[Jim Lindsey]

Hi Everyone,
I apologize in advance if my post becomes a little lengthy, but for those who are familiar with the Discerner Project , I would like to shed a little light to clear any misunderstandings or misconceptions about Discerner's creation date whenever you may read about Discerner on Albion's Discerner pages located at:

http://www.albionarmorers.com/Discerner/Discerner.html

I'm hoping, also, that maybe through some good discussion and input we might finally pinpoint an accurate time period as well. I've received emails from people regarding questions about Discerner's creation date and I've also been asked to browse the various forums and see what people are saying about it. As I was cruising another forum or two, I noticed that there are indeed some misunderstandings regarding Discerner ... most of which revolve around its creation date. I would like to address this as briefly as possible to hopefully help alleviate any misconceptions that might arise from reading the Discerner pages, especially where the sword's creation date is concerned. When I provided Albion with the information about Discerner at the beginning of the project, I was very excited and wanted to give them as much information as possible. As a result, the Discerner pages are quite lengthy and make for a lot of reading.

Naturally, one of the areas of interest would be when the sword was created. The mention of 1072 AD as a creation date was made only because that is the date that was passed down to me (and the key word here is "as it was passed down to me"). Never in my wildest imagination did I think, at the time, that mentioning what I had been taught about the sword's creation would be taken by anyone as a literal or actual creation date --- despite the fact that I was very careful in every reference of 1072 to mention that it is not a confirmed date and nowhere in the Discerner pages does it decisively claim that 1072 is the actual creation date for the sword. In fact, there are more than one reference in the pages that indicate 1072 as being not only suspect but mistaken, and that the sword was probably created at a much later time period than 1072 AD. Still, it seems that misunderstandings abound and it looks like people are believing that we're claiming the sword was actually created in in 1072 during the late 11th century. <sigh> The fact is that we know it was buried in 1683, but we don't know exactly when it was actually made.

I do have a theory about it that I've been thinking on for a long time. Although the family members who taught me that 1072 was the creation date did so in good faith (believing it themselves to be accurate), I think they were grossly mistaken. I'm not an authority on swords, but I agree with everyone that the 1072, or thereabouts, surely could not have been when the sword was made as the design of the sword is all wrong for that period.

My own theory about Discerner's creation revolves around several different things:

First, let's remember that at the time I was a kid learning about the sword, we're talking the late 1950s and early 1960s. The wealth of knowledge for sword making and typology that is available today, especially through the internet, simply did not exist back then for the family members who passed Discerner's story down to me. They had no Oakeshott books or typology to go by and, thus, they relied simply on word of mouth stories that were passed down generation after generation. Whoever it was in our ancestry that initially arrived at 1072 as a creation date and started passing it down the line was, in my opinion, mistaken in their assumption. However, 1072 as a creation date started getting passed down the line and, not knowing any better, those to whom that date was passed believed it at face value and they, in turn, continued passing it on until, in the fullness of time, it was taught to me as well.

Second, there is an inconsistency in Discerner's history that has bugged me for the greater part of 40 years and I believe I now know why. Considering 1072 as a creation date, there is a long span of time between when Discerner was made and when it came into David Lindsey's keeping (whom it was buried with), where little or nothing is known about who all owned it. Basically, from the time it was made until it was buried, there is a great deal more time span than there are names of owners to fill that time span. It is like a huge blank spot in the sword's history. If, for example, the sword were 611 years old (as the dates 1072-1683 would suggest), and let's say that the average number of years it was owned by someone was 25 years before being passed on to the next generation, there would have had to have been at least 24 owners ... yet, there are only 9 known names and 5 vaguely referenced names (a total of 14) connected with the sword. Why is that? I believe it is because that "blank spot" in the sword's history did not exist because Discerner must have been made much later than 1072. I think the catalyst that caused the blank spot in the sword's history goes back to the Gaelic surname:

