinskoe 1?,A,II,c H 850-950.
73.Podbolote 1,A,?,? H 850-950.
74.Podgorcy, Ukraine 1,A,?,c S 950-1000.
75.Podgorcy, Ukraine 1,A,?,c V 950-1000.
76.Priladozhe (SE) 1,A,?,c H 850-950.
77.Raiki, Zhytomirkiaia,
Ukraine 1,C S 950-1000.
78.Rokot, Smolenskaia 1,A,?,c E 850-900.
79.Rostov, Iaroslavsii 1,A,?,c E 850-900.
80.Ruchi 1,A,?,c U 900-1000.
81.St. Petersburgskaia 1,A,?,c H 850-950.
82.St. Petersburgskaia 1,A,?,c H 850-950.
83.St. Petersburgskaia 1,A,?,c H 850-950.
84.Seliaovshchion 1?,A,I,c S 950-1000.
85.Sestovitsyer,
Kammergrab X 1,A,I,a W 950-1000.
86.Scetovitsyer,
Kammergrab 1,A,I,a H 850-950.
87.Shchukovshchina,
Mound XLV 1?,A,II,c Z 1000-1050.
88.Shestovitsy, Ukraine,
Mound II 1,A,?,c H 850-950.
89.Shestovitsy, Ukraine,
Mound IX/35 1,A,?,c H 850-950
90.Shestovitsy, Ukraine,
Mound IX/61 1,A,?,c H 850-950.
91.Shestovitsy, Ukraine,
Mound X 1,A,?,c W 950-1000?
92.Shestovitsy, Ukraine,
Mound XXV 1,A,?,c V 950-1000.
93.Ust-Rubezjna 1,A,II,b,c E 850-900.
94.Vakhrushevo,
Mound CXVI 4,5,A,II,c V 950-1000.
95.Vakhruskevo,
Mound CXVI 1,A,?,c T 950-1000.
96.Vakhrushevo,
No. 50 1,A,II,c V? T? 950-1000.
97.Zalakhtove Cemetery,
Mound 131 5,A,II,c E 850-900.
98.Zaliushchik,
Mound 1 1,A,?,c H 850-900.
99.Zaliuschchik No. 58 1,A,II,c H 850-950.
100.Zaozer’e No. 55 1?,A,II,c T 950-1000.
101.Zaozer’e No. 56 1?,A,II,c S 950-1000.
Summary:
Total Number of Swords/Parts: 101
Condition:
Intact: 65
Incomplete: 10
Broken: 10
Bent: 6
Fragmentary: 13
Total Number from Burials/Graves: 76
Number of unknown inhumation or cremation mounds: 39
Number from Inhumations: 13
Chamber Graves: 5
Burial Mounds: 8
Number from Cremations: 26
Boat/Ship Graves: 1
Burial Mounds: 23
Flat Graves:
From Bodies of Water: 7
Rivers: 6
Lakes/Ponds/Bogs: 1
Settlement Finds:15
Stray Finds: 2
Sources:
Arne, T.J. La Suede et L’Orient. Uppsala, Sweden: K.W. Appelbergs Boktryckeri (1914) 49-49.
Arne, T.J. “Skandinavische Holzkammergraber aus der Wikingerzeit in der Ukraine.” Acta Archaeologica. 2 (1931) 285-302.
Avdusin, D.A. and T.A. Puskina. “Three Chamber Grave at Gniozdovo.” Fornvannen 83 (1988) 20-33.
Ivankin, V.G. “Kyivs Burial Monuments of X Century.” Stratum Plus #5 (2011) 1-43.
Kainov, S. Yu. “Swords from Gnezdovo.” Acta Militaria Mediaevalia VIII (2012) 7-68. This is one of the best articles I’ve read on Viking Period swords.
Kainov, S. Yu. and S.S. Zozulya. “Sword from the Excavation of the Mound 1/1902 of Mikhaylovskoe Cemetery.” Acta Arcaeologia Militaris (2014) 29-45, 357-358. An abstract in English is provided for this article written in Russian.
Komar, A.V. “Swords from Dnieprostoi (On the History of a Find Made in 1928).” In: Rus in the 9th-12th Centuries: Society, State, Culture. N.A. Makarov and A.E. Leontiev (eds.) Moscow: Drevnosti Severa (2014) 47-61. This article is written in Russian. There is a short summary in English.
