european sword for ID

[Reventlov]

Originally Posted by cornelistromp

can you tell where you get this Picture from, very nice T-pommel sword.
Iam not sure if the "forked cross" with the round base displays a splitted cross or a monstrance.

Hi Jasper, you are right - it is not really the same mark as the split cross. Have you seen a monstrance represented this way elsewhere?

That illustration comes from an article by Petr Zakovsky, "Marked High- and Late-Medieval Longswords from the Collections of the Municipal Museum, Broumov", it should be available online. The text is in Czech, but there are other photos of swords with interesting markings.

I've found an article in volume V of Zeitschrift für Historische Waffenkunde with many examples and variants of the mark, ascribed to members of the Stantler family. In the same series of articles I also came across what looks to be the original source for Wagner's table of wolf marks - but with more details as to location.

Finally, another example was sold by Hermann Historica, who erroneously describe the mark as an "imperial orb" while repeating the attribution to the Stantlers.

http://www.hermann-historica.de/en/s...6&currentpos=2

cheers!
Mark

[Jim McDougall]

I would like to thank Mark for adding this information and scans from these resources illustrating these markings, and for including the reference sources.
This really helps as these archived threads hold an important corpus of data which is very much daily used by those carrying out varying research on these and related topics. I learn every day from these kinds of entries so generously shared here.

It is interesting to see the suggestion of a monstrance, and how many of the markings used on blades carry ecclesiastical significance. With this blade and the curious forked cross, the running wolf and the encircled cross potent in such a grouping seem to be combined in almost a talismanic imbuement situation.

It has always seemed a bit of a conundrum with the running wolf (ostensibly from Passau) marking, which is not actually a makers mark but appears to have been some sort of guild mark which became a symbol implying quality and strength. It is very interesting to find the source which Wagner used (1967) and the variations of these highly stylized creatures. Actually many of them look like prehistoric 'cave art' and many range into Picasso-like impressions which become almost indiscernible.

It seems that much like the concurrent discussion on Spanish makers punzones, many of the markings and spurious examples of these markings used in Germany are quite conflicting. It has almost become a case of which purloined names and markings were favored by certain German smiths.
The 'Imperial orb' is another well known mark with ecclesiastical connotations which is often misconstrued in its use. Again, not a makers mark, but apparently favored by certain makers and perhaps regionally I Germany, and added along with inscription or name in blade marking.

[Reventlov]

Originally Posted by Jim McDougall

I would like to thank Mark for adding this information and scans from these resources illustrating these markings, and for including the reference sources.
This really helps as these archived threads hold an important corpus of data which is very much daily used by those carrying out varying research on these and related topics. I learn every day from these kinds of entries so generously shared here.

It is interesting to see the suggestion of a monstrance, and how many of the markings used on blades carry ecclesiastical significance.

It has always seemed a bit of a conundrum with the running wolf (ostensibly from Passau) marking, which is not actually a makers mark but appears to have been some sort of guild mark which became a symbol implying quality and strength.

Hi Jim,
You are welcome and thanks for the kind words. I found this site to be a great resource long before I ever joined as a member, so I'm happy to pay it forward and share my own little bits of research!

Since religion was such a ever-present feature of day-to-day life in these times, it's natural that it would be inspiration for signs and symbols in other contexts, I suppose...

Since the wolf-mark seems to have been copied and spread so widely, it may well remain impossible to really identify the origin of any particular marked blade, but by comparing enough examples I think there is still the chance that interesting correlations and patterns may appear... Take version (c) of the wolf-mark in the table above for example: it is quite distinct and recognizable compared to the other marks, and so far I have found it occurring only on examples of the distinctive early types of spadas Schiavonescas used in Venice by the doge's guards.

I have only found four examples, so too few to draw any real conclusions - but in each case, this mark appears alone, without any of the associated crosses, monstrances, etc. that otherwise seem quite typical of Passau(?) blades. Since these Venetian swords are in general very uniform in appearance, and many of their blades have what are usually thought to be Italian markings, perhaps we can hypothesize that mark (c) at least is an imitation and not a true Passau marking.

