I'd say Oakeshott's early dating errors were a case of over-compensating and over-generalizing. First, overcompensating for some of his early writings and for the people who put late dates on any sword in good shape, and second, over-generalizing from the Finnish grave finds.

Craig, did you see that thread a while back which claimed that a type D pommel had been found in an archeological site clearly dated to about 1100? I can't remember the details.

This may be straying from the original topic, but there is another less well-known sword from Italy which shares some unusual details with the swords under discussion, as well as a particular sword from St. Omer that J.D. will recognize!

This sword was found in a river near Padua, where it is still held by the Archaeological Superintendence of Veneto. I did once see a few poor quality photos online, but I cannot seem to find them now to link for you. A description and better photos can be found in the catalogue for the exhibit "A Bon Droyt".
[ Linked Image ]

The pommel is of an unusual "bi-pyramidal" form, strikingly similar to the pommel of the sword in St. Omer. The pommel of the Padua sword seems to be somewhat more angular or faceted but it is still the closest analogue I have seen.
[ Linked Image ]

The Padua sword is slightly longer at 109.5 cm overall (versus 106.5 cm for the St. Omer.) The fuller appears to nearly full-length, so I think could be best classified as a type Xa or XI. Mario Scalini has suggested a date of around 1175-1200... Craig, does this dating seem reasonable?

The sword carries an inscription in a pale metal (silver?), apparently only on one side. The inscription reads +HRFATEXFHVSC... The closest match for the content of this inscription seems to be the Finnish sword (KM, inv. no. 704) illustrated by Oakeshott, which shares the "EXF" sequence.
[ Linked Image ]

More interestingly, the style of H on the Padua sword is of precisely the same unusual double-barred form which appears on both the Finnish sword and the Witham sword originally discussed.

Finally, the Padua sword can be linked to the inscription on one side of the Whittlesea Mere sword as well... both are distinctive in that every letter was originally separated by three(?) vertical points or circles.
[ Linked Image ]

This type of "punctuaction" is commonly used to separate words, as for example on a stained glass image of St. Paul in the Museum of Cluny. This reinforces the suggestion that in this case every letter represents a different word, unlike some other "families" of sword inscriptions which include complete or partial words, names, abbreviations, etc. I am not aware of any other examples of the punctuation marks being repeated so consistently and completely.
[ Linked Image ]

I’ve been looking at this sword again. I know that Oakeshott classifies it as a Type X, but its blade profile is very much atypical for a Type X blade, and the classification does not seem to work well. While looking at the profile taper, it strikes me that the Witham sword is perhaps better identified as a slightly unusual form of Type XIV blade.

One of the most obvious reasons why this classification is problematic is the fact that Type XIV blades tend to have a diamond cross section. However, looking at the myArmoury.com article on XIV swords (my copy of Records is at home) it strikes me that the profile taper on the Witham sword is fairly similar to XIV.2 in the article, and has parallels with Moonbrand as well. Further, the double fuller on the Witham sword is more commonly found on XIV blades than many other blade types, which lends support to this reclassification.

Perhaps Craig Johnsson can comment further on this, but from the images I have seen of Moonbrand online it does not appear to have a pronounced diamond cross section near the point. If I am not mistaken about Moonbrand, this too would lend credence to reclassifying the Witham sword as an XIV, in light of the fact that other XIV blades do not necessarily have strong diamond cross sections at the end of the blade.

Thoughts?

Craig, as far as I know, type XIV swords usually have a flat lenticular section like all the other group I swords. There are three relevant defining characteristics. Firstly, there is sometimes (but not necessarily) a ridge down the center of the blade at the tip - hence the diamond section you mention - but even in these cases the rest of the blade is more or less lenticular (unlike, say, the type XVI which has a much longer diamond-sectioned portion of the blade). So that doesn't disqualify this sword from being type XIV. The second characteristic is that unlike earlier group I swords, the type XIV blade tapers more evenly along its length, instead of having nearly parallel edges which suddenly taper in profile to the tip (like a type X sword). Thirdly, the fuller of a type X runs nearly to the point in most cases, whereas in a type XIV it runs about halfway (or a little more) down the blade.In my opinion, the second and third characteristics are why this is classified as a type X rather than a type XIV, although I can see how you could argue otherwise. For what its worth, I think type XII would be closer than type XIV if one rejected type X, although the long fullers remain uncharacteristic of this type.

After all, Oakshott's system is not precise, nor was it intended to be; so some individual swords will be of ambiguous type or fall through the cracks entirely. The "worst" example I know of is a very funny looking sword in the Kelvingrove in Glasgow which would be a classic type XV except that the straight-tapering, triangular-profile blade of diamond section has a pronounced and rectangular-profiled (and sectioned) ricasso which leads some people to classify it as a type XIX!

In his early works, Oakeshott called the Witham an XII and dated it to 13th century. He changed his mind after reading Leppaho. This goes to show how additional factors influenced his own interpretation of his scheme, which in theory should just be based on physical characteristics.

A response to the Museum's request for suggestions in interpreting the inscription has been published on academia.edu by Dr. Carla Rossi at the University of Zurich.
https://www.academia.edu/14828685/A_proposal_for_the_interpretation_of_the_inscription_on_the_British_Museum_sword

The suggested reading is (I)N(OMINE) D(OMINI) [NOSTRI JESU] X(RISTI) O(BTEGES) X(RISTO) CH(A)WDNG(AN (I)N(OMINE) D(OMINI) X(RISTI) O(BTEGES), R(EGE) V(NIVERSI) I(ESU).

The opening sequence NDXOX and closing sequence RVI (ie. RUI) both have parallels in other inscriptions, and the suggested reading seems quite credible.

On the other hand, reading CHWDNG as the Welsh name Cadwgan seems like a stretch to me...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cadwgan

I have little to add regarding the translation and interpretation of the inscription, but I'm standing in front of this spectacular weapon as I type and it is a thing of brutal beauty.

It's currently displayed point-up so the cross is sitting a little loose on the tang. The things that strike me are the sheer mass of the pommel and the relatively short grip, just about big enough for one of my hands. I guess I'm a little too used to later swords with longer grips and pommels set at a further back from the guard. When seen in the metal, it's also apparent that it's a good length of blade for a single-handed weapon.

It has certainly renewed my interest in earlier mediaeval swords!!

:D

Quick note: Mooonbrand is nearly flat in section near the tip. Very, very thin. As you move from the tip to the guard is gradually transitions to a soft hexagonal form.

Will have additional thoughts later but have some family stuff today.

Craig