Liwoch, R. and M. Muller-Wille. “>Druzhin< Graves Dating to the Time Around AD 100 in Pidgrici (Western Ukraine).” Archaologisches Korrespondenzblatt 42, #3 (2012) 421-437.
Marek, L. Early Medieval Swords from Central and Eastern Europe. Wroclaw, Poland: University of Wroclaw (2005)
Raudonnikas, W.J. Die Normannen Der Wikingerzeit und das Ladoggebiet.I Stockholm: Pa Akademiens Forlag (1930).
Stalsberg, A. “Scandinavian Relations with Northwestern Russia During the Viking Age: The Archaeological Evidence.” Journal of Baltic Studies 13, #3 (1982) 267-295.
Comments:
The Scandinavian/Viking/Rus presence during the 9th, 10th, and 11th centuries in Russia and the
Ukraine is full of problems, not the least of which is if Russia and the Ukraine should be considered
separately or together. Here they are considered together as, again, a matter of convenience. Swords,
despite having been discovered across the entire geographic area, are really only a small consideration
when compared to silver coins—Islamic dirhams—found not only in Russia and the Ukraine, but in the
Baltic area and Scandinavia itself (18). For this reason only the settlements where swords were found
and their context is known will be discussed (19). As far as swords seem to be, the foremost settlement
is Gnezdovo. This excavation of this settlement provided 27 swords to the list above.
The “Gnezdovo Archaeological Complex” is located on the Upper Dnieper River near Smolensk.
It is the site of at least two hillforts and thousands of graves. The settlement is also located near a
portage point to and from the Dnieper and Dvina Rivers. Gnezdovo was settled to most likely to control
the important river traffic and the commerce that went with it. The need for swords as both a token of
authority and a means of enforcement is obvious (20).
The trading settlement at Staraya Ladoga seems to have been founded in the 8 th Century, before
the accepted beginning of the Viking Period. H. Arbman points out that the settlement was not on the
lake, but along the Volkhov River (21). The site also had an earthen rampart that enclosed the town.
Androshchuk notes that some of the buildings of the town had hearths in the center of the structure,
which indicated being built by Scandinavians (22). Other building had hearths in the corner of the
structure, which indicated not being by Scandinavians. Ladoga was home to a variety of peoples, all
interested in trade. This variety is reflected in the many cemeteries around the settlement.
Finally there is Kiev and the Ukraine. In 1961, H. Arbman wrote, “In Kiev archaeological evidence
for Scandinavian settlement before the tenth century is lacking” (23). Our understanding of the early
period of Kiev does not come from archaeology, but from written sources. This does not mean that
archaeologists haven’t contributed from our understanding of the City during the Viking Period. Duczko
spends some four pages describing the warrior graves on “Starokievkaia Gora” (24). These graves are
thought to be for the elite residents of the City, which became the center of what is called the “Rus
State”—that is to say a kingdom in its own right. Finding swords and other weapons is expected.
Impressive as the Scandinavian presence in Russia and the Ukraine was, there is still much to
learn. For all the settlements used by the Vikings, there is also evidence of other peoples.
The nature of trade loans itself to contacts outside of one’s own. That the Scandinavians contributed is
undoubted and that some of them had something to do with ruling that vast place is also undoubted.
But the politics of that place is a different story that needs to be better defined.
Eastern Europe
The other countries of Eastern Europe--meaning Bulgaria, Romania, Hungry, Slovakia,
Czechoslovakia, Serbia, Bosnia, and Croatia—present a quandary. We are, after all, discussing swords
used by Scandinavians, commonly and conveniently called “Vikings,” but were there Vikings going to
and settling in countries such as Croatia? One could make a speculative, and rather convoluted,
argument about such possibilities. There is, however, a much simpler explanation for the presence of
Viking Period swords found in the countries listed above. The weapons were imported from Carolingian
Frankia or Ottonian Germany.
The importation of Frankish swords to Scandinavia is a thoroughly discussed topic. Both J.