[Jim McDougall]

HiMark,
Sorry for delay in getting back to this thread, lots going on in research etc. (which is great!).
In checking Boccia & Coelho (1975) examples 320 and 321 are apparently marked with virtually the same running wolf, both are from Venice (but not the early schiavonas) and both c. 1535-50. As you have found this mark on blades from Venice , but period we may presume mid to late 16th, it does seem that a number of these blades had come into Venice in this period.

At this time I believe the Passau wolf (as it became known) had still been in use there (the Boccia & Coelho reference cite it as the Passau Wolf) in these times, and perhaps a number of blades had entered the Venice context.
It does seem that about this time, the wolf had become spuriously used in Solingen and these blades may also have been from there.

Whatever the case, the running wolf mark was not as far as I have found, copied in Italy, though other inscriptions and names may have been. Most important is to find a group of these typically loosely applied marks (many almost indiscernible) which are virtually consistent in form and in the same period and regional context.

Its great working on these markings, and I think we are making some headway in many cases, so thank you for sharing the excellent findings and observations here!

[Reventlov]

Originally Posted by Jim McDougall

In checking Boccia & Coelho (1975) examples 320 and 321 are apparently marked with virtually the same running wolf, both are from Venice (but not the early schiavonas) and both c. 1535-50.

Hi Jim,
Thanks for finding this, it is a very interesting example! I hadn't though to check this source since of course it focuses on Italian-made weapons. It looks like this is only one sword though, which is shown in the two photos #320 and #321. From what little can be seen in the photos, and from Boccia's description, I would not be surprised if the marked blade is at least somewhat older than the given date, which should refer specifically to the hilt only. The date range is no doubt correct for the latter - it is very similar to several swords owned by the emperor Charles V.

Boccia also illustrates one of the four schiavonas I was referring to: #167 in Venice. Two more are in Vienna, and then the illustrated sword above is (or was) in Budapest. These four have marks that are very, very similar. This new example in Naples (Boccia's #320/321) and a third schiavona in Vienna seem to have marks that are quite similar in style and technique, though less of a "perfect" match than the first four.

Originally Posted by Jim McDougall

Most important is to find a group of these typically loosely applied marks (many almost indiscernible) which are virtually consistent in form and in the same period and regional context.

I agree! I've started finding some other examples that are more or less similar - but still the closest similarity seems to remain among this small group. So it seems believable to me that we are seeing the products from a common source, even a specific artisan or workshop, quite possibly in Passau, that arrived in Italy sometime around 1500 or shortly thereafter.

[Jim McDougall]

Exellent Mark!!! and very much agreed , we may be looking at the same shop and period or quite close, and at this early date most likely Passau, which was easily in range of Italy. In all the years of study this in the first evidence I have seen of any consistency or continuity in these typically disparate figures.
It has generally been held that these were almost randomly chiseled into blades by various individuals in shops with varying skill or artistic acumen thus resulting in an almost impressionist style. In many cases these are almost indiscernible, and were thought of as almost a temporally viewed imbuement of meaning unclear in later times.

[Reventlov]

Here's another example of the wolf and monstrance marks appearing together on a sword in Frankfurt - very similar in style to the sword in the first post. I'm curious as to other members' opinions on the authenticity of the hilt however...

https://www.flickr.com/photos/980156...th/9244609491/

The wolf and the mark of a star are similar to those that appear on one of the other swords shown in the Czech article I mentioned. There seems to be another group that can be made here where the wolves are all very similar in form and technique, and appear in some combination with a small number of other recurring marks: the star, the monstrance, the orb, and possibly one or two others.

The wolf and star appear on sword number J.16 in the Musée de l'Armée, though I haven't been able to locate a photo of this one, or determine if the wolf is similar to the others. Does anyone know anything more about this sword?