The old excavation by Chr. Axel Jensen in 1906-1916 of the fortified great-farm Boringholm, near Horsens, has finally been published and shows quite spectacular finds.
Publication: http://da.unipress.dk/udgivelser/b/boringholm/
Boringholm - en østjysk træborg fra 1300-årene
Edited by Jan Kock & Else Roesdahl (2006)
(Jysk Arkæologisk Selskabs Skrifter 53)

This so called “voldsted“ (something like “moat-place“ - that is also the meaning of a “-holm“) was built out on a lake, where you first had punched over 2000 wooden poles down into the lake floor in 1368/69 (hence the precise dating for it's creation through dendrochronology). Then you poured filling material on top to create a small artificial hill. It was further enlarged in the 1380's to a long oval hill in the lake with two bridges of 38 & 50 meter to the lakeshore. The farm was protected by being surrounded by a timber construction (palisades?) of 300 meter.

Until 1365 the Boring-area had been owned by the Brok family. Nobleman Niels Brok is mentioned in letters from 1298-1330 and he received the town Boring from Peder Rask in 1323-24. The Brok family was loyal to the Crown, when Valdemar IV Atterdag 1340-1375 tried to get Denmark back from pawn ownership by German noblemen.
Niels Brok handed Boring to his son Peder Brok who then handed it over to his daugther Elena. She hands over the area to the King in 1365. So it must be under King Valdemar's orders that Boringholm is build.
When the King dies in 1375 the crown-goods should go to Queen Margrethe I, but she first receives definite ownership in 1400. You can through letters follow that she had control of the area until at least 1406.
Around 1412 there is a fire in Boringholm - likely the result of an attack from nearby rebels in Rask Forest and the site was abandoned afterwards.

The wet environments has created excellent condition for the preservation of leather. This site of yielded the largest find of leather footwear in Denmark [around 700 individual pieces]. It has also preserved a sword with the leather hilt intact.
Black-and-white picture: http://www.denstoredanske.dk/@api/deki/files/...ze=webview
[Edit: This picture is from Oakeshott's book “Records of the Medieval Sword“ from 1991]

Big colour image of the sword and wooden shield:
http://samlinger.natmus.dk/DMR/167968

So what do you think of the origin (German?) and type of this sword?
We have a quite narrow date of creation to abandonment of Boringholm 1368-1412.
I guess preserved wooden shields from this period also is quite rare.

[ Linked Image ]
I am not sure whether the Boringholm sword is either German or Danish.
Never seen it before, though.

Nice sword, I like the XVIa swords, especially with this kind of hilt furniture and "rainguard". Do you maybe know more details about how the shield was arranged for wearing? Where were the straps etc...

Shahril Dzulkifli - thanks for resizing the picture! Would be interesting if someone has seen a sword like it.
Interesting with the big pommel, but small sized crossguards.

Luka Borscak - the rainguard is interesting, so would it have a function when halfswording - one hand on the hilt and the other around the crossguard area to get a firm grip?
Is a rainguard -> really for “rain“ or blood?

About the shield I don't have more information.

The sword, incidentally, is the one featured in Oakeshottt's "Records of the Medieval Sword" as XVIa.3. (page 154, by my copy).

Am I the only one who loves when swords from that (or other) books resurface, in modern high-def colour photos, and you get a whole new view of something you'd only seen in grainy B/W picture(s) previously?

James you are not the only one.......

Also found a picture of riding equipment from Boringholm.

Source: http://samlinger.natmus.dk/DMR/167967

DK: Stigbøjle = Eng: Stirrup
DK: Spore = Eng: Spur
DK: Strigle = Eng: Curry Comb (here of metal)

Also shown a metal mouthpiece (Type II - Ward Perkins, I think) and partial horseshoe.

The stirrup seems to have two “clovers“ design. As I'm not at all familiar with stirrup typology, what could it signify at that time and in what places has this clover design been found?

Today wikipedia tells that the 4 petals signify:
“the first is for faith, the second is for hope, the third is for love, and the fourth is for luck“.
These Christian theme could also be at work here.

I'm just chiming in to remark that the recent dendrochronological and historical dating of the Boringholm voldsted renders Oakeshott's dating of the sword obsolete because it is based on an earlier dating of the voldsted, as stated in the book referred to by mr. Rasmussen.