Bronsted (25) and S. Coupland (26) point out that the importation of swords from the Carolingian
Empire was illegal. B. Solberg discusses the importation of Carolingian weapons to Scandinavia (27), so
it is possible that Carolingian swords (and possibly other weapons) were imported to other parts of
Europe. The nature of this weapons trade remains speculative. Some people believe that swords were
given as diplomatic gifts, and this maybe the case with East European Swords. Other people believe that
Frankish swords were a high priced commodity and traded.
Another arms and armor subject in Eastern Europe is the presence of Eurasia (Near Asian?)
swords in the Carpathian Basin. Called sabers to differentiate them from European/Carolingian/Viking
swords, these were single edged and lighter. Sometimes these sabers’ blades were curved, and
sometimes the blades were straight. Sabers were brought into Eastern Europe first by the Avars and
then the Magyars. Both migrating nations used cavalry during war.
Sabers are generally thought to have “faded” in use in the 10th Century. A. Brio is the latest in a
series of archaeologists to examine and discuss Sabers (28). The author first presents the old argument
that the sabers were replaced by swords because the European weapons were heavier and double
edged and so better. This argument is taken apart by Biro questioning the validity of some sources and
the definition of heavy cavalry, their size and their tactics. The result is a need to re-examine the
motivations of the Eastern and Central European nations. The tradition of weapons burials is seriously
questioned.
Place Scheme Petersen Type Date.
1.Albesti, Romania 1,C V? 950-1000.
2.Bihari, Romania 2,4,D X 950-1050.
3.Biskupiga-Crkvina,Croatia,
Grave 1 1,A,I,f K 800-950.
4.Biskupiga-Crkvina,Croatia,
Grave 6 2,A,I,f K 800-950.
5.Biskupiga-Crkvina, Croatia,
Grave 8 1,A,I,f K 800-950.
6.Boleradice, Czechoslovakia,
Grave 19 ?,A,I,f M 900-950.
7.Breclav-Pohansko,Czechoslovakia,
Grave 26 1,A,I,d X 950-1050.
8.Breclav-Pohansko, Czechoslovakia,
Grave 65 1,A,I,d H 850-950.
9.Breclav-Pohansko, Czechoslovakia,
Grave 174 1,A,I,d X 950-1050.
10.Breclav-Pohansko, Czechoslovakia,
Grave 118 1,A,I,d H 850-950.
11.Breclav-Pohansko, Czechoslovakia,
Grave 257 1,A,I,d X 950-1050.
12.Brodski, Drenovac,
Yugoslavia ?,A,I,f X 9th Century?
13.Cervenik, Slovakia ?,A,I,f X 950-1050.
14.Cirkovljan-Diven
Croatia 1,A,I,f K 800-950.
15.Deva-Micro, Romania,
Grave 3 6,A,I,d S? (sword guard) 950-1000.
16.Deva-Micro, Romania,
Grave 3 1,A,I,d X (Nadolski “Alpha”?) 950-1050.
17.Dolny Peter, Solvakia,
Grave 61 ?,A,I,f X 950-1050.
18.Gradesnitsa,
Bulgaria 2,C Z 1000-1050.
19.Keglevichhaza-fala,
Hungry 1,D X 950-1050.
20.Kninski Polje, Croatia4,A,I,f K 800-950.
21.Koljane Gornje,
Croatia 2,A,I,f (Coffin) K 800-950.
22.Krasna on Hornad,
Slovakia ?,B,R T 950-1000.
23.Ladice, Nitra, Slovakia,
Grave 2/60 ?,A,I,f X 950-1000.
24.Libice, Grave 4,
Czechoslovakia ?,A,I,f M 900-950.
25.Litomerice,
Czechoslovakia ?,A,I,f Y 950-1000.
26.Male Kozmalovce,
Slovakia ?,A,I,f X 950-1000.,
27.Malomszeg,
Romania 2,D ? (pommel missing) ?
28.Marcelova, Slovakia ?A,I,f Y 950-1000.
29.Marosgombas-Kiss,
Romania 2,A,I,d ? ?
30.Medvedicka,
Yugoslovia ?,A,I,f Special Type 1 800-900.
31.Mikulcice, Czechoslovakia,
Grave 90 1,A,I,f K 800-950.
32.Mikulcice, Czechoslovakia,
Grave 223/51 ?,A,I,f K 800-950.