Even to this day, there are pockets of our family in the USA, Canada and UK who, although they are Lindsay / Lindsey family members, still embrace and use the older Gaelic name of MacGhille Fhionntaig. This fact may provide a vital link regarding Discerner's original owner and what time period the sword was actually made. Could it be that whoever might have initially concluded 1072 to be the creation date might well have arrived at his/her conclusion based on the older Gaelic name? Could they have looked at the Norman Conquest of 1066 AD and surmised that because Macsen's surname was MacGhille Fhionntaig, that he lived during that time frame? Such an idea could conceivably lead someone in the family who was researching the sword to jump to a wrong conclusion about when Macsen lived and when the sword was made.

My personal belief is that Macsen MacGhille Fhionntaig, for whom the sword was created, was one of those who embraced and used the older Gaelic name instead of its evolved name of Lindsay. My idea is that he did not live in the late 11th century, but rather, at a much later period period in time. If that is true, then this would account for the fact that the list of names of those who owned the sword is far fewer than it should be had the sword existed from 1072 to 1683. My guess is that Macsen lived at a much later time than 1072 and that he was one of those who, for himself, must have embraced and used the older Gaelic family name and that Discerner, thereafter, had been around certainly long enough to become a revered and honored family heirloom passed down over several generations by the time it was buried with my ancestor in 1683. But although I do not know when the sword was created, my conclusion is that the sword was created much later than 1072 and that 1072 as a creation date is merely a piece of "speculative folklore" in the sword's history.

Nowadays, we have many wonderful resources from which to draw information regarding swords and sword history. There are wonderful methods by which old pieces can be dated and, for those solitarian oddities like Discerner that do not seem to fall into any strict typology or category, we can at least have greater accuracy in speculating a possible date as to when something was made. The ideal method would be to locate my ancestor's grave, have the sword exhumed and then tested for accurate dating. Since that scenario will probably never happen, I think the next best way to get a resonably accurate idea for when it was made might be to try and period type the sword based on its features despite the fact that it is one of those unusal oddities in design that does not fall into a specific category (and for that, I'd need the help of those who are experts in this field of study).

I hope this sheds a little bit of light on clearing any misconceptions regarding Discerner's creation date. My theory about Macsen embracing the older name while living at a much later time period than 1072 may or may not be accurate. If it is, and I think it very likely, it would certainly fill in the puzzle regarding the long period of time when there are no family names to connect with the sword. Guessing that my theory is correct, it solves one puzzling aspect of Discerner's history, but I'm still left with not knowing a really good approximation as to exactly when it was made.

I've been trying to use a little experiment (and these are just rough ideas) to perhaps finally get an accurate picture of the period when Discerner was made. Including Macsen, the original owner, and David Lindsey, its final owner, there are a total of 9 family member names known to be connected with the sword (and 5 vague referenced names that are mentioned in family tradition but not actually confirmed). I'm trying to figure it out in two ways ... one, using the 9 known names connected with it (discounting the 5 vague references) and, second, using the 9 names with the 5 vague references (a total of 14 names). My idea is also that a person would have achieved young adulthood by the time he got possession of the sword, so for the sake of rough guessing, I'm estimating that each owner probably had the sword for 20-25 years before passing it on.

Now, we don't know how long each person owned the sword before it was passed on to the next, so I can't really be accurate in my guesses, but for the 9 known names connected with it, if each sword owner (theoretically) held possession of the sword for about 20 to 25 years before passing it on to the next generation, that would roughly place the creation date somewhere between 1458 - 1503 AD.

By the same token, using the full 14 names (the 9 known and 5 vague references) and using the same "formula" (again, this is all based on the idea or concept that the sword was owned for an average of 20-25 years by each owner), this would now place the sword's creation period somewhere between 1333 and 1403.

Given the features of this sword, and using these estimates of how long it might have been owned before being passed onward, can anyone tell me if the period between 1333 and 1403 or between 1458 and 1503 sounds correct or accurate as an approximated guess for when Discerner might have been made?

