[Richard Hare]

All interesting points.

Going back to quality swords from Norse sources, All I can say is that in the sagas, swords are mentioned as being made by dwarves at times, and sometimes by giants.
Do you think this implies that quite a lot of swords were made "by someone else"?
They are also mentioned as being made in Finland.
As Peter said, we know a lot were imported from the Frankish realm, and we as yet have not found evidence of sword-making on a large scale in Scandanavia or Britain.

This doesn't mean they weren't made there, but it may mean that though some high quality work was turned out, that a lot was also imported.
I remember reading a statement that the Norse found the eastern steel would not stand up to the very cold winters.
This statement came from an Arabian writer, who held the Norse blades in high esteem, but this does not tell us if the blades were made by them or of Frankish origin.

Another point is that pettern-welding sort of died in the later Viking age as better steel was being produced, so the best pattern-welding seems to come from a somewhat earlier time.

Just my unprofessional 2 cents worth!

[Jared Smith]

[Elling Polden]

Pettersen had the carbon content of several viking age tested, and found that while some very simple swords had quite low carbon content (the lowest only 20%), other "home made blades" where as high as 65%, which is the same as an imported anglosaxon type. However, the tested ULFBERTH sword held 75%.
He also tested a iron bilet from a grave find, tought to be localy produced. This also held 69% carbon content.

Iron has been smelted in Norway since the roman ages. Some of them obviosly knew what they where doing, though quality varied. The UHLFBERTH swords where better; this does not mean that the localy produced stuff was BAD.

Most UHLFBERTH swords found in Norway are grave finds, river finds beeing rare here for lack of major rivers.

[Jared Smith]

I am not sure what the basis of the statement is (known admonition about export of Frankish blades by Charlemagne, established ceramic and metal working industry, popularity of the name in South German-Bavarian region, etc.?), but I occasionally run across a statement that both original Ulfberht and Ingelri manufactures are believed to have been located on the South Rhine. (Ulfberth in the region of Solingen to Frankfurt, Rhine/Mainz area.) I'd love to know if this is credible, and what the basis of the theory is. The feature article on Geibig Typology mentions probable German origin of originals as well. An 11th century pattern welded Ingreli (registration number H6923) found in England has a surviving wheeled-man symbol mark (caroccium pattern used by the free cities of Rhine). I don't think any of the Ulfberths have something this direct to associate an origin with.


It is known (contained in one of my articles on crucible steel in Turkmenistan I think) that the crucible producers exported cakes to Venetians during the 12th century. This is not to say it was the earliest that it was done, just the earliest of which some kind of tax or inventory of it being done survives. Some kind of knowledge of the crucible materials seemed to have existed even in Roman era (Natural History mention I believe.) I would consider it plausible that the materials and use of them existed outside Scandinavia through other trade avenues.

[Elling Polden]

If you where to export something in the dark ages, you want to sell it to the people who actually have lots of money, like the byzantines; the scandinavians would not be a natural first choice.
The Ulfberth swords have long been established as Frankish, and quite a lot of them also have frankish style hilts. Rehilting appears to have been quite comon, though.

As such, oriental iron would be as likely to reach the Rihne area through the southern route as the northern; If you are going to export something, sell it to somone with money, like the Byzantines. Or the Arabs. For instance in Damascus.

Long range trade in the early periods was most comonly done in a series of shorter stages. For instance, the silk trade from China to Europe was done in at least three stages; China to Bactria(present day afgahnistan), Bactria to the near east, and from there to Europe.
As such it was more a chain of trade routes than a single route. It was quite uncommon for someone to go the whole way. (In the anticent period, the Parthians made sure that there where no contact between the Romans and Chinese along the silk road, misleading and discuraging chinese envoys. However, they made contact by sea about 250AD...)

While going a longer distance might increase the profit margin, the long periods of travel made it less lucurative on a personal level, and you where allready making plenty on the shorter trip.
So, the arabs buy Turkmen steel, sell it on as arab steel to the franks, who sell it on to the norse as Frankish steel, who sell it to the Irish as Norse steel, and so on.

[Jared Smith]

I have always assumed that these types of swords would have been only for the very rich "kings". Now I am less sure. If they were Frankish, and the methods used were traditional, we can look at some Carolingian cavalryman costs and guess that other swords would have had similar labor, maybe less costly material. In my experience, labor is by far the dominant portion of final costs I would have to charge for anything I have tried to date. ("Daily Life i the age of Charlemagne" by John Butt, page 47.) The total costs of one of the Frankish cavalrymen was approximately equal to 15 cows, and was around 40 to 45 solidi. The highest cost item was actually the horse, but I would have to go back and look it up to see ..thinking on the order of 10 to 12 solidi. Of this, the sword scabbard cost 4 solidi, the sword itself cost 3. (I am quoting another source, but the reference to value in cows helps put everything into context.) A helm was almost as expensive as the sword and scabbard. Other common weapons such as spear and shield were not that much less than the sword.

I had also always assumed Ulfberht to be a great and famous smith or brand. An alternative has been set forth by Anne Stalsberg. http://jenny-rita.org/Annestamanus.pdf For those wanting to make an inlay reproduction, the illustrations on page 6 of the form of the inlays (both Ulfberht and reverse side) may be worth saving a copy of this article which is downloadable. Otherwise, the approach is so bizarre and based on such small numbers of final groupings... well, no bets will be made by me. I do admire the work though.
Based upon linguistic studies of the 166 Ulfberhts known she arrived at a theory (based largely upon the commonality of + signs or what she considers to be crosses very similar in form and composition to what church officials signed their documents with) that the Ulfberht could very likely stand for a monastic land owner, and the actual makers should have been bondsmen if they were in Frankish territory. In the Frankish regions, blacksmithing was supposedly relegated to slave-bondsmen and not a profession associated with freemen in the region and time. (Supported with reference period literature in her article.) A worth while point set forth in her paper is that the burying of grave goods stopped (with Christianity) within a pretty small span of time, just at the beginning of the history of these swords, throughout Gaul-German regions. If you eliminate grave good finds and study just river finds, the total number of finds is very small (something like 16 swords I think) and they seem pretty randomly distributed throughout Europe.