33.Mikulcice, Czechoslovakia,
Grave 280 ?,A,I,f X 950-1050 (9th Century?)
34.Mikulcice, Czechoslovakia,
Grave 438 1,A,I,f X 950-1050 (9th Century?)
35.Mikulcice, Czechoslovakia,
Grave 580 1,A,I,f ? (Hilt Construction Missing) 9TH Century?
36.Mikulcice, Czechoslovakia,
Grave 715 1,A,I,f H 850-950 (9th Century?)
36.Mikulcice, Czechoslovakia,
Grave 717 1,A,I,f X 950-1050 (9th Century?)
37.Mikulcice, Czechoslovakia,
Grave 723 1,A,I,f N 900-950.
38.Mikulcice, Czechoslovakia,
Grave 805 1,A,I,f X 950-1050 (9th-10thC.?)
39.Mikulcice, Czechoslovakia,
Grave 1347 X 950-1050. (9th-10thC.?)
40.Mororjelo, Croatia 1,A,I,f K 800-950.
41.Mostar-Vukodol,
Yugoslavia 2,A,I,f ? ?
42.Myjava, okr. Senica,
Slovakia ?,B,R X 950-1050.
43.Nin Zdrijac, Yugoslavia,
Grave 322 ?,A,I,f H 850-950.
44.Olomouc-Nemilany, Czechoslovakia
Grave 41 1,A,I,d ? (Hilt Construction missing) ?
45.Opaka, Bulgaria 1,C K 900-950.
46.Pascani, Moldova,
Romania 2,A,I,d V 950-1000.
47.Pisek Mountains,
Czechosolvakia 1,D X 950-1050.
48.Podgradina-Resetarica,
Croatia 2,A,I,f K (Carolingian) 800-950.
49.Podsused, Near Zagreb,
Croatia ?,A,I,f K-O 900-950
50.Pohansko, Czechoslovakia,
Grave 26 ?,A,I,f X 950-1050.
51.Pohansko, Czechoslovakia,
Grave 65 ?,A,I,f H 850-950.
52.Pohansko, Czechoslovakia,
Grave 118 ?,A,I,f X 950-1050.
53.Pohansko, Czechoslovakia,
Grave 174 ?,A,I,f X 950-1050.
54.Pohansko, Czechoslovakia,
Grave 257 ?,A,I,f X 950-1050.
55.Praha Hrad,
Czechoslovakia ?,C X 950-1050.
56.Prozor-Gornja Luka,
Croatia 1,D K 800-950.
57.Rebesovice, Czechoslovakia,
Grave 71 ?,A,I,f Y 950-1000 (9th Century?)
58.Stara Kourim, Bohemia,
Grave 55 1,A,I,d ? (No Hilt Construction) ?
59.Stara Kourim, Bohemia,
Grave 120 1,A,I,d ? (No Hilt Construction) ?
60.Stare Mesto, Czechoslovakia,
Grave 116/51 ?,A,I,f H 850-950.
61.Stare Mesto, Czechoslovakia,
Grave 119/az ?,A,I,f H 850-950.
62.Stare Mesto, Czechoslovakia,
Grave 190/50 ?,A,I,f X 950-1050.
63.Stare Mesto, Czechoslovakia,
Grave 223/51 ?,A,I,f H 850-900.
64.Stare Mesto, Czechoslovakia,
Grave 277/49 ?,A,I,f H 850-900.
65.Stolac-Cairi, Croatia 1,A,I,f K 800-950.
66.Stredovekcho, Czechoslovakia,
Grave A 2,A,I,a X 950-1050.
67.Stredovekcho, Czechoslovakia,
Grave B 1,A,I,d Y 950-1000.
68.Stredovekcho, Czechoslovakia,
Grave C 1,A,I,d Y 950-1000.
69.Vetes, Romania 1,D X 950-1050.
70.Zadvarje-Polenica,
Croatia 1,A,I,f K 800-950.
71.Zdance,
Czechoslovakia ?,A,I,f X 950-1050.
72.Zezevica, Donja
Yugoslavia ?,A,I,f K (Carolingian) 800-950.
