Hello people. Here is the thing. I'm considering buying a Tinker Viking sharp sword and I'm concerned with its historical correctness. Ian G. Pierce says in his Swords of the Viking Age that Petersen noted that in contrast with type D, the pommels of type E are fastened directly to the tang rather than being riveted to the upper guard.
Now, my question is were type E pommels still two piece pommels but not riveted together, just peened on the top, or were they one piece pommel like let's say type C? This picture I posted look like the pommel is two piece. If anyone who speaks Norwegian have the Petersen book, does Petersen maybe mentions maybe more rare type E pommels made in one piece like there is a case with type K pommels? I like the Tinker Viking just like it is but I like historical correctness more and I will modify pommel if there is no historical at least plausibility in the one piece pommel design.

I know that I have seen a Patrick Barta interpretation of this sword so if you want historical accuracy well. . . you know. ;)

Yes, yes, I know, I'll rob the bank tomorrow... ;)

Here's the thing: In the price range of the Tinker Viking, there are no truly 100% accurate Viking swords with the multi-piece pommel construction. The simplification is done in the interest of cost savings; although, Kris Cutlery is about the only one that has such a feature, that I know of; but none of the other "budget level" Viking swords (Windlass, Del Tin, Gen 2, etc) seem to. Albion's Next generation Viking swords do have the two-piece pommels, but are considerably more expensive.

Now, I can't comment on whether a one-piece pommel is accurate for the type, but I'm leaning towards "no".... so, you'll probably have to "do it yourself", which sounds like a fun project. If you choose to undertake such a project, keep us updated on your progress and show us the results when you're done!

What is the difference between E and V? Looking at page 18 of Pierce's book, it looks like V might be a more modern one-piece version of E.

It seems that V is just a bit simplified and a bit more semicircular version of E that appeared in the 10th century. It's construction is actually more or less the same as Tinker Viking. Thanks J.D., I somehow skipped that type. So maybe Tinker could pass as a some kind of transition between the two types. Like type B on the page 34 of Petersen which is typical B in shape but with a pommel riveted to the guard, which is construction typical for type H in which type B evolved.

I might just get the Tinker and later when I get more money get a custom made pommel for it if I'll want a typical two piece pommel of earlier period.

It's a very nice sword for the money. It almost has a 'Roman' look to it. I would be comfortable with putting it in the plausible category and get it...since you're into pommel projects, Luka, that just leaves more fun down the road when you get bored.

-JD

Hi Luka,
Why not ask Tinker for a quote on the pommell while he has the sword in hand so to speak,
or he could rough you out the fitted components and you could have them final finished in the future when funds are better,
i had a long drawn outpurchase from Michael,(on my side,he was very gracious throughout)
He's pretty cool with stuff,
and it would mean your sword stays all Tinker,

I think there was some local variation as well.

For instance, Moravian swords, which otherwise seem more or less identical to "Viking" swords, seem to generally have a one piece pommel with the tang being peened at the pommel rather than at the upper guard.

But regarding the Hanwei / Tinker Viking, that sword does have some other historical issues that seem more glaring to me than the pommel...

If you do want a two piece construction, I can recommend Vladimir Cervenka.

Edit: my first post! Finally! :)

There was variation even in close period and proximity. British-saxon smithing sites versus Norwegian excavations were commented on as having differences (more solid pommel finds for type K in Scandinavian cutler sites than in UK sites at same time period.) I have since lost it, but actually came across an archeological paper regarding finds of 9th 10th century smithing sites. The finds indicated that when Vikings hilted the blades themselves, they went solid construction. When the entire finished blade was an import, the hollow and pinned construction was the norm.

Thanks for your input David. I just thought I would throw in this two pictures, both of blades with quite deep fuller and the second one, one I'm sure we all are familiar with, with both relatively deep fuller and pointy. ;)