Does it sound to anyone like I'm getting on a right track in trying to nail down an educated guess when Discerner was created, or, am I spinning my wheels trying to figure it out by using this sort of method? Or, does it appear that we can only look at the sword's features and approximate the earliest period it could have been made based on those? I welcome comments, suggestions and help in trying to period type and discover a good approximation as to what period Discerner was actually made. It would sure do my heart some good to finally put a cap on this puzzling aspect of Discerner's history.

Again, sorry for the long post, but I did want to clear up any misunderstandings about why I mentioned the date 1072 AD in the Discerner pages ... I merely wished to include and share as much about Discerner as I know and could recall, which included mentioning the date 1072 (inaccurate as we all know it must surely be).

[Geoff Wood]

Looks to me that it would more likely be the earlier date, but you'll get much better answers when everyone else wakes up.

[Patrick Kelly]

In all honesty, I think the problem is that some people seem to have far too much time on their hands

What we basically have here is a family tradition that has been handed down in an oral fashion. By their very nature these things tend to be very difficult to substantiate. As such, everything dealing with the history of Discerner should be taken with a grain of salt.

In my opinion it really boils down to a matter of perception Jim. Since Discerner so closely resembles a certain sword of cinematic fame many people undoubtedly view the whole affair as an elaborate marketing ploy, and nothing more. In light of this there are a lot of people who will pick apart whatever statements you choose to make concerning Discerner. I don't think the matter deserves any extra attention by you, or the sceptics.

At best this is an interesting part of your family history. At worst it's an entertaining bit of marketing (I'm not claiming anyone is lying, just playing devils advocate). Either way Discerner is an attractive sword, and should be viewed in that context alone.

The only way to know for sure is to dig up your ancestor who was buried with the sword. Anyone got a shovel

[Jim Lindsey]

Thanks, Geoff. I am indeed interested in trying to at least pin down a relatively accurate period (not so much any specific year) when Discerner was made. Candidly speaking, it's really more for my own curiosity's sake than anything that I'd like to pin down, if possible, at least a rough but educated guess as to its origin. It's kind of always bothered me knowing when the thing was buried, but not knowing any kind of an accurate time frame as to when it was actually made. To use a humorous analogy, it's like being an archaeologist searching for the origin of a dinosaur ... "I know it existed, here's the bones, I know when it died out, but when was it born?". LOL

Thanks, also, Patrick. No doubt you're very correct on the matter of perception. And, *grin* no problem on playing the part of the devil's advocate to make a good point. It actually sort of takes me back to those father & son fishing trips my dad and I would take together. My father used to tell me little tidbits of wisdom on those trips and one of the things he said was that "no matter what subjects people might discuss whenever they all get together, they're going to fall into one of three categories ... those who believe something, those who do not and those who desperately want to believe but skepticism holds them back". Another of his little bits of wisdom was that "whenever interacting with a group of people, if someone doesn't believe the same thing you do it's never a slight against your own integrity, so respect them for their beliefs ... the important thing is to always know in your own heart what is true". As a kid I used to dread listening to his "lectures" (I was a typical kid more interested in just fishing & fun), but as I grew older I've found a hundred times over that I'm glad he did lecture me all the time about so many things in life.

You're also very correct about family traditions and stories that are handed down in an oral fashion over generations. And, as time goes on, the facts often become increasingly difficult at best to substantiate. Throughout my life I've been totally fascinated with Discerner, but I've always taken most of its history with a grain of salt while wondering how much is actual history and how much is colorful embellishment generated over generations of tellings.

In the long and short of it all, you are again very correct: Discerner is an interesting and fascinating part of my family history that I'm very proud of and it is, without a doubt, an attractive sword ... you summed it up very nicely in saying "and should be viewed in that context alone".

Thanks again for your comments and input.