Summary:
Total Number of Swords/Parts: 72
Condition:
Intact: 30
Incomplete: 11
Broken: 2
Fragmentary: 1
Total Number from Burials/Graves: 60
Inhumations: 60
Chamber Graves: 1
Flat Graves: 12
Other/Unknown: 43
Bodies of Water: 2
Rivers: 2
Settlement Finds: 3
Stray Finds: 5
Sources
Bilogrivic, G. “Type K Carolingian Swords.” Opuscula Archaeologica Zagreb, Croatia: 33 (2009) 125-182.
Erwin, G. Az Erdelyi-Medence, a Partium es a Bunsag 10-11. Szazadi Temetoi Szorvany- es Kincsleletei. Szged: (2013).
Erwin, G. “The Archaeological Research State of the 9th/10th-11th Centuries in Moldova (Romania). Some Thoughts on Funerary Places Stray Finds (Axes).” Zividava Studia Archaeologica 29 (2015).
Hosek, J. and J. Kosta, P. Barta. “The Metallographic Examination of Sword No. 438 as Part of a Systematic Survey of Swords from the Early Medieval Stronghold of Mikulcice, Czech Republic.” Gladius 32 (2012) 87-102. ISSN: 0436-029X. The authors believe that the sword, including Petersen’s Type X (usually dated to 950-1050) are dated to the 9th or 10th Centuries.
Hosek, J. etal. “Nalezy Rane Stredovekych Meca v Aglomeraci Rane Stredovkekho Hraditste V Libici nad Cidlinoa.” Acta Musie Nationalis Prague (2012).
Hosek, J. and J. Kosta. “Swords Uncovered at the Burial Ground of Stara Kourim Stronghold (9 th Century) from the Perspective of Archaeology and Metallography.” In: Weapons Bring Peace? Warfare in Medieval and Early Modern Europe. L. Marek (ed.) Wroclaw: University of Wroclaw (2013) 7-30.
Hosek, J. etal. “Rane Stredoveky Mec z Pisekych Hor.” Archeologie ve Strednich Cichach 18 (2014) 299-318.
Marek, L. Early Medieval Swords from Central and Eastern Europe. Wroclaw, Poland: University of Wroclaw (2005).
Prichystalova, R. and M. Kalbek. Ranstredoveke Pohrebiste Olmouc-Nemilany. Bron: Masarykova Unversity (2014). ISBN:978802107521.
Vignatiova, J. “Karolinske Mece z Pohanska u Breclavi.” Sbornik Praci Filozoficke Fakulty Brnenske Unverzity (SPFFBU E 38). (1993).
Yotov, V. “The Vikings in the Balkans (Tenth to 11th Centuries) Strategic and Tactical Changes. New Archaeological Data on Weaponry.” Archaeologicfa Baltica 8.
Comments
Item Number 35 is an intact VLFBERHT blade with no hilt construction. The swords listed as
coming from “Yugoslavia” are documented as coming from the Former Yugoslavia by the source.
Politics does indeed affect archaeology, even in a tangential way.
As such, I can create the following list of swords:
Bulgaria: 2.
Croatia/the Former Yugoslavia: 19.
Czechoslovakia: 30.
Slovakia: 7.
Hungry/Bohemia: 3.
Romania: 9.
Czechoslovakia has the most swords with 30. When this number is compared to Poland (directly to the
North) with 72 it makes you wonder about trade and trade routes. Did the Czechs (or their ancestors)
obtain these swords from Frankia to the West or Poland to the North or both?
The most unusual part of the list are the two swords discovered in Bulgaria. Both swords were
not found in graves, but in settlements. One sword is Type K. The second is Type Z. D. Rabovynov
discusses a variety of the sword hilt constructions found in Northern Bulgaria dated to the period when
Type K and Type Z were in circulation (29). Swords from Spain, Egypt, other Arabic countries, and of
course Byzantium are presented. Some swords were stray finds. Some swords were burial finds. It
seems that these two Carolingian/Viking swords added to that variety.
Observations:
In Parts 2 (The Atlantic Isles) and 3 (Scandinavia) a summary account is presented here. 280
swords and sword parts are listed in this part, but that is the only summary that will be presented. Any
cataloging scheme loans itself to quantitative examination. The situation with Viking Periods in Eastern
Europe is too qualitative to for the numbers to truly work.