Alternative and higher resolution images of the Norwegian variants referred to by Rasmussen can be found here (Click on image to get high resolution):

C851
Drawing showing a maker's mark(?)
Whole sword
Closeup of hilt
Hilt other side
Hilt side view



C1530
Overexposed image
Whole sword
Closeup of hilt
Hilt other side
Hilt side view

C805
Whole sword fragment
Hilt side view

Thanks Hr. Kongsrud for the extra picture of the Norwegian swords and the reference to the obsoleteness of the Oakeshott dating of the Boringholm sword.
The Boringholm sword seems quite unlikely to be from 1300-1320, when the Boringholm complex is dated from 1368-1412.
Likely the 3 Norwegians swords are from the same time period, since the C851 Norwegian sword and the Boringholm sword are so much alike that they could very well be from the same weapon-smith?!

D261 Boringholm-style-sword from Rikke Behrend's publication "Vandfundne sværd fra middelalderen". [Water-found swords from the Middle-ages].
Nationalmuseets Arbejdsmark 1970.
Drawing by Holger Schmidt.
It is the sword on the right.

Behrend probably also correctly gives the date ~1400.

---

 Attachment: 492.55 KB

Source: Behrend (1970).

A few words from Jan Kock & Else Roesdahl (ed.) 2006, Boringholm.
p. 141-43 says the blade is from Passau with unicorn and boar production marks. The sword is presumed to have been assembled in Denmark. Both Oakeshott (ca 1300-25), Liebgott (mid 14th century) and Hoffmeyer (ca 1400) are said to base their dating on the dating of the evacuation of Boringholm voldsted. However, the autor Charlotte Boje Andersen stresses that it was found "deep in the layers", which indicates that the fully functional sword was intentionally buried, either as a offering or for hiding. If the first is the case the sword belongs to the building phase.

Thank you for the very interesting reference, mr. Lewis!

Niels Just Rasmussen wrote:

Since I didn't own the Boringholm publication it is very interesting to learn that the sword was intentionally "deeply" buried (for offerings often occurs in shallow waters quite close to the shore and this old custom continues probably up to at least 1500 (?), even with Christianity is the new religion -> this is the case for the medieval Esrum Lake (~1200, see scan in my former post, the sword on the left) and Ordrup Mose (~1300) swords as well). So if the sword is a lake-offering, then "Boringholm" could have been build on top of the offered sword at a later time and Oakeshott's 1300-1320 dating seems no longer so unlikely!!

I think a closer reading still leaves Oakeshott's dating unlikely. Although Chr. Axel Jensen's original report didn't say if there were disturbances from burying the sword or not, Andersen seem to believe an offering was directly related to the building of the voldsted, (inn note 140 she refers to another building offering in Saxeholmen where a war axe was found in the walls.) On a separate note: Building-offerings are found throughout the modern period in Scandinavia.

Thanks Mark for the added finds of this sword type.
Your ability to find "companion"-examples from your vast picture-collection, no matter what type of sword I introduce, never ceases to amaze me.

So 2 Norwegian (third Norwegian lacks pommel), 1 Swedish, 1 Bosnian and 2 Serbian examples of this pommel type on type XVIa sword. That is some strange geographical variation (we are to far down in time to explain it away with any gothic connection here).

They look so identical that chance-likeness should not be the first assumption - yet they probably were all assembled locally (only blades imported). Interesting mystery!

Håvard Kongsrud wrote:

I think a closer reading still leaves Oakeshott's dating unlikely. Although Chr. Axel Jensen's original report didn't say if there were disturbances from burying the sword or not, Andersen seem to believe an offering was directly related to the building of the voldsted, (inn note 140 she refers to another building offering in Saxeholmen where a war axe was found in the walls.) On a separate note: Building-offerings are found throughout the modern period in Scandinavia.

This is off course also a very possible explanation.
But as it's stated the offering in Saxeholmen was found in the walls, whereas the Boringholm sword was dug into the mud and was "deep" compared to the rest of archaeological dig-site finds.
Building offerings are common and have a very long history in Scandinavia (for instance insertion of offering into post-holes and then put the oak-beam down afterwards when building a longhouse).
As it's described to me I still think the lake offering and later building of Boringholm on top of the sword most likely, but the time difference between the event would still be very uncertain?
The water offering could actually have been done to the waters in connection with the building about to start (give a gift before you take from the waters) - which technically would still make it a lake offering and not a building offering (where deposition in a wall makes more sense).