[Elnathan Barnett]

It is the second of the two swords in this article here: https://www.academia.edu/113539990/Two_Iron_Swords_from_the_lower_course_of_the_South_Morava

The description is: "The sword is 87.8 cm long with a uniform width of parallel edges (5.1 cm), which only narrow within the final 5 cm of the blade (Fig. 2). The tang is formed as a triangular thorn (length: 14 cm; width 0.8-1.9 cm), with a rectangular cross section (1 cm thick), which emerges from a completely flat shoulder and ends in a spike. The blade is rhomboid in cross-section with two longitudinal grooved bands running parallel to edges (width 1.2 cm). The weight of the swords (sic) is 622.3 g."



The drawing doesn't seem quite right to me, since it doesn't show actual edges, and should probably be interpreted loosely. I wonder if the original shape might be better described as a basic hexagonal cross-section, very common at the time, with the edges hollow-ground somewhat, a wide fuller in the center of the blade and a very narrow fuller running around the central fuller between it and the edge. That would indeed leave a "grooved band" running parallel to the edge, but wouldn't necessarily, depending on the depths of the fuller and the radius at the edges, give quite the flat-plate-with-stuck-on-ridges that the drawing shows.

Either way, it is pretty unique cross-section, even by 3rd-4th century Imperial Roman standards. I have to wonder how well it worked - that raised rip/band so close to the edge probably made it more difficult cut deeply and I'm not sure it would increase stiffness enough to be worth the trade-off. That might depend on the exact dimensions, though.

[Victor R.]

Would the "raised" area be a weld? A common sword construction technique was to have a mild or iron core with a hardenable edge welded to it. I'd think you'd want this area to be relatively robust.

[Elnathan Barnett]

[Victor R.]