One of those qualifications boils down to Eastern European ethnic considerations. Simply stated
who is buried with a sword in a geography that includes Finns, Balts, Bulgars, Magyars, Khazars, Avars,
(possibly) Franks/Germans, Slavs and Scandinavians? The swords imported from Carolingian Frankia and
Ottonian Germany were not exclusively sold to their northern neighbors, as the swords found Croatia
show. Furthermore, the variety of burials found in Scandinavia and dated to the Viking Period are such
that comparing them with suspected Viking Graves may not be the help needed. Still furthermore, I do
not doubt that some Scandinavians had legitimate children with the native population. Where do these
children fall in the ethnic traditions? Do they keep their father’s sword or is the weapon buried with
him?
A second qualification are Nadolski’s “Alpha” and the Curonian sword hilt constructions. It is
logical to think that these variations on Petersen’s types are of local manufacture, but should they be
included here? Certainly “Alpha” constructions inclusion can be questions, since some of them are dated
to the 12th Century—beyond the Viking Period. But which ones? Furthermore, should Curonian hilt
constructions be treated like Magyar swords, and so exclude? Conversely, both types of hilt
constructions belong to nations found in around the Baltic Sea. The Magyar sabers were found South of
that sea and have an obvious origin. Still, both the “Alpha” and Curonian swords deserve more work.
A third qualification is geography. Should Russian and the Ukraine be considered separately?
Considering that many “Rus” cities—like Novgorod—seemed to be subservient of Kiev, the answer is
probably no. Furthermore, an argument could be made for some for the Polish, Slovakia, and Bulgarian
areas to be claimed by the Kievan State during and after the Viking Period. Looking into the geography
of the area further, should the countries around and in the Baltic Sea—Finland, Estonia, Lithuania,
Latvia, Poland, Denmark, Gotland, and Sweden be separately considered as its own area? A good claim
can be made for that idea, and now that all of the nations around that sea can exclude outside
influences, it seems possible. But questions persist. Should the trading town at Staraya Ladoga be
considered Baltic? I suspect attempts will be made.
The fourth qualification is language. This qualification may seem petty, but in preparing this
part, I saw articles and books in German, Polish, Russian, French, Hungarian, Croatian, English and a few
languages I’m not sure about. Some sources which looked promising were excluded because I could not
read them. While I concede that anyone with an advanced degree should have a reading knowledge of
at least one foreign language (and at least two for a doctorate), I would think it a rare person who can
read all the languages listed above. This academic Tower of Babel has led to a great deal of confusion.
Finally, there is the following of Type L and Type K swords seen in the previous parts. No Type L
swords are listed. Type K swords, however, were. One Type K was found in the Eastern Baltic; another
Type K in Bulgaria. 12 Type K swords are documented to Croatia. G. Bilogravic believes that these
swords and others were diplomatic gifts from the Carolingians (30). If so, then the politics of Eastern
Europe was complex during at least part of the Early Middle Ages. Byzantium was not the only influence
in this area in this period.
But whatever the early medieval politics of Eastern Europe, the Baltic nations, Russia, and the
Ukraine were, swords—at least the ones that have survived to this period—may or may not have played
much of a part. At this point there is too much that is misunderstood or unknown. Historical works
soon to be published will hopefully give those interested a better foundation from which to work.
Notes.
1.Androshchuk, F. Viking Swords. Stockholm: The Swedish History Museum (2014).
2.Brink, S. and N. Price. The Viking World. New York, New York: Routledge (2012).
3.Buko, A. The Archaeology of Early Medieval Poland: Discoveries-Hypothesis—Interpretations. Boston, Massachsetts: Brill (2007).
4. A brief explanation of the German-Slavic conflict (called “The Norman Debate”) is given by G. Cattaneo in “The Scandinavians in Poland: a Re-evaluation of Perceptions of the Vikings” Brathair 9 (2009) 2- 14. As for Gustaf Kossina, some consider him to be a “Proto-Nazi Archaeologist.” Some consider him to simply nationalistic. The debate continues. But the Scandinavian and probably the Frankish/German presence is well known. The purpose of that presence, however, and the power that it may or may not have held remains unresolved.
