In recent threads I think we have gathered a fairly clear image of the development from Roman spathae through the Behmer types.

From Behmer types I and II to types III and IV, we can see the Hunnic influence with the addition of gold hilts and garnet cloissoné decoration, but we can also see the addition of pommel caps to the upper guard. My question is, where do you think these pommel caps came from? Are they Roman, Germanic, Eastern, or do they have some other origin?

Good question...

That's one of the many reasons why the sword posted here is so interesting:
http://www.myArmoury.com/talk/viewtopic.php?t...mp;start=0

But another idea could be that it's just an enlarged version of the flattish pommel caps from Tournai or Blucina.

Those early pommel caps are purely decorative, as well as the later Sutton Hoo / Vendel pommel caps. Pommels start to gain mass even later, starting probably in the Carolingian / Viking age.

I forget where this picture comes from originally, but here are some early pommel examples covering the period being discussed.

---

 Attachment: 79.05 KB

Everyone's right :D

That is an image I put together many moons ago of loose pommel caps published throughout Elis Behmer's "Das Zweischneidige Schwert Der Germanischen Volkerwanderungszeit”

I tried to group similar types of pommel caps together... however I did not intend a progression. However, now that I see it again, the tiny peening block in the upper left corner may imply a development. However the small peen blocks or plates appear off and on anytime the tang is being peened over an organic material. A thousand years before the Hallstatt swordsmiths used such circular peen blocks to peen the end of the pommel spike on Bronze Swords. I posted a picture of these in this thread.

http://www.myArmoury.com/talk/viewtopic.php?t...p;start=20

The pommel caps are not developing in isolation but as part of a complete package with the rest of the hilt. In terms of design the most likely candidate to me is in Behmer's type V (5). I have read somewhere that this type has bee found with where the tang goes through the upperguard and dome shaped cap and peens on the outside. Then they are peened at the top of the upper guard and the dome shaped cap is glued or riveted to the upper guard. At this point it would be a "cap." If you look at the progression in the type V (5) as they are presented on the attached chart you can see my attempt to put them in the correct sequence of development, however, as someone said, there is little archeological evidence of this sequence... it is more of a design conception.

ks

---

 Attachment: 150.46 KB
[ Download ]

Hi Kirk, and thanks for weighing in. Let me just see if I understand correctly, what you said above. Are you saying that it is your opinion that, the switch from using pommels that had the tangs peened over, to the type that were riveted to the upper guard, happened within Behmer's type V? If you are then this is very helpfull indeed, as it might mean that the later from of pommel cap was a Germanic/Scandinavian development, rather than a Roman or Eastern one.

Hi Stephen...

I think it is certainly easier to see the development in type 5. It is possible that the idea of a cap over the peened tang may have come from further south. I have never seen a picture of the top of the Childeric Sword, but it certainly looks as though it has a pommel cap. A very nice one I might add. Maybe it started a fashion trend :) ;) :D

ks

---

 Attachment: 141.91 KB

The pommel of Childerichs sword is a developement of the pommelcaps Type Vieuxville, second and third row of the picture Matt posted.
They are a bit older, starting around 400 AD and are popular around the borders of the western empire.
Loads of them have been found in the skandinavian bogfinds. Their existence there shows that they were also popular in the North, espacially southern Norway, were many of the weapons originated.


By the way, I would hesitate from relying solely on Behmer today, his work was fundamental, but it's also 70 years old.
It is outdated and partly refuted by modern works as of M. Biborski and C.Miks.
Behmers regionalisation and absolute chronology espacially but also his typology do not coincide with the more recent archeological data. His successors have the advantage of a finer typology and a far greater material base ( f.e. some rather big bog offerings were yet undiscovered in his time) as well as modern dating methods.
Espacially Miks' "Studien zur römischen Schwertbewaffnung in der Kaiserzeit" is, although a slightly earlier timeframe then Behmer, extremely comprehensive.
Also, it is more easily available :D

Unfortunately not :\

http://cgi.ebay.co.uk/Illerup-Adal-Die-Schwer...0491904825

http://www.buchhandel.de/detailansicht.aspx?i...9646-136-0

That's all what I can give you now.

Maybe you will find a university library near to you which has these.

What I can do however, is to scan the article from Biborski in the Reallexikon Germanischer Altertumskunde. This is not extensive (I think 8 pages)and does not feature drawings of hilttypes. But sketches of the different bladetypes ( he uses the same aproach as Oakeshott) and (german) descriptions of dating and regional distribution and supposed use.

Thanks Till, very helpfull as usual :-)

I have scanned the text now. I cannot upload it here, though.
You can send me your e-mail addresses via pm and I will send it to you that way. :D

Ok after leaving this subject alone for a while my interests have been drawn back to the Roman and Migration Eras.

So, to Till J. Lodemann, I have yet another question if your up for it. On another thread you mentioned the vieuxville pommel as being a Roman type, could you tell me any more about this type of pommel e.g. distribution, time period, find locations etc. Thanks in advance.