9.Biermann, F. “Medieval Elite Burials in Eastern Mecklenburg and Pomerania.” Antiquity 82 (2008) 87-98.
10.Brather, S. “The Archaeology of the Northwestern Slavs (Seventh to Ninth Centuries).” East Central Europe/ECE 31, 1 (2004) 77-97.
11.Haftka, M. and S. Wadyl. Wegry. Zespol Osadniczy na Pograniczu Pomorsko-Pruskim w XI-XII w. Malbork, Poland: Muzeum Zamkowe w Malborku (2015) The English summary is brief, but informative.
12.Magi, M. “Chapter 4. Bound for the Eastern Baltic: Trade and Centers AD 800-1200.” In: Maritime Societies of the Viking and Medieval World J. Barrett and S. Gibbon (eds.) Florence Kentucky: Maney Publishing (2015) 41-61.
13.Kazakevicius, V. IX-XIII a. Baltu Kalavigai. Vilnius: Lietuvos Istorijos Institutas (1996).
14. Kazakevicius, V. “On One Type of Baltic Sword of the Viking Period.” Archaeologia Baltica 2. Vilnius, Lithuania: Institute of of Lithuanian History (1997) 117-140.
15.Tomsons, A. “Symbolism of Medieval Swords from the Territory of Latvia During the 11 th—13th Centuries.” Acta Universitatis Lodziensis 29 (2012) 145-160.
16.Kirpicnikov, A.N. Drenerusskoe Oruzhie. Moscow: Arkheologiia SSSR (1966).
17.Kirpicnikov, A.N., L. Thalin-Bergmann, and I. Jansson. “A New Analysis of Viking Age Swords from the collection of the Statens Historiska Museer, Stockholm, Sweden.” Russian History 28 (2001) 221-224.
18.Noonan, T.S. “Scandinavians in European Russia.” In: The Oxford Illustrated History of the Vikings. P. Sawyer (ed.) New York, New York: Oxford University Press (1997) 134-155.
19. This means the City of Novgorod is excluded. Down the Volkhov River from Ladoga, Novgorod the Great has a long history. Apparently established by Scandinavians, the City was an important part of the Viking Period. The presence of swords, however, is notably lacking. If you consult the list above, only 4 swords are documented—none of which are from graves. I find this lacking curious.
21. Arbman, H. The Vikings. New York, New York: Frederick A. Praeger (1961) 90-94.
22. Androshchuk, F. “The Vikings in the East. In: The Viking World. S. Brink and N. Price (eds.) New York, New York: Routledge (2008) 517-542. The discussion of Staraya Ladoga begins on page 520.
23. Arbman, H. See Note 20. Page 101.
24. Duczko, W. See Note 19. Pages 219-222.
25. Bronsted, J. The Vikings. New York, New York: Penguin Books (1983) 121.
26. Coupland, S. “Carolingian Arms and Armor in the Ninth Century.” Viator (1990) 44.
27. Solberg, B. “Weapon Export from the Continent to the Nordic Countries in the Carolingian Period.” Studien zur Sachsenforschung 7. Hildesheim, Germany: Niedersachsisches Landesmuseum Hannover (1991) 241-259.
28.Brio, A. “Dating (with) Weapon Burials and the ‘Waffenwechsel’.” RGZM—Tagungen Band 17. Die Archaologie Der Fruhen Ungarn. B. Tobias (ed.) Mainz, Germany: Romisch-Germanischen Zentralmuseums (2012) 191-218.
29.Rabovyanow, D. “Early Medieval Sword Guards from Bulgaria.” Archaeologia Bulgarica XV, 2 (2011) 73-86.
30.Bilogrivic. G. “Type K Carolingian Swords.” Opuscula Archaeologia 33 (2009) 125-182.
Appendix: The Cataloging Scheme:
The Blade’s Condition:
1. Intact –most of the sword is extant, even if there is some corrosion.
2. Incomplete—some of the sword is missing, especially with the blade.
3. Intentionally Broken—the blade is broken, but found in its scabbard, etc.
4. Broken—the blade is broken, but there are no signs of an intentional brake.
5. Intentionally Bent—the blade is bent so as to be useless.
6. Fragmentary—the blade is and hilt construction is in pieces.
